HN3 (cover name 'Jason Bishop'), an SDS undercover officer deployed against environmental and anti-capitalist activists (Reclaim the Streets, J18, N30) from 1998, gives evidence remotely by video link on Day 7 of Tranche 3 Phase 2. The morning session covers his recruitment and the absence of any formal training, SDS culture around sexual relationships - the tradecraft manual, fellow officers' undisclosed relationships, and DCI Mike Dell's later injunction to cease them - his cover employment as a DVD and software pirate, and his intelligence-gathering on activists, including reporting on Helen Steel's efforts to trace John Dines.
00:24:17 Can I distribute the document?
00:24:24 No, I I simply don't understand. I I I want to be informed. Um I would like to be informed of the reason for this proposed order. Yeah.
00:24:35 Yeah. Um, shall I rise while I'm informed or? Yes, sir. I I mean, I am clueless. I'm afraid. I'm sorry that I can't assess. Yes. I'm afraid there's a bit of momentary hiccup. It won't last long.
00:24:46 momentary hiccup. It won't last long. We'll pause while it does.
00:25:15 I think that [snorts]
00:33:12 is our witness going to come back onto the screen. I would hope so. I'm here, sir. Good. Um, there is no restriction on
00:33:23 Good. Um, there is no restriction on anything that has occurred up to now. Thank you, sir. HN3, apologies for the interruption. No, my apologies if I said something
00:33:34 No, my apologies if I said something like
00:33:34 like No, no, it's not your fault. Entirely not your fault. So, we've explored the conversation with Bob Lambert. Moving on now to a
00:33:45 Bob Lambert. Moving on now to a conversation that you say you had with Andrew Coohl's. Did that happen after the meeting with Bob Lambert at Army and Navy stores?
00:33:59 Bob Lambert at Army and Navy stores? I believe so. My recollection is that Bob would have suggested somebody or a couple of people to go and talk to uh in a bit more detail. And I do uh I do
00:34:13 a bit more detail. And I do uh I do recall um going having meeting with with with Andy Coos. Yes.
00:34:21 Can you help us with what he told you about the SDS at that meeting? Uh, only in very high level terms. I
00:34:32 Uh, only in very high level terms. I think my recollection is he reiterated that we had a unit, how long it had been in existence, the type of thematic areas it covered, um you would be expected to be away from
00:34:44 um you would be expected to be away from home and
00:34:47 home and uh also that once you've finished your tour on the unit that you would stay with a special branch. That that's the best of my recollection, I'm afraid. Um,
00:34:58 best of my recollection, I'm afraid. Um, you refer in your witness statement to his giving you a fairly broad overview of what it was like to be a UCO in the animal rights field,
00:35:09 animal rights field, which suggests that he was a little bit more specific and that he was talking about animal rights deployments. Does that chime with your recollection? I think it does because I
00:35:22 recollection? I think it does because I have a memory of me being possibly deployed to animal rights, which is why I think they sent me to see Andy. There was a it wasn't specific where I was going to
00:35:34 it wasn't specific where I was going to be deployed until much much later. But there was a suggestion that you might be
00:35:39 might be Yes, that's correct. Hence, Right. I understand. Did he say anything to you during that conversation about an animal rights deployment being what is called a
00:35:50 deployment being what is called a lifestyle deployment? I
00:35:53 I I don't recall that. Did he say anything to you about the impact of SDS deployment on family life? [snorts]
00:36:03 [snorts] probably in broad terms that would have been that that would be my my understanding that you were away from home
00:36:10 home in your H witness witness statement HN3. Um
00:36:16 Um I'll get again we don't need to bring it up but I'll I'll just set it out for the transcript. This is MPS0734456
00:36:25 page three paragraph 3. And you say in this that you recalled that Andy Cole stated that the SDS preferred BS in stable relationships.
00:36:39 preferred BS in stable relationships. Do you recall that? I I've heard that said many time and and read it subsequently since. But if I've said that then then that must be that must be accurate. [snorts]
00:36:50 must be accurate. [snorts] Can you recall HN3 why he said or rather whether he gave you an explanation as to why the SDS preferred men in stable relationships?
00:37:02 relationships? I don't recall what he said but my I can explain my understanding if that would help.
00:37:07 help. Yes. Uh my understanding was that uh if you're in a stable relationship, you would um
00:37:14 would um you would
00:37:16 you would have a kind of sound grounding and uh return home rather than living full-time in your cover identity. That was my understanding. Did it have anything to do with being
00:37:27 Did it have anything to do with being less tempted to have a sexual relationship when you were deployed? As far as you understood it? Not as far as I understood. No. During this conversation with Andy Kohl's, did he say anything to you about
00:37:41 Kohl's, did he say anything to you about sexual relationships? Similar to his well, one of the extracts he wrote in the Trade Craft Manual about sexual relationships being inevitable and
00:37:52 relationships being inevitable and inevitably you'd have to undertake one in order to prevent compromise or exposure.
00:37:59 exposure. No, I have no recollection of that. Did he say anything at all? Any hints? anything about the fact that he himself had had a sexual relationship undercover or to suggest that he had?
00:38:10 or to suggest that he had? No.
00:38:12 No. Moving on now, HN3, to the next stage of the recruitment process, uh, the home visit,
00:38:19 visit, which I understand from your witness statement took place around early February 1998. Does that sound right? Uh, that sounds about right
00:38:31 Uh, that sounds about right in your witness statement. Uh, no. Apologies. This is another document. So again, we don't need to bring it up. Just for the transcript, MPS0726937,
00:38:41 that's B27. There's a reference to DCI HN58 and DI Lambert coming around to your house and meeting your wife to
00:38:52 your house and meeting your wife to explain the domestic impact of SDS duties.
00:38:56 duties. Do you want to bring that up? Do you want to refer to that? H3 uh the document. Yeah. I mean, I don't think you need to. It's just a glance. It's a reference to the fact that DI
00:39:07 It's a reference to the fact that DI DCIHN58 and DI Lambert came around to your house. No, no, I'm just seeing who HM58 is. Yes. Yes, that's that's that's correct. Um, and you say that this account that
00:39:20 Um, and you say that this account that this is what they did when they came around to your house is reasonably accurate.
00:39:27 Can you help us H&M3 with what did they say to you about the domestic impact of SCS duties
00:39:36 to the best of your recollection? Uh that it would be fairly tough. You'd be away for extended periods of time. Um that my partner, my wife would need to um
00:39:47 um rely on her support network. Uh there would be people there for her to contact should she need to from the office and I would be looked after post deployment.
00:39:59 would be looked after post deployment. That's the best I can do I'm afraid. Um did they give her a number to call if she needed to speak to someone in the office?
00:40:07 office? I think they mentioned that but I don't believe they left a number there at that time. No.
00:40:10 time. No. As far as you know, did they ever give her a number to call? No.
00:40:15 No. Do you know why that was? No. Um, no. I don't know. Was it ever the case that she wanted to contact the office as far as you know,
00:40:26 contact the office as far as you know, but was unable? No.
00:40:35 Were you told anything at this stage? Were you and your wife told anything about again the type of deployment you'd be having, the kind of field you'd be targeted towards?
00:40:47 targeted towards? I don't believe so at that whole visit that
00:40:51 that was the need for secrecy impressed upon you and your wife at this meeting. Yes, very much so. Can you recall what they said about that?
00:41:01 that? Uh
00:41:04 to go back one step to the early meeting with Bob Lambert, I think he he said that if I told anyone that I was even in the process, then that would preclude me. So, but that's the kind of level of
00:41:16 me. So, but that's the kind of level of secrecy, but I don't recall what specifically they said um at the home visit meeting, I'm afraid. Uh you don't recall Does it follow from that? You don't recall them saying anything specifically to your wife about
00:41:27 anything specifically to your wife about the need for secrecy? No, I have no recollection.
00:41:34 What if anything were you told on this home visit about the likely length of your deployment?
00:41:42 I think they would have generalized 3 to five years, I believe. That's my recollection. Okay. And you referred HM3 to the
00:41:54 Okay. And you referred HM3 to the officer saying your wife would need to rely on her support network. Did they seek to ascertain what sort of a support network she had?
00:42:05 I can't remember, I'm afraid.
00:42:10 How did your wife feel about your joining the unit after this meeting? Uh, she was very supportive. Did she have any concerns as far as you could tell?
00:42:23 No.
00:42:30 Did SDS managers ever visit your home address again after that initial visit? Never. for the entire duration of your deployment.
00:42:41 deployment. That's correct. Did they ever, to the best of your recollection, ever broach the possibility of coming around to see you? Was that ever raised?
00:42:54 No, I don't believe so. But just to put it in context, um my cover officer frequently asked how she was and
00:43:05 frequently asked how she was and uh knew her first name and yeah, frequently asked after her. Your cover officer, do you do you mean Bernard Greeny? Yes. Yes.
00:43:13 Yes. Yes. Yes. Um just for the avoidance of doubt, HN3, I just want to bring up a document if we could bring up please MPS 00065136
00:43:24 B98. It's page nine
00:43:32 um under the heading psychological risks. This is a document. It's right towards the end of your deployment. So I'm jumping ahead a bit here. It's dated the 18th of November 2005. It's a RIPER
00:43:45 the 18th of November 2005. It's a RIPER authorization for a CHIZ. And the relevant section reads under psychological risks. It says I'm just skipping forward a bit. The officer is actively
00:43:57 actively engaged in preparations for his new post. It says he has the full support of his family and has an extensive circle of friends. He Oh, no. Hang on. Sorry. Is this page nine?
00:44:14 Yeah. Apologies. Um
00:44:21 I can't It's the slightly the wrong bit. I can read out the bit that I'm referring to. Maybe it's on a different page. It's
00:44:31 Yeah, sorry. If we could just bring up the next one.
00:44:36 Apologies. I think I've got the wrong reference, but there's a reference in this. I will bring up the correct one in due course, but to the fact it's written by uh
00:44:46 by uh DI in the unit uh HN72. if you want to remind yourself who that is.
00:44:56 And he wrote in this authorization that regular contact is maintained with the officer's partner to ensure that they fully understand the support network available to them and the officer.
00:45:08 available to them and the officer. Visits to the officer's home address take place on a number of occasions throughout the year to reinforce that provision of welfare. It seems from what
00:45:20 It seems from what you said previously, HN3, that that is incorrect. Is that right? Yes. I don't recognize that. Do you have any idea why HN72 might have been under the impression that regular
00:45:32 been under the impression that regular visits were taking place? I'm sorry, I can't help you. Moving now, HN3, to the indepth interview that you had as part of your
00:45:44 interview that you had as part of your recruitment process. Uh we understand from the documents this took place on the 25th of November 1997.
00:45:53 Uh you refer in your Hearn witness statement to uh a boardlike meeting which was more formal and that it
00:46:06 which was more formal and that it featured HN58
00:46:10 DCI HN58. Yes. Uh, Noel War. Yes.
00:46:17 Yes. Bob Lambert. Yeah.
00:46:21 Yeah. An HN53.
00:46:24 An HN53. Does that sound right? Not 53, I don't believe. No, apologies. Yes, he wouldn't have been imposed then. [snorts] Um, you say that this consisted of non-stop
00:46:37 you say that this consisted of non-stop scenarios
00:46:38 scenarios being presented to you. Does that sound right?
00:46:41 right? I think it does. Yes, that I recall it.
00:46:46 If we could um have a look please at MPS quadruple0919
00:46:55 B26 it's page 8 five paragraphs down. So this just by way of explanation HN3 this seems to set
00:47:06 way of explanation HN3 this seems to set out the type of scenarios that you were presented with. If you want to just have a quick look. I'm afraid I can't see anything. Oh, I can The screen's blank except myself.
00:47:17 I can The screen's blank except myself. Oh, dear.
00:47:20 Um, well,
00:47:23 well, oh, there we go. Yeah. Has it come up? Perfect. Thank you. Okay. So, five, if you just look five paragraphs down where it says the bit I'm interested in is where it says explore moral code,
00:47:35 explore moral code, reporting on friends for the greater good of organization. Can you see that bit? HN3. Yes. Yes. Yes, I can. Yes. Yes.
00:47:46 Yes. Yes. Yes, I can. Yes. Yes. I mean, I appreciate it. This took place a long time ago, but can you recall, HM3, how your moral code, as it's described there, was explored in this interview?
00:48:00 I'm afraid I can't. Can you recall at all how you did feel or how you told SDS managers you would
00:48:11 or how you told SDS managers you would feel about reporting on friends for the greater good of organization? I unless there's a there's unless there's a document or anything you can help me with. I I can't recall that. So
00:48:22 help me with. I I can't recall that. So I'm afraid. Do you recall it having any feelings about this at the time? About that topic in particular? Yeah. No, I I No, not not at that time.
00:48:34 Yeah. No, I I No, not not at that time. I don't think I quite realized what I was about to embark on. Understood.
00:48:43 Now, there's nothing in this document to suggest that there was, but to the best of your recollection, were were there any scenarios in this interview that related to avoiding
00:48:54 interview that related to avoiding sexual relationships while deployed or
00:48:59 or dealing with an approach, a sexual approach?
00:49:04 approach? I don't recall. So the the only uh the only scenario I recall is a is a drugs one. I'm afraid that's all I can remember from that early days. And what can you recall about that HN3
00:49:16 And what can you recall about that HN3 just briefly? Uh they asked me if I was offered drugs what would I do? I said I would take it which caused them all to laugh. That's why I can remember that.
00:49:30 And why would you take it? Why was that your answer? I was probably being a bit flippant, but I uh I said I I I think I I've got recollection saying that I was
00:49:41 I've got recollection saying that I was being asked questions that I didn't know what was allowed and what wasn't allowed.
00:49:44 allowed. Yeah.
00:49:45 Yeah. And they said, "That's fine. Just tell me what I would do." So, I kind of said, "Well, if you that's the best I can recall from that time."
00:49:58 Sometime after this interview, Bob Lambert told you you'd been accepted. And you say again in your Hearn interview
00:50:09 interview that you were pleased from an ego perspective and also that your wife was pleased.
00:50:16 pleased. Why was your wife pleased? Was it just because it was a career achievement? A feather in your I think that's correct. Yes. Moving now to training. You say in your
00:50:28 Moving now to training. You say in your witness statement at paragraph 22 that there was no formal training course and that well the the inference is that
00:50:40 and that well the the inference is that it was very informal. Is that fair to say?
00:50:44 say? Yes. There was no formal training course.
00:50:47 course. And training such as it was consisted largely of talking to other undercover officers. Is that accurate? Exactly.
00:50:58 You also refer in your witness statement HN3 to a type of cautionary tale that was imparted about a UCO unthinkingly
00:51:09 was imparted about a UCO unthinkingly identifying to other activists an activist who he recognized through having looked at his photograph in a file. Do you recall that? I do indeed. Um,
00:51:21 I do indeed. Um, was this the type of training was was this an aspect of the training? This sort of relaying of cautionary tales of close shaves that other officers had had being passed down from officer to
00:51:33 being passed down from officer to officer.
00:51:35 officer. Yes, that's that's a fair assessment.
00:51:39 You also refer in your witness statement, paragraph 22B, to there being one of these nuggets of advice, for one of a better word, that there was an
00:51:50 of a better word, that there was an absolute prohibition on carrying anything in your real name.
00:51:57 Can you recall whether that related to an incident in which Mark Jenner's bank card
00:52:08 card was found by a woman called we are calling Allison.
00:52:16 I don't know if I knew that that event had taken place at the time. Clearly subsequently I'm aware of that. But I suspect that's what they were referring
00:52:27 suspect that's what they were referring to in general terms. But you're saying that it wasn't explicitly referred to in those terms, that this is something that happened to Mark Jenner. I I didn't know that happened to Mark until years later. But that the scenario
00:52:39 until years later. But that the scenario that you're describing is accurate. Yes. So even though Mark Jenner was in the STS at that time, no link made to him. Not that I recall.
00:52:54 You say in your witness statement you believe you spoke to all of the deployed UCOs before you deployed. That's a paragraph 23. If we take them in turn, the open
00:53:05 If we take them in turn, the open officers,
00:53:07 officers, uh Jim Boiling. Yes.
00:53:09 Yes. Uh you say that you were following him into the field and you consulted with him most frequently [laughter]
00:53:19 when you were in the back office. HN3. We know now that Jim Boing was engaged in his second sexual relationship undertaken in his cover identity. Were you aware of that at the time?
00:53:32 you aware of that at the time? No.
00:53:35 Um, I'd like to bring this up, please. This is Jim Boing's witness statement. It's UCPI 36294.
00:53:45 It's A1, sir, but in H14's bundle. Uh it's paragraph page 18 paragraph 37 please.
00:53:54 please. So this is H this is Jim Boiling's account of his period in the back office. An aspect of his period in the back office. He says I remember HN1 was
00:54:05 back office. He says I remember HN1 was particularly candid because he was my field mentor. I over overlapped slightly with HN1.
00:54:11 with HN1. Who have you had do you know? Can you remind yourself who HN1 is? Please don't say his name. Yes. I I I can't remember. I over overlapped slightly with HM1 who ceased deployment I think sometime in
00:54:22 ceased deployment I think sometime in 1996.
00:54:24 1996. He had been in a relationship when deployed and discussed this with me. Sorry, it's paragraph 37. Sorry. Um
00:54:39 and he discussed this with me. I remember him saying words to the effect of that as an undercover, you were never going to break through the glass ceiling of acceptance. You were never going to get the acceptance of the inner circle
00:54:50 get the acceptance of the inner circle unless they had confidence in you. And this would not be forthcoming if you were perceived to be a single man living alone. Confidence could come from seeing you in a relationship with a fellow
00:55:01 you in a relationship with a fellow activist. This discussion with HM1 was pre my deployment when in the back office and in the early months of my deployment. This was similar to discussions with other previously deployed and currently deployed
00:55:13 deployed and currently deployed undercovers. It was not considered to be a major issue as it now is. Did he pass this advice on to you, HN3? No, I have no recollection of it.
00:55:29 Did Jim Boing say anything to you at all before you deployed on the topic of sexual relationships with activists? Well, it's deployed. No, I have no recollection of that.
00:55:42 No, I have no recollection of that. His comment that it was not considered to be a major issue as it now is. Is that accurate as far as you're aware?
00:55:51 aware? Sorry. Can you explain? I don't understand. Sorry. Sorry. the la it's the last bit of the quote that I read out and he said that the matter of having sexual relationships with activists while
00:56:02 relationships with activists while undercover he said it was not considered to be a major issue as it now is. Is that correct? I'm not sure I'd draw the distinction
00:56:13 I'm not sure I'd draw the distinction between the then and the now, but um if it helps,
00:56:17 it helps, I don't recall speaking to Jim about relationships. But specifically, would you agree with his comment that at that time the fact of having a sexual relationship
00:56:29 the fact of having a sexual relationship with an activist was not considered a big deal?
00:56:33 big deal? Not a major issue. No, I would disagree.
00:56:39 looking at HN26, HN3, if you want to remind yourself who she is.
00:56:45 she is. Yeah.
00:56:46 Yeah. Yeah. Uh she had an animal rights deployment. You say in your witness statement you visited her at home. I did.
00:56:53 I did. Yeah.
00:56:56 Yeah. At the time you were in the back office, she also was having a sexual relationship with an activist. Were you aware of that at the time? No.
00:57:06 No. Did she say anything to you before you deployed about having sexual relationships, avoiding sexual relationships? No.
00:57:16 HN15 M Jenner, he had a left-wing deployment, social justice groups. He too was engaged in a well, he was in a long-term sexual
00:57:28 well, he was in a long-term sexual relationship when you were in the back office. Were you aware of that at the time?
00:57:32 time? No, I was. Did he say anything to you before you deployed about sexual relationships, having them, how to avoid them?
00:57:40 them? No.
00:57:41 No. HN16 James Thompson, he had an animal rights deployment. He started his first sexual relationship not long after you entered the field.
00:57:53 not long after you entered the field. So, he wasn't engaged in one when you're in the back office, but he did start one not long after you deployed. Were you aware of him having sexual relationships? No. And did he say anything to you before
00:58:05 And did he say anything to you before you deployed about having sexual relationships, avoiding them? No, not at all.
00:58:15 And there was no hint just for the avoidance of doubt, no throwaway comments, no hints, no slightly off-color remarks that in any way suggested to you in this period that
00:58:26 suggested to you in this period that officers were engaged in sexual relationships with activists. No.
00:58:33 Looking at the tradecraftraft manual, HN3.
00:58:37 HN3. Um,
00:58:41 Were you advised to read the tradecraftraft manual? No. Much has been written about this subsequently and it's not my recollection. It was uh I read lots of files when I was in the back office and
00:58:53 files when I was in the back office and this was one of them. uh [clears throat] my impression that it was a collection of anecdotes and uh I didn't give it any great deal of uh of importance or or not
00:59:07 great deal of uh of importance or or not to store by it. Um we haven't actually published this statement yet. It will be published in due course but HN58 says in his witness statement of paragraph 57 that he encouraged new
00:59:18 paragraph 57 that he encouraged new recruits to sit down and read it. Do you have any recollection of that? We were encouraged well I was encouraged to read absolutely everything that I could. So I don't doubt that and I would
00:59:29 could. So I don't doubt that and I would have I would have read it and I do recall a couple of the paragraphs. Uh the paragraph I want to discuss now HN3 is I don't think we need to bring it
00:59:40 HN3 is I don't think we need to bring it up but it's paragraph 5.63 63 of the trade craft manual and it's the reference to sexual relationships when deployed
00:59:51 deployed and this was written by Andrew Kohl's and he says if you have no other option to become involved with a weary you should try to have fleeting disastrous relationships with individuals who are
01:00:03 relationships with individuals who are not important to your sources of information. Can you recall
01:00:11 your reaction on reading this at that time?
01:00:15 time? Only in the context of all the other anecdotes and apocryphal stories that were in it. I placed no more importance on it than my suit not fitting.
01:00:30 Would you agree that the fact that it was in the tradecraftraft manual that it suggests that it was of no more importance to the SDS that it was just
01:00:41 importance to the SDS that it was just one of a number of pieces of advice and that actually it it supports HM14's point that it just wasn't a big deal? It was like your suit not fitting. It was like rolling your own cigarettes.
01:00:53 like rolling your own cigarettes. Unfortunately, yes, that's what I would agree.
01:00:56 agree. So, it did not concern you unduly. Is that a fair comment? Yes, that's I'd agree.
01:01:07 Yes, that's I'd agree. You say in your witness statement um at paragraph 49 HN3 that if any of the UCOs had suggested that this was or might be a feature of an undercover deployment, I
01:01:19 a feature of an undercover deployment, I would have been very concerned. And this refers to sexual relationships. If that's the case, then why were you not concerned by this p piece of advice
01:01:31 not concerned by this p piece of advice in the tradecraftraft manual? I don't recall giving it a great deal of concern.
01:01:41 You say in your witness statement that you did not understand or read that section of the tradecraftraft manual as giving you can't c can't blanch to have sexual relationships. Is that accurate?
01:01:53 sexual relationships. Is that accurate? Sorry. Could you say that again, please? Sorry. Yeah, my fault. You say that in your witness statement that you did not read that piece of advice in the tradecraftraft manual about fleeting and
01:02:04 tradecraftraft manual about fleeting and disastrous relationships. You didn't read it as giving you cart blanch.
01:02:10 blanch. Yes.
01:02:10 Yes. To have sexual relationships and that you did not agree with it. Yes.
01:02:18 Yes. What if anything did you understand it to mean or to permit you to do?
01:02:27 I don't think it permitted me to do anything. But having read other files, I I [snorts] believe I understood at the time, it's very difficult to to know
01:02:39 time, it's very difficult to to know what I knew at the time that I've subsequently learned follow the inquiry. Um
01:02:46 Um I believe it to be meant that someone had had a relationship and it had been fleeting and disastrous.
01:02:57 You say in your witness statement at paragraph 33D that certain views in the trade craft manual appear outmoded even for 1998.
01:03:08 for 1998. [snorts] Can you assist us HN3 with which views you mean when you say that? Uh not without recollection to the document.
01:03:20 Looking at other aspects of your training in the back office, you say in your witness statement at paragraph 24, we don't need to bring it up, but I'll read it just to remind you that in terms
01:03:32 read it just to remind you that in terms of training materials, every file in the office was available to me while I was preparing to deploy. This included at least some of the documents which have been presented to me in my witness pack as the tradecraftraft manual as well as
01:03:44 as the tradecraftraft manual as well as other UCOs's files and management documents as long as the secure cabinets were open. When you refer to other UCOs's files, H&3, do you mean their personal files? I
01:03:56 H&3, do you mean their personal files? I mean, again, to the best of your recollection. Yeah, I I I think that might be incorrect. I think it were they were thematic files is is my recollection. Uh, vehicle purchases, uh, employment
01:04:10 Uh, vehicle purchases, uh, employment issues or
01:04:11 issues or Right. Right. Yeah. Don't worry, I'll just stop you there. I understand. So, it's not as if you had access to every single UCO's. No, no, not at all. That's my fault. apologies. Um, do you recall in the files or the
01:04:24 Um, do you recall in the files or the documents that you looked at there being any reference to a former undercover officer called Michael Chitty?
01:04:34 Possibly, but I I couldn't give you any examples.
01:04:37 examples. Um,
01:04:40 Um, do you recall reading anything in those files about an officer called John Dyn? Yes.
01:04:48 Did the file or the material relating to John Dyn refer to the fact that he'd had a sexual relationship with an activist called Helen Steel? I believe it did. You believe it did?
01:04:59 You believe it did? I I think there were if it wasn't explicit there was maybe there the correct statement would be that it was uh it was the attempt of Miss Steel to
01:05:12 uh it was the attempt of Miss Steel to find John Dyn was probably more accurate. But were you left in no doubt reading that document that the reason she was find was trying to find him was because they had had a sexual relationship? Yes.
01:05:24 Yes. H14, sorry, Jim Boiling in his evidence referred to it being sympathetically dealt with in that document. The idea being that there wasn't a sort of
01:05:35 being that there wasn't a sort of sanctimonious or sensorious tone taken about the fact that his having a sexual relationship had led to Helen Still trying to track him down. Would you agree with that?
01:05:47 agree with that? I can't recall the the exact documentation. It was more factual about what had happened and and what had taken place.
01:05:55 place. And again, I appreciate it's a long time ago, but can you remember how you reacted to reading this? Were you shocked? Were you again rather neutral about it?
01:06:07 about it? I don't recall.
01:06:23 If I can just take you quickly, HN3 to a document MPS 00011337.
01:06:35 It's at B73, sir. Um, it's paragraph four, please. So, we're jumping ahead. um HN3. Sorry,
01:06:46 So, we're jumping ahead. um HN3. Sorry, I hope it's not disorientating, but this is this document's dated the 18th of December, 2002, and it's written by HN53. If you just want to remind yourself,
01:06:59 If you just want to remind yourself, there is. Yeah. And it reads thus at 1 a.m. UK time on Sunday the 15th of December 2002 intelligence was received
01:07:12 December 2002 intelligence was received from Red Herring an SDS officer which appeared to add some substance to Steel's trip. During the course of the previous evening, 14th, Jane, surname Manern, a
01:07:25 evening, 14th, Jane, surname Manern, a close associate of Steel, had remarked that the latter had gone to New Zealand. When Red Herring asked the reason for the trip, Jane replied, "You don't want to know."
01:07:36 to know." From context, Red Herring felt that the inference was that there was a sinister motive behind her visit. He did not pursue the matter but did establish that Jane is either a close neighbor of of
01:07:47 Jane is either a close neighbor of of steel or indeed lives at the same address privacy inquiries are in hand with DC redacted to fully identify Jane. So just to put that in context context
01:07:59 So just to put that in context context HM3 that refers to surveillance being conducted on Helen Steel when she went to New Zealand to visit her sister in 2002 and made some
01:08:11 visit her sister in 2002 and made some efforts to track down John Dyn. Does that jog your memory? It does. Yes. Do you recall providing this intelligence? You're red herring obviously. I mean I'm assuming you know
01:08:22 obviously. I mean I'm assuming you know that. Um do you recall providing this intelligence? I do. Yes. Had you been put on high alert at this time, HN3, to report anything you might have heard about
01:08:34 anything you might have heard about Helen Steel or her actions? No.
01:08:41 Can you recall why you imparted this particular bit of intelligence? Was it just part of the general flow of intelligence coming your way? No, this was very specific because from reading
01:08:53 was very specific because from reading the files I understood that that's an area of the world where John was living. So you were aware that this would be particularly well wellreceived is maybe not quite the
01:09:05 well wellreceived is maybe not quite the right word, but intelligence that would be considered very valuable. I I think the fact that I I rang it at the early hours of the morning. Yes.
01:09:17 the sinister motive comment HN3 uh the Jane who this refers to has provided a witness statement of the
01:09:29 provided a witness statement of the inquiry
01:09:31 inquiry and she says of that that her comment she can't recall specifically making that comment about you not wanting to know why Helen was going there but she says this that it appears to have been
01:09:42 says this that it appears to have been completely misconstrued. She knew that Helen Steele was visiting her sister and tried to visit a relative of John Dyn while she was there because she was still trying to find out what
01:09:53 she was still trying to find out what happened to him. And she says this, this is a paragraph 82 just for the transcript. She says, however, I'm pretty sure that if I did say words like you don't want to know, it was to convey the thought that the very idea that she
01:10:05 the thought that the very idea that she had been in a relationship with an undercover was so out there that he wouldn't want to know, i.e. it would mess with his head. Do you think it's possible you did misconstrue the comment because you were
01:10:17 misconstrue the comment because you were seeing it through a particular lens? Yes, quite possibly. I I don't um I think when the person told me it was more her tone was more exasperated
01:10:29 was more her tone was more exasperated than sinister. I understand.
01:10:36 That's not my writing. That's not my words. But I'm clarifying that now that I don't if Sinister is correct. Yeah, I understand.
01:10:53 Moving just quickly again a little bit further in time, HN3 into 2003. I just want to explore with you Michael Dell
01:11:04 want to explore with you Michael Dell DCI Dell's injunction against sexual relationships.
01:11:11 I understand from your witness statement that this injunction, so what I mean by that is when he explicitly said to you that you were not allowed as undercover officers to engage in sexual relationships
01:11:23 relationships that that coincided with the introduction of the code of conduct documents. Is that accurate? I remember being confused at the chronology. I I thought I had signed a
01:11:34 chronology. I I thought I had signed a code of conduct at the beginning of my deployment, but I think I was shown things in my witness pack that indicated that's not the case. So, if those if those times correspond, then I agree.
01:11:45 those times correspond, then I agree. Yes.
01:11:45 Yes. Yeah. It see the document suggests that they did. Um and that that would suggest in turn that the injunction when he gave you these very clear instructions that
01:11:57 you these very clear instructions that this took place around April 2003. Does that sound broadly accurate?
01:12:04 I can remember the incident happening, but I can't help you with the the date and time.
01:12:08 and time. Don't worry, it's understandable.
01:12:13 Was it made explicit to you or was it just simply your impression that the reason that he issued these very clear instructions was because of investigations relating
01:12:25 was because of investigations relating to James Thompson's employ uh deployment?
01:12:31 At the time we didn't know this, but obviously the chronology now fits. And I think but I remember asking another supervisor
01:12:43 another supervisor who was at that meeting what that was all about because it was so unusual and he uh wouldn't wasn't able or didn't elaborate. Right.
01:12:54 Right. Um
01:12:56 Um I'd like to bring up this section of your witness statement, please. So it's HN3's witness statement, MPS 0748426.
01:13:06 It's page 12, paragraph 31. [clears throat] Um, sorry it's a rather long
01:13:16 I want to go to the bit where he says the only manager to provide advice sorry I'm just skimm reading this. Yeah. So I I'll just read it from the beginning. So the only manager to provide advice in relation to engaging in sexual activity
01:13:28 relation to engaging in sexual activity with activists while in an undercover role was DCI Mike Dell. I recall him making it very clear to all the UCOs then deployed that none of us should be in any form of intimate relationship
01:13:40 in any form of intimate relationship with anyone else and if we were it was to stop with immediate effect. Just pausing there. Hn3 do you have a clear recollection of saying that that if
01:13:51 recollection of saying that that if anyone was at that time in a relationship they had to stop? That was my recollection. Do you have any recollection of whether that was taken any further in terms of whether
01:14:03 taken any further in terms of whether Mike Dell sought to find out who might be engaged in sexual relationships at that time and maybe in order to punish them? No.
01:14:13 No. No.
01:14:19 Uh it continues his statement was direct and uncompromising and entirely appropriate in my view. He justified it on the basis of a duty of care not just
01:14:30 on the basis of a duty of care not just to UCOs but to our families. Okay, we can take that down now please. Um
01:14:39 Um can we just explore that a duty of care to UCOs? What did you understand that to mean? Was that in terms of compromise risk or something else?
01:14:54 Uh I I don't really know. Um it was something that came. So I think it was clear something had clearly happened because it was so unusual. Right.
01:15:03 Right. It's my it's my recollection. Um,
01:15:09 did he say anything to the best of your recollection about the duty of care owed to members of the public and the impact of these relationships on the women or the people deceived into
01:15:21 the women or the people deceived into them?
01:15:22 them? Not not that I recall. Right.
01:15:28 You say this was very unusual. Did this mark a uh for want of a better phrase a sort of vibe shift in the SDS in that did you feel it was a quite a
01:15:40 in that did you feel it was a quite a seismic cultural change?
01:15:48 I don't really recall any further conversation. I sounds quite strange but he said the meeting was over. We all kind of looked at each other, wondered what that was about and kind of almost
01:15:59 what that was about and kind of almost business as usual really is is my recollection. Uh my last question on this HN3, do you recall it may follow from that previous answer that um you can't really recall
01:16:11 answer that um you can't really recall but
01:16:14 but how did the other UCOs, again just talking generally, how did they react to it as far as you can recall? Oh, I I can't help it. I'm afraid.
01:16:25 Oh, I I can't help it. I'm afraid. Okay,
01:16:30 returning to Jim Boiling, but in respect of deployments in the environmental field, did he give you advice HN3 on
01:16:45 deploying into the environmental field and what it might entail? Yes.
01:16:52 Yes. Can you give us a flavor of the kind of things that he said? Uh,
01:17:00 it would be more along the lines of how the meetings worked, right?
01:17:06 right? What usually happened, uh, things to wear, things not to wear. Uh, very I I'm unable to give you specifics at this stage, I'm afraid. Yeah,
01:17:17 Yeah, it would have been about clo I remember buying clothes from charity shops on Jim's recommendation. Yeah.
01:17:24 Yeah. No labels things like that. Sure. Um did he again say anything about it being a lifestyle deployment?
01:17:35 I don't recall. So it's quite possible but I don't recall. Sure. Um did he say anything to you about involvement in criminal activity or disorderly activity?
01:17:47 or disorderly activity? If not Jim, then it would have been one of the other officers that I spoke to in in advance to being deployed about crime.
01:17:55 crime. Fine. Well, we'll come to some more specific examples about that in due course. Um, you say in your Hearn witness statement HM3. Again, we don't need to bring it up, but it's just for
01:18:06 need to bring it up, but it's just for the transcript. It's MPS0723153.
01:18:10 This is paragraph 7. You say this of the training process in the SDS. You say no one sat you down and told you how things worked. It was an adult place. It was
01:18:23 worked. It was an adult place. It was just known that you got on with stuff. Do you stand by that? Yes, I agree. Is it fair to infer from that HN3 that actually
01:18:38 to infer from that HN3 that actually you were
01:18:41 you were maybe discouraged is overstating it, but there was a preference for UCOs who didn't seek advice or instruction. Sorry that I didn't phrase that
01:18:52 Sorry that I didn't phrase that particularly clearly when when you say that it was an adult place and you're expected to get on with it. Would you go so far as to say that actually you were discouraged from
01:19:04 actually you were discouraged from seeking advice or direction that they preferred you just to get on with it and not make a fuss? No. No. I I don't think I would agree with that. Uh Jim Boiling referred to a
01:19:16 with that. Uh Jim Boiling referred to a preference for what he termed lowmaintenance officers as opposed to highmaintenance officers. Is that something you ever heard referred to? A preference you were ever made aware
01:19:28 A preference you were ever made aware of?
01:19:29 of? No.
01:19:32 No. Moving HN3 to your cover employment. Now,
01:19:37 Now, you say in your witness statement that your first cover employment was as an assistant to a computer programmer, uh that it was paper thin and also that in the first six months of
01:19:48 and also that in the first six months of your deployment, you obtained a city and guilds qualification in computer repair. Was that accurate? That is correct. Yes. Uh so were you quite good with computers
01:19:59 Uh so were you quite good with computers then HM3?
01:20:00 then HM3? Yes. And also I suppose they were quite in their infancy in terms of general usage. So it was quite unusual. Very early. Yes. Very early stage.
01:20:12 Very early. Yes. Very early stage. Uh a document in your bundle. Uh we'll bring it up actually. It's MPS09465.
01:20:22 It's B42.
01:20:27 This is a strategy meeting HN3 from the 27th of January 2000. So you have you were deployed at this stage.
01:20:37 stage. Yeah.
01:20:37 Yeah. Page one under the heading employment and it says this. He feels he needs to do some actual work for redacted.
01:20:48 do some actual work for redacted. The more wearies get to know him, the more he was being asked about his work. Red Herring has asked about this but his work does not lend itself to deliveries
01:20:59 work does not lend itself to deliveries etc.
01:21:01 etc. Thank you. If we could just minimize that again. Um there's also just well looking at that first actually uh this suggests that it was becoming a little bit
01:21:13 that it was becoming a little bit awkward
01:21:15 awkward maintaining this putitive cover employment. Is that fair to say? Yes, that's very correct. Yeah. because the activists with whom you were mixing were asking you some slightly awkward
01:21:26 were asking you some slightly awkward questions. Is that fair? No, I I just wasn't comfortable with that employment uh from the start. Right.
01:21:39 Um if we could just look at the third paragraph on this same page. So it's a little bit higher up the page. This shows that in this meeting HN3 you
01:21:51 This shows that in this meeting HN3 you said this red herring acknowledged the greater responsibility on his shoulders with psycho as in psycho dream. So that's Jim Boiling going during the course of the year. There were no
01:22:03 course of the year. There were no particular operational difficulties to report and it was inre agreed to continue along the current targeting strategy.
01:22:11 strategy. So bear in mind yeah this is January 2000. So Jim Boiling left the field in September of that year. Um I should say actually I shouldn't say it showed you said it. Do you as best your
01:22:23 said it. Do you as best your recollection is that an accurate record? Yes, I think so. Yes, I'd agree. And does that reflect to the best of your recollection how you felt at the time? You're aware that when Jim Boing
01:22:36 time? You're aware that when Jim Boing left the field there was going to be additional pressure on you. Yes, I agree.
01:22:47 Was it your impression that in
01:22:53 in replacing Jim Boiling as the primary source of intelligence in this field that you had very big shoes to fill that the SDS had considered him a very successful undercover officer?
01:23:08 Uh I think I would agree with that. Um, but also that I was on my own then. There was nobody else to uh to talk to or ex ask what something happened in a
01:23:20 ask what something happened in a meeting. So, I'm not sure about the big shoes to fill, but solitary tube. Yeah, sure. Okay, understood. Um, we can take that down now, please. If we could bring up another document. It's
01:23:32 bring up another document. It's MPS0737258.
01:23:36 It's B59, page two.
01:23:41 page two. This is written by Bernard Greeny, HN3. It's dated the 28th of the 11th, 2000. So, it's later that same year. We just read the first paragraph,
01:23:52 We just read the first paragraph, please, on that page. Oh, yeah. There we go. Um, it says Red Herring says your cover code name. It has long been recognized that Red Herring, if he is to enjoy the success
01:24:03 Herring, if he is to enjoy the success of his predecessor, needs to wind down his work commitments and relocate to a more central location in order that he can commit himself fulltime to any
01:24:14 can commit himself fulltime to any future planning groups that are reclaim the streets create. Then big redacted chunk
01:24:21 chunk and then the end of the paragraph. Now in the absence of Psycho Dream, Red Herring must be available for future campaigns and it is therefore necessary to remove the problems that he cited as
01:24:33 to remove the problems that he cited as a bar to his participation.
01:24:40 The suggestion seems to be there, HN3, that
01:24:46 there'd been some comment made about the level of your participation in Reclaim the Streets. Is that fair to say? Um,
01:24:58 Um, I think what this is referring to is that the legitimacy of my cover employment wasn't lending itself to being available for the for the meetings at any time. That's my reading of and
01:25:10 at any time. That's my reading of and that's my recollection which is why we I wanted to change employment. I understand. So so the cover employment that you had was not conducive to your becoming as involved as you would have
01:25:23 becoming as involved as you would have liked.
01:25:24 liked. Agreed.
01:25:25 Agreed. Um, if we just look at paragraph two, it says, "Clearly, therefore, Red Herring will have to either lose his c current employment redacted or have his hours of
01:25:36 employment redacted or have his hours of work and pay dramatically reduced." The latter option would allow Red Herring to undertake diverse cash inhand work to supplement his reduced income as required. However, financially, he would
01:25:49 required. However, financially, he would be obliged to surrender his bachelor pad and seek more humble shared accommodation. We'll come to the accommodation matter in due course HN3.
01:26:00 in due course HN3. But
01:26:05 is it correct to say that it was decided at this stage that you needed to change your cover employment in order to free you up?
01:26:16 you up? I don't know about the chronology but yes I think there was a big push from from both myself and and the office that things needed to change right
01:26:25 right um
01:26:27 um again in very broad terms can you please tell us what it was that your cover employment changed to
01:26:35 uh you can say pirate DVDs okay I wasn't sure about third party uh apologies I didn't no no you can say pirate DVDs is fine Yes, I was a DVD pirate.
01:26:48 Yes, I was a DVD pirate. Um, did you also sell software? Not sell, apologies, I misspoke. Did you also as as your cover ID? There I I had access to software that I
01:26:59 There I I had access to software that I could I could supply. Yes. Um, and to the best of your recollection, did this new role, cover role, was this
01:27:10 this new role, cover role, was this introduced around this time around November 2000? If there's documentation that supports that then I I'm not sure the chronology but but we definitely did move towards that
01:27:26 again just talking very broadly and generally HN3 did you have a view on this suggestion about the change to your cover employment were you pleased was it
01:27:37 employment were you pleased was it something you welcomed did you have any reservations I felt my deployment changed immeasurably once I changed. Yes. You mean for the
01:27:48 You mean for the better
01:27:48 better better?
01:27:50 better? And why is that? Uh I was never, as I said before, I was never comfortable with the initial um Yeah.
01:27:57 Yeah. So this was something that I felt comfortable with. I had knowledge of. Uh it was able to to do all the things that that you just seen in that document.
01:28:09 that you just seen in that document. Was there any discussion? You refer in your witness statement to there being extensive discussions about this and you also refer to the fact that you were instructed not to sell the DVDs.
01:28:21 were instructed not to sell the DVDs. Mhm.
01:28:23 Mhm. Were there any additional discussions again just speaking very broadly about any possible pitfalls about your cover job entailing criminal activity?
01:28:38 Uh, I I don't think so. I I I don't know if you could expand a bit more. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. No, don't don't worry. It's just a broad thing whether or not the the ethics of
01:28:49 thing whether or not the the ethics of it, whether or not there were any concerns about the fact that it might lead you into, for example, having to sell a DVD. No, I was told I was told uh not to
01:29:00 No, I was told I was told uh not to stand on street corners selling DVDs. Right.
01:29:04 Right. Um,
01:29:08 you say in your witness statement about this that you occasionally lent copies to activists. Uh, we don't need to bring it up, but just for reference, it's paragraph 65.
01:29:19 just for reference, it's paragraph 65. You say that activists occasionally borrowed copies, but the quality was generally so awful, they did not approach me too often. They were terrible. Yes. Um, [laughter]
01:29:32 They were terrible. Yes. Um, [laughter] Emily Apple disputes this and she says that actually the DVDs were exceptionally good quality and that you told the activists that
01:29:43 and that you told the activists that this was because they were airline copies.
01:29:46 copies. Is she right about that? So they they were they belong to airlines where in the days where airlines were given new releases before they hit video shops
01:29:57 new releases before they hit video shops for example. No, that's not that's not uh I I I don't dispute what she's saying, but that's not correct. I could give you the the cover story of where they came from. No, no, no, don't worry about that. Um, we won't go there, but it's your
01:30:09 we won't go there, but it's your recollection that they were poor quality.
01:30:11 quality. They were awful. Um, Emily Apple also said that you gave them away rather than lending them.
01:30:23 gave them away rather than lending them. Is that right? Uh, I think it was very difficult not to be wanting money for them, but I I it would be fair to say if somebody wanted
01:30:34 would be fair to say if somebody wanted a DVD, I would give it to them and say, "Look, can you just give me back when you're finished?" That'd be fair. And did you take requests for the DVDs? Uh, people asked if I could get hold of things. Yes.
01:30:45 things. Yes. Emily Apple says that you used to turn up at the end of Wumbles meetings bearing DVDs that people had requested. Do you recall that? No.
01:30:55 No. Um,
01:30:58 Um, did it make you popular being able to provide these DVDs? Did it give you Sorry, Mr. Sorry. Did it make you popular being able to provide these DVDs? Uh, I don't know about that, but it gave
01:31:09 Uh, I don't know about that, but it gave me an avenue of an employment that I felt comfortable in.
01:31:15 Looking quickly at software HM3.
01:31:20 HM3. Um,
01:31:24 is it accurate to say that you were also involved, you say this in your witness statement, illegally downloaded and cracked software? Yes, that's correct. And you started doing this at the same
01:31:35 And you started doing this at the same time as you started. It was in par. It was in parallel, but only a very small um proportion of that work.
01:31:42 work. Right.
01:31:44 Right. Um,
01:31:49 can you recall the kind of software that you provided? Or rather, maybe it's more helpful. Emily Apple suggests that this is what you provided. And you can tell me if this is accurate. Photoshop,
01:32:00 me if this is accurate. Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, Quark, Cubase. Does that
01:32:04 Does that Yeah, I completely agree with that. Yes, that would be that would be an example of the software. Yes. Um, in your witness statement at paragraph the same paragraph 252E,
01:32:18 paragraph the same paragraph 252E, you say that you supplied this software only where the activists could have obtained it themselves. Can I ask what do you mean by that? Oh, they have bought it themselves, I
01:32:29 Oh, they have bought it themselves, I think.
01:32:33 Emily Apple disputes that. Again, we don't I can't bring her witness statement up because it's not published yet, but she says that in relation to that point that they could have got it themselves. She says
01:32:46 could have got it themselves. She says this was before fast internet connections and easy access to sites to download pirated software.
01:32:55 None of us had any money. We would not be able to buy this software and we did not have the means or contacts to obtain counterfeit versions. We were only able to access it because
01:33:08 to access it because Jason Bishop provided it to us. Oh, I think I I think I understand. So, this wasn't software provided to me by a third party. This was I just knew where to go and find it. So, it was available
01:33:19 to go and find it. So, it was available to anyone if you knew where to look. Does that help? Um, well, I think she's making the point that they would not have had access to this software unless you had given them
01:33:30 this software unless you had given them access. So that it's not as if they would have been illegally downloading software as had it not been for you. That's the point she's making. Do you think that's fair enough? I think if you knew where to find it, you could download it yourself.
01:33:46 But would you agree that I mean we're talking the early 2000s that it wasn't something that was widely Yes, I'd agree. known about. Yes.
01:33:56 Yes. Uh tiny digression just a quick one HN3 about something else that was happening at this time.
01:34:10 There's an email um that refers to you in June 2001.
01:34:21 um that refers to you in June 2001. Well, we'll bring it up actually. It's easier if we can bring up please MPS0748100.
01:34:28 It's B44 but in HM14's bundle pages 8 and 9.
01:34:41 Um so it's a file note HN3 uh dated the 1st of June 2001 and it's in relation to Psycho Dream. That's Jim Boiling.
01:34:52 Boiling. It says Red Herring produced the attached email from privacy which she had circulated within the last day or so to most of the weareries who would have known Psycho Dream. I spoke to Psycho
01:35:04 known Psycho Dream. I spoke to Psycho Dream today. He said he was aware of a buildup of emails from former colleagues, three or four from privacy, who had not heard from him since January.
01:35:13 January. He felt it would be useful therefore to give some kind of response and asked and then redacted. And then we can see on the other side
01:35:24 And then we can see on the other side there's an email from this individual who is privacy redacted but in relation to Jim Boiling who at this stage had left the field and had told
01:35:36 stage had left the field and had told activists that he was traveling in Africa. Mhm. And it just reads, "Hi there. Just a quick email to say, I heard from Jim recently. He's still traveling. Should now be in Northern Africa and is
01:35:47 now be in Northern Africa and is checking his email. If you get the time, do send him a message. Tell him how much he has loved and missed. He thinks we have forgotten him." Um, we can take that down.
01:35:58 Um, we can take that down. So, were you privy to activists talking about Jim Boing after he left the field? I I have no recollection of that even
01:36:10 I I have no recollection of that even having
01:36:11 having just been shown up. Fine. I mean, would you agree that that suggests that you did? Oh, 100% agree. Yes.
01:36:21 You may have answered my question with your previous answer, but I will ask it anyway for the avoidance of doubt. Did you ever hear anything to the effect of activists suspecting Jim Boing of being
01:36:34 activists suspecting Jim Boing of being a policeman after he left the field? No.
01:36:41 No. Um sir, I'm aware this might be a good time to break. [clears throat] Uh we normally break for a quarter of an hour uh in the morning session to enable the transcribers to have a break and you
01:36:52 the transcribers to have a break and you as well. But would you be back in quarter an hour, please? Of course. Thanks, sir. Thank you.
01:56:22 HN3. Moving now to your cover accommodation.
01:56:29 The document suggests that you started off in an address on Abby Fields Close in NW10.
01:56:36 in NW10. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. And you were living alone there? Yes.
01:56:42 Another document for the transcript, MPS0719767,
01:56:49 suggests that you left that flat to move into one on Dine Road on the 30th of April, 2001. Does that sound right? Yes, that's correct.
01:57:01 Was it yours and HN60's idea to move in together? Yes, very much so. Yeah. To that address. Um HN60 says in his statement, I can't
01:57:15 Um HN60 says in his statement, I can't bring it up because it's not published yet, but I'll just read it out. It's paragraph 39. He says that the two of you thought it would provide additional cover for one another
01:57:27 provide additional cover for one another as at the time there was suspicion in the activist field around single men with vans living in bedsits. Do you agree with that? Yes, very much so.
01:57:40 Yes, very much so. So that was your main reason for suggesting that you live together? Exactly.
01:57:52 I understand from the documents HN3 that you moved in first and then HN60 moved in a period of time after you after he'd been on annual leave. Does that sound about right?
01:58:03 about right? I don't recall that, but I don't dispute.
01:58:05 dispute. Don't worry.
01:58:09 Can you recall H&M whether or not you lived together in one flat or were there two flats in which you lived together? consecutively. Oh, there was a further flat right
01:58:21 Oh, there was a further flat right towards the end towards the end of the deployment. Yes. Um, HN60 says that the first was in Kilb and the second one was in the Brundesbury area. That's correct.
01:58:33 Emily Apple recalls visiting you at the flat. Um, and she says there were bin bags of pirate DVDs there. Is that accurate?
01:58:42 accurate? It is very much so. Yes. Would activists visit you quite often at this flat? Uh, yes, I guess. And were these social visits or was it
01:58:55 And were these social visits or was it more a matter of people just popping in and out?
01:58:59 and out? Uh,
01:59:00 Uh, well, sorry, I didn't I didn't explain that very well. I mean, would people come over and spend quite a long time there socializing with you or were they more just quick? No, they the the latter it. Yes, it was
01:59:12 No, they the the latter it. Yes, it was function of something needed dropping off, picking up, something needed to be said, exchanged or or something would would be my recollection. Um,
01:59:24 according to a document, uh, London Animal Action at the time that HN60 was deployed into it apparently had a big drinking culture and it has been said
01:59:35 drinking culture and it has been said that HN60 participated in that enthusiastically. Did you see any evidence of that when you were living with him in this flat?
01:59:47 Yes, he could drink. Was he drinking with his activist from London Animal Action in the flat? Is this something you witnessed? Uh, on occasion or but mostly with me,
01:59:59 Uh, on occasion or but mostly with me, right? You mean just the two of you? Yes.
02:00:02 Yes. Right.
02:00:08 Just no names here, HN3, but are you aware of HN60 meeting a female um on a
02:00:19 of HN60 meeting a female um on a horiculture course?
02:00:25 Does that ring any bells with you? Please don't say any names. Yes, I think I I think it does. Did this woman come over to your flat?
02:00:36 Did this woman come over to your flat? I don't believe so. As far as you know, did do you have any reason to believe that HN60 had a sexual relationship with this woman? No, completely not.
02:00:48 No, completely not. Moving just back to cover accommodation. Um, as far as you're concerned, HN3, did it work well the arrangement with you two living together? I felt so I felt same was the change of uh cover
02:01:00 same was the change of uh cover employment the change of address uh was beneficial to us both I believe um [clears throat] just very briefly HN3 is it correct that when you joined the SDS you couldn't
02:01:12 when you joined the SDS you couldn't drive
02:01:14 drive yes that's correct and I think you refer to it in your hear statement you say that HN58 had not realized this throughout the recruitment process so is it fair to say that when
02:01:25 process so is it fair to say that when he did discover it there some constonnation. Yes, that's fair. But they fasttracked you a driving course.
02:01:35 course. They did indeed. Right.
02:01:38 Right. Um clearly as an SDS officer, you're required to do a lot of driving during your deployment. Did you find that daunting as a new driver? No.
02:01:49 No. Looking now HN3 at SDS culture. I would like to explore the Christmas parties. We understand that the SDS held annual
02:02:03 We understand that the SDS held annual Christmas parties where UCOs would bring their spouses. Do you recall that? I recall going to one, right?
02:02:12 right? That's my recollection. Can you Okay, fine. So, you think you only went to one? If you said two, I would don't disagree, but I I've got recollections of one. But were you aware that they were
02:02:23 But were you aware that they were happening on a yearly basis, or do you think that there was only one that took place during your deployment? I don't think they happened every year in my deployment. I think historically they probably had a done, but I don't
02:02:35 they probably had a done, but I don't recall going to more than one. Okay.
02:02:39 Okay. And the one that you did attend, did you attend it with your spouse? I did.
02:02:46 I did. What was your understanding HN3 of the purpose of this Christmas event? Nothing more than social.
02:02:59 What was your understanding of why your wife and other spouses were invited to attend? What did you understand the reason behind that to be?
02:03:12 Not sure I gave it much thought other than a Christmas function with family. Um, did you speak to your colleagues wives at these events?
02:03:27 I think I've got recollection of speaking to uh No, be very careful with names, please. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Yes. I've got I've got recollection of We've already mentioned him. I've got recollection of speaking to Bernie Green's partner.
02:03:38 to Bernie Green's partner. Right. Um but but that's it. Okay.
02:03:44 Moving now HN3 to the SDS twice weekly meetings.
02:03:50 meetings. I understand these did these take place I think historically they took place on Mondays and Thursdays but a docu is that does that sound right? Yes that's right. And
02:04:03 And after the Thursday meeting you'd all go to the pub. Is that right? in the early days but that quickly dissipated.
02:04:15 Can you just give us a flavor of what took place on at during those team meetings just to guide you a little bit? You say in uh Hearn that during the team
02:04:27 You say in uh Hearn that during the team meetings people didn't give much away but can I ask we've heard about a sort of roundroin session. Yes, that's correct. Was that still taking place?
02:04:38 taking place? Yeah.
02:04:38 Yeah. Um when you say people wouldn't give much away, so how did it work in the round robin session? Uh so this is on the Thursday. Is that correct?
02:04:48 correct? Well, I'm not entirely sure, but yes, because I I understand Mondays were more administrative. Exactly. Mondays fun uh admin. Yeah. Uh expenses bills. The Thursday you had to be there for a certain time
02:05:00 to be there for a certain time uh is my recollection. Yeah.
02:05:01 Yeah. And uh the office was there. Um it wasn't a threeline whip per se, but if you but if you had a reason not to be there, that was completely fine.
02:05:12 there, that was completely fine. Um [clears throat] and we were in a large room and uh whoever the supervisor was would just go around the room asking people what you were doing and it could range from
02:05:24 range from uh I'm going to a meeting this Friday or I'm maintaining cover I think was the phrase most of us used. Fine. So people didn't go into great detail about what they were getting up to.
02:05:35 to. Not in the group. There were if you think of the number of people that were there, two or three minutes a time it would soon drag on. Fine. Uh you say not in the group but does it follow from that that when you had the smaller [clears throat] meetings
02:05:49 had the smaller [clears throat] meetings that then with officers in similar fields for examples and they would go into more detail. Not on every not every week but yes that's correct. If there was something that needed discussing with you alone with the with the cover officer or the
02:06:01 with the with the cover officer or the management and or people from other thematic fields then then you would adjourn to another room as it were and yes that's great correct. Sure. Okay. Well we'll look at some examples of big events where you might
02:06:13 examples of big events where you might have had meetings those types of meetings in relation to them. Um just returning to that extract from your Hearn statement HN3 you when you you said that during the Tuesday Thursday meetings people didn't give much away.
02:06:25 meetings people didn't give much away. You also said that it was more about bonding and sharing experiences. Do you stand by that? Sure about bonding but definitely sharing experiences. Uh I think for
02:06:38 sharing experiences. Uh I think for trade craft or or anything uh it was a lot more social in the early days but towards
02:06:47 towards at some point it stopped being a kind of social and turned more into kind of a a very business-like meeting. Right. Just just out of interest, why did that change occur? As far as you know,
02:06:58 know, I think it's culturally society changed. No, there wasn't a big drinking culture, right? Um, reverting back to when it was more about sharing experiences and
02:07:10 more about sharing experiences and drinking. Um, did you confide in one another about the difficulties of the job? For example, the emotional difficulties or the stresses and strains.
02:07:24 possibly, but I don't feel I'm able to give you any examples. Um, you refer to the drinking culture. So, was there drinking?
02:07:34 drinking? So, when I say drinking culture, everyone would go for one or two pints and have to drive. So, it it wasn't I probably
02:07:40 probably overstated that at something that um yeah, drink driving was was very much not allowed. So, you would have one or two pints and that would be it. Fine. Well, you anticipate pay to my next question. So it's not your evidence
02:07:51 next question. So it's not your evidence that people were getting plastered during or after the meetings? No, not at all. Uh was there any banter at these meetings? What I mean is just sort of
02:08:02 meetings? What I mean is just sort of relaxed
02:08:03 relaxed jokes, chatting about women.
02:08:08 women. No.
02:08:08 No. No.
02:08:10 No. Um
02:08:12 Um would
02:08:15 well did anyone ever say anything sexist during these meetings? I don't recall so uh did anyone ever say anything that you would consider to be racist at these
02:08:26 would consider to be racist at these meetings?
02:08:27 meetings? No, definitely.
02:08:33 Would you say that there was a sexist culture at all in the SDS? No.
02:08:40 No. Um, I'd just like to bring up a document, please, which is MPS 00069 627.
02:08:50 627. It's B147.
02:08:56 I think HN3, this is an extract from the binder, which I understand you compiled right at the end of your deployment. But if I can just review this with you. This
02:09:08 if I can just review this with you. This reads, "Privacy, pronounced P, is the former partner of Privacy, and being generous, she left PE with a case of hepatitis when they parted. After
02:09:19 of hepatitis when they parted. After being involved with the Wombles for several months, she quickly became disillusioned with activists in London, and she turned her energy to the Middle East."
02:09:29 East." We don't need to read the rest of that. Um,
02:09:33 Um, first of all, H3, where well, don't mention any names, but was this information that you'd garnered through gossip? No, one of the one of the participants
02:09:44 No, one of the one of the participants told me
02:09:47 told me the subject of this report told you or it was reported sort of third or fourthand.
02:09:58 if not the person involved, someone very close to them. You were asked about this in your witness statement and you said uh that
02:10:09 witness statement and you said uh that you thought the reference to this person having hepatitis and being generous, passing it on was a slightly misjudged
02:10:20 passing it on was a slightly misjudged attempt at humor. Do you stand by that? Yes, that's that's a poor choice of words on my part. I said that. So you recognize now that that was inappropriate? Yes, I agree.
02:10:32 Yes, I agree. Um, when you say it was a misjudged attempt at humor, was it your impression at the time, HN3, that people reading this would react positively to that, that they'd appreciate it as funny?
02:10:46 that they'd appreciate it as funny? It It was not meant to be funny, and uh I take responsibility. That's not what I intended, and it's uh it's not as professional as I'd like.
02:10:57 Is it HN3 indicative that there was actually at that time a slightly sexist culture in the SDS if you believed at
02:11:09 culture in the SDS if you believed at the time that people reading this would find it funny? Is that fair to say? No, I disagree. I disagree. That's a poor choice of words on my part and I take responsibility. But understood. Um,
02:11:23 understood. Um, returning to the twice weekly meetings. Yes.
02:11:27 Yes. Do you recall HN3? Any mention from HN81? If you just want to remind yourself who that is. Yes.
02:11:37 Yes. Um, he left the SDS in June 2001. Just to give you idea of your crossover. Um, during those meetings, did he ever
02:11:48 Um, during those meetings, did he ever mention Dwayne Brooks? I don't recall. So, no. And to the best of your recollection, do you recall HN81 or anyone ever saying
02:12:01 you recall HN81 or anyone ever saying anything about reporting on the Lawrence family, the family of Steven Lawrence? I don't recall that, but I do I could write it down if you want. I do recall
02:12:13 write it down if you want. I do recall the name the first name of someone HN81 used to talk about quite a lot. Yes, please do. If you could write that down, that would be very helpful.
02:12:45 Thank you. H3. When he gave evidence, Jim Boiling said that the Steven Lawrence murder and the way that it was handled by the Met and McFersonen had been utterly toxic for
02:12:59 McFersonen had been utterly toxic for the Met.
02:13:01 the Met. Would you endorse that? Is that accurate? Yes, of course. Was that discussed at SDS meetings? Not that I recall.
02:13:14 But was there an awareness at the time that the public perception of the Met was extremely negative? I think it was a poor reflection on the
02:13:26 I think it was a poor reflection on the Met's ability to bring the murderers to justice. Yes. Um, small but related digression. If we could bring up please MPS 0028977.
02:13:40 It's C297 and it's dated the 3rd of September 2003. So, sorry it's leaping ahead a bit. [snorts]
02:13:52 Just wait for that to come up. Oh, sorry. It's MPS 0028977
02:14:04 wrong reference.
02:14:09 Don't worry if if it's incorrect, it's fine. We'll come back to it if you can't bring it up. Don't worry, H3. We'll return to that. Um, you refer in your witness statement to organizing a trip to Las Vegas.
02:14:21 to Las Vegas. Yes, I did. Can you assist us with how did that come about? How did you come to organize this?
02:14:28 this? Uh we've had previous um field trips away socially in the past. Um
02:14:37 Um myself and HN60 were had talked about going to Las Vegas. We kind of asked anyone else if they wanted to join us and before you know it, the whole road show was going. Right. Why Las Vegas?
02:14:49 Right. Why Las Vegas? I've always wanted to go. Can I ask why? I like gambling. Um, can you help us with when this trip took place?
02:15:01 took place? I'm sure there must be documentation. I'm afraid I can't. Um, don't worry. What did you do on that trip? Uh, me personally,
02:15:12 Uh, me personally, all of you just as a group I mean just generally speaking. So, so we had um we I think it was we we agreed to have one meal as a group per day and then we sort
02:15:24 meal as a group per day and then we sort of broke into small groups and went our own separate way, right? Um
02:15:30 right? Um as far as you know, HN3, did your fellow officers and you uh take any drugs on this trip? No.
02:15:42 No. Um, and as far as you know, did your fellow officers, did any of them attend any sort of strip shows or No.
02:15:50 No. No.
02:15:51 No. Um, did they pay for sex with prostitutes? No.
02:15:56 No. Um, can I ask you this? How can you be sure?
02:16:02 Okay. Nobody that I know with who I went who I was with did any of those things, right? But you're right. I can't know what everyone did any minute of the day. Sure.
02:16:13 Sure. Um,
02:16:15 Um, you talked about some other team bonding trips. Can you help us with what again? Did you understand the purpose of those trips to be? Was it about bonding? I suppose the
02:16:27 be? Was it about bonding? I suppose the clues in the name, but was it about letting off steam to some extent? Don't know whether the office felt obliged to do something or or or what, but it was uh it was a it was a trip
02:16:39 but it was uh it was a it was a trip away where you didn't have to go, but most people did. And again, generally speaking, what kind of activities would you undertake on those trips?
02:16:51 those trips? Uh one of them was very outdoors. Yeah.
02:16:55 Yeah. Uh and the other one was um sightseeing. Okay. So, and was there a lot of drinking on these trips? Not hugely. Not hugely. I mean, yes, if we were staying in a hotel, but not to
02:17:07 we were staying in a hotel, but not to the state of falling down drunk. No. Right. And again, was there any banter? Oh, sorry. Sorry, more eating or I think I think we were amongst people who enjoyed the good food.
02:17:17 food. Okay. Um, apologies. I've now been given the correct reference for the document I was trying to bring up before. So, I'm sorry it's a bit confusing, H&3, because I'm jumping around topics a little bit, but I'll just take you to it quickly.
02:17:28 but I'll just take you to it quickly. Apologies. It's 0 MPS 0028927.
02:17:38 I was just linking this HN3 to the questions about the impact on public perception of the Met of the Steven Lawrence investigation, the
02:17:50 Lawrence investigation, the investigation into Steven Lawrence's murder.
02:17:53 murder. Um, so leaping ahead in time, this is one of your intelligence reports. It's dated the 3rd of September 2003 and it relates to DSCI. So anyway, don't
02:18:04 and it relates to DSCI. So anyway, don't worry too much about that. But the title is media interviews with senior MPS officers red herring and the intelligence reads thus journalists some of whom may be
02:18:16 journalists some of whom may be sympathetic to the activists may attempt to ask difficult questions at the police news conference concerning the DII event.
02:18:26 event. One area of concern could be the use of the terrorism act to police the event.
02:18:35 We can take that down now. Um
02:18:40 what's the policing purpose of that HN3 given that it amounts to you reporting that the police might come in for some criticism at a press event?
02:18:53 in for some criticism at a press event? I'm sorry I don't follow your question. I apologize. What's the the purpose of my
02:18:57 my What purpose did that serve in your view? Why did you report that information? I reported absolutely everything I could.
02:19:08 Did you see it as part of your role as an SDS officer to help the police manage criticism? No, not at all. So it wasn't in any way linked to the
02:19:20 So it wasn't in any way linked to the terrible press that the MPS had received as a result of McFerson and that you were helping the MPS to No, that's that's curate their image. Fine.
02:19:32 curate their image. Fine. Moving on now to targeting. I I think if I if I may, I think it was the the fact that the police were using terrorism act legislation for to deal with uh a
02:19:45 legislation for to deal with uh a potential public order demonstrations is my recol.
02:19:49 my recol. Yes, I will come to that because I Yes, it was section 44 of the terrorism act was a break, wasn't it, from the usual approach. Um yes, if we move now to targeting,
02:20:00 targeting, we've touched upon this. Uh it seemed HN3 that for a period it was suggested you might go into animal rights but over time that evolved into
02:20:14 rights but over time that evolved into environmental anarchist groups. Is that accurate?
02:20:17 accurate? Yes.
02:20:18 Yes. and
02:20:22 that by the time you deployed, so that's October 1998, you understood there to be a clear focus on public order for the Stop the City protest scheduled for the 18th of June
02:20:34 protest scheduled for the 18th of June 1999.
02:20:36 1999. Is that accurate? Sorry, can you say the dates again for the So I was deployed after the event. Is that
02:20:44 Is that No, no, no. Sorry. You were deployed in October 1998. Yes.
02:20:49 Yes. But you say that by the time you deployed, this is what you say in your witness statement. By that time, so october 98, you understood there to be a clear focus on public order for the stop the city
02:21:00 public order for the stop the city protest which was scheduled for the 18th of June 1999. My apologies. Yes. For the 99 stop the city. Yes. Yes. Yes. So you were very aware that C squad were very focused on that protest. Is that
02:21:13 very focused on that protest. Is that accurate?
02:21:14 accurate? Yes. Is this what we would know as J18? Yes, exactly. Yes, very much so.
02:21:22 Just for the avoidance of doubt.
02:21:29 For the avoidance of doubt, HN3. Um, was it ever the intention or at least was it ever mentioned to you that you were to be targeted against London Greenpeace?
02:21:40 be targeted against London Greenpeace? No.
02:21:49 in terms of
02:21:54 who to target and how you uh entered the field. There's a reference in a document HN3 to you carrying out research on the
02:22:05 HN3 to you carrying out research on the internet into groups and meetings. Do you recall doing that?
02:22:13 that? Yes. Yes, I think so. I think this was a um group that would be seen as a feeder group into reclaimed streets potentially. I think that's what you're referring to. I think
02:22:24 you're referring to. I think Well, sorry, I'm not actually being very clear. I think my the point I'm trying to make is was it left up to you to some extent to research how to infiltrate and to get information on J18? You weren't
02:22:35 to get information on J18? You weren't given a very sort of detailed brief about go focus on this group. Uh the brief was uh was reclaim the streets as as my as my recollection is. Right. So you knew that when you
02:22:46 Right. So you knew that when you deployed.
02:22:47 deployed. Yes. Yeah. Absolutely.
02:22:52 You describe in your witness statement a what appears to be a slowpaced assimilation into the activist field. Um
02:23:03 assimilation into the activist field. Um and that you are under no pressure immediately to start producing intelligence. Is that accurate? Yes, that's correct. Um, who told you that there was no obligation to produce
02:23:14 that there was no obligation to produce intelligence in those first six months? Uh,
02:23:19 Uh, oh yes, sorry. Careful with names. Yes. Yes, of course. Uh, would you like a cipher number? Yes, please. Yes, please. Uh, HM58.
02:23:27 Uh, HM58. Right.
02:23:30 Right. And did he explain to you why there was no pressure for you to produce intelligence in that first six month period?
02:23:38 period? Uh, I think it was just my my uh my understanding was just to let things take its time. They weren't they weren't they just wanted to let me sort of
02:23:50 sort of walk before I could run? Uh to what extent, if at all, were you given to understand that it was because activists were becoming suspicious of newcomers to groups who all of a sudden became
02:24:03 groups who all of a sudden became quite involved, quite prominent? No, I don't think so. Right.
02:24:11 Right. Um we're going to look at some of your earliest reporting now. H3, uh this is the earliest report that the inquiries obtained. It doesn't mean that it is the first report that you wrote,
02:24:22 it is the first report that you wrote, but if we could bring that up, please. It's MPS01861.
02:24:31 The typing date is the 5th of March 1999 and it refers to the diggers 350 years anniversary. Sorry, sir. C1.
02:24:46 Um it reads so Digger's 350 years anniversary arrangements for the above anniversary are continuing. Waybridge Library has been booked for Thursday the 1st of
02:24:58 been booked for Thursday the 1st of April for an evening of lively discussion. Those well sorry those scheduled to speak include Billy Brag Urswald Pop idol and John George Mombio a well-known
02:25:09 idol and John George Mombio a well-known champion of all things environmental. It is also hoped to persuade Christopher Hill, a highly respected 17th century historian who started all the interest in diggers to speak. The organizers hope that the above event
02:25:21 The organizers hope that the above event will attract local support for their march on Saturday the 3rd of April. Two coaches have been booked from Bristol and Brighton and a mini bus has been hired to ferry people from Walton British Rail Station to the start of the
02:25:32 British Rail Station to the start of the march.
02:25:33 march. In line with previous year's events, demonstrators are being encouraged to bring plants and seeds for a mass planting somewhere on St. George's Hill. In addition, activists have been asked
02:25:44 In addition, activists have been asked to bring equipment, food, and resources suitable for a three or 4 day occupation. Do you recall this event? H
02:25:55 Do you recall this event? H um my understanding is that it was organized by a group called the land is Ours. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct.
02:26:06 Were you a part of that camp? Uh, I did attend the camp, but I didn't stay overnight.
02:26:18 Now, are you aware HN3, of an individual that we are referring to as Rosa? We want might want to have a look at the cipher list. Please don't say her actual
02:26:30 cipher list. Please don't say her actual name.
02:26:31 name. Yes, I am aware. Yes,
02:26:35 Rosette. She's not provided a witness statement. Yes. Yet, but she will in due course. She has informed the inquiry that she met you at this camp in April 1999. Do you recall that?
02:26:48 1999. Do you recall that? I'm afraid I don't. It's I don't dispute it. There would have been a lot of people there. This would mean my first outing as it were. Um Yep.
02:26:58 Yep. Yeah. I I I I don't dispute it. Um, if that person was there, then they're quite entirely possible. Uh, in case it jogs your memory, she says that you had a conversation at about 5 a.m. one morning sat around a
02:27:11 about 5 a.m. one morning sat around a campfire
02:27:13 campfire and that she shared some personal memories with you. Does that ring any bells?
02:27:19 bells? Uh, no. The reason I didn't stay overnight, I didn't have any camping gear at that stage. I was still quite early. Didn't realize that was part of the requirement. um which is why I kind of left each night and came back the
02:27:30 of left each night and came back the next day.
02:27:31 next day. So,
02:27:32 So, but I I don't dispute at some point I may have discussed things with that around a campfire, but I I don't have any recollection at this event.
02:27:40 event. 5 a.m. You're If I understood your evidence correctly, you're saying it's unlikely it was at 5:00 a.m. If it did [clears throat] happen, it could have been It could have been during the day. Absolutely.
02:27:52 Looking now at RTS HN3. Um,
02:27:58 is it accurate that you started attending RTS meetings around the spring of 1999
02:28:07 or do you think it was earlier than that?
02:28:10 that? No, maybe even late. I I'm not sure of the chronology. I I seem to remember it
02:28:19 when they were at somewhere. There was a meeting near the Strand I believe was one of my the university was one of my first meetings if that helps you. I don't know the chronology. No, thank you. But no, I understand it's
02:28:31 No, thank you. But no, I understand it's difficult. Um, if it assists you, we have an annual authorization document. We don't need to bring it up, but again, for reference, it's MPS0526911.
02:28:42 It's dated the 14th of May, 1999. It's signed by C Black and it says under developments that you were attending the regular RTS meetings prior to their day
02:28:55 regular RTS meetings prior to their day of action on June the 18th. So that's in May 1999.
02:28:59 May 1999. That's probably accurate. Yes.
02:29:05 How did you come to attend those meetings? Was that something that the Sorry that was poorly phrased. How did you come to know about how the meetings were taking place? Were they
02:29:16 meetings were taking place? Were they advertised publicly? Were you told by Jim Boiling? Probably a mixture of both. Uh they were advertised as I recall. Jim would have told me when and where they were, but
02:29:28 told me when and where they were, but been cognizant to tell me that as long as that was public knowledge. Sure.
02:29:33 Sure. Um and we would have discussed Yeah. going to the meetings.
02:29:41 [snorts] [clears throat]
02:29:46 The meetings that you attended, well, some of the meetings anyway, were they open to the public then? Yes. Yes.
02:29:53 Yes. Yes. And what was your reception at these meetings when you started attending in so far as was it were people welcoming? Were they wary?
02:30:04 Were they wary? Did they have no reaction? I don't think people paid me any attention. But yes, people were very friendly. If you if you spoke to somebody in the bar before or afterwards, people were very friendly.
02:30:15 afterwards, people were very friendly. Um, roughly what were the attendance numbers at these meetings when you started coming
02:30:24 broadly? I mean, obviously 40 30 40 potentially.
02:30:33 And at those meetings would you see Jim Boing
02:30:37 Boing on occasion?
02:30:42 on the occasion that you did see him. Well, okay. Sorry. When you say on occasion, do you mean because your attendance was irregular or his attendance was irregular? What do you mean? Why only on occasion?
02:30:54 mean? Why only on occasion? Yeah, pretty much both. What what you've just said? And uh we we tried not to be present at the same meeting. It seemed a duplication of effort
02:31:05 when you were both at the same meetings. So, okay, sorry. Did you then consult before the meetings and try and coordinate so that you would not be at the same meetings? It probably wasn't as concerted as
02:31:18 It probably wasn't as concerted as planned as you've just described. But but if I said I'm going Thursday, you he would might say, "Oh, I might be there later or or something like that." Right.
02:31:27 Right. But there will be occasions when we were in the same meeting. Yes. Yeah. And when you were in the same meeting, what role did he take at those meetings in the sense that was he quite prominent at those meetings and quite
02:31:38 prominent at those meetings and quite vocal or
02:31:39 vocal or No, not at all.
02:31:46 At the time that you started attending these meetings, Jim Boiling was having a sexual relationship with a woman called that we are calling Ruth. Again, you
02:31:57 that we are calling Ruth. Again, you might want to look at the cipher list.
02:32:03 I don't know who that person is, I'm afraid.
02:32:05 afraid. Well, my question is, did you ever see them together at meetings acting like a couple? Or if you don't know who she is, did you ever see Jim Boing clearly
02:32:17 clearly as part of a couple at RTS meetings? No.
02:32:21 No. [snorts]
02:32:29 We know that Jim Boiling was a key organizer for J18. Um you said in your previous answer that he didn't have a prominent role at the meetings. So is it fair to say that it
02:32:42 meetings. So is it fair to say that it wasn't obvious at the meetings? It wouldn't have been obvious to a third party that he was a key organizer. Yes, that's correct.
02:32:53 But you were aware from SDS meetings that he had a prominent role in organizing J18. Is that accurate? He would have told me. Yeah.
02:33:04 Yeah. And was this something that was discussed
02:33:07 discussed at the SDS meetings in a smaller forum? So with you, Jim Boiling and a manager. Absolutely. Can I ask who would be present at those smaller meetings discussing his role?
02:33:21 smaller meetings discussing his role? Uh, it probably would have been HN58.
02:33:28 Uh, the DI at the time. I don't know when Bob Lambert left. I think he'd left by then. Okay. So then it could have been,
02:33:40 Okay. So then it could have been, Forgive me. Um, um, yes, Lambert left in August 98. So it would have been HM 53.
02:33:51 [snorts]
02:34:05 53. Yeah.
02:34:11 He was the DI after Bob Lambert.
02:34:17 Sorry, could you repeat the cipher number again? Yeah. HN53.
02:34:27 Do you mean 83? No, I do not. Um, don't worry about it. We will clear it up in the break. So, okay. The I think the the the question would have been the the the DCI
02:34:40 question would have been the the the DCI DI and uh cover off and one one of the sergeants. Um,
02:34:48 we have obtained no prospective reporting from you on J18 as far as you know. Did you produce any? I don't think so. No.
02:34:59 I don't think so. No. And why was that? Was that because Jim Boiling was the person who was I don't think I don't think I was going to meetings, but I don't think I was reporting of anything of any value is my
02:35:11 reporting of anything of any value is my recollection. And is that again because partly well largely because you were just on the periphery at that stage? I was just starting it.
02:35:22 I was just starting it. Was it your understanding that reclaim the streets were deliberately not talking to the police prior to J18?
02:35:32 Uh yes, I believe so. Yeah.
02:35:41 Were you involved in publicizing J18 at all in terms of distributing leaflets or stickers?
02:35:50 Yes, I think I gave out flyers I believe. Yes, that means um but it fair to say it was advertised publicly. There are a large number of
02:36:02 publicly. There are a large number of flyers and stickers.
02:36:07 Was it your impression from the meetings that you attended prior to J18 that Reclaim the Streets intended the protests to be peaceful or that they
02:36:19 protests to be peaceful or that they intended them to be disorderly? And by disorderly, I mean criminal damage, throwing of missiles.
02:36:30 damage, throwing of missiles. My um my understanding, recollection is that there wasn't a specific goal. The event happened and then what happened sort of would happen organically is my is my understanding.
02:36:42 organically is my is my understanding. Don't it wasn't an event that was specifically tailored for for disorder. Does that make sense? Yeah, that I mean yes that makes sense. Um was it your impression that they
02:36:53 Um was it your impression that they hoped to convey a message through the protest?
02:36:57 protest? Yes.
02:36:58 Yes. And what was your understanding of what that message was? Uh I think it was the the carnival against capitalism. And what did you understand that to mean as it were in terms of the message?
02:37:11 as it were in terms of the message? Uh that yeah it was a protest against capitalism and another world was possible.
02:37:30 Just moving back to the more intimate meetings at uh the SDS safe house prior to J18.
02:37:41 safe house prior to J18. Was it your impression that management were completely familiar with the extent of Jim Boing's role on the day and in the buildup?
02:37:53 the buildup? Yes.
02:37:54 Yes. And what was their attitude to it? From what you could see,
02:38:00 I think they were quite happy with his level of involvement.
02:38:06 Was it his view expressed at those meetings that the protest was likely to become disorderly? I I can't recall what he would have said
02:38:17 I I can't recall what he would have said about that specifically. [clears throat] Can you don't sorry to interrupt um can you recall whether anything was said at those meetings regarding liaison with the city of London police between the
02:38:29 the city of London police between the Metropolitan Police and the City of London police? No, I don't. Don't worry. Um on the actual day of J18 HN3, can you
02:38:40 Um on the actual day of J18 HN3, can you help us with what you did on that day? Yes, I went to Liverpool Street and then moved with the crowd as a participant of the uh event. Um, so did you end up at the life building?
02:38:51 the life building? I did.
02:38:52 I did. And what did you do? Uh, I just watched events unfold around me.
02:38:57 me. Um, did you take part in the bricking up of the entrance? No, I saw that and subsequently was able to speak to somebody months
02:39:10 was able to speak to somebody months later
02:39:12 later to help firm up my cover that I'd saw that person there. and he kind of shared a knowing nod and a wink with me. Right. Okay. Um,
02:39:22 did you become involved in the police using horses? I mean, were you there when the police used horses to marshall the crowd and when they used
02:39:35 marshall the crowd and when they used spray containing CS gas? Were you there for that?
02:39:40 for that? I don't remember that. I don't remember that specifically, but I was stood outside the life building when people broke into it. Yes, very much so. And public public order officers were deployed.
02:39:50 deployed. Um, you refer in your witness statement HN3 to J18 being the worst, that's your word, protest you'd ever seen [clears throat] from a disorder perspective. Yes. Yes. So, that was my question really. I
02:40:03 Yes. So, that was my question really. I was going to say why why was it so bad? What was it about the disorder that was marked it out as singularly terrible? Oh, it was masonry, bricks, uh,
02:40:14 Oh, it was masonry, bricks, uh, everything. The the the police were heavily outnumbered where it from my firsthand account where I was still watching. Yeah. The police were woefully outnumbered by the crowd and um were subject to quite
02:40:25 the crowd and um were subject to quite serious injury as I recall because members of the crowd were throwing masonry and bricks. Absolutely. People by this time had already got into the the life building. Yeah. and police then came down the hill
02:40:40 Yeah. and police then came down the hill and formed a kind of cordon against in front of the gate and then unknowingly that people were coming out from behind them.
02:40:48 them. Right. Um were I understand [clears throat] it would have been chaotic but as far as you're aware did you see any members of reclaim the streets lobbing masonry and bricks?
02:40:59 streets lobbing masonry and bricks? No, I wouldn't have known many people at the time but no I didn't see anyone specific. Um, you refer in your witness statement to a police woman being dragged off her horse. Did you see that
02:41:11 dragged off her horse. Did you see that happen?
02:41:13 happen? I think there may be some confusion here. Right. Um, I was under I was aware of someone that had been hit with a shovel or a spade whilst on their horse. Okay.
02:41:24 Okay. Is that what you're referring to? Yeah. Well, I think so. I mean, I'm not entirely sure, but you say you were aware of it. Did someone tell you about that or did you witness it firsthand? No, I heard about the event and I was
02:41:36 No, I heard about the event and I was able to assist with the identity of the offender.
02:41:38 offender. I understand. We'll come to that. So, did you hear about that? I mean, clearly you heard about it from Well, I don't know. Did you hear about that from people in RTS or did you hear about it from the police or both?
02:41:49 from the police or both? No, from from the office subsequently afterwards.
02:41:56 Um,
02:42:00 so after the event, was it your understanding? Were you given to understand that any members of RTS had participated in the violence by
02:42:11 by by other members of RTS at the meetings? No.
02:42:21 From what you could glean, what was RTS's attitude to the violent activity, the disorder that had
02:42:31 had unfolded?
02:42:34 I think it would be unfair to brand an organization like RTS with one voice. There were very very many disperate groups and individuals within it. Some would have been quite happy. Some would have been
02:42:46 been quite happy. Some would have been aboard. Um, I mean, did you hear those differing opinions at meetings expressed? So, some Yeah. Yes. Fine.
02:42:59 If we could bring up your witness statement. It's um MPS0748426.
02:43:06 That's A1, page 54, paragraph 151. [clears throat]
02:43:15 Um, yes, thank you. H3, you say this. While RTS claimed they were responsible for the carnival against capital, excuse me, that
02:43:27 against capital, excuse me, that preceded the violent disorder at J18 rather than the violence that took place. That position was disingenuous and typical of RTS. In my experience, their events were advertised and
02:43:39 their events were advertised and organized in such a way that disorder almost always resulted, but could be attributed to other groups such as the more radical regional Earth First groups and the Wombles.
02:43:51 and the Wombles. RTS may have started as an environmental activist group, but by J18, it was pursuing an anti- capitalist agenda that guaranteed the type of disorder seen at J18. Accordingly, it was necessary to
02:44:04 J18. Accordingly, it was necessary to gather intelligence on their intentions and a UCO was one means of doing that.
02:44:14 So when you say here HN3 that they were disingenuous and that they organized events in a way that it could be attributed to other groups, what what do
02:44:25 attributed to other groups, what what do you mean by that? I think my is this my witness statement inquire? Yes, it is. Yeah. Okay. No problem. Um I think my a better
02:44:36 Okay. No problem. Um I think my a better would have been just what I've just said previously that some people would have agreed with that, some people would have disagreed with it. Um
02:44:43 Um so sorry.
02:44:46 so sorry. Yes, I think um some members of RTS would have would have liked to seen it descend into um disorder, but some would have been very much against it. But I
02:44:58 have been very much against it. But I think what comes across is that on all the post incident investigations and all the photographs that were shown, I don't believe that any of the main members were ever identified as committing
02:45:10 were ever identified as committing disorder, if that helps. Yeah, I understand. Um, just returning to this extract, when you say that it could be attributed to other groups
02:45:22 to other groups such as the Wombles, that's one example you give. Um, the Wombles. Would you agree that the Wombles didn't exist at the time of J18? Yes, very much so. Yes.
02:45:33 Yes, very much so. Yes. So,
02:45:35 So, they can't have been nothing could have been attributed to them at this stage. Um,
02:45:45 can you help us with how in your view a group having an anti- capitalist agenda guarantees [clears throat] the disorder that was seen at J18?
02:46:02 I don't think I can add anything further to what that st that's but do do you stand by that comment that a group having an anti- capitalist agenda guarantees or guaranteed at that time disorder?
02:46:14 or guaranteed at that time disorder? No, probably on reflection that's that's that's that's not as clear uh as I would have liked.
02:46:26 despite the fact that Jim Boiling was intimately involved in preparations and the realization of J18 and that you were albeit on the
02:46:37 and that you were albeit on the periphery in RTS at the time. Uh there was obviously clearly a huge amount of disorder.
02:46:44 disorder. Uh
02:46:46 Uh what was SDS management's take on this? Were they displeased but disappointed?
02:46:54 Uh I don't recall any attitude after the events. Uh I think once once a demonstration is under an action is underway, there's very little that the SDS office can do about that. So I don't
02:47:06 SDS office can do about that. So I don't recall anyone expressing opinion either way. Yeah. Well, I suppose my point is were you reproached in any way or was Jim Boing reproached about the fact that you'd failed to anticipate the levels of
02:47:18 you'd failed to anticipate the levels of disorder
02:47:19 disorder that occurred? Um, we'll turn now actually to something you touched on HN3, which is this matter of identifying activists from stills and
02:47:30 of identifying activists from stills and from CCTV. Um, and I think this is what you referred to. So, there are two reports in your bundle. They seem to refer to the same individual, but we'll bring up the
02:47:43 the slightly later one which is MPS 0746676
02:47:50 C19. Um, this information was obtained on the 4th of October 1999.
02:48:01 4th of October 1999. Um,
02:48:08 now this is a report just at the top. We don't need to labor this point, but I think at the top there's a handwritten annotation PD which suggests psycho dream. But I understand from your witness statement HN3 that you think
02:48:20 witness statement HN3 that you think that this is you, but that they were obiscating the source of the intelligence. Does that make sense?
02:48:31 Do you see PD is just up there? Yes. Yes. Yes. No, I don't I don't dispute that. Um, I mean, if it helps you at all, there's another report that's almost identical
02:48:42 another report that's almost identical which is clearly ascribed to you. Yeah, I don't No, I think this I think we're talking cross purposes because the squat I believe was in the uh north of England for my for my description.
02:48:57 England for my for my description. Okay. Well, I tell you what, I can bring up maybe it might be more helpful if I bring up the one that is definitely ascribed to you. So, apologies if we could take that down and if we bring up MPS02471.
02:49:19 Thank you. Um, so you can see HN3, this is your intelligence. uh and it's titled June 18th 1999 Police Gazette
02:49:31 Gazette 22nd of September 99 subject 26 um
02:49:39 um and the police g sorry apologies the police gazette I understand was
02:49:47 what exactly it was something that was passed around the Metropolitan Police containing photographs there have been photographs of wanted individuals Um, this report reads, "The subject of
02:49:58 Um, this report reads, "The subject of the above photograph is an American who is believed to live in a squat in South London. His hair is currently shorter than in the picture with no peroxide tinting on the ends. He has been seen
02:50:09 tinting on the ends. He has been seen with another American who is about 6' tall, stocky build with short blonde dreadlocks." And then you say say neither has been seen at the regular RTS meetings but
02:50:20 seen at the regular RTS meetings but both attended the recent Earth first gathering. Now I may have misunderstood HN but is this the individual who hit the person on the horse with a spade?
02:50:31 the person on the horse with a spade? This is this this is my understanding with the with that source comment. This is someone who I sat around a fire with at the earth gathering and then
02:50:42 at the earth gathering and then subsequently was able to say where they were living. But my recollection it wasn't in South London. Well,
02:50:48 Well, this looked like this looks like it is. Yes. I mean, yeah, the report would suggest that it was. But in any event, yes,
02:50:55 yes, you'd come across this individual at the Earth First gathering that summer. I think you say in your witness statement, he was memorable because he put a can of beans.
02:51:03 beans. The beans. That's right. Yeah. But he didn't pierce the can. Um, as far as you know, I mean, I'm aware they may not have fed back to you, but do you know if this led to an arrest?
02:51:14 this led to an arrest? Uh, I don't know. You don't know? So, you can't recall getting any feedback from this identification about whether it bore any fruit.
02:51:26 Thank you. We can take that down. Um, I'd like to look now, HM3, at what you refer to as desk meetings.
02:51:39 you refer to as desk meetings. Um, when you say desk, do you mean C squad?
02:51:43 squad? Yes.
02:51:46 Yes. Can you help us with how often you would have these desk meetings with C squad roughly?
02:51:53 roughly? Twice a year. Okay.
02:51:59 And were they ad hoc or were they something that were arranged far in advance?
02:52:08 No, they were arranged and they could have been coincide to time with a big event but uh they were at the request of the desk and the uh one of the cover off
02:52:19 the desk and the uh one of the cover off cover sergeants would would arrange it if there was a requirement in the need. Does that make sense? Yeah, that does make sense. Um what was your understanding of the reasons they would be arranged like for what purpose?
02:52:32 would be arranged like for what purpose? uh so we could give them a firsthand firsthand account of what it was like at the meetings because they were working on our they were working on
02:52:45 were working on our they were working on the thematic area. Uh we were able to help with
02:52:50 help with what the dynamic was like at a meeting. Uh
02:52:54 Uh uh sometimes they showed us photographs uh asked us who particular people were.
02:53:02 Oh, sorry. We've lost I'm sorry, H. Yes, you cut out a bit just towards the end there. Do you mind just repeating? So, yes, sorry. Of course. Um, they would show us photographs. Uh, they
02:53:13 would show us photographs. Uh, they would ask us questions, uh, specifics. Um, they would just let us talk about what it was like at a meeting, uh, how the activists kind of organized, what the dynamic was like, that sort of
02:53:25 the dynamic was like, that sort of thing. Um, when you say what it was like at the meeting, so were they trying to gauge from you the vibes at the meeting as in you know whether people were quite militant, quite aggressive, whether people sounded relatively easygoing and
02:53:39 people sounded relatively easygoing and I think they just having never having never been to a meeting, it was very difficult to kind of articulate what that was like. Uh, where they were held, the the the mundane of who organizes
02:53:50 the the the mundane of who organizes them, who books the room. Sure.
02:53:52 Sure. Everything like that. Um it appears from a document we have which relates to minutes from one of these meetings that you and a fellow UCO who
02:54:05 meetings that you and a fellow UCO who was engaged in a similar field or a field in which there was crossover would attend those meetings together. Is that accurate?
02:54:14 accurate? Uh
02:54:15 Uh well, for example, um in your witness statement, sorry to interrupt. In your witness statement, you actually say that at one stage, this so this is a paragraph 152 of your witness statement.
02:54:26 paragraph 152 of your witness statement. You say that at one stage the attendees were you C squad desk officer Bernard Greeni and HN77. If you want to just have a look at um your cipher list.
02:54:39 your cipher list. Yes, that's correct. Yeah.
02:54:41 Yeah. Yes. And in minutes of a later one, so from 2005, the attendees are noted as you, Ring
02:54:53 the attendees are noted as you, Ring Wraith, who I understand to be HN118.
02:55:00 Yes. And
02:55:03 And Wounded Knee. Does that sound right? Uh, just one second.
02:55:15 Yes. Yes. I would I would uh I don't recall that meeting, but I don't disagree. Yeah. Fine. So, was it your understanding that you were there to sort of pull your collective knowledge for the benefit of
02:55:26 collective knowledge for the benefit of C squad?
02:55:28 C squad? Was that meeting looking Can you What was the date for that one with the three of us?
02:55:33 of us? Um so that's very late on in your deployment. That's the 17th of November 2005. I can bring up the document if it assist. No, that's that's fine. Would that that could have potentially been to
02:55:44 that that could have potentially been to do with a large event, right?
02:55:49 right? I see. I understand. It's outside the jurisdiction, I believe. But um that's that's the the list of attendees would be consistent with that. Okay, I understand. Um
02:56:02 Okay, I understand. Um but it is your recollection that nonetheless these meetings it tended to be you and another UCO at least attending these meetings. Yes, pretty much so.
02:56:13 Yes, pretty much so. You refer in your witness statement to and you referred to it just now to desk officers bringing a binder of surveillance forward intelligence team photos to these meetings. Is that accurate?
02:56:24 accurate? Yes.
02:56:28 Was it your understanding that the fit officers, as I'll call them, um these photographs were obtained by them at demonstrations and meetings? So,
02:56:39 at demonstrations and meetings? So, these weren't people involved in criminal activity, for example. They were just people attending certain events, certain meetings. Demonstrations mainly and outside of
02:56:50 Demonstrations mainly and outside of meetings. Yes.
02:56:57 Were you aware? Sorry, moving on now. HN3, um, were you aware at the time that in April 2000 there was a criminal trial relating to J18
02:57:10 in respect of organizing an illegal procession relating to an individual, a donor to reclaim the streets? I think I was. Yes.
02:57:21 I think I was. Yes. Um, and to the best of your recollection, were you aware from your fellow activists or was it something you were made aware of by your SDS colleagues?
02:57:37 I think it would have been open source without naming the individual and then the SDS naming individual. Yes. Okay. Um, yes. and we mustn't name
02:57:49 Yes. Okay. Um, yes. and we mustn't name that individual. No, that's it. Uh,
02:57:54 Uh, can you recall any discussions with SDS managers and or Jim Boiling or with anyone in the SDS regarding Jim Boiling's involvement in J18 and whether
02:58:07 Boiling's involvement in J18 and whether that should be disclosed to prosecutors and the defense in that trial?
02:58:13 trial? No. No as in you don't recall but it's possible or no as in it didn't happen. No, I don't recall.
02:58:26 Rosa, now you've reminded yourself HN3 of her real name. Yes, you remember her. Yes. Yes.
02:58:32 Yes. Yes. Um
02:58:34 Um Rosa says that she started attending Reclaim the Streets meeting in June July 1999.
02:58:42 1999. Can you recall whether that was the case.
02:58:51 That's quite possible because I think the first time I I met that person was at a Earth first summer gathering, right? Do you think that was the summer
02:59:02 right? Do you think that was the summer gathering in 1999? The same one where the
02:59:06 the Yes, possibly. Yes. Yes. Yes. That could be right. Yes. Okay. Well, we'll look at that in more detail in due course. Can I ask you this? From the interactions or from what you saw of
02:59:18 interactions or from what you saw of Rosa at RTS meetings, was it your impression she was an activist in RTS?
02:59:27 Uh, in so much as everybody else, no no different from anyone else attending. Did she attend from what you recall those meetings regularly? I don't know.
02:59:38 I don't know. You can't recall how often? I can't I can't I can't recall the frequency. No. Okay. Well, we we'll return to that topic, but I was just trying to address it in chronological order. Um,
02:59:49 it in chronological order. Um, we'll move now HN3 to uh what was known as N30. So, this is the anti-world trade organization event in 1999.
03:00:02 organization event in 1999. Um, if we could bring up please one of your reports. This is MPS0746681
03:00:11 C-15. Uh, this intelligence was obtained on the 6th of September 1999.
03:00:22 HN3, this reads, "There is little interest within the senior members of London RTS in the proposed anti-W30 demonstration.
03:00:33 demonstration. However, privacy may play a part in some of the organization. Privacy is calling for an action but may have to enlist the support of more junior and inexperienced members.
03:00:44 members. Source comment. Unless the situation changes in the near future, then the proposed action if it is kept secret is likely to be small or if advertised is likely to be fluffy.
03:00:56 likely to be fluffy. RTS are aware of the current police interest and indeed apprehension of their activities. And then handler's comment, the next big RTS is still likely to be next year given the time it
03:01:07 likely to be next year given the time it takes to arrange a big demo.
03:01:14 When you refer to senior members of RTS here, HN3 in the first line of that report, was Jim Boing one of those senior members? Yes.
03:01:26 Yes. You use the word fluffy in the second paragraph. No, the person writing the report used that word. But is it fair to say that fluffy and spiky were words? Well, I don't know.
03:01:38 spiky were words? Well, I don't know. Were these activist words with these SDS words or police words? Probably all three. Okay. But okay. Fluffy denotes.
03:01:49 Okay. But okay. Fluffy denotes. Yes. Yes.
03:01:51 Yes. Yes. No. Disorder. Yes.
03:01:53 Yes. Gentle. Spiky suggests disorder more likely.
03:01:57 likely. I can go.
03:02:00 I can go. But to the best of your recollection at this stage, so this is the 9th of September, any demonstration such as it was was
03:02:09 was was fully intended to be calm, peaceful. Yes.
03:02:18 Um, we can take that down now. Please, if we can bring up your expost facto report on N30. So this is MPS02718
03:02:32 C27 and the date this intelligence was obtained was the 1st of December 1999 and
03:02:42 and [cough and clears throat] excuse me. No, don't worry. You're all right. Do you want to have a glass of water? No, no, thank you. Okay. Um, so first paragraph, the three main organizers for the
03:02:54 the three main organizers for the November 30th demonstration held outside Houston station were privacy, Robert Bambbury and Privacy. Privacy arranged for the speakers to attend while
03:03:05 for the speakers to attend while Bambbury and Privacy was were responsible for the PA system and general arrangements. The principal leaflet of which 20,000 were printed was written by privacy with input from
03:03:16 written by privacy with input from privacy. And then if we could go sorry can we
03:03:20 can we minimize that? Uh second paragraph along with the aforementioned the following met regularly to assist with banner making leaflet distribution and to
03:03:32 making leaflet distribution and to purchase items that were needed for the day. Masks paper candles privacy privacy privacy Jason and a German mail called privacy materials for use on the day
03:03:45 privacy materials for use on the day banners etc. were prepared at the F the FARC building on Fieldgate Street in White Chapel and subsequently stored at the Woburn Bookshop on nearby Woen Walk
03:03:57 the Woburn Bookshop on nearby Woen Walk and taken to the venue by the organizers. The total funds of some 2,000 was filtered through the RTS bank account by privacy.
03:04:09 privacy. Are you Jason Snoo? That's my understanding. Yes. Yeah. Um, was this the extent what set out here uh in terms of was that the extent of your involvement in the
03:04:22 extent of your involvement in the organizing for N30? [clears throat]
03:04:28 Yes, I think that's accurate. Yes, I was it was my first first event that I considered myself part of the organizing group. So, you were stepping up a bit at this stage. Um just for clarity what you
03:04:41 stage. Um just for clarity what you refer to here or what is referred to here sorry as the FARC building is that actually the LRC the London Action Resource Center. Yes, that's right. I think they had difficulty with their name and convention for a while.
03:04:52 name and convention for a while. Right. Who Sorry. Who had difficulty with reclaim the streets? Are we Yes. Yes. Bark and Lark and the uh Right. But it is it's the same building. Yeah.
03:05:05 [snorts] From the reports we've obtained, there are no estimates of the likely [clears throat] numbers attending. To the best of your recollection, HN3,
03:05:16 To the best of your recollection, HN3, did you report that sort of information on the likely number of attendees or not?
03:05:23 I think we would have I would have reported on how many flyers where we' distributed them, but we wouldn't have known in advance how many people were going to turn up. I think it was a is it a midday
03:05:35 turn up. I think it was a is it a midday midweek evening event? Yeah.
03:05:39 Yeah. So, I I I don't recall estimating numbers, I don't think. Yeah. And you don't think, if I understand your evidence, you don't think you would have been able to estimate numbers? No, I don't think I don't think so.
03:05:50 No, I don't think I don't think so. Um, if we could just reduce that again, please just minimize that. Um,
03:06:00 generally speaking in the reporting around N30, the language tends to it it paints a picture of sort
03:06:11 tends to it it paints a picture of sort of apathy and a lack of interest and of a general sort of lack of energy surrounding this event and the organization of it. Is that fair a fair
03:06:23 organization of it. Is that fair a fair characterization? I think it was coming coming so much on the back of J18 that um and then I think the environmental movement moved towards
03:06:36 the environmental movement moved towards uh chasing significant dates when there was a WTO meeting or something like that. So yes, there was there was a lack there was a lack of interest in this. Was it your impression at this stage at
03:06:48 Was it your impression at this stage at all that reclaim the streets was becoming
03:06:52 becoming a less potent force that it was running out of steam? Not not at this stage because this is uh is this still this is 6 months after J18. So So no, not at this stage. No.
03:07:04 J18. So So no, not at this stage. No. Um is it fair to say that because of what had happened at J18 and the media reaction to it that they were very wary? There's a reference in the report. So,
03:07:16 There's a reference in the report. So, they were wary of attracting further negative media attention and of becoming labeled as a particularly
03:07:27 labeled as a particularly disorderly group. That they wanted their message to land as it were as opposed to. That was one of the main arguments for not dis for not having
03:07:39 arguments for not dis for not having disorder that the message of the action would be lost. So it was your understanding that it was important to them that their message landed with the public?
03:07:50 landed with the public? Yes.
03:07:51 Yes. Um just quickly before the lunch break HN3, were you present on the day of N30? I was.
03:07:59 I was. How many people were there roughly? Would you say more than 2,000? Less than 5,000. Was that I mean I know you said it was difficult to estimate but was that more
03:08:10 difficult to estimate but was that more or less than was expected? I had no expectation of how many people turn up but I think yeah.
03:08:20 yeah. What did you do on the day or at the event I should say? I think I handed out flyers. Uh I think I did we move something from a bookshop
03:08:32 I did we move something from a bookshop nearby that rings a bell. I think we mentioned that. um and then just watch the evening's events unfold. Uh yes, it sounds like well from the
03:08:43 Uh yes, it sounds like well from the report it says that you prepared banners and masks and paper suits and then they were transported from the Wurn bookshop and
03:08:54 transported from the Wurn bookshop and taken to the venue. So yes, you were involved in that. That seems accurate. Um
03:09:06 Okay, I think I probably better I think now is probably a good time to stop, sir, before lunch. Otherwise, we'll run into lunch. So, we will pick up this topic again, HN3 after lunch, but I think we better stop now.
03:09:17 think we better stop now. Very well. Um, we'll resume at 2. Thanks, sir. Back at two.