UCPI Evidence Hearings | Tranche 3 (Phase 3) | Day 1 - (15 June 2026) - AM

Full transcript

00:49:07 Good morning everybody. We begin today the first of six weeks uh open We begin today the first of six weeks open hearings. Can you hear me now?

00:49:26 Can I now be heard? Good. We begin today the first of the first day of six weeks of hearings of open evidence. Uh we will sit as usual

00:49:37 open evidence. Uh we will sit as usual Monday to Thursday and occasionally on Friday as well. uh the [snorts] proceedings will be transmitted uh over the live link but only after a 15 minute

00:49:48 the live link but only after a 15 minute not 10-minut 15minut delay. The purpose of the longer delay is because the chances of there being um

00:49:59 because the chances of there being um inadvertent disclosures by managers are because of the number of issues they have to deal with are greater than that of ordinary officers and witnesses. And for those reasons

00:50:11 and witnesses. And for those reasons there is a 15-minute delay. Uh please observe that when those with mobile telephones transmit what they hear outside the hearing room as they may but

00:50:23 outside the hearing room as they may but only after 15 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're describing. Mobile phones may not be used for recording or photography. Usual rules apply.

00:50:34 apply. Yes.

00:50:38 Take that right hand. I swear by Almighty God I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth

00:50:49 shall be the truth shall be the truth the whole truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and nothing but the truth. Please done Mr. Martin. Thank you sir.

00:51:01 Thank you sir. Mr. Lambert, could you tell us your full name, please? Um Robert Lambert. Do you have a a middle initial A? Yes. Yes.

00:51:10 Yes. Yes. Is that for a particular name or Yes. Alan. Thank you. And are the contents of your witness statement for the inquiry date of the 17th of May, 2024

00:51:21 of the 17th of May, 2024 true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief? Yes.

00:51:26 Yes. Uh [snorts] you tell us in that witness statement that you had no formal training for the role of detective, inspector and operations manager in the SDS?

00:51:38 SDS? Yes.

00:51:39 Yes. Would specific formal training for that role have helped you to discharge your duties?

00:51:50 It's um now I I think yes, it it may well have done. If you had had formal training, looking

00:52:01 If you had had formal training, looking back,

00:52:03 back, what is it that that formal training could have done to help you to discharge your duties properly?

00:52:16 Um, I think it would have given potentially given me time to reflect on the

00:52:25 the um the ethical issues uh surrounding the work.

00:52:35 You also tell us in the witness statement that you hadn't had any training on equalities. Can I take it from that that you had no training on the Sex Discrimination Act, no training

00:52:46 the Sex Discrimination Act, no training on the Race Relations Act at that time? Yes. Did you have any other training under your belt about policing diverse

00:52:57 your belt about policing diverse communities? Can you just sorry repeat the question to me?

00:53:03 to me? When you joined the SDS, did you have any other training under your belt relating to policing diverse

00:53:14 relating to policing diverse communities? Not not that I can recall. You tell us in your witness statement that you had been a police officer in

00:53:26 that you had been a police officer in C squad,

00:53:28 C squad, a liaison officer for four area between October 1982 and September 1983 and that in the aftermath of the

00:53:39 and that in the aftermath of the November 1982 disturbances, uh, you concentrated in that role specifically on Brixton. Is that right? Yes.

00:53:52 Yes. So you were imposed as a special branch liaison officer for an area which included Brixton when the evictions related disturbances occurred.

00:54:05 related disturbances occurred. Yes.

00:54:06 Yes. And they of course followed not too long after the very serious rioting in 1981. That's correct. What was the state of racial tension in

00:54:18 What was the state of racial tension in Brixton when you were the area liaison officer?

00:54:23 officer? Significant. Did you liaz with the local police officers in that role? Yes, I had well well

00:54:35 Yes, I had well well what I can immediately recall is um liaison

00:54:42 liaison face-to-face liaison

00:54:46 liaison um probably both within Brixham Police Station and outside of Brixham Police Station with two police officers that

00:54:57 Station with two police officers that were at the time known as homebeat officers.

00:55:01 officers. neighborhood officers and myself as a um detective constable on C squad together with my detective sergeant

00:55:15 together with my detective sergeant um on C squad. We we'd certainly uh had many well you know we had several visits to Brixton

00:55:26 visits to Brixton from our office in New Scotland Yard. There was would have been periods when we were regular visitors and those two officers who I can

00:55:38 and those two officers who I can remember the two homebeat officers gave us a very good insight into the um into the local community in your dealings with officers at

00:55:50 in your dealings with officers at Brixham Police Station. Did you ever hear any racist comments? No, I didn't. in not that I can recall. And certainly I would I can be very

00:56:02 And certainly I would I can be very certain that the two homebeat officers that we dealt with um were were very much to the contrary very um

00:56:14 um uh sensitive to um their their local community. Would you have recognized racist attitudes if at that time if you'd heard

00:56:26 attitudes if at that time if you'd heard them?

00:56:27 them? Yes.

00:56:30 Yes. Did you have any contact with the local community in that role? To to uh Yes, to an extent through uh through the through the homebeat

00:56:44 through the through the homebeat officers um people that they knew uh very well. Yeah.

00:56:52 Yeah. How significant was the public order risk at that time in Brixton? Well, I think it was an ongoing um it was an ongoing concern. Um uh I can't

00:57:06 it was an ongoing concern. Um uh I can't recall now all of the detail, but um but it was certainly um either

00:57:15 um either Yeah, it was certainly a significant issue. Was that risk still extent when you rejoined the SDS in 1993?

00:57:28 Um Oh, when I rejoined in this tranch. Yes. Yeah. As a manager. Yes.

00:57:39 Yes. Yeah. I I'm sure it was. I I can't recall the any of the sort of incidents, but yeah, I get I would think so. And how important were race relations in

00:57:53 And how important were race relations in Brixton to the Metropolitan Police Service at the time you rejoined the SDS?

00:58:01 SDS? Um,

00:58:03 Um, yes, very um very important. Yeah.

00:58:10 Because of the risk of public disorder. Yes.

00:58:15 Yes. And the risk to the reputation of the Metropolitan Police. Yes.

00:58:19 Yes. And the risk to the foundation of policing by consent. Yes.

00:58:25 Yes. Steven Lawrence was murdered in April 1993.

00:58:30 1993. You were serving with E Squad at that time, we understand. Yes.

00:58:37 Yes. I'm going to remind you of the chronology of events. The family gave a press conference on the 4th of May 1993 to the effect that not enough was being

00:58:51 to the effect that not enough was being done to catch Steven's killers. They met Nelson Mandela two days later. Uh in May and June 1993

00:59:02 Uh in May and June 1993 um suspects were arrested and two of them Neil Akort and Luke Knight were charged. Those charges were dropped on the 29th of July

00:59:14 the 29th of July 1993.

00:59:16 1993. So a number of milestones during those months immediately before you rejoin the SDS. What was your awareness at the time

00:59:28 SDS. What was your awareness at the time of those events? Yeah, I think because I was working um on E squad on um

00:59:40 on E squad on um fairly important issues. Um I I didn't give

00:59:46 give um

00:59:49 um issues around the uh Steven Lawrence murder close attention or or any attention from a sort of professional point of view.

01:00:01 a sort of professional point of view. But um I I could obviously as as a police officer and having worked um in Brixton um

01:00:13 um in Brixton um um I was um you know I followed it uh I followed the news and um you know took it uh took it for the ser very serious

01:00:26 it uh took it for the ser very serious issue that it was. Was it a talking point amongst your colleagues? I'm sure it would have been, but I can't recall now. [snorts]

01:00:37 [snorts] What was your sense of the significance of the Lawren case to the Metropolitan Police Service at that time?

01:00:52 I can't recall before I joined the the SDS um whether I'd you know had the opportunity to really think

01:01:03 opportunity to really think um about

01:01:06 um about the full impact um and of and it was a a developing story. I I can't don't think I can assist

01:01:18 assist more.

01:01:19 more. Was it your sense that it was a case which had the capacity to spark public disorder?

01:01:27 disorder? I think I would have Yes, I would have had that realization. I think was it your view that groups with revolutionary aims uh might try and

01:01:39 revolutionary aims uh might try and exploit the case for their own ends? Yes. Um

01:01:47 Yes. Um indeed it would have been and I mean very very briefly if I if I may when if I go back to that period of working in Brixton when I was on S squad

01:02:00 working in Brixton when I was on S squad um as well as the liaison with homebeat officers which I've touched on I I can also recall deployments where I would be Um

01:02:15 deployments where I would be Um I would be en entering um meetings that were organized by

01:02:27 um meetings that were organized by um group u extremist groups for example uh one that comes to mind by the a meeting organized by the uh re

01:02:41 meeting organized by the uh re revolutionary communist party that took place in Brixton um near to the town hall.

01:02:50 hall. So yes, I I certainly had that experience and u realization. Yeah. And did that realization extend to

01:03:01 And did that realization extend to concern for what damage the case might do to the reputation of the Metropolitan Police Service? Yes. and to raise relations between

01:03:15 Yes. and to raise relations between London's black community and the Metropolitan Police Service. I would have had that uh general awareness

01:03:26 when you joined the SDS. was the Lawrence case and the sort of things I've just been asking you about a topic of conversation in the early

01:03:39 topic of conversation in the early months uh of your tenure. H um I'm sure it I'm sure it would have been I I I don't I can't recall

01:03:52 don't I can't recall any um

01:03:55 any um any particular conversations. I'll remind you of some of the key events in that time period. On the 22nd

01:04:07 events in that time period. On the 22nd of December 1993, the inquest was the inquest was halted because it was said there was dramatic new evidence. In April 1994,

01:04:20 In April 1994, there was a decision not to prosecute and in September 1994 a private prosecution was launched

01:04:32 a private prosecution was launched during that period. Does do those milestones jog your memory at all? They don't jog my memory of specifically

01:04:45 They don't jog my memory of specifically um related responses or discussions on the SDS. I'm sure there were, but I I can't

01:04:59 I'm sure there were, but I I can't call it to mind. I don't think I've seen any

01:05:03 any documents uh that sort of talk to that. Was the SDS in that period seeking intelligence

01:05:15 intelligence relevant to whether or not groups with revolutionary aims were seeking to involve themselves in the Steven

01:05:27 to involve themselves in the Steven Lawrence campaign? Yes. And was the SDS interested in what contact that sort of group might be

01:05:39 contact that sort of group might be having with Steven's family? Yes.

01:05:46 Interested in who was in contact with the family, how and why? Yes.

01:05:56 interested in what the family's position and response and actions were relating to that sort of approach.

01:06:07 to that sort of approach. Um yes to I I think yes is the answer but I think always through the uh perspective of

01:06:20 uh perspective of the group

01:06:23 the group um the group that the the you know me as an SDS manager the groups that one or more of our undercover officers are targeting

01:06:37 undercover officers are targeting Um, this would have been certainly would have been expected of me as a manager and of those deployed

01:06:48 as a manager and of those deployed officers. They they wouldn't really have needed

01:06:52 needed express

01:06:54 express um directions, but uh for sure interested in what sort of people the Lawrenes were.

01:07:06 Lawrenes were. only. No, I've got to I think be clear here. Um there was no SDS remit or interest in

01:07:18 remit or interest in um

01:07:20 um finding out um anything about the Lawrence family. Our concern was

01:07:32 Lawrence family. Our concern was absolutely focused on target groups um

01:07:40 um that

01:07:42 that had an interest in the Steven Lawrence campaign. Presumably though it would be relevant to know how amanable the Lawrenes were

01:07:56 to know how amanable the Lawrenes were to influences from revolutionary groups. Well, it would sound Yeah, it would it would be if it was

01:08:07 would be if it was um if it was intelligence from

01:08:12 from such an officer then um it would be reported. Yeah. And to that extent, what sort of people the Lawrenes were was relevant to you,

01:08:24 the Lawrenes were was relevant to you, wasn't it? Um, yeah, as long as as long as we're agreed about the um the role of the SDS, the um

01:08:38 um the role of the SDS, the um the clear, you know, the clear remitt of both managers and um undercover officers for sure.

01:08:49 um undercover officers for sure. you would be interested in whether there was anything about them which might strengthen or detract from the strength of their campaign.

01:09:01 of their campaign. Um, could you repeat that please? You would be interested in whether there was anything about the Lawrenes which might strengthen or detract from the strength of their

01:09:12 or detract from the strength of their campaign.

01:09:18 Yes, I'd accept that.

01:09:22 And you've invited me to agree a a line. But isn't the reality that it's two sides of the same coin? You are

01:09:33 sides of the same coin? You are interested in the Lawrenes because you are interested in the strength of the campaign. Um,

01:09:44 Um, okay. I'll I'll accept that. Was any of uh that discussed at the bi-weekly meetings

01:09:56 discussed at the bi-weekly meetings with your officers? Not that I can recall. It may well have been

01:10:06 what intelligence is coming through, what to look for. Was that the sort of conversation that would be had at the bi-weekly meetings? The Yes. Um

01:10:19 The Yes. Um what was an individual um

01:10:25 um field officer as we called them? What was what was their target group um doing in respect of the Steven

01:10:37 um doing in respect of the Steven Lawrence campaign? And so for those of your UCOs who were well positioned to gain such intelligence, it was very much on the menu.

01:10:49 on the menu. Yes.

01:10:53 I want you to be very careful about anonymity answering this next question. Uh, but was intelligence about the Steven Lawrence campaign or groups involved with it something that you

01:11:06 involved with it something that you would have discussed in onetoone meetings with your officers?

01:11:17 Well, it's possible. I have no I can't recall at the moment.

01:11:25 Can you recall whether HN86 was saying anything in any way related to who was surrounding the Lawrence

01:11:36 to who was surrounding the Lawrence family in the wake of Steven's murder? No.

01:11:40 No. Is it something that you were likely to have discussed? Yes.

01:11:47 Yes. Did Detective Constable Francis say anything about the intelligence he was gathering that was relevant to the Steven Lawrence campaign or the Lawrence

01:12:00 Steven Lawrence campaign or the Lawrence family?

01:12:02 family? Um, not that I can remember. No. Did he say anything to you about having been given a list of names of people believed

01:12:14 given a list of names of people believed to be uh involved uh and getting close to the Lawrence family for him to investigate? No.

01:12:22 No. Or anything like that? Um I don't Does he Well, does he say when do we

01:12:32 do we it our understanding of his evidence is that he says he was given a list by HN86,

01:12:40 HN86, right,

01:12:40 right, of people who were known to have gone into the Lawrence family home in the aftermath

01:12:49 aftermath of the murder to check to check them out and keep an eye on them. We understand that probably took place before you joined and I'm asking you

01:13:02 before you joined and I'm asking you whether he said anything to you about it.

01:13:05 it. Not that I can recall. Did he ever discuss with you who was getting close to the Lawrence family? Um,

01:13:19 I don't think so, but you know, I can't rule that out. Um, I I don't recall. Can you recall whether he said anything to you about the Lawrence family?

01:13:30 to you about the Lawrence family? No.

01:13:32 No. [snorts]

01:13:32 [snorts] Did HN67 raise the subject with you? 67?

01:13:38 67? Yeah.

01:13:40 Yeah. Um quite quite pro quite you know quite possibly but I can't recall. Did Detective Sergeant Morris?

01:13:51 Did Detective Sergeant Morris? Oh, almost certainly. Um, I would have, you know, I I would have expected

01:14:00 expected um that he would have done um

01:14:07 um I I've got no actual recollection.

01:14:13 He was well placed to gather the sort of intelligence that you were interested on that subject, wasn't he? Yes. Yes.

01:14:23 Yes. Yes. Did you have contact with the special branch area liaison officer for area three uh following Steven's murder? No, I I don't believe that I did.

01:14:36 No, I I don't believe that I did. At any point in time whilst you were serving as a detective inspector in the SDS?

01:14:41 SDS? No. No.

01:14:46 I've gone through with you in fairly high level terms about what the SDS and the MPS would be interested in intelligence-wise. Um, is there anything

01:14:58 Um, is there anything in the intelligence requirements arising from the Steven Lawrence campaign that I have missed?

01:15:07 Um, I don't think so. How much contact did you have with Squad about issues in any way related to campaigning following Steven's murder?

01:15:21 Steven's murder? Um, [clears throat]

01:15:25 I would well

01:15:30 I can't really quantify that. I'm sure I I'm sure I would have had contact um but um

01:15:41 contact um but um nothing specific that I can recall. Would it be a fair impression then to say that when you met Ca Squad officers or had communications with them, it

01:15:53 or had communications with them, it would be one of the topics that you would talk to them about? Yes. Yes.

01:15:58 Yes. Yes. Did you have any contact with those tasked with policing public order to 20 or any successor? No.

01:16:08 No. Unit?

01:16:08 Unit? No.

01:16:10 No. Did [snorts] you get any feedback through uh C squad from TO20 or any other public order related uh uniform

01:16:21 other public order related uh uniform policing relating to Lawrence related campaigning? Almost certainly if if it was in regard to a a public order event

01:16:34 to a a public order event then then yes. Can you recall any of the specifics? Are we um

01:16:46 are you would it be uh right to include the um the Welling bookshop

01:16:58 um the Welling bookshop demonstration? Well, or is that likely to our understanding is you joined the SDS just after that. That's right. Yeah. And so and we understand that

01:17:10 Yeah. And so and we understand that there was positive feedback about SDS intelligence. Yes.

01:17:15 Yes. Following that event. Yes.

01:17:20 Did you consider at the time that Steven Lawrence's murder and the attack on Dwayne Brooks were racist?

01:17:32 Yes.

01:17:36 to move now to ask you a little bit more about um the people that you were working with or taking over from when you joined the SDS as a manager.

01:17:48 when you joined the SDS as a manager. First of all, detective inspector HN 67.

01:17:55 67. [snorts] Were you aware of a rumor that he had slept with an activist at that stage? No.

01:18:06 Were you aware of a suggestion that HN67 had fathered a child? No.

01:18:15 No. Did he say anything at all to you on the subject of undercover police officers and sexual activity undercover relating

01:18:26 and sexual activity undercover relating either to himself or anyone else? No. um surprising um as it may seem, but given well, you

01:18:37 um as it may seem, but given well, you know, given my uh my um background as a as a field officer and um and G, you know, given his uh

01:18:51 know, given his uh um it may seem extraordinary, but honestly, no. I I'm pretty sure that we didn't Did you say anything about the prospects

01:19:02 Did you say anything about the prospects of it happening um to the UCOs that you were in charge of?

01:19:11 It's possible, but I I have no recollection of it. Prior to this inquiry, did you ever become aware of a rumor that HN67 had slept with an activist?

01:19:24 slept with an activist? Yes.

01:19:25 Yes. When did you first find out? I I can't really pin it down. Um, and I it was nothing. It wasn't, you know, it would

01:19:36 nothing. It wasn't, you know, it would be in the context of a a rumor. When you say you can't pin it down, can you help us narrow down a little? Is it whilst you were in the SDS or still in

01:19:49 whilst you were in the SDS or still in the police? I can't even do that, I'm afraid. Can you help us being careful about anonymity, writing down any names if you need to? How you find out?

01:20:04 need to? How you find out? Um,

01:20:07 no. No. Um, I can't really do do that either.

01:20:13 either. Did you become aware of um any suggestion that he'd fathered a child? that

01:20:21 that that honestly I think only [snorts] um

01:20:28 um only arose with any clarity

01:20:33 clarity reading um reading one of the transcripts here. When you say with any clarity, can I take it that you'd had a whiff of it

01:20:44 take it that you'd had a whiff of it before then? I I just had, you know, a rumor, but not that related to him. And I I didn't really attach much at the time. I didn't

01:20:56 really attach much at the time. I didn't really attach much sort of credibility to the rumor. What was the rumor? Just about someone. Um, of course,

01:21:07 Just about someone. Um, of course, could have been me, couldn't it? But uh you know a a rumor about uh a field officer having uh fathered a child.

01:21:18 uh fathered a child. And where had that rumor where did where did it come to your ear from? I can't recall. Can I move now to DCI HN86?

01:21:30 Can I move now to DCI HN86? How well did you know HN86 before you joined the SDS? Um very well. What sort of man was he?

01:21:41 What sort of man was he? Um

01:21:43 Um well uh for me personally he was a very a very kind man. Um I didn't come to

01:21:54 a very kind man. Um I didn't come to that

01:21:56 that view immediately but um I don't know if well I'll sorry I'll pause. Well, I was asking you what kind of man

01:22:08 Well, I was asking you what kind of man he was. Can I specifically was he the sort of man who was very considerate to others?

01:22:16 others? I Yes. Um

01:22:19 I Yes. Um um

01:22:21 um well

01:22:23 well um

01:22:26 um yeah, he was um very considerate to me um in between my undercover posting and my management

01:22:38 my undercover posting and my management posting

01:22:39 posting um when my um daughter died. um

01:22:46 um suddenly, unexpectedly. Um and um so that obviously is something that is is sort of very

01:22:59 is something that is is sort of very personal and and uh quite

01:23:03 uh quite meaningful. Prior to that, I I I'd worked with him again on Squad, that period we were looking at earlier. He was um a sergeant

01:23:14 looking at earlier. He was um a sergeant I think then. So I had got to know him um very well and then um I think he was quite private like

01:23:26 um I think he was quite private like most of us. But the um you know things that he did um for me on

01:23:37 you know things that he did um for me on on the welfare front at a difficult time will stay with me. We've heard some evidence that there was some tension between HN86

01:23:48 some tension between HN86 and uh Trevor Morris. Yeah.

01:23:52 Yeah. Um and that there may have been a perception of race discrimination. Were you aware of

01:24:05 Were you aware of any such tension? I I wasn't. um or at least I don't recall um

01:24:18 I don't recall any you know particular tension

01:24:26 was HN86 considerate toward Trevor Morris

01:24:35 I my reading uh of the situation uh arriving on the squad. Um

01:24:48 the squad. Um yes, that

01:24:50 yes, that that was how I saw him

01:24:56 saw him interacting with Trevor. um must have seen it on a you know a regular basis for quite you know over whatever what was it six perhaps for 6 months or more.

01:25:09 was it six perhaps for 6 months or more. When you say seen it the what I mean is the their in their regular interactions.

01:25:20 regular interactions. My question was specifically aimed at consideration. Can you think of any respect in which HN86 [clears throat] was considerate to Trevor Morris or not?

01:25:31 was considerate to Trevor Morris or not? Well, I can't recall him being inconsiderate, but I can't obviously I wasn't privy to every, you know, every time they met or

01:25:44 every, you know, every time they met or spoke.

01:25:46 spoke. What were HN86's views about the far-left's relationship with the black community?

01:25:57 I'm sorry, could you repeat it? Yes. What were HN86 views about the far-left's relationship with the black community?

01:26:14 Um well that it was central um it was a central concern. Um it was

01:26:25 um it was a central concern. Um it was um

01:26:27 um it was very much an issue for the SDS. Yeah. Did he believe uh that the black

01:26:38 Did he believe uh that the black community were being exploited by the far-left?

01:26:44 I can't honestly recall today. I don't I don't remember that. Um, I don't, [clears throat] you know, I don't remember

01:26:55 you know, I don't remember anything that he said either to Trevor Morris or or more widely that would be unprofessional, you know,

01:27:07 would be unprofessional, you know, outside of outside of our work. My question doesn't have any such boundary. Did he believe that the far-left was exploiting the black

01:27:18 far-left was exploiting the black community?

01:27:22 That I think I would put it this way uh that he would have understood from experience that the far-left was seeking always would would be always seeking to

01:27:35 always would would be always seeking to do that.

01:27:37 do that. Did he think uh they were inciting the black community to disorder on

01:27:46 on potentially on on specific occasions

01:27:52 using them for their own ends? Yes.

01:27:56 Yes. Leading them or trying to? Yes.

01:28:02 Yes. In what terms did he express those views?

01:28:08 Well, I I can only recall it being in a professional manner.

01:28:19 Did you share those views? Broadly, yes. Did HN86 ever refer to black people as monkeys?

01:28:31 monkeys? Not at all. Not certainly not in my presence. And I mean, had he said it to

01:28:41 to um anyone on the unit, I would have, you know, I would have expected to hear about it.

01:28:51 about it. Did he ever refer to any black person as a monkey?

01:28:56 a monkey? No. Not Well, no, he didn't. Did he ever refer to black people being led by rings through their noses?

01:29:10 led by rings through their noses? Um, not to the best of my recollection.

01:29:15 Did you ever hear anyone say that he'd said any such thing? No.

01:29:25 Did he say anything to the effect that he thought that the Lawrence family campaign was being led by Imran Khn? I have no recollection of that.

01:29:44 Did he ever say anything to the effect that the far left was organizing the black community?

01:29:57 I can't recall. Is that the sort of thing he might have said?

01:30:03 said? Yes.

01:30:06 Did he say anything to the effect that it was the job of the SDS to stop that happening?

01:30:15 I think that's unlikely. Uh I think he would have taken the view that it was the SDS job to report uh

01:30:28 report uh such if there was intelligence to that effect. But you know that was our job

01:30:37 with a view to undermining their efforts to do so.

01:30:42 to do so. Not not necessarily. Um to enable

01:30:49 to enable our,

01:30:51 our, you know, our customers, people that read our

01:30:56 read our intelligence reports to enable them to um

01:31:03 you know, be aware. Um,

01:31:09 did he ever say anything to the effect of or remotely like, "It's our job to stop it before all the monkeys in London got out of our trees."

01:31:24 monkeys in London got out of our trees." No, I'm certain that he didn't. Did you ever hear him express any racist view or any racist language?

01:31:36 view or any racist language? No.

01:31:38 No. Did anyone ever communicate to you that he had?

01:31:43 he had? Um,

01:31:45 Um, no. Not Not to the best of my recollection. No. Did HN86 express a view to you that it would have been better if it had been Dwayne Brooks rather than Steven

01:31:58 Dwayne Brooks rather than Steven Lawrence who had been murdered? No.

01:32:02 No. Or anything like that? No.

01:32:05 No. Was there mention of Dwayne Brooks in the SDS that you can remember? I can remember that there was. I can't remember

01:32:16 remember any

01:32:18 any any detail any I don't think I've read anything in my pack that um

01:32:30 um helps.

01:32:31 helps. What can you remember? [clears throat]

01:32:36 simply that he was um

01:32:42 um a close associate

01:32:48 associate of Steven Lawrence. Um

01:32:55 did you ever hear anyone referring to him by pronouncing his first name very slowly as if he were thick? No.

01:33:06 No. Did you ever hear anyone express the view that he was a coward for running away on the night that Steven was murdered?

01:33:16 murdered? No.

01:33:17 No. Did you hear anyone say anything derogatory about Mr. Brooks? No.

01:33:23 No. Are you sure? I am.

01:33:26 I am. Was there ever any racist banter in the SDS office? No.

01:33:32 No. Uh I don't want you to give any specific details of any officers but you were when you arrived in the SDS managing a unit which was infiltrating

01:33:45 managing a unit which was infiltrating both the far left and the far right. Is it really the case that there was no racist banter in the SDS office when you had officers

01:33:58 in the SDS office when you had officers infiltrating both the far left and the far right? Um well not uh not racist banter. Um not

01:34:10 Um well not uh not racist banter. Um not at all. what what there would often be would be um on a a mon Monday or Thursday, one of

01:34:23 on a a mon Monday or Thursday, one of the regular meetings, there would be the opportunity for uh an officer on either side of this uh far right, far left uh

01:34:36 side of this uh far right, far left uh to

01:34:39 to recount what their target group, what people in their target group, what their take was and to be followed

01:34:50 take was and to be followed uh immediately by an officer on the opposite side o of this very big divide giving

01:35:02 giving their account and that would involve often anecdotes. So we would, all of us present, we would be privy to some

01:35:15 present, we would be privy to some um some pretty dreadful race sorry racist uh comments. But in that context, from the reporting of of

01:35:27 that context, from the reporting of of one of our officers on what was being said

01:35:31 said um about

01:35:33 um about um

01:35:36 um people of color or specifically to the Lawrence case. Um,

01:35:44 Um, none of which was none of which was our either our management or our field officers in any way

01:35:56 officers in any way um being engaging in racist banter. I want to be clear about the atmosphere. You'll recall from your evidence in

01:36:08 You'll recall from your evidence in Trunch 2 that uh and the evidence of others in Trunch 2 that there were plenty of examples of very flippant reporting, inappropriate things being

01:36:20 reporting, inappropriate things being committed to paper, that sort of thing. There is as well in our trunch three evidence. Is it really your evidence that on matters of race all

01:36:33 that on matters of race all conversations within the SDS were entirely earnest and thoroughly professional? Or was there any inappropriate comments, banter, and

01:36:46 inappropriate comments, banter, and things which in the coal light of day would not reflect well. I I think if if it was possible to um sit in one of those regular group

01:37:01 um sit in one of those regular group meetings and to actually hear how the uh field officers were dealing with express, you know, yes, of course,

01:37:14 express, you know, yes, of course, like you know, it there would be humor, but um if

01:37:22 if Um,

01:37:24 Um, it w it was not ever officers themselves expressing anything at all racist. It was the, you

01:37:38 anything at all racist. It was the, you know, groups that they were infiltrating and so forth. Did HN86 ever say anything to you in relation to HN1 having a sexual relationship with Denise

01:37:51 having a sexual relationship with Denise Fuller?

01:37:52 Fuller? Did

01:37:54 Did HN

01:37:55 HN Did HN86

01:37:56 Did HN86 86

01:37:57 86 ever speak to you on that subject? Um,

01:38:01 Um, not No, not that I can recall. This is We're still with the same DCI, aren't we? Yes. H86.

01:38:10 Yes. H86. Yeah. Yeah. Your first? Um, no.

01:38:15 Um, no. Did he say anything at all to you on the subject of undercover police officers and sexual activity undercover relating to any of the UCOs?

01:38:27 to any of the UCOs? No.

01:38:28 No. Are you sure of that? I'm reasonably sure. I Yeah. Did he speak to you about the risk of that happening? I'm sure he would have done, but I I

01:38:39 I'm sure he would have done, but I I can't

01:38:41 can't I can't recall it. In what context?

01:38:49 Um well I think the con the context was um

01:39:00 um how to

01:39:04 you know how to um

01:39:12 how to avoid it happening. I'm not sure. When you say you're not sure, was it really in the context of trying to avoid it?

01:39:23 it? I believe it was. I I mean the only thing that comes to mind um that um I haven't

01:39:35 uh addressed I haven't well I suppose I haven't been asked to address in my statement but um when I

01:39:45 um when I you know when I was working with um 1886 Um

01:39:55 he was keen to

01:40:00 keen to ensure that um

01:40:05 um the the senior field officers at the time. So this is when I'm I joined and he's telling me he is telling me what he ex you know about the squad

01:40:18 me what he ex you know about the squad and what he expects from me and he did hold up

01:40:24 hold up senior field officers as particular people um who he felt were sort of excellent role models in that

01:40:39 sort of excellent role models in that They he I think he didn't say, "Oh, well, because they have not

01:40:47 have not engaged in or they're not engaged in uh sexual relationships, but he described them as

01:40:58 them as being excellent role models, people that new recruits should go to. um because of

01:41:09 um because of their their trade craft and they

01:41:15 they as far as he was concerned um they they were doing excellent work and were

01:41:26 and were um not

01:41:29 um not to the best of his knowledge engaged in sexual relationships. He's can if do you have a positive rele positive recollection of him ask specifically

01:41:40 recollection of him ask specifically adding that last qualification? Yeah, I mean that's that's my reflection on it. Um

01:41:49 on it. Um I I don't

01:41:52 I I don't you say it's your reflection on it. Do you have a positive recollection of him saying that? No. My only positive recollection is of him

01:42:03 him recommending uh particular field officers as as um role models. Want you to be very careful about anonymity answering the next two questions. But uh are the role do the

01:42:14 questions. But uh are the role do the role models include um

01:42:19 um Andy Kohl's and HN1?

01:42:24 and HN1? Um well I think certainly Andy Kohl's not I think HN1 pro possibly at that time

01:42:36 pro possibly at that time was you know wasn't a senior

01:42:41 a senior field officer um

01:42:45 and I I think whether this came directly

01:42:52 uh from HN86 at at that time. But obviously sticks in my mind is the fact that um

01:43:05 that um Andy Coohl's I was you know he would have told me had um

01:43:13 um had made a big sort of an innovation in terms of tradecraftraft by having uh a a

01:43:25 terms of tradecraftraft by having uh a a pet a pet dog and that this dog was with him,

01:43:32 him, you know, all the time. So, can I just stop you there and ask you, was Detective Sergeant Morris another person that HN86

01:43:43 person that HN86 thought was an exemplary officer? Um

01:43:51 again I don't think he was at that time he wasn't a senior figure.

01:44:01 What steps had HN86 taken if any to avoid or reduce the risk of sexual relationships

01:44:13 relationships undercover? Um, other than what what I've just mentioned, no nothing that I can recall.

01:44:25 nothing that I can recall. Can I move now to Chief Superintendent Potter?

01:44:30 Potter? How well did you know Chief Superintendent Bob Potter before you joined the SDS? Um, not very well. When you say not very well, had you had

01:44:41 When you say not very well, had you had any contact with him at all? Yes. Yes.

01:44:46 And so how well did you know him? Um just as a a senior officer um who I'd probably spoken to half a

01:45:00 um who I'd probably spoken to half a dozen times. What was he like? Um yeah, he he was a very friendly a very friendly man. be um

01:45:13 a very friendly man. be um very um approachable. Yeah. Had you ever heard the name the nickname applied to him, Potty Bob?

01:45:25 applied to him, Potty Bob? Um I hadn't. Um but when I heard when I read it,

01:45:31 read it, I thought

01:45:33 I thought um rather than it referring to, you know, bad language, um I thought it was an unhappy reference to

01:45:45 I thought it was an unhappy reference to his

01:45:47 his um mental

01:45:49 um mental illness, which um you know, obviously afflicted him at the at the end of his uh special branch career.

01:45:59 career. Did he use bad language? Not not ever that um I heard. No. Did he use sexist or racist language?

01:46:10 Did he use sexist or racist language? Not in my presence. Um are you familiar with the incident which led to Chief Superintendent Potter's medical retirement?

01:46:21 Potter's medical retirement? Well, I I I I would have to say yes, I am. And I but I'm I'm also aware of at least one other significant incident in that you know at

01:46:33 significant incident in that you know at the tail end at the tail end of his career. Yeah. The incident um that ended his career was one of Frank racism.

01:46:45 was one of Frank racism. Was the other incident that you're referring to anything to do with racism? Uh,

01:46:54 Uh, no.

01:46:55 no. Or sexism. Or sexism. No. No.

01:47:02 No. No. [snorts]

01:47:04 [snorts] When did you first hear about the incident which ended Chief Superintendent Potter's career?

01:47:16 Chief Superintendent Potter's career? Um, I'm fairly sure that I heard about it in the office where I worked

01:47:27 where I worked immediately prior to joining rejoining the SDS.

01:47:35 We've heard evidence that the incident happened when he was on his way home from an SDS social event. Are you able to help us with whether or not that is

01:47:47 to help us with whether or not that is correct?

01:47:48 correct? I can't. No. And can I take it from that answer that if it was, you weren't there? I Yes.

01:47:57 I Yes. So, when you did hear in your employment immediately prior to the SDS of the incident, in what terms was it

01:48:08 incident, in what terms was it communicated to you? um

01:48:15 that he'd um

01:48:20 he'd um he'd been he entered a some

01:48:27 some a public premises some I think in Stratum.

01:48:33 Stratum. um and um

01:48:40 had some I don't know um some interaction with person or persons in

01:48:52 person or persons in in this at this venue. Um and um that it was, you know, that he was completely

01:49:05 you know, that he was completely gone completely off the rails. That it was at that point in time that it was the second major incident o of in a public place where he had just

01:49:17 o of in a public place where he had just seemingly

01:49:19 seemingly kind of run a muck. Was the racial dimension

01:49:24 dimension included?

01:49:25 included? It not I not that I recall, you know, initially I um When did you find out about that about the racial about the fact he it had involved

01:49:37 about the fact he it had involved serious racial abuse? I

01:49:42 I to be honest I think you know much much more recently um I think the just I mean it doesn't add up to much but just because I was in a an office that was

01:49:55 because I was in a an office that was close fairly close along the corridor from where he worked was based um that was the sort of talking point obviously

01:50:07 was the sort of talking point obviously you know and hence

01:50:10 you know, Potty Bob. He's he's he's had another what they were at the time they were seen as sort of crazy incidents. I won't I'm not going to

01:50:21 incidents. I won't I'm not going to describe the first one, but um just an ordinarily um

01:50:31 um you know, ordinary guy just completely going berserk. Was the fact that the second incident involved grossly racist

01:50:42 second incident involved grossly racist language not a talking point? Well,

01:50:47 Well, um not in, you know, we're probably talking the day after it had happened and it um but you know, it's um there would have been

01:51:00 you know, it's um there would have been people far closer to the incident who would have known. I I was really very much on the periphery, you know, just picking up.

01:51:12 just picking up. Can we move now to your appointment as detective inspector uh in the SDS? Who selected you? And be careful if they're an anonymous.

01:51:24 Um well um

01:51:29 well um I [clears throat] um the first person I I recall um speaking to me about it. Uh have a

01:51:40 um speaking to me about it. Uh have a look here. He was uh I think a superintendent who I think he had work been he definitely worked on the SDS but when he spoke to me um he was a

01:51:56 SDS but when he spoke to me um he was a superintendent on E squad. Um where are we? Um,

01:52:07 are they um

01:52:17 sure

01:53:01 Um,

01:53:06 no, it hasn't. I haven't found it. Okay. Um,

01:53:15 we can we can come back to that if we need to.

01:53:18 need to. Did that person know that you had sexually deceived women whilst you were an undercover police officer? Um, not to the best of my knowledge at at that time. And the

01:53:31 at that time. And the Did any of the people who were involved in your appointment know that? Um,

01:53:39 Um, well, not that I was made aware of. Did any of them know that you'd fathered a child undercover? Not

01:53:50 Not Not that I, you know, not that I was aware of. Can I take it from those answers that you didn't declare it? Yes, that's correct. Did you consider that your conduct

01:54:03 Did you consider that your conduct sexually undercover in any way rendered you unsuitable for the role? Yes. Um.

01:54:15 Yes. Why did you accept the role then? Um

01:54:26 um well I think because I allowed other considerations to to override

01:54:38 to to override my concern um my concern. What what was your concern? Um well how Yeah. You know,

01:54:51 Yeah. You know, um how

01:54:58 how you know how effective um could I be? How genuine could I be? Uh I if I was to

01:55:13 could I be? Uh I if I was to withhold

01:55:14 withhold um

01:55:17 um that you know that knowledge. Um

01:55:23 Um it it I I was in obvious danger of being a hypocrite and you know hypocrite, ineffective, sort of conflicted

01:55:37 sort of conflicted as indeed I think I probably often was you know conflicted but there we are. What were the competing considerations?

01:55:47 Well, um you know a duty a duty which seems clear enough now to you know as a manager to be absolutely um clear and frank with

01:56:01 um clear and frank with the field officers. I mean the competing considerations that made you take the role even though you said

01:56:10 said you thought you were unsuitable for it. I think um primarily the the focus the the opportunity well you

01:56:21 the focus the the opportunity well you know the job offer was really to focus on the operational security of uh the unit the individual

01:56:34 security of uh the unit the individual police officers um and I guess

01:56:40 I guess uh I mean to the extent that I probably already

01:56:44 already managed to comp compartmentalize um

01:56:54 my you know my life. Um I guess I probably knew that I was capable of

01:57:07 capable of of of doing that um in this role. I I thought long and hard about it. I was um perfectly happy doing the prior job. I I was very much

01:57:21 doing the prior job. I I was very much in two minds. I think I I had thought a lot about

01:57:27 lot about you know the the benefit of uh you know being away from it uh benefit for me and family. Um

01:57:41 benefit for me and family. Um and you know this was a time of of great um

01:57:49 um distress uh you know bereiement and um so

01:57:57 um so um there we are. It's a long time ago Mr. Lambert and a lot has happened since. Can I ask you to reflect on the answers you've given me

01:58:08 reflect on the answers you've given me because we're going to go to a lot of your managerial documents relating to sexual relationships or documents you were involved in? Was it really

01:58:19 Was it really in 1993

01:58:22 in 1993 a matter that was praying on your mind that you had deceived women whilst undercover? Um, yes. And you know, I dealt with it

01:58:34 Um, yes. And you know, I dealt with it by

01:58:37 by putting it, you know, um, putting it to the back of my mind. But when I was being approached to join rejoin the SDS,

01:58:51 to join rejoin the SDS, you know, obviously I thought, well, that's um, that's going to be a problem. That's

01:59:00 the role was one that you regarded as important and exciting. Yes.

01:59:07 Yes. Very important. Yes.

01:59:15 was the position that you were thinking at the time that because the SDS's mission was so important

01:59:26 important that the ends justified the means.

01:59:36 Um there must have been a you know a degree of that but um but um you know within

01:59:48 but um you know within within the

01:59:52 um framework of of the SDS not you know not any not um not without

02:00:04 um not without boundaries. Yeah. I'm not suggesting it was wholly without any boundaries whatsoever, but that having sexual relationships with people undercover was one of the

02:00:15 with people undercover was one of the things that happened sometimes and it was one of the means to an exceptionally important end. Is that the

02:00:27 exceptionally important end. Is that the way you looked at it? No.

02:00:31 No. Were you involved in due course with the recruitment of HN53

02:00:40 undercover or no as as your replacement? Oh, sorry. Yes. Um, yes. Yes. Now, I don't want you to give any details of HN53's

02:00:53 any details of HN53's um undercover deployment, anything which might identify HN 53, but did you regard his previous service in the SDS as an advantage?

02:01:04 advantage? Yes.

02:01:05 Yes. And again, without any identifying details, in broad terms, why was that? um

02:01:15 um to be able to that he would be able to um

02:01:21 um understand the uh perspective of the field officers. And he'd also have the experience of um

02:01:33 And he'd also have the experience of um man uh management of the unit of of being a field officer. um a a perspective on management from that. Yeah.

02:01:44 Yeah. Having had himself to confront the conundrums that occur whilst undercover. Yes.

02:01:51 Yes. So would that be an appropriate time to take morning break? Certainly it would. Quarter of an hour. Yes. We'll break for quarter of an hour.

02:21:06 Thank you, sir. Mr. Lambert, can we now turn to the period between your leaving the SDS in the late 80s and returning to the SDS in

02:21:19 the late 80s and returning to the SDS in the autumn of 1993? How much contact did you have with the unit in that intervening period? Um, [clears throat] some contact. Uh,

02:21:33 Um, [clears throat] some contact. Uh, um,

02:21:35 um, yes. Well, difficult to quantify, not a lot, but some. Yeah. Uh, our understanding is that you may have been involved in mentoring John Dyn, HN87,

02:21:48 involved in mentoring John Dyn, HN87, HN1, and Andy Kohl's. Is that right? Um probably certainly I can remember Andy Coohl's uh in in respect of

02:22:00 Andy Coohl's uh in in respect of mentoring. [snorts]

02:22:02 [snorts] And were you the sort of experienced former UCO who would be asked to speak to UCOs from time to time? Yes.

02:22:14 Yes. Can I move on now to the early days of your time as uh detective inspector in the SDS? One of the things that crosses your desk fairly early on is the

02:22:27 your desk fairly early on is the problems caused by Mike Chitty. Yes.

02:22:31 Yes. I'm going to show you first document really just to remind you and anchor this in time. 746109 please.

02:22:46 [snorts]

02:22:51 This is a a welfare note that you draft um dealing essentially with the fact that Mike Chitty had gone awall and the

02:23:05 that Mike Chitty had gone awall and the actions that you'd been involved in as a result. And we see at the top of uh paragraph one that uh on the 10th of

02:23:16 paragraph one that uh on the 10th of March 1994 you'd been to see Mr. Chitt's wife and that was um because he was missing.

02:23:29 and that was um because he was missing. If we take that down now and have up please 7461 1 0

02:23:45 [snorts] this is another document entitled welfare note uh about uh Mr. Chitty and long-term sick leave. If we

02:23:56 Chitty and long-term sick leave. If we could have um the first three paragraphs expanded, please

02:24:03 give you a moment just to refresh your memory.

02:24:42 Yeah. So, you've discovered that a former undercover police officer has been using his alter ego in an unauthorized manner

02:24:53 his alter ego in an unauthorized manner and has been doing so since August of 1989 at the least. And from paragraph two, it appears, can

02:25:05 And from paragraph two, it appears, can we take it from the wording, what you're really referring to is an intimate sexual relationship. M yes

02:25:16 how did you make that discovery in the intervening period between learning that Mr. Chitty had gone awall and um

02:25:29 Mr. Chitty had gone awall and um here this is the 21st of March this document in that 6 day period

02:25:42 Um well, I would have uh found it out. Uh um

02:25:57 found it out. Um I don't know. I'm trying to think. Um let me let me help you if it's not coming immediately to mind. Had you had a number of conversations with Mr. Chitty? Um, and had you been shown a

02:26:09 Chitty? Um, and had you been shown a series of love letters which he was keeping in a toolbox in his garage? Yes. Yes. Yes, that's right.

02:26:20 Can we take that document down now and have 726956 up, please? This is tab B52.

02:26:36 And if we go to the second page to see the title, this is a discussion paper. Uh it's May 1994. So the same month if

02:26:49 Uh it's May 1994. So the same month if we sorry two months later. Page four please.

02:26:55 Let's see. See the subject. It's uh about the Chitty case, part one. Uh it says there's going to be a part two, current policy and practice. Was

02:27:07 two, current policy and practice. Was there ever a part two? Um I think so. I think it but it's not titled in that way. I think it's a document

02:27:15 document that's in my bundle for sure. um can't it's just definitely I think that that you know that followup

02:27:27 that followup um

02:27:28 um I could I could find it in due course. Yeah,

02:27:31 Yeah, thank you. Can we have page six please?

02:27:39 And from the sixth paragraph down, we see that you are describing yourself um as an operations manager. I think

02:27:51 um as an operations manager. I think it's is is in that paragraph or if not that paragraph, another one. Is that right? That was your title, operations officer.

02:28:00 officer. Um

02:28:01 Um yes. Yes.

02:28:04 yes. Yes. Can we have page nine, please?

02:28:09 And if we have paragraph 1.1, I give you a moment to uh remind yourself about that. But what I'm really interested is the bit at the bottom

02:28:20 interested is the bit at the bottom about the golden rule. All right.

02:28:45 Yeah. Okay. So, the golden rule is emphasized in bold.

02:28:51 bold. Can we take it that it was a guiding principle of the SDS?

02:28:57 Um, yes. And was it strongly inculcated in all undercover offices? Um, I I would think so.

02:29:10 Um, I I would think so. In your view, was Mr. Chitt's behavior a truly shocking breach of the golden rule?

02:29:21 Well, not not shocking, but um but certainly, you know, it's um

02:29:32 you know, it's um choose your own adjective. Uh how would you describe it? Well, um

02:29:40 Well, um you know, um an example. It was an example um

02:29:47 um on the scale of seriousness. Yeah. Serious. Yeah.

02:29:56 Would it also be right that in the resolution of the Chitty affair, if I call it that, central to the resolution was

02:30:09 central to the resolution was the application of the golden rule that the problem had to be resolved without compromising the integrity of the operation.

02:30:21 operation. Yes.

02:30:25 Would it be fair to say that the golden rule was so important to the SDS that you had yourself applied it

02:30:38 the SDS that you had yourself applied it for example in the way you dealt with TBS?

02:30:45 Um, yes.

02:30:52 Did the fact that the golden rule was well known and thoroughly inculcated in SDS offices

02:31:04 in SDS offices mean that Chitty could disclose to you what he had done knowing that the SDS would want a resolution that in no way

02:31:17 would want a resolution that in no way compromised the integrity of the operation. Um quite you know quite probably because he is in fact quite forthcoming

02:31:28 because he is in fact quite forthcoming with you isn't he? Yeah.

02:31:32 Yeah. Did he also know that you had had sexual relationships undercover?

02:31:48 Um, I can't say for certain um at that time, but um

02:31:57 I think I think at some point um he either

02:32:09 suspected it, I'm not sure.

02:32:14 and that it was a not uncommon occurrence within the SDS. Um well um

02:32:26 Um well um not um

02:32:29 not um not as uh common as um as I now know it to be,

02:32:36 to be, but not unheard of either. No.

02:32:41 No. If we go to page 10, paragraph 1.3 at the top. So I think maybe next page. Yes.

02:32:57 So if we look at that paragraph, would it be fair to say you are further emphasizing here

02:33:06 here uh the serious nature of Mr. Chitt's breach of the golden rule because what he has done which is particularly striking is continued to use his cover

02:33:18 striking is continued to use his cover identity after exfiltration. Yes.

02:33:26 Could we go to page 18 please? Paragraph 2.10.

02:33:38 Let you have a look at that.

02:34:14 Yes. The [clears throat] phrase in the second line, all all officers who have worked in the animal rights field admit to having

02:34:27 animal rights field admit to having formed close friendships with activists. That's a form of words that you are using to include amongst other things sexual

02:34:39 amongst other things sexual relationships. quite um

02:34:44 quite um you know quite um probably and that is because it is a very striking feature of the SDS's work in the animal rights field that the

02:34:57 the animal rights field that the incidence of sexual relationships is very high isn't it? Yes.

02:35:03 Yes. You

02:35:05 You Mr. Chitty Mr. designs HN87 to some extent subject to the chairman's findings Mr. Coohl's

02:35:17 Coohl's HN26

02:35:20 Mr. Thompson and as we have recently learned HN60.

02:35:29 And can I take it from your choice of words here that when you wrote this in May 1994,

02:35:40 May 1994, you were well aware of the fact there was a high incidence of sexual relationships undercover in the animal rights field.

02:35:51 undercover in the animal rights field. No, I was not aware of the this level of incidents at that time. Um, I was certainly aware of the

02:36:03 Um, I was certainly aware of the potential

02:36:05 potential the risks.

02:36:13 If we look at 2.12 on page 19, please

02:36:21 I'll let you have a look at that. But it's particularly uh towards the end of the paragraph that I'm going to be asking you about.

02:36:39 Yeah. long confided in the writer that his marriage held no interest for him, appears to have had no real emotional counterbalance to the tap temptation to return secretly to the warmth of a close

02:36:52 return secretly to the warmth of a close female associate in the animal rights movement. Can we take it from that that you had known for some time that Mr. Chitty had had sexual had

02:37:06 that Mr. Chitty had had sexual had involved himself in sexual activity whilst undercover. Um well the my my role uh I think from

02:37:17 Um well the my my role uh I think from the documents that I've read a welfare role with DS Chitty I think it does predate

02:37:26 predate um

02:37:29 um my return to to um the management. So um quite how you know difficult to

02:37:40 um quite how you know difficult to immediately get my head around the the chronology but um

02:37:48 but um but yes it it's um over you know over quite a long period the you see it it was

02:37:59 you see it it was um

02:38:01 um a disciplinary issue in his work new workplace that we we've seen we've seen the documents. If I could stop you there and ask you

02:38:12 If I could stop you there and ask you when did you first know that Mr. Chitty had been involved sexually with activists undercover?

02:38:25 activists undercover? Um, I can't recall now. I would have been able to answer clearly at at the time that I wrote this. Would it have been whilst he was

02:38:37 Would it have been whilst he was deployed?

02:38:38 deployed? Uh, I don't think so. No. So, does it follow that you think it's most likely you came to learn in the period between leaving the SDS and resuming as a manager?

02:38:49 resuming as a manager? or or during the whole course of this engagement with him that I'm reading at the moment. Yeah. We went back, we looked a moment ago at

02:39:00 We went back, we looked a moment ago at a some of your writing which made very clear you understood Oh, yeah.

02:39:06 Oh, yeah. the very close relationships that developed in the animal rights field. Yes. Yes. Did you you knew, didn't you, that this was happening in the animal rights field before you resumed your

02:39:18 rights field before you resumed your work as

02:39:19 work as I think you know when I was a field officer um I would have known that um you know there was a a possibility that

02:39:32 you know there was a a possibility that uh Mike Chitty had engaged was engaging in a sexual relationship but I I honestly don't recall any discussions with him or

02:39:44 recall any discussions with him or anyone else. Would it be fair to say that it was no surprise that he had been involved sexually as an undercover officer? The surprise was he was still doing it.

02:39:56 surprise was he was still doing it. Yes.

02:39:59 Yes. Can we go to to page 20, paragraph 215, please?

02:40:05 please? Um,

02:40:08 Um, give you a moment to read that and then you may need to read the next paragraph as well.

02:40:33 Yeah. And if we look at the next paragraph then please which runs over the page

02:40:46 [snorts]

02:40:49 which I'm not quite sure. Oh uh right. Yeah. Got it. [clears throat]

02:41:01 [snorts]

02:41:15 I don't think we need to go to it, but later on there's a reference to to passengers uh within the unit. You are making a distinction in these two

02:41:27 making a distinction in these two paragraphs, aren't you? Between someone like Detective Sergeant Chitty, who didn't get very involved with direct action, and yourself, who did?

02:41:41 action, and yourself, who did? Yes.

02:41:43 Yes. Between deep swimmers and shallow paddlers?

02:41:47 paddlers? Yes.

02:41:48 Yes. Mr. Chitty, a shallow paddler. yourself a deep swimmer? Yes.

02:41:56 Yes. Fair that during your time as a detective inspector, you encouraged deep swimming?

02:42:04 swimming? Yes.

02:42:05 Yes. Because shallow paddling was just ineffective. I think um now looking at it, I think it's the comments that I'm reading are a little bit harsh, a bit too

02:42:19 little bit harsh, a bit too black and white. Um but I want um you yeah not I think but in broad terms um accepted. Yeah.

02:42:31 um accepted. Yeah. If we can have page 27 please paragraph 3.3.

02:42:47 I'll let you uh read that. This is a further document about the Chitty affair. And what I'm interested in is is Mr. Chitt's failure to return items capable

02:42:59 Chitt's failure to return items capable of supporting his legend. Now, I don't want any specifics about particular documents. But what I want to ask you is if one of

02:43:11 But what I want to ask you is if one of the issues that has been identified is that Chitty has been able to continue to conduct his alter ego

02:43:24 to conduct his alter ego because he's had items which he failed to return. Was any thought given to tightening up procedures to prevent it

02:43:35 tightening up procedures to prevent it happening again? Yes, I'm sure thought and probably action was well

02:43:43 well given.

02:43:45 given. What action was taken? I can't recall now

02:43:51 now because

02:43:52 because the reason I'm asking this question is that an officer the start of whose deployment you see, Detective Sergeant Thompson,

02:44:03 Detective Sergeant Thompson, uh also stays in touch with women he's met undercover after his deployment ends.

02:44:13 ends. And we have not got evidence of any tightening up after the Chitty affair. We do have evidence of tightening up after the Thompson affair. Yes.

02:44:23 Yes. Is it right there was a missed opportunity to tighten up uh and minimize the risk of officers continuing to use their identities after

02:44:35 continuing to use their identities after their deployments? Um

02:44:39 Um it's highly likely but you know I can't say any more than that. I I I think I in what

02:44:52 I in what equates to the part two um of the Chitty case report which I've read in the last few days. I think which I wrote there's

02:45:05 few days. I think which I wrote there's I think there's um certainly issues there where I was hoping to uh persuade senior management to to

02:45:17 uh persuade senior management to to tighten certain things up whether it was I I don't think I mentioned documents so this your issue at the moment I'm sorry I I I can't think of anything concrete

02:45:28 I I I can't think of anything concrete that was done so there may well have been a missed opportunity. Can we go to page 28, please? In paragraph 3.5.

02:45:44 Give you a moment to read that. But it's it's the content near the start which is of particular interest.

02:46:09 Yes. Um, the way this is written during his official tour of duty, DS Chitty was romantically attached to a number of women within South London animal

02:46:20 women within South London animal movement. It's not written with any surprise or in terms of it being a a revelation. Can I take it from that that this was something that was already known?

02:46:33 something that was already known? Um,

02:46:35 Um, not not necessarily. I think this is a, you know, me reporting what I've established

02:46:46 established in from conversations with him. Um I can't but in any event um

02:46:57 Um I can't but in any event um I was bringing the matter to the attention of um senior managers for sure.

02:47:11 If we could

02:47:20 Just focus in on the reaction to that. What was the reaction to your bringing to senior manager's attention the fact

02:47:31 to senior manager's attention the fact that DS Chitty had been romantically attached to a number of women? Um, what was the what was senior

02:47:42 Um, what was the what was senior manager's reaction? Yeah. when I had I mean I had no um face-to-face

02:47:52 response. Um what I had all I had were all and all I really remember um are the minuteed

02:48:05 um are the minuteed responses of senior officers that I'm sure you've read

02:48:09 read and will come to. Yes. Page 47, please. Paragraph 6.2

02:48:46 What you're recording here is that Andy Coohl's has been at the same social event

02:48:56 event as

02:48:58 as the man masquerading as Mike Blake. Yes.

02:49:03 Yes. And the date I asked I showed you the very first document in the sequence uh when

02:49:09 when uh you when Chitty goes April goes AWOL was in March. This is the 16th of April. So Chitty is still masquerading as Mike

02:49:23 So Chitty is still masquerading as Mike Blake

02:49:26 after it is known that he is using his fake identity and is using using it for sexual purposes.

02:49:38 sexual purposes. Well, if I'm sure you have. I I hadn't worked out that chronology myself, but it it if if if that's the right chronology, then yes.

02:49:51 that's the right chronology, then yes. And nobody is stopping Chitty from doing that.

02:49:55 that. Um

02:49:59 seemingly no. Did you do anything to get him to stop? Um

02:50:12 well not um

02:50:16 I'd have to look closely through the reporting. I think my, you know, the um

02:50:28 you know, the um instructions or directions that I had were to,

02:50:33 were to, you know, ma maintain try and maintain some sort of contact with him, which I I know is is reported. Um,

02:50:45 know is is reported. Um, I'm sure there would have been. Well, you say you're sure there would have been, there isn't there isn't a trace in the documents. On the contrary, would it be fairer to say that what was running through everybody's mind was

02:50:57 running through everybody's mind was adherance to the golden rule and whatever happens, not compromising SDS operational security. I see. Um,

02:51:10 right. Okay. Well, that must be um you know that's plausible. Yeah. And no one wants to do anything which might provoke Chitty to blowing the

02:51:23 might provoke Chitty to blowing the cover of the SDS. And I think that probably

02:51:29 probably helps me to think, you know, what I was being asked to do, which would be to um,

02:51:38 um, you know, speak in by attending to his welfare to try and restrain him um or influence

02:51:51 to try and restrain him um or influence him.

02:51:52 him. Uh and with I I guess um with the discipline hearing coming up at some point he would have

02:52:03 coming up at some point he would have had a date for his disciplinary hearing and um

02:52:12 um let's be yeah I guess he that would have been

02:52:18 been one um sort of lever of influence. um that I had.

02:52:28 Sorry. What was the lever? the um the the disciplinary hearing and um

02:52:39 and um the willingness of

02:52:44 of SDS managers um past and present, myself and um

02:52:52 and um um the um

02:52:58 a former manager

02:53:01 manager to

02:53:02 to give evidence on his behalf at the disciplinary hearing as we we'll come to that in in a moment.

02:53:13 as we we'll come to that in in a moment. Can I move for for present purposes to the section of this paragraph which says clearly that says Blake attended with Lizzy and an infant. Lizzy clearly the

02:53:24 Lizzy and an infant. Lizzy clearly the mother Blake not necessarily the father. Did you ask Chitty whether he was the father?

02:53:35 Um, what can I say? I may well have done. I if if I didn't record it, um, I can't recall at this stage.

02:53:47 recall at this stage. I honest

02:53:50 I no I I don't know. I I I I don't think it was I mean for me to say that it's Lizzy clearly the mother um

02:54:02 Lizzy clearly the mother um there was I don't think I ever had any real evidence to I'm not asking whether you had evidence. I'm asking you whether you asked and what the answer was. And I my

02:54:14 what the answer was. And I my understanding of your answer is you say you don't know. Well no I can be clearer than that. If I did

02:54:21 did uh if I had asked him and if he had told me that he was the father then I [snorts] would definitely remember it today.

02:54:31 today. But you might not have asked him. Um

02:54:36 Um that's correct.

02:54:40 And is that because for SDS purposes at the time it didn't matter? Um

02:54:50 I don't it wouldn't be fair to say that it didn't matter. Uh but um I was under no I mean PE you know managers

02:55:02 no I mean PE you know managers or senior managers uh read this report. No one no one told me to you you know ask ask a question.

02:55:14 you you know ask ask a question. Understood. That's understood. Nobody's asking you to ask these questions, but if it had mattered to the SDS at the time, you would have recorded that you had asked and what the answer was,

02:55:27 had asked and what the answer was, wouldn't it? Yes.

02:55:28 Yes. And can we take it from the absence of that question being addressed that it didn't matter to the SDS? I I think that's unfair certainly on me

02:55:41 I I think that's unfair certainly on me that you know unless I could if I'd been asked at the time I could recreate the context in which I'm getting this

02:55:52 context in which I'm getting this information intelligence I without that I I can't really have a conclusion. Do you know now whether or

02:56:04 conclusion. Do you know now whether or not Mike Blake is the father of Lizz's child? Well, I don't know. I'd be very surprised

02:56:15 surprised uh if if he was the father of of the child.

02:56:21 child. Can we go to page 53, please? And paragraphs

02:56:30 once we've got 53 up. Paragraph 6.14 and 6.15.

02:56:36 Give me a moment to look at those.

02:57:19 And if we go over the page once you've read that to 616.

02:57:33 Yes.

02:57:37 And if I think it goes over the page.

02:57:53 So this in if tell me when you've you've read it.

02:57:57 read it. I bring your Have you read all of that now? Oh, sorry. No, let me

02:58:13 Oh yeah. Okay. Thank you. So this in effect, these three paragraphs are essentially recording a risk assessment. Yes. Yes.

02:58:22 Yes. Yes. On the one hand, you don't think Mr. Chitty, Detective Sergeant Chitty is likely to blow the SDS's cover because it would have adverse effects on him as

02:58:34 it would have adverse effects on him as well,

02:58:35 well, not least it would stop him continuing to act in his cover identity and continuing to have fun with the activists. I don't think that was um what I was

02:58:48 I don't think that was um what I was addressing when I was writing it, but I take your point. Um, on the other hand, there is a risk that he might do so

02:58:59 there is a risk that he might do so because he's quite unpredictable at the time. Yeah.

02:59:03 Yeah. And the consequences, as you portray them, would be very grave. Yes.

02:59:09 Yes. that he would be able very quickly to um blow the cover of fellow

02:59:20 to um blow the cover of fellow undercover officers in the animal rights world including yourself. Yes.

02:59:26 Yes. And um no doubt including Mr. Dimes. Yes.

02:59:32 Yes. And the very least that these officers and families should expect would be postal bombs. So potentially very severe consequences. Therefore, you are advancing a case

02:59:47 Therefore, you are advancing a case against discipline and in favor of medical retirement. Yes.

02:59:55 Yes. To protect the SDS operation and to protect you and other former undercover police officers. Yes.

03:00:09 In fact, we know since your cover has been blown, no physical retribution has been sought, has it? That's correct.

03:00:20 That's correct. [snorts] When you wrote this, did you actually believe that you might be the subject of a postal bomb? Um,

03:00:32 Um, yes. I uh I had every reason to uh think that that was um

03:00:44 a risk a significant risk. Well, the people sorry you were mixing with undercover were certainly capable of committing

03:00:57 were certainly capable of committing largecale

03:00:59 largecale damage to property. that injuring people was not their style, was it? Uh, I don't think that's uh that's altogether fair. Um I think

03:01:12 that's altogether fair. Um I think throughout my

03:01:15 my deployment and well both deployments um undercover and office I think that uh for example you know the case of I

03:01:28 uh for example you know the case of I mean this is just the most well-known case or was probably no no longer the case of professor Colin Blakemore um would

03:01:37 um would let's let's before going into other people. I'm interested in the people that you were infiltrating. Their modus operandi was not to attack

03:01:48 Their modus operandi was not to attack people, was it? Um

03:01:56 um

03:02:00 yeah, that's um okay, forgive me. That's fair. Yeah. And so to say that the very least these officers and their families should expect with a postal bomb is

03:02:13 should expect with a postal bomb is significantly overstating the risk. It may it may appear that way now. I I can I you know it was seemed reasonable

03:02:25 can I you know it was seemed reasonable at the time. Were any precautions taken?

03:02:32 I I have no um recollection. Can we go to page 54, paragraph 6.17?

03:03:11 So essentially this is further risk assessment, isn't it? in your assessment is there is actually a bigger risk of him negligently compromising the SDS uh as he um continues to socialize with

03:03:26 uh as he um continues to socialize with activists uh in an atmosphere with a lot of alcohol. Yes.

03:03:31 Yes. If we go to page 56, paragraph 7.2, two. Please

03:03:42 [snorts] let you read that

03:04:10 And then if you can have the next paragraph please 7.3.

03:04:20 So essentially in these two paragraphs what you're communicating is your view that it will be best to pension DS Chitty off. Yes.

03:04:30 Yes. and that if you want to continue the debortched life of Mike Blake, it will have no bearing on your secret operation. That's 7.2.

03:04:46 Yes. So essentially you're saying let him continue to be Mike Blake and pension him off. That is the least bad disposal of this problem.

03:04:57 of this problem. [clears throat] Yeah, I think it's difficult um now, but um

03:05:04 um okay, I can just accept it for what's written. Yeah, let him continue sexually to deceive Lizzy

03:05:14 Lizzy in effect. And if we look at 7.3, that is essentially a statement of the golden rule, isn't it?

03:05:25 golden rule, isn't it? Yes.

03:05:26 Yes. And those less crucial considerations were the fact that Mr. Chitty had sexually deceived multiple women.

03:05:37 sexually deceived multiple women. Yes.

03:05:38 Yes. Possibly fathered a child

03:05:44 being left to continue sexually deceiving women. There's reference in the papers to drink driving.

03:05:54 his fraudulent expenses claims and the risk of him negligently compromising the operation as he

03:06:05 compromising the operation as he proceeds to live the debortched lifestyle of Mike Blake. That in cold hard terms is the application of the golden rule, isn't it?

03:06:15 it? Yes.

03:06:19 seriously improper to propose to ignore all of that, wasn't it? Um, it would seem that way uh today.

03:06:31 Um, it would seem that way uh today. Yes.

03:06:34 Yes. What was Detective Chief Inspector Edmonson's reaction to your proposed disposal of the Chitty Affair?

03:06:45 disposal of the Chitty Affair? Um,

03:06:46 Um, I think it would will I think it was to um

03:06:56 take take a view from

03:07:02 from senior management. Um as for he I I can't recall any particular response

03:07:12 response uh from him. If we go to 746137 please. That's tab B53.

03:07:26 We see DCI Edmonson pushing your discussion paper up the chain of command and

03:07:40 chain of command and there is a conspicuous lack of any opinion expressed either way in that minute isn't there? Yes. Yeah. But it is described as

03:07:51 Yes. Yeah. But it is described as urgent.

03:07:53 urgent. And we see that it's going to commander ops and commander P. Is commander P the personnel commander? Yes. Yes.

03:08:01 Yes. Yes. Through the then chief superintendent of CE squad. The bottom of the page we see commander opset. Um

03:08:12 commander opset. Um is that commander Buchanan? Yes. Yes.

03:08:15 Yes. Yes. uh to chief uh superintendent CE saying it's an important document and asking for written observations

03:08:28 asking for written observations and recommendations

03:08:32 and it may cut matter short if I summarize what follows but it appears from the papers that commander Buchanan decides

03:08:43 papers that commander Buchanan decides that with safeguards the disciplinary process can in fact proceed

03:08:51 proceed u because he believes the threat to you and other former UCOs is overstated. He's backed by Commander Moss and that decision is endorsed by DAC

03:09:04 decision is endorsed by DAC howley

03:09:06 howley and there are other senior officers on this minute sheet including HN 337. Were you aware that your paper

03:09:17 Were you aware that your paper was being disseminated to so many senior officers? Yes. Well, maybe not all of them, but certainly up the up the uh chain. Yeah.

03:09:30 certainly up the up the uh chain. Yeah. And presumably you were told that the decision was the disciplinary process was going to continue. Yes. what were the what safeguards were going to be used to progress that course

03:09:43 going to be used to progress that course of action without compromising the SDS? Um

03:09:49 Um well that that's um what I remember what I mentioned a short while back uh about my role of um

03:10:02 while back uh about my role of um a leverage um and I shall I just briefly repeat it? No, don't repeat anything you've said already. Um I'll be asking some more questions about the disciplinary process

03:10:14 questions about the disciplinary process itself in a moment. Um On the face of the papers, it therefore appears that a significant number of very senior officers see a document

03:10:25 very senior officers see a document which amongst other things records all of Chitt's wrongdoing, including multiple deceitful sexual relations. Did anybody give you any feedback or did

03:10:39 Did anybody give you any feedback or did you learn of any reaction to those multiple sexual deceptions? No. Or to the possibility that Mike Blake had fathered a child?

03:10:51 had fathered a child? No.

03:10:54 I can find no suggestion on the papers that anything was done about Chitt's sexual deception of women or about the prospect of Chitty

03:11:07 or about the prospect of Chitty continuing to live as Mike Blake. Do you agree that that is what happened? Um I do I I would just um bit slightly

03:11:20 Um I do I I would just um bit slightly belatedly um just

03:11:25 just put a try and insert a a proviso about this this phrase I used about uh returning to the Mike Blake lifestyle. I I think it and um

03:11:42 lifestyle. I I think it and um um I don't think that there was any ever any certainly there wouldn't have been any s any intention in my mind uh that he should continue

03:11:54 he should continue um what he was doing um as um as Mike Blake. Um, can we have up please 746106?

03:12:07 can we have up please 746106? It's tab B57. Sir,

03:12:13 this is a branch note 11th of May 1994 SDS discussion paper regarding DS Mike Chitty. Um, if we go to page three,

03:12:25 Chitty. Um, if we go to page three, paragraph five,

03:12:30 this is a document produced by acting chief superintendent HN 337 if you need to remind yourself as to who 337 is.

03:12:43 uh but I will let you read paragraph five particularly emphasizing the passages towards the end

03:13:37 Yes. So it appears [clears throat] from that document that HN 337 is not unduly concerned by the prospect of a negligent uh disclosure on Chitt's part. uh takes

03:13:51 uh disclosure on Chitt's part. uh takes a fatalistic attitude to him continuing to use the identity of Mike Blake and appears to be contemplating uh letting

03:14:03 appears to be contemplating uh letting him just continue to do so. Is that fair?

03:14:06 fair? Yes.

03:14:09 Yes. Are you aware of anything at all being done to stop Mike Chitty continuing to act as Mike Blake? Well,

03:14:20 Well, I um yeah, I think in my welfare role, I I was able to continue

03:14:29 continue um making assessments right up to the disciplinary hearing and then subsequently I don't know for how long.

03:14:41 subsequently I don't know for how long. So at least you know that would be

03:14:47 That would be something that I Do you know whether or not Mike Chitty continued uh to live the life of Mike Blake?

03:14:58 Blake? No. No. I I I um I don't believe that he did. Um

03:15:02 did. Um hang on. You say you don't believe he did? Could you answer my question? Do you know whether or not he did? At the time I would have had a pretty clear indication at some point after the um

03:15:16 indication at some point after the um disciplinary hearing. Yes. Uh uh through

03:15:23 um contact because let's not forget let's not forget I'm sure you're going to well it may or may not get mentioned otherwise but you know he the

03:15:34 otherwise but you know he the disciplinary hearing um I gave we are we are coming. Could you concentrate on the question? I'm asking whether you whether or not you actually know [clears throat]

03:15:45 know [clears throat] whether Chitty continued to act as Mike Blake or not. I was able to make an assessment. I don't know 100% of course.

03:15:57 Can we take that document down now please? Um I want to look at some of the contingency planning um that arose from the Chitty affair. Can we have 746099

03:16:09 the Chitty affair. Can we have 746099 please? Tab B59.

03:16:16 And if we go, it says threats to operational security posed by Mike Chitty SDS contingency plan. And if we go to page three in paragraph 5.3,

03:16:34 this is a document dated the 29th of May. Give you a moment to read that.

03:16:53 Yes. So it [clears throat] appears uh that you

03:16:59 that you DS dyn87

03:17:03 have all been deployed to speak to DS Chitty uh with two aims in mind. Preserving the integrity of the SDS operation and uh

03:17:16 integrity of the SDS operation and uh helping him because he's suffering from stress.

03:17:19 stress. Yes.

03:17:21 Yes. No mention there of stopping him continuing living the debortched life of Mike Blake.

03:17:31 No, but if if we had if we had anything to say about that, if if we had any um

03:17:44 any intelligence information, um I'm sure we would have said if we could go over to 5.8

03:17:58 [snorts]

03:18:01 Another method of usefully monitoring DS Chitty's behavior, this time as his alter ego Mike Blake, is via current SDS operatives in the animal liberation

03:18:12 operatives in the animal liberation field. This may yet prove useful in achieving the objective of obtaining preemptive or early intelligence of disclosure. And if we go to 5.9

03:18:30 equally of course that method is complemented by the thorough monitoring of all routine intelligence coming into ara and CE squad from the usual variety of sources to ensure maximum efficiency

03:18:43 of sources to ensure maximum efficiency but still to maintain requisite discretion. Urgent discussions will be held with DCITN 53.

03:18:54 So rather than seeking to persuade Chitty to stop living the life of Mike Blake, plans are being put in place to

03:19:05 Blake, plans are being put in place to use SDS assets to keep tabs on Mike Blake and uh to keep tabs on the bigger intelligence picture. I think it's um

03:19:17 intelligence picture. I think it's um I think it's going too far to make that claim. Um, it's not recorded, but it would

03:19:28 would I pardon what isn't recorded because I think that is well I was going to say um the efforts to deter Mike Chitty

03:19:39 to deter Mike Chitty uh up to the disciplinary hearing and after the disciplinary hearing with mine and and other officers. I I

03:19:50 with mine and and other officers. I I think perhaps one of the other officers whether meant was a a federation a police federation officer everyone with an element of influence. It it was not

03:20:02 an element of influence. It it was not just

03:20:04 just it it intended to um prevent the prevent him disclo making some kind of disclosure to the media or something.

03:20:15 disclosure to the media or something. But equally to um ensure or to encourage him to um stop his

03:20:26 his um

03:20:28 um uh behavior uh using

03:20:33 uh using Mike Blake's identity. Uh I'm it would have been I'm sure. Were SDS resources used to keep tabs on Mike Blake? I beg your pun. Were SDS resources used

03:20:46 I beg your pun. Were SDS resources used to keep tabs on Mike Blake? Um,

03:20:53 I I have no recollection of it.

03:20:58 of it. Were other intelligence sources monitored as proposed in paragraph 5.9?

03:21:07 Yes, I Yes, I think um that would that suggests that that happened.

03:21:17 happened. Could we take this document down now, please? And can we have up 74698?

03:21:34 This is tab B61, sir.

03:21:45 746098, please.

03:22:00 This is a branch note recording that HN 337,

03:22:06 337, the acting chief superintendent is that of CE squad.

03:22:53 So my first question is, is this right? It's the acting chief superintendent for CE squad coming to speak to the SDS UCS. Yes.

03:23:04 Yes. And as it says in paragraph one, it it's to explain the reasons why the discipline case against Chitty must proceed

03:23:15 proceed and outline the considerations and constraints which governed SO2 senior management's decisions in dealing with the matter. [snorts]

03:23:25 [snorts] is the backdrop to this that it was unsettling for the UCOs to have had Mike Chitty go rogue and the prospect of him

03:23:37 Chitty go rogue and the prospect of him being disciplined increased the risk of a damaging disclosure. Yes.

03:23:43 Yes. So the chief superintendent is coming along to explain to the officers why there has to be some discipline. Yes.

03:23:55 Yes. Paragraph two. A full and frank exchange of views ensued.

03:24:05 Did HN337 fully explain to the UCOs what Kitty had done?

03:24:17 I can't recall today, but I'm sure they would have had um you know a pretty good summary.

03:24:28 um you know a pretty good summary. And did that include the fact that Chitt's downfall uh was seeking to continue post deployment a sexual relationship?

03:24:41 deployment a sexual relationship? I can't actually recall. Is it likely to have done so? Yes, it would be likely. And would it be a fair assessment of uh

03:24:56 And would it be a fair assessment of uh what was said uh that the there was criticism of Chitty maintaining his legend and maintaining a sexual

03:25:08 legend and maintaining a sexual relationship undercover. that there was no criticism of the fact of a sexual relationship during the deployment.

03:25:19 during the deployment. Um

03:25:21 Um it's very difficult to say today, but that reading the note there's, you know, there's no suggestion that that was raised.

03:25:34 that was raised. And if HN337 had been concerned by a revelation that during his deployment DS Chitty had

03:25:45 during his deployment DS Chitty had deceived multiple women uh and wanted to stop it, that sort of thing happening again, he would have said so, wouldn't he? That would seem um that would seem

03:25:58 That would seem um that would seem reasonable. I I can't be sure today. and it would have been recorded. I would have expected that.

03:26:09 Can we go now to 74697 tab B62? This we're moving on now from the 1st of June to the 6th of June 1994. Um and page two, paragraph 9, please.

03:26:25 Um and page two, paragraph 9, please. This is an update by you.

03:26:45 Yes. Once you keep that in mind and can you also read from page three paragraph 15

03:27:17 Are you able to help us with who sees this note? Can I help with who gets to see this update? This is you

03:27:28 who gets to see this update? This is you updating the position on the 6th of June.

03:27:30 June. Um,

03:27:33 well, I obviously my my DCI Um, and then whether it went above, I'm sure it did. I can't.

03:27:47 sure it did. I can't. Would it be a reasonable supposition that it might well have gone to all of the officers that I named earlier who were copied into your discussion paper? It's possible.

03:27:59 It's possible. Were they likely candidates? I appreciate you don't know. Yes. Yes.

03:28:04 Yes. Yes. So these two paragraphs read uh together are Chitty essentially threatening uh to undermine

03:28:15 threatening uh to undermine your work securing the arrest and conviction of Clark and Shepard. Yes.

03:28:21 Yes. By asserting uh that rules had been broken and you had got far too close to the action without that being disclosed to the court. Yes.

03:28:38 Was there any management reaction [snorts] to Chitt's assertion uh that these convictions were unsafe?

03:28:51 uh that these convictions were unsafe? Um not that I can recall. I'm sure if I had been I I'm sure I um certainly would have been aware at the time and I

03:29:03 the time and I remember it today I think. And was that because all concerned were applying the golden rule? What mattered was the security of the SDS operation?

03:29:15 was the security of the SDS operation? Um I think that might again might be going too far. Um

03:29:24 why it would well um I would expect um a senior officer or yeah a senior

03:29:35 um a senior officer or yeah a senior officer reading this to

03:29:40 um you know to ask me the writer um about

03:29:47 um about the

03:29:48 the allegations s or the actions. Did that actually happen?

03:29:55 No, I I don't recall. I don't think it did.

03:29:57 did. Okay. Well, we'll move on. Can I have 747174,

03:30:01 747174, please? B68.

03:30:05 This is the long anticipated disciplinary hearing uh which uh is the 14th of July 194. We've got the disciplinary papers up

03:30:16 We've got the disciplinary papers up here, but I'll try and take it quickly. Um, you act as a character witness. Yes.

03:30:22 Yes. Titty is reduced in rank to constable for making false claims um on a guilty plea.

03:30:32 Could you repeat? Sorry. He's reduced in rank to constable. That's right. Because he pleaded guilty to making false claims. Yes. These are the travel expenses when he's a protection officer.

03:30:43 expenses when he's a protection officer. There are no charges arising from his sexual deception of women or anything else. It's simply it's all all the charges arise from accounting irregularities.

03:30:55 accounting irregularities. And none of them related at all to his work on on the SDS. It was all a different

03:31:03 different Yeah.

03:31:03 Yeah. squad. Were there discussions about what to charge him with, how to keep the SDS out of it?

03:31:15 keep the SDS out of it? Um, well, there may have been. I I I honestly don't recall um I I recall being asked to um

03:31:28 I I recall being asked to um give evidence. Were was there any discussion at any stage that the penalty should not be too

03:31:40 that the penalty should not be too severe in order not to antagonize DS Chitty and risk the SDS operation? I think there probably would have been

03:31:51 I think there probably would have been um can't be 100% certain.

03:31:57 You plead, you'll get reduced in rank and we proceed to a medical retirement. I don't know quite how I don't know

03:32:08 I don't know quite how I don't know whether medical retirement followed at all or or quick whether I I've I've forgotten that but certainly the um I remember the reduction in rank

03:32:23 um I remember the reduction in rank and so the ultimate disposal of this is the SDS operation is not compromised is it?

03:32:30 it? No.

03:32:32 No. But Mike Blake uh has committed very serious wrongdoing for which he is not properly held to account. He's free to continue living the life of Mike Blake.

03:32:46 And that's a shameful state of affairs, isn't it?

03:32:51 isn't it? Yes.

03:32:53 Yes. to which in fairness to you, you are at the bottom of quite a list of ever more senior officers. Yes.

03:33:03 Yes. All driven by the golden rule. Well, to varying degrees. So, is that an appropriate moment to break for lunch?

03:33:14 break for lunch? Certainly. We'll [clears throat] break for an hour and resume at 2.