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

Name: UCPI Evidence Hearings | Tranche 3 (Phase 3) | Day 1 - (15 June 2026) - PM
Uploaded: 2026-06-15
Duration: 3 h 36 min 21 s
Description: This PM session continues the cross-examination of Robert Lambert (HN10 "Bob Robinson"), a former SDS field officer who later managed the unit as a Detective Inspector. Counsel to the Inquiry probes Lambert's approval of DS Coles' tradecraft manual advice on sexual relationships, Special Branch surv

15 June 2026 · HN10 "Bob Robinson" Robert Lambert, Counsel to the Inquiry, Chairman (Sir John Mitting) · 3:36:21

▶ Watch on YouTube Open in interactive viewer

This PM session continues the cross-examination of Robert Lambert (HN10 "Bob Robinson"), a former SDS field officer who later managed the unit as a Detective Inspector. Counsel to the Inquiry probes Lambert's approval of DS Coles' tradecraft manual advice on sexual relationships, Special Branch surveillance of barrister Michael Mansfield QC and Black family justice campaigns (Joy Gardner, Brian Douglas, Stephen Lawrence) conducted through DS Trevor Morris (HN78), and the handling of HN1's deployment, including a fabricated arrest to bolster his cover and the mishandling of intelligence that a target possessed a shotgun. Lambert repeatedly says he cannot recall detail while conceding a series of serious institutional failings, ending the day agreeing that 'the ends justified the means.'

Key moments

00:36:46EvasionAsked if he ever advised DS Coles about sexual activity undercover, Lambert says “not a topic of conversation at all” then hedges: “I can't recall it.”
00:39:47PolicyA 1994 branch note reveals Special Branch/SDS cooperation with McDonald's to set up observation posts against animal rights activists; Lambert can't recall specifics but doesn't dispute the document.
00:43:25PolicyDocument shows the Home Office was approached to authorise roughly £30,000 to clear DS Coles' negative equity so he and his family could be safely moved.
00:48:45AdmissionLambert confirms he personally read and approved DS Coles' tradecraft note before it was circulated to SDS undercover officers.
00:54:53ContentiousCounsel puts it to Lambert that the tradecraft advice on sexual liaisons “is completely amoral”; he deflects, saying he'll address it once they've gone further into the detail.
00:58:36Admission“Today I readily accept that I gave insufficient thought” to the legality of the sexual-relationships guidance he approved, Lambert concedes.
00:59:43AdmissionLambert confirms no legal advice was ever sought on the tradecraft manual's sexual liaisons guidance, despite the obvious legal risk it raised.
01:01:51ContentiousLambert agrees that guidance suggesting officers introduce a relative or friend as a cover “prop” could generate risk both to that person and to the SDS operation.
01:04:08ContentiousCounsel brands the “make up your own mind” guidance “reckless”; Lambert concedes it could be read that way but insists no recruit would simply act on it.
01:06:16PolicyThe manual is shown to positively encourage “fleeting disastrous relationships” with people “not important” to intelligence sources — a considered decision to enter a deceitful sexual relationship with a chosen victim; Lambert agrees.
01:11:39AdmissionLambert agrees guidance that ignores women's “bodily autonomy and emotions” is “a form of misogyny” and, being circulated force-wide, “almost certainly” institutional.
01:13:10AdmissionLambert concedes the tradecraft manual “nevertheless sets a permissive atmosphere” that “contributed to the harm that's been done to women deceived by your officers.”
01:22:18EvasionAsked again whether DS Coles ever indicated he'd had sexual activity undercover, Lambert says “no, he didn't” and admits he deliberately chose not to ask, given his “own track record.”
01:29:13ContentiousCounsel puts it bluntly: “the truth is, you weren't bothered. It didn't matter because all that mattered was the SDS operation.” Lambert resists but can offer no qualification.
01:41:37PolicyA document shows barrister Michael Mansfield QC has held a Special Branch registry file since 1976, despite the reported speech being “entirely lawful.”
01:44:32ContentiousLambert is confronted with evidence that Mansfield was regarded within the Met as “the devil incarnate”; he says he's read that but doesn't know where the phrase came from.
01:48:10PolicyAsked whether Mansfield acting for the Lawrence family affected his standing with the Met, Lambert insists his own view of Mansfield “doing his job” never changed.
01:50:39PolicyA report on the National Assembly Against Racism's inaugural meeting — attended by MPs Diane Abbott, Harry Cohen and Bernie Grant — is shown to have gone “straight to the security service.”
01:52:57AdmissionLambert agrees the reported march, addressed by MPs and Neville Lawrence, was “entirely lawful protest.”
02:01:07PolicyLambert confirms SDS interest in the Brian Douglas campaign stemmed from concern that Trotskyist groups had “subversive intentions” and were recruiting disaffected Black protesters.
02:25:11ContentiousLambert accepts that had it emerged the Met used a Black undercover officer to spy on a Black justice campaign, it “might have provided the spark that would have caused the very disorder” they claimed to be preventing.
02:26:16AdmissionAsked if SDS management judged the surveillance of the Brian Douglas campaign was “worth the reward,” Lambert agrees: “yes.”
02:27:24PolicyA report on a meeting where Neville Lawrence spoke details the racial mix, age distribution and social class of those in attendance.
02:33:37ContentiousCounsel presses that the SDS's real interest was the “potency of the justice campaign” itself, not merely watching the SWP; Lambert denies it: “I honestly don't think so.”
02:46:08AdmissionLambert confirms he and DCI Edmonson decided which “world” DS Morris (HN78) operated in, directing him via the SWP to report on a “wide range of anti-establishment groups and ethnic minorities.”
02:49:03EvasionDirectly asked if Morris was being used “to spy on a wide range of justice campaigns,” Lambert flatly answers “No,” despite the reporting just examined.
02:51:23AdmissionCounsel notes the Gardner, Douglas and Lawrence family campaigns “are all against disorder” — Lambert agrees, undercutting the stated justification for spying on them.
02:52:52EvasionPressed on how reporting on anti-disorder justice campaigns helped “police public disorder,” Lambert cannot give a direct answer.
02:58:40EvasionAsked whether any SDS manager was watching from a control room during the “Red Express” operation at Beacon Tree, Lambert says “no, I'm pretty sure I wasn't” and has no clear recollection.
03:04:08ContentiousAsked whether “proactive” in the SDS annual report was a euphemism for “the police attacked the demonstrators first,” Lambert denies it but cannot say what it does mean.
03:10:04Witness ImpactAsked whether DS Morris told him he'd spent his last night undercover with, and had sex with, an activist referred to as “Jenny,” Lambert says “no, he didn't.”
03:13:55PolicyLambert confirms that although paperwork required formal welfare interviews for undercover officers, support in practice was “ad hoc and informal.”
03:17:20PolicyA fabricated arrest and search warrant was engineered to bolster HN1's cover — Lambert confirms this meant “misleading the magistrate's court” and the arresting officer on a false basis to protect SDS security.
03:22:28ContentiousLambert accepts that sending unarmed officers to arrest Jeff Shepherd — despite the SDS having been told he had a shotgun — “gives rise to a risk to the officers,” but says he “can't explain” the decision.
03:26:47EvasionAsked if HN1 ever reported that Shepherd intended to use the shotgun to shoot Professor Colin Blakemore, Lambert says he has “no recollection of that.”
03:30:42EvasionOn HN1's evidence that his relationship with Denise Fuller was known about by SDS management, Lambert insists “I am sure” he didn't know.
03:34:43AdmissionPut to him starkly that “the ends justified the means,” Lambert answers simply “yes” — a stark closing admission as the day's evidence concludes.

Full transcript

00:36:09 Good afternoon everybody. I hope I can be heard at the back. Today's proceedings are are being uh broadcast on the live stream but only after a 15inut delay. Those with

00:36:21 after a 15inut delay. Those with recording devices, mobile telephones, may use them to transmit what they hear in the hearing room to the outside world, but only after 15 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're

00:36:33 elapsed since the event that they're reporting. They may not be used for recording or photography. Mr. Bar, thank you, sir. Mr. Lambert, can we now move to Detective Sergeant Kohl's,

00:36:44 move to Detective Sergeant Kohl's, please?

00:36:46 please? Did you at any time give Detective Sergeant Coohl's any advice, whether as a colleague, as a mentor, or as a

00:36:57 a colleague, as a mentor, or as a manager, about sexual activity undercover? I don't believe that I did. Not a topic of conversation at all.

00:37:09 Not a topic of conversation at all. Um,

00:37:11 Um, not that. No, not that I can either recall or you know I think I well it's difficult

00:37:22 you know I think I well it's difficult but difficult to be certain but I no okay I can't recall it. Can we have up please 745796?

00:37:36 This is not in your bundle sir it's come from the trunk two bundle and Mr. Kohl's documents. This is uh a document, a branch note

00:37:50 This is uh a document, a branch note from the 22nd of July, 1994 about Operation

00:37:55 Operation Bhole.

00:37:56 Bhole. Um I'm going to give you a moment to look at at those three paragraphs on the page, please.

00:38:19 [clears throat]

00:38:47 Yes. Um yeah. So this is a document um about effort to locate Barry Horn which include cooperating with McDonald's

00:39:00 include cooperating with McDonald's cooperation between special branch and McDonald's to establish four observation posts.

00:39:08 posts. Yes.

00:39:10 Yes. Can you and it's whilst you are serving as a DI in the SDS, can you recall any knowledge or involvement

00:39:23 knowledge or involvement with McDonald's cooperating for the purposes of monitoring animal rights extremists?

00:39:34 animal rights extremists? Um, no, not that I can recall. Were you aware that special branch was in touch with McDonald's

00:39:47 in touch with McDonald's with a view to working together to protect McDonald's from animal rights extremists? Um,

00:40:00 well, I can't recall. Well, I I would imagine

00:40:04 imagine I wouldn't be surprised if if there was, but um not that I can recall. Well, this document is evidence of such cooperation. And

00:40:15 cooperation. And yes,

00:40:15 yes, can you help us with whether the SDS as a unit was involved in cooperating with McDonald's either directly or indirectly?

00:40:26 indirectly? Well, certainly not directly and there's nothing that I can recall uh beyond that that um I was aware of.

00:40:39 um I was aware of. But was there any discussion within the SDS

00:40:43 SDS about

00:40:45 about uh the campaign against McDonald's?

00:40:51 I'm sure there was. Um I can't recall any specifics. And the SDS would have an interest in obtaining intelligence about animal

00:41:03 obtaining intelligence about animal rights activism targeted at McDonald's. Yes, of course. Yes. Was there discussion about Matt Clyel? Um

00:41:15 quite quite possibly in the same context.

00:41:21 Can you clarify what you mean by in the same context? Well, in the same subject area, but I I have no

00:41:34 subject area, but I I have no um

00:41:37 um no recollection today.

00:41:40 today. We may come back to that later on. In the meantime, can I ask that this document is taken down and could we have up please 245657.

00:41:57 This is a note for file dated the 8th of November 1995 bearing your name and rank. It's tab B117, sir. Uh it's about

00:42:13 B117, sir. Uh it's about um the difficulties that have arisen with the need to move um DS Kohl's and his family.

00:42:25 move um DS Kohl's and his family. Yes.

00:42:25 Yes. Give you a moment to look at that please.

00:42:37 Yep. Yes. Thank you. So, we've seen we've seen documents relating to a number of forced moves arising from threats to SDS undercover officers. What

00:42:48 threats to SDS undercover officers. What appears to be different about this one is that, as was not uncommon in the mid '90s,

00:42:55 '90s, Mr. Kohl's was in negative equity. Yes.

00:43:00 Yes. Am I right to understand that this was a particular problem uh for accounting purposes in that paying for someone to move is one thing,

00:43:12 move is one thing, clearing their negative equity is quite another.

00:43:16 another. Yes.

00:43:17 Yes. Uh the other interesting thing about this document is it refers to the home office.

00:43:25 office. There is reason to be optimistic that the home office will authorize the payment of some £30,000 odd to clear the negative equity.

00:43:37 negative equity. Would I be right to infer from that reference and the context that this was an exceptional situation financially, the Home Office had been

00:43:50 financially, the Home Office had been contacted? That seems I mean I don't recall that but that's definitely the clear indication. What can you recall about the difficulties that Mr. Kohl's negative

00:44:04 difficulties that Mr. Kohl's negative equity presented? I've got I think that I first discussed it with him before I rejoined

00:44:16 it with him before I rejoined the unit as DI in other words as a mentor. But but that would have that precedes this particular note. So yeah,

00:44:27 precedes this particular note. So yeah, I was certainly aware of it. I met him and his wife really in my position. I I I didn't

00:44:38 I didn't Well, I can I can stop you there in because I'm I'm not particularly interested in the mentoring side of it. What I'm interested in is can you assist us with

00:44:49 us with how it comes about that there's reference to the home office in this document in particular. Can you help us with who approached the home office and why?

00:45:03 home office and why? I can't um I think if if I I mean the first question, you know, was it me? I I I doubt it somehow.

00:45:16 know, was it me? I I I doubt it somehow. Um

00:45:18 Um I did speak. Yeah, I I mean one way in which it could have been me is the um this reference here F3

00:45:30 the um this reference here F3 one. Now it could be that the person there F31 sort of you know that role um that person

00:45:44 that role um that person um might well be might well have told told given this indication to me or to um DCI Edmonson

00:45:55 indication to me or to um DCI Edmonson perhaps.

00:45:57 perhaps. Can we just be clear? Is F31 a police um person or a home office person? Oh, a a a police. Is it is this on the finance side?

00:46:08 Is it is this on the finance side? Yes. Yes.

00:46:11 Yes. Yes. Uh there is a reason to be optimistic. What was the reason to be optimistic that the Home Office would authorize it? Well, that that someone whether and I it

00:46:25 Well, that that someone whether and I it obviously may not have been F F31 um that someone um had had a had had spoken

00:46:38 um had had a had had spoken directly or indirectly to someone in the home office about the case and you you know came away with that that

00:46:49 you you know came away with that that view.

00:46:50 view. Are you able to help us one way or the other as to whether or not the home office was directly approached to solve this problem?

00:47:01 this problem? No.

00:47:02 No. Was Kohl's negative equity cleared? I I believe that it was. Where did the money come from? Well, I'm I I don't recall, but I I

00:47:16 Well, I'm I I don't recall, but I I would have I would assume and reading this that it would have come to us from F31.

00:47:27 to us from F31. Um

00:47:30 but um I have no clear recollection.

00:47:39 [snorts] Could we take the document down now? Can we go to 527597, please?

00:47:50 This is the SDS tradecraft manual. You have said in your witness statement that DS Kohl's proposed to write a note

00:48:03 that DS Kohl's proposed to write a note for the benefit of others. Uh and you agreed to that course of action. Yes. I think at the terminate or shortly after the ter the conclusion of his

00:48:15 after the ter the conclusion of his field work and detective sergeant Kohl's agreed with that proposition when he gave uh evidence.

00:48:23 evidence. Uh if we have we can bring it up if necessary but my understanding of your witness statement is that you read his work. Yes.

00:48:36 is that you read his work. Yes. And can I take it therefore that before it was made available to SDS UCOs, it was a document that you had read? Yes.

00:48:45 Yes. And you approved its use? Yes.

00:48:50 Yes. And if we go uh please, it's tab B15 of your bundle to page 27 and paragraph 5.6.

00:49:01 Paragraph 5.6 six under the heading sexual liaons. Do you need a a minute to to read this section or is it familiar to you?

00:49:11 to you? Yes. Yes. I'm Yes. I'm happy to for you to carry on. Thank you.

00:49:17 you. And so this section was part of the document that you approved for circulation to SDS UCOs. Yes.

00:49:25 Yes. Uh such that it would be read by them and could influence their conduct. Oh, sorry. I missed that. Such that it could be read by them and influence their conduct.

00:49:37 influence their conduct. Yes.

00:49:39 Yes. What did you think of Diaz Coohl's advice as set out in this section?

00:50:11 Yeah. Um

00:50:16 well, I thought it was um useful useful for um field officers uh to be aware.

00:50:28 uh to be aware. [clears throat]

00:50:31 Did DCI Edmonson read it before it was circulated? I I'm well I imagine I would think that he did but

00:50:43 he did but what was his reaction if any to this section?

00:50:48 section? I can't recall today. No. If he'd had some sort of violent reaction to it, do you think you'd remember?

00:50:57 remember? Quite probably. in due course. What was DCI HN58's reaction to the trade craft manual?

00:51:10 reaction to the trade craft manual? Oh, who who HN58

00:51:14 HN58 DCI Edmonson? Yes. Yes. Yes. Um well, I don't honestly know because you know I handed handed over to him in 98. Um

00:51:29 handed over to him in 98. Um I

00:51:30 I not 53 58

00:51:33 not 53 58 your DCI.

00:51:35 your DCI. Oh. Oh, sorry. Yes, of course. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry. Um well, nothing that I can recall today.

00:51:49 We're going to come back to this, but just in a for a moment, can we take that down and can we have up your witness statement 36956 at page 61?

00:52:08 Could we have paragraph 85.3? It's a long paragraph. Uh, but I'm going to give you a moment to refresh your

00:52:19 to give you a moment to refresh your memory as to what you put there. But what I'm interested in is is the effect of this paragraph [snorts] that the SDS managers had a less afair

00:52:31 that the SDS managers had a less afair attitude to sexual relationships. A handsoff attitude. Yes. Uh, a handsoff attitude um

00:52:43 would be fair. uh but they were it was always open that to them to come and consult you if they had a problem.

00:52:55 I wouldn't uh No, I wouldn't say that. I think that's a separate consideration.

00:53:07 It says and left to raise any problems or issues that they needed to air at the twice weekly meetings or one-to-one discussions from which I've taken that if an officer wants to speak to about

00:53:18 if an officer wants to speak to about that sort of issue they can. Um

00:53:32 um okay. Yeah, fair. So against that background, can we go back to the tradecraftraft manual at 527597

00:53:41 527597 page 27?

00:54:27 Thank you. Page 27, please. And if we could have paragraph 5.6.1 expanded.

00:54:36 expanded. [snorts]

00:54:40 That paragraph um concludes by saying, "While it is not my place to moralize, one should try to avoid the opposite sex for as long as possible.

00:54:53 What follows by way of advice is completely amoral, isn't it? Could you uh just repeat it, please? What follows by way of advice

00:55:07 What follows by way of advice is completely amoral, isn't it? Um

00:55:15 I don't I'm sorry. I don't I'll come back I'll come back to that when we've got a bit further into the detail.

00:55:21 detail. Was anybody looking at this issue through a moral prism?

00:55:33 Um,

00:55:40 I

00:55:43 don't think it was um

00:55:48 I can't quite see that it was amoral. It wasn't quite my second question. My second question was anybody considering the morality of what you were doing?

00:56:08 Well, I suppose not um

00:56:14 not um not that I can recall today. I but I'm sure

00:56:22 you know I think the important point is that

00:56:26 that this is um DS Cole's um thoughts it's not um

00:56:37 thoughts it's not um you know it's not policy we know [clears throat] when I think you know any thoughts which you had approved for circulation the thoughts which you had approved for

00:56:48 the thoughts which you had approved for circulation. Yes. Yes.

00:56:53 Yes. Yes. Can we move to the law? Because although there is mention here of morality, there is no mention of the law. Did

00:57:04 there is no mention of the law. Did either to your knowledge DS Kohl's or yourself

00:57:11 yourself apply your minds to whether or not there were any legal issues arising from circulating advice to officers uh which were in some circumstances

00:57:23 uh which were in some circumstances permissive of sexual relationships. Well, I can only really speak for myself. I think I did. And I thought that this um

00:57:39 this this um contribution um was

00:57:47 um was um

00:57:50 um you know was was appropriate or helpful. It was just one officer's view. It didn't um it didn't reflect um or the whole

00:58:04 um it didn't reflect um or the whole what should we say um the whole issue. Let me test this with an extreme example.

00:58:12 example. If DS Kohl's had produced some guidance uh in the tradecraftraft manual which recommended murdering other people, you would have done something about that because it's unlawful, wouldn't you?

00:58:23 because it's unlawful, wouldn't you? Yes.

00:58:25 Yes. What thought did you give to the legality of the sort of conduct that Kohl's was advocating in this section?

00:58:36 Kohl's was advocating in this section? Well, today I readily accept that I gave insufficient thought uh to it.

00:58:44 uh to it. Did you give any thought to it at the time? Yeah.

00:58:49 Yeah. Um

00:58:51 Um uh yes. Yes. But um um what thought did you give? Well,

00:59:00 Well, I honestly can't. Did you give any consideration to whether it was misconduct in public office?

00:59:09 office? Um no.

00:59:11 Um no. Did you give any thought to the talks of deceit, misfeasance in public office or negligence? Um probably not.

00:59:23 Presumably, if you had directed your mind to legal issues, you would have sought advice. Yes.

00:59:31 Yes. And as far as we can tell, no. We've found no evidence of legal advice being taken. Is it right that no legal advice was taken?

00:59:43 Um, no. I don't believe so. No. It would have been a good idea to take legal advice, wouldn't it? Yes.

00:59:53 The other thing that doesn't get a mention is professional discipline expressly. Did you address your mind to the question of whether or not the sort of

01:00:05 question of whether or not the sort of conduct that DS Kohl's was advocating would amount to professional misconduct?

01:00:14 Um, no.

01:00:19 Can we go to paragraph 5.6.3? Starts at the bottom of the page but goes over the page.

01:00:34 Give you a moment to refresh your memory of that.

01:00:37 of that. Which um right could you could have it a bit larger.

01:01:07 Yes. Going to start with those sentences which deal with the proposition that you could try to introduce an appropriate male or female from your own relations

01:01:18 male or female from your own relations or friends to meet the weareries on a few occasions. and for that being fraught with difficulty but something about which the officer should make up their own mind

01:01:29 officer should make up their own mind about how to proceed. So this is a suggestion by DS Kohl's that an untrained member of the public participates in an undercover police

01:01:41 participates in an undercover police operation

01:01:43 operation as some sort of relative or pretend partner.

01:01:51 That could generate risk to them, couldn't it? Yes. Yes.

01:01:56 Yes. Yes. And risk to the SDS operation. Yes.

01:02:01 Yes. Why did you permit that sort of advice to be circulated?

01:02:10 I think um because

01:02:15 because it would be understood or the at least my intention would be that it would be understood by

01:02:28 by um new recruits or well new recruits really

01:02:33 really who would have the opportunity to read it. They they would be uh told that this is just one officer's perspective

01:02:47 this is just one officer's perspective and you know they were encouraged to speak to or and consult input

01:02:58 speak to or and consult input trade craft input from a range of officers not just not to rely on just one. The bottom the bottom line Mr. Lambert is that you have approved the

01:03:12 Lambert is that you have approved the promulgation of guidance which suggests at their own discretion an officer can decide to use a relative or friend as some sort of prop for their cover.

01:03:26 some sort of prop for their cover. Well, I I I honestly think in in the context of, you know, my role and other managers roles at the time, you know, there's no

01:03:38 roles at the time, you know, there's no way that um a recruit would see this as something, oh, that seems like a good idea. All that all that could happen is

01:03:50 idea. All that all that could happen is that a recruit would um you know would seek

01:03:56 seek uh views from other officers um and indeed with us as managers. Forgive me, Mr. Lamb, but it doesn't say consult your managers about how to

01:04:08 consult your managers about how to proceed. It says make up your own mind about how to proceed. This is reckless advice, isn't it? Well, if it was taken at at face value potentially, but I at the time I don't

01:04:21 potentially, but I at the time I don't think I would have had any concerns that any recruit would just read this and act upon it. I I honestly don't think that would ever have happened. If we move on

01:04:33 would ever have happened. If we move on now to uh the text that follows, if you have no

01:04:40 have no other option but to become involved with the weary, you should try and have fleeting disastrous relationships with individuals who are not important to your sources of information. One

01:04:53 to your sources of information. One cannot be involved with a weary in a relationship for any period of time without risking serious [snorts] consequences. The phrase no other option

01:05:06 The phrase no other option that means, doesn't it? If it is necessary

01:05:10 necessary to maintain your cover and necessary in order to remain in the field and obtain the necessary intelligence

01:05:21 the necessary intelligence for the transcript, you're nodding. Is that

01:05:23 that Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Yes. And it's advised to the effect that officers,

01:05:32 officers, if they need to have a sexual relationship, should manipulate the course of those relationships so as to be fleeting and disastrous.

01:05:46 Doesn't prohibit long-term relationships, does it? No. No, it doesn't. It just cautions that if it's with a weary,

01:05:59 that if it's with a weary, you risk serious consequences.

01:06:04 It doesn't prohibit any form of sexual activity with non-activists, does it? Uh, no. No. In fact, on the contrary, it encourages

01:06:16 In fact, on the contrary, it encourages sexual liaison with people not important to the sources of information.

01:06:25 Yes. In other words, making a considered decision to enter into a deceitful sexual relationship with a chosen victim.

01:06:36 victim. Yes.

01:06:42 Why did you permit this to be circulated to your undercover officers? Well, I can see clearly now that it was inappropriate. um

01:06:55 inappropriate. um at the time um

01:07:01 um I think I was um just a bit

01:07:06 lax in letting it um letting it um go through and uh to be read by

01:07:18 uh to be read by officers in training was one reason for in allowing this to be circulated that you considered the importance of the SDS's work to be such that it would

01:07:31 the SDS's work to be such that it would justify this sort of conduct. No, I don't believe that was the case. Well, that would be a reason to permit

01:07:43 Well, that would be a reason to permit this to be circulated, wouldn't it? Yes.

01:07:49 Yes. Another reason might be were you completely blind to the consequences for the deceived partners, the deceived activists or

01:08:03 partners, the deceived activists or people not important to sources of information. Not completely blind but not sufficiently uh not sufficiently

01:08:14 uh not sufficiently mindful and concerned about that.

01:08:20 What consideration did you give to the fact that these relationships would inevitably be deceitful?

01:08:28 Um well I I don't hope hope I'm not just repeating a previous point but I I genuinely

01:08:40 genuinely had confidence that in context that this piece of trade craft advice um would be

01:08:53 um would be very well balanced by The contributions if not written then verbal from um the

01:09:04 if not written then verbal from um the some of the you know influential people in the field uh who would have given a very different account

01:09:15 very different account than the one we're reading here. Did you know what other officers were saying to your UCOs on the question of sexual relationships? Um

01:09:28 I would uh well there's an at the time I would have had some clear indication. I wouldn't have um

01:09:39 indication. I wouldn't have um sought to be privy to th those sorts of discussions but I can certain there are you know officers that I I can be

01:09:52 you know officers that I I can be certain

01:09:53 certain would um

01:09:55 would um would would give recruits a very opposite um view. This inquiry has heard evidence of advice being given, for example, to the effect that a sexual

01:10:07 example, to the effect that a sexual relationship was inevitable. Were you aware such advice was being given? Um,

01:10:14 Um, I've I've heard it. I at the time I can't recall for, you know, it's possible.

01:10:24 possible. And would that have surprised you in any way?

01:10:28 way? It would depend on on the context. If it was for example animal rights that would be well and other other areas where

01:10:42 other areas where you know where we talked in term talked in terms of lifestyle

01:10:50 lifestyle um

01:10:53 I don't want any specifics in this next question just a yes or No, your undercover police officers were

01:11:05 your undercover police officers were overwhelmingly male. Yes.

01:11:09 Yes. So, it follows that those who would be sexually deceived by your undercover officers would be overwhelmingly female.

01:11:21 overwhelmingly female. Yes.

01:11:23 Yes. And what is conspicuous about this guidance is it completely ignores their bodily autonomy

01:11:34 bodily autonomy and their emotions, doesn't it? Yes,

01:11:39 Yes, that's a form of misogyny, isn't it? It um almost certainly is. And because it forms part of a manual

01:11:53 And because it forms part of a manual circulated to undercover police officers,

01:11:57 officers, it's institutionally so, isn't it? Um, it would appear to be that way as you describe it today. It is also,

01:12:11 as you describe it today. It is also, isn't it, a betrayal of your officers, wives, and partners? Potentially

01:12:24 fear like animal rights virtually inevitably, isn't it? I'm not sure. And it will have encouraged those who

01:12:35 And it will have encouraged those who read it to behave completely inappropriately, won't it? it could have done, but actually from from what I've um

01:12:46 from what I've um heard um

01:12:49 heard um probably not. Uh well, it's certainly the case that we've heard from officers who breached even these um circumspections,

01:13:00 even these um circumspections, but it nevertheless sets a permissive atmosphere, doesn't it? Yes.

01:13:10 Yes. And consequently, it contributed to the harm that's been done to women deceived by your officers. Yes.

01:13:21 What the trade craft manual should really have done was to have positively stipulated a complete prohibition on sexual relationships with members of the public in an officer's undercover

01:13:33 public in an officer's undercover identity, [snorts] shouldn't it? Um, yes, that's true. Did DCI Edmonson pass any remarks on this section?

01:13:46 pass any remarks on this section? Not that I can call to mind. Did his successor DCI HN58

01:13:55 HN58 remark on this section at all? Again, u Well, he may well have done. I don't recall.

01:14:06 DCIDell

01:14:09 told UCOs that they must not have sexual relationships in their undercover identities. Were you aware of that? Um, not at the time, but I've certainly

01:14:21 Um, not at the time, but I've certainly become aware of that.

01:14:27 And you say not at the time. Are you saying you did not know when I appreciate you're no longer a DI in the SDS, but you still have some contact with the unit in his era.

01:14:39 contact with the unit in his era. Are you saying you did not know that he had verbally prohibited sexual relationships? Well, I certainly would have would have heard um

01:14:51 heard um you know, during his his tenure. I'm sure I I would have heard. Um, did you draw to his attention the

01:15:04 did you draw to his attention the inconsistency between the line of his instruction and the content of the tradecraftraft manual?

01:15:13 manual? Um,

01:15:15 Um, I don't

01:15:17 I don't No, I I'm pretty sure that I didn't. Um, I don't recall any conversations with him.

01:15:28 conversations with him. Um, well, I on this top No, certainly on this topic. No. Can we take this down now, please? Sorry. Can we move page? Can we have 20 page 28 and page paragraph 5.7.2? to

01:15:42 page 28 and page paragraph 5.7.2? to we're moving on now to what it says about involvement in crime.

01:15:50 If you need to see paragraph 5.7.1, please say so.

01:16:07 Would

01:16:18 it be fair to say that the message that is being conveyed in these two subp paragraphs is forget about confidential memo 4

01:16:29 memo 4 in practice follow management advice. I think be mindful of both.

01:16:39 Certainly using the phrase, "The above sentiments are lordable, but the boundary between right and wrong in the SDS arena is never as clear-cut as the provisions of

01:16:50 never as clear-cut as the provisions of con memo 4 would have us believe is um envisaging that you might need to go beyond what's permitted with

01:17:02 beyond what's permitted with confidential memo 4, isn't it?" I I'm not I don't I'm not sure that it is. I I think

01:17:10 think it's right to highlight, you know, the difficulty. Um

01:17:17 Um uh but the the advice is good to you know make sure you consult or get advice from your from your managers. Um

01:17:29 from your from your managers. Um but in terms of playing no part in planning an incident and taking a minor part in the crime itself isn't the gist of this advice is in an

01:17:41 isn't the gist of this advice is in an SDS context uh that is not possible.

01:17:52 Yes. Yes. But you know I think at no time can you instigate counsel or procure others to commit a crime is you know he is underlining

01:18:04 know he is underlining um confidential memo 4. I think um he's not really underlining it so much as he as saying in an SDS arena you

01:18:15 as he as saying in an SDS arena you really have to be prepared to um

01:18:20 um do more than that but speak to your managers

01:18:28 because as we know from your deployment dilemmas arise don't they? Yes, of course.

01:18:33 course. Can we go to page 36 and par 7.3.5?

01:18:44 This is a section on animal activists. Give you a moment to read that.

01:19:06 [clears throat]

01:19:22 Um, yeah. Read that. Yeah. And this is the SDS reality, isn't it? If you're infiltrating people who are claiming actions in the name of the ALF,

01:19:34 name of the ALF, you're not going to get anywhere if you're a shallow paddler. That's correct. And uh you are going to have to think about taking part in illegal direct

01:19:45 about taking part in illegal direct action in order to build up your credibility. Yes.

01:19:53 with the ultimate aim of providing intelligence of importance in relation to a serious crime. Yes.

01:20:03 Yes. And as the last sentence reflects, without getting your hands dirty, your chances of correctly identifying an ALF activist is very low. I'm suggesting you

01:20:14 activist is very low. I'm suggesting you may have to get involved in direct action just to get a seat at the table. M

01:20:20 M yes

01:20:22 yes and that dilemma is something that would have been very familiar to you as a result of your yes

01:20:29 yes deployment and very much advised presumably that you agreed with. I I wouldn't say that um I agree with

01:20:41 I I wouldn't say that um I agree with all of it. Um, and incidentally, in fairness to DS Coohl's, I mean, what I think I'm reading is a

01:20:52 I think I'm reading is a some

01:20:53 some like published version of of his um

01:21:00 of his um contribution [snorts] to the tradecraftraft manual. Um I don't know thus because and the document that I'm more familiar with in my bundle I think

01:21:11 more familiar with in my bundle I think is the his draft and on his draft you actually get my one or two edits and that and so he's more as edited.

01:21:23 as edited. This is the edited version as edited. Did you agree with it? Yeah. Yes. Um well I can Yes. I largely I agree with it largely

01:21:35 Yes. I largely I agree with it largely not completely. And isn't the reality of the phrase at every action there is a real chance of being arrested for a criminal offense. You take the risk of shortening your tour quite dramatically if you are

01:21:46 tour quite dramatically if you are caught in the context of the whole sent of the whole paragraph. This means you are going to have to get involved but just don't get caught.

01:21:57 just don't get caught. Um

01:22:00 Um yes, fair enough.

01:22:05 Can we take that down now, please? Did DS Kohl's ever say anything to you to suggest that he might have engaged in

01:22:18 to suggest that he might have engaged in any sexual activity undercover during the course of his own deployment? No, he didn't. Are you sure of that?

01:22:29 Are you sure of that? I am fairly well I'm fairly sure I should say to the best of my recollection uh he never he never did. Did you ever ask?

01:22:42 Did you ever ask? I can't recall. I doubt it. Why do you doubt it? Um

01:22:49 Um because

01:22:51 because um

01:22:53 um I didn't have didn't um well no I should say more clearly I I I chose not to um

01:23:06 clearly I I I chose not to um I can try and explain why but for for now if you like I I would say I'm pretty confident that I wouldn't have asked him

01:23:17 confident that I wouldn't have asked him a direct question. Why did you choose not to? Um because I had a um

01:23:28 had a um an approach which I've set out in my statement

01:23:32 statement um which was to

01:23:37 to um

01:23:41 not well yeah you know not to address it. I couldn't um

01:23:48 I couldn't address it really without being something of a hypocrite given my own

01:23:59 something of a hypocrite given my own track record. I didn't want to encourage it. Um but um are you saying you had

01:24:10 are you saying you had you had some knowledge that he was Oh no I'm not sorry I'm not referring No I had no knowledge at all. I'm just trying to explain what was, you know, what I

01:24:23 explain what was, you know, what I described in my statement as this hands-off approach which I believe most of my fellow managers had. Um it it

01:24:36 most of my fellow managers had. Um it it obviously now is I can see it's it was completely sort of inadequate but um but it's a long way from um

01:24:51 actually either endorsing um or promoting sexual relationships was the reality and I'm thinking now of

01:25:03 was the reality and I'm thinking now of the questions I asked you this morning about Mike Blake and the attitudes we saw there was the reality that it just didn't matter to SDS managers one way or another

01:25:15 to SDS managers one way or another whether or not their officers were involved sexually. Um

01:25:23 Um clearly

01:25:25 clearly it's I mean it's not difficult now to see that

01:25:30 see that um the

01:25:32 um the guidance the training was comp was inadequate um

01:25:40 um not quite the question I've asked was the attitude that it just didn't matter. Oh, was it the attitude that it just didn't matter?

01:25:51 the attitude that it just didn't matter? Not well,

01:25:55 Not well, no, it did. It mattered but not you know I mean for example the

01:26:06 an undercover officer's um conduct towards all their um all members male or female of their target groups.

01:26:19 male or female of their target groups. um their

01:26:21 um their conduct always I believe had to be respectful. So there was a sense of a great you know I think across the field um that

01:26:36 I think across the field um that women

01:26:38 women women activists had to be respected um Mr. which might sound, if I may stop you there. If it had mattered, you would have

01:26:50 If it had mattered, you would have asked, wouldn't you? I'm not sure if that follows, but I accept now that it was not um

01:27:01 accept now that it was not um not adequate. Not and if it had mattered, you would have prohibited it. Um

01:27:11 well I can see that I should you know I can see that I should have done I didn't see that at the time and it only mattered like any other

01:27:23 and it only mattered like any other activity by one of your UCOs if something happened which threatened the integrity of the operation.

01:27:34 integrity of the operation. Um, I wouldn't go that far. I think that field officers uh

01:27:44 uh were, you know, for their own safety, they had to be respectful to um women in in in this in this way we're

01:27:57 um women in in in this in this way we're looking at it. They Well, you're inv there, Mr. Lambert, you've asserted a number of times that officers were under an obligation to be respectful.

01:28:11 under an obligation to be respectful. We can't find that anywhere in the tradecraftraft manual, can we? I No. No. Because it's just one officer's um experience.

01:28:25 officer's um experience. And we [snorts] don't find that in any other written guidance about the the SDS ever promulgated, do we? Well, no. Oh, I don't think we will. Um

01:28:36 Well, no. Oh, I don't think we will. Um but I would you have said that you were worried about being a hypocrite but surely if you were thinking about

01:28:49 but surely if you were thinking about your own sexual conduct undercover in particular having fathered TBS you would have been telling officers not

01:29:01 you would have been telling officers not to get involved and you would have been asking in order to make sure that they weren't, wouldn't you?

01:29:12 weren't, wouldn't you? Yes.

01:29:13 Yes. And the truth is, you weren't bothered. It didn't matter because all that mattered was the SDS operation.

01:29:27 that mattered was the SDS operation. Um, well, I wouldn't accept that entirely. I'm sorry. What qualifications would you like to add?

01:29:37 add? Um,

01:29:50 no I I um No, I can't really today um offer any qualification.

01:30:05 Can I move now to Detective Sergeant Morris?

01:30:11 Morris? And I'm going to use this as an opportunity to ask ask you some gen general introductory questions about the operation of the SDS.

01:30:22 operation of the SDS. Would you generally have seen intelligence reports? Um, yes.

01:30:30 Um, yes. And you would have spoken to DS Morris regularly?

01:30:36 Yes. And know what he was up to? Yes.

01:30:42 Yes. As a result,

01:30:47 and that would apply to all of your undercover officers. Yes.

01:30:53 Yes. In terms of the dissemination of intelligence out of the SDS, were you the decision maker or the overseer?

01:31:05 overseer? You see the two different roles, the decision maker or the overseer of those decisions as to what went out of the unit and what stayed within the unit.

01:31:17 unit and what stayed within the unit. Um,

01:31:21 I think that I was um

01:31:26 [clears throat] I was neither neither one of those. Um,

01:31:33 Um, I think um

01:31:38 the intelligence reports generally went from the DS to

01:31:49 the DS to um the DCI um

01:31:54 um most times without any input from me.

01:32:01 What was expected of Sergeant Web in his role working on reports? Yeah, he he was the um report

01:32:15 Yeah, he he was the um report um the report writer. He would um convert

01:32:21 convert raw intelligence from an individual field officer um into the final product.

01:32:32 field officer um into the final product. Was that role one which was simply copying out by wrote or did it involve Sergeant Web exercising his critical faculties?

01:32:43 faculties? Uh the latter. In what respect did Sergeant Webb have to exercise his critical faculties? probably numerous um types of

01:32:59 editing, but you know, generally just wanting to um ensure that it it was um clear.

01:33:12 How did you well when you say clear was he required to edit the content in terms of deciding whether material should be left out or included?

01:33:25 left out or included? Um

01:33:27 Um case you know it' be a case by case judgment.

01:33:32 judgment. How did you supervise Sergeant Web?

01:33:43 Um

01:33:50 well I can't can't recall specific examples but um we worked um work closely together.

01:34:03 we worked um work closely together. Did you set standards for him?

01:34:08 I don't think no I don't think that was any part of my um role.

01:34:15 um role. Did you ensure that he met standards?

01:34:24 I probably did in in an informal way on occasions, but as I've said in probably in the vast majority of cases,

01:34:35 probably in the vast majority of cases, um the reports reports probably came to me after after the editing

01:34:46 came to me after after the editing process.

01:34:48 process. So are you saying you would only intervene if there was some very obvious reason to do so? Well, I was all, you know, most of the time I would have been there to offer advice if if he needed it.

01:35:04 He describes a purely administrative role. Does that understate his responsibilities? Um

01:35:14 well in one sense you know it's spot on isn't it in in one sense um administrative

01:35:22 and in another sense um big it's a big responsibility for sure.

01:35:30 sure. Why is it a big responsibility? Well, it's a um a final report that is

01:35:39 is is then, you know, it's going to go to uh generally to the DCI. If he's not there, then it comes to me. Um and then

01:35:50 there, then it comes to me. Um and then it's goes out to whichever customer. Um and um you know it was um

01:36:01 and um you know it was um a a very responsible job and he was um in my experience he he was very skilled at performing it.

01:36:13 at performing it. When you say that come to you when the DCI was weighed that was for signature. Yes. Yes. And as I'm understanding your evidence, you would often see reports

01:36:24 evidence, you would often see reports anyway, and you'd read reporting anyway, even if you were not signing it off. Yes.

01:36:32 And reports were required to be accurate and professional. Yes.

01:36:36 Yes. Or should have been accurate and professional. Yes.

01:36:42 [snorts] When a UCO had an issue, were you often the first port of call for them? When who was when UCOs had issues?

01:36:54 when UCOs had issues? Yes.

01:36:54 Yes. And was that because of your prior experience? Well, um

01:37:01 I was, you know, off Yes. often I'm sure first port of call. Perhaps not always. Um,

01:37:11 Um, and

01:37:13 and I think it would have been

01:37:18 it would have just first and foremost been

01:37:22 been um after a matter of weeks or months as I got got into uh the management

01:37:33 as I got got into uh the management role.

01:37:34 role. um really being just being um as available and receptive as I could be and uh

01:37:47 be and uh employing, you know, good listening skills and so forth. If I can stop you there. Were undercover police officers required to report specific crimes that they had witnessed?

01:37:59 specific crimes that they had witnessed? By which I mean when they saw a crime, were they required to report it? Um, I don't recall them having any specific requirements in Well, that

01:38:13 any specific requirements in Well, that one. This is a specific requirement and I don't

01:38:18 I don't recall it. No. Would they be expected to if they saw a serious crime being committed? Um,

01:38:29 Um, yes.

01:38:31 yes. Would

01:38:33 Would there be any threshold of gravity at which you would expect to see them reporting or was it not as formalized as that?

01:38:44 I can't I can't recall um today except by thinking it, you know, it would have been a case byase judgment.

01:38:55 been a case byase judgment. If officer A sees activist B committing a crime of violence, would you expect that to be reported?

01:39:08 would you expect that to be reported? Um, generally yes.

01:39:13 And so if there's a death of that sort of reporting in what we've recovered, can we properly draw their influence that there won't have been that sort of

01:39:24 that there won't have been that sort of violence?

01:39:28 I don't think I certainly even at the time I don't think I would have been confident. No, forget that. today

01:39:39 today I I can't be confident that what what remains extinct of uh SDS reporting that it you know that

01:39:51 uh SDS reporting that it you know that it's sufficiently complete for us to be able to make that conclusion. Can we move now from the general to the specific and can we have up it's a UCPI

01:40:04 specific and can we have up it's a UCPI number 3068 please this one I don't have a tab reference for sir it's not in the bundle

01:40:17 when it comes up this is a report dated the about an event on the 11th of November 1993 entitled on the borders of a police state and it's a Hackne

01:40:30 a police state and it's a Hackne community defense association meeting. Uh I'm afraid we're sufficiently far back in time that we don't have very good copy quality. Can I give you a

01:40:43 good copy quality. Can I give you a moment to refresh your memory of that and please would you pay specific attention to the mentions of Mr. Michael

01:40:54 attention to the mentions of Mr. Michael Mansfield, Queens Council as he then was

01:41:24 Yes. Uh, we see at the bottom of that report that Mr. Mansfield has a registry file number 40576/32.

01:41:37 Am I right to understand from that that Mr. Mansfield has had a registry file open on him since 1976. Yes.

01:41:50 Yes. And the content of the report is to the effect that Mr. Mansfield was the main speaker

01:42:01 speaker uh at this event and that it was encouraging the working class to challenge police powers through defense

01:42:13 challenge police powers through defense committees like the Hackne Community Defense Association. Is that fair? Yes.

01:42:19 Yes. So an entirely lawful political speech. Yes.

01:42:26 Yes. Were there any limits on reporting on lawyers?

01:42:34 Um, [clears throat] no, not that I can recall. In what circumstances would a lawyer get a registry file?

01:42:46 a registry file? Um,

01:42:52 I honestly can't. Um, I can't recall. Would they be the same as anybody else or different?

01:43:04 Well, yes. Um,

01:43:11 it's hard to say. Um, it's hard to say now, really.

01:43:22 I'm none the wiser, I'm afraid, for that answer. Were they were the rules the same as for anybody else or were they different? I can't um I can't recall.

01:43:36 I can't um I can't recall. What was Mr. Mansfield's reputation within the Metropolitan Police Service at this time? Um [clears throat] could you repeat the question, please?

01:43:47 could you repeat the question, please? Yeah. What was Mr. Mansfield's reputation within the Metropolitan Police Service at this time. Um,

01:43:56 Um, well, I think he had a for formidable reputation. Um I I think I have a rec I have a

01:44:07 I I think I have a rec I have a recollection that he may have come to the police training school to assist assist with the training and the sort of

01:44:18 assist with the training and the sort of courtroom

01:44:20 courtroom performance of um detectives. A witness to this inquiry has um said that his reputation was to the effect that he was viewed as the devil

01:44:32 that he was viewed as the devil incarnate.

01:44:37 Yes, I have read that. Um was a was that sentiment or an equivalent sentiment one that was held in certain quarters about Mr. Mansfield?

01:44:53 Um well obviously not the um not not the officers that um invited him

01:45:04 not not the officers that um invited him to the training school but no I I can't I don't know where that phrase came from.

01:45:09 from. Was he regarded as anti- police? I think within

01:45:19 within my experience um

01:45:24 he was regarded as um an advocate and who would speak, you know, obviously speak at events such as the one that's being reported on. and

01:45:38 the one that's being reported on. and did the fact that he was um an advocate who was speaking at a left-wing event advocating challenge of the police something which

01:45:51 challenge of the police something which made him of interest.

01:45:56 I I do beg you pardon. I I just missed the last bit. Was the fact that he was an advocate who was speaking at a left-wing event

01:46:07 left-wing event about challenging the police something that made him of interest? No. No, I don't think so. Why is he being reported in that context

01:46:19 Why is he being reported in that context then?

01:46:19 then? I can't I can't recall today. Well, what I can obviously say is that um you know that this is um a report

01:46:32 you know that this is um a report from one of our field officers at the time who is at least as we understood it at the time. He was legitimately

01:46:43 at the time. He was legitimately deployed against target against his his um target group. He was at this meeting in the course of his duties

01:46:56 in the course of his duties and

01:46:58 and you know he's and he's reported a meeting. it what the report in one sense is not it's it's um not intended to suggest any

01:47:12 it's it's um not intended to suggest any um

01:47:13 um any special branch interest in um Michael Mansfield except that the fact it's already got a registry file is noted at the bottom.

01:47:24 registry file is noted at the bottom. Well, that's yes. Um um and what even sort of he's had it for what sort of about 20 years and the fact he's advocating on behalf

01:47:36 and the fact he's advocating on behalf of community defense associations such as

01:47:39 as Hacknes.

01:47:41 Hacknes. Yes,

01:47:44 Mr. Mansfield has had the privilege of being involved in very very many high-profile cases. Perhaps amongst the most high-profile of those

01:47:55 amongst the most high-profile of those was acting for the Lawrence family. Yes.

01:47:59 Yes. Which had started by this stage but went on for many years. Did the fact he was acting for the Lawrenes

01:48:10 Lawrenes affect his reputation within the Metropolitan Police Service? Well, that's a a big question. And I I in in my role

01:48:21 in in my role at that time, I certainly didn't have um didn't have that view, you know, that view. Um what was your view?

01:48:34 view. Um what was your view? Well, that he was uh he was doing his his his job no more. And how did that change during the course of the Lawrence inquiry?

01:48:45 course of the Lawrence inquiry? What my view? Yeah. I'm not I don't believe it did. I don't. And what was um the view of your officers as expressed?

01:48:57 officers as expressed? I um well I have no recollection today. Among them was the man who described him

01:49:08 Among them was the man who described him as the devil incarnate or being viewed as the devil incarnate. Are you saying there were no opinions expressed about Mr. Mansfield whilst you were detective

01:49:19 Mr. Mansfield whilst you were detective inspector in the SDS? I can't rule I can't rule it out, but I I'd be very surprised if I mean I can't begin to think that it was ever a you

01:49:30 begin to think that it was ever a you know a major that he was a a ma any kind of talking point. Can we take uh this document down now please? And can we have up is another

01:49:42 please? And can we have up is another UCPI number 349.

01:49:49 This is about a national a report on the national assembly against racisms meeting of the 4th of February 1995.

01:50:00 Uh I'll give you a moment to look at it but you will see that Dr. Neville Lawrence was a speaker.

01:50:29 Yeah. Looking at the markings, this appears to have gone straight to the security service. Is that right? Yes.

01:50:39 Yes. Why would a report on an event like this go straight to the security service? Um

01:50:51 well because they um

01:50:57 um they had an an interest um that we'd been made made aware of.

01:51:10 [snorts]

01:51:13 This is the if we go to this is the inaugural meeting paragraph one you can see of the NAR

01:51:24 see of the NAR it's attended by very many groups isn't it

01:51:27 it including the Labor party

01:51:33 and it's about if we look at paragraph two filling in a gap post the anti-racist allianc's demise. It's not surprising that activists,

01:51:47 It's not surprising that activists, legitimate activists would wish to discuss that, is it? No. The speakers par set out at paragraph three.

01:51:59 They include a number of members of parliament, Diane Abbott, Harry Cohen, and Bernie Grant, as well as the TUC's general secretary.

01:52:14 as well as the TUC's general secretary. And [snorts] it submits a leaflet, paragraph 4 about a fourthcoming march. If we go to page four,

01:52:28 we see the leaflet um about

01:52:34 um about the march to challenge racism.

01:52:45 And again, there are members of parliament due to speak. This is all entirely lawful protest, isn't it?

01:52:57 lawful protest, isn't it? Um, yes.

01:52:59 Um, yes. And it's um I may have slightly misstated the position. It's Neville Lawrence who's due to speak. He's down as one of the speakers uh in the 10:30

01:53:10 as one of the speakers uh in the 10:30 to 12:15 session.

01:53:15 It's not about crime or disorder, is it? No.

01:53:20 No. [snorts]

01:53:21 [snorts] The references to the Socialist Workers Party are minimal and unsurprising, aren't they? The references to the SWP. If you want to go back and look at them, you can.

01:53:33 to go back and look at them, you can. Page one, paragraph two. But but sufficient to explain and and justify why the SDS field officer was was uh present.

01:53:46 field officer was was uh present. Attempts by representatives of the Socialist Workers Party in the ANL to influence the meeting into swing any votes were resisted where

01:53:55 where that's the bottom of paragraph. Yeah. Yeah. Is it your evidence that the SDS thought it was appropriate to attend a meeting which members of parliament were

01:54:07 which members of parliament were speaking, at which the Labor Party was represented, at which a number of peaceful protest groups were represented simply to keep an eye on them to see whether the SWP

01:54:20 whether the SWP could influence them. Well, my reading of of this uh last sentence, paragraph two, is that that

01:54:31 sentence, paragraph two, is that that was

01:54:34 was that was why there was an SDS presence. If

01:54:39 If I'm assuming um the SCS field officer is infiltrating the it's detective Sergeant Morris. So he is

01:54:50 it's detective Sergeant Morris. So he is he is infiltrating SWP. So he's he is there with his um with his target group and

01:55:01 with his target group and you know it would have been quite common and

01:55:05 and certainly it would have been accepted uh

01:55:11 uh by us as as managers that really uh wholly appropriate for him to um

01:55:22 um be there with his group who were as he's you know seeking to [clears throat] influence the meeting. Um I accept uh

01:55:34 influence the meeting. Um I accept uh that

01:55:37 that you know as he reports um they they their influence was resisted. If I if I stop you there and we can if we can zoom out.

01:55:51 This is a report about an assembly against racism. It's about organizing an activism in the cause of anti-racism, isn't it?

01:56:02 isn't it? Yes.

01:56:05 is the reality that there was an underlying concern that racism was a particularly incendurary issue.

01:56:15 [snorts] I don't think there's any underlying concern. Um yes it was an incendary issue but

01:56:28 yes it was an incendary issue but you know the the officers um reporting

01:56:35 you know he's reporting accurately it seems um

01:56:40 seems um and is the reason that this was of interest really because it is about the incendurary issue of race and keeping

01:56:52 incendurary issue of race and keeping tabs on what is happening in ra anti-racist activism.

01:57:00 activism. Well, he hasn't gone as again, I mean, it's not for me to say precisely. He he he may well have already said, but um as a as a rule, it was very common

01:57:14 as a as a rule, it was very common common place for an SDS field officer to be present at um at a meeting such of

01:57:27 be present at um at a meeting such of this where you have, you know, 90% or more, you know, 99% whatever of peaceful protesters. Um, but he is there,

01:57:41 protesters. Um, but he is there, I think, as we saw it at the time, reasonably and legitimately, with his group. The SWP, I'm sure, would say that they

01:57:52 The SWP, I'm sure, would say that they too were peaceful protesters, militant perhaps. Um um yeah, but again as you as you know um you know uh Trevor Morris was um

01:58:07 you know uh Trevor Morris was um um you know as always was targeted towards the more um um you know the more extremist

01:58:18 um you know the more extremist end. Can we take that document down now please? And can we have 245156?

01:58:25 This is a report about the Brian Douglas campaign dated the 6th of June 1995.

01:58:37 If we could uh look in particular, please at paragraph one and two.

01:58:56 [snorts]

01:59:13 Yes, thank you. So, this is about a forthcoming demonstration due to occur on the 10th of June of that year, uh, being organized by the Brian Douglas campaign,

01:59:25 organized by the Brian Douglas campaign, isn't it?

01:59:26 isn't it? Yes. And it's about the SWPs and militant labors plans to send black members to join that march, isn't it?

01:59:37 members to join that march, isn't it? Yes.

01:59:38 Yes. Not about crime or public disorder. It's about Troskyist groups trying to recruit more black members, isn't it? Yes.

01:59:48 Yes. Why is that important to the SDS in 1995?

01:59:53 1995? Um

01:59:56 Um I don't know how important it was the I can readily um understand why how and why the

02:00:07 um understand why how and why the officer well Trevor Morris um is there then I suppose your question talks to us in the office about why was why did we

02:00:20 in the office about why was why did we um

02:00:22 um you

02:00:23 you Why did we issue it as as an intelligence report? And um I think in a case like this, we if if it

02:00:35 I think in a case like this, we if if it was sent to C Squad, um if it was of if it was of no interest, um

02:00:46 um can I stop you there? Yeah. Was it because the SWP and ML were both groups with, so far as you were concerned, subversive intentions

02:00:59 that the SWP had subversive intentions? Um,

02:01:07 Um, is that why you're interested in? Yes.

02:01:13 Yes. Um, yes.

02:01:17 yes. Was there a concern that some black people were susceptible to recruitment at a moment of disaection?

02:01:32 I I can't recall anything beyond um what's been reported. I'm asking you about the context. Is that the context in which the SDS is

02:01:43 that the context in which the SDS is gathering intelligence of this sort? that the concern is Troskyist groups are getting in amongst black protesters when the black protesters are disaffected

02:01:56 the black protesters are disaffected because of what happened to Brian Douglas and are seeking to recruit. Is that what it's about? Yes.

02:02:09 Why couldn't black people be left to themselves to deal with the far-left? [clears throat]

02:02:19 Well, I think um that's a question that goes way well beyond the SDS remit. Um

02:02:31 beyond the SDS remit. Um the SDS report here comes straight from um Trevor Morris's deployment and

02:02:44 um Trevor Morris's deployment and um

02:02:46 um you know we we reported we're not I don't think the SDS is making any judgment about um

02:02:56 why you know why this is happening.

02:03:01 The result of this approach though is that campaigns such as the Justice for Brian Douglas campaign become the subject of SDS reporting.

02:03:15 subject of SDS reporting. Well, only only um to the extent that there is if there was no um if the if there was no interest from

02:03:29 um if the if there was no interest from the groups that group or groups that Trevor Morris was reporting on then the there you know there wouldn't have been

02:03:40 been um

02:03:41 um any

02:03:43 any SDS interest.

02:03:47 Well, [snorts] we may have to come back to that proposition, but for the moment, sir, would that be a convenient time to take the afternoon break? Certainly. 15 minutes.

02:22:07 Thank you sir. Could we have up please 245170?

02:22:19 Mr. Lambert, this is a report dated the 9th of June 1995 about a meeting that had taken place 2 days earlier on Wednesday the 7th of June 1995.

02:22:31 June 1995. Um it's again the justice for Brian Douglas campaign and preparations for the march on the 10th. Give you a moment

02:22:43 the march on the 10th. Give you a moment to read that. If we could have one to three expanded, please.

02:23:07 Yes, thank you. Uh this is again a meeting of many different political groups about a forthcoming demonstration. Yes.

02:23:16 Yes. Reporting on the tensions between them. Yes.

02:23:21 Yes. And it this one does refer to the risk of uh public disorder. But it's clear, isn't it, that the organizers of the meeting, the Douglas family, want a

02:23:34 meeting, the Douglas family, want a peaceful protest, don't they? Yes. Was

02:23:39 Yes. Was any consideration given to the proportionality of reporting on a peaceful justice campaign,

02:23:51 justice campaign, family justice campaign um

02:23:56 um or not? Is it any consideration given to the proportionality of such reporting? I no I don't think that would have been considered

02:24:07 considered uh by us

02:24:09 uh by us in the SDS management team. Was any consideration given to the possible consequences of it being discovered that Detective Sergeant

02:24:22 discovered that Detective Sergeant Morris was a police officer acting undercover?

02:24:27 Um yes, not perhaps just or specifically in relation to this event, but of course that was a uh a

02:24:40 event, but of course that was a uh a very important consideration for the the management team um

02:24:48 um on a on a regular basis. Quite apart from the normal concerns that arise with the security of your UCOs, isn't an additional concern here? Is it if it had been discovered that the Metropolitan

02:25:00 been discovered that the Metropolitan Police Service was using a black undercover police officer to spy on a black justice campaign, it might have uh provided uh the spark that would have

02:25:11 provided uh the spark that would have caused the very disorder that you were trying to prevent. Well, yes. Uh I um I think I think we would have been

02:25:24 um I think I think we would have been aware

02:25:26 aware um of that. But of course, you know, the way um I'm sure this is Yeah, I'm sure Trevor Morris,

02:25:36 Morris, if he hasn't already, would would say highlight that, you know, this was not him

02:25:44 him targeting the uh Brian Douglas campaign. Far from it. uh he was there with his target group which we understood to be

02:25:57 target group which we understood to be legitimate. None of which reduces the the risk that you've highlighted. Can I take it that whatever else SDS

02:26:08 Can I take it that whatever else SDS management thought that the risk was worth the reward? Uh

02:26:16 Uh yes. And the reward was understanding the machinations of the Justice for Brian Douglas campaign

02:26:27 only in the context of the officers um

02:26:34 um deployment which of course you've heard um direct about directly from the officer. If we could take that down now please and have up 245218

02:26:47 please and have up 245218 moving to a different campaign now. This is a Joy Gardner um campaign. This is a report of the 23rd of June 1995

02:26:59 of June 1995 about um a meeting on the 21st of June 1995 at which Dr. Lawrence spoke. You see at paragraph one

02:27:11 see at paragraph one that um

02:27:14 that um it's held at the Wood Green Civic Center and the report details

02:27:24 details the racial mix of those attending the age distributions and the social stratum from which they are drawn. Do you see that?

02:27:35 you see that? Yes.

02:27:37 Yes. Why is DS Morris reporting for you on the racial mix of those attending their ages and the social stratum from

02:27:49 their ages and the social stratum from which they come? Um I can only uh suggest that you know he was um reporting

02:28:03 um reporting on on the meeting. He's giving a full picture

02:28:09 picture uh of the meeting that he attended

02:28:14 and there can be no cause for concern on the public order front uh from that demographic. Can there uh no

02:28:25 uh no if you go to paragraph two mentioned that Dr. Lawrence was the speaker but if we have paragraph 2 we'll see a list of all uh

02:28:40 it must be thank you we'll see a number of other uh speakers MNA Simpson Brian Douglas's brother chaplain from

02:28:52 Brian Douglas's brother chaplain from the Church of England's commission on racial abuse solicitor Jane Koker Dr. Lawrence and Bernie Grant MP. And the document at paragraph two, it's a long a

02:29:05 document at paragraph two, it's a long a long paragraph goes on to deal with what each of them said. Why is the SDS interested in a meeting

02:29:18 Why is the SDS interested in a meeting with an entirely unthreatening demographic related to a justice campaign with

02:29:29 related to a justice campaign with speakers

02:29:30 speakers like that? Um because [clears throat] number one, the officer was

02:29:40 was um ever did it. You know, there's no realistic uh likelihood that he went there on his own. Uh he was there with

02:29:52 there on his own. Uh he was there with his target group. If that's right, why is it being written up and reported? Um because I think it you know it helps

02:30:03 Um because I think it you know it helps the readers to understand you know what um Trevor Morris's target group are

02:30:14 um Trevor Morris's target group are interested in and how how they are looking to have a an influence in this in this whole

02:30:26 this in this whole um in this whole arena as you said. If I may stop you there, you don't need an undercover officer to tell you that the Socialist Workers Party is going to

02:30:37 the Socialist Workers Party is going to be interested in a racial justice campaign, do you? Um, I think you probably want to be aware of um, you know, the the

02:30:51 aware of um, you know, the the the context um that what he's reporting on here. And you don't need to know what Jazzy B has said at this meeting. Um,

02:31:03 Jazzy B has said at this meeting. Um, if you want to keep tabs on the S SWB SW,

02:31:07 SW, it's not it's not essential. And yet this is a very long and detailed report going into what every speaker from a very wide range of backgrounds

02:31:18 from a very wide range of backgrounds has said. Can we go to the source comment at the end, please?

02:31:28 I have to go over the page. Thank you. Let's look at the source comment.

02:32:09 The way that comment is organized is that front and center at the start is information about the campaign, isn't it?

02:32:17 it? Yes.

02:32:18 Yes. In fact, it's a campaign with the right skills and presence behind it. It's attracting middle class and older members of the community, people who might have more influence,

02:32:29 people who might have more influence, aren't they? Yes.

02:32:31 Yes. Uh and it goes on to talk about how well particular speeches were received. And only towards the end of that paragraph does it go on to deal with the SWP's

02:32:42 does it go on to deal with the SWP's message and how that is going to be strenuously resisted by Mr. Jasper and others, doesn't it? It does paint a picture of the interest being primarily

02:32:55 picture of the interest being primarily in the potency of the justice campaign, doesn't it? Yes. But, you know, hugely um useful um for

02:33:07 um useful um for a readership that will be uh looking to make an assessment for pleasing of

02:33:18 pleasing of an event here. And you know to to like any um planning for any public order planning if if if this provides a

02:33:31 order planning if if if this provides a degree of reassurance that extremists are

02:33:37 are you know unlikely to be able to cause trouble or to hijack an event then you're interested in more than that though aren't you Mr. Lambert? you're interested in the potency of the justice

02:33:50 interested in the potency of the justice campaign per se? I

02:33:56 I no I I don't think so. Um I honestly don't think so. And is that because race is an incendurary issue and the more momentum

02:34:07 incendurary issue and the more momentum a campaign gathers the more trouble that might cause the Met in one way or another.

02:34:16 another. Um I can see that but I can also recall the you know the SDS interest and um and

02:34:27 the you know the SDS interest and um and in particular here. I mean you know Trevor Morris um was very always very clear about

02:34:39 about what his role was. I mean very you know he would [clears throat] if there was any suggestion that the um SDS was

02:34:51 um SDS was targeting

02:34:53 targeting a real

02:34:56 a real family justice campaign. um he you know he he would he would have not been

02:35:05 not been he would he would not have uh been able to accept that. Can we go back and look at um paragraph two please?

02:35:20 And looking at the end, you may have to go over to page three

02:35:34 and over the page again, please.

02:35:44 This is a demonstration that is going to require

02:35:48 require some it says I'm looking sorry it's the second paragraph of par of the source comment at this early stage it seems entirely feasible that a figure of at least 5,000 can be generated for what

02:35:59 least 5,000 can be generated for what will be a highly charged emotional but well stewarded demonstration anything short of highly professional and sympathetic policing may well provide the SWP with the opportunity it seeks to

02:36:11 the SWP with the opportunity it seeks to encourage and exploit a violent reaction leading to serious public disorder. It was a statement of the obvious, wasn't it, that a demonstration like this would need to be well stewarded.

02:36:23 this would need to be well stewarded. I don't think we can safely um say that uh oh no, sorry, perhaps I um didn't fully. Can you sorry, can you

02:36:34 um didn't fully. Can you sorry, can you repeat the question? is a statement of the obvious that it would need to be well stewarded and well policed. Right. Well, the question of pleasing I

02:36:45 Right. Well, the question of pleasing I think

02:36:47 think um Trevor Morris would have made this comment I think knowing that it was crucial um crucial for the uh policing

02:36:59 crucial um crucial for the uh policing to be

02:37:01 to be um

02:37:03 um as as aware as they as he wants them to be. That's not quite the point I'm trying to put to you, Mr. Lambert. The point I'm trying to put to you is this would have

02:37:14 trying to put to you is this would have been obvious to anyone organizing the policing of this demonstration given its subject matter. Not no sadly perhaps not. Um

02:37:28 and it was a demonstration that was going to be assiduously stewarded by responsible activists, wasn't it?

02:37:40 activists, wasn't it? Yes. Yes.

02:37:45 Why did you think you needed such a detailed report about the campaign if the public order element of it is really sensitive

02:37:57 order element of it is really sensitive but straightforward? Um,

02:38:05 I think it was um

02:38:13 I think it was of um of its time. Um I think Trevor Morris is reporting diligently

02:38:24 Trevor Morris is reporting diligently on a on a meeting. Um we I think we can be absolutely clear about why he was there and um perhaps

02:38:35 about why he was there and um perhaps you of course you you look at it now and you quite rightly it wasn't a lot of the detail was not essential um and perhaps it could perhaps it could

02:38:48 um and perhaps it could perhaps it could uh have been edited down. it it wasn't um [clears throat] Can we take that document down and have 7241

02:38:59 7241 up please? [snorts] This is um a report dated the 8th of July about an event um

02:39:09 um organized by the SWP racism and resistance in Britain today. If we look at the first paragraph just to set the scene please.

02:39:41 Um yeah. And so we see it's part of a series of

02:39:48 series of Marxist meetings and debates. Um, and the main speakers include a member of parliament, Mr. Grant, and the subject matter of racism

02:40:00 matter of racism uh is described as being of particular pertinence because of the Douglas Gardner cases and uh utterances of S. Paul condom about black street crime.

02:40:13 Paul condom about black street crime. So a feebral atmosphere so far as race relations are concerned. Yes.

02:40:21 Yes. But this meeting itself an entirely political event. If we look at [snorts] three and four please paragraphs three and four.

02:40:34 These [snorts] are the paragraphs about um Bernie Grant's speech. I'll give you a moment to look at those.

02:41:07 Yes. Why is the SDS interested in uh a politician's speech?

02:41:16 um

02:41:19 interested only um in the sense that

02:41:26 that um

02:41:28 um it's

02:41:30 it's it's taking place uh where it is at the time it is um and Trevor Morris is attending the meeting

02:41:42 attending the meeting legitimately with his target group. Um it's this was um this was the world that he

02:41:55 um this was the world that he was living in. It gives it gives readers the um the content of the meeting. Yes. It it was not

02:42:06 It it was not um

02:42:08 um it was not um in any way uh

02:42:16 not in any way um problematic but I don't recall specifically whether and to what extent

02:42:29 specifically whether and to what extent any thought was given to um you know not disseminating the report. Was it because this was an elected politician of some influence locally who

02:42:42 politician of some influence locally who was giving a talk about racial justice issues at a time when the atmosphere was particularly febrial?

02:42:52 Well, that would have I'm sure that would have been part of the the context and um

02:42:59 and um um good context and and background for those officers that are going to be potentially responsible for

02:43:10 potentially responsible for preparing a risk assessment at a future date

02:43:15 date uh on on you know related uh demonstrations was Mr. Mr. Grant regarded as a conspiracy theorist.

02:43:26 I I didn't catch the question. Was Mr. Grant uh regarded as a conspiracy theorist? I'm asking because the report reads Grant then embarked on a tour of conspiracy theories saying

02:43:37 a tour of conspiracy theories saying that some sort of hidden curriculum was working to stop police community relations improving. And the question is what was

02:43:49 And the question is what was Mr. branch regarded as a conspiracy theorist.

02:43:54 theorist. I I don't know that I obviously can't recall the basis on which it's reported in those those terms. Um can I take it that there was no guidance

02:44:06 can I take it that there was no guidance within the SDS to your officers as to uh any limitation on reporting on elected officials? No, not that I can recall. And was there

02:44:19 No, not that I can recall. And was there any guidance within special branch more widely?

02:44:26 Not not that I can recall. Can we take that document down now please? Can we have up 728 969 tab B 100. Sir, this is the SDS's

02:44:38 969 tab B 100. Sir, this is the SDS's annual report for 94 95.

02:44:43 95. If we can have page five, paragraph 3.4. Four. The top of that page it says DS Trevor Morris SWP Hackne branches ANL

02:44:55 Trevor Morris SWP Hackne branches ANL and associated anti-establishment groups and ethnic minorities in East London transferred to Tottenham branch of SWP in January 1995.

02:45:09 in January 1995. Why was DS Morris moved from Hackne to Tottenham in January 1995? [clears throat] Um

02:45:20 Um I think I may have may have um read something about this recently but I I can't recall now. Was it because uh the

02:45:32 can't recall now. Was it because uh the temperature of the joy gardener campaign was heating up as a result of the trial and acquitt of the officers who had been charged arising from her death?

02:45:46 charged arising from her death? I can't say. I I wonder if um I got a feeling Trevor Morris spoke to this or has written about it in his

02:45:57 or has written about it in his statement, but I I can't recall I'm afraid.

02:46:00 afraid. You have talked about the world in which DS Morris was mixing and is reporting resulting from that. Yeah.

02:46:08 Yeah. You and DCI Edmonson decided which world he mixed in, didn't you? Yes.

02:46:19 Yes. Are you putting him into a world where through the SWP he can report on a wide range of anti-establishment groups and

02:46:32 range of anti-establishment groups and ethnic minorities? Um I can't I can't confirm that or or well

02:46:41 well suggest it you know from I mean I I'm sure there was he does talk to the the transfer to Tottenham branch. I mean that may may or may not have been a a

02:46:53 that may may or may not have been a a management direction. I I can't just can't recall. You are in charge of the day-to-day management of the officers, aren't you?

02:47:04 management of the officers, aren't you? Yeah.

02:47:06 Yeah. So, it's your decision where they go. I appreciate it may be taken in consultation with the officer, but it's you are in charge, aren't you, with

02:47:17 you are in charge, aren't you, with along with the DCI? I think the DCI is is going to make decisions on on um on actual deployment, but there would

02:47:28 um on actual deployment, but there would be there's any number of reasons why Trevor Morris might have um change

02:47:39 Trevor Morris might have um change changed his branch. Um the result is he is in a position to report as we have just been through. Yeah. on a wide range of different

02:47:52 Yeah. on a wide range of different racial justice campaigns. Yes. and um you know, none of which should obscure his central

02:48:05 his central focus and and the sense in which like all SDS field officers an awful lot of um work has to be done which does not is

02:48:17 um work has to be done which does not is not central to your main purpose, your objective. And I think um with Trevor Morris, you see what his central

02:48:29 Morris, you see what his central long-term purpose was at events such as the um Welling Well, if I can stop you there, I mean, because that was years earlier. And are

02:48:40 because that was years earlier. And are you really suggesting that the Febrile atmosphere in North London as a result of the state of race relations wasn't of interest to the SDS? No. I I'm not um

02:48:52 No. I I'm not um And isn't the reality that you are using Trevor Morris through his infiltration of the SWP to spy on a wide range of justice campaigns?

02:49:03 campaigns? No.

02:49:04 No. Because you are concerned that the atmosphere is febrile, the temperature is high and there may be problems of one sort or another. No, I I think not. I think that um and I

02:49:15 No, I I think not. I think that um and I think Trevor's was absolutely clear and wanted I think he wanted to be clear um uh because this this was very important

02:49:26 uh because this this was very important to him that he should only he was only targeting

02:49:31 targeting um elements that were seeking to exploit genuine family uh campaigns. and you're using a black officer through the SWP

02:49:43 officer through the SWP to monitor events within a wide range of justice campaigns to monitor their potency and the atmosphere within them. I think always always I'm sure always

02:49:58 I think always always I'm sure always um

02:50:00 um from the perspective of the target groups and didn't it you know I I mean when you see names on a piece of paper like this from a management report it

02:50:12 like this from a management report it doesn't really quite do it justice and you know anyway you know by now very well what Trevor Morris was um was doing Um

02:50:23 Um and along the way, yes, he he writes um reports which of in and of themselves you think, well, this is innocuous. You know, what what's why is an SDS officer

02:50:38 know, what what's why is an SDS officer covering it? Um but we know why he was there and and it was crucial to to him to his um sense of um worth his own

02:50:53 to his um sense of um worth his own concerns about racism. Um it was

02:50:59 Um it was he wouldn't have he wouldn't have stayed on the unit if if he wasn't happy that um that uh black communities were being

02:51:10 um that uh black communities were being treated in the right way. There is a common theme about the families in these reports. The gardeners, Douglases,

02:51:23 The gardeners, Douglases, the Lawrenes, they are all against disorder, aren't they?

02:51:28 they? Yes.

02:51:34 These family justice campaigns should not have been the subject of SDS reporting, should they? Um

02:51:46 I I'm not sure it's um in so far as Trevor's Trevor Morris and of course

02:51:58 Trevor's Trevor Morris and of course other

02:52:00 other other officers other SDS field officers um

02:52:06 you know given that um that they were able to uh help uh prevent

02:52:17 uh prevent disorder and to you know to help in some in important respects to um

02:52:27 um to inhibit the um the efforts of group groups like his target group to to ferment um disorder. Um,

02:52:40 to ferment um disorder. Um, how does spying on campaigns who are dead against disorder help you to prevent disorder? I I don't accept that any field officer

02:52:53 I I don't accept that any field officer was spying on a justice campaign. That doesn't answer the question. How does reporting on justice campaigns

02:53:04 does reporting on justice campaigns that are dead against public disorder help to police public disorder? Well, I think we've we've seen it in at least one of these reports, haven't we?

02:53:16 least one of these reports, haven't we? the the ability to um help uh you know if you like a positive risk assessment or a risk assessment that says the risk

02:53:28 or a risk assessment that says the risk of disorder is low here as as well as you need there's a high risk you only need a uniformed officer to speak to the family before the

02:53:40 speak to the family before the demonstration to find that out you don't need an undercover police officer do you but but in so far as you you you need as well you need um the you

02:53:53 you you need as well you need um the you need intelligence to find out what the let's call it you know the extremist side you need that and if the officer who is targeted

02:54:06 and if the officer who is targeted against that you know is able to provide a lot of context

02:54:13 context um along the way. That's not that's not spying on on a family group. Was there a lack of trust in these black

02:54:24 Was there a lack of trust in these black justice campaigns such that they needed to be spied upon such that they was there a lack of trust in these black justice campaigns such

02:54:35 in these black justice campaigns such that they needed to be spied upon? Um

02:54:41 Um well I

02:54:42 well I I can't speak to

02:54:47 how that whether they had that I again I but the more important point I you know I I can't accept that um

02:54:58 I I can't accept that um that Trevor Morris or any of the others were were spying. I'm using spying in the sense of reporting on which we've seen plenty of. Let me put it another way. Was there a sense that these campaigns were anti-

02:55:10 sense that these campaigns were anti- police?

02:55:13 police? Well,

02:55:15 Well, um,

02:55:17 um, again, it it's difficult, isn't it? Because you can have a group, individuals and groups that uh Trevor Morris was targeted against, they

02:55:29 Trevor Morris was targeted against, they were anti- police. Um, I'm talking about the Justice Council. I know you are, but I just wanted to contrast it. You know what? what Trevor was doing and what he experienced was uh

02:55:41 was doing and what he experienced was uh groups and individuals that were anti- police to the to the bone um and with a you know with a

02:55:52 and with a you know with a a political purpose whereas

02:55:57 whereas the anti police um attitudes that Trevor Morris was only too well aware of were very very different. They were based on

02:56:11 very very different. They were based on they arose from uh incidents with the police that what you know explained that anger and uh you know I think already

02:56:22 anger and uh you know I think already that Trevor Morris was you know he he shared a lot of that anger and he would not have done this work if if it wasn't properly targeted.

02:56:36 work if if it wasn't properly targeted. Can we take that document down now? I'm going to move on to a completely different topic. Could we have up? It's a UCPI number 29708, please.

02:56:48 This is a report dated the 18th of January about um events on Saturday the 15th of January 1994

02:56:59 15th of January 1994 when there had been a concerted effort by the ANL and Y and AFA

02:57:11 and AFA to disrupt a far-right music concert. So if we look at the top right of the document, we see again this is Detective Sergeant Morris's reporting. If we uh

02:57:25 Sergeant Morris's reporting. If we uh look at

02:57:28 look at uh page four, the top two paragraphs are what I'm particularly interested in. [snorts] Um if you need any further background, just say so. But the

02:57:42 background, just say so. But the left-wing

02:57:45 left-wing demonstrators have arrived in Beacon Tree, the gig has been cancelled and it's what happens next that I'm particularly interested in.

02:57:57 interested in. Um, once the group arrived. Yeah. Um, so I'll give you a moment to read that. It's and the and in particular to concentrate on the Red Express.

02:58:09 concentrate on the Red Express. Um,

02:58:15 [clears throat]

02:58:30 so

02:58:40 Yes. Okay. Yes. Thank you. On the day, were you in any form of control room watching events on CCTV? No, I'm pretty sure I wasn't. I think I

02:58:54 No, I'm pretty sure I wasn't. I think I would remember that or I and probably would have written about it. I certainly remember um

02:59:04 um remember it. But um was any member of SDS management and I include sergeants in that definition in any form of control room watching

02:59:15 in any form of control room watching events on the day? Well, I I think I have read something quite fairly recently on that. I can't quite What is your recollection? No. Well, from the No, not really any

02:59:29 No. Well, from the No, not really any clear recollection. No,

02:59:34 the plan [snorts and clears throat] to lay on the Red Express presumably would have taken some planning. Yes. Yes. Are you able to help us with

02:59:47 Yes. Yes. Are you able to help us with whether SDS intelligence um led uniform police uh to anticipate a problem and undertake the necessary

03:00:00 problem and undertake the necessary preparations to lay on the red express? Well, the first bit I I mean I can quite readily

03:00:09 readily anticipate that there could have been SDS intelligence sanitized by C squad and

03:00:21 sanitized by C squad and um disseminated outwards. um can [snorts] readily see that but I don't [clears throat]

03:00:33 don't [clears throat] this the ploy the red express ploy I I I doubt whether I think it'd be very unlikely that SDS had any direct or even

03:00:45 unlikely that SDS had any direct or even indirect involvement in that. Do you have any recollection of it? only from um well yeah I think you know I knew about

03:00:56 well yeah I think you know I knew about it I heard about it at the time I'm sure um if this is this is Trevor Morris's report um there must be a good chance

03:01:07 report um there must be a good chance that um

03:01:09 that um no I'll leave it there um the um

03:01:17 but um no I don't I I And I'm fairly sure well I'm I am sure that I wasn't sort of deployed

03:01:29 sort of deployed as it as it you know as often I was out out

03:01:34 out you know for duration of a an event. If you weren't there we can go to the next document if we take that down please and have up 722654 please. This is a 1993

03:01:48 please. This is a 1993 1994 SDS annual report. It's tab B46. Sir,

03:01:53 Sir, once we've got it up, could I have page 45, please?

03:02:02 [snorts]

03:02:10 Now, this is heavily redacted. But if we look at the block of text that survived redaction in the middle of the page, um this is about that event. There was some disorder later in the

03:02:22 There was some disorder later in the evening and whilst injuries were sustained by police, it is fair to say that the level of violence was much less than would have been encountered had police action been merely responsive

03:02:36 police action been merely responsive rather than proactive. Did you have any role in writing that? I'm I'm pretty sure that I I didn't

03:02:47 I'm I'm pretty sure that I I didn't because I don't think I was, you know, for whatever reason, I don't think I was deployed

03:02:56 deployed on it. Um, you don't have to have been deployed on it to be able to write it up in the annual report, do you? Oh, no, that's true. But but now that you've reminded me, yeah, and your

03:03:07 you've reminded me, yeah, and your reports, I mean, I may well uh have helped, but really that was the DCI's job.

03:03:16 job. On what basis is it asserted that it was better for the police to have been [snorts] proactive? um experience um contributions from

03:03:33 um experience um contributions from field field officers that were involved um pro the reason I'm asking this is because the reason I'm asking this is we have

03:03:46 the reason I'm asking this is we have had a lot of evidence from activists on that protest Yes. who describe being attacked by the

03:03:57 Yes. who describe being attacked by the police,

03:03:58 police, right?

03:03:58 right? Uh when they arrived at Ears Court Station.

03:04:03 Station. Yes.

03:04:03 Yes. Sustaining in some cases significant injuries.

03:04:07 injuries. Yes.

03:04:08 Yes. Is proactive a euphemism for the police attacked the demonstrators first? No. I'm well again I I can be confident that it doesn't

03:04:22 I I can be confident that it doesn't mean that. What does it mean?

03:04:30 Fair to say that the level of violence was much less than would have been encountered had police action been merely responsive rather than proactive. Well,

03:04:42 rather than proactive. Well, um

03:04:44 um we

03:04:47 we is is you know it's fairly clear but what was what's the basis of that assessment? Um

03:04:53 Um you know the various

03:04:57 insights that the SDS field officers had. I I think it's okay for me to say um almost certainly

03:05:09 okay for me to say um almost certainly from you know both let's not go into into too much detail. Let's just stick at what you said.

03:05:21 If this is a euphemism for the police got in first because they were concerned about sustaining injuries and that was on the

03:05:32 sustaining injuries and that was on the basis of SDS intelligence

03:05:42 and if the position is that the demonstrators concerned were not as violent and fierce as portrayed by SDS intelligence.

03:05:54 intelligence. I want to give you an opportunity to deal with the proposition that exaggerated SDS intelligence about the left-wing activists on this

03:06:06 about the left-wing activists on this day contributed to an overreaction by uniform police at Corpse Station. Well, look, you know, you know that at

03:06:18 Well, look, you know, you know that at the time the um

03:06:23 um the SDS would have been able to give a very uh accurate a full accurate answer to that question. And I I I

03:06:34 to that question. And I I I would think um

03:06:37 um that you know that it would um

03:06:43 um it would show the SDS involvement to be um pretty, you know, positive and um helpful helpful to police. But

03:06:57 helpful to police. But um if there was if there was a a level of um police violence um I think

03:07:12 it would have been um it would have surely well there's a good chance it would have come to the attention of one of one at least one uh SDS field

03:07:25 one of one at least one uh SDS field officer. Um and um potentially if if we did have any sort of management cover. You mentioned the um

03:07:39 cover. You mentioned the um control room. Um

03:07:42 Um you could have had a very clear answer either at the time or shortly. Obviously I I mean I I really don't think I was involved.

03:07:52 involved. Okay. In that case, I'll stop there. Can I move? Can we take that down? And can we have up 527076, please?

03:08:27 If we go one page further to see this is a

03:08:31 a collection of documents which is about um Detective Sergeant Morris. Can we have page nine please?

03:08:41 See your initials are at the end of this. Um, this is about Detective Sergeant Morris's exfiltration.

03:08:53 Morris's exfiltration. And

03:08:54 And can I invite you to read that substantive paragraph of text?

03:09:13 Yes. What did Detective Sergeant Morris say to you that caused you to write the words

03:09:23 the words HN78 was quite emotional after a busy final week in which genuine and longstanding friendship had to be severed?

03:09:37 Well, almost almost certainly he exhibited the emotion um of leaving

03:09:50 of leaving um close

03:09:54 um close uh close friends um after

03:09:59 um after after four years. Um,

03:10:04 did he tell you that he had spent his last night undercover with a female activist who we are calling Jenny? No, he didn't.

03:10:16 No, he didn't. Did he tell you that he'd had sex with her?

03:10:19 her? No.

03:10:20 No. Are you sure? I am sure. Can we take that document down now, please?

03:10:29 [snorts] Can we move on to the question of care for Detective Sergeant Morris's wellbeing?

03:10:40 wellbeing? By this stage of the SDS history, uh there was some written process about the safety and welfare of undercover police officers which had been

03:10:51 police officers which had been introduced by HN86, wasn't there? Yes.

03:10:56 Yes. [snorts]

03:10:58 [snorts] Did you visit Detective Sergeant Morris's home? Yes.

03:11:04 Yes. How many times did you visit Detective Sergeant Morris's home? Um, o over the course of the his deployment, the four years.

03:11:15 deployment, the four years. Yes.

03:11:17 Yes. I would think only only um only two or three times. And were those for well for what purposes were those

03:11:30 for well for what purposes were those visits?

03:11:32 visits? Um

03:11:38 well um I suppose well I mean um welfare um

03:11:44 um um and um

03:11:50 well as this example here you know

03:11:57 I can't recall any specific specific occasions. Can you recall having any specific welfare interviews with Detective

03:12:09 welfare interviews with Detective Sergeant Morris? I think I don't I hope it doesn't sound uh tright, but I think um you know every time I met him there was

03:12:20 you know every time I met him there was an element of uh welfare. I'm asking you specifically about formal welfare interviews. Well, no. I I think um formal

03:12:34 Well, no. I I think um formal formal welfare interviews I I don't think they existed in in that period. Well, the reason I'm asking you is because the paperwork suggested they should have been happening.

03:12:47 should have been happening. But the evidence we have been receiving from undercover officers is to the effect they weren't actually happening. Yeah. Can I take it that your answer a

03:12:58 Yeah. Can I take it that your answer a moment ago is to the effect that you agree they weren't actually happening that they well no not really I just think you know some it's difficult to um

03:13:12 think you know some it's difficult to um pin down an informality but if it if it was the case that informal welfare help if that you know I think if

03:13:23 welfare help if that you know I think if that was effective Um, it can it can I think and sometimes could be was more effective than

03:13:34 could be was more effective than something that was well structured. But can I take it that the point you're making is just because there wasn't any formal welfare provision, it doesn't mean to say there was none at all.

03:13:48 mean to say there was none at all. Yes.

03:13:50 Yes. But it was ad hoc and informal. Yes.

03:13:55 Yes. Can we move now from Detective Sergeant Morris to Detective Sergeant HN1, please? Could we have up on screen? It's

03:14:06 please? Could we have up on screen? It's an MPS number 73014.

03:14:10 It's tab B151. Sir,

03:14:17 this is a file note. It's dated the 20th of May, 1996. Um,

03:14:26 Um, give you a moment just to look at this first page, but once you're ready, um, I'd like to go over to page two.

03:14:39 Oh, yeah. Thank you. Um,

03:14:47 yes, thank you. And if on page two we can have I'll give you a moment to look at it all but I'm interested in paragraphs four and five.

03:14:58 interested in paragraphs four and five. Um

03:15:00 Um I haven't

03:15:03 I haven't which they're not numbered. So the fourth and fifth one down the one that begins DC MC Moss D. Right.

03:15:11 Right. Yeah.

03:15:37 Yes. Yes. And if we could go over the page and look at the top of page three, please.

03:15:45 [snorts]

03:16:09 And then once you've looked at that, if we could zoom out and look at the update section

03:16:14 section and the first paragraph of the update section, please.

03:16:37 Yep. This is a device, isn't it, to bolster HN1's cover? Yes.

03:16:47 Yes. And what you are doing is you are you are arranging for a search warrant to be obtained from

03:16:59 for a search warrant to be obtained from the magistrate's court so that HN1's cover address can be searched in order to make it look to his target

03:17:10 in order to make it look to his target group as if he is a genuine activist uh of interest to the police. Yes. And that involved um

03:17:20 um misleading the magistrate's court in order to get a an arrest a search warrant on a false basis. Yes.

03:17:28 Yes. Uh and it involved misleading the arresting officer. Was any consideration given uh to the fact that you would be interfering with

03:17:40 fact that you would be interfering with the normal course of justice in those ways?

03:17:44 ways? Well, I think there would have been consideration um but clearly the um this course of action was followed

03:17:55 um this course of action was followed whatever you know whatever the so not enough consideration to tell the magistrates or to tell the arresting officer.

03:18:04 officer. Yes.

03:18:05 Yes. Because of the golden rule not to risk the operational security of the SDS. Well, not I don't think it's quite as direct as that. each I mean case by case

03:18:18 direct as that. each I mean case by case judgments. There are instances uh I think um that you will have heard where an an SDS manager has

03:18:29 an an SDS manager has um

03:18:31 um dulged

03:18:32 dulged information to uh I'm not I'm asking on this occasion why the magistrates and the arresting officer was misled. Was that to protect the operational security of the SDS?

03:18:46 Yes. Was any consideration given to what would have happened if HN1 had been charged?

03:18:54 charged? I think well I I can only recall what I've read briefly just now. I think um yeah, you know, yes, there would have

03:19:06 yeah, you know, yes, there would have been um

03:19:10 well, from from my point of view, um look, this is a this is a a course of action and um seeking um

03:19:22 seeking um seeking guidance and instruction. Whose idea was this? ruse. Um well, I don't remember, but I think

03:19:33 Um well, I don't remember, but I think um clearly I could, you know, I could well have um

03:19:42 helped to um

03:19:46 um you know, put put the idea together. I I I don't know. Excuse [clears throat] me. You've got a lot of experience of infiltrating animal

03:19:57 lot of experience of infiltrating animal rights activists as a result of your deployment. Yes.

03:20:03 Yes. Are you borrowing tactics and experiences from your deployment to assist HN1 to maintain cover and swim

03:20:14 assist HN1 to maintain cover and swim deeply?

03:20:16 deeply? Um quite you know quite possibly even probably but I think not. I don't think it would have been in sort isolation. I think there'd be

03:20:30 in sort isolation. I think there'd be sort quite a lot of expertise um available. Um but this has echoes, doesn't it, of what happened to you when you were deployed?

03:20:43 happened to you when you were deployed? This has echoes of what happened to you when you were deployed. Yes, of course. So my question is is your are we seeing here your experiences being put to use to protect HN1?

03:20:57 being put to use to protect HN1? Um I'm sure to some extent. Yes.

03:21:02 Can we take that down now? I want to move to Jeff Shepard now and the intelligence that HN1

03:21:13 intelligence that HN1 was providing about Jeff Shepard and in particular the events that lead to Mr. Shepherd being arrested and convicted of serious offenses.

03:21:26 serious offenses. From your witness statement, we understand essentially you are saying you have no recollection of HN1 reporting to you that Mr. Shepherd was in possession of a

03:21:39 that Mr. Shepherd was in possession of a shotgun, but you have no reason to doubt HN1's evidence that he did communicate that fact to SDS management before Mr.

03:21:51 that fact to SDS management before Mr. Shepard was arrested. Yes.

03:21:54 Yes. Can you help us as to how it comes to pass that if the S if SDS managers had been told that Shepherd had a shotgun

03:22:06 been told that Shepherd had a shotgun that the police who went to arrest him were unarmed? No, that is um No, that is a um a question that I

03:22:20 No, that is a um a question that I find myself asking and I I can't um

03:22:28 um I can't explain. On its face, it gives rise to a risk to the officers, doesn't it? Yes, of course. Yeah.

03:22:39 Yes, of course. Yeah. Was an assessment made that Mr. Shepherd was extremely unlikely to use the weapon on police and that on balance it would

03:22:50 on police and that on balance it would be better for operational for the operational security of the SDS that uniform police were not told about the shotgun.

03:23:00 shotgun. Well, it that sounds obviously plausible, but I I have no no recollection of it.

03:23:11 Can you recall any conversations with HN1

03:23:16 HN1 about improvised incendurary devices? No. Um,

03:23:23 No. Um, no I can't.

03:23:30 Did HN1 seek your advice as to how to proceed

03:23:37 proceed dealing with Jeff Shepard, a man with whom you had had considerable dealings? I think

03:23:45 I think well number one I think obviously we would have discussed Jeff Shepard um perhaps

03:23:56 Jeff Shepard um perhaps you know when I first rejoined uh the unit um and um I was learning about his role and um but I think at the

03:24:09 about his role and um but I think at the same time I was always quite conscious and careful not to um not to, you know, burden him with

03:24:23 not to, you know, burden him with um

03:24:25 um you know, my own um

03:24:30 my own um um time in the field. Um,

03:24:41 did you discuss with him how to strike the balance that we were looking at earlier today um when it came to direct action

03:24:53 um when it came to direct action in order to swim deeply enough to be accepted and trusted by serious activists? I I'm sure I I will have done and um

03:25:07 I I'm sure I I will have done and um when um when HN1

03:25:13 gives his account to this inquiry about um how he went about it. Um

03:25:24 um how he went about it. Um yes, I I could see I could see that he was achieving

03:25:33 achieving um the the right balance.

03:25:40 Did HN1 ever report to you or to anyone else in the SDS uh that there were plans to lay down an Incendra device on the

03:25:51 to lay down an Incendra device on the 27th of May? Um I don't know. I'm I'm sure that he didn't.

03:26:00 didn't. Did HN1 ever say anything to you about what Jeff Shepard was intending to do with the shotgun?

03:26:11 the shotgun? Um, not not um not prior to the arrest and after the arrest. Well, um

03:26:22 Well, um I I

03:26:24 I I I've read um report SDS reporting recently that presents a

03:26:35 presents a post arrest um state of affairs. Um so

03:26:45 I'm I'm familiar with that. Did he ever tell you that Mr. Shepherd was intending to use it to shoot Professor Colin Blakemore? Um, no. I I not that I have no

03:26:58 Um, no. I I not that I have no recollection of that.

03:27:02 This was an important event and an important deployment for the SDS, wasn't it?

03:27:09 it? Yes.

03:27:10 Yes. In your subject matter expertise. Yes. Can you give us a picture as events were developing of how closely you were working with HN1

03:27:25 of how closely you were working with HN1 as he

03:27:27 as he uh is

03:27:29 uh is infiltrating people who appear to be planning offenses to be claimed under the ALF banner.

03:27:40 the ALF banner. Um

03:27:44 yes, I I think um I would have you know I would have given him um

03:27:56 um encouragement to um

03:28:00 um develop the the friendships um that that he was doing. um and

03:28:13 um encouragement. Um

03:28:21 I can't honestly recall any sort of any specific detail. Now,

03:28:30 HN1 gave some evidence about approaching you um

03:28:37 you um on the question of sexual relationships. You deal with it in your witness statement and you say in your witness statement, I may have said that he would have to resolve it himself in a way to

03:28:51 have to resolve it himself in a way to ensure no suspicion arose as to his true identity.

03:28:57 identity. That's your evidence from your uh witness statement. If you wish to be reminded of the full context, I can bring it up. Okay. Yes, please. If you could have 36956,

03:29:11 page 109,

03:29:17 paragraph 190. Please

03:29:24 let me read that.

03:29:53 [snorts]

03:30:14 Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Did you ever ask HN1 whether he was engaged in a sexual relationship?

03:30:26 engaged in a sexual relationship? No.

03:30:27 No. Did he tell you?

03:30:31 Um, no. No, he didn't. HM1's evidence is that his relationship with Denise Fuller was known about by

03:30:42 with Denise Fuller was known about by SDS management. You sure you didn't know about it? I am sure.

03:30:53 Is this another example of you deliberately not asking?

03:31:00 Well, I don't know how much it relate, you know, how much it relates to that is it um but that clearly,

03:31:15 you know, clearly that was the approach that um I think I'm fair to say by uh DCI Edmonson and myself

03:31:27 by uh DCI Edmonson and myself uh at this time I think that was, [snorts]

03:31:32 [snorts] you know, that was our approach. Um, not to um encourage and uh not to um

03:31:43 not to um encourage and uh not to um um

03:31:45 um not to seek, you know, we did not ask these direct questions um rightly or wrongly. obviously wrongly I know now

03:31:56 wrongly. obviously wrongly I know now but uh that was I

03:31:59 I if we look at uh the bottom of that page where you think that you might have said he would have to resolve this himself in a way to ensure no suspicion arose as to

03:32:10 a way to ensure no suspicion arose as to his true identity that falls some way short of telling him not to get involved sexually doesn't it does yes

03:32:20 does yes and it leaves open um the door for HN1 one to get involved sexually if he thinks it's necessary to further his operation or protect his cover.

03:32:33 his operation or protect his cover. Um well I can I can see that potential and form a relationship he did as we now know.

03:32:41 know. Yes.

03:32:43 Yes. Did you suspect at all? Um,

03:32:50 Um, I think over a course of time I I I obviously, you know, I knew what the the risks um

03:33:00 risks um would be. Um, but no, I I did not have any, you know, I there was never any occasion

03:33:12 you know, I there was never any occasion that

03:33:13 that made me think or or realize that he he was involved in a sexual relationship. Is this another example of you

03:33:24 Is this another example of you giving guidance or improving guidance which leaves the door open for sexual relationships which you don't follow up because to you it does not matter one

03:33:35 because to you it does not matter one way or the other whether or not HN1 is in a sexual relationship. What matters is that he's advancing his operation and

03:33:47 is that he's advancing his operation and keeping the SDS safe. Well, I I can obviously

03:33:54 obviously accept today that that um was a consequence. Um,

03:34:02 Um, and at the time I think I just did not, you know, I did not really address I did, you know, I knew what the risks

03:34:14 I did, you know, I knew what the risks were for obvious reasons of the likelihood and I'm afraid it was just simply possible for me to

03:34:27 possible for me to deal

03:34:28 deal with my responsibilities as I saw it, operational security and I neglected um this

03:34:41 um this issue.

03:34:42 issue. Um

03:34:43 Um the ends justified the means. Big pun.

03:34:46 Big pun. The ends justified the means. Yes.

03:34:51 Yes. So would that be an appropriate moment to

03:34:55 to rise?

03:34:55 rise? Certainly. Um, we will [clears throat] resume again at 10:00 tomorrow. Will you be here promptly to resume your evidence? Yes. Thank you.

↩ All hearings