The hearing focuses on the activities of undercover officer HN3 (Jason Bishop) within Reclaim the Streets (RTS), specifically examining his reports on the November 1999 WTO demonstration and the lead-up to Mayday 2000. The session explores the nature of RTS's planning, the impact of police 'kettling' on disorder, and HN3's personal interactions and perceived risks while embedded in the group.
00:21:44 Good afternoon everybody. Uh, this afternoon's evidence is going to be transmitted but by voice only and as usual only after 10 minutes have elapsed. Those with mobile telephones may use them to report what they have
00:21:56 may use them to report what they have heard in the inquiry room, but only after 10 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're recording. They may not be used for recording
00:22:07 not be used for recording the event that they're reporting. I'm sorry. They may not be used for recording. Yes.
00:22:14 Yes. H3, we're returning to the topic of the WTO demonstration on November the 30th, 1999.
00:22:21 1999. Um, if I could bring up please MPS0 2718
00:22:29 2718 that's C27 and this is a report of yours HN3 dated the 1st of December 1999. So it's just afterwards
00:22:41 afterwards uh paragraph three please on this page um
00:22:47 um this reads the intention of the organizers was to stage a non-confrontational demonstration against the privatization of London Underground. Contrary to the
00:23:00 of London Underground. Contrary to the reports in the national press, the violence that occurred was not orchestrated by the organizers who had specifically intended a lowkey event to follow on from J18.
00:23:11 follow on from J18. Speakers at the rally included Privacy from the RMT and Andy Ma, sorry, I'm not quite sure how to pronounce that, from RTS
00:23:23 HN3. This suggests that it was obvious to you then that Reclaim the Streets did not intend for this to be a disorderly event. Is that fair? Yes, agree.
00:23:34 Yes, agree. And in fact, it was quite the opposite. They they specifically wanted the event to be lowkey and peaceful. Is that fair?
00:23:44 There's a reference there to press reports to the press misrepresenting the militancy and the violent tendencies
00:23:55 the militancy and the violent tendencies of reclaim the streets. Um, reclaim the streets in their witness statement refer to a Sunday Times headline, reclaim the streets are stockpiling stun guns and CS gas grenades. Do you remember that at
00:24:07 gas grenades. Do you remember that at the time?
00:24:09 the time? Vaguely.
00:24:11 Vaguely. Um but it was your impression clearly that the press were grossly exaggerating the threat for want of a better word that reclaim the streets posed. Is that
00:24:23 that reclaim the streets posed. Is that accurate?
00:24:25 accurate? For this occasion specifically? Yes.
00:24:30 On page two, if we go to page two of this report, please.
00:24:38 um just the first paragraph where it says a large number of people were masked up on arrival at Houston and remained so for the evening. People expected in previous RTS fashion to be
00:24:50 expected in previous RTS fashion to be led elsewhere for the main demonstration slashconfrontation and appeared frustrated when it became clear that there was no secret plan.
00:25:02 clear that there was no secret plan. And then sorry if we could go to
00:25:09 Um, sorry, the final paragraph there, at no point,
00:25:14 no point, which reads, "At no point during any of the planning meetings was the subject of a possible riot discussed, although it was inherently obvious that if RTS organized the speakers, banners, etc.,
00:25:25 organized the speakers, banners, etc., the dynamics of the crowd could eventually lead to disorder. Although pleased with the outcome of the evening, there remains the problem that the press will once again vilify RTS and that in
00:25:36 will once again vilify RTS and that in doing so, the issues surrounding the World Trade Organization and tube privatization will go unreported.
00:25:48 Apologies, I feel like I've I've repeated myself. Sorry. I apologize. I'm looking at the the wrong section. We've talked about that. Um,
00:26:00 sorry, bear with me. I've lost myself.
00:26:07 Um, sorry, bear with me. Is this Which report is this? M.
00:26:20 I do apologize. HN3. Something's become confused in my plan. I will find the correct reference and I will take you to it. What I want to ask you about is
00:26:33 really how everything unfolded on this day at this rally. So there's a reference in a report to some fireworks being let off and it says in this report
00:26:47 being let off and it says in this report I will find the reference this is from you saying that a large number of the crowd followed on followed a group of 30 people onto the bus concourse whereupon the police were attacked. Can you help
00:27:00 the police were attacked. Can you help us with what you mean by that? So was
00:27:05 was I think there was sorry to my the best of my recol recollection this is um this was late in the evening after the speeches had finished I believe. Yeah.
00:27:14 Yeah. Uh there was I witnessed some kind of uh kicking of shields and sort of pushing and shoving is the best I can right
00:27:23 right describe it as at at that point. And then I think things moved to be a bit more fluid. There was lots of running around uh and things developed from there.
00:27:33 there. Um
00:27:35 Um was it your or did you witness that there was a police cordon introduced at this event so that people because what reclaim the streets say is
00:27:47 because what reclaim the streets say is that people were trying to leave the event at the end of the evening but they were prevented from doing so by a police cordon. Did you see that? Yes, I did. Yes, I agree that that's the case. I think this was the first my
00:27:58 case. I think this was the first my recollection this this is the event where the van was set on fire. Yes. Yes.
00:28:01 Yes. Yes. That nearly paused. Yes. I think that was so this to best of my recollections this was the first use of section 60 the kettling. Yeah.
00:28:10 Yeah. Sorry. This is this is this is the same event. So yes people were trying to go home.
00:28:17 Would you agree that the use of kettling and the cordon actually inflamed the situation that if people had just been allowed to disperse then disorder would not have broken out?
00:28:28 not have broken out? No, disorder had already broken out at this point. I dispute that. Um, but did disorder break up after the kettling as it were? No, the kettling takes a while to put
00:28:39 No, the kettling takes a while to put into into place and this that happened almost at the very end of the evening. I think disorder had already broken out up and down the Houston road by this point.
00:28:54 The kettling as it were took place inside Houston on the bus concourse. Is that accurate? Uh on the grass out the front between the the grass and the Houston. Yes, between the the bus concourse and the
00:29:05 between the the bus concourse and the Houston road, I believe.
00:29:09 And were the police taking photographs? Were fit there taking photographs of people within that kettle? I don't know. That's not something you witnessed, I suppose, is should be the question. Did
00:29:21 suppose, is should be the question. Did you see officers? Um,
00:29:24 Um, just so I understand correctly, were you outside this cordon section? You weren't in the group of people that were surrounded. That's my recollection. Um, were you nearby? I mean, were you
00:29:35 Um, were you nearby? I mean, were you observing? Yes. from nearby.
00:29:42 You've referred to some pushing and shoving. Uh, did you see anyone from RTS participating in that? No.
00:29:51 No. You've referred to the overturning of the van. I think it was a London Transport Police van. I don't think it was overturned. I think it was set on fire. Set on fire. Right. Yes. Sorry. I think Yeah. Um, as far as you know, was anyone
00:30:03 Yeah. Um, as far as you know, was anyone in Reclaim the Streets involved in that? No.
00:30:14 When you say that in this report that we've looked at that at no point during any of the planning meetings was the subject of a possible riot discussed, although it was
00:30:25 riot discussed, although it was inherently obvious, that if RTS organized the speaker's banners, the dynamics of the crowd could eventually lead to disorder.
00:30:36 again. What do you mean by that exactly? How was it, sorry, how is it inevitable that if RTS organized a peaceful protest that it would degenerate into disorder
00:30:48 that it would degenerate into disorder just by basing it off all their previous events from M40, Northland Street Party, Southland Street Party, J18, I think it was inevitable in
00:31:02 I think it was inevitable in a lot of people's minds that who were going to these events that this was the inevitable conclusion. Not every month, but that's in the people who attended. I understand. But not people from RTS. You just mean other people who came
00:31:14 You just mean other people who came along.
00:31:14 along. Yes.
00:31:15 Yes. Right.
00:31:16 Right. Um
00:31:18 Um again in that same section of the report where you say
00:31:29 that RTS you say that they were pleased with the outcome.
00:31:36 Well, sorry. You say that apologies I've lost my thread. Yeah. So in the source comment it says that the final paragraph at no point
00:31:47 that the final paragraph at no point during any of the planning meetings I've read that bit and then you say although pleased with the outcome of the evening there remains the problem that the press will once again vilify RTS. When you say pleased with the outcome of the evening,
00:31:59 pleased with the outcome of the evening, who was pleased with the outcome?
00:32:08 Um I think because it had been uh well uh members of the organizing group I think were pleased that people had turned up. Uh it was quite a big turnout as it turned out and despite the uh
00:32:20 as it turned out and despite the uh disorder we were able to have the demonstration outside Houston. Okay. So pleased with the outcome. despite the disorder not yes
00:32:27 yes because of the disorder. Okay. Um and again just for the avoidance of doubt this reference to the press will once again vilify RTS and in doing so
00:32:39 once again vilify RTS and in doing so the issues surrounding the World Trade Organization and tube privatization will go unreported again. Is this a reference to RTS wanting to win the battle for
00:32:50 to RTS wanting to win the battle for meaning as it were? just to be accurately reported that the the the reason for the demonstration was institute privatization. Yeah.
00:33:00 Yeah. And not descend into tabloid sensationalism. Yeah.
00:33:05 Yeah. Brief digression. Hn3. Um I'd like to bring up please a document MPS0 9465. It's B42.
00:33:19 Um this is a strategy meeting HN3 about your deployment. It's dated the 27th of January 2000. And the first paragraph reads this. The
00:33:31 And the first paragraph reads this. The past year has seen red herring made great strides. Actions such as diggers jam
00:33:39 copex N30 had ensured he was becoming known to a number of leading lights in the environmental field. He needs to continue his progress. With Mayday on the horizon, the opportunity will present itself. He now feels comfortable
00:33:51 present itself. He now feels comfortable at meetings and is beginning to have a group of social friends outside the meetings.
00:33:58 meetings. I just want to draw your attention to that final sentence. He now feels comfortable at meetings. So, does it follow from that that up until
00:34:09 does it follow from that that up until this point, the 27th of January 2000, you felt uncomfortable at RTS meetings? Not uncomfortable. I think I was probably very self-conscious.
00:34:20 probably very self-conscious. Self-conscious because you were worried that you weren't fitting in, that you might stick out. No, clearly I knew who I really was. Yeah.
00:34:28 Yeah. And And you assumed No, not assumed. I I clearly knew who I was going into an environment I wasn't comfortable in. It took me a while to get comfortable.
00:34:39 get comfortable. Um, if we just look at the second section, it said Jordan's voiced suspicions about him had set him back a little, but he was happy that this was merely usual paranoia setting in. Jordan
00:34:51 merely usual paranoia setting in. Jordan has now moved his gaze onto someone else.
00:34:56 else. Jordan, if I understand correctly, is an individual who you knew as John Jordan. Do you recall him? I do.
00:35:07 I do. This would appear, but please correct me if I'm wrong, to be a reference to something that Boiling mentioned, Jim Boiling mentioned in his evidence that
00:35:19 Boiling mentioned in his evidence that Jim that
00:35:22 Jim that Jordan had referred said to Boiling that he suspected you of being a policeman. Is that accurate? Yes.
00:35:36 Did Boiling report that back to you directly?
00:35:39 directly? No.
00:35:42 No. Did you hear that from Bernard Greeny? Yes, from the office. Jim Jim had spoken to my recollection. Jim had spoken to the office. Apologies a bit of feedback.
00:35:53 the office. Apologies a bit of feedback. Jim had reported that back to the office and then they discussed it with me is my recollection. Um, you refer to this in your witness statement and you say, this is a
00:36:04 statement and you say, this is a paragraph 352. You say it put you into something of a panic because you did not want to be compromised before you have really got off the ground. I discussed it in some depth with the STS
00:36:15 it in some depth with the STS management, but I believe that management took the view that I could probably weather the storm, which turned out to be the case.
00:36:24 Was there some consideration given at that time to withdrawing you no from So that was never seriously considered.
00:36:36 You were in something of a panic. Um were SDS managers sympathetic to that or were they? Yeah, very much so. Yeah, in the early
00:36:47 Yeah, very much so. Yeah, in the early to happen in the first few months or I forget the time the chronology but in the early days. Yes, they were very sympathetic and discussed a range of options and uh as it turned out it was uh the correct way.
00:36:59 uh the correct way. Fine. It blew over if I understand correctly
00:37:03 correctly in a document which I'll read it out. We don't need to bring it up. It's MPS0723144.
00:37:12 This was a meeting held in 2011 to discuss the risk to you after the Guardian article and an individual
00:37:23 Guardian article and an individual called HN367 was at that meeting and a DI. I don't know if you just want to remind yourself who that was. But don't worry, it's not it's not that important to the point I want to make. Oh, okay.
00:37:34 okay. Yeah. Um,
00:37:36 Yeah. Um, in this you were recorded to have said that Jay Jordan disliked you but that you became trusted friends. Do you stand by that?
00:37:47 by that? Trusted is probably you'd have to speak to him but yeah we became quite friendly actually. Yeah. Well I ask you because he does he disputes that. So I wanted to explore with you your basis for No, we our paths crossed many times over
00:38:00 No, we our paths crossed many times over the over the subsequent years and we were always very in fact he I went to his house for dinner one night um with a group of others um friends is overstating it. Acquaint acquaintances
00:38:11 overstating it. Acquaint acquaintances is probably more accurate.
00:38:15 Rosa and Jim Boiling. Um it seems from the documents HN3 between November the 30th and Mayday there were
00:38:26 November the 30th and Mayday there were RTS meetings every Tuesday. So in that period I mean give or take I mean it won't be completely accurate but there were around 16 meetings. Does that
00:38:37 there were around 16 meetings. Does that sound broadly accurate? Yes. Now I know we touched upon this earlier but at this stage were you attending every meeting? The majority
00:38:50 The majority and
00:38:52 and to the best of your knowledge was Jim Boing attending every meeting? I don't recall. So now was he was he withdrawing at this point or
00:39:03 was he withdrawing at this point or I mean it's the leadup to May. So, not yet, but he is in he's I mean, when you think that he withdraws in September, so he's building up to withdrawal, he's probably
00:39:14 probably winding down. I don't recall, Jim, at lots of those meetings.
00:39:22 We know that Jim Boing and Rosa entered into a sexual relationship on the 23rd of November, 1999.
00:39:35 And in evidence, Jim Boiling said that he did attend these meetings and that Rosa attended these meetings and that they were very obviously a couple.
00:39:47 obviously a couple. Did you see them together as a couple at these meetings? No, I don't recall it.
00:39:59 How many people were at these meetings roughly?
00:40:03 roughly? I stand by what I said earlier about 40 maybe going up to 70 maybe in that ballpark.
00:40:12 ballpark. Did you hear anything around this time or were you told anything about Jim Boing's living arrangements? No.
00:40:22 No. So for the avoidance of doubt, did you hear anything to the effect that he and Rosa were living together? No. I think just to clarify I don't believe I was ever introduced or
00:40:33 I don't believe I was ever introduced or we we engineered a meeting so we we would even have known each other but you you my recollection clearly I knew him from the field but in a in a a environmental
00:40:44 the field but in a in a a environmental activist sense I don't believe I met him where I would been on first name terms with him I don't believe so you're saying that at the meetings you didn't interact with him
00:40:56 you didn't interact with him no I'm saying that I I wouldn't known him on firstname terms and been friendly with him because one of the things that when we went back if we go all the way back to the beginning this morning when we talked about uh speaking to all the
00:41:08 we talked about uh speaking to all the other UCOs you had to be very careful that
00:41:12 that not to say things or know things that you didn't know and I hadn't met Jim there'd been no reason that I would have known him. But you have been attending RTS meetings for quite a while in the run-up to J18
00:41:25 for quite a while in the run-up to J18 along with 40 to 50 60 other people. Yes.
00:41:28 Yes. Um we've established that well I know you you struggle to recollect but Rosa says that you had met her by this time. I think I have done Yes. So
00:41:39 So apologies. No, sorry. Please do finish because I interrupted you. Um my recollection is I met Rosa um at an earth first gathering
00:41:51 um at an earth first gathering uh in a particular environment where we were chopping vegetables together that's my recollection right well yeah we will come to that but
00:42:00 my question is you met Rosa so did you not interact with Rosa at all at these RTS meetings when you saw her potentially on a if there's any reporting then that that would help Um,
00:42:12 reporting then that that would help Um, but if if there isn't then it might have been on the nodding acquaintance sort of referring back to the gathering or something like that but no that I wouldn't have been in their sphere of friends.
00:42:22 friends. Um, I'll take you to some reporting. Um,
00:42:29 this is a Jim Boiling report but I'm going to bring it up just in case to see whether or not you were there. So this is MPS02786.
00:42:37 It's C267
00:42:41 and this relates to Mayday preparations for00.
00:42:46 for00. Yeah. So the date is the 5th of January 2000. So it's preparations for Mayday. Hn3
00:42:52 Hn3 and this is one of the first reports that the inquiry has obtained that mentions Rosa and it reads the initial plans for Mayday 2000 are
00:43:05 the initial plans for Mayday 2000 are not running smoothly. The intention is to hold a threeday event split into two distinct stages. Part one will be a two-day indoor exhibition held over the weekend of
00:43:17 exhibition held over the weekend of Saturday 29th and Sunday the 30th of April. Part two will be the Mayday gathering itself on Monday the 1st. The indoor event will comprise if successful a variety of stalls, workshops,
00:43:29 a variety of stalls, workshops, displays, lectures, discuss discussion groups, etc., etc. However, the current sticking point is a suitable venue or to be precise any venue. All the potential hosts approached thus far have declined
00:43:41 hosts approached thus far have declined to assist the project on the basis of the adverse publicity surrounding previous RTS extravaganzas. The current hope is a college in West London, but as yet nothing has been
00:43:52 London, but as yet nothing has been agreed.
00:43:54 agreed. Andy Mer, Chris Grover, and Rosa of RTS are all involved in organizing and networking this event and are using the offices of both the Haring Gay Solidarity Group and LGP. Now, I
00:44:07 Solidarity Group and LGP. Now, I appreciate HN3, this isn't your report, but to the best of your recollection,
00:44:14 was Roser involved in planning this aspect of Mayday?
00:44:21 My recollection is that she was involved in a construction of puppets. Is this the right event? Um
00:44:30 Um I'm not I I don't know. There's no mention in the reporting of puppets, but maybe you can help us with the basis for my recollection is is is
00:44:42 my recollection is is is that she was involved in the creation of big flower pot puppets if I've got the right event. Okay. Oh, right. Yes. made it were flower pot puppets would sound. Yes.
00:44:52 Yes. And how sorry I may have interacted with her because I think if this is the right event that I was doing a lot of driving at the time. Yeah.
00:44:59 Yeah. So I may it's conceivable I don't recall the specifics but it is conceivable that I would have dropped off or picked up something. That's quite possible. Yes. Um
00:45:11 sorry if it seems like an obvious question but how were you aware that she was involved in making flower pot puppets? Was this something you discussed with her? Something you saw? Something you I think I saw I think I saw them in
00:45:22 I think I saw I think I saw them in their embryionic stage. And did you discuss it with her? The fact she was doing this? Uh I think she was one of many people kind of with paper mash all over their hands as I recall making a puppet.
00:45:34 hands as I recall making a puppet. Nothing more than that. But it's your evidence that she was very involved in the preparations for Mayday or she had a role in the preparations for Mayday. No, my my recollection is
00:45:47 for Mayday. No, my my recollection is she was involved in preparing the the puppets.
00:45:50 puppets. Yeah. Okay. Part of the preparation. I mean, I understand it's an it's a discreet aspect of it. Um, if we could bring up one of your Oh, no. Apologies. That's a boiling report. Yes. Okay. It's
00:46:03 That's a boiling report. Yes. Okay. It's another boiling report. So, I'll bear that in mind when I ask you questions. It's MPS074652
00:46:11 C37. And this is dated the 2nd of March 2000. Um this reads around 45 people turned up
00:46:22 Um this reads around 45 people turned up to the latest regular Tuesday night RTS meeting on the 29th of February 2000 to discuss the plans and preparations for the Mayday Mass action. Those present split into the custom customary smaller
00:46:34 split into the custom customary smaller discussion groups which included a gorilla gardening subgroup and and a monopoly tour subgroup. The Monopoly Tour group included Tony, possibly identical with Gossling, Rob from M30,
00:46:46 identical with Gossling, Rob from M30, possibly identical with Bambbury, Rosa Privacy Snoo, and Privacy, possibly identical with Privacy. The plan is to meet at Bond Street Tube at 11:00 a.m. on May the 1st before moving on to a
00:46:59 on May the 1st before moving on to a number of different locations depicted on a Monopoly board. In order to mobilize what could be a large crowd at the meeting point, the organizers are planning to hand out community chest cards which will have instructions
00:47:10 cards which will have instructions printed on them. At this stage, it is unclear what particular targets have been chosen by the organizers of this action.
00:47:22 It's my understanding H3 I might be wrong but that at Mayday 2000 this monopoly
00:47:29 monopoly element didn't actually happen. Is that correct? Is that your recollection? Uh I was in the gorilla gardening subgroup and then uh my participation in
00:47:41 subgroup and then uh my participation in the day was rather cau. Yes. Well, we're coming to that. Um to the best of your recollection, don't worry if you can't remember, do you recall Rosa being involved in this
00:47:53 recall Rosa being involved in this Monopoly Tour subgroup for Mayday 2000? I don't know. You can't speak to it. That's fine.
00:48:01 Right, one final prospective report for Mayday and then we'll go to the day itself. Uh, if we could bring up please MPF MPS triple0 triple 34 it's C47
00:48:18 bottom of page two please. So this appears to be a composite report HN3 that contains both yours and HN14's
00:48:29 HN3 that contains both yours and HN14's intelligence. Um I'm interested in the bit we'll come to the not much to say about Monday but just under there on Tuesday the 2nd of May there was a social instead of the regular weekly
00:48:42 social instead of the regular weekly meeting. Hardly anyone turned up and neither to anybody's surprise did the cops or journalists. And then it says people at the social.
00:48:54 And then it says people at the social. And then if we go over the page,
00:48:59 you can see Jim the van. I mean, there's a few names that have privacy reductions, but Jim the van, Jason, and some others. So,
00:49:12 the van, Jason, and some others. So, there's not very many people there, but it's you and Jim both there. So that would suggest that you would know his
00:49:20 know his first name and you would know him in his cover identity. Would you accept that? I would know who him know who he was, but we weren't on we weren't
00:49:32 but we weren't on we weren't we didn't know each other with a kind of air quotes around the no if that makes sense.
00:49:37 sense. Um to the best of your recollection, she's not mentioned there, but can you recall if Rosa was at this social? Uh I don't I can't
00:49:51 If we could go to page four, please halfway down. So there's a list of names here of just people who have been involved in in um Mayday.
00:50:05 involved in in um Mayday. And if we look halfway down page four, so we can see, can you see where it says HM3? Jason Snoo, tall bloke with beard.
00:50:18 bloke with beard. Yeah, photographed at Fidelity Action. Thank you. And then you can see there's privacy active within RTS group. And then underneath that it says Jim the vanne
00:50:30 vanne brackets photographed at fidelity action.
00:50:39 It's just underneath. So it's Jason then privacy active and then Jim the vanne you with me? Yeah. Yeah.
00:50:50 Now, my understanding H&3 is that the Fidelity action, but please do correct me if I'm wrong, that this was a protest which took place in February 2000 at a mutual fund called Fidelity about
00:51:02 at a mutual fund called Fidelity about dumping shares in an oil company drilling on land in Colombia that was claimed by an indigenous tribe. Is that does that chime at all with your recollection?
00:51:13 recollection? Sorry, no. that you don't have any recollection of that particular action.
00:51:23 How did you know? I mean, in so far as well, you may not I I appreciate the the bit in parenthesis photographed at
00:51:34 bit in parenthesis photographed at Fidelity Action. You may not have put that in the report yourself. Were you aware that you had been photographed at this action? I I if it was over police cameras then
00:51:47 I I if it was over police cameras then yes.
00:51:51 In his oral evidence, Jim Boing referred to
00:51:58 photographs of him with Ruth and well particularly Ruth but women with whom he was involved in sexual relationships. There being
00:52:09 sexual relationships. There being photographs taken of them at protests that left
00:52:14 that left no doubt as to the fact that they were in relationships. Were you aware? And and he said, sorry I should explain further. And the reason he said that he he
00:52:27 he said that he he believed that because of the existence of these photographs, SDS management were aware or at the very least the sergeants were aware that he was having these sexual relationships.
00:52:39 these sexual relationships. Were you aware of the existence of such photos?
00:52:42 photos? I don't recall seeing those photographs, but it would have been common if they were police photographs to have been shown as we discussed earlier with the desk meeting. Yeah, we would have shown particular photographs, but I don't recall this. I
00:52:53 photographs, but I don't recall this. I don't even recall the action. Um, also, would you be shown these photographs at the twice weekly meetings?
00:53:01 meetings? Conceivably, yes.
00:53:05 Um, I'd like to bring out one of your reports now in the leadup to Mayday 2000. Um, MPS
00:53:14 triple03031
00:53:17 C35.
00:53:22 Um, just very briefly, if we just read the first paragraph, it says, "Privacy has become the latest suspect in the Mayday organizers spot the grass competition." Take that down please and
00:53:35 competition." Take that down please and bring up another one which is MPS03267
00:53:41 at C46
00:53:45 and the date of that is the 14th of April 2000 and the subject of this report is suspected infiltrator return visit to
00:53:56 suspected infiltrator return visit to RTS.
00:53:58 RTS. Uh this is your intelligence and it reads the unidentified male who attended a single RTS meeting shortly before Christmas asking all sundry what are we doing on the 4th of January nobody
00:54:09 doing on the 4th of January nobody except him was thinking of doing anything reappeared at the RTS weekly meeting on the 11th of April to no one's surprised sorry to no one's surprise he was now interested in what's
00:54:21 surprise he was now interested in what's happening on Mayday if he made sense of any of the replies he received he did very Well,
00:54:31 why did you report this kind of information HN3? Well, I reported everything everything that happened as much as I could detail as I could go into. So, very relevant. So, it's part of the hoovering up
00:54:43 So, it's part of the hoovering up process.
00:54:44 process. Yes.
00:54:50 Had you been instructed to report this kind of information back to special branches specifically if people were suspected of being infiltrators?
00:55:01 No, not specifically.
00:55:05 There was a reference in an earlier document to your feeling unnerved uh about the fact that John Jordan had suspected you. The fact that reclaim the streets or
00:55:17 The fact that reclaim the streets or these reports suggest that reclaimer reclaim the streets were quite alive to the possibility of infiltration. Was that difficult for you? Was that nerve-wracking or was that something you
00:55:29 nerve-wracking or was that something you felt by this stage that I think by manage? I think by the time of the runup to I think after N30 I don't think I gave
00:55:40 I think after N30 I don't think I gave it much the same kind of level of thought as I did earlier on and I felt quite comfortable in my surroundings and had made some good friends by this point.
00:55:55 Can we bring up another report please which is MPS 03060
00:56:01 C36.
00:56:08 This intelligence was obtained on the 24th of February. Uh it says 20 but that would appear to be a typo. It must be O. I think 2000 is what I think it's
00:56:20 O. I think 2000 is what I think it's meant to say. Um
00:56:24 Um the first paragraph reads, "Thus the preparations for the forthcoming MA extravaganza can best be described as an absolute shambles. Initial publicity and
00:56:35 absolute shambles. Initial publicity and planning has been conducted by a variety of inexperienced groups/individuals and their efforts have not met with the approval of their more experienced counterparts, J18 personnel, etc.
00:56:49 counterparts, J18 personnel, etc. As a result of this and other factors, many of the recognized organizers will be taking no part in this venture. Eg. Privacy, privacy, privacy, privacy. Bal Jones, Simon Lewis.
00:57:04 Asked you this question before, but in a different context. HN3 absolute shambles and the fact that experienced organizers were not involved in Mayday. again. Was it your impression at this stage that
00:57:15 it your impression at this stage that RTS's potency as a force was on the Wayne
00:57:22 Wayne somewhat?
00:57:24 somewhat? I I don't recall this report, but it would appear so from this. Yes, that's that's a fair comment.
00:57:35 To what extent, if at all, were you under pressure from your managers at this stage to really step up in terms of your involvement with Reclaim the Streets?
00:57:47 Streets? No, not at all. As far as I was aware, they were quite happy with my progress. My point is is that Boiling, Jim Boing was really leaving in a matter of months again. Was there any as that date
00:58:00 again. Was there any as that date approached, was there any sense of the pressure on you from the SDS ratcheting up or not at all?
00:58:06 all? No, I didn't perceive any. Um, if we could go over to the next page, please
00:58:15 uh if we look at the section under guerilla gardening,
00:58:21 um this reads a third category is the only one that is attracting any real interest. And even this is beset by logistical problems.
00:58:34 Traditional RTS planning would first identify the target and then work around that to select a suitable meeting point from which the crowd can be led to the target. On this occasion, preemptive strikes by others had left them with a designated meeting point from which the
00:58:46 designated meeting point from which the action will have to develop. The major problems with this meeting point of the location, the outrageously early meeting time, and most importantly, the lack of a suitable target. The last of these problems is now being
00:58:58 The last of these problems is now being earnestly considered, but is yet no suitable location has been unearthed. With 100,000 leaflets advertising the meeting place about to be distributed, there is now little that can be done to change the meeting place. The problem of
00:59:09 change the meeting place. The problem of moving the crowd to its final undecided destination are immense and will become even greater the further a field they have to be taken. Previous assemblies at major railway stations have had the advantage of room
00:59:20 stations have had the advantage of room and space in which the crowd can move and in which communications can be established. Even the organizers can foresee the potential nightmare of the same crowd outside a tube station on a main thorough affair. Given the
00:59:31 main thorough affair. Given the potential proximity to traffic, shops and police, it would not take a great deal to spark off a large frustrated crowd.
00:59:39 crowd. Um, if I understand that correctly, HN3, did you mean by that in so far as you can recall that RTS were aware of the
00:59:50 can recall that RTS were aware of the potential for disorder to break out in those circumstances and were keen to avoid that? Is that the correct reading of that paragraph?
01:00:00 I think so. From what I recall, that would be my reading of that now. Um, and then the final paragraph. The initial thoughts for the type of gorilla gardening that would be undertaken are weird and wonderful, but as yet have no
01:00:12 weird and wonderful, but as yet have no substance. Theories range from the simple planting of trees to the more extravagant construction of a straw bale house. Similarly, ideas swing between a small swift action and a much longer six
01:00:24 small swift action and a much longer six to sevenhour site occupation. Other believe others believe a combination of the two would be ideal. So the impression this report gives is
01:00:36 So the impression this report gives is that there are some ideas but it's all quite up in the air. It's all a bit vague and nebulous at this stage. Would you say that's a fair reading?
01:00:46 reading? Yes, I agree. Um would you agree that guerilla gardening was largely a symbolic protest?
01:00:55 protest? Well, as a concept as a whole or this particular action? I mean as a concept that the the idea behind it was more symbolic than actually. No, I disagree. I think from from what I
01:01:06 No, I disagree. I think from from what I heard and this would be from the other activists that gorilla gardening was alive and well in New York and and other major connivations and and was quite successful for community gardening. Um
01:01:17 Um at what stage HN3 did you become aware of the plan to dig up turf from Parliament Square?
01:01:26 I think probably quite late on because I'm not sure that was the plan until very late. But you were aware of that plan prior to the day itself. I'm sorry, I missed the first bit.
01:01:37 I'm sorry, I missed the first bit. Sorry. You were aware of the intention to dig up turf from Parliament Square before the day itself. Is that what I think so, but we obviously had bags
01:01:48 I think so, but we obviously had bags of manure to hand out, so there would be no necessity to dig it up. But I think if that was a if that was an option, then so be it would be my recollection. Um, do you recall, we haven't obtained any reporting to that effect from you or
01:02:01 any reporting to that effect from you or HN14, but to the best of your recollection, did you report that there were in there was a plan perhaps to dig up turf from Parliament Square?
01:02:11 Square? That's my recollection.
01:02:27 You referred HN3 to being in the gorilla gardening subgroup. Is that accurate? Um,
01:02:40 how many people were in that group? I'm sorry, I can't recall. But I suppose my question is, was it 25 people? Was it five?
01:02:51 people? Was it five? Yeah.
01:02:53 Yeah. More than five, less than 15. Did that group make key decisions in relation to the gorilla gardening aspect of the day?
01:03:05 aspect of the day? My recollection, it was logistic. It was more logistics based. When you say logistics based, do you mean moving manure around the place and Yeah, the flyers fetching the manure,
01:03:17 Yeah, the flyers fetching the manure, all the things that went with that. That's that's my recollection.
01:03:22 Did you influence the decisions that were taken in that subgroup?
01:03:29 No, I don't think so. But did you participate in the decision-m process? Apologies. That would have been logical. Yes. So, to the best of your recollection,
01:03:41 So, to the best of your recollection, you didn't block proposals or make suggestions or anything of that sort or did you? I can't recall specifics but um
01:03:52 did you? I can't recall specifics but um I would have played a part of the discussion. Would you accept at least that in a small group it would be quite difficult not to have some influence?
01:04:07 Um in the leadup to guerilla gardening did you spend a lot of time in the reclaim the streets office on Oakfield Road?
01:04:15 Road? Very much so. Um, and
01:04:20 Um, and GRD, if you want to just remind yourself who that is. HN3.
01:04:33 Okay. Yeah. Do you recall that individual? I don't know the surname, but I think I think the first name
01:04:44 think the first name he had a nickname that went with that. Right. Yes. Please don't say the nickname.
01:04:47 nickname. No, no, but if that's the same person, I believe so. Um, he says this in his I won't bring it up, but it's in his witness statement of paragraph 52. He says this. I got to know HN3 when
01:05:00 He says this. I got to know HN3 when elements of the Liel support campaign/London Greenpeace office moved from my flat which was in Islington around 1999/2000 to another location known as the RTS
01:05:13 to another location known as the RTS house.
01:05:14 house. HN3 was in the office whenever I visited.
01:05:19 visited. The mlel support group, London Greenpeace computer and documents were stored in the reclaim the streets house. Do you recall meeting this individual GD
01:05:32 Do you recall meeting this individual GD quite frequently in this premises? I think so. Yes. Did you have access to the McLel support group London Greenpeace computer?
01:05:45 group London Greenpeace computer? This first I've heard that it was there. I didn't know that.
01:05:52 Right. Returning to Mayday specifically, if we could bring up please MPS03126.
01:05:58 Sir, this is B45.
01:06:06 This is this is an office note dated the 17th of March 2000. It appears to be written by null war but it relates HN3 to a meeting at which
01:06:19 but it relates HN3 to a meeting at which Jim Boiling you null war and HN53 were present.
01:06:27 I'll read the first paragraph. It says, "On the 17th of March 2000, myself and HN53 had a meeting with PD Psycho Dream and Red Herring to discuss potential
01:06:40 and Red Herring to discuss potential disruption tactics for the RTS Mayday Extravaganza. It was officially announced at the RTS public meeting last Tuesday that the venue is now Parliament Square."
01:06:51 venue is now Parliament Square." This was useful as we had told Cquad on Monday morning and they had told Gold Brackets Mr. messenger on Monday afternoon. The details of the gorilla
01:07:02 afternoon. The details of the gorilla gardening activity at the Mod are known to C squad but have not been further disseminated and indeed were not mentioned at the RTS meeting.
01:07:16 mentioned at the RTS meeting. We discussed with PsychoDream and Red Herring the possibility of preventing the reclaim the streets leaflets advertising the event hitting the streets.
01:07:24 streets. PsychoDream explained that RTS 30,000 order was currently at Calvert's printers and that prior to collection they were to go to another venue for folding and further artwork. This
01:07:36 folding and further artwork. This location is not presently known, although Psycho Dream revealed that he had been instructed to pick up the leaflets next Monday/ Tuesday from these undisclosed premises. In addition to the RTS print run of 30,000 leaflets, the
01:07:49 RTS print run of 30,000 leaflets, the Mayday committee was having a 100,000 stickers produced advertising Parliament Square as the venue. It was therefore felt that due to Psycho Dream's close involvement in the distribution plus the
01:08:02 involvement in the distribution plus the unknown location of so many other stickers, a preemptive strike against the printers was not a viable option.
01:08:16 HN3, first of all, that first sentence sets out as the express purpose of this meeting to discuss disruption. As far as you were aware, was this a new
01:08:27 As far as you were aware, was this a new practice or was this an established practice?
01:08:33 Uh,
01:08:37 we had quite often had meetings with the desk,
01:08:40 desk, sorry, with the uh the cover officers. Yeah.
01:08:43 Yeah. Uh but yes, this would have been the first time I recall a meeting specifically to try and disrupt something because
01:08:53 I don't recall one having that similar before.
01:08:55 before. Um do you recall you may not have attended a meeting about disruption, but it was it something you ever heard referred to prior to this for example in the SDS meetings? No.
01:09:06 No. Um,
01:09:08 Um, it seems paragraph two sets out the what we can refer to as plan A, which was a suggestion of disrupting it via the
01:09:20 suggestion of disrupting it via the printers. So, interfering with the printers and preventing publicity that way. But it's clear from this that that was deemed not viable. If we look at the
01:09:31 was deemed not viable. If we look at the next paragraph that starts plan B. So this appears to be the next plan that was considered. Plan B was to reassemble a list of key Mayday personnel mixed with other leading RTS activists who
01:09:43 with other leading RTS activists who were not directly involved in this action for executive action by CO11 city FIB etc.
01:09:51 FIB etc. After much discussion of the merits or otherwise of many people a list of 10 people was drawn up and has now been submitted to C squad. It comprises privacy and amongst others John Jordan
01:10:02 privacy and amongst others John Jordan and Jim Sutton who are deemed to be the three key organizers of the action along with Andy Mike. The ideal scenario would be for Psycho Dream to pick up the
01:10:13 be for Psycho Dream to pick up the leaflets on Monday Tuesday, deliver 3,000 to the Tuesday night meeting, 15,000 to the RTS office and another 12,000 to key activists including himself. The leaflets would therefore
01:10:25 himself. The leaflets would therefore enter the public domain on Tuesday evening and on either Wednesday or Thursday morning. The home addresses of the above 10 activists plus the RTS officers be visited by police with a
01:10:37 officers be visited by police with a view to the seizure of literature promoting unlawful assembly. Does this ring a bell? H3, do you remember discussing this? I'm afraid I don't. Sorry. No.
01:10:49 I'm afraid I don't. Sorry. No. So, are you unable to assist us with whether or not this represents the plan in its entirety or whether there were other aspects to
01:11:00 or whether there were other aspects to it that were not set out in this note.
01:11:05 I can't help you. Uh yes, take your time because I realize it's dense. I think
01:11:13 I think preemptive action was talked about but a lot later on at other events and I I don't recall this one. Um
01:11:24 Um well the date of that I'm not quite sure what you meant by that. The date of this is the 17th of March 2000. When you say preemptive action was discussed later than other events. So yeah subsequent actions further down the line other unrelated RTS events that
01:11:37 the line other unrelated RTS events that one of the things that were discussed was uh preemptive arrests for people involved in planning. But I don't recall it for this one. I don't think the RTS office was raided. Um well it's just being discussed at
01:11:49 Um well it's just being discussed at this stage. Yeah. Yeah. I I maybe it didn't make anything past discussion. Um well, we'll come to that because it there's some indication by the end of the document, but it seems from this
01:12:00 the document, but it seems from this paragraph that we've just looked at that there was a plan, as you say, a preemptive arrests and that Jim Sutton was to be arrested as part of that plan. I appreciate you
01:12:13 as part of that plan. I appreciate you say that you're struggling to recollect this, but I will ask the question.
01:12:20 What was your understanding then? Or if you can't recall, what would you understand the purpose of that plan to be
01:12:30 be to disrupt to disrupt the organization of the event? Is that what you're asking me? Yeah. I mean, I'm just by preemptively arresting people was the intention there then to
01:12:40 then to Oh, I see. Yes. I guess I guess if they were key if they had key roles on the day them being arrested would prevent those key roles from taking place is I'm guessing is what they're driving at.
01:12:51 guessing is what they're driving at. Right. And you don't to the best of your knowledge you don't think there was anything else to it. I mean in terms of dissuading people from getting involved and protesting organizing.
01:13:02 organizing. No no definitely intimidating people. No.
01:13:10 I'll read the final paragraph. It says, "At a subsequent meeting I had with TN19,
01:13:17 TN19, TN20
01:13:19 TN20 and Mike Dell, the legal viability of such searches were raised. The matter will be raised with the solicitor's department for a definitive answer, but should it be deemed nonviable, then the same names will be
01:13:31 nonviable, then the same names will be subject to a fairly overt series of stops, surveillance, and general harassment. We will need to liaz closely on this to ensure that we have control of certain elements of such action. But
01:13:43 of certain elements of such action. But overall, such a resolution should not only seriously disrupt the organization of the Mayday event, but also material materially assist PD in his withdrawal strategy.
01:13:55 strategy. So it seems from that that there were doubts about the legality of these preemptive arrests and so it was decided that stops and searches would be
01:14:07 that stops and searches would be preferable. Again, does that chime at all with any recollection you might have?
01:14:11 have? I think from wider reading the Met had a history of providing RTS with funds from unlawful arrests. So that would the fact
01:14:23 unlawful arrests. So that would the fact they're talking about the legality of it would that rings a bell. Yeah. Sorry, I I've missed the beginning of that response. Who provided funds? I missed that. But the Met Police had had provided inadvertently provided funds from rec
01:14:35 inadvertently provided funds from rec from been sued for unlawful arrests. Right. Okay. That's that's why they're probably focusing on the legality on this occasion. If I've got my chronology right,
01:14:45 right, I understand. So they were wary and so stops and searches carried less legal risk. Is that essentially what you're saying or that's what you understood the MPS?
01:14:55 MPS? Exactly. I mean you still have to be proportionate and leave lawful but yes. Yeah. Um
01:15:02 Yeah. Um this notion of a fairly overt series of stops surveillance and general harassment. How much detail I mean again I
01:15:13 How much detail I mean again I appreciate it's a long time ago but to the best of your recollection how much detail was that discussed? In how much detail was that discussed? I have no recollection of that, I'm afraid.
01:15:25 afraid. Can you help us with what the
01:15:31 preferred impact what what did SDS managers special branch in your view or would you think what impact did they seek from conducting
01:15:45 seek from conducting stops and searches and general harassment? What was it they hope to achieve do you think?
01:15:52 think? Uh I don't know. You'd have to speak to them before. Okay.
01:15:58 Do you think uh and would you agree that it suggests that what this suggests was sought was a chilling effect on protest to some
01:16:11 chilling effect on protest to some extent or not?
01:16:15 No, I'm not sure I'd agree with Why would you not agree with that? uh because these were people who were proactively planning a a demonstration.
01:16:26 proactively planning a a demonstration. So guess the police wanted to know what they did without information is up to them but we were supplying what was who was involved. One of those individuals was Jim Sutton though. So would you appreciate that
01:16:39 though. So would you appreciate that that in itself is
01:16:43 problematic? I'm sorry I don't follow your question. Jim, if Jim if Jim was going to get stopped as part of an exit strategy, that's one thing. Uh, if that's what
01:16:55 that's one thing. Uh, if that's what you're referring to. Well, it it just seems that it's suggesting that he I mean it would help with his exit exit strategy, but it was more that he would be as one of the key organizers of Mayday. he would along
01:17:06 organizers of Mayday. he would along with other named individuals be originally considered arrested or stopped and searched and that he's one of a small number. Do you see the point of course?
01:17:17 of course? Yes.
01:17:19 Yes. Uh the very final sentence of this document reads C squad were delighted with these developments and are sure that in turn uniform will relish the challenge of being let off the leash by
01:17:32 challenge of being let off the leash by special branch.
01:17:35 Do you have any recollection HN3 of this being said at that meeting? No.
01:17:44 Did you hear
01:17:49 things like this said at other meetings to the effect of uniform relishing the prospect of being let off the leash? No. At protest? No.
01:18:01 No. At protest? No. Um,
01:18:04 so are you able to help us with whether or not this notion of uniform being let off the leash involved doing so on Mayday itself actually at
01:18:16 doing so on Mayday itself actually at the protest?
01:18:21 I think it may refer to the fact that they've been given prior information of what was actually going to happen. That's my understanding of what what you've just read, right?
01:18:41 Were you kept in the loop at all, HM3, about the extent to which the this plan or plan B was put into action? No.
01:18:52 No. So, you had no awareness of whether or not there were subsequent operations? along those lines. Um
01:19:02 Um JJ Jordan in their witness statement recounts an incident which took place on the 5th of April 2000
01:19:13 2000 and in which they referred to being stopped in Victoria station by a number of plain clothes officers and being photographed. Just for reference, that's paragraph 55 of that witness statement.
01:19:26 paragraph 55 of that witness statement. He then says that he was followed they they were followed home in Soduk to Barban with their six-year-old son to see star to see a Star Wars exhibition.
01:19:37 see star to see a Star Wars exhibition. Were you aware of this at the time? I don't believe so. So you didn't hear anything about it from John Jordan at a meeting?
01:19:50 from John Jordan at a meeting? I can't recall it. Is there any reporting that would assist me? No, there's not. I'm afraid not. So, it's just whether or not you recall. I I don't dispute if if John says that's what happened. I don't dispute that. But I don't no recollection.
01:20:01 I don't no recollection. And it I take it that it follows from that you heard nothing about it from SDS managers or C squad managers.
01:20:14 If we could bring up please MPS0LE34.
01:20:18 It's at C47,
01:20:22 page one, paragraph one.
01:20:28 This it appears to be one of your raw reports, I think, HN3, as you describe them. It's not formatted in a SDS manner. It says, "The final preparations
01:20:39 manner. It says, "The final preparations for Mayday began on the weekly Tuesday night meeting at the Tavern. Privacy announced that a large number of people would need would be needed to help out in Oakfield Road on the Friday
01:20:51 help out in Oakfield Road on the Friday before Mayday. Members of the Tact Collecting Group, Privacy, Jason, Pne, Privacy, and Privacy held a separate meeting and agreed to meet at the office
01:21:02 meeting and agreed to meet at the office the following morning in order to collect the compost/horsemanure from a nearby farm. And then paragraph two please.
01:21:14 And then paragraph two please. This sets out the movements of the manure. On Wednesday the 26th of April. Privacy Jason. Privacy. Privacy. Please speak to Jim Rehim as he stayed with privacy for the
01:21:26 Rehim as he stayed with privacy for the rest of the week and did a lot of the driving. Privacy and privacy. She just turned up on specs to help. She is apparently involved in LAA. The previously mentioned went to the city farm in Kenish town to collect the
01:21:38 farm in Kenish town to collect the manure which had been pre-arranged by privacy. She had also arranged the purchase of six bales of hay. Thank you. And then if we could just go
01:21:49 Thank you. And then if we could just go to paragraph five.
01:21:55 It says, "The next two days were spent decanting the manure from the large sacks into more easily carried shopping bags. Privacy is convinced her flat and telephone are bugged and will only speak
01:22:06 telephone are bugged and will only speak freely on the roof terrace of her flat. At no time did she speak of Fieldgate or the flat on the privacy estate. There was the feeling of separate little groups all preparing for the Monday without actually meeting them or talking
01:22:18 without actually meeting them or talking about them. And then page two, if we could go over please.
01:22:26 Um just that first paragraph it says the organizing group consisted of privacy privacy privacy John Jordan and privacy at the last moment both Jim and privacy not privacy were brought in on a
01:22:38 not privacy were brought in on a consultancy basis. Okay so we'll just unpack that a little bit. Uh the previous paragraphs is that a accurate record of your activities
01:22:51 a accurate record of your activities broadly speaking in the runup to Mayday 2000? Yes. Yes. I would I would agree with that. Um
01:23:03 when you say TAT organizing group, what what does that mean exactly? Is that Oh, TAT's just a generic name for anything required. Top wallins, uh
01:23:15 anything required. Top wallins, uh anything that could be kettles, pots and pans, anything that could be like sunundries. Um, when you say at the last moment both Jim and privacy were
01:23:26 last moment both Jim and privacy were brought in on a consultancy basis, can you help us with what that actually meant? Even with reading that I don't recall. I'm sorry.
01:23:37 I'm sorry. Um,
01:23:39 Um, paragraph two or sorry, page two. I'll just take you to that. It says Jason Privacy and Privacy agreed to go to the critical mass on the Friday evening which was due to start from the South
01:23:50 which was due to start from the South Bank. This was so that they could distribute the small bags of compost to the cycle riders. But due to the attention of uniform cops, only a dozen or so bags were given out and the
01:24:01 or so bags were given out and the evening was deemed a disaster.
01:24:06 And then the penultimate paragraph on page two
01:24:12 on Tuesday the 2nd of May there was a social instead of the regular. Oh no apologies we don't need to read that. Apologies. Um penultimate paragraph. It says
01:24:25 says late on sorry I took you to the wrong one. So it reads, "Yet late on Sunday afternoon, Privacy asked Privacy and Jason to return to Primrose Hill to collect the stuff previously deposited and bring it to the drop off point on the Monday morning." She explained that
01:24:36 the Monday morning." She explained that the dropoff point will be Belgrave Square and that they should wait about 10 minutes away and wait for a phone call to let them know that sufficient people were in the square. Privacy was tasked with recruiting people from the previously cracked squat and making sure
01:24:48 previously cracked squat and making sure that they were in place to receive the wheelbarrows, hay, etc. that the van would bring in. privacy gave them a telephone number to ring in case the van broke down or was stopped by police. So again, to the best of your
01:25:00 So again, to the best of your recollection, is this a accurate record of your activities in the immediate leadup to Mayday? Yes.
01:25:12 Did you seek management's authorization to participate to this extent in the preparations for guerilla gardening? No.
01:25:22 No. Why was that? Uh we we weren't intended on doing anything criminal. Um it was no more so than any other um regular event.
01:25:36 To what extent HN3 was this you self-tasking as it were? So you taking the initiative getting involved as opposed to you being
01:25:47 getting involved as opposed to you being directed by management? Yes, that's fair comment.
01:25:53 Right, moving to the day itself. So, the 1st of May 2000. Um,
01:25:59 Um, there are references in these documents to you driving a van. Um, to the best of your recollection, was this GRD's van?
01:26:10 this GRD's van? I think it was cuz we didn't we didn't have a van. Might be getting fused with somebody else's, but this is my recollection. Yeah, he says it was his van. So, okay. Yes, I would agree.
01:26:23 okay. Yes, I would agree. Um, I think you answered my question with that response, but why did you borrow his van? Was it because you did not have a van? Yes.
01:26:33 Yes. Um,
01:26:37 in your witness statement to the inquiry at paragraph 254, you refer to your arrest on this day and you say that you arrested with a van
01:26:49 and you say that you arrested with a van full of manure and seeds. Yes.
01:26:52 Yes. In the morning on route to the guerilla gardening event. Yep.
01:26:58 Yep. You say you were arrested together with privacy and you were taken to Charing Cross police station. We'll come to the time you spent in Charing Cross police station. Can you help us just broadly HN3 with the
01:27:11 help us just broadly HN3 with the circumstances of that arrest? Just what happened immediately before and and how it happened? I I think elements of it were covered in that in the previous document you shown
01:27:22 that in the previous document you shown that we we had the van. Um myself and the other individual spent the night at my uh my flat. Uh we drove early in the morning to a our plan was to go
01:27:34 morning to a our plan was to go somewhere close by. Um but my recollection is we didn't even get to the close by RV. We were stopped by the police before we got there. Um there's reference in your Hearn
01:27:46 Um there's reference in your Hearn statement to you're being stopped by a territorial support group van. And you say in that statement that it became clear that we had been followed. Is that your evidence now?
01:27:59 Is that your evidence now? Well,
01:28:02 I don't know where that would have come from, but followed by a TFG van is not hard to spot. So maybe they it was a quiet bank holiday morning is my recollection. So we would have seen them for a while and we probably Yes. I think
01:28:15 for a while and we probably Yes. I think we discussed myself and the other the driver we discussed that they were behind us and they were there for some time. Maybe a matter of minutes is my recollection. Yeah. Um you say you were arrested for
01:28:29 Yeah. Um you say you were arrested for conspiracy. Conspiracy to do what? I think they said we were arrested for conspiracy to cause criminal damage. Right.
01:28:37 Right. Can you help us with what your co-conspirator, for one of a better word, the person in the van with you, how they came to be in that van with you? Had you invited them to help? Had
01:28:49 you? Had you invited them to help? Had they done so off their own bat? Can you recall?
01:28:51 recall? I think they were they were they were a member of the uh the gorilla gardening subgroup as previously mentioned in those other reports. And I think we myself and that person got on quite well
01:29:03 myself and that person got on quite well personally and we did a lot of running around driving and dropping things off, picking up and I think I don't know how it ended up just being us to but uh no there was no um there
01:29:14 us to but uh no there was no um there was no collusion on my part to invite him to to participate. No, it was uh we didn't even know we're going to get arrested.
01:29:21 arrested. No, but I'm saying you didn't recruit him to help you with whatever activity you were undertaking at that time.
01:29:30 We know from your witness statement and the documents you were arrested. You were taken to ch sorry apologies taken to Charing Cross police station where you say you spent
01:29:42 you say you spent 4 hours or so in a cell before being questioned.
01:29:55 Were you given ev any explanation at any point as to why you were being held for so long in a cell? No.
01:30:04 No. Did you query it with any of the officers there at the time, the custody officers?
01:30:17 Were you ever given to understand just for the avoidance of doubt that the reason you were being held in the cell for so long was to prevent you from returning to the guerilla gardening
01:30:28 returning to the guerilla gardening protest? Did anyone ever say anything to that effect? No.
01:30:38 You refer to being questioned by a solicitor of Blavo Sharp before you were questioned. Were you advised on your own or with your fellow
01:30:49 advised on your own or with your fellow passenger in the I think is this on the day of the arrest?
01:30:53 arrest? Yes.
01:30:53 Yes. At the station? No, just just myself, I believe.
01:31:02 Were you charged on that day? No. So you a bel to return? Yes.
01:31:15 To the best of your recollection, HN3, what was the reaction amongst people in RTS to your having been arrested on this day? Were they annoyed with you? Were
01:31:26 day? Were they annoyed with you? Were they sympathetic? Were they impressed that you'd taken one for the team?
01:31:34 team? uh
01:31:39 seem to remember the person who was marked as privacy being uh
01:31:50 complimentary that we done all we could and it was not our fault. Yeah. Um, there's a reference in your Hearn
01:31:59 Hearn witness statement to the solicitor reporting back to group members that you'd performed well and that that was well received by members of RTS.
01:32:12 Performing well,
01:32:16 does that mean the fact that you didn't blab that you gave no a no comment interview or does that mean something else?
01:32:21 else? No, I think that's probably I think that's probably fair comment. Looking now at the red of the reaction of STS management to your arrest. Um what was their response to this having
01:32:33 what was their response to this having happened?
01:32:40 Uh I ranging from occupational hazard to
01:32:47 maybe assisting with my cover, but I I I'm speculating. To the best of your recollection, were they pleased at least that you hadn't shown out?
01:32:58 shown out? Yes, very much so. Um,
01:33:02 Um, that was one of the that was one of the the things that going right the way back to this morning that was talked about by all the UCOs that if you did get arrested, you just kept them and let
01:33:13 arrested, you just kept them and let events take its course. Yeah. And you'd followed that guidance to a tea. So, in that respect, it was well executed for one of a better word. Um, we looked at it briefly before
01:33:26 Um, we looked at it briefly before that raw report of yours, HN3. I don't think we need to bring it up, but when you're setting out the events surrounding Mayday, you say not when you're referring to
01:33:37 you say not when you're referring to Monday, you say in that report, not much to say about Monday and then there's 16 exclamation marks. Do you recall that? Yes.
01:33:45 Yes. Yeah.
01:33:49 Would you agree that that makes it sound like it's all a bit of a joke? No, I disagree. Why do you disagree? because getting arrested is not a joke
01:34:00 because getting arrested is not a joke and
01:34:01 and no
01:34:01 no in context of that report it was perhaps sarcasm or irony no ironic right
01:34:08 right nothing not much to say about Monday so yes that's what I would say sure um could we bring up please MPS0732481
01:34:17 B48
01:34:21 if we could look at page two please um HN3 this is a minute from DCI HN58 8 dated the 2nd of May 2000. It's addressed to detective chief
01:34:32 It's addressed to detective chief superintendent Black through Detective Superintendent McCluck
01:34:41 0732481
01:34:49 uh page two. So it's the minute. Yeah, thank you very much. Uh and HM58 has written this. I am satisfied that the officer acted within accepted SDS guidelines and that the security of SDS
01:35:02 guidelines and that the security of SDS has not been compromised. A solicitor sympathetic to RTS who attended the police station greeted the conspiracy offense with some murf and by all accounts even the custody sergeant
01:35:13 all accounts even the custody sergeant was somewhat embarrassed. The manure is apparently being submitted for forensic examination. Exclamation marks. If you agree, I suggest that the case be allowed to take
01:35:24 suggest that the case be allowed to take its normal course pending further developments. First of all, H&3, to the best of your recollection, is the second paragraph accurate in terms of what happened? Did
01:35:35 accurate in terms of what happened? Did the solicitor and even the custody sergeant treat the incident with some mirth and there was some embarrassment?
01:35:47 was some embarrassment? Yes.
01:35:51 Was it your impression that the tone of this minute reflects HN58's
01:36:00 take on the incident in that it was a bit of a laugh. The fact it was an arrest to do with manure. It was all treated as a bit of a bit of a joke or
01:36:13 treated as a bit of a bit of a joke or not.
01:36:14 not. No, I dis I would disagree with that assertion. Um I think clearly the the minute about the manure of being sent for um analysis is quite flippant but um no this was um this was quite serious
01:36:26 no this was um this was quite serious because
01:36:28 because as obvious as things as the uh process took place um it caused all sorts of inconven all sorts of problems. Yes.
01:36:36 Yes. So no it would it wasn't um treated with mirth but in the office. No fine. So they weren't you weren't given that impression that management took it all quite lightly. No definitely not. Right.
01:36:49 Robert Bambry in his witness statement says that
01:36:53 says that he was aware before the at the before the reclaim the streets meeting that followed from this. He was aware that you'd been arrested
01:37:06 aware that you'd been arrested and he said that at their meeting you were very nervous about having to attend a police interview. Do you recall expressing those sentiments at an RTS
01:37:18 expressing those sentiments at an RTS meeting shortly after this arrest? I I don't recall it. But is it fair to say that you were actually genuinely nervous about returning to Charing Cross police
01:37:30 returning to Charing Cross police station?
01:37:30 station? Yeah, I don't dispute that at all. You refer to this in your witness statement. You say paragraph 255. You say that when you were on bail in your cover identity, you were rebailed by
01:37:41 cover identity, you were rebailed by post at least twice. The consistent advice to me after my arrest was just to keep my head down, keep going and see the process through, but I found that very difficult to do. Were you rebelled
01:37:53 very difficult to do. Were you rebelled by post at your request, HN3, because you were nervous about returning or was that just how it happened? No, I think that was just the general fine
01:38:03 fine general delays in the bureaucracy of the criminal justice system.
01:38:12 GRD said that following this arrest, this is paragraph 53 of his witness statement, he says that the van that you borrowed off him was impounded.
01:38:23 borrowed off him was impounded. Yes, that's correct. Do you recall that? Yes. Yes.
01:38:25 Yes. Yes. And he said that when it was returned a week or so later, all of the wheel nuts were loose. Do you recall that happening? I mean, or hearing about that happening. Yes. Yes, I do. I I felt really bad for
01:38:38 Yes. Yes, I do. I I felt really bad for that person because they need, as I recall, they needed their van for work. Yes, that's what he says. They wouldn't give it back to myself or the driver because we weren't the owner.
01:38:51 the driver because we weren't the owner. So that he, this is my recollection. Yeah.
01:38:54 Yeah. He had to go and collect it and I think he told me two days a week at some point quite quickly afterwards about the the
01:39:05 quickly afterwards about the the willnuts. Yes, I I do recall that. Yeah, absolutely. Um
01:39:12 Jim Boiling in oral evidence when he was questioned about this said that well he indicated that this was a thing and that he said that when he had been arrested
01:39:23 he said that when he had been arrested or apprehended driving a van in relation a vehicle in relation to the M41 protests
01:39:32 protests that when the vehicle was returned to him by the police the tires had been let down and he suggested that this was something police did to render vehicles
01:39:44 something police did to render vehicles unusable by activists. Does that ring any sort of a bell with you or chime with you at all? I've not heard that. Right.
01:39:56 Could we bring up please MPS0745252?
01:40:01 This is B49.
01:40:05 It's dated the 11th of July, 2002. It's not entirely clear who the author is. I think it's probably HN53.
01:40:15 Um, it says, "I had a lengthy chat with Red Herring last Thursday on general issues about his current operation and more particularly his imminent return to
01:40:26 particularly his imminent return to Charing Cross police station as one of the manure two. I did my best to assage those anxieties." BG Bernagrini is preparing a separate report on the strategy to his
01:40:38 separate report on the strategy to his return to Chairan Cross. Although by the end of the conversation he was rather more sanguin about the outcome, it is clear that rather like the van situation, his concerns tend to weigh
01:40:49 situation, his concerns tend to weigh inordinately heavily on his mind.
01:40:55 First of all, HN3 worried about the van situation. Is that what you referred to just now in relation to GD's van or was this another van?
01:41:06 Um, rather like
01:41:14 I'm not sure what he's referring to there.
01:41:16 there. Okay. Um,
01:41:19 Okay. Um, he uses the phrase his concerns tend to weigh inordinately heavily on his mind. The use of inordinately there suggests
01:41:31 The use of inordinately there suggests or could be read as suggesting that you were making rather too much of a situation. Would you say that's a fair reading of it?
01:41:42 reading of it? I I don't know. I've read it, but I don't know what he means by it. Um, did management ever give you the impression or ever convey to you that they thought you were making too much of a fuss about things like this, for
01:41:53 a fuss about things like this, for example, like having to go back to Charing Cross? Not directly or overtly to mean no. No, you were never given the impression you were too high maintenance, for example.
01:42:07 Um, looking at the final paragraph, it may also be worth recording that Red Herring said that on a recent visit last week to his GP about an old ankle injury, he had asked for the doctor's
01:42:18 injury, he had asked for the doctor's opinion on the loss of two 1-in square patches of beard. After seeking advice from a dermatologist, the GP asked Red Herring if he felt that he was currently under stress and said that this type of
01:42:30 under stress and said that this type of hair loss was often a symptom. The hair has since started to grow back, albeit gray. Do you recall this as three? I do.
01:42:39 I do. So, if I understand this correctly, you were so stressed out that you were actually losing hair. Is that right? I believe you might be aware in my
01:42:51 I believe you might be aware in my statement. of some issues that I we can't really discuss.
01:42:57 discuss. Of course. Yes. And that would be the origin of the stress.
01:43:02 stress. Fine. Okay. I appreciate it. Does that make sense? I understand. Yes. We won't go there. Um Yeah.
01:43:07 Yeah. But yes, I was the the but and it was around this time that you
01:43:12 that you Absolutely. Yeah. Um just something very quickly. I just want to check with you. You refer in your witness statement at paragraph 24. We don't need to bring it up, but that a UCO commented to you on your hair loss
01:43:26 UCO commented to you on your hair loss and said he came up to you and questioned you and said, "Oh, you don't seem to have lost any hair, but I've read that you had hair loss." Does that ring a bell with you? Yeah. Yeah. So, my my recollection Yeah. No names, please. Sorry.
01:43:38 Yeah. No names, please. Sorry. No, no, of course. Yeah. My recollection that it wasn't I didn't mention it to the office. Yeah. Right. My recollection is that I mentioned it to another UCO and it had been overheard
01:43:49 to another UCO and it had been overheard and reported. Oh, I see. Okay. And then it ended up You think? I think so. I I don't know the circumstances, but my recollection is I didn't mention it
01:44:01 recollection is I didn't mention it directly to them. Yes. Because I didn't want to be perceived or whatever. I didn't want to bring more trouble to their door, but I did speak to another UCO about said hair loss and was apparently overheard.
01:44:13 hair loss and was apparently overheard. I understand. So, this is not reported directly from you. This is reported from is my UCO's account of what you said. Um,
01:44:25 Um, now you refer in your witness statement to
01:44:29 to your cover officer suggesting around this time when you were anxious about having to return to Charing Cross about putting you in touch with HN1.
01:44:41 with HN1. Do you want just Yeah. No names, please. Um,
01:44:46 Um, and you say in your witness statement that HM1 enjoyed semi-leendary status.
01:44:53 status. Yes, that's true. Can you help me with what you mean by that? HM3. Uh he was spoken in very high terms by other field officers who knew them.
01:45:03 them. And high terms in relation to what uh what he had achieved, what he done, their uh level of infiltration.
01:45:15 Were there other former undercover officers who were were recorded that same status? And if so, who were they?
01:45:25 again. Yes, of course. Being very careful about names.
01:45:31 Uh, I'm going to struggle to name them. Fine.
01:45:35 Fine. I can write them down. Yes, please. If you could
01:46:06 Thank you. Um, HN3, what to the best of your recollection, did John Dyn have semi-le legendary status? No, not not not to not not in the same way that I would describe these people.
01:46:18 way that I would describe these people. Sure. Uh, what about Bob Lambert? No.
01:46:29 Did you hear anything at the time about HN1 having had a sexual relationship when he was deployed? No.
01:46:37 No. Um, I understand from the documents that you did speak to HM1, I think. Was that on the phone? It was correct. Yeah. Um, can you recall broadly speaking what he
01:46:49 can you recall broadly speaking what he said to you during that conversation just in broad terms, please? I think he was broadly sympathetic to my plight, but we'll also just
01:47:02 let it let matters take its course. It'll be okay. And nothing specific, but I think he was he he was just letting me know it was okay.
01:47:13 he was just letting me know it was okay. just sort of pep talk. Is that a fair way to describe it? No, I think just someone to listen to.
01:47:25 Um, now I understand from the documents and your witness statement that it ultimately the arrest went nowhere. They dropped the charges. Is that accurate? That's correct.
01:47:37 That's correct. And apologies if this seems like an obvious question, but what was your reaction to it being dropped? Oh, very pleased. And STS management.
01:47:49 And STS management. Uh, I guess the same. Looking now quickly, HN3 at Earth first. Yes. Um this is a group mentioned in
01:48:00 Yes. Um this is a group mentioned in your authorization documents but looking at the reporting the inquiry has obtained. It seems that you only really apart from very periphery report on the
01:48:13 apart from very periphery report on the Earth first summer gatherings. Was that the extent really of your association with Earth First? I think so. Yes.
01:48:24 You refer in your witness statement to going on at least three Earth summer gatherings. Is that accurate? Possibly more, but yeah,
01:48:34 yeah, definitely three. But they happened annually. Yes.
01:48:37 Yes. In any event, and you say in your witness statement that it was almost obligatory for anyone in the environmental scene, which is why it was necessary for you to continue your involvement.
01:48:48 involvement. It was a good opportunity to network. Um, is it fair to say that they were social events? No. No. There was there was a large element social in the evening, but during the day there was a full a full
01:49:00 during the day there was a full a full schedule of uh of of workshops and events. It was a quite a full week. Were there ever any actions taken during our first events?
01:49:11 during our first events? I think there were sometimes. Yes, they were. I think there was one at a
01:49:18 They weren't. Yeah, I think there were, but I I don't remember attending him. Well, I was going to ask if you could provide us with a specific example. Uh, I think there was one at a potentially at a quarry, but I might
01:49:30 potentially at a quarry, but I might have got that wrong. Did you participate in that? No. No. I I might have got that wrong. Right. Um, you continue in your witness statement. You say that
01:49:44 statement. You say that there was a significant risk of being reported on at these events by officers in the MPIU or by commercial chises because it was a relatively soft target and it was
01:49:55 relatively soft target and it was attended by all activists in that field. Yes.
01:50:01 Yes. How did you know that there was a high risk of being reported on by MOIU officers and or commercial chises? Uh, I saw them at the events. So, you recognize them?
01:50:12 So, you recognize them? Yes.
01:50:16 Does it follow from that, no names, please, or no identifying details, but does it follow from that that you were informed of the identities of NOIU
01:50:27 informed of the identities of NOIU officers with whom you might cross over in the field? I think informed is too strong a word, right? I think events around one
01:50:38 right? I think events around one individual there was a backwards and forwards between myself and a cover officer and the second individual at at no if it helps at no point did
01:50:50 at at no if it helps at no point did they say that person that person and this person are NPIO UCOs no but there was a conversation between us and the cover officers that it quickly became
01:51:01 cover officers that it quickly became apparent that we could spot them between you say the cover officers You mean your cover officers in the SDS? Yes.
01:51:08 Yes. Um, can you please write down on a piece of paper who when you said that person and that person, can you write those names down for us?
01:51:41 H&3, what was your impression of why you were
01:51:46 were made aware of the identities of these people? Was it more because you had pointed them out as potentially suspect? I see.
01:51:53 I see. Yes.
01:51:54 Yes. Um, it's the same question but in relation to commercial chises. Again, were you told in advance of the presence of commercial
01:52:06 infiltrators in your groups or was this just something that you stumbled upon?
01:52:16 I froze.
01:52:20 If you can hear me, I think I can hear you. Oh, no. You're I can see and hear you fine.
01:52:32 Yeah, probably it probably is. Um, so
01:52:38 Um, so if you can hear me, I I everything's frozen.
01:52:40 frozen. There's a technical mishap and probably this is a good time to have our usual afternoon break.
01:52:48 Yes, 10 minutes. Call action 3 might not 10 minutes.
02:14:03 technical hitch overcome, I believe. Good news.
02:14:09 Hope I haven't spoken too soon. No, technical hitch overcome, I think. Apologies, sir. I think it was at our end. Yes.
02:14:19 end. Yes. Um, HN3 returning to the Earth first summer gathering in 2000. Yes.
02:14:27 Yes. Um,
02:14:30 Um, now I understand that this particular summer gathering took place in well near a place called Lake Gwynant. I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing that correctly. Uh, in Snowonia. Does that sound right?
02:14:43 Uh, in Snowonia. Does that sound right? Yes, I do. I recall that. What year is this? 2000. This is 2000. Yes. Summer 2000. So the 7th to 11th of June 2000.
02:14:55 Um Robert Banbury in his witness statement, again I won't take you to it, but it's paragraph 70.
02:15:06 paragraph 70. He said this about the well just prior to the journey to the summer gathering. He said this to
02:15:17 the summer gathering. He said this to another core participant when they were collecting information for this inquiry. He said that our first summer gathering Snowonia, we assembled at the RTS office in Finsbury Park. As rock sacks were gathered together, I went outside to
02:15:29 gathered together, I went outside to check the tires on the RTS minibus. Jason was there. I found a very deep 3in slash on one of the front tires obscured by dust. After piling in all our stuff
02:15:40 by dust. After piling in all our stuff on ourselves, we drove slowly to a nearby garage and had it replaced. Jason then drove the bus pretty much all the way to Snowonia. Jim Boiling arrived at the gathering in
02:15:51 Jim Boiling arrived at the gathering in his van.
02:15:55 To the best of your recollection, Hen 3, is that accurate? Yes, I think it is. Yeah, I definitely drove. And I'm not sure about the tire. I remember we had to go to a
02:16:10 I remember we had to go to a Wix type store to buy some top pollins for the uh rock sacks on the roof. But I don't dispute Mr. Bambber's um that the tire might have been needed replaced. I don't recall that, but I don't dispute
02:16:21 don't recall that, but I don't dispute it.
02:16:22 it. But I definitely drove all the way to Snowonia.
02:16:24 Snowonia. How many people did you drive there?
02:16:29 A I think it was a 15-seater minibus. I can't sure how full it was. Uh, did you have anything to do with the tire getting slashed? No. No, of course not.
02:16:40 No. No, of course not. If we could bring up please MPS03503.
02:16:45 This is C54. H3. This is your report on the Earth First Summer Gathering, the one we're talking about, the 7 to 7th to 11th of
02:16:56 talking about, the 7 to 7th to 11th of June 2000.
02:17:00 Um the first paragraph says this. This year's Earth First summer gathering took place from the 7th to 11th of June on a campsite near to Lakewinant in North Wales. Attendance figures grew
02:17:12 Wales. Attendance figures grew throughout the week and peaked at around 400 by the weekend. The event was wholly social with no actions planned or contemplated. It continues, "Although happy with the attendance figures, the organizers were
02:17:24 attendance figures, the organizers were rather peeved at the attitude of those present. The innumerable workshops were very poorly attended with the exception of those dealing with Mayday and the majority of people spent their time
02:17:35 majority of people spent their time walking, climbing, and generally chilling out. To add to the organizers's displeasure, a Portuguese delegate turned up with a mobile sauna and other activists built a makeshift hot tub. All
02:17:47 activists built a makeshift hot tub. All of which created a veritable crusty country club feel to the occasion. Crusty Country Club. Is that your phrase HN3 or is that what people at the event
02:17:58 HN3 or is that what people at the event were referring to it as? Uh is this my uh raw report or is this a No, this is a processed report. So this has been typed up. I I've used I've used the term crusty numerous times, but the crusty country
02:18:11 numerous times, but the crusty country club is not my reference. Right. Um and you don't recall that being a term used by people at the gathering? No, but the I remember the hot tub and the
02:18:23 but the I remember the hot tub and the um and the sauna very much and the the site was very stunning and in its geography, right? Okay. So, that's probably an accurate report from me back in the day.
02:18:34 from me back in the day. Sure. Um
02:18:38 it's fair to say that the activity Well, no, don't worry about that. Actually,
02:18:45 Actually, another question.
02:18:49 Do you recall Jim Boiling at this event? Oh, no. She's frozen. He's not mentioned in your report. Robert Bambbury said that he
02:19:01 Robert Bambbury said that he Sorry.
02:19:04 Sorry. Oh, no.
02:19:05 Oh, no. No, you're back. Am I back? Okay. No, you're back. You're back. All right. Good. Fine. Did you hear my last question which was about do you recall Jim Boiling's presence at this
02:19:16 recall Jim Boiling's presence at this event?
02:19:19 event? Not specifically, but I don't dispute his there. That's what said. Um, you referred earlier in your evidence to seeing Rosa at this event. Do you recall saying that?
02:19:31 Do you recall saying that? No, that's the uh the early one in in Buffford.
02:19:35 Buffford. So you does it follow from that that you don't recall seeing Rosa at this particular earth first gathering? I don't recall. Just to see if it jogs your memory. She
02:19:47 Just to see if it jogs your memory. She has informed the inquiry that she may have had a conversation with you around the mobile sauna or the existence of the mobile sauna or maybe going into
02:19:59 of the mobile sauna or maybe going into the mobile sauna. Does that jog your memory at all? No, it doesn't. I I I don't dispute she was there, and if she did, I would have spoken to her based on Mayday and
02:20:10 spoken to her based on Mayday and previous uh vegetable chopping, but um I I don't recall any specific and I didn't go into the sauna, so um it's not impossible that we had a conversation, but I don't recall it.
02:20:22 conversation, but I don't recall it. Sure. Um does it follow from that that you have no recollection of her being at this event with Boiling, clearly with the two of them in a relationship with one another? I I have no recollection of
02:20:35 one another? I I have no recollection of that.
02:20:35 that. Um when you refer to the uh first summer gathering with the vegetable shopping to the best of your recollection was that 99 or 2001? I I'm in my mind it's in uh East Anglia
02:20:49 I I'm in my mind it's in uh East Anglia if that's 99. Right. It was a wet miserable week. Do you recall her and Jim Boiling at that event together? They weren't.
02:21:00 together? They weren't. I recall her there, but I don't remember. Jim, um,
02:21:13 again, just to see if it jogs your memory, Rosa has a vague recollection of you and Jim Boiling having an interaction through a van window. I'm not sure whose van. And that it was a
02:21:26 not sure whose van. And that it was a bit odd. There was something a bit off about it. Does that ring any bell at all?
02:21:34 No, I'm afraid it doesn't. Okay.
02:21:37 Okay. Again, just for completeness, did you have any awareness that at this summer gathering, Jim Boiling, Rosa, and Helen Steel
02:21:48 Jim Boiling, Rosa, and Helen Steel skydived off the workshops and climbed to the summit of Mount Snowden? Do you remember hearing about that?
02:21:58 I think I've reported that lots of people went climbing, but I don't specifically remember those three together. No.
02:22:07 Um, returning to your report, it's still up. If we could go to paragraph three, please.
02:22:17 Whilst the majority of workshops such as bike maintenance, women only, and practical eco magic failed to draw an audience, the discussions on Mayday were positive sellouts. There was an
02:22:28 positive sellouts. There was an overwhelmingly negative response to the Mayday action itself, which was regarded as illconceived, poorly planned, and misdirected.
02:22:48 Um, experienced activists, sorry, it continues. I'll just go to the next paragraph. Experienced activists from the regions were surprised that so few of the established RTS organizers were
02:22:59 of the established RTS organizers were involved in the planning and many stated that they would no longer blindly support any action bearing the RTS name.
02:23:11 So is it fair to say HN3 that by this stage again people were very disillusioned with RTS? I think this probably could be described
02:23:22 I think this probably could be described as the beginning of the end. Right. Thank you. It's my view. Sure.
02:23:28 Sure. Moving on now to positions of responsibility.
02:23:35 Is it correct that you were for a period the treasurer in reclaimed the streets? Yes, that's correct. Can you recall when you took on that role?
02:23:44 role? I'm sorry, I can't with chronology. Don't worry, it's difficult. Um,
02:23:51 I'll take you to a document. See if this assists. So, if we could bring up please MPS09522,
02:23:58 it's B146.
02:24:06 Page five, please. The final paragraph.
02:24:12 So, this is an undated document, HN3, but it seems to be written not long after December the 12th, 2000. Just to orient some time,
02:24:26 Just to orient some time, and it reads, "Hn3's position as treasurer, according to Jim, should not be put in jeopardy as a result of the above." We'll get to that. Although Jim was present when it was being discussed,
02:24:38 was present when it was being discussed, he did not offer any particular view on HN3, only that he hadn't been around much. Privacy and Rosa were the two who put him forward, and Privacy asked HN3.
02:24:50 put him forward, and Privacy asked HN3. Jim did not really know HN3 in Weary World.
02:24:57 Were you aware HN3 that Jim Boiling was present during some conversation about whether or not you should be reclaiming the streets treasurer? Yes, subsequently I was. Yes.
02:25:09 Yes, subsequently I was. Yes. After the conver when you say subsequently, do you mean after that conversation happened? Yes. I I think they discussed putting me forward. He again similar to the the Jordan issue this morning. He then spoke
02:25:20 Jordan issue this morning. He then spoke to the office and said that he'd been part of that conversation. Right. Um, would the office keen for you to take on that role if possible? Uh, I think they saw it as a sign of
02:25:32 Uh, I think they saw it as a sign of that I was definitely moving still in the right direction. And was it your impression that they thought you taking on that role would give you access to useful information about
02:25:43 about Yes, that would follow. Yeah.
02:25:45 Yeah. Um, when it refers here to Rosa putting you forward again, is that something you have firsthand knowledge of or is that just something you heard reported back by?
02:25:56 by? I didn't know that was the case. I believed it to be another couple of individuals.
02:26:04 Um, now there's a slightly oblique reference here. is hard without going through all the documents. But when it says here HN3 that the first bit HN3's position as treasurer according to Jim
02:26:15 position as treasurer according to Jim should not be put in jeopardy as a result of the above. The above is a reference I won't take you through it all but it is a reference to Rose's efforts. Are you there HM3?
02:26:27 efforts. Are you there HM3? Sorry, did you hear that? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um it's
02:26:31 Um it's I saw
02:26:34 I saw Yep. It's a reference. Yeah, I'm here. Ros's effort. Yeah, that's it. Yeah. Rose's efforts to track down Jim Boiling. So it sets out there's a number of documents preceding this that relate to
02:26:47 this that relate to SDS awareness of Rose's efforts to track down Jim Boiling and the research that she was carrying out and the fact that she had requested
02:26:58 out and the fact that she had requested his phone records and all of these efforts were documented in some detail by SDS managers. Were you aware of her efforts to track down Jim Boing?
02:27:09 her efforts to track down Jim Boing? Were you aware that this was taking place at the time? Uh the first I became aware of it was when there was a phone call received
02:27:20 when there was a phone call received into the office which I think and again I apologize if I'm getting information from what I knew subsequently after the inquiry started. My my recollection is I
02:27:33 inquiry started. My my recollection is I remember a phone the office talking about a phone call being received from somebody who had got Jim's billing if that's correct. Yes. And then that necessitated a move of the office. Is
02:27:44 necessitated a move of the office. Is that correct? That's my recollection. That is accurate because we do have a record amongst these documents of Rosa phoning the office. I'm sorry I haven't stupidly I haven't made the date. I haven't made a note of the date. I think
02:27:55 haven't made a note of the date. I think I recall 12th of December. Sorry.
02:27:56 Sorry. 12th of December. 12th of December. Thank you very much sir. 12th of December 2000 that Rosa rang the office and that she spoke to Bernard Greeny and she spoke to null war. So you're right. So do you
02:28:07 war. So you're right. So do you recollect being told about that at the time when that h I mean just after that happened
02:28:15 I think so which is not really helpful I don't yes because we we I don't know if it was the detail that you're describing now but my recollection is that an
02:28:26 now but my recollection is that an activist had run the office. I don't think I was told who it was at the time is the is my recollection but I clearly know that to be the case now. Right. Okay. So can you remember in what
02:28:39 Right. Okay. So can you remember in what in what sort of a forum you were told about this? Was it at a meeting? Was it onetoone?
02:28:50 I'm afraid I can't. No, I'm sorry. Um, but if I understand your evidence correctly, you suggest that they didn't say there is a woman called Rosa, as we're calling
02:29:01 is a woman called Rosa, as we're calling her, trying to track down Jim Boiling. That's my recollection. That's my recollection. So, it wasn't made explicit to you that this was a woman who'd had a sexual relationship with Jim Boing who was
02:29:13 relationship with Jim Boing who was trying to track him down. Is that your evidence?
02:29:17 evidence? I think that became clear and apparent sometime later once we'd moved offices and I just assumed that the lengths that she was going to once I found out who it
02:29:28 she was going to once I found out who it was, that would be my understanding. But at no point did somebody set that out in the terms you've just described? When you say sometime later, what period? What time period later? How long
02:29:39 period? What time period later? How long afterwards? Probably when the newspaper articles came out. Oh, so you're saying like 2011?
02:29:47 2011? I think so. Yes. But Okay. So, you're saying that when you moved on? That's when I confirmed it. You confirmed it. But what I'm trying to establish is at what stage did you start to think that the fact that Rosa was so
02:30:00 to think that the fact that Rosa was so determined to track down Jim Boiling was as a result of the fact that she'd had a sexual relationship with him? When did that become apparent? Sorry. Yes. Uh
02:30:14 so it's not helpful sometime between those two dates of of leaving the field. I I know that when we moved the office that was quite a big deal. I've got no recollection of been specifically told that this is what
02:30:26 specifically told that this is what happened. I think it was just supposition that we put everything together and I think in hindsight
02:30:34 my understanding is that it all made sense once the newspaper came out. Did you discuss it amongst yourselves? the UCOs why you were having to move offices
02:30:44 offices that would that would have been sens yes that would have been reasonable can you help us with when that office move took place I'm afraid I can't okay well we can sometime after the obviously the phone
02:30:56 sometime after the obviously the phone call
02:31:03 um now returning to the treasurer role HN3 can you help us with what your position as treasurer in Reclaim the Streets. What did that involve?
02:31:15 Streets. What did that involve? I don't think it involved anything. I don't recall signing anything or uh uh having any paperwork or banks. I might have had a bank book potentially, but I don't recall signing any checks or
02:31:27 but I don't recall signing any checks or I think there were my recollection is two of us had to sign something at the same time to be valid. Um but I don't recall doing that. I may be wrong, but that's my recollection.
02:31:38 that's my recollection. To the best of your recollection, did it give you access to contributors personal bank details? No.
02:31:48 No. Did it give you detailed knowledge of where funding for S um sorry, not SDS, for RTS was coming from? Uh I don't believe so, unless I've
02:31:59 Uh I don't believe so, unless I've reported on it. I think I just had a bank. I may be getting confused with another treasurer role. Right. Um my recollection is it was a felodine bank book with just lots of um balance
02:32:12 book with just lots of um balance figures in it. Um did the SDS ever ask you or solicit intelligence from you about
02:32:23 intelligence from you about contributors to reclaim the streets? Not that I recall.
02:32:31 Had I had I have known who was contributing, then I would have reported it.
02:32:43 To the best of your recollection, you referred to two people having to sign something. Were you RTS say that you were the main signary to the bank account? Does that sound right?
02:32:55 sound right? I don't dispute that if that's what they're saying. I know I may be getting confused with another role, but uh I I remember
02:33:03 remember it being more there wasn't a great deal to do if anything. Was there ever any discussion with STS managers about the legality of your
02:33:15 managers about the legality of your being a signary to a bank account in a false identity? No.
02:33:21 No. Did your role as treasurer give you access to information such as which printers were being used by reclaim the streets to publish flyers and newspapers? I think I went to a couple printers to
02:33:33 I think I went to a couple printers to collect things. So I would have gone to them. Yeah. And same question but in relation to tool and vehicle businesses that were used by reclaim the streets.
02:33:44 used by reclaim the streets. Uh,
02:33:45 Uh, no. I don't think I think that was more the hire of vehicles and vehicles in was in another role later on. Uh, other than borrowing that person's van, don't think
02:33:56 borrowing that person's van, don't think I've got any recollection to what you're referring. Understood. Um, when you say you were given access and you did actually go to printers,
02:34:06 printers, we've got no reporting on that, but to the best of your recollection, did you report on
02:34:13 report on printers and going to collect leaflets etc from particular printers.
02:34:22 Most definitely. To the best of your knowledge, HN3, I appreciate you may not have been privy to this information, but do you know whether that type of information that you passed on was then used to disrupt
02:34:33 you passed on was then used to disrupt Reclaim the Streets activities in the way that was discussed in that file note that we looked at pre-Day? I I have no knowledge.
02:34:44 I I have no knowledge. Sorry, I didn't quite catch that. No, I have no knowledge of that. Um, there's a reference in
02:34:55 Um, there's a reference in a
02:34:58 a report. I can take you to it if necessary, but at this stage I won't. To your being, you're agreeing to be the reclaim the streets male zar. Does that ring a bell?
02:35:14 Postmail or email? No, postmail.
02:35:21 I'll read I'll take you to the report. I don't recall. Oh, maybe at maybe at Oakfield Road maybe.
02:35:28 maybe. Um uh
02:35:33 well, I I'll take you to the report just to clear it up just so it's not confusing. So it's 072134.
02:35:40 It's tab C233 and it's dated March 2000. Well, it's around 2002. It's one of your raw report. So the date is not entirely clear, but it's it's around that time.
02:35:54 clear, but it's it's around that time. Um,
02:35:56 Um, page one
02:35:59 page one and
02:36:02 and it's the penultimate paragraph. um HN3 it reads one of the factors which he cited for his stratapheric stress levels this is an individual we don't need to worry about who that is was the
02:36:14 need to worry about who that is was the responsibility of controlling the RTS finances as a result rather than one main signary and two deputies it is intended to have four main signitaries and privacy is attempting to find willing victims the mail is still
02:36:27 willing victims the mail is still delivered to the PO box in Hackne which it shares with genetics although it is going to be rrooted to an area nearer to Jason Snoo who has agreed to be the male
02:36:38 Jason Snoo who has agreed to be the male ZAR. So actually the first question can you recall what time period or roughly for what time period were you the treasurer of RTS? Did you relinquish that role at some point?
02:36:51 that role at some point? I I don't remember. I'm sorry. Don't worry. Um looking now at the males are section. Um, do you recall what that involved at
02:37:02 Um, do you recall what that involved at all now seeing now that you've seen it in the report? Does that ring any bells?
02:37:15 It doesn't ring any bells, but it makes sense that I would have offered to go and be helpful and collect the mail and redistribute. Um, RTS say of this that they continued
02:37:26 Um, RTS say of this that they continued using this PO box, this post office box for many years and that the address of that post office box was printed on the group's literature.
02:37:37 group's literature. And they say that it was recorded on their literature uh from around I mean roughly again the 5th of June 2002 until at least the 28th of
02:37:51 of June 2002 until at least the 28th of December 2005 and then thereafter sometime thereafter it changed to the LRC premises on Fieldgate Street. So that's quite a long
02:38:03 Fieldgate Street. So that's quite a long period of time. Do you remember collecting mail for that period of time? Not from a PO box. I thought the mail was collected at the address in in Finbury Park. Uh I
02:38:16 at the address in in Finbury Park. Uh I I don't dispute it, but I've got no recollection of it. Fine. Um do you have any recollection of what you did with any mail that you may have handled on behalf of RTS? For
02:38:27 have handled on behalf of RTS? For example, did you intercept it? Did you open it? Or did you act in good faith? No, definitely not. How can you be so certain? Uh because that's something that would have been overstepping the boundaries of
02:38:39 have been overstepping the boundaries of of what I was allowed to do in my in my my belief. So again, just to be clear, SDS managers never asked you to do that or anything
02:38:52 never asked you to do that or anything akin to that. Thank you.
02:39:01 Do you recall having a similar role? Sorry, we're jumping ahead a little bit, but when you were involved in Disarm DSI, do you remember taking on a similar role in relation to something called the
02:39:12 role in relation to something called the BM box? Does that ring a bell?
02:39:19 Possibly. Possibly. Um
02:39:26 I I recall being in as a signature on that account, but I think this is different. Talking about postal mail. Yeah, this is postal mail. Don't worry, we'll come to emails. I mean, really what I'm getting at, HN3, is just simply
02:39:38 what I'm getting at, HN3, is just simply did you deliberately I mean, you preempted my question, but did you make a point of seeking out these kind of roles relating to mail in order to gain
02:39:49 roles relating to mail in order to gain access to information that might be contained therein? No. No. No. Definitely not. driving, dropping off, picking up, being indispensable in those methods, but not uh
02:40:01 uh not as you described. Understood. Um I'm going to take you now H&M 3 to the incident relating to the incendurary device and Robert Bambry. Mhm.
02:40:15 Um
02:40:20 if we could look actually quickly at a report which is which relates to some actions taken in the runup to that incident. So this is MPS05381.
02:40:33 incident. So this is MPS05381. It's C124
02:40:36 It's C124 dated the 19th of February 2001. This is one of your reports, HN3,
02:40:45 and it reads, "On Monday, the 19th of February, 2001, a small group of environmentalists under the direction of Rob Banbury will gather beside the Nelson Mandela statue at 2:30 p.m. in
02:40:57 Nelson Mandela statue at 2:30 p.m. in order to take part in some form of minor protest."
02:41:02 protest." Source comment, "The gathering will be small with no disorder anticipated." Do you have any recollection of that particular? Yes, I do. Yes. Um, Robert Bambry says, "So, we can take
02:41:14 Um, Robert Bambry says, "So, we can take that down. Thank you." Um, he says that you helped hang a banner on a statue, I think, of Nelson Mandela. Well, it says in the
02:41:26 Nelson Mandela. Well, it says in the report reading terrorist 19th of February 2001. and that the point of this was to highlight the government broadening the scope of what it called terrorism in the
02:41:38 scope of what it called terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000. Does that sound right?
02:41:42 right? Yes, I'd do that. Um, if I could ask for another document to be brought up, please. This is UCPI 38542.
02:41:54 38542. This is one of Rob Bambrey's exhibits, HN3.
02:41:59 HN3. Just wait for that to come up. He asserts in his witness statement that this was another part of the same action, this action to protest against the terrorism act 2000.
02:42:15 So that's UCPI 38542.
02:42:31 Um, well, while we're waiting for it to come up, essentially it's a press release, HN3, and it relates to, well, I'll tell you what it says on the press release. It
02:42:43 what it says on the press release. It says it involved a stunt involving bulbshaped test tubes filled with genetic material from an oil rape seed trial placed in boxes marked state
02:42:55 seed trial placed in boxes marked state terrorism modified GM rape seed a time bomb waiting to go off and it says that this was sent with a yes there we go. So, it's under notes to the editor and
02:43:07 So, it's under notes to the editor and basically, well, I mean, I've sort of set it out now, but essentially it shows that this was a press release that accompanied the sending out, he explains in his witness statement, some
02:43:18 in his witness statement, some bulbshaped test tubes that were fashioned to look like an old style anarchist bomb and that these were sent to 10 Downing Street, the Home
02:43:29 sent to 10 Downing Street, the Home Office, and some senior civil servants. these fake bombs involving test tubes. Do you have any recollection of that? No, I I' I've been served with something
02:43:40 No, I I' I've been served with something similar this so I've read it, but I've got no recollection of it. Um, yes, sorry. I can't actually if you just scroll down a little bit. Well, don't don't worry too much. It's
02:43:51 Well, don't don't worry too much. It's fine. Um, but you don't So, you don't recall being aware of the intention to send these fake bombs out to these? No. and it would have very much unless it's figured in my reporting, but I
02:44:03 it's figured in my reporting, but I would have very much reported this if I was aware of it because of the potential implications of things going wrong. Well, we've not obtained any reporting on it, but to the best of your recollection, you you you can't it
02:44:14 recollection, you you you can't it doesn't ring any bells. No, not at all. Correct.
02:44:18 Correct. Um, now you're aware of this allegation that was made, but Rob Bambbury says that
02:44:25 that on the 20th of February in 2001, he attended a weekly meeting of reclaim the streets at the Arsenal Tavern, there were about 40 attendees and that you
02:44:37 were about 40 attendees and that you were there. You were there. Are you there? Yes. Sorry. You were there and you sat directly behind him and he had a courier bag with a single strap. Do you recall that meeting at all? I mean, I
02:44:49 recall that meeting at all? I mean, I appreciate I I've I've subsequently been informed of everything, been interviewed about it, but just Yeah. I just If it saves you any time, I did not
02:45:00 you any time, I did not place anything in his bag. I've got no real recollection of the uh of the event.
02:45:05 event. Yeah.
02:45:07 Yeah. Was interviewed thoroughly about it and prepared statement. Do you have any awareness from any quarter about who might have don't name anything
02:45:21 about who might have don't name anything but did you were you privy to any information about this happening?
02:45:33 Did you have any awareness of this? I had I have heard about it. Yeah.
02:45:40 Yeah. No, not had, as you've seen from my the level of my reporting and the detail. Yeah. Had I been aware of been made aware of something such as this happening, it would have been reported.
02:45:52 would have been reported. Um, just to put to you just Robert Bambry's he his take on it has evolved. I think initially he suspected you and now his view on it has evolved and he thinks it's not necessarily you or the
02:46:04 thinks it's not necessarily you or the SDS, but he speculates about who might have done it. Um, but when you say that you think you you said in your witness statement that you thought or you suggested that maybe he had falsely
02:46:17 suggested that maybe he had falsely accused you in order to get your anonymity order lifted. You you say that it's a ruse. Just to clarify, when you say it's a ruse, do you think do you mean that it's a ruse
02:46:29 mean that it's a ruse that he accused you or a ruse the entire thing is fabricated? I I've I can't comment on whether the incident happened or not, but my belief at the time because to put it in
02:46:41 at the time because to put it in context, I don't believe the MPS had confirmed the identity of a number of officers and this was at a time when
02:46:51 careful to stray into matters. Yes, I believe be careful. Yes. So, if you've got copy of my statement I made in my my prepared statement, I I believe that it was an attempt at the time to uncover my
02:47:04 attempt at the time to uncover my identity.
02:47:06 identity. Right. Fine. That helps. Okay. Yeah, I I understand what you're talking about. Fine. All I can say is had I have heard of anything similar, I would have reported it.
02:47:15 it. Right. Um moving on now, HN3 to the London Action Resource Center. Um, I understand this was located at 62
02:47:27 Um, I understand this was located at 62 Fieldgate Street and that this premises was purchased by Reclaim the Streets in autumn 99 and that Robert Bambry was one of the
02:47:38 and that Robert Bambry was one of the co-founders. Does that broadly align with
02:47:42 with I didn't know that but I don't I don't speak it.
02:47:45 speak it. Um,
02:47:48 Um, were you involved in the renovations of these premises?
02:47:56 I probably ran or picked things up, but I don't remember doing any plastering, painting or maybe some painting maybe downstairs. Um, but when you say renovations, I think there was some quite industrial building work went
02:48:09 some quite industrial building work went on at the early stage by professional builders is my recollection. Sure. Um there's a report uh I don't think we need to bring it up. It's very brief but for the transcript it's08950.
02:48:21 It's C245 dated the 27th of May 2002. And in it you are described as a central figure in the dayto-day running of Lark LC is one
02:48:35 the dayto-day running of Lark LC is one of your reports. Is that accurate? Were you a central figure in the day-to-day running of it? Uh, is this a raw report of mine or a produced?
02:48:44 produced? No, it's a processed report. We can bring it up. It's triple089. That's okay. Okay,
02:48:51 Okay, that's probably a touch exaggeration. I I I used to go there all the time for the meetings, but I wasn't a trustee or involved in the running of the place. Um,
02:49:03 Um, when you suggest it's slightly exaggerated, did you exaggerate your role there or do you think that is one of the desk officers? I mean, sorry, one of the sergeants essentially writing up the report. Yeah, I I think so. I'm And yes, I I
02:49:19 I did go there regularly, right?
02:49:21 right? Don't dispute that. And we had meetings there, but yeah, I wasn't involved in the running of the place. Were you treasurer at LA at any point? No, not that I recall.
02:49:33 No, not that I recall. Um, so Robert Banbury says that you were. Is he mistaken about that? I think he's confusing another group that I was treasurer for.
02:49:49 Um, if we could just bring up quickly please MPS7387,
02:49:56 it's C259.
02:50:01 Um, HM3, you can see this is a processed report. The date the intelligence was obtained is the 7th of January 2003. Um this refers to someone else as the
02:50:13 Um this refers to someone else as the treasurer of LRC. I mean obviously at a certain point in time um but it sets out the costs involved in the daily running of the building and it sets out
02:50:24 running of the building and it sets out the analysis electricity, telephones, water, insurance total. Can you recall how you were privy to this information? Was this something that was discussed openly or was this
02:50:35 that was discussed openly or was this information that you accessed due to holding a particular level of seniority
02:50:43 seniority or position of trust? No, I think whoever the person I'm referring to must have told me. Can you just zoom in a bit please so I can hardly read it?
02:50:55 can hardly read it? Oh, sorry. Yes. Can we zoom in just a little bit just to the figures? Thank you.
02:51:03 Oh, I suspect um whoever the privacy person has probably told me and I've reported that back. Fine.
02:51:10 Fine. My best assessment. Sure. Um if we could take that down, please. Um and if we could bring up MPS8379,
02:51:19 that's C219. It's dated March 2002. No, apologies. We don't actually need to bring that up. I'm going to skip ahead. If we could bring up Apologies. Can we
02:51:30 If we could bring up Apologies. Can we bring up MPS77352?
02:51:35 It's C257 and it's dated the 26th of November 2002.
02:51:44 Um, we just read that first paragraph. It says, "The Lark building has finally passed its health and safety inspection and is legally open for business and the computer network is currently being
02:51:55 computer network is currently being installed by Privacy and Privacy. There is however still some confusion as to who is actually going to use the LAR office on a day-to-day basis. Originally three years ago it was going to act as the RTS office. However, the dramatic
02:52:08 the RTS office. However, the dramatic dissolution of RTS has left a rather big hole in the planning of the office and it now seems likely that indie media will try to muscle in and use it as
02:52:19 will try to muscle in and use it as their HQ. And I'm just flagging that because this seems to mark the final demise of RTS around around November 2002. Does that sound right?
02:52:30 November 2002. Does that sound right? Yes, sir.
02:52:31 Yes, sir. Yeah. Um, if Well, just a quick point in relation to indie media trying to muscle in.
02:52:40 in. Reclaim the streets make the point that they worked harmoniously with indie media that indie media sprang out of the media team for J18 and that muscle in as an inaccurate
02:52:51 and that muscle in as an inaccurate portrayal of the dynamic between them. Would you like to respond to that? Yes, I would agree. That's that's probably the the author not either I've misconstrued it. Yeah. Or
02:53:02 either I've misconstrued it. Yeah. Or the author has not understood the dynamic. But what you've just said I would agree with. Um, if we could go to the same report but the final paragraph on page one, please. It starts in the run-up to the
02:53:15 please. It starts in the run-up to the Halloween action. There was a constant police presence outside Lark. Consequently, there is now a log inside the office that will be used to record the dates and times of any police
02:53:27 the dates and times of any police presence and the shoulder numbers of the officers involved. A digital camera has also been obtained and will be used to film such visitations. An initial plan to publish the pictures on the internet
02:53:38 to publish the pictures on the internet has been delayed once consideration is given to using such film as evidence in any future civil actions against the police for harassment.
02:53:49 police for harassment. Do you recall this constant police presence outside LAR HN3? Yes, I do. Can you remember how frequently there was a constant police?
02:54:01 frequently there was a constant police? Well, constant sounds like a contradiction terms, but how frequently there was a police presence outside Lark. Was it in relation to specific events or was it pretty much constant? No, I think your the specific events was
02:54:14 No, I think your the specific events was would be fair comment. I I went a number of times to drop things up, pick things up, and there was nobody there. But if you went to a if you went to a meeting that was publicly advertised,
02:54:27 that was publicly advertised, then there was invariably a a fit team carrier and photographers there. So does it follow from what you said that the presence of police outside was linked to publicly advertised events.
02:54:40 linked to publicly advertised events. Apologies.
02:54:44 I'm sorry. Could you repeat that last? Don't worry. Yes. Are you all right? Do you want to have a glass of water? Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Um, you said that it seemed that you linked the presence of police outside to
02:54:55 the presence of police outside to publicly advertised events. To the best of your understanding, was that
02:55:03 the causation was between the two? If something was publicly advertised, the police would be there. It wouldn't necessarily be in relation to your intelligence, for example. That's yes, that's my view. There were uh there were events that took place
02:55:15 uh there were events that took place there that I had no knowledge of, and it would appear that police were there. I think it was the public.
02:55:22 Why do you report on the plan to
02:55:31 plan to publish pictures on the internet? While Will's consideration has been given to use such film as evidence in any future civil actions. Is that you forewarning the police of civil actions or is that
02:55:43 the police of civil actions or is that just part of the general hoovering up of intel?
02:55:47 intel? Yeah, plan we if I'd have known about it would have told them. So you did see it as part of your role. If you're aware of any upcoming any intention
02:55:57 intention for civil action against the police, you would see it as part of your role to report that. Not so much civil action, but anything to do with police interaction. I think as we discussed earlier, I reported on absolutely everything, as much as I
02:56:08 absolutely everything, as much as I could to the detail I could, and this would have been part of that.
02:56:22 Um, in relation to the demise of reclaim the streets
02:56:31 streets HN3,
02:56:34 HN3, there is some reporting, I won't take it to you at this stage, but on from you um in process reports on interpersonal disputes and some disagreements within
02:56:45 disputes and some disagreements within the group. To the best of your recollection, did you ever seek to exacerbate those kind of disputes or to seow discord within reclaim the streets?
02:56:59 No, not at all. So, it was never part of your tasking to again disrupt the group by fermenting discord and
02:57:10 fermenting discord and dysfunction. No.
02:57:19 Um, just a quick point. Um, I think, sorry, sir, we might need to go off stream briefly for this. This is very quick, but it's a
02:57:30 quick, but it's a When you say go off stream, you mean the live reporting subject to 10 minute cease?
02:57:36 cease? Um, yes, that's what I mean. Yes. Then we better pause while that is set up.
02:57:46 Yes.
03:00:19 I'd like Oh, sorry. Go back on the stream.
03:00:35 Um, HM3, I want to look now at the tone of some of the reports on reclaim the streets. Um, now I appreciate you pointed out in your witness statement
03:00:46 pointed out in your witness statement and subsequently that there's a distinction to be drawn between your raw reporting and the processed reports. Um, I'd like to just look at a couple of those reports and just seek to ascertain
03:00:57 those reports and just seek to ascertain where you think the source of the the or the responsibility for the tone lies. Um, if we could bring up please um
03:01:12 if we could bring up please um MPS08536.
03:01:17 This is a report from 2002.
03:01:33 Um the second paragraph reads, "Privacy, a relative newcomer to the group has decided that this is a good opportunity to promote RTS and that he is the ideal person to star in the production. He has
03:01:44 person to star in the production. He has been told in no uncertain terms that RTS never cooperate with the media and that neither he nor anyone else should become involved in the production. Nevertheless, the naive and anally retentive privacy has the whiff of
03:01:57 retentive privacy has the whiff of stardom in his nostrils and is determined to go through with the filming.
03:02:03 filming. Thank you. If you take that down, please. Um, would you agree that that tone is
03:02:09 tone is quite unpleasant, quite sneery? Yes, I agree. Um, did that tone emanate from you? Do you think HN3 or do you think that's the cover officer?
03:02:20 think that's the cover officer? Uh, I don't believe it. If you've got a copy of my original report, I'm quite happy to take responsibility, but I I I don't recall that being my words. Okay. Um, if we could look at another
03:02:32 Okay. Um, if we could look at another one, please, which is MPS 03695. This is C59.
03:02:40 Uh, page two, please. Paragraph one.
03:02:46 This reads, "As a special treat, Privacy Snoo, an Iranian national of doubtful sanity, gave a 30 minute lecture on the World Bank. This was wellreceived by the
03:02:58 World Bank. This was wellreceived by the publican whose prophet soared as the off audience fled for the sanctuary of the bar." Again, same question. HN3, was that your choice of language or do you
03:03:09 that your choice of language or do you think that came from the cover officer? Not your choice of language. No, I know who the individual is, but that wouldn't have been my You know who the subject of the report
03:03:21 You know who the subject of the report is. You mean? Yes.
03:03:23 Yes. Yes.
03:03:24 Yes. Um
03:03:27 I believe so, but No, they're not my words.
03:03:30 words. Fine. Um if we could look at please MS042156,
03:03:39 page two. This is C353.
03:03:44 Uh, so it's page two, paragraph 3, please.
03:03:48 please. This is a raw report. One of the most prolific correspondents on the G8 email list is privacy. Check with redactive surname. Who uses the email address of
03:03:59 surname. Who uses the email address of privacy? If ever the proverb empty vessels make the most noise was intended for a specific person, then it was privacy. She is currently Andy Monk's girlfriend and lives with him. Her
03:04:11 girlfriend and lives with him. Her activist credentials only run to a former part-time Womble. It has become apparent that various agencies are also monitoring the same email list and are basing assessments and targeting on the
03:04:23 basing assessments and targeting on the contents of her emails.
03:04:27 That would emanate from you. It would seem HN3 because yes, definitely. Yeah. Can you comment on your choice of language there? why you chose to
03:04:39 language there? why you chose to I think it no I stand by that I think it was the the volume of the volume of emails that didn't contain any real relevance to the group uh links to other things uh non relative nonrelevant
03:04:52 things uh non relative nonrelevant uh data information um is is my recollection but the point I'm the point I'm trying to make HN3 is that referring to an individual as someone to whom the
03:05:03 individual as someone to whom the proverb empty vessels make the most noise. Do you think that's an appropriate way to talk about a person in a an official document or something that was going to make its
03:05:14 or something that was going to make its way into an official document? No, probably you're right. On on reflection, it's probably a poor choice of words and I should have used maybe just explained that the the uh
03:05:26 just explained that the the uh correspondent was just spamming the group with unnecessary emails would probably be more accurate. Um just one final example if we could bring up please MPS43LE1
03:05:38 page 2. This is C357.
03:05:44 If we could go there's a heading which is other stuff
03:05:54 page two. Oh yeah. Found not. Sorry. Four paragraphs underneath. Um well if I yeah I'll read the preceding one as well. So it says plans are now are now
03:06:05 well. So it says plans are now are now well underway for the direct action affinity group training day which takes place on Saturday the 7th of May at the institute of autonomy squat. Most of the workshops will run in tandem although the blockading workshop which has been
03:06:16 the blockading workshop which has been given the most prominence will take place at the end of the day. Alexi Sail once said anybody who uses the term workshop and who isn't involved in light engineering is a complete wanker.
03:06:30 again HN3. Why did you include in this raw reporting that particular observation? The the content the context to that was um I believe some of the activists used
03:06:41 um I believe some of the activists used that in some of their um I think there were the the phrase is not quite right. I think it's a bit more derogatory at the end. Um but I was yes I was I I think so when the activists used it on
03:06:53 think so when the activists used it on some of their agit prop it was used in sort of a sermon of self-deprecation. Right.
03:06:58 Right. And I've just repeated it there. Okay. So, you weren't being porative yourself. Is that No, no, no, not at all. Um, you say in your witness statement in relation to some of these examples and
03:07:10 relation to some of these examples and some other examples to be fair, you say that
03:07:15 that some of your more jarring comments were occasional misguided attempts at humor. Do you stand by that?
03:07:26 stand by that? Yes. and and and for for that I I regret my choice of language. Um,
03:07:34 looking at your reporting, the tone seems fairly consistent throughout in there, whether or not it's to I appreciate that some of it you say was introduced by the cover officer. But what I'm interested in is did you ever
03:07:47 what I'm interested in is did you ever receive positive feedback on this particular tone? Did you ever receive feedback to the effect that actually people were finding these reports to be amusing or the phrasing? You never heard
03:07:58 amusing or the phrasing? You never heard that sort of feedback. No.
03:08:02 No. Um
03:08:03 Um Rosa has told the inquiry that Jim Boiling told her that you spoke openly about
03:08:15 told her that you spoke openly about despising the movement. So that's reclaim the streets and the people in it.
03:08:21 it. Did you ever say anything like that to Jim Boing? No. Quite the contrary, I much as it would
03:08:29 would surprise people, it's very strong fiction when return the streets. Um, can you think of if there's any way that Jim Boing may have got the wrong impression of the way
03:08:41 have got the wrong impression of the way you felt about the people you're reporting on? Okay. No, I don't even recall anything close to that.
03:08:52 In relation now HN3 to uh the demise of reclaim the streets, I'd just like to ask you to comment on reclaim the
03:09:03 ask you to comment on reclaim the streets analysis of why they collapsed. Um this is their witness statement. If we could actually bring this up please. This is UCPI 38295.
03:09:15 This is UCPI 38295. It's page 146, paragraph 8.5.9.
03:09:28 And they say this in relation to their decline. Reclaim the street seemed to run out of momentum after the Mayday 2000 gorilla gardening event. A result of police harassment and violence, media
03:09:41 of police harassment and violence, media lies, and internal recriminations. There were growing tensions, some of them no doubt arising from the massive levels of police police harassment increasingly being experienced by those the SDS had fingered as leading lights. Also due to
03:09:54 fingered as leading lights. Also due to the chilling effect of massive and disproportionate policing experienced during the events organized, there was a lot of burnout, people feeling overwhelmed and unable to commit time
03:10:05 overwhelmed and unable to commit time and energy into making things happen. Now, I mean, I appreciate in in relation to your
03:10:14 to your involvement with RTS. Would you broadly agree with that analysis? Do you think that's completely wrong?
03:10:24 wrong? There's elements of truth. I think they were placed out of existence. I think they uh they uh the ability for the police to reflect on the reporting
03:10:35 police to reflect on the reporting probably from my predecessor and allow them to do what they wanted to do in certain circumstances. Um but I would agree that there was the burnout, people feeling overwhelmed to commit time.
03:10:47 feeling overwhelmed to commit time. Yeah, absolutely. Um I'm not sure about massive and disproportionate policing experienced. Um I'm not sure about that but um
03:10:59 I'm not sure about that but um yeah but I would burn out and and the the the the timing is about what would right for what we discussed earlier mediaize definitely internal recriminations
03:11:10 recriminations uh potentially yes growing tensions so yes I would agree with a large portion of that
03:11:17 of that um just a brief point we referred a little while ago to a heavy police presence outside Lark. Do you recall there ever being a heavy police presence also outside reclaim the streets
03:11:29 also outside reclaim the streets meetings particularly in the buildup to Mayday for example? I don't think there was you you have no recollection of that. I don't I'm not sure if that coincided
03:11:40 I don't I'm not sure if that coincided with the formation of the of the Fitz teams the forward intelligence teams. Yeah.
03:11:44 Yeah. I think they were later on in in in their chronology of the events. I don't recall ever seeing police outside an RTS event. I could be wrong. I just don't recall it. Um, moving on to another slightly
03:11:57 Um, moving on to another slightly different topic. Um, HN3, uh,
03:12:04 is your involvement in criminality. Yes.
03:12:10 Yes. Um, I want to ask you about drug taking. Yes. Um,
03:12:16 Yes. Um, you refer in your witness statement to
03:12:22 your authorization or an authorization document.
03:12:27 document. And you say in relation to that that you believe that your managers took the view that fly posting and occasional drug use constituted minor criminal activity as
03:12:38 constituted minor criminal activity as did matters like minor theft and criminal damage. What was the basis for your belief that your managers took the view that occasional