Michael Dell, the Detective Chief Inspector who managed the Metropolitan Police's Special Demonstration Squad from 2001 to 2005, gives evidence on his oversight of undercover deployments into groups including Reclaim the Streets, Globalised Resistance and the International Solidarity Movement. He addresses the legal test for "subversion", his closure of long-running operations, and repeated failures in the handover of information about officer compromises and sexual relationships. Counsel presses him hard on his admission that he never read the tradecraft manual's sections on alcohol, drugs and sexual liaison, despite directing officers to study it.
00:35:08 Good morning everybody. Uh today's proceedings uh like tomorrow's and the day afters will be live streamed but after a 15minute delay. Those with mobile devices may use them to report
00:35:19 mobile devices may use them to report what they hear in the hearing room but only uh after 15 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're reporting. They may not be used for recording or photography. May I make an alteration to
00:35:31 photography. May I make an alteration to the announcement that I made last week? We are sitting a normal full day tomorrow. Uh I explained the reason my wife's operation had to be postponed for
00:35:42 operation had to be postponed for reasons that I don't begin to understand. Thank you for your forbearance. [snorts] Yes.
00:35:48 Yes. Repeat after me. I swear by Almighty God I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth shall be the truth the whole truth the whole truth
00:35:59 the whole truth and nothing but the truth and nothing but the truth nothing but
00:36:04 it sit down um I'm afraid you have three long days ahead of you but uh we do have two breaks one in the middle of each session
00:36:12 session sure thank you sir thank you sir [laughter] can you give your full name please Michael Dale Bill, can we have up on screen your uh witness
00:36:23 can we have up on screen your uh witness statement? It's at MPS0749596,
00:36:29 page one behind tab A1, sir.
00:36:44 You made a statement to this inquiry dated the 12th of August 2024. Um, is it right that you would like to elaborate on something within that witness statement?
00:36:55 witness statement? Yes. At paragraph 230 to 232, please. Would you like to do that now? It relates to the timing of an incident when
00:37:05 when in his evidence, witness Carlos Saraki said he told me about his relationships with two women and that this was towards the end of 2003.
00:37:17 the end of 2003. When it was put to me at the rule nine preparation of the statement, I was taken a back and I couldn't remember that happening.
00:37:30 that happening. Um,
00:37:32 Um, since on reflection and looking at the evidence hearings and reading statements, I now realize I can pin that meeting down to between September
00:37:46 meeting down to between September 2001 and March 2002 and it was on a Monday. And and why is it now that you have a clearer recollection of the timing of that
00:37:57 recollection of the timing of that disclosure by Carlos Iraqi? Just piecing bits and pieces together. First of all, Carlo never at any time told me about his relationship with two women. If he had done so,
00:38:09 with two women. If he had done so, particularly at that stage anyway, he would have been shown the door.
00:38:16 what he told me. I gave my instruction to the plenary session of the uh the field officers on
00:38:28 session of the uh the field officers on a Thursday. On the Monday, he came to me and said that he'd had a sexual relationship with a woman who I established was not an
00:38:41 a woman who I established was not an activist.
00:38:43 activist. The relationship was ending. and so was his marriage. So it relates to one woman and it relates to that time period. I know it
00:38:55 relates to that time period. I know it was that time period because
00:38:59 because um it was the it was during the time that HN53 and I were beginning to investigate James Thompson and it was before James Thompson was
00:39:12 and it was before James Thompson was kicked off in March 2002. So it was in that in that early period and
00:39:21 and I am as certain as I can be that it would have been in September to October of 2001.
00:39:32 of 2001. And is that because of a particular global event that happened? Yes. 911.
00:39:36 Yes. 911. Okay.
00:39:37 Okay. And why do you remember it following fairly shortly after 9/11? 9 911 Thompson was going to Indonesia before the 9/11 event occurred.
00:39:50 the 9/11 event occurred. I was going with him because I'd already developed suspicions about him. So I thought, well, I'll go with him. And that was cancelled. Of course.
00:40:01 And that was cancelled. Of course. Thompson went to Indonesia
00:40:05 and HN53 had by this time begun his investigation into it.
00:40:15 We're going to come on to look at that in some detail a little bit later on. But what essentially you would like to do with your witness statement is make that a little clearer at paragraphs 230 and 232A
00:40:27 and 232A to say that that disclosure by Carlos Raki was just after Yes.
00:40:32 Yes. uh the 911 incident after James Thompson had been to Indonesia. So between end of September end of October 2001. Yes. And it's not just not just the
00:40:43 Yes. And it's not just not just the timing but the substance of it. He told me about one one woman. Okay. We understand at that time he would have been in a relationship with Lindsay.
00:40:54 been in a relationship with Lindsay. Yes.
00:40:55 Yes. The woman known to the inquiry as Lindsay.
00:40:57 Lindsay. Yes.
00:41:02 Looking at this witness statement then apart from that clarification do you stand by your witness statement and the contents therein do you say are true and correct to the best of your knowledge
00:41:13 correct to the best of your knowledge and belief? Yes I do and yes they are. Thank you. Looking first at your background, you joined the Metropolitan Police
00:41:24 you joined the Metropolitan Police Service 3rd of September 1979 and you'd worked before that for about 8 years as an economics teacher in adult education. Is that right? Yes.
00:41:34 Yes. You joined Southall Uniformed Duties and Crime Squad. Yeah.
00:41:39 Yeah. And you were in that role from 1979 to 1984.
00:41:43 1984. Yes.
00:41:45 Yes. And at your witness statement, page two, paragraph 5,
00:41:59 we can see that you you talk about that in some detail. Yeah.
00:42:05 Yeah. In terms of your experience of policing a diverse community, were you
00:42:15 uh in that position at the time of Blair Peach's killing when he was struck by a police baton and died following a march on St. George's Day the 23rd of April
00:42:26 on St. George's Day the 23rd of April 1979.
00:42:28 1979. No, I haven't joined the job. In fact, I was shopping in South Hall on the very same day.
00:42:33 same day. You recall that happening? Yes.
00:42:36 Yes. And do you recall the impact that that had on the community that you were serving in? Yes. Well, I I I actually joined what 8 n well was posted to South Hall 8 n months later.
00:42:48 months later. And yes, there's [clears throat] obviously uh an atmosphere of tension. It wasn't
00:42:58 It wasn't it wasn't individual relationships between the police and the community. It was how the community felt. it was being dealt with by the police as a whole
00:43:11 dealt with by the police as a whole because the Blair Peach thing as you as you will know uh the incident there was part of a pattern of right-wing national fronts
00:43:22 pattern of right-wing national fronts infiltration 76 79
00:43:26 76 79 81
00:43:28 81 where the police were not being seen to protect the community if you like I can go on about it but the dayto-day relationship ships with the individual police officers as I
00:43:41 individual police officers as I experienced in 4 and 1/2 years there were pretty were were pretty good. They just felt let down by the police as a whole.
00:43:49 whole. There was uh the Race Relations Act 1976 had just come into force not long before that, but it didn't apply to operational policing at the time. Was there any training that you had uh
00:44:02 Was there any training that you had uh in relation to race discrimination awareness? Not at that, but I don't know if you're going to go on, but I can certainly give you my background to my awareness of the
00:44:14 you my background to my awareness of the notions of institutional racism, which which which predate the police by about 30 or 40 years. Well, if you can give us that in brief,
00:44:25 Well, if you can give us that in brief, that would be helpful. Well,
00:44:29 Well, a pictorial memory is the Los Angeles Olympics, the medal podium. Two American athletes on the medal podium, Tommy Smith, John Carlos, Buff
00:44:42 podium, Tommy Smith, John Carlos, Buff Black,
00:44:44 Black, bowing their heads, raising their fists as the American flags were raised. We bow our heads to the American flags, but we raise our fists to the notion of
00:44:56 we raise our fists to the notion of black power. And black power wasn't about um violent revolution. It was having a share in a society which
00:45:09 It was having a share in a society which Stokeley Carmichael had identified was structurally racist and on that point he differed from Martin Luther King. So, I'd been aware of, but that's the
00:45:20 I'd been aware of, but that's the pictorial memory. I've been aware of Stolley Carmichael um and I forget his co-author um making that distinction and arguing
00:45:32 um making that distinction and arguing with Martin Luther King about racism. Martin Luther King was intent. These people are bad. They intend to be racist.
00:45:42 racist. So did you have a sense when you were working in the police in Southall in the 70s
00:45:48 70s and early 80s that there was institutional racism within the police the police service at that time? I followed an academic course for a couple of years in the mid 80s and I'm
00:46:01 couple of years in the mid 80s and I'm going to answer your question but it was there that I first came across the academics who in certain circumstances when they were discussing racism they'd pick out Brixton and South
00:46:13 racism they'd pick out Brixton and South as two opposing examples of how racism is manifest but also how it impacts the community and police community relations.
00:46:25 relations. So that in Brixton you have a a long running a chronic resentment of the way individuals were being policed
00:46:37 being policed and the discontent was simmering so chronic whereas in Southall it was it was sporadic but explosive. And did
00:46:48 it was sporadic but explosive. And did you see those as legitimate concerns that the community had because of the conduct of police officers at that time? Yes, because each time they were literally invaded by the National Front.
00:47:00 literally invaded by the National Front. The Blair Peach thing was um Blair Peach as you well know uh responding to provocation by the National Front holding an election meeting at South
00:47:11 holding an election meeting at South Hall Town Hall on the 23rd of April. So sticking with this uh uh idea of institutional racism when that was uh
00:47:22 institutional racism when that was uh part of the McFersonen report later on in 1998 following Steven Lawrence's Yes. uh uh death did you accept that you understood that to be true did you?
00:47:33 to be true did you? Yes. And I think unfortunately from your own experiences Yes. I think unfortunately both [snorts] sides for one of a better framing of it both sides have misinterpreted what he was on about.
00:47:47 misinterpreted what he was on about. People like my colleagues me would say look I'm not racist. What's it got to do with me? But McFersonen wasn't saying that.
00:47:56 that. But similarly those who were really pleased that he had espoused the notion of institutional racism compared to Scarman who hadn't.
00:48:09 racism compared to Scarman who hadn't. They were in fact saying how can you deny that there are incidents of individual races? How can you put forward the bad apple argument when
00:48:22 forward the bad apple argument when everybody knows that if you are a policeman you must be racism? So they've got it wrong and it was like a a reinvention of the notion of original sin for anybody who was brought up a Catholic.
00:48:33 Catholic. So So you you understood it to to uh uh recognize that the structures in place, the decisions and the policies that were applied uh were racist in in nature and
00:48:45 applied uh were racist in in nature and the impact it had on uh uh non-white people within the decision and procedures. the difference between Steltley Carmichael Blackpower and Martin Luther King. Going back to your uh chronology, 1984
00:48:59 Going back to your uh chronology, 1984 to 1987, you were posted to Wembley as part of the core team there. Is that right?
00:49:04 right? Yes.
00:49:05 Yes. And then you were part of the territorial support group from 1987 to 1990.
00:49:11 1990. Yes, I joined it on its foundation. Yeah.
00:49:14 Yeah. What was your uh experience of public order policing then at that stage? Did you were you policing some of the the big demonstrations of the day? We were level one public order trained
00:49:26 We were level one public order trained and we had refresher training every 3 weeks.
00:49:31 weeks. Our core function at demonstrations was to be a reserve. Scarman had noted how the the problems at Brixham festered and went over into riots because there
00:49:43 went over into riots because there wasn't uh an immediate resolution of the immediate problem which was public order. So we would spend a lot of our time in reserve
00:49:54 time in reserve so that if a decisive intervention was required we would make it and we would do it properly. But you had an understanding of public order policing from being on the ground, from being at
00:50:06 from being on the ground, from being at at the at the event. Were [snorts] you at Trafalga Square on the 31st of March 1990, which was the pole tax uh demo in Trafalga Square? No, we were off. We could see it coming
00:50:19 No, we were off. We could see it coming and
00:50:21 and the the job wanted to save money. So, it kept the TSG on their rest days, borrowed all their vans and equipment, including 12 of our vans, which were all
00:50:33 including 12 of our vans, which were all wrecked. And so, that wasn't handled properly because there was one TSG unit, the commissioner's reserve unit, on duty that day.
00:50:43 that day. What was the view of public order TSG people on the ground towards the left wing during such demos? Oh, it didn't make any difference for was leftwing or rightwing. I was I was I
00:50:54 was leftwing or rightwing. I was I was I remember one demonstration in PE in Pekkham when a colleague said to me, if this lot and it was the national front, if this lot had two brain cells, they'd be dangerous, wouldn't they?
00:51:05 be dangerous, wouldn't they? I I I think I would urge people just to sit back a bit and think and think that the police just might have had a broader view than oh they are leftwing therefore
00:51:16 view than oh they are leftwing therefore they are the baddies. It's just a nonsense
00:51:20 nonsense that the greater violence actually came from the right wing. Did you have any sense of undercover policing from special branch feeding
00:51:31 policing from special branch feeding into uh public order policing at the time? Were you aware of intel informing the police, the public order policing response to such damage? There was always an SB threat
00:51:42 There was always an SB threat assessment, but not of undercover policing. No knowledge of that at all. You joined Special Branch as an inspector in October 1991 and you worked
00:51:53 inspector in October 1991 and you worked on various squads. Yes. Once you joined special branch, you were part of S squad as a detective chief inspector from May 1999 to May
00:52:04 chief inspector from May 1999 to May 2001. Yes, that's the posting you had immediately before becoming a manager of the SDS. Is that right? Um, looking at your witness statement then at page three, paragraph five,
00:52:20 uh, and over the page to page seven, sorry, paragraph 7,
00:52:31 sorry, paragraph 7, we can see that you say you received daily intelligence product from the SDS in that role. Yes.
00:52:40 Yes. taking care over to what intelligence you got. How was that intelligence used in respect specifically in relation to public order?
00:52:54 I think it's a good good time to correct a false notion that Peter Francis might have given about what an SB was about. And SB was not about collect
00:53:07 And SB was not about collect C squad SB was not about collecting intelligence with a view to turning it into either evidence or operational um material.
00:53:19 um material. The point of an SB as regards C squad was was the creation of a database on individuals with as much detail as you could afford.
00:53:32 with as much detail as you could afford. Now, I'm not saying that's the right thing to do or the the bad thing to do, but that was it. This notion of we would try to avoid opening a file on someone
00:53:45 try to avoid opening a file on someone um is erroneous. A file is just a cardboard collection of things. If an individual has their own file, then there's someone of interest. But there
00:53:56 there's someone of interest. But there wasn't an automatic um four mentions in records and you get a file. No, SB records would nudge you and say this person's getting a lot of
00:54:07 and say this person's getting a lot of mentions just so you know. And I could then say now for a comprehensive report on this person or yeah, okay, that's fine. This person could have 200 mentions of no interest to us. So where
00:54:21 mentions of no interest to us. So where did it all go? it went to the relevant desk to build up these profiles um of activists and obviously it's been the subject of much evidence.
00:54:33 the subject of much evidence. And is it right then that the files were on individuals as opposed to on groups? Oh, there were groups as well. Yeah.
00:54:39 Yeah. And how did those files on individuals uh how did they how were they destroyed? Was there a destruction policy? There was a there was a a review policy which
00:54:51 was a there was a a review policy which was managed by records but it was you um in in my time DCI because we didn't the chief superintendence had been long ago
00:55:02 chief superintendence had been long ago rationalized we didn't have one it came down to me whether to retain it review it in a year but there was a there was a an automatic RBF system where a file
00:55:13 an automatic RBF system where a file would come down in any event to you for review and you would decide should keep it? Should we send it to public records? Should it be destroyed? Should we review it in a year? Should we update it?
00:55:26 it in a year? Should we update it? Were you ever aware of lawyers for uh activists having a file, an SB file? And I'm thinking specifically about Michael Mansfield QC as he was then.
00:55:37 Mansfield QC as he was then. Yes. I I I wasn't myself then. I've heard that Mr. Mansfield had a file from this hearing and I think since the ' 70s.
00:55:45 70s. Yeah. Um,
00:55:46 Yeah. Um, so you were there in 199 2001. So this is just at the end of the McFersonen inquiry.
00:55:54 inquiry. Do you recall having a file on Michael Mansfield
00:55:57 Mansfield in 1991?
00:55:59 in 1991? Sorry, in 1999 1999 to 2001 you were in I don't recall ever Mr. Mansfield's file coming across my desk. So I I know from this inquiry that he's
00:56:11 So I I know from this inquiry that he's got a file. That's the only reason I know he has a file. I don't share the view that he was a devil incarnate. And I remember going out my way to attend a presentation he gave at the yard to a couple of hundred people
00:56:26 yard to a couple of hundred people because we had invited him in. We wanted to for him to tell us how useless we were at doing our job.
01:30:46 Please MPS 00003126.
01:30:54 Mr. Dell, this was not in the bundle that was supplied to you with your rule 9 request. Yes.
01:31:00 Yes. But um it is a note that was written up by Noel War, one of the DS's in uh 2000. following a meeting with you on this
01:31:12 following a meeting with you on this 17th of March 2000.
01:31:21 Sorry. In fact, the meeting with you came just shortly after that first meeting on the 17th of March 2000. It was prior to you joining SDS in that you were in C squad and you're recorded as
01:31:34 were in C squad and you're recorded as taking pl as being present at a meeting with Noah War regarding the RTS Reclaim the Streets Mayday Extravaganza 2000.
01:31:59 Um, bear with me while I find your name in this
01:32:04 this document.
01:32:10 Yes, [snorts] it's the this uh penultimate paragraph.
01:32:15 So there's a discussion about um the Mayday parade in 2000. What activities are going to take place there? What organizations are involved?
01:32:29 there? What organizations are involved? Uh PD is a reference to Psycho Dream which was HN14. Yes.
01:32:35 Yes. And RH was a reference to Red Herring, which was uh HN3. J Jason Bishop. Yes.
01:32:42 Yes. HM14 being Jim Boiling if you recall. Yeah.
01:32:46 Yeah. Um and there was a discussion about leaflets being provided and what was going to be done with those um and the involvement of those two officers in the Mayday 2000
01:32:58 officers in the Mayday 2000 demonstration.
01:33:02 The meeting that took place subsequently that's referred to in the penultimate paragraph. Yeah. is a meeting that Noel War had with TN19
01:33:14 with TN19 and TN20.
01:33:18 You can look at your cipher list if you need to to recall who those two people are. And Mike Dell. Yeah.
01:33:25 Yeah. Um and the discussion was about the legal viability of such searches. The proposal was that police were going to search a property uh with the leaflets
01:33:36 search a property uh with the leaflets in it that had been uh provided and and and couriered if you like by Psycho Dream HM14. Yeah.
01:33:46 Yeah. And ra a property containing those leaflets.
01:33:51 leaflets. Goes on to say that the matter will be raised with solicitors department for a definitive answer in relation to the legality of that search. But should it be deemed nonviable
01:34:02 be deemed nonviable then the same names will be subject to a fairly overt series of stops or surveillance and general harassment. The names that are being rel referred to
01:34:14 The names that are being rel referred to there are those that are in bold in the paragraph proceeding people who were involved in in RTS.
01:34:25 It goes on to say in that penultimate paragraph, we will need to leers closely on this to ensure that we have control of certain elements of such action, but overall such a resolution should not
01:34:36 overall such a resolution should not only seriously disrupt the organization of the Mayday event, but also materially assist PD Psycho Dream in his withdrawal strategy. So there's a sense that we're
01:34:49 strategy. So there's a sense that we're trying to disrupt the organization of their RTS's activities at the Mayday event
01:34:56 event and
01:34:58 and uh uh uh at the same time assist PD in his withdrawal strategy. So there's an operational reason for doing that as well.
01:35:09 well. Um [snorts] the Mayday event is an annual event, a big demonstration uh supported by trade unions. Uh something that is known to police well in advance
01:35:22 police well in advance a yearly event. Various political groups will attend and that's that was known to the police and the SDS. Is that a fair a fair assessment? Yeah.
01:35:36 Um, in terms of disrupting the activities of RTS, is that something that you were keen to happen? Is that is that an objective
01:35:49 to happen? Is that is that an objective both of C squad and SDS? Is that what is being relayed here by this note? Not an overall objective. And sorry for
01:36:00 Not an overall objective. And sorry for the same old line, but I've only got a hazy recollection of this. I can only uh deduce that it's in the context of a previous Mayday demonstration. Would it be J18?
01:36:12 be J18? Um where there was serious disorder a couple of years previously. And we know that HN14 HN3 were in rel involved in that as well. J18, weren't
01:36:24 involved in that as well. J18, weren't they?
01:36:25 they? I I don't know. I I assume I assume so. Um
01:36:36 the matter bill will be raised with solicitor's department. I'm that would have been my line anyway. I'm sure that would have been me um to check whether the
01:36:49 to check whether the um the action in disrupting the their activities would have been lawful. Yes, indeed. C can you recall what the outcome of that was?
01:36:56 was? No, I can't. No, no idea. But certainly that was the objective for that event. Is that fair to say? Yes. It was to it was to mitigate um the
01:37:09 Yes. It was to it was to mitigate um the the expected disorder. So it wasn't a question of disrupt the organization. I didn't write this. I wouldn't have written it the same. It was to mitigate the the possible
01:37:21 It was to mitigate the the possible effects of disorder. Not to disrupt them, not to stop them doing what they wanted to do. just for for us to get a grip.
01:37:30 grip. Were there any other meetings like this? Can I just say I wouldn't associate myself with the last line? Well, I was going to go on to that as well. The bit that suggests that C squad
01:37:41 well. The bit that suggests that C squad were delighted with such developments and and uh we're sure in turn that uniform will relish the opportunity to be let off the lead. What's being conveyed there?
01:37:52 conveyed there? It's that typical pon SB ponch for poetic license. Um, I just wouldn't have written that. I mean, that that is nonsense. Uniform will relish the challenge of being let
01:38:03 will relish the challenge of being let off the leash by SB. It's just silly. Was there a sense that uh that TO20 were being
01:38:14 were being fed information about individuals whom they would then seek to target during a demonstration like this to harass and to prevent them from taking part in a
01:38:25 prevent them from taking part in a public demonstration? No, not at that time. Um
01:38:32 the information TO20 would get would be very generic. And
01:38:38 And would you have recognized that at this time as being an interference with those individuals rights to assemble and uh
01:38:49 individuals rights to assemble and uh demonstrate 10 and 11? Yes. Yes, I would. And I I would I would hold it was necessary in the circumstances. Traffic passes along a road, but sometimes the police have to stop you
01:39:00 sometimes the police have to stop you exercising your right to drive down the road. So the demonstration itself was a a lawful
01:39:07 a lawful restriction on on other people's rights to use the road for instance. Uh yes. Yeah. No, I was meaning that as a as a metaphor. Um
01:39:19 a as a metaphor. Um the intention was not to stop the event. It was to mitigate the potential disorder and to water it down a bit. That's what I'm deducing from this
01:39:32 That's what I'm deducing from this because
01:39:33 because I can remember very little of what went on on C squad. I can the SDS but not not so much C squad. Do you recall other meetings like this where um SDS would
01:39:46 meetings like this where um SDS would meet with C Squad in the run-up to a big event and look at how as you say the the demo might be mitigated or any public disorder being
01:39:57 mitigated or any public disorder being mitigated or the event be disrupted itself?
01:40:02 itself? Uh, when I say I can't recall any, that doesn't mean to say it didn't happen, but um I can't give you examples of it.
01:40:13 but um I can't give you examples of it. Um, MPS000036265,
01:40:17 please. Again, I'm sorry, this one was not in the bundle supplied to you at the at the time of year 9. It's a let it's later on. It's when your uh DCI within
01:40:30 later on. It's when your uh DCI within the SDS
01:40:33 the SDS and it's a file note from the 24th of August 2004
01:40:40 in relation to Ring Wraith which was HN18
01:40:44 HN18 and a potential compromise. Yes.
01:40:47 Yes. In relation to him. Yes.
01:40:53 Yes. Yes. I'm familiar with that. Yeah. Okay. And you recognize that the group globalized resistance. Oh yes. Yes. Can we go to page three please? Paragraph two.
01:41:10 this reference to um your actions to take place consider with C squad whether we should leave globalized resistance intact or through
01:41:23 globalized resistance intact or through ring wraith mount a destructive operation. Yeah, if we can just decrease that please.
01:41:32 I can see that this is a note this time authored by you. What we what did you mean by that? A mount destructive operation.
01:41:43 This note had an audience of one and that was commander Janet Williams. She was very new to the branch and naturally for any outsider coming in
01:41:55 naturally for any outsider coming in with
01:41:56 with couldn't be expected to have a grasp of the ins and outs of all the individual groups.
01:42:02 groups. This briefing note was addressed to her to illustrate that we were in control of Ringra. There was no threat to him
01:42:13 of Ringra. There was no threat to him because she was extremely worried about his personal safety. And I demonstrated the the line of options that we could do if we wished
01:42:25 options that we could do if we wished to illustrate that no, we are controlling this is perfectly safe. As an aside, the last thing I would want to do was
01:42:36 the last thing I would want to do was disrupt globalized resistance because just as they would start again, we'd have to start all over again. There'd be absolutely no point in doing that. But it was to establish to a person whose
01:42:47 it was to establish to a person whose experience was different that we were in control and he is safe because I had quite um a difficult time
01:42:58 because I had quite um a difficult time when he was compromised in terms of like Commander Williams wanted him to be accompanied by a surveillance team, a team uh to intervene if there were
01:43:12 team uh to intervene if there were trouble when he was being confronted. with his um activities by globalized resistance. She wanted him to wear an alarm on him with panic alarm and all
01:43:23 alarm on him with panic alarm and all the rest. Okay. And that was quite natural. I could see that from an outsider and so was was it something that you knew you could do if you wanted to?
01:43:36 do if you wanted to? I I wouldn't know how to. How would I disrupt? How would I do a destructive operation on globalized resistance lawfully, unlawfully, and in the Peter
01:43:47 lawfully, unlawfully, and in the Peter Francis world? I would I would smear them or something. I that's fantasy. What about um creating discord within
01:43:59 What about um creating discord within the group itself amongst the organizers? Why?
01:44:03 Why? Interpersonal relationships. Was that anything that you recall having being considered during your time during SDS? No. How would you do How would you do that?
01:44:14 that? What a waste of time. You wouldn't want to do it. This was for an audience of one. Would would would a purpose for doing it, a motivation for doing it be to
01:44:27 it, a motivation for doing it be to mitigate their um activi activities? to mitigate their involvement in no public demonstrations or um direct action.
01:44:38 action. No, I mean you haven't got long enough, but I could go back to the 60s and when they were known as the international socialists, I was a student. I got I
01:44:49 socialists, I was a student. I got I think their outlook from the left is damn sight more coherent than a lot of groups and I have a lot of sympathy with what they're saying. I just think they come to the wrong conclusions. So, I'm
01:45:01 come to the wrong conclusions. So, I'm not in any way prejudiced against them. And in operational terms, why would I bite my nose off to spite my face?
01:45:14 bite my nose off to spite my face? The next uh bullet point down acknowledges the the obvious political nature of SDS policing. Would you would you say that that is a fair assessment?
01:45:33 Yes, I mean that takes me back to Gro Square and again um I'm a student at the time and I the feeling was the government just did not know what was going on. France was in 3 days of the
01:45:47 going on. France was in 3 days of the French Republic was going to fall in 3 days. Is it going to happen here? Unless you were alive at the time, you couldn't imagine the febrile atmosphere.
01:45:59 atmosphere. And yes, and it's I'm having a bit of a dig there given its failure to understand the political world outside General orders. General Orders is the
01:46:12 Orders is the Bismar's New Model Army manual of how you tie your shoelaces to uh what you do in the event of a nuclear war. It would tell you everything you wanted
01:46:24 It would tell you everything you wanted to know know if you were of a bureaucratic mind that you needed to be told.
01:46:30 told. And I'm having a bit of a dig there and saying that the political world is a bit more complex than what's in general orders.
01:46:37 orders. In terms of the last bullet point, you say that you acknowledge in terms of closing operations which are no longer valid for whatever reason. my staff and I to the cost of our own mental
01:46:48 I to the cost of our own mental equilibrium have are pleased to stand by our record in terms of that. You've talked about the political environment. Um obviously by 200 uh for the date of
01:47:00 Um obviously by 200 uh for the date of this note political environment is not that Febal uh state it was in back in ' 68.
01:47:07 68. Were you of a mind that there were operations that were no longer valid around that time and that you should consider closing them?
01:47:18 consider closing them? Yes, I did. Um, being being very careful now as to uh uh closed areas. I closed HN77s and I had the intention to close four
01:47:32 and I had the intention to close four others.
01:47:33 others. Um, do you want the HN numbers? Um, if you want to write them down, please.
01:47:40 please. Yeah.
01:47:53 Train.
01:48:26 [clears throat]
01:48:48 Thank you.
01:49:03 Thank you.
01:49:22 You mention that's in addition to HN77 who are closed.
01:49:25 closed. You mentioned there HN60 that we know uh was David Evans. Yeah.
01:49:34 Yeah. And HN3 we know is J Jason Bishop. Yeah. And in terms of closing those operations, what were your considerations around that?
01:49:46 considerations around that? In the in in the in relation to those two, there were residual
01:49:52 residual uh public order requirements and I'd wanted to replace HN3 with 77
01:50:03 and I'd wanted to replace HN3 with 77 to fulfill that residual residual requirement. I didn't want to set off a new officer on a new four or 5 year term because after this the public order
01:50:14 because after this the public order requirement in middle of 2005 had been fulfilled
01:50:19 fulfilled then
01:50:20 then 77 would leave and HN3 would would have left. HN60 was
01:50:31 was um I had to resist in fact extending his his tenure in relation to the activities um well
01:50:44 um well there was a particular focus of activity for the animal rights groups which was popping up again and I was asked by I think Chief Superintendent Mitchell
01:50:56 by I think Chief Superintendent Mitchell I think on behalf half of Commander Williams, would I retask HN60 or task him in into that area? And I said, and my answer was, no, we've
01:51:08 And I said, and my answer was, no, we've got every we've gone as far as we can. Prosecution is the next thing. You need a criminal undercover in there to get the evidence. And why why um why why at the cost of your
01:51:22 why why um why why at the cost of your own mental equilibrium? Just looking at this final bullet point. Yeah, had had a bit of a I think it's on on record. It had a difficult time with HN77.
01:51:33 had a difficult time with HN77. And in terms of standing by our record, was there a a sense that it's better to keep people out in the field? What what was the record? Was it that Oh, no. No.
01:51:44 Oh, no. No. Okay. What's Oh, it was the record of of dealing with things. Thompson had gone. Um, HN77
01:51:54 Um, HN77 was going at this time. And
01:51:58 And so your record you're saying is uh closing down those operations which are no longer valid. Yeah.
01:52:06 Um, you mentioned just a moment ago about not wanting to cut your nose off to spite your face in relation to globalized resistance. Was there a sense that it was better to
01:52:17 Was there a sense that it was better to keep somebody going because it would be much harder to start in another group from scratch? What did you mean by that? Keep it going but not destroy it. Um
01:52:33 there would be no reason to destroy it. Um
01:52:37 Um no no that was that was me saying I've got these options. I am powerful if you like and I choose not to do that. I choose to keep him on in this area and
01:52:52 I choose to keep him on in this area and Janet Williams had legitimate concerns and I was assuaging those. Was there any sense by this point then at 2004
01:53:02 at 2004 that the SDS was struggling to justify its continued existence at all? not the SDS but its deployments in particular areas and that is not a criticism of my
01:53:13 areas and that is not a criticism of my predecessors. 911 was the turning point and
01:53:20 and coinciding with an everinccreasing extreme right-wing threat and it the direction was obvious. You all you had to do was lift your chin up and
01:53:33 you had to do was lift your chin up and look at things. In terms of your experience, you didn't serve as a UCO, did you?
01:53:39 did you? No.
01:53:40 No. You had experience of handling sources. Yes.
01:53:44 Yes. Um, you talk in paragraph 27 of your witness statement about the pl uh plural plurality of perspectives brought about by either the DI or the DCI being of a
01:53:57 by either the DI or the DCI being of a non uh undercover background. Yes. And how do you say that impacted upon the management of the SDS? It was the the different perspectives offered. I actually put in a briefing
01:54:09 offered. I actually put in a briefing note about the same thing that
01:54:15 the branch was like any other organization which until 1991 uh promoted within itself. It had its
01:54:26 uh promoted within itself. It had its own promotion system and it ex I thought the people I worked with were excellent but obviously any organization which is inward-looking becomes insular becomes subject to group
01:54:39 becomes insular becomes subject to group think.
01:54:40 think. Um
01:54:42 Um and so an injection of somebody from outside of that group will bring a different wider perspective. Yeah. You make a former UC as a manager and he's more likely to run the outfit
01:54:53 and he's more likely to run the outfit as it was run when he was a UC as I see it. The SDS was evolving all the time. Not quickly, not quickly enough. That's I share my blame the
01:55:06 enough. That's I share my blame the blame for that. But it was evolving and I thought that HM53 who had been a UC the DI and I I think we knitted together
01:55:17 the DI and I I think we knitted together quite well as a partnership in terms of differing perspectives. And I don't buy this notion that if if you've never fallen under a bus, you don't know that it hurts. You know, it's um
01:55:31 it hurts. You know, it's um it's a very myopic view. Did you have the sense that the undercover officers that you managed could come to you and would come to you with issues that they were having in the course of their
01:55:43 were having in the course of their deployment? Yes, I think I think that was if I had to evaluate myself that was possibly my strongest suit and that not having been a UC I think I can say it didn't hamper
01:55:57 a UC I think I can say it didn't hamper me.
01:55:59 me. I'd [snorts] like to ask you about your understanding of subversion. Yes. Um, at paragraph 19A of your witness statement on page eight, you talk about subversion
01:56:15 referring to actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary uh, democracy. Yes, paraphrasing. Yes, we can see that that's consistent with the security services statutory duties
01:56:28 the security services statutory duties under the security services act of 1989. Yeah,
01:56:32 Yeah, that's a definition would you agree that depends solely on intent and not potency. So it's not looking at the actual capabilities of a group
01:56:43 actual capabilities of a group but looking at what their intention might be.
01:56:46 might be. The potency one takes us back to 68. No one knew what was happening. They knew a demonstration was going to happen in the March of 68,
01:56:57 in the March of 68, but they
01:57:00 but they for the big one the 27th of October 68 was the was the problem is this what is the point? Is it going to cause trouble?
01:57:11 the point? Is it going to cause trouble? Uh and and strangely there was a bit of trouble but it was a massive demonstration which was largely troublefree. [snorts]
01:57:21 [snorts] The 1984 Home Office guidelines on special branch work in the UK refer to threatening the safety or well-being of the state. Yes.
01:57:31 Yes. So, it's a a difference observed actually in in uh the next subp paragraph of of your witness statement if we can bring that up. And it goes over and there's the economic well-being. Yeah,
01:57:42 Yeah, exactly. And it that paragraph [laughter] if we can have it side by side on the screen goes over leaf. 19b and you can see that the only difference essentially is that
01:57:55 the only difference essentially is that um the home office guidelines includes activities which threaten the safety or wellbeing. Yes.
01:58:01 Yes. Uh of the state. Um the 1994 guidelines which would have been in place when you took over management of the SDS are behind MPS
01:58:12 management of the SDS are behind MPS 0727509.
01:58:22 page five, paragraph 23
01:58:27 behind tab B 24 uh just for reference, [sighs]
01:58:32 [sighs] fourth bullet point there
01:58:37 talks about threatening national security.
01:58:40 security. Yeah.
01:58:41 Yeah. your your your understanding of subversion. Does it follow that you considered the requirement to threaten the state? Yeah.
01:58:50 Yeah. Didn't add anything beyond the intention to overthrow parliamentary democracy.
01:59:00 Um I I I'm not sure I understand the the premise of that. Was it in your mind when when you were thinking about subversion? Yeah. was a serious consideration
01:59:13 serious consideration in your view the the capability of a group or individuals to actually threaten the state threaten national security or threaten the well-being uh of a of the nation.
01:59:25 of a of the nation. Yeah, I see what you mean. Um, I'd always regarded the socialist view group became the IS became SWP as never in any sense
01:59:38 as never in any sense being capable capable of overthrowing the state. And I and I think I can speak for them in saying that neither did they. That was not part of their philosophy and strategy.
01:59:50 philosophy and strategy. They're the the the driving force behind um S SWP is the notion of the revolutionary Carter straight out of the Cuban revolution where a small group of
02:00:04 Cuban revolution where a small group of people politicize in in the Vietnam War days educate in the 2026 days other people and through through things like
02:00:17 people and through through things like anti-racism anti-fascism um um ind industrial activity
02:00:27 uh revolution comes from below and at no point is anybody by the way suggesting we're going to get the guillotine out and put it in Parliament Square. They're not saying that it's a revolution in a system.
02:00:39 system. And did you consider that to be a real threat at the time when you were managing the SDS? Not not that as a threat. My interest was in the people who were coming into
02:00:50 was in the people who were coming into the SWP and finding it was too tame for them. And that's why in refocusing the unit, I would have had just one person there to cover the that
02:01:02 just one person there to cover the that broad left. But it's the people who join the BMP and find it's not violent enough. to go off into combat 18 and activists who pass through the SWP
02:01:14 and activists who pass through the SWP who might be thinking this is just a a bourgeoa talking shop uh bourgeoa socialism. Moving to page three of this document, the the 1994
02:01:26 three of this document, the the 1994 guidelines, we can see at paragraph 11 [laughter]
02:01:37 on page three.
02:01:44 There's
02:01:53 Around the middle of the page, we can see counter sub subversion there. It says special branches will continue to investigate subvers subversive activity though as with counter espionage at a
02:02:04 though as with counter espionage at a level commensurate with the current much much reduced threat. Yeah.
02:02:09 Yeah. Did you recognize that was a much reduced threat? Yes. When I was on ES squad, I remember discussing it with HM58 who was on C squad at the time. They'd received the
02:02:20 squad at the time. They'd received the letter from the security service. Um
02:02:25 Um so, so, so from 94 onwards at least there's a much reduced threat. Yes.
02:02:30 Yes. Um
02:02:31 Um from the left and obviously that's post global politics, isn't it? With the fall of the the Soviet Union and Berlin wall and that sort of thing. um by 2004.
02:02:42 um by 2004. So now we're post 911 in 2001. It's behind uh tab B165 UCPI
02:02:53 UCPI 2789 please page 4.
02:03:20 Paragraph 4, uh, sorry, page four, uh, paragraph 7. We can see then essentially the same
02:03:31 We can see then essentially the same uh gist is that little potential for any group to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy and this is 2004 so 3 years into your tenure.
02:03:45 so 3 years into your tenure. So again, was that in your mind? I think you've explained already that this is not something that was the focus uh uh that you had under your management.
02:03:57 that you had under your management. It was it was not a focus I didn't have. Sorry.
02:04:02 Sorry. Yeah. That it it was something that you didn't you didn't have a focus on this uh subversive activity as being has been something that needed to be reported on. Not quite the opposite. Um, I would have
02:04:15 Not quite the opposite. Um, I would have had difficulty in justifying the existence of SB if it were just for public order. I would have I would have had great difficulty supporting that notion.
02:04:26 difficulty supporting that notion. Ours was the police officer walking down the street 3 in the morning to prevent burglaries, to see if burglaries have occurred. We were there
02:04:39 burglaries have occurred. We were there only 10 of them. We were there to be able to answer the question
02:04:47 question what's happening what might happen. So it's this sense of trying to identify any of those individuals that you you earlier identified as that this idea of
02:04:59 earlier identified as that this idea of the revolutionary card rate that it's you know you've got somebody in place. If somebody happens to come in that has the personality to mobilize the group in
02:05:10 the personality to mobilize the group in a different direction, that's that's what the purpose of the SDS was essentially to raise that flag. Yes, indeed. Uh
02:05:19 Uh okay.
02:05:23 In that sense then, in that context, did counter subversion work in the form that the SDS took it? Yeah. Yeah. UCO's infiltrating groups longterm.
02:05:35 UCO's infiltrating groups longterm. Yeah.
02:05:36 Yeah. Did it was that warranted
02:05:42 for that purpose that you've described identifying the revolutionary card or was that disproportionate uh given the risk that there was of that happening?
02:05:54 that there was of that happening? Two things. the revol the revolutionary card globalized resistance S swp would see itself as as being that.
02:06:06 see itself as as being that. But I'm not saying they're the the violent bloody revolution types. It's they're providing a group for people who might pass through or given
02:06:18 people who might pass through or given that their activities what ranged over anti-fascism, anti-racism, industrial things, it was to educate them in the creed if you like and it's what comes
02:06:31 creed if you like and it's what comes out of that that was um that was my concern and sorry I've lost the thread on the second part of your question.
02:06:41 question. That's all right. Was it disproportionate to use this intrusive policing tactic? Yeah.
02:06:46 Yeah. To try and identify such individuals? No. And yes. Uh no. Because you'll only find out by having a look. Yes. We we'd had a look
02:06:58 having a look. Yes. We we'd had a look and the unit needed refocusing. And that that wasn't a systemic fault. That was 911.
02:07:06 911. And that's what I hoped to do. And I was disappointed because it was like walking through trial trying to um get it refocused.
02:07:18 get it refocused. But there you are. We know I'm going to be very short on this point. We know that when you took over the SDS in 2001, we'd had HN15 Mark Jenner in Hackne
02:07:31 we'd had HN15 Mark Jenner in Hackne reporting on people like Norman Blair of class war, Mark Metaf of the Colin Roach Center. Yeah. Were you aware of his operation? Yes. and and those individuals would you
02:07:44 Yes. and and those individuals would you are those the type of people that you be uh looking to report on as revolutionary cards or
02:07:51 cards or it's it's not that but if if um Mark Jenner who was not on in my time but if Mark Jenner is deployed into that area he is going to report on what is going
02:08:02 he is going to report on what is going on and rather than Mark Jenner work it out in his head what how the mosaic might fit into a jigsaw um
02:08:14 um and make judgments about that. No, towards the end of your tenure, we have HN18, Robert Hastings being deployed into London ISM. Yes.
02:08:25 into London ISM. Yes. The international solidarity movement. Yes.
02:08:28 Yes. Ative Chowry was the person that he was targeted towards. What did why was Asie Chowry a particular individual that was targeted in in his operation?
02:08:41 targeted in in his operation? He wasn't uh sorry the intention he wasn't
02:08:47 wasn't context Robert Hasting is deployed for what a year a few months before I retire.
02:08:55 Following this inquiry I was disappointed to see that he had not gone the way I had wanted him to go. Um, ISM was just a jumping point. If you joined
02:09:07 was just a jumping point. If you joined the entirely harmless ISM group, you would be invited to go to Palestine and help out on refugee matters. This was a legend building on the hurry up. Again,
02:09:20 legend building on the hurry up. Again, we're 3 years after 9/11. We're still dragging our feet. This was a quick way into getting credibility. I was dismayed to see that he'd stayed there, that he'd had
02:09:32 he'd stayed there, that he'd had actually been offered the chance to go to Palestine. And then having established his legend, if I'd been there still, I could have
02:09:44 if I'd been there still, I could have redeployed him somewhere else. So there was never an intention to target them. What about HM104's um targeting and individuals
02:09:56 um targeting and individuals particularly that the um uh uh marshalling group Dan Gilman, Steve Hedley, Paul Heron, what did you feel about those people
02:10:07 what did you feel about those people that he was uh uh infiltrating and and reporting on a similar kind of fashion? He was in the right area. But again at 2005 when I retired he no
02:10:22 But again at 2005 when I retired he no one would have been there. I would have had one.
02:10:26 had one. It turned out to the person I had in mind or the role I had in mind was actually fulfilled by um is it 18 um
02:10:38 um as a roving role and it came about 81 do you mean? No, not 81. Um, you've got you got the name Simon Wellings. Oh, 118. Yes.
02:10:49 Oh, 118. Yes. 118. Sorry. 118. Um,
02:10:52 Um, that's okay. Everybody gets So, he was he was fulfilling that role and but that would have been it on the left. It would be the other two groups I've described. So um
02:11:07 I'd also could I just say that the in the context of 104 it it is
02:11:16 it it is complicated by the fact that I'm not sure which bits of 104's operation I can believe in retrospect.
02:11:27 operation I can believe in retrospect. I'm I'm sure we'll be coming on to it later. Um, so if there is exaggeration there,
02:11:39 so if there is exaggeration there, if there is a ramping up of an operation, that doesn't really justify it.
02:11:46 it. Unfortunately, [clears throat] looking at the inquiry and the evidence given to it, I'm now not surprised that these
02:11:54 these uh qualifications about his deployment have been suggested. So,
02:12:01 So, Sir, I note the time we've gone over the normal break time
02:12:08 because [clears throat] we had a rather long break earlier. It was 10 minutes. All right, now we'll break for 10 minutes.
02:26:17 Mr. Dell, you mentioned just before the break that you could see no justification for running the SDS purely for public order intelligence in the absence of any subversive intent. Is
02:26:30 absence of any subversive intent. Is that a fair summary? Yes. And but by that I mean also that uh a public order event which gets out of order and then starts impinging on the
02:26:43 order and then starts impinging on the integrity of the the democratic process which includes the right to demonstrate. I would if if the intent were to do that
02:26:54 I would if if the intent were to do that then I would regard that as subverting parliamentary democracy. Um but pure public order itself comes second to the subversive
02:27:05 second to the subversive [snorts] intent. Yes. And I know that's not the
02:27:12 the majority view I don't suppose but that's that was my view of it. Does the same also apply in relation to the prevention or detection of serious crime?
02:27:24 Um, we can see that you you you've referred to that in your witness statement, page 7, paragraph 17, A to C.
02:27:38 7, paragraph 17, A to C. And [snorts] it's that little C that you you refer to that other objective of the SDS in terms of prevention and detection or prosecution of serious crime.
02:27:50 or prosecution of serious crime. If
02:27:51 If you want to refresh your memory, it's there on screen in front of you. But essentially that comes in second place. I refer to it as a secondary aim. Yeah. Um
02:28:02 Um where did your understanding of this primary function come from? Was that something that was um led from the home office or further up
02:28:13 led from the home office or further up the chain in your line of command? And I'm thinking Detective Superintendent M Mc Molan
02:28:19 Mc Molan or Detective Chief Superintendent Colin Black or Commander Roger Pierce. I think those are the three people directly above you when you took over command of the the SDS.
02:28:30 the the SDS. My understanding of what I thought the SDS was for. Do you mean? Yes.
02:28:34 Yes. No, I worked it out. Um,
02:28:41 you you can't justify an outfit like that just to decide how many are going to turn up at a demonstration. That is part of it. And that is part of
02:28:52 That is part of it. And that is part of how when I was speaking to TO20, I would market it because I knew what they at that particular time wanted. I can help you with that bit of it, but it's not
02:29:03 you with that bit of it, but it's not the fundamental raise on that of the SDS.
02:29:08 SDS. So, no, I just worked it out. Oh, it seems self-evident. Was it any part of the conversation you had with HN58 in terms of his handover to you?
02:29:18 to you? No.
02:29:21 No. [snorts]
02:29:22 [snorts] Where in that analysis would animal rights protesters fall? And I'm thinking particularly, you know, HN16, James Thompson's uh infiltration
02:29:34 HN16, James Thompson's uh infiltration of uh the Cuden Hunt saboturs or H60s infiltration of the London animal uh uh uh activists. Yes, it plainly into the second category
02:29:45 Yes, it plainly into the second category of of um of serious crime. Um, I mean, I'm on record there in Thompson's evidence
02:29:54 evidence as to what I thought then about the seriousness or otherwise otherwise of animal rights in terms of SDS. And I I didn't think there was the same need for
02:30:10 didn't think there was the same need for action as in earlier times. Uh, what about environmental activists? Yeah.
02:30:18 Yeah. HN3 and HN77 and they're on the list of operations I was going to close. Yeah. Uh
02:30:33 there has been reference in the evidence that we've heard in the inquiry. Um
02:30:41 Um and this behind tab B33. I'll bring it up on screen for you. MPS0527
02:30:48 362
02:30:54 page two. Fourth paragraph.
02:31:11 We can see reference there to serving independent groups of customers with entirely distinct requirements. Yeah.
02:31:19 Yeah. Who is being referred to there in terms of the independent groups of customers? Well, this is 1997. Yeah.
02:31:28 Yeah. So,
02:31:31 So, so that was a it seemed to be a shift that was taking place. If we can uh uh reduce that on screen, please. Uh it's a it's a memo by Bob Lambert of
02:31:44 Uh it's a it's a memo by Bob Lambert of the 12th of May 1997 and what he's referring to is a a a bit of a a shift or a move to serving in indiv uh individual customers. Was that the sense of the the
02:31:58 customers. Was that the sense of the the type of um customer that you were serving when you took over in 2001? My sense was that we were serving almost exclusively Squad.
02:32:11 almost exclusively Squad. Was there any sense that you were serving um
02:32:17 uh private interests? No.
02:32:21 No. What about Selfridges uh security uh Debenham Security or Boots? Yes. any any of those private companies
02:32:34 Yes. any any of those private companies that may have been a target by animal rights or environmental activists. Yes, that would be in a in a in a crime prevention context. And the MPS has I
02:32:45 prevention context. And the MPS has I think it's now called a counterterrorism crime prevention something or other usually sergeants who to the information would be passed out
02:32:56 the information would be passed out through sea squad aerial leaison to them as a pure crime prevention thing that put the make sure you've got the shutters up this evening because the
02:33:07 shutters up this evening because the police are expecting a bit of trouble in that context that was for me that was again secondary information.
02:33:18 information. It wasn't the fundamental tagon but if we got that information so we trumpet our value to the rest of the Met by saying look we can we can give you this
02:33:29 saying look we can we can give you this when you ask for it. Was there any channel of communication between special branch and Macdonald bearing in mind the context of the miel campaign? This is this is when I say
02:33:41 campaign? This is this is when I say it's well before my time. I'm now speaking as a a lay man if you like and I don't actually know. Um there would certainly have been I would imagine
02:33:53 certainly have been I would imagine crimerevention contact uh contact with them but the ins and outs of the Matt Libel thing before my time. Okay. What about in relation to the litigation
02:34:04 What about in relation to the litigation around that the li the liel action? nothing related to collusion with them. I mean, I have no idea. I had nothing to do with it. I I just don't know.
02:34:15 just don't know. I'd like to ask you about training. Now, you address training at paragraph 38 of your witness statement on page 24 and you confirmed that there was no formal training for SDS managers coming
02:34:27 formal training for SDS managers coming in.
02:34:28 in. No.
02:34:28 No. Uh uh to take over. No.
02:34:31 No. Say for your handover from HN58. I think you described that as a shadowing experience for a few months. Um, we note that HN58 states that he
02:34:42 Um, we note that HN58 states that he retired in July 2001. So that's when I took over. So you took over then. I think in your witness statement you suggest that might have been a little bit later towards
02:34:53 have been a little bit later towards August or September 2001. But could it have been July? Oh yes. Yeah. If he retired then that's the day I took over.
02:35:03 Would specific formal training have helped you in your role of SDS manager? All training? Yes. Could I devise a training course? I'm I'm not so sure.
02:35:16 training course? I'm I'm not so sure. um in terms of targeting, recruitment of UCOs,
02:35:21 UCOs, uh building legends, tasking, oversight, reporting, well-being, um and family support. Would more information, more training have been
02:35:33 information, more training have been helpful in that regard? All training is valuable, but I don't think I was in any way disadvantaged in dealing with any of those areas
02:35:44 in dealing with any of those areas by being a newcomer to the branch only having had what only 10 years then and is that because you had HM53 who was in place when you arrived and was
02:35:55 in place when you arrived and was familiar with those processes? I I say I think we worked as a good partnership. Um, Reaper, the regulation of investigatory powers act 2000 had not
02:36:06 investigatory powers act 2000 had not long been enforced. What training did you have in relation to that and the principles and and and legislation the framework around that? Yeah, the formal training the branch provided um the training department
02:36:20 provided um the training department provided training courses for people and at some point a ripper compliance unit was set up in the branch so that papers could be passed through them for
02:36:31 could be passed through them for checking and quality quality control if you like.
02:36:35 you like. Had you had any training before you took over in 2001? [sighs] No, but I taken an interest in it because of a previous posting
02:36:48 it because of a previous posting and because on the the national SP induction course I had a slot where I would um speak about participating
02:36:59 would um speak about participating informants and so I I just naturally had an interest in keeping myself up to date and of course Raper was really directed at inform performance
02:37:12 really directed at inform performance and
02:37:14 and I think it was unsatisfactory in its provision for undercover work. I think most people do and it's been it's been amended since of course is that because of the duration of the
02:37:26 is that because of the duration of the undercover operations or why was it unsuitable for your UCO operations? We're trying Oh, it was it was in in in
02:37:37 We're trying Oh, it was it was in in in regulatory terms. We were trying to shoehorn ourselves into the the requirements of it. And
02:37:49 it was having had experience of handling informants and managing the handling of informants. Um I was aware that that was a heck of a
02:38:01 Um I was aware that that was a heck of a lot simpler job than the UC's. Um,
02:38:07 Um, so do you think that the the Ripper framework wasn't satisfactory at that time? It didn't. No, no, it wasn't. No, it wasn't. And obviously we all know
02:38:18 obviously we all know it's the regulatory framework, isn't it? That's the big problem that if a organization regulates itself on the inside, well, guess what you're going to get?
02:38:28 get? Was that something that had been addressed with your senior managers as well at the time? Did I express those concerns? No. Gosh, no.
02:38:37 no. Did they Did they express those concerns in meetings? Um the concerns that we must of course we have to comply with
02:38:48 we must of course we have to comply with Ripper. Uh but it's certainly not tailorade for us. Was it ever seen as a tickbox exercise? It was just a matter of getting things signed off. inevitably in any bureaucracy
02:39:00 bureaucracy uh which insists on and I'm not being porative when I say bureaucra bureaucracy uh any organization which insists on a a bureaucratic
02:39:12 bureaucratic uh supervision model you of course you're going to get tickbox whatever it is um I liken it to when I was a uniform sergeant and if I dealt
02:39:23 was a uniform sergeant and if I dealt with a drink drive case I worked out that I had to sign my name or put my initials 54 times on 54 different bits
02:39:35 initials 54 times on 54 different bits of paper. Now, I'm going back 40 years, so God knows what it's like now. You you inevitably any organization will take the shortcut.
02:39:47 any organization will take the shortcut. in [snorts] terms of the content of the handover from HM58 to you. Um, did he show you key documents, policies, and guidelines in the SDS?
02:39:58 guidelines in the SDS? No, I I can't I can't honestly remember what 58 showed me. I really can't. But obviously, I spent my time, you know, familiarizing myself.
02:40:09 familiarizing myself. Uh, any training materials? Would you have looked at those? Yes, I did. And I was disappointed to see that HN67 had been on the new TAC course, the SO10
02:40:23 had been on the new TAC course, the SO10 course, and see to see if it was any good for us and disappointed because it wasn't
02:40:29 wasn't because training is not a failure in hindsight. It was it was obvious at the beginning, but I couldn't design a training course and say there that's what you need.
02:40:42 and say there that's what you need. The whole nature of the job compared to criminal criminal UC's was entirely different
02:40:49 different and I'm sure we'll come round to the defining concept was trust rather than method and methodology.
02:41:00 than method and methodology. Um
02:41:01 Um we'll come on to that in a moment in terms of training for UCOs. just in terms of what information HM58 gave to you, did he tell you about the key issues that he'd been
02:41:13 about the key issues that he'd been dealing with during his tenure? No.
02:41:16 No. Uh, for instance, did he talk about any potential compromises that his UCAs had had?
02:41:21 had? Did he tell you about women who were searching for some of the officers? No. In particular, Helen Steel. Did he tell you about her looking for HN5? HN5?
02:41:32 HN5? Oh, John D. John Dyn. Yeah. No. Did No.
02:41:35 Did No. Uh did he tell you um uh uh about um the woman known as Allison looking for Mark Jenner?
02:41:46 Jenner? No.
02:41:47 No. Did he tell you anything about Rosa, woman that we know as Rosa looking for Jim Boiling? No.
02:41:54 No. Um, in terms of NEU's engaging in sexual relationships, did he tell you about any concerns that he had in relation to the living arrangements
02:42:06 in relation to the living arrangements of some of the officers, in particular, Jim Boing or Mark Jenner? No.
02:42:12 No. Um,
02:42:14 Um, anything about traveling with uh members of the uh groups that they were infiltrating? No. I may be doing him a a disservice
02:42:25 No. I may be doing him a a disservice and he did and I've forgotten but it's the best I can his evidence that he he he did sorry
02:42:32 sorry it's not his evidence that he at all or that he had um
02:42:37 um uh suspicions what about historical issues that had been dealt with during the course of uh the SDS in the '90s
02:42:48 uh the SDS in the '90s excuse me issues such as uh Mr. Chitty. Were you aware of any issues that had arisen in his deployment? No, I was aware. I think I was on B squad and someone mentioned the the
02:43:00 squad and someone mentioned the the Chitty thing and I knew so little about it that about a month ago I I had to Google it to find out what it was about and I didn't find anything. Um, Stefan Scott, did you know anything
02:43:13 Um, Stefan Scott, did you know anything about his
02:43:13 about his I heard No, I heard his name from 10 years previously but nothing. Was there any sense that war stories were being passed on in terms of a lessons learned
02:43:24 passed on in terms of a lessons learned exercise?
02:43:26 exercise? No, I can understand why they were not because the whole culture was don't ask and not about SDS, about the branch. When I left B Squad, they couple
02:43:38 branch. When I left B Squad, they couple of days later they open the operations room and they were mounting an operation. You didn't ask your mates on [clears throat] B Squad what's going on then. You just didn't do it. I'd left B
02:43:51 then. You just didn't do it. I'd left B Squad then and that was it. And so in the branch you would have this culture of um
02:43:58 of um people
02:44:00 people not relaying gossip fact to each other. We've heard uh some of the UC's who have given evidence to this inquiry talk about a don't ask don't tell sort of
02:44:13 about a don't ask don't tell sort of culture. No, no, no. It wasn't that. It was
02:44:19 was It was Robert [clears throat] Mark says in his
02:44:22 in his 1975 autobiography, "Thank God I had special branch in that it was the one outfit in the entire job when he was throwing out 440 corrupt detectives.
02:44:37 throwing out 440 corrupt detectives. It was the one outfit he could trust to keep its mouth shut. And that's why some of us are so angry about the origins of the origins of this
02:44:48 about the origins of the origins of this inquiry, how it came out. People just cannot keep their mouth shut. Now [panting]
02:44:54 [panting] do do you do you now it's come out? I I don't I I don't have that view anymore. But uh in hindsight, a whistleblowing mechanism, uh do you see the benefits of
02:45:05 mechanism, uh do you see the benefits of that?
02:45:06 that? Of course I do. But there there was no such mechanism. What about issues such as drink driving or the use of alcohol or drugs? Um, did
02:45:17 or the use of alcohol or drugs? Um, did HM58
02:45:19 HM58 relate to you how he might have dealt with those? No. No.
02:45:23 No. No. Um, or that there was any issue with those? And I'm thinking in particular in relation to HN123 and uh or HN4 in relation to their um
02:45:34 and uh or HN4 in relation to their um issues with alcohol during their operations. No, but I became aware through the this. Were you aware that uh Peter Francis had
02:45:46 Were you aware that uh Peter Francis had uh uh complained of difficulties he'd experienced during his operation? Yes, I was very much aware of that. So that was something that was uh in the background. That was common knowledge. Yeah. Yeah.
02:45:59 That was common knowledge. Yeah. Yeah. And what what was your view on that? I didn't I didn't know and still don't know Peter Francis but obviously with the case which he and
02:46:12 but obviously with the case which he and officer A brought against the Met and it concerned us particularly. Yes. Oh, it it was common knowledge and there was
02:46:23 it was common knowledge and there was the feeling that perhaps the welfare needed ramping up a bit or at least that's what I interpreted it as. Anyway, so it shone a light on maybe um gaps in
02:46:36 so it shone a light on maybe um gaps in the welfare. That's what I took it to be. That's what I took it to be. Um participation in crime. Did HM58
02:46:47 Um participation in crime. Did HM58 speak to you about what to do if officers are arrested are asked to provide uh evidence in court and that sort of thing? Not
02:46:58 court and that sort of thing? Not specifically that, but when uh he I was on Squad when he came over to bounce ideas off me about Operation Lime and the Thompson thing and
02:47:11 Lime and the Thompson thing and he he knew what the score score was, but he was coming to me just for another opinion as to how we can maximize this situation.
02:47:22 situation. And my advice was you just got to disrupt it. And that wasn't new to 58. I think he knew that. But uh other than that, no, we didn't speak about officers
02:47:35 that, no, we didn't speak about officers involved in crime. When you talk about disrupting it, what what do you mean? Sorry, disrupting it. If if we if we go by Thompson's script that oct activists were getting the gun and all the rest of
02:47:47 were getting the gun and all the rest of it, the best we could do would be to disrupt that and get the gun back to foil the plot. So no, no harm came to anyone.
02:47:55 anyone. If it had been in B squad, the operation would would have run and we'd have seen how far we could get to swagging as many as as as B squad could. But um in terms of HN58 relaying any
02:48:08 um in terms of HN58 relaying any information about recruitment of married officers or officers from a stable home life?
02:48:14 life? Yeah. [snorts] What did he say about that? Was it was it known to you to be a policy to recruit officers with that? It was termed an anchor in in real life.
02:48:25 termed an anchor in in real life. Yes, that was it. And I took it as not necessarily married, but a stable background, somebody to offload to. I took that to mean if the partner's gay or whatever, it was just a stable
02:48:38 or whatever, it was just a stable background. And is that something then you carried on during your tenure? Not overtly. I I could see the I I could see the the merit of it, but it was for
02:48:50 see the the merit of it, but it was for me it was each case on its merits. A single person might impress me enough to be Yeah, they can cope. Someone living with their brother or sister, whatever.
02:49:03 with their brother or sister, whatever. Um I didn't regard it as a rigid rule. And in terms of um that reliance that we've heard evidence about on spouses
02:49:16 we've heard evidence about on spouses to provide that support, is that something you looked on uh at spouses to provide? Was that was that something that you were Yes. counting on? it was a burden to them.
02:49:29 counting on? it was a burden to them. And
02:49:31 And I at the time I wasn't happy with the fact that I couldn't come up with another way of
02:49:42 um helping the the families out with the burden they were sharing. Yes. brought in the policy of you and your family have access to psychiatric help
02:49:55 family have access to psychiatric help from now till forever. But I think you've heard evidence of officers going round to see the spouses for a second visit and it being regarded
02:50:07 for a second visit and it being regarded by the spouses as what was all that about then? And then in another case, this person seems to be coming around a bit often. In other words, there was a suspicion and I recognized that from
02:50:18 suspicion and I recognized that from elsewhere in the job. You would have a social due outside the job and the rank structure inhibited social interaction. It's unbelievable.
02:50:31 social interaction. It's unbelievable. 3 days after I was promoted uniform sergeant, I'm at core. Two members of my old relief are calling me Sarge and I've been a PC with them three days
02:50:43 and I've been a PC with them three days ago. It's this formality you in a work environment transmits to the social and I and I couldn't work out a way of look. It would be great if I could arrange to
02:50:55 It would be great if I could arrange to see usually the wife every so often but it would be a formalistic thing. They they would regard it as tickboxing. I
02:51:06 they would regard it as tickboxing. I might be wrong but that's what I thought. So, so whilst you recognized there was a need to supportive the families of the UC's, in reality that was inhibited. Yeah. Massive need, an an unmet need.
02:51:20 Yeah. Massive need, an an unmet need. in terms of um training on [snorts] equalities. You've talked about um [clears throat] your
02:51:34 [clears throat] well c can I ask you about the training following the McFersonen report? Do you remember
03:19:27 Mr. Dell, we were talking about the tradecraftraft manual. Oh, yes.
03:19:30 Oh, yes. Uh and and um the fact that you you flipped through it. It was in the back office. Yes. At the time that you took over the SDS. Um, you say you you didn't pay much attention because it was more
03:19:42 pay much attention because it was more about operational issues, nuts and bolts, nuts and bolts of the operation. How did that fit with your uh uh interest in having a more hands-on
03:19:55 interest in having a more hands-on approach to the operations? The hands-on approach wouldn't be this is how to get your car emoteed in a douff name and stuff like that. those nuts and bolts taking the wheels off to
03:20:06 nuts and bolts taking the wheels off to fix the brakes. Um, I thought I was driving the car. Okay, can we flip to the contents page, please?
03:20:20 Here
03:20:23 we can see on the first page in terms of the table of contents, one doesn't have to look very far down at the the bottom part five maintenance.
03:20:35 at the the bottom part five maintenance. We can see there at 5.5 and 5.6 alcohol and drugs and sexual liaison. Had you looked at the contents page, those surely would have stood out and
03:20:48 surely would have stood out and attracted your interest to make sure that you know that that that was something that you were familiar with as to what your officers were being told about that. My mistake. Yeah.
03:21:00 My mistake. Yeah. So, is it right that you looked at the contents page, you just didn't read down to the bottom? Probably.
03:21:06 Probably. I mean, if if I'd come across the sexual liaison's bit, I'd just ripped it out and I would have read I would have read intently the rest of the manual. Were you not even curious to find out
03:21:18 Were you not even curious to find out what the UCO deployment involved given that you hadn't been a UCO yourself? not the nuts and bolts, but I was sufficiently bothered about it to um
03:21:29 sufficiently bothered about it to um recruit someone for a new post to deal with just such matters, nuts and bolts so the DS's could be relieved of these
03:21:40 so the DS's could be relieved of these boring little tasks and supervise the the UC's and look after their welfare.
03:21:52 Is it really plausible that you didn't even look at the contents page? If [clears throat] I looked at the contents page,
03:22:03 contents page, I wouldn't have gone down as far as the bottom because I repeat, if I'd seen that, I would have read it. I'd have ripped it out and thrown it away. Is it a significant oversight
03:22:17 Is it a significant oversight of management on your part? It's a mistake. It's not a failure of management. It's just me being a mistake. Isn't the failure of management on your
03:22:30 Isn't the failure of management on your part the fact that you didn't know what instructions your UCOs were receiving or reading in terms of these significant parts of their deployment?
03:22:41 parts of their deployment? In my
03:22:43 In my in my view, these were not it was not a manual of instruction. It was not a manual of policy. It was then anyway a loose leaf binder
03:22:54 It was then anyway a loose leaf binder which anyone could contribute and say I found a better way of getting a driving license which complies with the rules. Uh but uh what do you think of this? I
03:23:06 Uh but uh what do you think of this? I thought the subject matter was serious enough to appoint someone to deal specifically and solely with it, but I didn't see it as being a job for the DS's.
03:23:21 Did you ever discuss the tradecraftraft manual with your other managers? No, I didn't discuss it with it with anyone. No one came to me and said, "Well, your direction about so and so is
03:23:33 "Well, your direction about so and so is contrary to what the tradecraftraft manual says cuz I got the impression that they didn't bother with it either." Given that it's the only really written piece of training that the officers received,
03:23:44 received, wasn't it incumbent upon you being responsible for their training to read this? The fact that it's the only bit of training uh that that that we had if you
03:23:58 training uh that that that we had if you call it you call it training doesn't add any value. It just shows you how bad the training was. The other aspects of training have been uh referred to as officers you former
03:24:10 uh referred to as officers you former UCOs giving their advice as to what they did as well. So it's an oral uh uh uh it's collective memory. Oral advice. Collective memory.
03:24:21 Oral advice. Collective memory. Yeah. Um
03:24:25 Yeah. Um I just repeat it wasn't a policy manual. It wasn't an instruction as to how you should conduct your operation. It's where it's these were the little
03:24:36 It's where it's these were the little things you will need to do it. Yes. When it was heading time when I was doing the rule nine statement when this was brought to my attention. I just put my head in my hands. I thought why the hell
03:24:49 head in my hands. I thought why the hell didn't I see that? That's the best I can do.
03:24:53 do. Um, you say that nobody brought it to your attention. No, I didn't say that. Okay.
03:24:58 Okay. It was there. I could have got it. No, no, not blaming anybody else. Why the hell didn't I? Sorry, look at it. My my question wasn't very clear. Nobody brought to your
03:25:09 very clear. Nobody brought to your attention the fact that the Trade Craft manual directly contradicted what you said about there being no sexual relationships permitted. Nobody brought that to your attention. You say
03:25:20 that to your attention. You say uh in terms of when you came in and you gave that direction in the plenary session.
03:25:26 session. Yeah. that you talk about in September October 2001 where you say that you told the officers under no circumstances should sex uh be
03:25:38 under no circumstances should sex uh be a part of your deployment. Yeah.
03:25:40 Yeah. Um it's right, isn't it? We understand now that at least three of the officers were in relationships at the time. So, we're looking at HN16,
03:25:53 So, we're looking at HN16, HN 60, and HN 104. Yes.
03:25:58 Yes. Recognizing that now, yes.
03:26:01 yes. Is it fair to say that they probably didn't draw this to your attention because they didn't want to lose their jobs?
03:26:08 jobs? Oh, yes. that that would certainly be a motivating factor, but they also might like the rest of them might not even have read it because that's what I I hear from the others a lot of other evidence. Uh they
03:26:21 others a lot of other evidence. Uh they were aware of it but they didn't pay much attention to it. It's like something you you put in your garage and can't find and then someone finds it 20 years later. Can we have on screen please MPS
03:26:32 Can we have on screen please MPS 000031195
03:26:41 m Mr. D? This this was not in your bundle. It's HM53's itinerary of HN18's induction [laughter] or
03:26:52 of HN18's induction [laughter] or training program. Mhm.
03:26:55 Mhm. It's dated the 23rd of December 2003. So H&18 was recruited and was uh deployed at the end of your tenure
03:27:06 deployed at the end of your tenure or towards the end of your tenure. And we can see that week one various jobs have to be undertaken as part of the training program. week uh sorry uh
03:27:23 on Tuesday so second day into the training program we can see the penultimate bullet point there is commence study of tradecraft manual
03:27:34 commence study of tradecraft manual so effectively after a strategy meeting with you presumably in the morning
03:27:44 significant instruction then to commence study of the trade craft manual. If somebody's studying that and taking time over it
03:27:53 over it um on day two of their induction, it's a it's unlikely, isn't it, that they'll put that to one side and not pay it any attention. It's for the purpose for which I thought
03:28:04 It's for the purpose for which I thought it was intended. Um
03:28:10 had I read it, that item wouldn't even have been on that training thing. So, did you not look at the training agenda for HN18 who was reported under your
03:28:22 for HN18 who was reported under your watch?
03:28:22 watch? Oh, the training agenda. I I hadn't looked at the tradecraftraft manual, but you knew that he was being directed to study that manual. [clears throat] Under the terms of which I understood it
03:28:33 Under the terms of which I understood it to be,
03:28:34 to be, but you didn't concern yourself with knowing what its contents were. No mistake. My fault.
03:28:46 HN18's evidence
03:28:51 was that when he was recruited, you and HN53, your DI, attended at his home to meet
03:29:03 your DI, attended at his home to meet with him and his then partner. And you mentioned, was it you or HN53 that said sex sexual relationships were not permitted? Me,
03:29:13 Me, it would be you. Um, he recalls that his partner found it quite a cynical meeting and they both had doubts about um the seriousness of that uh comment
03:29:26 um the seriousness of that uh comment about sexual relationships not being permitted. What was your recollection about how you said that to him? No. I know I said it. Um,
03:29:42 this this goes back to the welfare thing about this rigid rank structure and how the families regard junior senior officers if you like.
03:29:54 junior senior officers if you like. It's everything you do is
03:30:00 just a bureaucratic exercise. Well, if I go along there and I say to her that Rob is well aware that he's not to engage in any sexual misconduct and
03:30:13 to engage in any sexual misconduct and if he does, he'll be leaving. I don't regard that as box ticking.
03:30:34 On reflection,
03:30:37 could it have been that you had a more meaningful discussion about the sorts of issues that Rob Hastings might be presented with during the course of his operation? In which case, a proper
03:30:48 operation? In which case, a proper sitdown meeting talk about um the the temptations of entering into a sexual relationship in his cover identity. I take your point, but it was an absolute
03:31:01 take your point, but it was an absolute prohibition. So, there's nothing to talk about. We know that HN18 uh pursued Meer and entered into a sexual relationship with a woman known as Meer.
03:31:12 as Meer. Yes.
03:31:13 Yes. And he says in his evidence that in fact he relied on the Trade Craft manual. Yeah. Well, he would do, wouldn't he? And and that that was written in a
03:31:24 And and that that was written in a permissive way to allow for relationships. And in fact, what we do know is it he he didn't even comply with that because it wasn't a fleeting relationship and there didn't no sense in that uh it would have been a
03:31:36 in that uh it would have been a relationship that was condoned. Um given that that officer at least as well as others we've heard from
03:31:48 as well as others we've heard from relied on the written down uh in as they thought you know policy in this trade craft manual. Uh, was it an oversight on your part not
03:32:01 Uh, was it an oversight on your part not to write down what your direction was, your policy on sexual relationships and ensure that everybody read that and understood it. We're having it both ways, aren't we?
03:32:12 We're having it both ways, aren't we? Again, on the one minute where ticks box and now you're wanting me to cover my backside by making sure I write it down and everybody uh sign it. Surely
03:32:24 and everybody uh sign it. Surely um a greater impact is made by me fronting up to the person and saying just be very clear you'll be shown the door and there's no ifs or buts about it
03:32:35 door and there's no ifs or buts about it relying on what was in the tradecraftraft manual. Well, of course he would
03:32:41 he would cuz he doesn't want to he doesn't want to admit to it. And we've heard some officers relying on what they were told by previous UCOs the fact that sexual relationships were inevitable and almost
03:32:53 relationships were inevitable and almost part of the job. No one was any in any doubt and you won't you won't have any evidence to the contrary about what my view was on that and what the consequences would be.
03:33:07 Um, HN18 says that he raised the issue of sexual advances towards him in a weekly meeting that was laughed off.
03:33:18 weekly meeting that was laughed off. And he said in his evidence on the 24th of March of this year, and it's at page 20 at page 48 of the transcript, just for the record, he said
03:33:30 transcript, just for the record, he said um
03:33:34 that it's possibly likely that managers were at that meeting. And he said, I don't think they took it seriously. I think the view was it
03:33:45 seriously. I think the view was it wasn't an issue. You would just have to deal with things for want of a better term. You are old enough, wise enough, experienced enough. You deal with the issues. Don't bring us any problems.
03:33:58 issues. Don't bring us any problems. That would be my understanding of the general culture and approach of the SDS. Do you recall that meeting when HN18 says he raised the issue of
03:34:11 says he raised the issue of sexual advances in his deployment? No, I don't. And it does have a familiar ring, doesn't it, to some of the other evidence you've heard that um Oh, yes. I latch on to that bit.
03:34:23 that um Oh, yes. I latch on to that bit. Don't ask, don't tell business. How does that square with the direct instruction from me which other officers have said
03:34:34 from me which other officers have said shocked them shocked them into silence?
03:34:42 There was no discussion when I made the direction and some people have expressed the view that oh surely there was no they were so shocked into silence by it. You will not do this and these are the
03:34:54 You will not do this and these are the consequences and
03:34:58 and what's he doing there? He's trying to make the best of a bad job and deflect again onto managers.
03:35:07 managers. It's, as you say, reflective also of um HM104's evidence, Carlos Sarra, who said that he was told that he's a big boy and he has to deal with issues himself.
03:35:18 he has to deal with issues himself. Not by me. Figure it out. it. Although you were saying that this was not permitted, do you recognize that
03:35:30 not permitted, do you recognize that amongst the other managers and amongst the UCOs it was a very different attitude towards sexual relationships undercover? I can't answer that because I don't know
03:35:42 I can't answer that because I don't know there was a different attitude. I c I can't speak to what went before honestly.
03:35:49 honestly. And is that because the issue wasn't really discussed in the SDS? It wasn't discussed because my instruction was right at the beginning. There's nothing to discuss.
03:36:03 And is that part of the problem perhaps that people didn't feel that they were able to discuss these issues that they were experiencing undercover?
03:36:15 were experiencing undercover? Well, it depends how far you want to gut to go into that. I don't buy I don't buy this attitude that these are the brave jolly sailors and the mermaids are
03:36:26 jolly sailors and the mermaids are tempting them from the rocks. Um, we had a we had a statement on Friday from a civilian witness um saying in in Y and ML refuting Peter
03:36:39 um saying in in Y and ML refuting Peter Francis's claims that they'd had a sexual relationship but making the very pertinent comment. I kept my personal and private lives separate. She didn't feel the need to indulge in sexual
03:36:53 feel the need to indulge in sexual misconduct or sexual conduct. So why did the officers That's not to say I didn't appreciate the pressures on them from that direction and later you
03:37:06 them from that direction and later you might talk about the steps I took to try and assuage that that concern. You're saying from your perspective there is no reason at all why an officer should pursue a woman for a sexual
03:37:18 should pursue a woman for a sexual relationship under no operational benefit? No. And so if they did, is it your understanding that that was purely for their own sexual gratification? Yeah. Uh my narrative is that you
03:37:32 Yeah. Uh my narrative is that you it's not difficult to look at the evidence over the years and you've seen a a line of officers deciding this is the lifestyle for me. two lifestyle,
03:37:43 the lifestyle for me. two lifestyle, three, one at home and one relating to me and one with the women. And I'm going to get paid very well for it. And this is the life I lead. And then when I'm
03:37:54 is the life I lead. And then when I'm questioned, I'll fall back on tradecraftraft manuals and nobody told me. I couldn't work it out for myself. What don't they understand about you'll
03:38:06 What don't they understand about you'll be off,
03:38:10 sir? I note the time it perhaps break. Um we will resume at 5 2