The witness, an undercover police officer (HN14), is questioned about his sexual relationship with an activist named Monica, the ethics of his deception, and his reporting practices. He also discusses the SDS's interactions with private security companies and his participation in direct action, including crop destruction.
00:25:43 good morning everybody. Uh those at the back will no doubt know what I'm about to say. Um today's proceedings are going to be uh broadcast on the live link but
00:25:54 to be uh broadcast on the live link but only after a 10-minute delay. Those with recording devices, mobile telephones may use them to
00:26:04 those with recording devices. Can you hear me?
00:26:08 hear me? Still can't. Oh,
00:26:16 can you hear me now? Good. Then I'll start again. Um, today's proceedings are being broadcast on the live link with a 10-minute delay. As usual, uh, those
00:26:27 10-minute delay. As usual, uh, those with mobile telephones may use them to transmit what they hear in the hearing room, but only after 10 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're reporting. They may not be used for recording or photography. It is
00:26:40 recording or photography. It is possible, but unlikely, that there will be a private session today. That is more likely to occur, I think, in uh, the next two days. Mr. Thank you, sir.
00:26:51 Thank you, sir. Yesterday we dealt with the start of your sexual relationship with Monica. I would like to ask you now um about how that continued. Is it right that you soon arranged drinks at a pub in Brixton
00:27:04 soon arranged drinks at a pub in Brixton with another activist couple? Don't remember that at all. Did you socialize with Monica and other activists? We were all part of the same social
00:27:15 We were all part of the same social group.
00:27:16 group. And did you feel uh that being with Monica in a relationship assisted to bolster your cover? I didn't really think about that.
00:27:27 I didn't really think about that. Not at all. Um I don't know if I thought about it at all. I don't remember thinking about it particularly. What were you thinking about when you were mixing as a couple with other
00:27:39 were mixing as a couple with other activists? Um, I couldn't say
00:27:47 nothing at all. Well, if you give me a specific example, what was I thinking about on that particular day? I What I'm interested in exploring is what you were thinking
00:27:58 you were thinking the impact of going out with Monica was having on your deployment. I didn't really think about it, but I can remember.
00:28:12 Do you mean by that that you are living the existential experience to the full? Um, no, not really.
00:28:24 What were you thinking about in terms of the relationship itself? Um, it was quite an arms length relationship, I think, and quite short.
00:28:39 Did you give any thought to whether or not it should continue? Um, no. I think I just let it run its course.
00:44:45 think at any time during the relationship that what you were doing was wrong? Um, I don't remember.
00:44:59 Is it your evidence that you didn't tell your managers um about it? Yeah, I didn't tell my managers about it.
00:45:07 it. Was that because you knew it was wrong? No, it was because I knew they wouldn't want to
00:45:13 want to um
00:45:15 um they wouldn't want me to bring it to their attention because it was wrong and then they'd have to deal with it or cover it. Well, the management management can know about something without me actually
00:45:26 about something without me actually bringing it to their attention. um if I brought it to their attention formally and putting them in a position where they would then have to take a position and I was aware that that
00:45:37 position and I was aware that that wasn't something that that would be applauded
00:45:39 applauded and that's because the right answer in taking a position is it was wrong, wasn't it? Do
00:45:46 Do you mean morally wrong or in contravention of the uh the guidelines I've been given?
00:45:54 Is your view that it was wrong in any way?
00:45:58 way? Um,
00:46:08 yes. In what ways?
00:46:13 Well, because she's clearly I I'm not going to question anything that Monica is saying in her account now. And I think she's saying that it caused her
00:46:25 caused her distress. I would not have wished to cause her any distress.
00:46:33 It was morally wrong because you were deceiving her as to who you really were. Well, I'm deceiving everybody as to who I am. That's not an answer to the question. I
00:46:44 That's not an answer to the question. I I think it is. You're the difference is you're in a sexual relationship with her. You go into It's morally wrong to deceive someone into a sexual relationship
00:46:57 someone into a sexual relationship when you are not who you say you are. Well, I didn't deceive anybody into a sexual relationship to begin with. I I've made no representation in order to be in a sexual relationship with anyone. And the
00:47:08 sexual relationship with anyone. And the relationship was initiated by her, not by me. So you keep implying, which it was according to her her own account. You keep implying that I'm somehow trying to sol solicit a sexual
00:47:20 trying to sol solicit a sexual relationship. That just isn't the case. And you can put the question as many times as you want. It's still not the case. So, is it your view that you didn't think you had any obligation when you were pretending to be Jim
00:47:32 when you were pretending to be Jim Sutton? Whatever you did, uh, to behave as if you were a police officer.
00:47:42 officer. Well, I I don't think I would have been able to behave as if I was a police officer when I was being Jim Sutton.
00:47:50 morally wrong to enter a sexual relationship with an RTS activist holding the beliefs that she did when you were actually a police officer.
00:48:01 you were actually a police officer. Well, I've already said that if she's caused pain by it, then of course it's wrong.
00:48:13 in contravention of uh the police code of discipline because it is obviously something that is going to bring the police into disrepute.
00:48:25 disrepute. Well, that's that's an issue for others to decide, isn't it? Well, it's already been decided, hasn't it?
00:48:29 it? Well, in my absence. Yeah.
00:48:42 So the bottom line is you didn't look at this at the time through any sort of moral or professional prism.
00:48:54 professional prism. I think I
00:48:56 I think I looked at the whole situation I was in through those eyes at different times, but nobody
00:49:05 nobody ever thinks they're the bad guy, do they? So I didn't either. Um, and I thought I was working for the police, doing the job I was asked to do in the manner in which I'd been asked to do it.
00:49:17 manner in which I'd been asked to do it. So, I I didn't think I was the bad guy either, but I obviously may have been wrong about that.
00:49:29 Do you accept that you were wrong about that?
00:49:34 that? Well, I I I feel I'm here as a defendant rather than a witness is the way it feels to me. So clearly yes.
00:49:46 Is it right that um after the conversation in which Monica broke up with you, you called her and told her you missed her and during the course of
00:49:57 you missed her and during the course of that conversation you cried? I don't remember that at all, but it might have happened. I don't remember that at all. And did there come an occasion after the
00:50:09 And did there come an occasion after the end of your deployment uh when you had sex with her one last time? No, absolutely not. Her evidence was there was one such
00:50:20 Her evidence was there was one such occasion when you had sex at your request.
00:50:25 request. After my deployment? No. After the relationship broke up? No. No. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Absolutely not.
00:50:36 Absolutely not. During the course of the relationship, you continued to report on Monica, didn't you? Um,
00:50:44 Um, some some material might have gone in. You can take it from me. We've got several reports. Oh, okay.
00:50:55 Did you give any thought to the propriety of reporting on someone with whom you are having a sexual relationship? Yes.
00:51:02 Yes. And what was your thinking? Um, I was I took care in what I reported. In what sense?
00:51:15 In what sense? Um, well, I'm curious to see what reporting has gone in, but I I remember being careful not to put in reporting that was likely to
00:51:26 that was likely to have negative consequences for her.
00:51:33 I suspect you're going to show me something to the country. So, I'm more interested in the professional conduct aspect of this to be blunt with you. Looking at it through a policing
00:51:44 you. Looking at it through a policing prism,
00:51:47 prism, if you are making decisions not to report intelligence on somebody because you are in a sexual relationship with them
00:51:57 is problematic, isn't it? potentially, but everybody that I know who was who was in this sort of um deployment, you do start to
00:52:09 deployment, you do start to try to edit some of what your reporting is in order to influence the outcome to what you think the outcome should be. You've already shown a series of reports yesterday that that show me doing that
00:52:20 yesterday that that show me doing that in terms of policing plans. And it's the same with reporting about individuals. You try to be, this is going to not go down well in this room, but you tried to be fair.
00:52:34 I mean, following the trail of broadening the theme out, you're exercising a discretion as to what to report and what not to report.
00:52:45 what to report and what not to report. Yes.
00:52:46 Yes. Can you help us with You've told us trying to be fair. You told us essentially you didn't report things about Monica uh because you were in a
00:52:57 about Monica uh because you were in a sexual relationship with her. What other factors were in play in exercising the discretion as to what to report and what not?
01:05:20 told me that you didn't tell your managers about the relationship while it um was progressing. Did you tell them about it at any other time? No.
01:05:29 No. You uh alluded to the fact that they might nevertheless have known. Did they ever mention it to you? No.
01:05:37 No. Um did they ever ask you? No.
01:05:41 No. What makes you think they might nevertheless have known? Um,
01:05:48 Um, well, I think it was it was clear that they were aware that some officers, both male and female, were in in lifestyle fields and in
01:05:59 in lifestyle fields and in relationships. Um,
01:06:04 you gave evidence yesterday that Sergeant Greeny saw some photo surveillance photographs. Yeah.
01:06:10 Yeah. Do you have uh any reason to believe that any of your other managers uh saw those photographs? Um I I was trying to think of an example
01:06:21 Um I I was trying to think of an example for you of when things like that would have come up and you would have expected to be asked. Um, I don't know who else would have seen would have seen Senna's photos. I was just thinking of that as an example of I remember looking at the
01:06:32 an example of I remember looking at the photos and thinking, well, it's obviously we're obviously in a relationship. And um, I wasn't asked about it. And when I gave the photographs back, I remember they
01:06:45 the photographs back, I remember they looked through them and the photograph of me with her, I hadn't identified her in the photograph because that seemed like um, bad manners. I guess they knew who she was anyway, but I didn't identify in the credit, but nobody said,
01:06:56 identify in the credit, but nobody said, "Well, who's this person standing next to you here?" Um, and nor did I say, "Do you know who this is, and why aren't you asking me about it?" Um, I think a lot of the
01:07:08 of the the technique of managing undercover officers is is like when you're managing a source and probably like being a legal brief that half the skill is knowing what questions you really don't want to ask, I think. So, I I think they their
01:07:21 ask, I think. So, I I think they their policy was Don't ask questions if you don't particularly want to be told officially what the answer is. I don't want you to say anything that might reveal a source. Uh but there were
01:07:33 might reveal a source. Uh but there were all sorts of ways of gathering intelligence about RTS, weren't there? Mhm.
01:07:38 Mhm. Uh to your knowledge, did your managers come to know about your relationship with Monica through any other source? Not that I'm aware of. Could
01:07:49 Could you give me a yes or no answer to the next question? Did you tell any of your fellow UCOs about your sexual relationship with Monica?
01:08:03 Yes. Um being very careful. Um if it's an officer, you know, we we're able to refer to, you can say so. But if not, could you write down which officer or
01:08:15 could you write down which officer or officers? Um
01:08:20 I I think it wasn't I wasn't making a secret of it. So I I I don't I didn't sort of sit down with one person and just say are you aware of this and what do you think it when
01:08:32 this and what do you think it when things were discussed amongst officers in the field most of the discussion would be around tactics and deployment and which direction you should be going in but you became aware that um it was
01:08:44 in but you became aware that um it was just obvious that some people were in a relationship or there was some issue on that on that side but you very rarely said or can you clarify for me are you definitely sleeping with this person um and not nobody asked me that question.
01:08:59 and not nobody asked me that question. So can you give me a a sense of the way in which you did communicate to your No, not really. Not really. Well, you answered my question. Yes.
01:09:10 Well, you answered my question. Yes. Again, we've been careful about anonymity. What was the basis for answering that question? Yes. I think I um did mention it specifically to my field mentor
01:09:24 to my field mentor HN1.
01:09:39 I don't think I've got HM1 on my system here, I'm afraid.
01:10:00 Um, we'll write that down for you.
01:10:18 I can do it if you can't.
01:10:31 Doesn't appear to be on this list.
01:10:38 Yeah. Thank you.
01:10:45 Yes.
01:10:48 Can you help us with when you told HN1?
01:10:57 Not really. I I discussed quite a few uh things with HN1 because he was my designated field mentor. So, he was the person I was told to go to for advice on anything that I didn't wish to discuss
01:11:08 anything that I didn't wish to discuss with the office or the office wouldn't have wished to discuss with me. And what advice did you seek from HN1? Um,
01:11:16 Um, I I sought all manner of advice from HN1 in relation to Monica. I I'm not sure that I specifically sought his advice on it. I think I just talked about it in the general sense of where I was with my deployment and what I was doing. I wouldn't have hidden the
01:11:28 I was doing. I wouldn't have hidden the fact that I was in a relationship from him. Again, being careful of anonymity, how would other officers have known?
01:11:39 how would other officers have known? Um, I I I
01:11:42 Um, I I I can't say in the same way that I I don't um I mean, I know I know Pete Frances has said that he thought he knew, but I don't know how he how that would have been the case. Perhaps just a generalized discussion about something
01:11:53 generalized discussion about something else where it became apparent. It wasn't something that I would have um uh sought to disguise or hide from my colleagues. Yes, you've said that. And what I'm
01:12:04 Yes, you've said that. And what I'm trying to understand is in what ways would it have come out because you weren't trying to hide it? I I can't think of an example, I'm afraid.
01:12:15 afraid. And in terms of who would have known because you weren't hiding it, is that all of your colleagues at the time or only some of them? No, only some.
01:12:29 only some of them? No, only some. Those from the same field, those who were your close friends? Much more likely to be people in the same field.
01:12:40 And does that mean both environmental groups and animal rights? Uh, probably. But that doesn't mean that um, you know, everybody who was working in the same field as me would necessarily been aware
01:12:51 field as me would necessarily been aware of it. And I I didn't go back and ask ask them who it was.
01:13:00 And did you get any reaction first of all from HN1? Not that I remember. From any of your colleagues?
01:13:11 From any of your colleagues? Not that I remember. Can I take it from those answers that the existence of sexual relationships within the SDS was regarded as entirely
01:13:23 within the SDS was regarded as entirely normal?
01:13:24 normal? Um
01:13:28 I I did a while ago back and try to think of who else was on the section with me and how many people I thought were in relationships and I would confidently say I think it's probably about half.
01:13:39 about half. But it's particularly it's the same fields all the time. Some fields are very um incestuous that activists in those fields do not go out with people who are not other activists in those fields. Animal rights activists don't go
01:13:51 fields. Animal rights activists don't go out with people who aren't animal rights activists. The groups tend well they didn't um the groups tend to be very um enclosed whereas on the right wing
01:14:02 um enclosed whereas on the right wing for instance it's quite easy to be a single bloke because there's a lot of them on the right wing. Can we just explore that? um a little bit. Uh RTS
01:14:14 bit. Uh RTS was a pretty broad church, wasn't it? Yeah.
01:14:18 Yeah. And the major forum for discussion was the weekly meeting. Uh well, there were for most of this time there were two weekly meetings. There was the closed group and and the
01:14:30 There was the closed group and and the big public one. Let's talk about the the public one. Okay. So, some significant numbers of people you've described about 60 or 70 usually. tens of people turn out to these meetings. Yeah, about six, but not necessarily the
01:14:42 Yeah, about six, but not necessarily the same ones each time. Um, it would be an absurdity to suggest that that was a closed circle of people from the point of view of sexual relationships,
01:14:53 of view of sexual relationships, wouldn't it? Uh, yeah.
01:14:59 So, is your observation confined to the closed group or not? Um my observation is just that activists in my experience were generally going
01:15:11 in my experience were generally going out with other activists and it was unusual for someone who was an activist to have a partner who had no involvement and wasn't known to the other activists. Unusual but not unknown.
01:15:23 Unusual but not unknown. Probably not unknown amongst the most one of the um the debriefs. It might even have been the one after the uh the M25 event that you asked me about
01:15:34 M25 event that you asked me about yesterday. I remember looking around the room of people discussing it and thinking
01:15:40 thinking these people have all been in relationships with each other or they live in the same spot as each other and I then I think was still a single person living alone and I thought how how obvious can this be? It's obviously it's
01:15:53 obvious can this be? It's obviously it's obviously me. um those sort of factors can be quite um bold.
01:16:04 But there were other single people in RTS, weren't there? Yeah. Yeah. And
01:16:11 And that investigation did not cast any suspicion on you, did it? I I I don't know that the meeting I was at I was okay, but I know there was a subsequent discussion that I wasn't at that I found
01:16:22 discussion that I wasn't at that I found out about later in which it was being pointed out that I'd sort of risen up through the group very quickly in a short time and that people didn't know that much about my background.
01:16:33 that much about my background. That only suspicion they had was dispelled, wasn't it? Because you Well, well, I don't know. Well, you've continued to be in the core organ. The suspicion was dispelled. just meant it wasn't strong enough to be acted upon at that point.
01:16:46 acted upon at that point. Can we move now back to protests and the Shell Oil annual general meeting of the 14th of May 1997? Um, we've got a report about the protest
01:17:02 Um, we've got a report about the protest at the Shell Oil annual general meeting. Uh, we don't have any reporting in advance of that meeting. Can you recall whether or not you did pass on any
01:17:13 whether or not you did pass on any intelligence before that meeting? Can you tell me where it was? Yeah, let's call up the report. Uh C116747448.
01:17:25 Go over the page, please. Queen Elizabeth II Conference Center, 14th of May, 1997.
01:17:51 Okay. So, the question is, can you recall whether or not you reported any intelligence on this event in advance? Um,
01:18:00 Um, I'm although I'm obviously there, I'm afraid I don't even remember this event. There were a lot of these sort of events.
01:18:07 events. Um
01:18:09 Um I I I don't actually remember being at this event, but I obviously was. Maybe in the light of that answer, you can't help me. But the next question I wanted to ask you was, do you know
01:18:20 wanted to ask you was, do you know whether Shell was warned in advance that there was going to be disruption at their AGM? I don't know. But it wasn't usually the practice of SDS to pass uh intelligence
01:18:31 practice of SDS to pass uh intelligence to private companies. Um, you say the SDS, do you say that because the intelligence wasn't being passed in
01:18:43 the intelligence wasn't being passed in any form, however sanitized, uh, to private companies or because it was, but not via the SDS. I don't think to my knowledge that um,
01:18:55 I don't think to my knowledge that um, special branch reporting would have found its way to private companies unless there was a very strong reason for it doing so. even in heavily sanitized form. Yeah,
01:19:06 Yeah, I think private companies I remember they used to have their own um intelligence system and they used to get their own intelligence reporting that was often extremely inaccurate um that
01:19:19 was often extremely inaccurate um that would come out to us sometimes for comment if that if that helps. Um so the intelligence there was a flow the other way. They would give us their reporting and ask us if it was accurate, if they were anticipating something at a
01:19:30 were anticipating something at a meeting, for instance. But that's not quite the same as us tipping them off in advance.
01:19:35 advance. So the picture I'm getting is you will be asked at a weekly meeting, this company has got thinks this is going to happen. Is it right?
01:19:46 going to happen. Is it right? Yeah.
01:19:48 Yeah. Can you help us with how often that would happen? Not very often. that there was a private security company I think that used to sell reports about this sort of activist event to companies like Shell and they
01:20:00 event to companies like Shell and they used to pay quite a lot for for the reports and then Shell would then take the reports to us and say is this true so sometimes it would come back the other way almost like marking the homework and say well this bit's true
01:20:11 homework and say well this bit's true and this isn't and this you've you've referred there to Shell can you recall which other companies um were submitting these uh while submitting information.
01:20:23 submitting information. I think Shell was the only one I could remember that I saw. It didn't happen very often. Maybe, you know, three or four times in 5 years, I think. And when you commented on the accuracy
01:20:36 And when you commented on the accuracy or otherwise of the intelligence, do you do you know what happened next? No, I just feed it back into the system. And are you sure it was only Shell? Uh, no, I'm not. I'm not. Um,
01:20:49 Uh, no, I'm not. I'm not. Um, no, I'm not sure. It was only Shell. And when you say four or five times in five years, was that in reference to Shell or to private companies in total? Um, no, total. Total. I I think there
01:21:01 Um, no, total. Total. I I think there was some other stuff relating to um it happened similarly with companies in the city of London. um coming up to Millennium Evening, there was a lot of reporting that there was going to be all
01:21:13 reporting that there was going to be all sorts of uh activist activity in central London in the city during that time and that the big city companies were very concerned about it and were paying quite a lot of money to security companies for
01:21:25 a lot of money to security companies for reporting about it and some of that was then coming back to us to be asked is this really going to happen to which the answer was almost always no. Can you recall which big city companies? No. Was
01:21:39 No. Was McDonald's ever using this facility? No.
01:21:45 No. Are you sure about that? Not not to me.
01:21:52 Can we take that down now, please? Uh, could we have up from tab C119 MPS 40417?
01:22:11 Uh this is a report about uh the Bristol the RTS Bristol Street Party on the 21st of June 1997. This is um if we look at
01:22:23 of June 1997. This is um if we look at um paragraph one refers to a raid on a squat. I'll give you a moment to read it, but then I'm going to ask you whether you provided
01:22:34 going to ask you whether you provided any intelligence to trigger that raid.
01:22:46 Um, okay, I've read it. I I was at the Bristol event. Um, I would have reported on it if it was of interest, and obviously that's what this is. Did I put reporting in in
01:22:59 what this is. Did I put reporting in in advance that caused the squat to be closed down? I have no idea.
01:23:06 Did you participate in the event itself? Yes.
01:23:10 Yes. Uh how long um were you out on the street participating in that event? Um mo most of the day until the evening, I think.
01:23:20 I think. To what extent were you with Monica during the day? Um,
01:23:27 I don't remember being with Monica specifically at that event. I was part of a group of people. And if we zoom out now,
01:23:39 And if we zoom out now, can we have the the second two paragraphs? Let you read those.
01:23:58 Okay. Then the bottom of the page and over the page, please.
01:24:20 Yeah. So, can you help us? Were you an eyewitness to the trouble starting? Uh, yes. I think I was. Can you help us with how the trouble started?
01:24:31 started? No.
01:24:33 No. What?
01:24:34 What? Well, I mean, it says here, so I I I have no doubt that that's accurate. that the trouble started at 7:30 when police attempted to clear to clear the remaining party ghosts from the road. That would usually be the um the trigger
01:24:46 That would usually be the um the trigger point of reclaiming the streets events that they would get to the stage where the crowd had thinned to the point where police felt that they could clear them off the streets and when they then tried to do that that would usually then be the the sort of the uh the prompt for it
01:24:59 the the sort of the uh the prompt for it all to kick off. Can you describe what you witnessed? No, cuz I No. Can you give us any impression at all? My impression of that day is is the
01:25:10 My impression of that day is is the usual sort of running through the streets. I I don't remember anything specific about um there's more detail in this written report than I remember of this. There were lots of these events.
01:25:21 this. There were lots of these events. They happened frequently. It's not this isn't a particularly unusual RTS event. There were whole succession of them. Did you witness the officer being pulled from his horse?
01:25:32 from his horse? Obviously, because it says that it says that here. Well, forgive me, but you could be reporting that either because you saw it or somebody told you about it. I don't I I've seen policemen pulled off
01:25:44 I don't I I've seen policemen pulled off their horses at RTS events was one of them. Bristol. I mean, if you ask me enough times, I'll think I remember which one it was. I've certainly seen that in London. Um, it's
01:25:55 certainly seen that in London. Um, it's not unusual for mounted policemen that get caught in the crowd to be pulled off their horses.
01:26:03 Were you present uh when McDonald's was smashed up? No.
01:26:07 No. In the early hours? No, I wasn't. So, what what would the source of that intelligence be? Because they discussed they discussed going and then they discussed it again when they got back to the flat and I was in the flat.
01:26:22 Thank you. Can we take that down now, please? Next we have up C126 MPS 40534.
01:26:35 This is a report uh with intelligence dated the 6 of September 97 about the COPEX arms fair. If we could have the text expanded please.
01:26:52 Okay. How did you get this intelligence? Um,
01:26:59 presumably from friends who were involved in the campaign. What did you understand the significance of the campaign against the arms trade to be to the SDS?
01:27:12 to be to the SDS? Um,
01:27:15 it was one of a raft of groups where if you put in general intelligence about it, if it was of interest, it would go through the system. And what was your understanding of why
01:27:26 And what was your understanding of why this was put through the system? Well, I I didn't have an understanding of why this one would be put through the system because that would have been a business for the handlers and the controller. Did you have any understanding as to whether or not CAT
01:27:38 understanding as to whether or not CAT uh was uh of interest to special branch in the SDS? Um it wasn't a specifically targeted group that I recall, but a lot of these groups, the membership moves between a
01:27:50 groups, the membership moves between a whole series of the same groups, some of which were of more interest than others. Um I would basically feed in anything that I picked up that I thought might be useful. I the old cliche is that an
01:28:02 useful. I the old cliche is that an undercover police officer is just an open mic and you anything that was particularly potentially interesting you'd pass back. Um if the office thought it was worth passing on they'd pass on and sometimes then they'd invite
01:28:13 pass on and sometimes then they'd invite feedback to see whether there was any interest in whatever the content of the report was. Presumably there is some sort of filter going on here because there must be lots of everyday matters that you aren't promoting. Yeah. And was it your
01:28:25 promoting. Yeah. And was it your understanding then that CAT was the sort of organization that was likely to be of interest?
01:28:30 interest? I I would pass on anything I got about CAT because they're a direct action group and that that has public order implications. I don't think I picked up a great deal about CAT. I wasn't involved in them.
01:28:43 about CAT. I wasn't involved in them. Uh
01:28:44 Uh protests uh against uh genetically modified crops. Did you participate in an action in Essex in which crops were destroyed?
01:28:57 Essex in which crops were destroyed? Um, I might have done. What's your recollection? I've certainly participated in those actions.
01:29:07 actions. I can't remember where it was. In this country?
01:29:10 country? Yes, both in this country and abroad. Can you help us with your recollection of the actions that you were involved in in this country? Um, I was involved in an action
01:29:22 Um, I was involved in an action organized by the activist whose name I gave you earlier in relation to genetically modified um demonstrations. Was part of a large group who did a a
01:29:34 Was part of a large group who did a a crop destruction somewhere. Um,
01:29:38 Um, we drove down there. I think we destroyed the crop and drove back again. It was a large it was a large group of people and and that activist was the organizer
01:29:47 organizer and presumably your managers were well aware that you were doing that. Is that right?
01:29:53 right? Yeah. Yeah. And what was your understanding of the SDS and police interest in in that action?
01:29:59 action? Um probably similar to cat that it was mixed. Um,
01:30:06 I I would report it to them if they were interested in it particularly, then they might come back and ask me about it. Um, the activists aren't going to want to hear it. But there was a quite a degree
01:30:17 hear it. But there was a quite a degree of sympathy towards that campaign from the DS who was my handler and from myself as well. So, we didn't really regard it as a priority for us.
01:30:29 regard it as a priority for us. Can you help us with the the extent to which you participated in preparations for that crop destruction for the one if the if the one in Essex
01:30:41 for the one if the if the one in Essex is the one that I've got a bit of a recollection of then I don't don't think I was involved in organizing it but I remember having a row with the organizer beforehand because aspects of it hadn't been
01:30:52 been uh hadn't been thought through very well and can you help us in general terms with what points you were raising with the organizer I I think it hadn't been wied properly.
01:31:03 I I think it hadn't been wied properly. So, we were going in as a large group to an unknown. She's a very good organizer and that this wasn't very well put together. If that's the one I'm thinking of. Um,
01:31:13 of. Um, so I gave my opinion on that. And so the the practical effect of that is you were providing constructive comments for the
01:31:24 providing constructive comments for the more effective conduct of this action. I'm afraid so. Yeah.
01:31:30 Can you help us um with the overseas action? Um what I'm interested in is what happened in this jurisdiction and not abroad.
01:31:41 not abroad. Okay.
01:31:42 Okay. Is it right that some of the preparation for that action happened in this country?
01:31:47 country? No, I don't think so. Not not by me. I think I was I was invited to get involved in that by the same activist we discussing. Um it was a small group of I
01:31:58 discussing. Um it was a small group of I think about about six people. Um I think we pretty much got the vehicles and the equipment to do the action once we got to the other country.
01:32:10 we got to the other country. Uh but there must have been some form of planning on this side uh in this jurisdiction to arrive at the decision you should travel abroad by by her I guess. Yeah. Were you
01:32:23 by by her I guess. Yeah. Were you involved at all uh in providing any opinion or advice within this jurisdiction? Um I would always have given my opinion if I was asked for it.
01:32:36 if I was asked for it. You are described um by core participants in their witness statement as being not just a participant but an enthusiastic organizer. Is that a fair
01:32:49 enthusiastic organizer. Is that a fair characterization of your contribution to this action abroad? Um, yes.
01:32:57 Um, yes. And how much uh of uh that enthusiastic uh organization occurred within this jurisdiction? Well, well, nothing because I don't
01:33:08 Well, well, nothing because I don't recall getting together any aspect of it until we got You don't want me to say the other country, I'll take it. No. Okay. Um I don't recall getting involved in um
01:33:21 involved in um the actual organization of it until we were there and we needed to pick up tools and vehicles and such like. Final question on genetically modified crops if it helps it throws farm essics.
01:33:35 crops if it helps it throws farm essics. Going back to the the act does that ring a bell? No. No. But I'm just saying is that the same one you asked me about before? Yes.
01:33:42 Yes. Yeah. Okay. Is is that I was asking you whether that rang any bells? No. No more son. No. Um, can we move now to the Reformation of London Greenpeace C137
01:33:55 of London Greenpeace C137 MPS 40634.
01:34:09 Uh this is a report dated um well this information obtained the 30th of October written up on the 31st of October 1997 attributed to you about London
01:34:21 attributed to you about London Greenpeace. Could we have the text in the source comment expanded please? I've read it. Thank you. Um what was the source of this intelligence?
01:34:35 Um, it looks like
01:34:40 I assume I'm able to name people that are named in the report. Am I? You can name people name. It looks to me like Paul Gravit has come to the RTS meeting and said this um in calling for support for for London
01:34:52 um in calling for support for for London Greenpeace. So I have um pretty much reported what he said to the RTS meeting it looks like to me. What did you know about London Greenpeace before this? Uh um I I knew
01:35:04 Greenpeace before this? Uh um I I knew what it was. I knew it's no connection to the Green Piece, the big environmental group, that it's an independent, totally independent group. Um that Helen Steel and um Dave Morris
01:35:17 Um that Helen Steel and um Dave Morris were sort of leading lights of it that it was quite a small group, just that just general background like that really. And in terms of uh the SDS's
01:35:28 And in terms of uh the SDS's involvement, I was aware there'd been SDS involvement in it. Um
01:35:32 in it. Um to what extent? Uh I think somebody commented at one stage that um that Helen Steel had probably met more SDS field officers than anybody else.
01:35:46 Uh the source comment says the group will eventually house most of the members from last time round though presumably without the private detectives. As a source comment, has
01:35:57 detectives. As a source comment, has that come from you? Qu quite possibly. Again, it's this the sort of
01:36:03 sort of light joke you put in a report without him realizing that 30 years later a joke's going to fall very flat in front of a lot of other people. Well, taking this as as a light joke,
01:36:16 Well, taking this as as a light joke, presumably without the private detectives, what did you know about the role of private detectives in London Greenpeace in the past? Principally what I'd heard through London Greenpeace
01:36:28 I'd heard through London Greenpeace which was that some of their meetings the meetings were extraordinarily small and uh there were rival agencies private detectives agencies being tasked against
01:36:39 detectives agencies being tasked against them. So there was the absurdity of a small group meeting at which a sizable proportion of the people present were working for private concerns. You said principally, what did you learn
01:36:50 You said principally, what did you learn from the SDS side about
01:36:54 about about private detectives infiltrating Greenpeace? I don't think I learned anything. This was all um public domain at the time. It was the Mcllyel trial I think was around this time and it was all in the newspapers all the time.
01:37:05 newspapers all the time. Uh and
01:37:06 Uh and private eye followed it very closely as well.
01:37:08 well. Why would this have been funny to your colleagues? I think because the idea of an activist meeting with a very small number of activists and a very high number of private detectives, we would have thought was inherently amusing.
01:37:22 Could we take that down now, please? Could we have up C145730833
01:37:33 21st of December 1997?
01:37:38 1997? Could we have the uh text expanded? I'll give you a moment to to read it.
01:37:48 Okay.
01:37:52 What did you know about Joe text? I don't think this is my report. Is this definitely my report?
01:38:02 Is I don't think this is my report. You don't think it's yours? Did you ever meet Joe Tex? No. Well, not knowingly.
01:38:12 What I'm interested in is the inquiry understands that Joe Tex is the man with whom at some point HN26
01:38:22 HN26 forms an intimate relationship. Okay.
01:38:29 Okay. Are you able to help us with whether you knew that HN26 had formed a sexual relationship with someone that she'd met undercover?
01:38:40 with someone that she'd met undercover? No.
01:38:42 No. At any point? No. Well, years later, in the in the course of the inquiries proceedings or before that? Um,
01:38:56 when did this inquiry start? 2015.
01:39:04 Possibly in the course of I I I was aware that um
01:39:12 they were in a relationship since she had finished in the field. When did you become aware of that? Um
01:39:25 I'm I'm not sure. Did you ever meet HN26 whilst she was deployed?
01:39:31 deployed? Not while she was Well, we in the office when we come together occasionally. Yeah. Yeah. But in the field? No. No. I think I may have ran past her
01:39:42 No. No. I think I may have ran past her once.
01:39:48 Can we take that uh down now, please? I want to move next to your sexual relationship with Ruth. Mhm.
01:39:58 Mhm. Uh is it right that she was by the time the relationship started a longstanding and trusted RTS activist? Yes.
01:40:08 Yes. Who'd been on the M11 protests? Um probably. Would it be fair to describe her as a more deeply rooted activist within RTS than you were?
01:40:20 activist within RTS than you were? Yes, it would. She'd been involved since she was a child. How well did you know her before the relationship became sexual? Um very well I think because in the separate meeting
01:40:34 I think because in the separate meeting group that we've already described the the the closed meeting group that I was invited into there were no more than 16 or so 16 17 people in it. She used to
01:40:46 or so 16 17 people in it. She used to chair the meetings and that this was the case every week for quite a long period of time. I already knew her before that and then some of us would sometimes go for a drink after those meetings as
01:40:57 for a drink after those meetings as well. So over a period of time I got to know her very well. Did you both flirt with one another on a hunt in the autumn of 1997?
01:41:08 hunt in the autumn of 1997? I I wasn't aware that she had ever been on a hunt. Her her evidence is she went on one and then I'm sure her evidence would be accurate.
01:41:20 Did the sexual relationship begin in November 1997? I I'm not sure the date. That sounds like about the right time. As a result of an advance made by her.
01:41:32 As a result of an advance made by her. Yes.
01:41:34 Yes. Why did you accept the advance? Um
01:41:39 Um I know you don't like this answer, but I I liked her a lot. I liked spending time with her. Um she obviously felt the same way. Was her standing within RTS a factor?
01:41:51 Was her standing within RTS a factor? No.
01:41:51 No. No, it wasn't. But I was conscious of the fact later that um she was so widely respected that it didn't do me any harm. But that was in no way
01:42:02 no way um
01:42:03 um that was in no way a reason for for the relationship developing.
01:42:10 Was your decision to accept the advance feted in any way by the fact you were a police officer? No, I wasn't. No. Did you give that fact
01:42:21 No, I wasn't. No. Did you give that fact any thought whatsoever before accepting the advance? No.
01:42:27 No. You should have done, shouldn't you? Yes, I probably should have. No probably about it, is there?
01:42:39 But by this point, I've been living under that identity all the time for what three three years or whatever. Um, I know it's very difficult for people who haven't done this sort of work to understand.
01:42:51 understand. You invest a lot of yourself in it. It becomes more real to you than any other version of yourself. I think people think that you're constantly going around being aware of the fact that
01:43:02 around being aware of the fact that you're an undercover police officer. You don't you you you lose yourself in that side of yourself. You you don't think in that way. And I know that people don't understand that. If you did understand that, then a lot of these stories make a
01:43:14 that, then a lot of these stories make a lot more sense. But there's a difference between whether it's right and wrong and why you did it, isn't there?
01:43:26 Well, yeah.
01:43:30 Did at any point you, for example, say to your managers, "I am the subject of a sexual advance. I fear I'm not going to be able to
01:43:41 I fear I'm not going to be able to resist it." No.
01:43:45 No. And why didn't you do that? For the reason I've given before that they wouldn't have uh wished me to make them aware of that.
01:43:55 Well, you say you said before you they wouldn't have wished you to make them aware of a sexual relationship, but going to them explaining
01:44:08 but going to them explaining the factual situation from a position of it being wrong to have a sexual relationship and asking for help to avoid it is a different thing, isn't it?
01:44:22 avoid it is a different thing, isn't it? Um yes.
01:44:24 Um yes. Why didn't you do that? This is a this sort of work is fought with moral conundrums. If you if you are constantly going to your handler saying
01:44:35 constantly going to your handler saying I have moral qualms about this aspect of the job. Um well if if you would that would not be not be well received. In fact they would have regarded it as as absurd. I think
01:44:49 absurd. I think absurd
01:44:50 absurd I think so. Had you any evidence to support that view? In other words, did you know of anyone else ever raising that issue?
01:45:01 raising that issue? Raising the issue of they thought they were um
01:45:05 were um subject to sexual advances and wanted help uh avoiding the problem.
01:45:15 I I think that might have
01:45:20 HN 104 I think may have raised that issue in advance with the office. I think he said something to me about it afterwards that he had said to the office that he had this issue and I
01:45:31 office that he had this issue and I think their response to him was use your initiative. Was that conversation one you had before you
01:45:38 you subsequently? So, at the time that you were deciding whether or not to accept Ruth's sexual advance,
01:45:50 advance, it' be fair to say you had no objective basis uh for thinking that raising a concern about that would be dismissed by your managers. I would have been 100% certain that if
01:46:02 I would have been 100% certain that if I'd raised that, they would not have been happy about it.
01:46:07 That's different from them not doing anything about it. Um
01:46:13 Um well the track record of when it had been raised or become apparent was that it was sympathetically dealt with and usually very quietly dealt with.
01:46:24 usually very quietly dealt with. How an issue was dealt with afterwards does not mean to say that it shouldn't have happened in the first place does it?
01:46:31 it? No.
01:46:34 So coming coming back having explored it,
01:46:40 why didn't you do anything to avoid this second sexual relationship?
01:46:49 How do you mean do something to avoid it?
01:46:52 it? Decline the advance, for example, made an excuse, spoken to your managers to seek help, any of those things. Um I I think speaking to your managers in advance about something like that would
01:47:03 advance about something like that would have been uh it would have been an absurdity. Um and they would not have been um helpful. I think there there was a a
01:47:15 um helpful. I think there there was a a term had been used which might help you where where they talked about UC's being either high maintenance or low maintenance and lowmaintenance was very definitely the thing to do. Lowmaintenance people did not bring
01:47:26 Lowmaintenance people did not bring problems to the office.
01:47:30 high maintenance officers would be those who'd be constantly asking the office, what should I do about this? What should I do about that? That was not considered a good thing to be. But this is a big deal, isn't it? And you'll see also in some of the
01:47:41 And you'll see also in some of the papers you've got there that there's frequent reference to um me resolving problems relating to um fieldcraft in in annual reports and
01:47:55 um fieldcraft in in annual reports and such like. And I think that's the sort of thing it means. It means not bringing those things to the office. But entering into a sexual relationship with somebody is a big deal, isn't it? Yes, it is.
01:48:07 Yes, it is. Did you on this occasion with Ruth give any thought to the fact that you were deceiving her actively as to your real identity?
01:48:15 identity? No.
01:48:16 No. Did you give any thought to the fact that you were depriving her of the opportunity to make an informed decision as to whether to consent to sex?
01:48:27 as to whether to consent to sex? No.
01:48:29 No. You should have done, shouldn't you? Well, given that I'm sat here, that would have been a better idea, but I don't see how that could have come about.
01:48:39 about. could have come about by giving consideration to her as a woman and a human being, couldn't it? I think I gave great consideration to
01:48:50 I think I gave great consideration to her in that way. How can you say that when you deprived her of informed consent? I don't think I I have.
01:49:05 If it were said that your answers display a complete disregard uh for her as a woman. What would you say? I have the highest
01:49:17 What would you say? I have the highest regard for her, but the last thing I would have wanted would to have been um disrespectful to her. The last thing I would have wanted to do would have been to have been
01:49:28 would have been to have been disrespectful to her. But that is precisely what you were by depriving her of informed consent, isn't it? to an extent, but I think that was a product of the circumstances.
01:49:42 Did you give any thought to Monica when entering into another sexual relationship so soon after your relationship with her had ended? No, because her circumstances had
01:49:54 No, because her circumstances had changed.
01:50:01 Did you give any consideration to the impact it might have on her? Well, no. She had by her own statement ended the relationship and moved on. So, I I didn't think that this impacted her.
01:50:15 didn't think that this impacted her. Did it occur to you that someone might finish a relationship but still have feelings for the other person? Uh, yes. But if they've already moved on to another relationship themselves, then
01:50:27 to another relationship themselves, then then I think it's uh it's ended. Did you see Ruth about three or four times a week including meetings and socializing? No, we didn't meet that often. This was
01:50:38 No, we didn't meet that often. This was commented on by other people. Um we didn't sometimes we'd meet up a few times quite close together and then we could go quite a long period without
01:50:49 could go quite a long period without meeting to the extent that some people in the activist circle weren't even aware we were a couple for quite a long time by which I mean over a year. Um, and sometimes we could go a couple of
01:51:01 and sometimes we could go a couple of weeks without without meeting and then and then we might meet at accidentally at a meeting and then be together for a few days.
01:51:09 few days. Did you cook a lot together? Uh, well, yeah, we certainly cooked together. Yeah. Went to pubs together. Yeah.
01:51:16 Yeah. Went to the cinema together. Yes.
01:51:19 Yes. Uh, Ruth's evidence is it became emotionally quite intense for her. Is that fair? It it is, but I wasn't aware of that until quite a long quite a long way in.
01:51:33 until quite a long quite a long way in. Um,
01:51:35 Um, because we weren't spending a lot of time together, I thought, well, this this works well for both of us and we never discussed the relationship and she never discussed her feelings at all. It
01:51:46 never discussed her feelings at all. It was more like we were friends who would meet up periodically and be a couple again and then go our own way. Um it became apparent to me quite a long way into the relationship, by which I mean well over a year
01:51:58 well over a year um that she was actually disguising um more feelings than than I'd realized she she had. Um first of all, arising from that, in
01:52:10 Um first of all, arising from that, in what ways was it working well for you? Um,
01:52:17 I I don't really want to be around somebody all the time, particularly when I've got other things going on in my life as here that I'm trying to attend to. Um, I think the
01:52:30 trying to attend to. Um, I think the point you're you're thinking is it worked well for me in terms of cover story. If I'd wanted that, I would have made sure that people were aware of that we were a couple, but even quite main activists were not aware we were a couple for a very long time. Very long
01:52:41 couple for a very long time. Very long time. I I don't want anything from you other than the truth. I want to understand why you're doing what you're doing. Am I right to understand your answer is essentially it worked for your personal convenience.
01:52:52 personal convenience. I think it worked for both of us. At least I I I thought it did. When you became aware that it was becoming emotionally quite intense for
01:53:05 becoming emotionally quite intense for Ruth, what was your reaction? Um, I tried to end the relationship, but that did that took quite a few goes.
01:53:16 Why did you seek to end the relationship? Um, because I thought it was only fair to her because it became apparent that she was anticipating that this relationship would endure and I was
01:53:27 relationship would endure and I was aware that it wouldn't be able to do so. Is it right that this was Ruth's first significant relationship? No. Well, it the word the key word is
01:53:39 No. Well, it the word the key word is significant. So, she says it was I can't disagree.
01:53:44 disagree. Did she raise the topic of having children with you? No.
01:53:48 No. Are you sure about that? I I think I would have remembered that. Well, her evidence is that she did raise it, but you made clear that you didn't want children and told her that you were
01:54:00 want children and told her that you were adopted. It um might well have been that she raised it and I didn't realize that she was talking about the possibility of having children with me. Is it possible that she's right to
01:54:12 Is it possible that she's right to recall that she did raise having children with you and you made clear that you didn't want to have children? I I I wouldn't dispute anything she says. I don't think she's likely to lie about anything.
01:54:26 Sir, would that be an appropriate moment to take the break? Not least because we've got a very short piece of evidence which will need to be taken without the
01:54:39 which will need to be taken without the YouTube feed immediately after the break.
01:54:42 break. That would be an excellent idea and it can be set up with that in view.
02:18:02 Mr. FL, I understand we're going to go into a session which is not going to be broadcast on the live link. Uh that's correct, sir. Um for those who are watching, it's going to be a very very short session. So, uh uh just to
02:18:15 very short session. So, uh uh just to let people manage their expectations. Could I have confirmation about 15 minutes or less? No, no. Uh f right. Um, the live link is going to be taken down for about 5 minutes.
02:18:29 taken down for about 5 minutes. Could I have confirmation?
02:20:03 Thank you.
02:20:06 Did you attend activist events as a couple?
02:20:11 couple? Yeah.
02:20:12 Yeah. And the relationship was no secret, was it?
02:20:15 it? No.
02:20:17 No. And in the course of the relationship, did you meet members of Ruth's family? I met her brother. Any other members of her family? No. Um, I saw her mother. Her mother was at the
02:20:29 I saw her mother. Her mother was at the front door of her flat once when I was there.
02:20:34 there. Uh, did you meet her friends? Well, we would have had the same circle of friends, broadly speaking. Did you go on holiday together? Um, I wouldn't have said that we ever
02:20:45 Um, I wouldn't have said that we ever went on holiday because I I didn't work as such and neither did she. So, um, we certainly traveled to actions and events together and in for instance, we went
02:20:56 together and in for instance, we went to, um,
02:20:58 to, um, an event on action of some sort in Wales and then stopped off at Dartmore on the way home and and stayed in the back of the van for a couple of nights, that sort of thing.
02:21:09 sort of thing. And you benefited from her comfort, from her company. Yeah.
02:21:17 Yeah. Sex. Yes, it was sexual relationship, intimate contact. Uh, if is that Yeah, I'm not sure what you mean by that. That's different from what you've
02:21:28 that. That's different from what you've already asked me about. And love.
02:21:32 And love. No, she never mentioned that word. And there was no discussion of our of our relationship, which seems odd, I know, but no, there was no discussion of it. None at all. I think I would have
02:21:44 of it. None at all. I think I would have um there's no question I would have remembered that. She never mentioned that and I wasn't even aware of the the depth of her feeling until as I've already said quite a long way in well depth of whatever that was until I was
02:21:55 depth of whatever that was until I was already quite a long way into the the relationship had been going for quite a long time. Someone doesn't have to tell you that they love you for you to benefit from their love.
02:22:06 their love. Um possibly not. That sounds like a philosophical question. You benefited from her love, didn't you? Um, I benefited from her company and from being with her. Does that help you?
02:22:21 from being with her. Does that help you? And the way she treated you? I think the way we treated each other in the course of the relationship, she imparted to you a great deal of private
02:22:32 imparted to you a great deal of private information about her activist friends. No, I don't think that's true. Uh, which bit of um that proposition are you taking issue with? Um, probably all
02:22:43 you taking issue with? Um, probably all of it.
02:22:44 of it. Did she tell you anything private about any of her friends? Not that I remember. I mean, I I don't remember her commenting particularly. I mean, people I I can't remember
02:22:56 I mean, people I I can't remember specific conversations that we had about about people that she knew. To what extent did uh the relationship benefit your reporting? Um, I can only think of one occasion
02:23:08 Um, I can only think of one occasion when I submitted a report based on something that she had said. But I can think of one occasion.
02:23:17 Were you at any time a vegan before you joined the SDS? No, I was vegetarian. Did you remain a vegan after your deployment?
02:23:28 deployment? Um,
02:23:31 not initially. And then I was vegan um when I was married to a vegan.
02:23:43 Did you smoke cannabis regularly in reef presence?
02:23:46 presence? Uh, probably.
02:23:50 I won't ask you repeat the questions I asked you earlier about cannabis. But what I would like to know is was there any ever any managerial check as to the
02:24:02 any ever any managerial check as to the extent to which you were smoking cannabis? I I'm not sure what form that would have taken.
02:24:07 taken. Were you ever asked? No. Did you ever tell them you were smoking cannabis?
02:24:13 cannabis? Um
02:24:15 Um I mean it wasn't a secret. Um,
02:24:21 Um, was if it wasn't a secret, was any concern ever expressed to you either from the point of view of whether or not you should be doing it and uh
02:24:34 or not you should be doing it and uh what the impact might be on your health and your ability to report with a clear head? No,
02:24:44 I I gave up smoking completely as well whilst I was still in the field in about 98 or 99.
02:24:53 Why? Uh because it was impacting my health.
02:24:57 health. When you say smoking, do you mean both tobacco and cannabis? Uh yes.
02:25:05 Is it right that things came to a head when Ruth gave you an ultimatum in or around July 1999? Uh, no. What was the ultimatum
02:25:17 Uh, no. What was the ultimatum about continuing the relationship uh and it becoming more serious? No.
02:25:25 No. What is your recollection of the circumstances in which the relationship ended?
02:25:31 ended? Um
02:25:34 in the second year of our relationship, I became aware that um Ruth saw our relationship as having potential to endure
02:25:46 potential to endure and I was obviously aware that it didn't have that potential and I didn't want to waste her time. Um and I yeah I could so I
02:26:00 Um and I yeah I could so I um
02:26:02 um tried to end the relationship as gently as possible but that didn't work very well. So that that took quite a long time because it's very difficult to end a relationship
02:26:15 very difficult to end a relationship with someone who doesn't want it to end when there you're not arguing and there's nothing particularly wrong with a relationship. you're you're trying to invent a reason to end a relationship that's perfectly healthy. That was how
02:26:26 that's perfectly healthy. That was how it seemed to me. So, for quite a long time, I was trying to uh step back from Ruth cuz I thought that was the right thing for her so that she could move on, but she kept um
02:26:39 she could move on, but she kept um phoning me up and making contact again. So, it was sort of a it took a long time before we went our separate ways, I think.
02:26:48 think. And how did it finally end? Um,
02:26:55 I mean a sort of a period of time I remember
02:26:59 remember uh coming back from when we'd been out west for something and and saying that I I thought we should go our separate ways and then I dropped her off uh to get a a
02:27:12 and then I dropped her off uh to get a a tube home and that was the first time I saw her very upset and that was a hammermith I Um, so that was quite of a shock to me because I hadn't realized that she was
02:27:24 because I hadn't realized that she was that upset and then I was very upset. Does that include tears? Uh, yeah.
02:27:34 Uh, yeah. And did that end the relationship? Um, pretty much. I think I think she she still uh she got back in touch with me and and we we were
02:27:45 back in touch with me and and we we were still friends um and would still meet at meetings and chat that we were still friends but I found it quite difficult because it seemed that even when we were being friends I felt that she was still looking at the
02:27:57 I felt that she was still looking at the possibility of getting back together.
02:28:01 My recollection is that uh there was a conversation but it took place uh in a flat and it led to you leaving the premises in tears.
02:28:12 premises in tears. I remember that. Yeah, I think that's it's around this is what I mean about there's not one case where we we finished the relationship and and went our separate ways because there was a couple of times where we would meet up
02:28:23 couple of times where we would meet up or or or she would ask me for something that involved us meeting up and then you'd realize that we're sort of getting back together again. So there was probably more than one more than one
02:28:34 probably more than one more than one breakup.
02:28:36 breakup. So I remember that I remember I remember that
02:28:39 that she says that after that occasion she cut you off. Okay.
02:28:44 Okay. And that she didn't contact you again um personally until you had commenced a sexual relationship with Rosa.
02:28:55 relationship with Rosa. Um we went a long period without without being in contact. Um, and when she phoned me up again, it was months later and I was then with Rosa, so I told her
02:29:07 and I was then with Rosa, so I told her straight away. Yeah. Did you see her um once more before you withdrew?
02:29:17 withdrew? Uh um possibly more than once more because we were attending the same meetings.
02:29:24 Did you see her for a personal conversation before you withdrew? Um, could you be more specific? Well, you were there. I wasn't. What is
02:29:35 Well, you were there. I wasn't. What is your recollection of communication with Rosa be immediately before you withdrew? You mean Ruth? Sorry, I do mean with Ruth. Forgive me.
02:29:46 Sorry, I do mean with Ruth. Forgive me. Um,
02:29:51 I remember that she had had a fling with a another activist that she was um unhappy about and that
02:30:03 that she was um unhappy about and that we met up and discussed it. She was quite um entertained by aspects of it. Um, I think that might be the conversation you're thinking of. Did
02:30:15 conversation you're thinking of. Did you,
02:30:15 you, if it isn't, I don't know what you're talking about. Did you then go on to send her a postcard from Zambia? Uh, possibly. I'm sure if I did that, you've still got
02:30:26 I'm sure if I did that, you've still got it.
02:30:28 it. When she found out that you were an undercover police officer in January 2011, her evidence is that she was hurt and angry, and more
02:30:40 she was hurt and angry, and more recently, she's felt repulsed. Uh, those feelings are wholly unsurprising in the circumstances, aren't they? Um, I I wouldn't dispute what she would
02:30:52 Um, I I wouldn't dispute what she would say.
02:30:56 Because you deceived her. Well, why specifically did she say she now feels repulsed? Well, you need to be more specific than
02:31:07 Well, you need to be more specific than is she repulsed by the fact that what what is she repulsed by, Mr. boiling. Do you accept in any way
02:31:18 Mr. boiling. Do you accept in any way your conduct was repulsive? No, I don't think so. Because you deceived her, didn't you? Yes, as I deceived everybody.
02:31:30 Yes, as I deceived everybody. You betrayed her trust.
02:31:38 Is that a yes? I didn't realize that was a question. Sorry.
02:31:41 Sorry. You betrayed her trust. Question mark. Yes. Um
02:31:49 I guess so within the context of the situation with it within which I found myself.
02:31:54 myself. Your conduct had the effect of manipulating her emotions. No, that wasn't my intention. You knew this had kn future. She thought it did. That was entirely because you
02:32:07 it did. That was entirely because you were an undercover police officer uh who always knew that it wasn't going to last.
02:32:13 last. Um, well, the evidence of the subsequent relationship with Rosa would indicate that that wasn't the case. Do you not accept even now that an undercover police officer entering into
02:32:24 undercover police officer entering into a sexual relationship with somebody uh doesn't manipulate their emotions?
02:32:32 emotions? No, it does manipulate their emotions, but I think being an undercover police officer manipulates people in a lot of different ways. And you manipulated her sexually? No, I don't think I manipulated her sexually.
02:32:44 don't think I manipulated her sexually. It's an extension of the same thing, isn't it? If you are not who you say you are,
02:32:49 are, and you are not what you say you are, and you are having sex with her, you are manipulating her sexually. I don't feel that's the case. In short, you used her, didn't you?
02:33:02 In short, you used her, didn't you? I don't feel that's the case.
02:33:08 And the relationship you formed with her, was that solely for your own benefit or was it also for that of the MPS?
02:33:18 MPS? Um,
02:33:19 Um, I don't think the relationship was intended to be for the benefit of either of those. I think it the relationship formed because I liked her and I like spending time with her. Um,
02:33:30 Um, that would be for your own benefit then. Well, then that would be for my own benefit. Yeah. relationships are for people all relationships then are for people's own benefit, aren't they? Would it also for the MPS?
02:33:42 Would it also for the MPS? No, I don't think so. I think that's probably um
02:33:49 um what would be hurtful more than anything for someone like Ruth would be thinking that someone was only in a relationship with you for the benefit of some operational goal.
02:34:01 operational goal. If that was the case, I would say so. Um, it really wasn't. Um, and I'm very sorry if she thinks that that was the case.
02:34:13 In relation to reporting on Ruth, while you were in a relationship, you described your approach to reporting on Monica in the relationship. Was your approach to reporting on Ruth any
02:34:24 approach to reporting on Ruth any different? No, but there was very little call for reporting on on Ruth. She was very much at the soft end of the activist scene. She wasn't particularly of interest to
02:34:35 She wasn't particularly of interest to the sort of stuff that special branch was interested in and that being despite the fact that she chaired the core organizers meetings. Yeah.
02:34:46 Yeah. Can I take it that that answer speaks volumes about the approach of RTS as an organization? Um,
02:34:57 Um, I would separate out the the organizers and their intentions from the big public order events and their consequences.
02:35:08 order events and their consequences. Our interest is in the latter, but you can't just cover that. You have to be you have to be in the whole thing. Is that a way of saying what being
02:35:19 Is that a way of saying what being inside the organizing group tells you is what the plan is? Yeah. And you're not going to be inside the organizing group if you you just turn up once the organizing group is formed. The organizing group would form before anybody in the activist world or
02:35:31 before anybody in the activist world or the police was even aware that an action was being planned. So by the time you the police become aware that there's even a large event being planned, the the main organizing group was long gone.
02:35:42 the main organizing group was long gone. Did you tell your managers about your relationship with Ruth when it was ongoing? Uh no.
02:35:49 no. Did you tell them at any other time? Not that I recall. Did they nevertheless know about it? Um
02:36:01 Um would have to ask them, I think. Do you are you able to give any evidence um one way or the other as to whether or not uh there was material from which
02:36:12 not uh there was material from which they would know that it was happening? I'm not aware.
02:36:18 Did you tell um any of your fellow undercover officers no names at this stage?
02:36:26 stage? I I would give the same answer as before. I don't remember specifically discussing with any of them that I was in a relationship with a particular person.
02:36:35 Did you tell HN1 is it my mentor? Yes.
02:36:41 Yes. Um I think he might have gone by this point. He might have finished in the field.
02:36:51 Did again no names at this stage. Yes or no. Did any of your undercover officers, fellow undercover officers, no
02:37:02 fellow undercover officers, no who I was in a relationship with? That you were in a relationship with Monica.
02:37:06 Monica. Ruth.
02:37:07 Ruth. Ruth.
02:37:08 Ruth. Sorry, with Ruth. Um, specifically her, none of them would have known who she was. There was nobody else working in the same field. And even though um HN1
02:37:19 though um HN1 might have moved on, did you tell HN1? No. No, I didn't have any contact with him after he had finished.
02:37:31 Can we move now to um the Birmingham G8 action?
02:37:38 action? And uh this is the action that was named reclaim the summit and took place on the 16th of May uh 1998.
02:37:49 Could we have up please from C168247630?
02:38:04 This is a report after the event. uh dated the intelligence was dated the 19th of May 1998 through 3 days
02:38:15 19th of May 1998 through 3 days afterwards. I'll give you a moment to look at that.
02:38:49 Yeah.
02:38:52 Were you there? Yes.
02:38:56 Yes. Was there any liaison in advance between police and reclaim the streets? No.
02:39:05 To what extent were you involved in the organization of this event? It was organized by a group of activists based in Birmingham. Um they invited I think four of us from
02:39:19 Um they invited I think four of us from Reclaim the Streets London to go up to assist because they regarded Reclaim the Streets London as the the experienced and the best group for organizing large
02:39:31 and the best group for organizing large scale events. Um I went up with I think three other people. They walked us through their plan which is um was reported in advance at the
02:39:43 is um was reported in advance at the time. They walked us through the plan and explained what they were doing and asked us for our input. Um and then I think we came back to London and then I think I went back up separately again for the event.
02:39:56 for the event. So, I wasn't an organizer, but I was made aware of the organizers's plan and I was asked my opinion on it and presumably you expressed an opinion. Yeah, I always asked give an opinion if they asked me for one. Yeah.
02:40:07 they asked me for one. Yeah. Do you know whether your opinion made any difference to the approach on the day
02:40:11 day of the protest? Um, I don't think so because I think that their plan was pretty good. So, I think we we just sort of said it was pretty good. Was there a you described yesterday
02:40:23 Was there a you described yesterday sometimes trying to steer the plan to something that would be more acceptable to the police? Was there any of that going on here? No. And I didn't have the knowledge of Birmingham that would have been required in order to do that.
02:40:35 in order to do that. If we have paragraph two expanded, please.
02:40:44 uh starts despite elements in the crowd building barricades and throwing bottles at the police lines, the police managed to avoid a major confrontation. Did you witness uh the barricades and the
02:40:56 witness uh the barricades and the throwing of bottles? Yes.
02:40:58 Yes. Can you give us an an impression of the scale and duration of this disorder? Um
02:41:06 Um I think there was a long time ago, but I I think there was quite a lot and it lasted through into the evening. It was quite a big news story at the time, but then the G8 was itself. I think it was
02:41:18 then the G8 was itself. I think it was um
02:41:19 um the disorder was sort of spread over a large area instead of being focused in one particular point. Um there was a lot of police deployed. It was quite a big I mean it was a major event.
02:41:34 The paragraph goes on uh to explain the problems that RTS had with the sound system. Mhm.
02:41:44 Mhm. Uh on uh the day and in particular the fact that Nottingham's de desert storm was reportedly impounded soon after setting out from Nottingham. Did your
02:41:56 setting out from Nottingham. Did your intelligence play any role in relation to the failure of the sound system to get through it? Um, it might have done, but I I genuinely don't remember whether it was my intelligence or not. I I remember
02:42:09 my intelligence or not. I I remember there was a strong intelligence requirement from Birmingham around G8. In fact, it was quite an urgent uh requirement because they had no coverage at all. So, if it wasn't our reporting, I'm I'm not sure where else they would
02:42:21 I'm I'm not sure where else they would have got it from. But I I don't I don't recall specifically if that was mine or not. If we could take that down now, we're going to move to the London North and
02:42:32 going to move to the London North and South Street parties which were held on the 6th of June 1998, which I think we touched upon right at the start uh yesterday. Uh there is a lot of reporting from you, a series of reports
02:42:45 reporting from you, a series of reports running up uh to that event. Uh can you help us with how involved you were in the organization of um that events on that day?
02:42:59 of um that events on that day? I was part of the small organizing group for the South London party in Brixton. Could we have up please from tab C17247661.
02:43:15 Uh this is a report shortly before the day your intelligence provided on the 4th of June 1998.
02:43:26 4th of June 1998. And I'm particularly interested once you've had an opportunity to refresh your memory in the paragraph at the bottom of page one running over to the
02:43:37 bottom of page one running over to the top of page two.
02:43:48 Okay.
02:43:52 There's a handler's comment. This intelligence is not to be released until an agreed time during the day in question. Was that um a mixture of protecting you and ensuring that the
02:44:06 protecting you and ensuring that the intelligence that was passed on was accurate and hadn't changed? Yes, I think so. And there appears to be as
02:44:17 And there appears to be as uh in your past reports advice given as to how best to police this event and in particular the top of page two, serious consideration should be given to allowing the systems and therefore the
02:44:31 allowing the systems and therefore the crowd to depart unhindered. Was that your opinion as to how best to police? It always seemed to me that the way to avoid serious disorder was to um
02:44:45 avoid serious disorder was to um manage their planning and their expectations that the the worst public order always occurred when when the police decided to confront to confront the events.
02:44:57 confront to confront the events. And you make a point of uh explaining that there was no intention to cause any road damage. Yeah. Yeah. Can you help us as to the basis for that?
02:45:07 that? Um,
02:45:10 sorry. Why did I say there was no intent? Because there wasn't and I was on the organizing group, so I knew the intentions of the organizing group. Yeah. And why was it the int why was it something that the organizing group had
02:45:22 something that the organizing group had made a decision about? Because of the second line that it was intended to be a community event and no desire to destroy the area. And we take it from the quantity of sand and the
02:45:34 it from the quantity of sand and the inflating of bouncy castle that that reinforces. Yeah. Yeah. This I'm just accurately reporting the sort of event they were planning. Um
02:45:45 of event they were planning. Um Yeah. As they discussed it and they were planning a peaceful event. Yeah.
02:45:50 Yeah. On the day what happened? Um
02:45:55 Um I was driving the main sound system vehicle.
02:45:59 vehicle. Um
02:46:01 Um we took the center of Brixham with um we had staged car crashes and smoke bombs. Um police allowed us to have the area that we had negotiated through through
02:46:14 that we had negotiated through through this reporting that we thought they should be allowed to have. Uh the event went ahead um right through until in the evening where
02:46:25 where um there was then some some clashes between some of the people there and and some of the police. Was the sound system allowed to depart unhindered? No, it was not.
02:46:37 No, it was not. And what was the consequence of that? Um, well, I got in it to drive it away and then the TSG tried to stop me from driving it away. Uh, and then the crowd
02:46:48 driving it away. Uh, and then the crowd tried to stop the TSG from stopping me from driving away by climbing onto the TSG vehicles. Um,
02:46:57 Um, there was then a I I saw an opportunity to drive through a gap in the vehicles. So, I drove through in the sound system truck up Brixton Hill. I was pursued up Brixton Hill by TSG
02:47:10 I was pursued up Brixton Hill by TSG serals in quite a low-speed chase because it's very difficult to drive a van load of sound system quickly. Um I was aware also that there were a lot of
02:47:21 was aware also that there were a lot of activists hanging off the side of demonst party goers hanging off the side of the vehicle I was driving uh and also all over the TSG vehicles behind us. And after a while of driving
02:47:33 behind us. And after a while of driving up Brixton Hill in this way, the police vehicle behind us decided to stop to arrest the gentleman who was lying on the windscreen holding onto the windscreen wipers. And when they did so,
02:47:44 windscreen wipers. And when they did so, we saw an opportunity to turn off down a side street and we made an escape by an alternative route. Putting aside events um around the sound
02:47:56 Putting aside events um around the sound system departing, the type of disorder that you were describing seemed to be in keeping with the pattern you've previously described, namely at the end of the day dissolves
02:48:09 namely at the end of the day dissolves into disorder in some quarters. Is that fair?
02:48:12 fair? Yeah. So you get a lot of people would drink and take drugs for party crowd all day at these events and then at the end of the day they like to end it by having a bit of a fight with the police.
02:48:23 a bit of a fight with the police. Um yeah
02:48:25 Um yeah is it they like to have a fight with police or or that they fight when police come to clear them off the streets? Well, I thought on this occasion the latter because I I'd already said that if they let the sound system go, which I
02:48:37 if they let the sound system go, which I was driving, I thought the crowd would have dispersed because we had arranged an afterparty squat and crowds were usually quite happy to move on to that.
02:48:48 usually quite happy to move on to that. Um, where a party would continue with a smaller sound system in a squat. Um, so in my
02:48:55 in my advice here, if they'd let me leave with the sound system, it wouldn't have kicked off. And other than the disorder you've already described, can you give us a feeling of the scale and severity of of the criminality at the end of the
02:49:08 of of the criminality at the end of the day?
02:49:09 day? Well, not really because once I'd left in the in the sound system, I wasn't there to witness it. And from what people in the group who were infiltrating were saying. I can't I can't remember. It was
02:49:20 I can't I can't remember. It was reported as being very serious, but as we've already said, the press reporting is not necessarily accurate. Can we take that down now, please? Can we go to the RTS tube party uh the party
02:49:32 we go to the RTS tube party uh the party line event or reclaim Mayday 1st of May 19 99? There's a small number of uh reports attributed to you ahead of the
02:49:43 reports attributed to you ahead of the day um reporting on on developments in planning. Was this again something you were part of an organizing group or not? No, I I wasn't on the action but I was aware of uh of what was being planned.
02:49:57 aware of uh of what was being planned. When you say you weren't on the action, did you attend on the day? I don't think so. I I I'm not certain that's correct actually, but I don't I I don't recall being on a tube party.
02:50:10 being on a tube party. No, but I I might be wrong about that. It's not something that I would necessarily have thought was a big deal. But you haven't got a recollection of your sisters with events on the day.
02:50:21 your sisters with events on the day. No, sorry. Uh, can we have up please from tab B92748789?
02:50:31 I think I think I might have been actually thinking back I I think I might have been on that. Sorry. Can you in so far as you do have a recollection and understanding it may be hazy, can you give us any
02:50:44 hazy, can you give us any impression as to whether or not that it involved any crime or disorder? Um, no. I don't think so. I don't think it did. I think the intention was to take
02:50:55 did. I think the intention was to take over a tube train. Yeah. And have a have a big action on the train, but I I don't think it was specifically intended to create um criminal damage or or
02:51:07 create um criminal damage or or disorder.
02:51:08 disorder. Was there any particular reason why this event passed off peacefully? Um, probably because police decided not to intervene.
02:51:19 to intervene. Might the presence of ordinary members of the public on the underground train also have had an impact? Uh possibly, but I don't remember I don't remember it very well at all, I'm afraid.
02:51:30 afraid. Uh back to the document. Uh this is um a document annual authorization of operations.
02:51:41 of operations. It covers various uh undercover police officers. Can we go to page three, please? It's dated the 13th of May 1999.
02:51:52 please? It's dated the 13th of May 1999. If we could have the text from officer down to the uh bottom
02:52:00 expanded, give you a moment to read the section about you. Okay.
02:52:11 Okay. First of all, is that accurate? Uh, I think so.
02:52:19 think so. Did you see it? Sorry. Which did I see? What? This document? Oh, no. Well, I don't remember seeing it. I don't see why it would have been shown to me. It's an office document. Were you involved in any way in the
02:52:30 Were you involved in any way in the process of creating this document? Um, I I don't know. Or informing its contents. Um, you would have meetings with the office from time to time. So, they they
02:52:41 office from time to time. So, they they would have taken content from those meetings. Was there any discussion with you about whether or not your deployment should continue to be authorized? No, I don't think it was ever in doubt.
02:52:58 In general, during the latter years of your reporting, were you ever involved in any review of whether or not your deployment should continue?
02:53:09 deployment should continue? No, it was No, it was never questioned. Can we take that down now, please? We're going to move to um the J18 event,
02:53:21 going to move to um the J18 event, Stop the City or Carnival Against Capitalism on the 18th of June, 1999. There is very extensive reporting from you leading up to this event. Can I take
02:53:34 you leading up to this event. Can I take it that you were a core organizer? Yes.
02:53:39 Yes. Uh, could we have up from C181 MPS01352?
02:53:53 This is a document uh based on intelligence dated the 28th of September 1998.
02:54:01 1998. It refers to the third um planning meeting for the international day of action.
02:54:10 action. Okay.
02:54:11 Okay. Could we look on page two please to the second block of text?
02:54:21 Give you a moment to read that.
02:54:33 Okay, the end of that paragraph says, "At the conclusion of the meeting, Privacy and Helen Steel held a private discussion regarding London Greenpeace's
02:54:44 discussion regarding London Greenpeace's experience of infiltration. How did you know about that private discussion?" Um, I don't know, but I presume from this that I was there. Are you able to help
02:54:55 that I was there. Are you able to help us with what was said? Um,
02:54:58 Um, no. But it might be easier if I know who the other person was. Is that on my list here?
02:55:03 here? Uh, we will come back. We will find out. I'm not sure. I'm not sure it's important, but it just might have joged my memory as to We'll find out and come back to that. Okay.
02:55:17 There was a plan to block the road, wasn't there? Uh yeah.
02:55:24 yeah. Uh what role did you play in preparing the plans to block up a temp street on the day?
02:55:30 the day? Um quite extensive. I think I was the transport manager for the um for the action. So um
02:55:40 um the plan was to block the road through having car crashes the same as at Brixton event. So cars would crash into each other and block the road. Um the idea then was that the traffic ahead
02:55:51 idea then was that the traffic ahead would flow through and cars coming the other way would crash to block it coming the other way. We would then blockade both ends of the road to take the space. Um I was I sort of I organized most of
02:56:05 Um I was I sort of I organized most of mo most aspects of it in terms of um liazing with the other people who were driving vehicles um putting together the sound system music truck or or liazing with that. I
02:56:18 music truck or or liazing with that. I think I was the treasurer for the event as well.
02:56:21 as well. Did your role as a transport manager mean that you recruited the other drivers?
02:56:27 drivers? Um I think I think I would have been the one who spoke to them. I think they may well have been nominated by the organizing group and then spoken to by whoever was most appropriate to speak to
02:56:38 whoever was most appropriate to speak to them. So if someone was a particular friend and said I think this person would be would be good then they might go and approach you. I certainly approached approached a couple of drivers
02:56:51 approached a couple of drivers and when you say the decision as to who should be the drivers was taken by the group that is a group including you discussing a subject for which you've been given specific responsibility.
02:57:02 been given specific responsibility. Yeah. Yeah. So in an organizing group somebody tends to spend more time doing publicity. Somebody will spend more time if it was a blockade working with the scaffolding crew. um somebody would be
02:57:15 scaffolding crew. um somebody would be responsible for putting the sound systems together. People tend to take different roles, but then everybody organizes it together and you've maybe got about eight people on the group. Uh we've had evidence from the member of
02:57:27 Uh we've had evidence from the member of the public we are calling GRD.
02:57:50 I don't think I've got that list, I'm afraid.
02:58:00 The third row down.
02:58:08 Oh, thank you. Oh, I see. Okay. Yeah. GRD's evidence to the inquiry was that you asked him to meet at his flat in
02:58:21 you asked him to meet at his flat in early June 1999 with two others and once there asked uh if they would be drivers. Um possibly.
02:58:33 Um possibly. Did you instruct the drivers what was expected of them on the day? Yes, that would have been part of my role. Did you take them on a reconnaissance? Um,
02:58:47 somebody would have it. Might well have been me.
02:58:51 been me. I certainly remember taking uh some of the sound system crew on a reconnaissance to see what where we were going to be. Did your managers know of your role and
02:59:04 Did your managers know of your role and activity in planning this event? Yes.
02:59:07 Yes. to that level of detail. Oh yes, completely. Yeah. Just to be clear, does that mean all all of your managers then, i.e.
02:59:18 of your managers then, i.e. HN58,
02:59:19 HN58, HN5? Well, that was your DCI, your DI, and the three Sergeant, Sergeant War, Greeny, and Titty. Um, no, I didn't I didn't really work with Sergeant Titty at all. He was a
02:59:31 with Sergeant Titty at all. He was a different area. I don't recall ever being briefed by him. I don't think I had anything to do with him. Um, but I I I it would have been
02:59:43 but I I I it would have been some of the other four at at at briefing meetings with me. And can we take it that DCI, your DCI and DI at the time would have known of
02:59:54 and DI at the time would have known of the extent of your involvement? Yeah. Yeah. What was their reaction? Um it would it would have been a tactical discussion around what was the best
03:00:07 best um the best course to take for me to take about what what the intelligence requirement was. Uh this involved blocking the road involved committing a criminal offense, didn't it?
03:00:18 didn't it? Um obstruction. Yeah.
03:00:21 Yeah. Uh it's a very minor criminal offense, but yes, it would involve highway obstruction. Did you seek or or were you granted authority to participate in the
03:00:33 authority to participate in the obstruction of the highway? Oh goodness me know that's such a minor a minor ranking offense that I don't think it would have even occurred to us to
03:00:42 to you'd be you'd do very well to participate in a reclaim the streets action and and not even be at risk of committing obstruction of the highway. It would be everything you were involved in
03:00:51 in just taken for granted that you do that. Yeah.
03:00:59 Can we have a look now please at 36294? This is your witness statement. And once we've got it up at page 155
03:01:19 and if we look at 381.4 the paragraph at the top. Give you a moment to refresh your memory. Yeah.
03:01:34 Yeah. Okay.
03:01:37 Uh the impression one gets from reading this is we've provided you with the reporting we've recovered. you've looked at it and your recollection is that on
03:01:48 at it and your recollection is that on top of the considerable detailed reporting that we have recovered, there was even more intelligence that you were providing about this event. Um, there's so many documents that I'm
03:02:01 Um, there's so many documents that I'm not sure which ones you've got, but sometimes it seems to me that there's there's other ones missing, but they may have been passed on verbally. So with this for instance, um
03:02:12 this for instance, um I remember taking care to get this absolutely spot on because it was such a big event. Um and I remember when I gave it to um HN52,
03:02:23 HN52, he immediately phoned part of it, but only part of it through to the desk officer, I think it was. And I'd assumed that all of the rest of it would have gone in also, but I I haven't seen any
03:02:36 gone in also, but I I haven't seen any evidence that it ever did. So, it may be that they just used it as a basis for verbal briefing, or it may be that it did go in and I just haven't seen it in the pile, or it may be that it went in and and it's now gone missing.
03:02:49 In RTS's own
03:02:53 minutes and the minutes of other groups, any other groups involved, did they give away much detail of what was being planned or did you get most of that
03:03:04 planned or did you get most of that through discussion as part of the core group?
03:03:07 group? I'm not sure what you mean by minutes. Well, we've we've seen in some of the reports that are of meetings are attached. What I really want to know is can you recall whether they were essentially quite sanitized documents?
03:03:19 essentially quite sanitized documents? There was nothing of great interest in they they were ironically very um security conscious. They wouldn't write down anything specific. They didn't speak on the phone. Um that was why the
03:03:32 speak on the phone. Um that was why the only way of getting this sort of detail which is what you needed for the basis of the policing plan on such a large scale event as this would be this form of of reporting which is why I was
03:03:43 of of reporting which is why I was careful. I mean usually you'd verbally brief your handler but with something like this in order to make sure it was absolutely spoton I remember writing it down and giving it to him in a written form for him to type up. But whether it
03:03:54 form for him to type up. But whether it got typed up in that form or just passed on verbally or what happened to it I I I don't know. But one way or another, you were all over this reporting. It was all submitted to to to that officer.
03:04:05 officer. Considerable detail completely. We've touched on your role as a transport manager, your role as treasurer. Were you involved in financing or approving the financing of
03:04:18 financing or approving the financing of hiring equipment for this event? Yes.
03:04:21 Yes. Things like buying the cars? Yes.
03:04:23 Yes. Hiring the sound system. Yeah.
03:04:25 Yeah. What else? um other equipment that was needed for it. So, uh I mean I wouldn't necessarily have been there when the truck was hired for instance, but we would cover the cost.
03:04:37 instance, but we would cover the cost. Um I I think I kept a list of of the expenditure and I think it was about £13,000 for this one event. It was a lot of
03:04:48 for this one event. It was a lot of money. Um, also some of it went on, for instance, there was a we had another truckload of equipment that was intended to use for actions at the futures exchange
03:04:59 exchange um by bricking it up. We had equipment to open up the um the water manes um to create flooding and a and a pool
03:05:10 um to create flooding and a and a pool and then to use that water for bricking up the futures exchange. Um there was other aspects things like a a pirate radio station that was set up for the activists for the day. There was a squat
03:05:21 activists for the day. There was a squat for afterwards. There was all sorts of stuff.
03:05:25 stuff. And did that involve also the preparation of mass funding of masks for distribution. There was masks distributed amongst the crowd. Um there was also smaller sound systems used to uh move the crowd uh
03:05:39 systems used to uh move the crowd uh because the crowd met at Liverpool Street. So we needed to move them down to the venue. Um yeah, just just lots and lot big events like this. There's a huge amount of stuff. And you you mentioned um materials to
03:05:51 And you you mentioned um materials to brick up Yeah. a building. So that things like breeze blocks, power tools, cement, ladders. Yeah, there was a angle grinder. I think we needed to take off one of the one of the gates to gain access.
03:06:03 the gates to gain access. Um lots of stuff. And in practice as a treasurer, what does it actually mean in relation to this expenditure? Are you deciding whether or not it happens?
03:06:15 whether or not it happens? No. And and I think that was part of the reason I ended up being the treasurer because was because I I only sort of proceeded by consensus on it. So they had a principal
03:06:26 had a principal funer who was a very rich activist within the group. Most of the money was passed to me in cash form from him. Sometimes we got donations uh and we
03:06:38 Sometimes we got donations uh and we actually had a bank account because people would send checks payable to reclaim the streets. Um Chamber the the group sent us money people like that. So we needed to be able to access that. Um
03:06:49 we needed to be able to access that. Um but for the expenditure I would put all of it through the organizing group. I didn't make decisions on any of it myself. I put all of it through the organizing group.
03:07:01 When you talk about the decision making, are you essentially explaining
03:07:09 consensual decision-m that was normal in the sort of groups that you were infiltrating? Yes. in anarchist groups try to proceed on all things by a consensus driven uh model.
03:07:21 model. And uh
03:07:24 And uh as a treasurer you would express views when that consensus was being arrived at?
03:07:30 at? Absolutely. Did you try and influence the direction of the planning in any way to make it more palatable to the police?
03:07:42 more palatable to the police? I don't think that was possible on this event. it was too big and too complicated.
03:07:48 I I certainly would have always been looking for um I would always be looking for a way in which I thought the activists would be given the opportunity to at least snatch a draw
03:08:01 snatch a draw if that makes sense. And I remember that phrase being used. Can you explain further what you mean by that? It
03:08:08 that? It it's not our intention. It's not the intention of special branch to crush reclaim the streets or oppose them. It is our intention to gain full
03:08:19 them. It is our intention to gain full sight of what they're doing in order to provide accurate intelligence in this detail to form the basis for the policing plan and I guess ultimately the greater glory of special branch management up at the yard. It's not our
03:08:32 management up at the yard. It's not our intention to arrest organizers, to prosecute organizers. Um, it's simply our intention to gain full coverage over what they're what they're doing. Once we've gained full
03:08:43 they're doing. Once we've gained full coverage of what what they're doing and we can see it all and we can provide a stream of reporting on that, that's that's game over for us. We'll just sit in that position indefinitely. We we don't want to
03:08:54 don't want to destroy them. In fact, quite the opposite. Having put so much work into getting that sort of access, the irony is that we would want them to flourish. Can that really be right? Yeah, it's
03:09:06 Can that really be right? Yeah, it's very it's very right. I'm afraid if their events if their events are leading frequently to public disorder. I'm afraid it is. And it's um
03:09:18 I'm afraid it is. And it's um it was a cliche I was told about SDS when I was still in the back office that people noticed that once SDS become heavily involved in groups they tend to flourish.
03:09:30 was why was that? Because of this ability of special branch to um manage the policing of their events better. I mean if you
03:09:42 their events better. I mean if you compare it to the approach that we saw yesterday from C1 of harassing activists in order to sort of suppress them as a group um this way seemed to work much
03:09:53 group um this way seemed to work much better. Um but it did mean that that groups up to a certain point obviously um would be allowed to have have free reign provided that we were able to
03:10:04 reign provided that we were able to provide that intelligence brief. Was it because undercover officers were becoming involved in the running of groups as as you were? Yeah, sure. Sure.
03:10:15 Yeah, sure. Sure. Can we come to events on the day? Did you drive one of the vehicles on the day?
03:10:23 day? Yes. And you deliberately crashed it? Yes.
03:10:27 Yes. And left it blocking the highway? Yeah.
03:10:31 Yeah. Did you leave it with the window open? Uh, yes.
03:10:34 Uh, yes. Was that deliberate? I'm I'm afraid not. No.
03:10:39 Can you help us uh in general terms with what happens next of the whole event? Yeah. In in broad terms and what I'm interested in is essentially crime and
03:10:51 interested in is essentially crime and disorder.
03:10:52 disorder. Okay. Um
03:10:55 Okay. Um so the action went off largely as planned.
03:10:59 planned. Um then there was a number of people on the action forced their way into the futures exchange and uh there was fighting between the activists and the security that continued up the
03:11:12 security that continued up the escalators and then the activists tried to get into the trading hall. I wasn't present then. I can't really say what happened beyond that point. Um the main event, this part of it sort of went went
03:11:25 event, this part of it sort of went went okay. Um they were confined within this area by police. Um at one point uh I can't remember what
03:11:37 at one point uh I can't remember what provoked it, but it it possibly the police trying to get to the futures exchange to stop the people who were trying to storm onto the trading floor that it it it did become quite violent.
03:11:48 that it it it did become quite violent. Did you did you personally witness any of that?
03:11:51 of that? Yeah.
03:11:51 Yeah. And can you describe the sort of acts of violence that you witnessed? Um
03:11:59 missiles. I mean the there was punches and violence within the building on the on the escalators. I don't know what it was like on the floor. Um
03:12:10 was like on the floor. Um these I don't think these were none of the organizers were involved in in this. Um, and then I remember that that riot police deployed from from the city
03:12:23 from from the city when
03:12:24 when I think it it got much worse as it went on because I remember there was building set I set a light and all sorts later on.
03:12:31 on. Let's take it a step at a time. Okay.
03:12:33 Okay. Staying with the lifeb building. Um, you've mentioned security. So this is activists fighting with security guards. Yeah.
03:12:43 Yeah. Anybody else? I I don't remember anybody else. I'm not I mean these are big events. You don't have a a panoramic view of it. You're stuck in a crowd. And
03:12:54 stuck in a crowd. And I understand. I'm I'm just interested in what you can tell us from your personal experience. Can you without naming names tell us whether the people who were involved in
03:13:07 whether the people who were involved in violence forcing their way into and through the life building were from any particular group? Uh were you able to tell?
03:13:16 tell? No. No.
03:13:18 No. No. There was all sorts of groups on this. Were people wearing masks? Uh yes.
03:13:23 Uh yes. Were some of those the masks that had been prepared by RTS? Yes.
03:13:28 Yes. Did those masks have instructions on them? Yes. And what was the gist of the instructions or the purpose? The idea of it was that a it would fox
03:13:39 The idea of it was that a it would fox the police because the whole uh demo would be wearing masks. The instructions were um about how we wanted the crowd to move from Liverpool Street to the venue
03:13:51 move from Liverpool Street to the venue uh which we wanted them to do by several different routes simultaneously so that the police wouldn't be able to kettle the crowd. Um so they moved from about four different routes with leaders that we had appointed with small sound
03:14:02 we had appointed with small sound systems and um big costumes and such like to get the crowd through to where we wanted them to be. Um the instructions about following the crowd were written on the inside of the masks.
03:14:17 Could we move from the life building and could you tell us what other violence and disorder you personally witnessed on the day? Um
03:14:27 well it deteriorated into a lot of missile throwing. I do remember seeing a mounted officer being pulled off of her horse by the crowd. Um there was a lot of yeah a lot of
03:14:39 Um there was a lot of yeah a lot of missile throwing riot police started coming in and those of us that were stood together that had been the organizers decided this might be a good time to leave because if you're known to be an organizer the last thing you want
03:14:50 be an organizer the last thing you want is to be seen to be at the front when it's all kicking off. So we decided to leave but I remember that the police had already kettled the crowd in to some extent and and it was a difficult it was difficult to get out.
03:15:02 difficult to get out. Um
03:15:04 Um I think eventually we got we did manage to get out and we went over to the other side of the bridge where you could see there was a p of smoke over the city and some of the buildings seemed to be burning.
03:15:16 burning. So did you personally witness the riot police deploying? Uh yeah, I saw some white police from the city being deployed. That wasn't the Met that the Met had the Met couldn't come in until they were invited in by the city police.
03:15:29 they were invited in by the city police. Did you see the Met Riot Police deploy? Um they were deployed, but I can't remember at what point that was. But it was it was slightly odd because the um
03:15:42 was it was slightly odd because the um the Met Police appeared to have been fully briefed and they were all sat right on the other side of the of the river ready to come into that specific area and then they weren't called in. And even when we when we left the scene,
03:15:53 And even when we when we left the scene, we walked past dozens of police carriers sat there with with police officers in waiting for permission to go and to go and uh sort it out, I think. But so the
03:16:04 and uh sort it out, I think. But so the City of London police were trying to deal with it on their own because they didn't want to lose primacy for events in the city, I think. And it was only when it was completely out of control that they conceded that they would have to call in help.
03:16:19 Going back to the life building and the construction materials, u what was actually done with those on the day?
03:16:27 the day? Um they they were used to build a wall outside the entrance to the futures exchange. um using breeze blocks and uh and concrete and water from the water manes that we had opened. And
03:16:39 manes that we had opened. And was this a wall blocking the entrance or was it a wall blocking access to the entrance? If you see the difference, um I I I couldn't be specific as to how
03:16:51 um I I I couldn't be specific as to how close to the entrance it was. I remember it was it was fairly ineffective because breeze blocks had been placed on the side rather than upright. So we ran out of they ran out of breeze blocks before it got too high. Was it purpose symbolic
03:17:04 it got too high. Was it purpose symbolic or did it have some purpose some other purpose?
03:17:08 purpose? I think both. A symbolic action can also be be a practical one. Was it sometimes something which is intended by the activists as a joke from their point of view can seem quite
03:17:20 their point of view can seem quite aggressive from somebody else's point of view.
03:17:22 view. What was its practical consequence? Um
03:17:26 Um well I I've already said I can't remember whether it blocked the door to the extent that people couldn't get in. Uh, was
03:17:33 Uh, was I didn't I didn't build the wall. I just remember seeing it there. So, just to put it just so we're clear, was it being used as a barricade from which to resist the police?
03:17:44 to resist the police? No. No. No. The the the cars were were used as the barricade from which to resist.
03:17:49 resist. Did you see uh anyone smash CCTVs? Um, did I see I remember they were smashed. Did I see them smashing or did I just become aware of it? I I don't
03:18:01 I just become aware of it? I I don't remember seeing them smashing. But they were smashed. They were smashed and I might even have seen it. I don't remember seeing that specifically. Did blocking the highway facilitate the disorder?
03:18:12 facilitate the disorder? Yeah, of course. Yeah. And was that the intention? Um
03:18:20 I I think the attitude of the organizing group that I was on was it was well put by somebody. They said something along the lines of we we don't um create the disorder. We just create
03:18:32 um create the disorder. We just create circumstances in which the crowd can express itself. I I think that's probably a good way of putting it. There was we were not at all unhappy and the organizers would not be at all unhappy to see to see it kick off
03:18:45 at all unhappy to see to see it kick off in this way. Even if that wasn't the intention of the of the event, the only real sin is if nothing happens. So long as there's a big event and everybody's talking about it, you're sort of 90% of
03:18:56 talking about it, you're sort of 90% of the way to what's being viewed as a successful action. You've described what amounts to some dysfunction and lack of coordination in the police
03:19:08 lack of coordination in the police response
03:19:09 response to this event. Uh notwithstanding your considerable detailed intelligence, were you told anything about why there
03:19:21 were you told anything about why there wasn't a greater police presence in around the life building and why police reinforcements did not arrive? Yeah, I I
03:19:33 reinforcements did not arrive? Yeah, I I was told um that the Met had offered an in a detailed briefing to City of London Police and it had been declined. Um the City of London police said they
03:19:45 Um the City of London police said they had their own uh intelligence sources and they didn't need the Met's input. I I don't know if that's correct. I was that's what I was told had happened. Um so the Met basically took their ball and went home with it and left them to get
03:19:57 went home with it and left them to get on with it. But when we saw their intelligence briefing, it was nonsense. they made contact with some small group of students and seemed to think that they were organizing the event. Um so but they they never took the uh they
03:20:08 but they they never took the uh they never took the opportunity to have the Mets briefing and then they were very very slow to allow the Met into their area which was their prerogative and consequently um responsibility for
03:20:20 consequently um responsibility for policing events in the city was taken away from them and given to the Met shortly afterwards which I think the Met senior management would probably have regarded as a win. without being well being careful about
03:20:32 without being well being careful about anonymity. Who told you that? Um
03:20:39 I I can't we had a debriefing with probably with um the people you've you've discussed. So the DCI, the DI, the DS, we had we had a debriefing and I think it would have just been discussed at that.
03:20:51 at that. Were you involved after the event in trying to identify offenders or suspect suspected offenders? Yes, sometimes they would send out the police gazette photos or whatever and ask me if I if I knew
03:21:03 or whatever and ask me if I if I knew anybody on them. Did that uh happen after this event? Um I I don't remember, but it might have done.
03:21:11 done. Could we have up from C227 MPS 3024 please?
03:21:25 This is dated the 1st of July 1999. Um RTS meeting 29th of June 99. If we expand the text,
03:21:36 expand the text, give you a chance to read that. Uh but it it records some concern about the possibility of further arrests as police
03:21:47 possibility of further arrests as police view video footage from the day. Yeah. Can you recall whether you were shown any video footage um to try and identify
03:21:59 any video footage um to try and identify offenders from the day? I don't think I was shown video footage. I might have been shown stills from it. Um
03:22:07 Um I Yeah, I think I think I probably would have been I'd be surprised if I wasn't. without um giving any names. Did you identify any suspects when doing
03:22:20 Did you identify any suspects when doing that?
03:22:22 that? I'm not sure if it was for this event or not, but there was a a couple of occasions around this time when people involved in the disorder were known to me. Yeah.
03:22:31 me. Yeah. Could we have up C263 MPS302712?
03:22:44 And if we Oh, there you go. Yeah. Okay. Could you Can you see that or would you like it?
03:22:49 like it? No, I can see it fine.
03:22:58 Okay. This reads as if you have seen a photograph and are providing some very specific identifying uh details about a suspect. Yes.
03:23:11 uh details about a suspect. Yes. Is that the correct reading of that document?
03:23:13 document? Yes.
03:23:17 Without naming any names, can you tell us whether or not you know anybody was actually convicted on the basis of your identifications? No, I
03:23:28 basis of your identifications? No, I wouldn't have known. This would have been the end of my involvement with it. There was a prosecution for organizing an illegal procession. Were you involved in any way in those
03:23:40 Were you involved in any way in those proceedings? No.
03:23:43 No. Do you know whether your involvement as an organizer was disclosed to the prosecution or to the court? I I don't think I was aware of those proceedings unless they were the proceedings against the person who funded it. Is that a different thing?
03:23:58 I need your evidence. Okay. So, I I I don't know. I remember there was um a court case relating to the person that had funded the event, although it was not the court case was
03:24:11 although it was not the court case was not in relation to his funding of it. Um if that's what you're you're talking about, then I that's the only case I can think of that came out of it. Um it would help if you tell me that I'm
03:24:22 would help if you tell me that I'm talking about the right case before we go on. If you take down that document uh please could we have up uh from 38295
03:24:37 page 229.
03:24:48 This is the reclaim the streets witness statement in this inquiry's proceedings.
03:25:00 page 229.
03:25:04 The document only goes to 209.
03:25:10 It's paragraph 15.6.20.
03:25:17 If you if that's going to be difficult, it might be easier to adjourn. I think you've given the wrong number for the document. May we uh pick this up after lunch? Certainly. We'll resume it, too. Oh,
03:25:29 Certainly. We'll resume it, too. Oh, that's it.