Continued cross-examination of HN36 Michael Dell, manager of the SDS back office from mid-2001, covering the discredited tradecraft manual, the lack of formal legal training for undercover officers, and management's handling of officers deceiving women into sexual relationships. Dell is pressed hardest on decisions to prioritise 'operational security' over disciplining DS Thompson, prosecuting his misuse of a dead child's identity, and informing the deceived women themselves, repeatedly conceding these decisions should have been different.
00:25:57 Good afternoon everybody. Uh this afternoon's proceedings like this morning's are being transmitted on the live link but after a 15-minute delay. Those with mobile devices may use them
00:26:08 Those with mobile devices may use them to report what they hearing the hearing room but only after 15 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're reporting. They may not be used for recording or photography. Yes.
00:26:25 Mr. Dell, we were looking at the Tradecraft manual and we'll stick with that for the moment. Um, you say at paragraph 83, sorry, page 83, paragraph 132 of your
00:26:36 sorry, page 83, paragraph 132 of your witness statement that when reading it now, in preparation for this hearing, the tone of the tradecraftraft manual is flippant and
00:26:47 tradecraftraft manual is flippant and inappropriate when it comes to various issues.
00:26:51 issues. Um, in terms of the practice of creating cover identities using deceived children's identities in the tradecraftraft manual, um, given that the practice was no longer used by the
00:27:03 the practice was no longer used by the time you became manager, what do you say about the fact that that tradecraftraft manual was still in place and it left instructions for UCOs under your watch
00:27:16 instructions for UCOs under your watch to use that sort of practice? And I'm thinking in particular in relation to HN16 who uh uh uh created his own uh separate identity in the name of Kevin
00:27:28 separate identity in the name of Kevin Crossland. He didn't need any help, did he? He he made the identity for Kevin Crossland before he went on the SDS as I think I think it was the case. Um yeah. Um,
00:27:44 think it was the case. Um yeah. Um, it's an inexcusable practice and I don't think again it it speaks to the fact of the status of the tradecraftraft manual that no one did actually use that as a
00:27:56 that no one did actually use that as a justification for getting an alternative identity other than the miscreants such as Thompson which is just another way out for him isn't it?
00:28:08 isn't it? Um there was no attempt even though the tradecraft manual was being used as a training tool. There was no attempt then to update it. No, it was it was in the garage
00:28:23 apart from it kept being brought out of the garage to be read by every uh uh new recruit.
00:28:29 recruit. Allegedly. Um most of the UCOs that we've heard from refer to the tradecraftraft manual um and in particularly
00:28:41 um and in particularly relying upon the material that was set out in uh section five in relation to sexual liaison. Well again they wouldn't they
00:28:52 Well again they wouldn't they [clears throat] um are you saying that the training program as it was set out wasn't actually being followed by the new recruits? It wasn't that they weren't reading the tradecraftraft manual.
00:29:04 tradecraftraft manual. Well, it wasn't a train a training manual and had I known its content, it wouldn't have been part of the training schedule. And again, I can just say big
00:29:15 schedule. And again, I can just say big mistake, no excuses. On reflection, looking at the the deceived uh child identity Yeah. uh uh section in particular,
00:29:27 section in particular, do you accept now that the flippant and derogatory references to deceased children and their families in the manual could have given the UCOs the impression that deceased children and
00:29:40 impression that deceased children and their families were not to be afforded much importance or value? That is certainly the impression that's conveyed. Yeah.
00:29:52 Can I take you to the closing report um which was authored on the 25th of June 2009?
00:30:01 2009? Uh it wasn't in your bundle. It's behind um M MPS0722622.
00:30:11 It was the report that was uh commissioned at the end of the life of the SDS. The first page you can see that it was authored by DS HN273
00:30:24 and page 12 please.
00:30:32 [clears throat]
00:30:36 Sorry. Page 13. Internal page 12.
00:30:46 No, it's not that. It's perhaps the next page.
00:31:08 Can we go on to page 10, please? It might be that.
00:31:18 No, it's not. I'm sorry. It's none of those pages at all. I'm looking for the 12week training program that was set out for UCOs in the back office. It may be that it's I I'll come back to
00:31:29 It may be that it's I I'll come back to that document then. Um
00:31:34 Um can we have on screen please?
00:31:41 In fact let me ask you about this. Um, you say in your witness statement, paragraph 131, that indeed at the time you were concerned by the fact that
00:31:53 you were concerned by the fact that there was no formal training course for new UCOs.
00:31:58 new UCOs. And there was suggestion that the nature of the work lent itself more to practical than theoretical training. And you've raised that already in your evidence this morning. in terms of what a training course could have consisted
00:32:09 a training course could have consisted of. We know that HN67 went and viewed the new TAC program. Yes.
00:32:15 Yes. And he said there that the the key parts of the program which would have transferred over to the SDS would have been the legal framework. Yeah.
00:32:24 Yeah. And of course by the time that you step into the management role, we've got the Human Rights Act of 1998 that's come into force and RIPER of 2000.
00:32:35 into force and RIPER of 2000. in terms of legal framework and and principles that could have applied to your officers, is it right that um training on matters such as article 8,
00:32:48 training on matters such as article 8, the right to privacy, articles 10 and 11 that you've mentioned already uh uh rights to uh assembly and freedom of expression. Article three that freedom from uh
00:33:00 Article three that freedom from uh inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment. um a and non-discrimination principles uh particularly in regard to race and sex. Those would all have been
00:33:12 race and sex. Those would all have been key uh areas of training for your UCOs given the nature of the deployments. Yes,
00:33:18 Yes, that they had. You accept that? Yes, I do. Do you accept that they should have been trained on those principles and the legal framework around that? You've just described the training program that anyone in my position
00:33:30 program that anyone in my position sitting here would devise now. Yes. [clears throat and cough] and
00:33:35 and you're living through it and you are not picking up all the signals that that's what you actually need to be doing then. So yes, I I agree with that. Yeah.
00:33:47 So yes, I I agree with that. Yeah. Was there no thought given to that at the time
00:33:51 the time to a training course on on those lines? No.
00:33:54 No. And why why was that given the the principles were so obviously relevant to those operations?
00:34:03 I I I know what the answer is. I'm just trying not to sound like I'm trying to weedle out of it. But I mean there are certain fundamentals
00:34:14 I mean there are certain fundamentals that you expect of special branch officers
00:34:19 officers who are I thought detective conible trained
00:34:24 trained that they would be familiar with these and would be reading them. And that sounds like, oh, it's on the shelf. Go and read it. I know it sounds like that. And that's why I agree with you. It should be more formal training. Sit them
00:34:37 should be more formal training. Sit them down and work your way through it. Um,
00:34:42 Um, so yes, guilty of assuming that they would take a professional interest. I'm not saying they I'm not blaming anyone. I'm saying all of us.
00:34:53 I'm saying all of us. So
00:34:54 So in in a similar fashion as well in terms of reaper the principles of necessity, proportionality and lawfulness. Yes. Though that was that was the daily concerns of we in the office that was
00:35:07 concerns of we in the office that was the daily concerns with people. We were in a better position than say out on division where they're handling UC informants as part of a myriad number of other things. All I had to deal with was
00:35:20 other things. All I had to deal with was this. And so it was it really you had the chance for real handson supervision there. You didn't have any chance in the field but yes so it was oral.
00:35:34 field but yes so it was oral. What about issues? We've already addressed LPP to some extent. We've addressed legal professional privilege to some extent. Yes. Um, what about issues like
00:35:45 Yes. Um, what about issues like trespass, the the officers, you know, entering people's own homes, living in people's homes for for years at a time, you know, did that raise any concerns uh
00:35:58 you know, did that raise any concerns uh with you in in the office? This was why at the beginning I took a fortnight to decide whether I wanted the job. I could see how the landscape was
00:36:09 job. I could see how the landscape was changing and it was the SDS didn't sit certainly didn't sit outside the law but it seemed to sit outside the Met Police
00:36:20 outside the Met Police sit alongside it and now and society was content for us to do that. society is now expressing through parliament it's not happy with that and it's passing the
00:36:31 not happy with that and it's passing the legislation and yes that very issue of trespass the normal everyday things which we did and
00:36:42 we didn't change quick enough and that's me we didn't change quick enough um
00:36:50 um was there a sense that the officers had this sense that they were no longer part of the police force when they were deployed that they became the identity that they assumed. And so they weren't
00:37:03 that they assumed. And so they weren't bound by any of the the normal uh policing codes of conduct or the laws that would normally apply to a police officer on duty. I'm not sure about that. Um and I'm
00:37:16 I'm not sure about that. Um and I'm referring to the branch as a whole, not just the not just the SDS. Um
00:37:23 Um I mean obviously there was the assumption that if authorized I can commit crime and I now realize that were they sure that there was no statutory authority to commit crime. Um,
00:37:37 statutory authority to commit crime. Um, as I say, I used to give the little 45minut slot on the national course, but for those in place, um, you do realize that our conduct
00:37:52 um, you do realize that our conduct is scrutinized by the court. So that every time we authorize someone to commit crime, it's not a right, it's just a protocol. And that is tested by the courts every
00:38:04 And that is tested by the courts every time. that leads into misleading. Of course, another reason not to apart from the absolute reason, there's a particular reason.
00:38:15 particular reason. Um,
00:38:17 Um, yes, and I I made too many assumptions. Um, going back to that uh closing report, I now have the right reference. It's page 22.
00:38:29 It's page 22. So it's MPS0722622
00:38:34 page 22.
00:38:41 Thank you. And we can see here that this was seen as the 12week uh back. Did you say page 22? Page 22. Yes. It's actually the um
00:38:53 Page 22. Yes. It's actually the um I've got 21 here. Yeah, that's the internal page. It's the two page. Yeah. one at the bottom right hand corner and one the electronic page. I've only got one page here.
00:39:04 I've only got one page here. That That's all right. It's the It's the electronic page number down at the bottom, not the internal Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. report page number. But this is what I did want to refer you to the 12week training program.
00:39:15 training program. And we can see that week one um amongst other things study the tradecraft manual.
00:39:23 manual. uh what we saw was written up for HN18, but it seems that this was the standard Yeah.
00:39:29 Yeah. uh uh approach to training. So, right at the very start, officers were told to study the tradecraftraft manual. So, do you accept it's likely they did
00:39:40 So, do you accept it's likely they did do that?
00:39:41 do that? Yeah.
00:39:41 Yeah. And that when officers are referring to references within the tradecraft manual, it's probably right that they had read them and they were relying on them. Oh, I don't know about that. I think
00:39:52 Oh, I don't know about that. I think they're relying on it to give evidence to this
00:39:57 to this to this inquiry perhaps. But it's not just that they've read the training uh manual or the the tradecraftraft manual since leaving the SDS and now they're making up their
00:40:08 SDS and now they're making up their story to present it to the inquiry. I don't know because um I'd have to speak to every individual officer which of course you have done.
00:40:21 page 13. I'm hoping this is the right reference now.
00:40:27 Oh, sorry. No, it's page 23.
00:40:41 Paragraph three, we can see that by 2004, so three years into your deploy manager managerial role, the issue of revisiting the training program was on the agenda again.
00:40:54 the agenda again. Um, and this was outlined by a comment within a discussion paper that is set out below.
00:41:13 And can you see there? Yeah. Uh towards the end, the SDS itself is reviewing its own training methods, a variety of different views on the way forward. What do you recall about
00:41:24 forward. What do you recall about addressing the training program? I don't recall anything because it was a continuous thing. It was a continuing dissatisfaction with it and that's not
00:41:35 dissatisfaction with it and that's not retrospective. It was at the time. Is it fair to say that despite an intention to review the UCO training program, no steps were taken to jettison
00:41:46 program, no steps were taken to jettison the outofdate training uh uh sorry tradecraftraft manual or even revise or update it? That's correct. Yeah. Do you do you do you accept then that
00:41:57 Do you do you do you accept then that that perpetuated outdated abusive offensive operational tactics being used by officers under your watch? Not necessarily being used but but being promulgated by the trade craft manual.
00:42:10 promulgated by the trade craft manual. Okay. And those offensive and abusive uh behaviors were actually in practice, weren't they, during your time as manager?
00:42:21 during your time as manager? Yes.
00:42:27 Well, can I just clarify? Yeah.
00:42:30 Yeah. If I'm referring to they and the emissions of people, I can't get out of my mind. I refer to them as the miscreants. It's it's those I'm talking about. I had an excellent group of
00:42:42 about. I had an excellent group of people
00:42:44 people and I wouldn't want them to be uh put in the same basket of blame as two particular miscreants in during my time. So that
00:42:57 in during my time. So that I think they they exhibited the worst of the behavior. And those two are those open officers? Yes, Thompson and Saraki. What about HN18?
00:43:10 is Rob Hastings. Rob Hastings. Yeah. Yeah.
00:43:15 Yeah. He [clears throat] deployed not long before I retired. So my view of him is really of the evidence I saw. And yes, of course, that's great disappointment.
00:43:26 of course, that's great disappointment. I'm sure he's disappointed with himself. What about HN60? Have you heard that H in 60 is alleged to have had and admits to having a sexual relationship in his
00:43:38 to having a sexual relationship in his cover identity? Yes, I heard that about a month ago and when I inquired, am I allowed to am I allowed to discuss the
00:43:49 am I allowed to discuss the circumstances of it? Yes. I mean, I was reassured that it was a one-off on a uh training course she had attended with a woman who was not an
00:44:02 had attended with a woman who was not an activist
00:44:04 activist and uh and and it was a a short fling. I'm not justifying it, but at first I thought, "No, not another one." But this is before I took over the SDS. So, it
00:44:17 is before I took over the SDS. So, it was it was before I gave the instruction. Uh, so I think anything I direct against him would be mitigated by that fact and I'm not as
00:44:30 mitigated by that fact and I'm not as disappointed as I was initially. What about HN77? Had you heard anything about her having sexual relationships in her cover identity? No.
00:44:42 No. Um, in terms of what you know about people's sexual relationships undercover, have you gained all that knowledge simply through the inquiry or have you
00:44:55 simply through the inquiry or have you made your own uh investigations or have you inquired? Nove
00:45:01 Nove contact with anyone. It's just the inquiry.
00:45:08 And so to that extent, are you not in a position to be able to tell us whether there were any sexual relationships by the uh closed officers that you managed?
00:45:20 the uh closed officers that you managed? And I don't I want you to be careful in terms of uh their anonymity. The only ones I know of are the ones that you have revealed. Okay. And that's because the inquiry have been able to expose those. Yes. Exactly.
00:45:33 Yes. Exactly. Or well, not just the inquiry. Obviously there's been lots of uh uh uh actions taken by participants as well to to expose that.
00:45:44 expose that. Um can I ask you please about MPS 073 8049
00:46:02 again. And this was not part of your bundle. Um, it's an account of Dr. Palmer,
00:46:08 Palmer, Dr. Ian Palmer, who I think you'll recognize as being the psychiatrist. Yes.
00:46:13 Yes. Who was employed uh by the SDS? What was your relationship like with Dr. Ian Palmer, if you can remember? Yes, very good. Um, I went to his
00:46:24 Yes, very good. Um, I went to his wedding. I wasn't a friend who socialized with him, but I was well known enough to go to his wedding. Yeah. Parag uh page three penultimate
00:46:35 Parag uh page three penultimate paragraph paragraph please.
00:46:40 [clears throat]
00:46:46 [snorts] We can see his take on the uh uh practice of the existing or old officers recommended to choose new officers
00:46:55 officers [clears throat] uh to lead the officers being uh picked for for recruitment. So again that pra the practice of old hands old UCOs
00:47:06 the practice of old hands old UCOs coming in picking the new UCOs and that potentially being uh quite a toxic culture and I think you've addressed that already by saying that that can lead to to problems. It's better in some
00:47:18 lead to to problems. It's better in some respects to bring uh fresh blood in from outside of the SDS and special branch. I I found when I went on to the SDS an officer who I didn't even know on the was on the SDS but had been on ES squad
00:47:30 was on the SDS but had been on ES squad with me
00:47:32 with me and um I could have had an input in into his selection. Um okay
00:47:39 Um okay but I no one consulted me when I was on E squad. Um, paragraph f, page five, please,
00:47:49 last paragraph.
00:47:55 Um, here he's talking about the sessions that he had with undercover officers and the the uh the issues they faced during the course of their deployment. He says,
00:48:06 the course of their deployment. He says, however, the main threat to UC's during this time
00:48:10 this time appeared to be women. This could stem from either entanglement with them or the lack of them in their lives as perceived by the weareries. Some of this stem from their lack of understanding of how the female female mind worked.
00:48:24 how the female female mind worked. Uh it was made clear to all of them by management that relationships were off the cards and this was reiterated in my sessions and this led in some way to the introduction of support role players.
00:48:40 Can I ask you first in terms of the main threat to the undercover officers during their time in in in operation?
00:48:51 their time in in in operation? How was it that that was seen to be women? Why were women seen to be the threat?
00:48:57 threat? I don't know. And and I wish that Ian had discussed that with me. We had a protocol that relationship between doctor and client was privileged.
00:49:10 doctor and client was privileged. However, if an item was discussed that Ian felt that I should know, he would agree with the UC that I be told. And if
00:49:21 agree with the UC that I be told. And if the UC didn't agree to that, then their relationship would end. And similarly, the UC would be shown the door. So I'm a bit disappointed
00:49:32 bit disappointed that
00:49:36 Ian didn't manage to find a way of conveying that to me that there was a particular problem with women unless he means the desire for support players.
00:49:47 means the desire for support players. But if he's talking about existing sexual relations then I really would have wanted to know. I'm not on second thoughts I'm not sure he is. I don't know. Um, is it fair to say that he
00:49:59 know. Um, is it fair to say that he didn't raise issues to do with uh uh women?
00:50:04 women? No. When we had this arrangement, he would write a generic report on the concerns of the field every now and then uh which everybody was happy discussing
00:50:15 uh which everybody was happy discussing but with individuals no.
00:50:20 How is it that he became aware of the introduction of support role players as a practice to mitigate uh the need for a sexual relationship in in the field
00:50:32 in the field possibly because of [snorts] his military links and
00:50:39 and that arranged for support players to be provided by a branch of the military. I think he's rel uh referring specifically though to the SDS here.
00:50:50 though to the SDS here. Yeah. Well, that's what I'm referring to. We we used um the military to provide us with support players in in a very very limited way. Unfortunately,
00:51:04 in terms of women being seen to be a main threat to UCOs, is that reflective of a a misogynistic attitude that women are the greatest threat?
00:51:15 are the greatest threat? [snorts]
00:51:16 [snorts] I I read it as him meaning it's the the greatest operational threat to them. Now, whether it was or not is another question, but that's what I take it to mean. And is that because becoming
00:51:27 mean. And is that because becoming involved with a woman uh could lead to uh the woman exposing them and finding out who they really are? Well, as I say, the overwhelming
00:51:39 Well, as I say, the overwhelming majority of the people were excellent people, but they expressed that concern of this, you've heard it before, the gap in their legend of the lack of member of the opposite sex. So maybe I think maybe
00:51:52 the opposite sex. So maybe I think maybe that's what he's talking about. And
00:51:57 And did he was there a discussion then with um Ian Palmer about support role players?
00:52:03 players? I don't think well if there was I don't remember it
00:52:08 because he didn't even mention any problems. That that was the thing. There was there were no problems and that didn't come up I don't think in a generic letter. He might have done but
00:52:21 generic letter. He might have done but only in the context not of women being a problem but of the support role players that we needed. at page six
00:52:36 and fourth line from the top
00:52:41 we can see that in terms of management he says initially Mike Dell was not necessarily trusted by the UC's as you had not been an operative however I believe that he proved himself time and
00:52:52 believe that he proved himself time and again
00:52:53 again sorry who is this uh this is Ian Palmer still yeah this is his interview this his um her interview. So he's talking about you not necessarily being trusted.
00:53:04 necessarily being trusted. Yeah.
00:53:05 Yeah. Uh at the beginning um given that at the beginning of your operation, your management, that's when you said you spoke to the officers and
00:53:16 you said you spoke to the officers and uh and told them that sexual relationships were not permitted. Would it be fair to say that they were not going to come to you to discuss that issue?
00:53:26 issue? Yes. um because they didn't trust you given that you hadn't been a UCO. Yes. I can't again I couldn't have it both ways. I either made give the warning or I didn't
00:53:37 warning or I didn't and I and I chose to give the warning and it was also part of the fact I was determined that it was not going to be the DI running the operations. It was me. And did you give any instructions to
00:53:50 me. And did you give any instructions to your DI or your DS's to have conversations with the UCOs to find out what was going on to ask them directly if they'd had sexual relationships or
00:54:01 if they'd had sexual relationships or not?
00:54:01 not? No, I didn't give them instructions and this is not a copout because they were excellent people themselves. Each of them had served on all the operational squads. You'll you'll see how impressive
00:54:12 squads. You'll you'll see how impressive Steve Beals is when he comes up this this week. I had I was really really lucky in in the sergeants I had.
00:54:23 lucky in in the sergeants I had. So is it is it your evidence that none of the managers actually asked the UCOs directly if they'd have had a sexual
00:54:34 directly if they'd have had a sexual relationship? No, the converse isn't necessarily the truth just because I didn't tell them. And I I've got to add to that HN53 as oh the the excellent DI.
00:54:47 the the excellent DI. So they were good people. Um and when I say they knew what to do, that's not a copout. Again, I knew they were the type of people who would be
00:54:58 the type of people who would be addressing this in their everyday work with the UC's. You thought they were addressing the issue of sexual relationships or I thought they were addressing all of the all of the issues of of of concern.
00:55:12 the all of the issues of of of concern. And
00:55:12 And how did you know that? I don't know it. I I just know from experience experience of working with all of them, working with each of them on at least one squad each time, maybe two squads with some of them over a long
00:55:25 two squads with some of them over a long period.
00:55:27 period. And
00:55:30 And to send them a memo or something would have they would have found it strange.
00:55:38 Sorry. Do you mean send a memo to your you must do you must do this. You must do that. Don't forget to do this. Um
00:55:45 Um what what about just a discussion? I understand the the workings of the back office. Were you all fairly close together in in the same room as uh HM53? We we share our own office.
00:55:57 We we share our own office. It would be good to see their statements be because I I'm quite confident that
00:56:04 that they will be saying that I made plain what the standards were. So no one was any doubt. They didn't need it written down on a memo and sent to them and then
00:56:15 to them and then and asked to promise to comply. It was it was they were of the same ilk. they held the same standards.
00:56:27 It's one thing though, isn't it? Saying this is what the rule is, and it's another to actually make any checks, talk with the officers, ask them what's happening in their operational
00:56:39 what's happening in their operational lives.
00:56:40 lives. Who who was doing that in terms of asking, inquiring about sexual relationships? actually asking of inquiring of sexual
00:56:52 actually asking of inquiring of sexual relationships. I think your the evidence to this inquiry has been instructive that that the council has come with 10 years of script evidence corroboration
00:57:06 years of script evidence corroboration witness eyewitness testimony and they admit to that do the UC's but anything you didn't have no one was admitting to that when when
00:57:19 no one was admitting to that when when they're into sexual deception they're deceiving three people aren't the woman herself, their wife, and me. Now, who do you think of all those three
00:57:30 Now, who do you think of all those three is the easiest one to deceive their wife? They have to do it every day.
00:57:36 day. The woman every time they are with them and they're giving off signals, they're giving off smells that they are a changed person in some way. me.
00:57:51 a changed person in some way. me. Have you been a naughty boy, Carlo? Uh, no, Mike. Are you sure, Carlo? Oh, you're too good for me, Mike. I put my hands up. It's just not going to work,
00:58:03 hands up. It's just not going to work, is it? They their game is deception. But aren't aren't you in the position knowing what their home life is and knowing what their operational life is? You're the only person out of that
00:58:14 You're the only person out of that triangle that has a view on both worlds. I've got a view. So, you're you're in a better position than either woman to understand what's going on in that officer's life, aren't
00:58:27 going on in that officer's life, aren't you?
00:58:28 you? I can interpret a man's mood better than his wife.
00:58:36 his wife. I can I can see that he's under stress. I can see that something's troubling him. But I know better than a partner, wife, whatever
00:58:47 wife, whatever that this person is changed and he still gets away with it. I mean, it's he just says he just puts a front on when he sees me.
00:59:00 front on when he sees me. That's why I had to give a warning and that's why I had to give it as a oneshot go because I know that once I've given the warning, I've put them on the guard.
00:59:13 No one no one was going to come and confess to me after that which is why I was so surprised when Carlos Saraki did 2 3 4 days later but of course he was just
00:59:25 days later but of course he was just covering
00:59:26 covering he was setting his story she's an act not an activist etc because he didn't know that we weren't inquiring into him
00:59:37 into him but no one else would have come and confessed unless it was in their best interest to do so. When you say he was covering, what what do you mean he was covering?
00:59:49 do you mean he was covering? Well, he didn't know whether we were investigating him as well as Thompson. And so he thought, I'll get my defense in first. This woman who you've discovered, Mike, and I hadn't,
01:00:02 discovered, Mike, and I hadn't, uh, she's not an activist. I'm very sorry. The relationship's ending. My marriage is all over the place. I went away and thought about it and I
01:00:15 I went away and thought about it and I I I came back and I said, "Right, it has to end now and you you can stay on the unit." And that would the only exception I would have made. It was because he had
01:00:26 I would have made. It was because he had come to me straight away and admitted, but he hadn't, of course, he was just giving me a story. Um, what what was the difference between having a relationship with an activist
01:00:38 having a relationship with an activist and a non-activist? None. Except that his relationship was before I'd given the warning. Had it been with an activist,
01:00:49 Had it been with an activist, then he would have gone. That's why I thought about it before I decided.
01:00:54 decided. Just inquiring about that distinction you make between an activist or a non-activist. Why why draw that distinction? because both women were being deceived. Both women uh uh being
01:01:06 being deceived. Both women uh uh being uh in a relationship with a person that effectively doesn't exist. Yes. A creation of the the Met Police. um uh
01:01:17 creation of the the Met Police. um uh [cough]
01:01:17 [cough] [clears throat] both women um in a relationship with somebody who is facilitated by the back office in that they're given an identity, given a cover home, cover
01:01:28 identity, given a cover home, cover employment, and they're they're effectively on duty in their undercover identity. How is it different just because one is an activist and one isn't an activist? It's just like a traveling
01:01:40 an activist? It's just like a traveling salesman where the company provides him with the company car and the hotel the hotel and the expense account facilitating in that sense. He'd had a relationship which he said
01:01:51 He'd had a relationship which he said was finishing with someone with whom
01:01:58 had she discovered he was an undercover policeman could have decided whether she liked that or not. But it was not an integral part of their relationship that he was he was not seeing he was a
01:02:15 that he was he was not seeing he was a undercover police officer with the activist woman. He has got to decide deceive her on that front. The relationship with a non-activist woman is just
01:02:27 woman is just well normal deception. I'm not married. I don't have kids and etc. So, but it's not normal deception, is it? He's not, for instance, Carlos Saraki is not seeing uh Lindsay as Carlos Saraki
01:02:41 not seeing uh Lindsay as Carlos Saraki police officer. No. Um outside of his uh working time. He he he's seeing Lindsay as Carlo Neri activist
01:02:53 activist um being paid for but abroad with her. Sorry. But I'm told she's not an activist and that and that is the point. so that his other life as a police
01:03:06 so that his other life as a police officer doesn't impinge on that relationship in any way. If she discovers it, she might say, "Oh, she'd been a fireman. I would have been happy." But you're not. It's is irrelevant as that. Whereas if an
01:03:18 irrelevant as that. Whereas if an activist had discovered it, well then it's a whole wholly different ball game. Why? Why is that? Why? Why so different? Because she's not she's not given informed consent. She as an activist is
01:03:30 informed consent. She as an activist is much more likely to not want to have sexual relationships with a police officer and she has been deceived on that level. And
01:03:41 And she she's been deprived of agency. She's no informed consent and you lawyers will know about the
01:03:52 and you lawyers will know about the debate. Does that fringe into rape? Whereas with another woman, it's just like to me a lorry driver who has two families at
01:04:04 a lorry driver who has two families at ends of the country. His firm facilitates it. There's a third party and that's his wife.
01:04:13 wife. Before we move on to the third party though, um HN18 we know had a relationship with Maya um not an activist
01:04:22 activist um but lived next door to an activist. Yes.
01:04:26 Yes. Are you saying that that deception of Maya by H18 was not as deceitful or not as bad in some way because she might have not been
01:04:38 some way because she might have not been so hurt by the fact he was an undercover officer than somebody who perhaps was a part of the ISM that the the group that HN18 infiltrated.
01:04:50 HN18 infiltrated. I think there is a difference. Um, it might or might not be the case that any deceived woman when they discover the true identity of the bloke who they
01:05:01 true identity of the bloke who they think is somebody else who claims to be a sale threat but in fact is a lorry driver or whatever. I think it's a bit different in this case where the
01:05:12 different in this case where the misconduct is egregious. I mean I've just gone through all the lack of agency etc. Um
01:05:21 Um I think there is a difference. Now does that mean I would have continued to make that distinction after I'd given the directive? No. Because the third party is is the one I
01:05:33 Because the third party is is the one I have a duty of care to and that's his partner, wife, whatever. And that however [sighs] less guilty the relationship is between the two of you, I'm not being party to a
01:05:46 the two of you, I'm not being party to a deception of your partner wife. And so I wouldn't have made the distinction after I'd given the instruction, but his conduct predated it. And that's what I meant about he was
01:05:58 it. And that's what I meant about he was getting his defense in quick. Oh, come straight to me and get clear the slate. They're just a pack of lies. But now I now know.
01:06:09 now know. Did you see yourself as having a duty of care to members of the public as well
01:06:18 to protect them from the deceit as well as the spouse or partner? So in relation again to Carlo? No. Uh no
01:06:29 So in relation again to Carlo? No. Uh no more
01:06:31 more than if
01:06:33 than if one of my sergeants was having an affair with someone. It's none of my business. It's not if it's the personal life. And I think we would accept that
01:06:44 I think we would accept that at the inquiry, but this isn't Carlos Saraki's personal life when he's having a relationship with Lindsay, is it? It's his operational life. No, it's not. He's having a relationship as Carlo
01:06:55 He's having a relationship as Carlo Neri.
01:06:56 Neri. Not as he's presenting it to me. He's presenting it to me as being completely outside his operation. Now he's got to use the same name Carlo Neri for obvious obvious reasons
01:07:08 Neri for obvious obvious reasons but it's outside his operation and I repeat though it wouldn't have made a distinction after that but for different reasons duty of care to the wife but in
01:07:19 reasons duty of care to the wife but in and that particular this is the starting point of the regime if you like okay well that's it now slate cleaned
01:07:29 [snorts] um would you have seen mean yourself as having a duty of care to an activist.
01:07:37 activist. So to a woman who is in part of the target group of course
01:07:43 of course to protect her. I when I gave the warning I I thought carefully about how I should word it because it was a one shot and I thought of the three groups who
01:07:54 and I thought of the three groups who would be deceived. It would be a waste of time mentioning the deception of the activist because simply if you are in such a relationship, you've obviously ignored the activist's feelings and
01:08:08 ignored the activist's feelings and sentiments. So, it's no good going on that line. And it's a one short shock tactic.
01:08:15 tactic. And so I went in on duty of care to the wife and then also my duty of care to you to keep you out of trouble in terms of discipline charges, maybe even
01:08:27 of discipline charges, maybe even criminal charges in your relationship with the activist. But I didn't mention the activist for very specific reasons. Well, you've discounted that already. So it won't
01:08:38 discounted that already. So it won't appeal to you. it won't appeal to your good nature because you knew it was wrong and you just went ahead anyway. Did you ever couch the relationship with
01:08:50 Did you ever couch the relationship with an activist in terms of it being abuse and
01:08:54 and it being perceived as rape? Yes.
01:08:56 Yes. Um gross misconduct. Yes.
01:08:59 Yes. And and what was the response to that? What what did people say? Oh, I'm sorry. Did Did I um overtly couch? You know, I'm sorry.
01:09:11 um overtly couch? You know, I'm sorry. Your words your words are precise. My understanding's not. No, I didn't mention it in those terms, but I did allude to it in saying my duty of care to you to keep you out of trouble. Now,
01:09:25 to you to keep you out of trouble. Now, I'm assuming again they're bright enough to know what that means. Most police officers have had something. If if you haven't had any complaints made against you, then you're not doing your job. They've all come across those
01:09:38 your job. They've all come across those sorts of situations where they've honestly gone about their job and come across.
01:09:46 So I didn't I didn't labor that. No. Do you think it might have helped in hindsight now looking back to spell it out?
01:09:55 out? Yes.
01:09:55 Yes. To your UCOs that this is abuse, this is misogynistic behavior in recog
01:10:02 in recog for that reason. Yes. Sit down, get your pens out, write this down. Yes, I'm But I'm speaking to adults, most of whom were excellent.
01:10:13 adults, most of whom were excellent. Would it have helped you had such a a behavior been seen as a specific criminal offense?
01:10:23 It would certainly have backed up the threat. Um, and would that be a greater disincentive to any officer rather than a duty of
01:10:34 to any officer rather than a duty of care to their spouse, which they've already written off anyway, haven't they, by having that relationship undercover? I can see the the case for it. But then being I suppose the dishonesty towards
01:10:47 being I suppose the dishonesty towards their wife is something they kept pushing away and fighting, but that really might be the way in. That's where you can really get them to think because they they're pushing it
01:10:58 think because they they're pushing it away because they know this isn't the right thing to do. Whereas the activist, they're abusing them. So, it's no good appealing to the sentiment on that.
01:11:09 sentiment on that. Do you think that perhaps some of the UCOs who hadn't yet uh entered into a sexual relationship might have thought twice about it if they did understand that in in terms of abuse and and and
01:11:23 that in in terms of abuse and and and perceived as rape? No,
01:11:26 No, I can't speak for individuals, but in general terms, I was appealing to self-interest. And I think um if they had not been involved in it
01:11:38 um if they had not been involved in it um they were more likely to not want to um harm and abuse their wives and they hadn't done so far. And so I was
01:11:49 hadn't done so far. And so I was reinforcing that.
01:11:58 Would I would I on reflection next time spell it all out? Yes. I'll try to cover all bases as possible. I'm just
01:12:09 all bases as possible. I'm just explaining the the reasoning behind my actions at the time.
01:12:16 the time. Can I have on screen please
01:12:20 um well it's your witness statement page 54 to 55. if it's paragraph 81 and this is where you address
01:12:31 where you address the scenario that was given in training sessions or in recruitment sessions. Yeah.
01:12:38 Yeah. To establish whether somebody was the right sort of person uh to be recruited to the SDS. And it's the scenario that uh addresses this. A weary invites herself in for coffee
01:12:51 weary invites herself in for coffee after sharing a cab home and it becomes obvious that she has no intention of leaving before the morning. Do you remember using that scenario in recruitment exercises?
01:13:04 exercises? Um in terms of the whether that was a realistic assessment of the risk. Could you now accept that in fact what was happening in reality is that it was the officers who were approaching women and
01:13:17 officers who were approaching women and and pursuing women for sex. Yes. I don't buy the mermaid thing. Um,
01:13:32 in terms of the scenarios, um,
01:13:38 that you used in in recruitment and obviously being careful as to how many people you recruited um, and the names of those individuals,
01:13:49 um, and the names of those individuals, but um, what discussion Did this scenario provoke? I can't remember. No during these sorts of scenarios. Did you
01:14:01 during these sorts of scenarios. Did you reiterate then that sex was prohibited? I can't remember. I don't know. Uh would it have would it have uh been the right time to no
01:14:13 the right time to no uh reiterate their? No, I was listening to them. I wanted to know about them. And on a debrief after such an interview, would you do that? No, I I I wasn't setting out to put them
01:14:26 No, I I I wasn't setting out to put them on the right path for their future life. I was just trying to select them and I wanted to hear what they had to say.
01:14:37 Um, in terms of your understanding that this was a risk, that you'd identified the risk, what measures did you put in place other than your directive to the plenary session, what other measures did you put in place to prevent such
01:14:50 you put in place to prevent such relationships from occurring? It was it was impossible to put any in place other than
01:14:59 than the great benefit we had of dealing with this all the time and seeing them quite frequently and making the best of that. Trying to judge differences in behavior,
01:15:12 Trying to judge differences in behavior, rationalizations for their conduct over the weekend, what they've been doing and why.
01:15:19 why. Um
01:15:22 Um um
01:15:25 it wasn't a mission. It was like how the heck can I do anymore? And that was what's deeply unsatisfactory.
01:15:37 what's deeply unsatisfactory. And again, when I spent a fortnight thinking did I want the job, these was one of the things that and why I wanted to control the operations myself, not the DI. it was going to be so difficult
01:15:50 the DI. it was going to be so difficult to make sure that the standards were applied.
01:15:56 applied. And that's not ducking out. That's just a recognition of the reality. But could I think of any way of keeping a tab on that? No.
01:16:10 I I've already asked you this, but what about just straight up conversations with the officers about ways to go about avoiding sexual relationships?
01:16:21 avoiding sexual relationships? Well, yes. I mean that was discussed in in the terms of support role officers and
01:16:28 and the the other excellent people were they were facing the same problems in some of their fields but that was uh you could fix it but with a support group player
01:16:40 fix it but with a support group player making just cameo appearances and what about other UCOs who hadn't had relationships speaking to new recruits we've we've heard about
01:16:52 we've we've heard about uh uh uh uh mentors and previous UCOs saying to uh some of the UCOs well it's in inevitable it's inevitable uh it will be part of your deployment what about
01:17:04 be part of your deployment what about ensuring that those conversations were prohibited and encouraging those conversations that uh encouraged avoidance yeah I mean I was happy to let the
01:17:16 yeah I mean I was happy to let the mentor scheme wither because in this particular circumstance dance. Um, I thought it was it was negative in its in its effect. The mentors were people
01:17:28 in its effect. The mentors were people of such a similar professional experience that they were simply passing on the collective memory. this is the way we do
01:17:40 collective memory. this is the way we do things. Rather than providing an informed experience, wide experience-based opinion or view on something, they just simply passing on what had been done
01:17:52 simply passing on what had been done before. So, I was happy to let it go. And I I wasn't I wasn't content with the influence of former officers.
01:18:04 influence of former officers. So for instance, we had a suite of offices and we had a spare office and Bob Lambert wanted to could I use that office for my Muslim contact unit.
01:18:18 office for my Muslim contact unit. No, sorry. I don't want the old regime or the old sweats whatever telling this lot how to go
01:18:29 whatever telling this lot how to go about things. Can I ask you about the date of the prohibition? You've already already addressed that at the beginning of your evidence this morning. Um, in terms of
01:18:41 evidence this morning. Um, in terms of remembering now that you must have given that express prohibition around September October 2001.
01:18:52 Was there anything that you recall now that triggered that express prohibition? No.
01:19:00 No. Uh, if there was, I'd forgotten it. But I don't think there was. And I It's like I'm trying to think back to the precise moment when I became
01:19:11 the precise moment when I became suspicious about Thompson. And I I just can't recall that either. So, no, it wasn't an event, but it was
01:19:22 when you are beginning to investigate someone like Thompson. This is this is someone again who has picked out the lifestyle he wants. Right. Well, is that lifestyle going to include the obvious
01:19:35 lifestyle going to include the obvious and so
01:19:36 and so I didn't know what the extent of the problem was in Thompson terms, never mind sexual misconduct. And so the warning had to go in, but it was not spurred on by anything else.
01:19:50 was not spurred on by anything else. By the time that you came into the SDS in May 2001 and you spent those uh few months, two or two months I think shadowing HN58
01:20:04 or two months I think shadowing HN58 until July. Yes. Through to July. Um were you aware that Rosa had been trying to track down HM14
01:20:15 Rosa had been trying to track down HM14 Jim Boiling by then? No. No. Um, we know that in um sorry uh on the 15th of November 2000,
01:20:26 of November 2000, Rosa had visited HN14's Duff accommodation and given a note to the landlord. Yes. Through through the um
01:20:37 Through through the um I remember that evidence. Yeah. Do you remember that happening at the time?
01:20:41 time? No.
01:20:42 No. That's only something you've come to learn about is reading the evidence. Yeah. and that on the 12th of December 2000, she had called the SDS duty phone and
01:20:53 she had called the SDS duty phone and the office phone. Four calls she had made. And um if we can bring up MPS 309522
01:21:14 at page seven, please. Yeah,
01:21:20 we can see those four calls that have been made
01:21:24 been made by Rosa asking for Jim. Yeah. And we can see that um in the first bullet point NW Noel war answered.
01:21:35 NW Noel war answered. Um again in two Noah War answered in three Bernie Greeny answered and at four it was the duty phone.
01:21:47 and at four it was the duty phone. Yeah.
01:21:48 Yeah. And um she says there if you see Jim tell him I'm leaving him and it's all over.
01:21:55 over. Yeah. It was clear by that run of messages, wasn't it, that this was a a a girlfriend looking for Jim Boiling.
01:22:06 girlfriend looking for Jim Boiling. Yeah.
01:22:08 Yeah. That had operational security issues attached with it as well because she's calling the duty phone.
01:22:18 How is it that that was not relayed to you coming in then taking over management of the SDS office only well 5
01:22:31 management of the SDS office only well 5 months later in the May? I mean I I can't answer. I don't know. Um
01:22:39 um can we have up MPS 4 uh 74 8100 please? So 0748100.
01:22:57 It's a final note of communications page 20 please.
01:23:07 Um, and we can see here this is entitled Rosa as a gist. A final note of the same date, the 12th of December 2000.
01:23:20 of December 2000. And this is an instruction from HN53 as to the response back office will make in the event that Rosa contacts the office again.
01:23:32 office again. You can see the bold bullet points as to what should be related to her. So HN53, the DI, who is your DI when you take
01:23:43 the DI, who is your DI when you take over, is in full knowledge of Rose's hunt for Jim Boiling, isn't she? Yes.
01:23:50 Yes. Isn't he? Um, and does he not make you aware of that and make you aware of the problem that uh, sexual relationships
01:24:04 problem that uh, sexual relationships can have and the fallout that that can have, even if only in relation to the SDS operational security? No. was we moved office
01:24:16 No. was we moved office not too long after I took over and I've forgotten the circumstances of that but I think that was an activist track chasing someone is did this continue and
01:24:30 chasing someone is did this continue and that's right I think that the whole move in July or around July 2001 so while you're in office oh no uh
01:24:38 oh no uh no we moved office when I was there and
01:24:45 and I would have taken over in July, but it wasn't the first week I was there. We moved after after 911 cuz [clears throat] I know where I was like everybody at 911 and we were in the old
01:24:57 everybody at 911 and we were in the old office.
01:24:59 office. Uh what I was going to say is that in 53's defense, he may have this may have gone on afterwards. And did it go on afterwards into mine? And when she
01:25:12 on afterwards into mine? And when she rings during mine, he then explains to me what the the situation was. I mean, do do you know whether it was the same activist? Cuz I can't remember.
01:25:23 the same activist? Cuz I can't remember. I just know an activist had rung rung in and we thought we better up sticks. Yes, I think that is in relation to Rosa. I think you're right. And I think um HN14
01:25:35 um HN14 around at midsummer, so around July 2001 had told um the office that um it the
01:25:46 had told um the office that um it the need to move offices was was in the was being thought about by that stage. It was being contemplated from July onwards and it was something to do with him.
01:25:57 him. Right. So in that sense I am aware then because I was aware of an activist chasing Jim Boiling. Um
01:26:08 chasing Jim Boiling. Um and you were aware that it was his girlfriend, his activist girlfriend. No.
01:26:13 No. How were you not aware of that if you're having a discussion with HM53 about that? I'm not sure I had a discussion with him, but I can remember the um
01:26:25 him, but I can remember the um right the arrangements. We better we better move office then because um she'll be knocking on the door next. Um
01:26:34 Um did you not query why on earth she was so keen to get in touch with no
01:26:39 no Jim? No. And of course in retrospect she had the answer to a lot of my problems. I would have had I known that I would have started off even differently
01:26:51 have started off even differently and I think is there a systemic problem here.
01:26:55 here. Um but then it was an activist is chasing and if you decide that I was in error by not asking was she his
01:27:07 I was in error by not asking was she his girlfriend? Yeah. Okay. I didn't ask.
01:27:23 [snorts] Um,
01:27:24 Um, there is the other side to that of course that I could be accused of misogyny if I had considered female activists as simply
01:27:35 considered female activists as simply sexual objects for use by the field and that they couldn't be just as effective and diligent and active as male activists.
01:27:46 activists. that why should I assume because a female activist is ringing up? It's to do with sex with a man. I wouldn't do it if a male activist
01:27:57 I wouldn't do it if a male activist phoned in. Why should I assume it was to do with the sexual thing? No, what I'm just making the point that um but I think it's more to do with the fact that she says, "Well, I'm leaving him. It's over." That's clearly a
01:28:10 him. It's over." That's clearly a reference to a relationship, isn't it? Yeah. That relates to 8 n months before. Uh when I'm told that Rosa has phoned
01:28:21 Uh when I'm told that Rosa has phoned in, it's not in relation to any of this. It's it's an extra bit on and I'm told it's an activist has rung in. Right. We best go then. Do you think you should
01:28:32 best go then. Do you think you should have been told if you weren't that this is a an exartner or a I can only say that 53 wouldn't have wanted to deceive me
01:28:46 53 wouldn't have wanted to deceive me and that maybe he thought I was aware. I don't know. Um
01:28:52 Um so you can't think of any reason why he didn't tell you no
01:28:55 no that obvious part of the story. That is the point. He's such an excellent character that No, he he wouldn't have wanted to deceive me.
01:29:07 wouldn't have wanted to deceive me. Do you think it's likely he did tell you? And
01:29:10 you? And well, that's the next step, isn't it? But
01:29:16 I would have started off with the knowledge. Ah, Thompson's not the first and then Saraki. Well, Saraki was the first, Thompson was the second because
01:29:27 first, Thompson was the second because the investigations revealed it. I would have started off on a different foot and I didn't. So, if I was aware of it, I'd forgotten it pretty quick and pretty
01:29:40 forgotten it pretty quick and pretty quickly. And um yeah,
01:29:45 yeah, can I bring up MPS 0749473,
01:29:49 please?
01:29:57 This is in relation to Mark Jenner. Page page three.
01:30:05 We can see this is a file note from the 16th of July 2001. Yeah.
01:30:11 Yeah. In respect of a call that Terry uh Marks a cover employer received on the 25th of June 2001.
01:30:34 And we can see in paragraph uh five
01:30:41 five that touchy subject Mark Jenner is relatively relaxed about the inquiry and thinks that it might emanate from Allison
01:30:49 Allison who occupied a room in his former former Duff.
01:30:53 Duff. He suggests that she is the girlfriend of Mark Metaf.
01:30:59 Um the fact that a woman who used to live with Mark Jenner is searching for him through a third party. Did that give
01:31:12 him through a third party. Did that give you any cause to consider that this might be another deceived woman who is searching for one of your officers or I understand Mark Jenner uh ceased his
01:31:24 understand Mark Jenner uh ceased his deployment in uh 2000 so he wasn't under your management. Yeah. Well in in the chronology um
01:31:35 Yeah. Well in in the chronology um Allison is the first because 16th of July must have been the day after I took over.
01:31:40 over. Okay.
01:31:41 Okay. um because it would have been about that time with 58's retirement. Uh so it wasn't a it wasn't a chronology. Um
01:31:52 Um and that's why I asked
01:31:56 did this spark the the move or was it Rosa? Because if it was Rosa, well, I didn't have knowledge before then. But is this the one which caused me to
01:32:10 But is this the one which caused me to agree that we should move or did Rosa come up again? Yeah. So Rosa first came up at least um on the documents I've shown you in December 2000
01:32:21 December 2000 2000.
01:32:22 2000. Yeah. Um
01:32:25 Yeah. Um sorry nove November November 800 then December 2000 and then we hear John Jim boiling in midsummer around July saying to the office oh is this
01:32:36 July saying to the office oh is this something to do with me because of Rosa which seems to have triggered contemplation of a move around the same time in July we're getting a call from a third party asking on behalf of Allison
01:32:48 third party asking on behalf of Allison where Mark Jenner is can I also refer you to MPS PS 309531 please.
01:33:05 So this is a file note in relation to Mark Jenner again and this is just before you um well you took over in the July. What what was your
01:33:17 over in the July. What what was your first start date of actually entering the office? Is it beginning of May? For the handover, it'd be in May. Yeah, May. And the takeover was whatever 58's
01:33:28 And the takeover was whatever 58's retirement date was, which is July apparently. So, so uh this being then uh in May, at the end of May 2001, um it's likely that you were in
01:33:40 2001, um it's likely that you were in the office at that time. I'm not saying it there when the phone call happened, but you were you were um there shadowing HN58 at that time.
01:33:53 there shadowing HN58 at that time. Terry Mark's Duff employer had called Bob Lambert to say that Allison was inquiring after Mark Jenner. and Bob
01:34:04 inquiring after Mark Jenner. and Bob Lambert then contacted the office on Friday the 28th of May to say that uh Terry had been in touch. Um
01:34:14 Um again, Allison inquiring after him understood that uh he'd gone away to Germany
01:34:28 and um
01:34:33 understanding a bit about his uh his his private life. though a close associate
01:34:41 associate at least of Mark Jenners. That's obvious. Any suspicion at all arising that this might be a woman who is deceived in a relationship looking for
01:34:52 deceived in a relationship looking for her uh partner? No, I mean I'm days ago come in to shadow um 58 who had another 3 months to go and
01:35:05 um 58 who had another 3 months to go and we're talking about a field office who had already left and I don't even recall that
01:35:17 I asked you earlier about Helen Dyn and her search for sorry Helen Steel and her search for John Dyn.
01:35:24 John Dyn. Yes.
01:35:25 Yes. Um I'm sorry. In relation to that uh slip,
01:35:31 slip, any reference to Helen looking for John Dyn in the context of women calling the office trying to get in touch looking for these UCOs that have withdrawn from
01:35:42 for these UCOs that have withdrawn from the field. any putting two and two together to raise at least a wellfounded suspicion that there were sexual relationships uh going on in relation to
01:35:54 relationships uh going on in relation to these officers? No. And again following the evidence uh I was dismayed to discover that the history of that particular relationship
01:36:06 history of that particular relationship um given that both uh John Dyn's name came to me for the first time in 2003 4 when Helen Steel goes to New
01:36:18 2003 4 when Helen Steel goes to New Zealand again. That is the first I'd never heard of John Dyn.
01:36:28 Um, we have heard evidence from HN 1118. Yeah.
01:36:33 Yeah. Uh, known as Simon Wellings. Yeah.
01:36:35 Yeah. Um, and he gave his evidence to this inquiry on the 16th of March, 2026. Um and he suggested that your
01:36:47 Um and he suggested that your prohibition was in response to rumblings amongst UCOs about something going wrong in HN16's deployment which you've addressed
01:36:56 addressed and he said in answer uh he replied yes in answer to this question he lays down the ground rules that's referring to you you go to separate out
01:37:09 referring to you you go to separate out for example in the kitchen area you're talking about this in your recollection is someone mentioned James Thompson traveling on a passport with the subtext being that maybe it's because he was
01:37:20 being that maybe it's because he was involved in a relationship. 118's answer to that was yes. So at least it was 118's impression that HN16 had been away traveling traveled on a
01:37:33 had been away traveling traveled on a passport to Indonesia. We know as the inquiry that that was uh with uh Ellie, a woman that he had deceived into a relationship.
01:37:44 relationship. Yes.
01:37:45 Yes. And so was that something that uh was known about or understood to be uh involved with that trip by the UCOs's in
01:37:57 involved with that trip by the UCOs's in that plenary session.
01:38:01 HM53's investigation was known only to me, but we knew that Thompson would tell somebody and that's where the information has come from.
01:38:12 information has come from. So,
01:38:15 uh, was it Simon Wellings? Did you say Simon Wellings evidence there is the first I heard of the field's knowledge of it? Yeah. So if it was common knowledge in the
01:38:27 So if it was common knowledge in the field, I wasn't aware it was because we didn't tell the sergeants. We didn't tell anybody
01:38:43 when you uh were investigating HN16's trip to Indonesia. Um, you discovered that he'd gone to Indonesia because uh you checked the
01:38:55 Indonesia because uh you checked the credit card details in his passport, I think. Is that right? Yes. Yeah. So, by September 2001, October 2001, you were aware that he'd gone on that trip against instruction?
01:39:07 trip against instruction? Yeah.
01:39:08 Yeah. Were any further investigations done about who he traveled with? I'd have to look at HM53's report which
01:39:19 I'd have to look at HM53's report which is voluminous. Um all the inquiries are in there. We know that for instance he left his phone here uh so that we couldn't track that abroad.
01:39:31 abroad. But we also knew I was going to go with him as cover officer
01:39:38 officer because I was already suspicious. I I just couldn't put my finger on it. All right, I'll go with him. 911, neither of us is going. And I remember saying to HM53, he'll go
01:39:50 And I remember saying to HM53, he'll go anyway.
01:39:52 anyway. And that's not news to HM53. He was of the same suspicion. Um,
01:39:59 Um, so did you So, so you predicted that? Yeah. And did you So we were ready to inquire on him when he went
01:40:08 he went and when his passport um you know went through uh border control was there was there any sense that you could identify who he was traveling with and if he was
01:40:20 was traveling with and if he was traveling with a young woman that would flag further concerns? No. Um, I mean, the mechanics and the detail of 53's investigation, I don't
01:40:32 detail of 53's investigation, I don't hold in my head, but I know it was comprehensive, but it was retrospective. We couldn't follow him where he was cuz his phone was here. And doing uh
01:40:44 his phone was here. And doing uh contemporaneous checks of of passport transactions just wasn't possible. when you say it was comprehensive um failure to identify the
01:40:56 comprehensive um failure to identify the fact that he was traveling with a young woman that he was in a sexual relationship with as uh uh James Straven,
01:41:02 Straven, would that seem to be a significant gap in that investigation? Not a gap in the investigation, a gap in in in
01:41:10 in in the results of what was available to us in order to track him. I mean, if if there was a means of uh discovering that at the time, my god,
01:41:22 uh discovering that at the time, my god, we would have taken it. Is there a chance that in fact it was known that he was traveling with another woman? But that just didn't seem to be an issue at the time. Nobody cared
01:41:33 be an issue at the time. Nobody cared about that. No.
01:41:37 No. No. If if um if id if id known precisely at what time he was going and he was going with another woman on a douff passport, I'd have stopped him at the gate or at least the branch officers at
01:41:49 gate or at least the branch officers at the airport would have stopped him. But we didn't have that advanced knowledge. We didn't know what his flight date details were because he'd he bought his
01:42:00 details were because he'd he bought his own tickets. So
01:42:04 So it was retrospective. but as all contemporaneous as we could make it. And 53 for that period of time did just virtually nothing else. But that
01:42:17 virtually nothing else. But that investigation
01:42:23 in the context of knowing about well given that we know Rosa has been calling.
01:42:33 calling. Yeah. Um,
01:42:35 Yeah. Um, and Allison has been calling and we know that Helen Steel has been searching as well. You you you're saying you didn't know?
01:42:45 know? No.
01:42:45 No. Was there no cumulative um
01:42:51 um marshalling of this sort of evidence? Was there no institutional knowledge where HM53, for instance, just says, "My goodness, we're we're in real difficulty here. We've got some serious uh
01:43:05 here. We've got some serious uh concerns even if it was only in relation to the operational security of the SDS. Was that disc that wasn't discussed?
01:43:16 Was that disc that wasn't discussed? Yeah, we didn't um we didn't know who he was traveling with. We didn't know he's traveling with another woman. Um and as I say, if we had and went, we'd
01:43:27 and as I say, if we had and went, we'd have stopped him at the gate. him traveling in a false passport. That's enough to convict him sort of thing. Um, so we didn't know that. I
01:43:40 thing. Um, so we didn't know that. I didn't know about um I'd never heard of John John Dyn at that time. So,
01:43:49 So, no, he certainly wasn't. And it's it certainly wasn't. Oh, he's forget the women, just let him get on with it. It's exactly the opposite. If we could have
01:44:01 exactly the opposite. If we could have found more ammunition to nail into the floorboards, we would have done. But, you know,
01:44:07 you know, was the the uprooting of the SDS officers and moving the SDS offices and your direct prohibition on sexual
01:44:18 and your direct prohibition on sexual relationships, a direct consequence of the operational threat. uh of at least three women seeking other
01:44:32 uh of at least three women seeking other officers and HN16 going abroad in the way that he did with another woman. Was that the motivation for you giving your direction? No. No. My threat was um
01:44:47 No. No. My threat was um precipitated by the Thompson investigation. If he's adopting this lifestyle, then that could well be part of it. though we hadn't yet established at that point that he was in in
01:45:00 at that point that he was in in appropriate relationship. If I remember the detail correctly, I think that came from phone billing records,
01:45:10 but I couldn't then sit on my a preference not to give the warning just yet because by giving the warning, I'm putting them on notice. I would have liked to have completed the
01:45:21 liked to have completed the investigation on Thompson and then during that time we could say is there anything else coming up that we need to look at but I didn't have that time so it was precipitated by it but it wasn't
01:45:33 it was precipitated by it but it wasn't caused by it by the Thompson investigation in relation to the other women there was no such no such link and the move of office
01:45:45 and the move of office um when do you say that was I I think you did mention it I can't remember. Um, we were in the old office, as I say, at 911.
01:45:59 I can't honestly remember when we moved. [clears throat] Was it before the end of 2001? I don't know. I just I just can't remember.
01:46:10 remember. And what precipitated that? That was an activist calling in. Okay. So, that uh was it for Jim Jim Boiling? Um, but when that was, I don't know.
01:46:22 Um, but when that was, I don't know. But your evidence is there's no link between having to move office because either Rosa andor Allison was looking for a UCO
01:46:33 for a UCO and your direction to give uh your direction to the UCOs to stop having sexual relationships or not to have sexual relationships. There's no link
01:46:44 sexual relationships. There's no link between the two. No, no, I don't. No, it was just purely in my in my sense an an activist, a female activist.
01:46:55 female activist. No, as far as I could see it, nothing the gender had nothing to do with it. As I say, I regarded her as an activist, not as a sexual object for one of the field.
01:47:07 one of the field. Is it more than just a coincidence? And in fact, your direction was precipitated by an understanding by back office that relationships were going on. And this
01:47:18 relationships were going on. And this point, nothing to do with [laughter] it. Nothing to do with it. It in it was precipitated by the Thompson thing. Solely that yet we hadn't got to the point in the Thompson thing where we
01:47:29 point in the Thompson thing where we established the relationship with women. If it was purely in relation to Thompson who is going off on travels, why was the direction not you must not undertake
01:47:43 direction not you must not undertake travel against our instruction? Why was your direction related to sexual relationships? Because the former was was was obvious. If you're instructed, you're a police officer, you don't do
01:47:55 you're a police officer, you don't do it. You obey orders.
01:48:00 The second one was because that is the lifestyle change that Thompson could well be making. And of course he was sorry the
01:48:11 sorry the lifestyle change into as part of this al alter ego lifestyle. I shall be uh conducting illicit relationships with women. and he
01:48:24 illicit relationships with women. and he might not. But it was the most obvious thing. It's not confined to policing, is it? This is where when people say, "Well, it happens everywhere." It does happen everywhere,
01:48:35 everywhere." It does happen everywhere, so you'd best do something about it happening here. So that was a real suspicion you had at the time of 1816. I I had a suspicion that [snorts] it would be a component of his alternative
01:48:46 would be a component of his alternative lifestyle because it was a lifestyle. He was really a a film's location person. He wasn't an SDS officer. He'd adopted that fully. We were only just late
01:48:57 that fully. We were only just late catching on to that. And so we hadn't yet discovered the elements which were the women. So we better I'd better cover that in relation
01:49:08 better I'd better cover that in relation to anyone else. If there had been suspicions about anyone else, then I would have mounted investigations into them as individuals. Just as with Thompson.
01:49:20 Thompson. And when HN 104 disclosed that he was in a relationship, did you mount any investigation with him? No. In relation to Lindsay?
01:49:31 with him? No. In relation to Lindsay? Why not?
01:49:33 Why not? Because I was duped. because
01:49:38 because I I was quite pleased mugged that I am that my instruction had had some effect that 4 days after the
01:49:49 had some effect that 4 days after the instruction was given he's coming to me and putting his hands up.
01:49:56 I had no reason at that time to believe as I would now if I were going to start the job again with all this knowledge behind me. I had no reason to believe
01:50:08 behind me. I had no reason to believe that he was betraying the trust that I had in him. And that is the again another reason why I took a fortnight to decide that I wanted the job. It was
01:50:20 decide that I wanted the job. It was because the key element was trust. Do you wish now that you'd have had all that institutional knowledge behind you?
01:50:31 that institutional knowledge behind you? The Mike Chitties, the Scots, the Dineses. Would that have changed your view of what was going on at that time? Yes.
01:50:39 Yes. I'd have left and got a milk round. And what steps did you take when HN 104 told you about his relationship with Lindsay
01:50:49 Lindsay to ensure that that relationship did finish?
01:50:52 finish? I couldn't. You didn't take any steps at all?
01:50:55 all? No, I couldn't. What do you mean you couldn't? How could I intrude into her life to establish
01:51:02 establish that what Cara was saying was the truth? Do you think that any act that you took to intrude in her life would be way
01:51:13 to intrude in her life would be way below the intrusion that Carlo Saraki had already made into her life? Yes. But um dropping one bomb on a person is is less
01:51:24 dropping one bomb on a person is is less than dropping a hundred bombs on them, but you're still dropping a bomb on them.
01:51:28 them. Could it be that you looked at uh his activity without intruding on Linds's? That's where the difficulty was. You you will recall from the outcome of
01:51:42 will recall from the outcome of well not the outcome before the outcome of the Thompson investigation was we put in much more intrusive supervision of them in terms of bank accounts and
01:51:53 them in terms of bank accounts and bills and everything receipts for everything. Uh is that something you could have done in relation to other UCOs?
01:52:05 relation to other UCOs? The the the 10 you say that you were managing
01:52:08 managing those elements of intrusive supervision. Well, it was it applied to everybody. Everyone had to bring in their bank statements every month. And we kept the passports in an office in an office, a
01:52:21 passports in an office in an office, a cabinet. So you couldn't travel on your own. You had to apply to us. Uh everything was kept with us where it could be and everything was accounted for as much as it could be.
01:52:34 for as much as it could be. Um but at this point I do wish I had all the knowledge I've got now about the sexual misconduct. My god. Yes.
01:52:44 Sir, I note the time. We'll have um the usual 15minute break in a moment. Could I just ask you um one question arising out of the topic that's
01:52:56 question arising out of the topic that's been discussed? Yeah.
01:52:57 Yeah. Um
01:52:59 Um your recollection now is that it was in September 2001 that you told uh the undercover officers that sexual
01:53:11 undercover officers that sexual relationships [snorts] uh in their undercover identity were wholly prohibited and would lead to their removal from the unit. Yes, sir. In terms of it was the early
01:53:23 Yes, sir. In terms of it was the early stages of the Thompson investigation and that's how I'm dating it. But the telephone investigation of Thompson which revealed three women
01:53:34 Thompson which revealed three women recipients. Yeah.
01:53:35 Yeah. Didn't take place until the following year.
01:53:38 year. That's that's what I'm saying. We didn't have that information. And the answer to your next question is yes. We should have done it sooner. That wasn't going to be my next question. I'm simply trying to put a
01:53:50 question. I'm simply trying to put a date on things and to see how it ties in.
01:53:53 in. But it it isn't the discovery by telephone records of Thompson's interaction with three women that prompted this.
01:54:06 prompted this. Exactly. Right. It was before that. Yes.
01:54:09 Yes. Understood. In which case, one possible misconception from which I might have labored is removed. Thank you. Uh 15
01:54:20 labored is removed. Thank you. Uh 15 minutes.
02:12:52 Yes.
02:12:55 Could I have up on screen, please? MPS0719571.
02:13:01 It's behind tab B87.
02:13:08 Um, Mr. Delu addressed this document at paragraph 289B of your witness statement and essentially it's about magenta triangle um HN16 James
02:13:21 magenta triangle um HN16 James Thompson's code name uh it's actually initialed by you it's a a file note of the 12th of October 2001
02:13:34 um this wasn't circulated this document Um
02:13:41 Um in paragraph one here we can see that um
02:13:50 there's reference to can by the 12th of October 2001 were you aware that in fact HN16 had not been on
02:14:01 aware that in fact HN16 had not been on annual leave in can? No. No.
02:14:09 Um,
02:14:12 were you aware? So, you weren't aware by the 12th of October that he had been to Indonesia. I'm sorry. Yes. Yes, I was aware that he'd not been
02:14:24 Yes. Yes, I was aware that he'd not been in K. Yeah. Okay. So, he hadn't been in Khan. He'd been evacuated. Uh well, he'd um uh he he'd been to Indonesia. Yes. To see L4 ostensively,
02:14:36 see L4 ostensively, of course. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. And the dates of that visit were the 26th of September 2001 to the 5th of October 2001. So, so we understand.
02:14:48 October 2001. So, so we understand. Okay.
02:14:51 Okay. Does that help you with when your prohibition on sexual relationships was? Is it right to say that you spoke to the plenary group at the safe house after he had returned
02:15:03 the safe house after he had returned from Indonesia? It suggests it was after the 12th of October.
02:15:08 October. Okay.
02:15:23 And is it right? Do you recall that the reason you knew he wasn't in can at the time was because of a credit card uh use in Singapore? Yes.
02:15:33 Yes. Uh and that was for hotel bills and a a laptop. I think it was an electrical item.
02:15:39 item. Yeah. Raffles Hotel. Yeah. Raffles Hotel, was it? Yeah.
02:15:44 Yeah. Um, and and so your understanding was that he'd been out to Indonesia, but he'd spent time in uh Singapore? Yes.
02:15:51 Yes. And was there any sense that that was a hotel bill for two people? I can't remember without seeing Okay.
02:15:58 Okay. 53's report. Would it have been relatively easy to to identify whether that was for two people or one person? Um, I don't know. I'd have to look at the bill. If the bill's in my name for
02:16:11 the bill. If the bill's in my name for my family on holiday, it's just one person or sometimes it's two. I I accept what you're saying. If if it did show two people, then yes, it would be added
02:16:23 two people, then yes, it would be added information for us. Were any attempts made to call up the hotel to find out who stayed in the room those particular dates? Is that something you could have done as
02:16:34 something you could have done as I don't I don't think so. I don't know. But those attempts weren't made. Is it is it right to say or is it HM53 who conducted the investigation? Say
02:16:45 conducted the investigation? Say I mean you you will see him next week. Honestly, I don't know.
02:16:52 I take responsibility if it for your suggestion. If it if it wasn't, I should have done that. Yes, I accept that. But I don't I don't know whether it was done.
02:17:02 done. Do you recall if there was any discussion around that issue at the time? No, I can't remember as to whether he was traveling to Singapore on his own or whether he was in the company of anybody else. I I just can't remember. I don't know.
02:17:23 Um, just while we're on this document, this isn't necessarily to do with his trip to Indonesia, but it's to do with the suggestion that L4
02:17:36 the suggestion that L4 um would want to do harm to L5. I'll give you a moment to to have a look at this
02:17:42 this as in operation lime. Exactly. But um in particular, I want to draw your attention to the second paragraph which talks about the lawyer and the lawyer's advice and whether you
02:17:53 and the lawyer's advice and whether you would have flagged that as LPP.
02:18:01 Well, it's self-evident. It is, but it's is for intelligence purposes. As long as we don't use it in any proceedings, it's legitimate for it to be there. The
02:18:13 it's legitimate for it to be there. The report can be used, but it mustn't be used in proceedings as I understand it. And in terms of um the wish to do harm
02:18:26 And in terms of um the wish to do harm to L5,
02:18:28 to L5, was there any concern that you had about James Thompson being involved in any plan to cause harm? Any concern about
02:18:40 plan to cause harm? Any concern about conspiracy? Oh, there would and and being involved participating in crime of a very serious nature. There would have been, but we just didn't believe a word of it anyway.
02:18:53 So already at that stage, you you didn't believe what? No. What he was talking about?
02:19:01 As I said, that's why I was going to go with him. What the heck I could have done, I have no idea.
02:19:08 Um, was it recognized by you at that stage that had there been some kind of prosecution resulting out of this, you would have had to have disclosed the involvement of a UCO in this sort of uh
02:19:21 involvement of a UCO in this sort of uh criminal offense? Exactly. Yes. Yeah. Um, so for obvious reasons, you tell James Thompson not to be involved in Yes. such a Yeah.
02:19:32 Yes. such a Yeah. an incident. I mean that was just another red line which was obviously a red line but it was articulated
02:19:43 was articulated adnauseium
02:19:51 over the page
02:19:57 we can see that you've signed it off with your initials. It's been distributed to the other managers in the back office and copy on private file. Does that mean that it wasn't circulated
02:20:09 Does that mean that it wasn't circulated any more widely? Yes, that would be Thompson's uh file.
02:20:14 uh file. And in what circumstances were file notes as opposed to intelligence reports circulated? File notes weren't. It's just as it said
02:20:25 File notes weren't. It's just as it said for the file.
02:20:29 In fact, you can see on that one um this copy to be destroyed which was the hard copy obviously.
02:20:42 Um so this incident, this is what triggered HM53's in-depth investigation into uh James Thompson's deployment. Is that right?
02:20:53 Thompson's deployment. Is that right? Yes. [snorts] Um, [clears throat] you at paragraph 308A
02:21:00 308A of your witness statement, it's at page 216,
02:21:05 216, you talk about this being evidence that he was abusing the props of his cover identity.
02:21:17 You see, it's sub paragraph A.
02:21:22 Yeah. And that was in relation to his unauthorized trip to Indonesia. Yeah.
02:21:28 Yeah. Um, moving over the page to sub paragraph D.
02:21:36 Again, there's this sense that it's a key requirement for a UCO to honor the trust being placed in them. And you've noticed, you've already given evidence that an an awful lot of trust was placed
02:21:49 that an an awful lot of trust was placed in these officers given the the nature of the intrusive policing tactic that they uh were engaged in. Yes.
02:21:56 Yes. Um
02:21:58 Um recognizing that there's a lot of trust. Um you do say that of course if it uh if that's not honored then all sorts can go wrong.
02:22:08 wrong. Yes. Um given that there's a clear indication here that things have gone wrong
02:22:16 wrong at that stage, were you concerned that there might be things going wrong in other deployments and you had to put in much more intrusive supervision on all officers?
02:22:27 intrusive supervision on all officers? Yes. Because if if they were handpicked, then I could just blame myself, couldn't I? But if you make do with what you've
02:22:38 I? But if you make do with what you've got, and I'm only talking about two people,
02:22:41 people, then [laughter] yeah, the
02:22:46 yeah, the the pivot of the whole thing, trust becomes the weakness. And uh sub paragraph E, you talk about the limits of the intrusive supervision
02:22:57 the limits of the intrusive supervision you can put in place. And you've you've touched on that already in your evidence today. Yeah. Yeah, but looking at bank statements, potentially telephone statements. By this stage, everybody had a mobile
02:23:08 this stage, everybody had a mobile phone. Is that right? Yes.
02:23:10 Yes. And so you could look at mobile phones and uh identify patterns of who people were contacting. Yes. That sort of thing. That would that would prove to be a short-term thing because the first
02:23:21 short-term thing because the first person you confront with their phone bills and that's it because everybody else will know about that and they just got to burn a phone. Uh so that's
02:23:32 got to burn a phone. Uh so that's limited
02:23:33 limited phone billing is good for investigations but for monitoring well you can only use it once as I say
02:23:44 it once as I say and you mentioned surveillance teams um didn't have the resources to do this. No
02:23:50 No and it would have been far too intrusive. Yes. and
02:23:55 Yes. and I would have to get an external surveillance team. Um, that's just it. And and that wasn't something that was open to you because of cost or
02:24:06 open to you because of cost or the cost again revealing the nature of the tasking. Um, don't forget I trusted all my sergeants implicitly,
02:24:18 I trusted all my sergeants implicitly, but just as a reflex action. They didn't need to know. So we didn't even tell them. And as I say, we see it with Steven Beals. Excellent people.
02:24:30 Steven Beals. Excellent people. [clears throat] Not discussing it with your sergeants.
02:24:35 Was that an emission in the sense that your sergeants might have had more parts of the jigsaw that could paint a wider picture as to what was going on? No. Um, it was very cuz this
02:24:48 No. Um, it was very cuz this investigation was very specific. it [snorts] was into the the granular detail if you like of Thompson and they wouldn't have had that
02:24:59 and they wouldn't have had that knowledge. Um if they had picked up that he was up to
02:25:05 to he was just a film location producer really and that they would have told me because don't forget the um the office itself had renewed
02:25:19 um the office itself had renewed and Steve Beal's HN9 HN30
02:25:24 HN30 uh Ron Gilbertson all came with me or after
02:25:31 So was HN49 Ron Gilbertson particularly close to HN16 and for that reason he was excluded from any involvement in no the investigation?
02:25:45 You don't think he could have provided more detail as to what was going on in his operation? I I didn't know he was close to him. Do you have evidence he was? I'm just trying to find the reference actually. Um, but I think it's on his
02:25:58 actually. Um, but I think it's on his own evidence. He says he was excluded from the operation because he was he was close to Thompson. Well, no, everyone. I can find that reference for you. Right. Everyone was excluded.
02:26:14 And in what ways do you say that surveillance would have been had you been able to afford it, too intrusive?
02:26:26 [clears throat]
02:26:30 Um, if if you are going to do something like that, you've got to go the whole hog and you've got to get external surveillance teams in.
02:26:41 teams in. You [clears throat] you can't mess about and expect, oh, yes, they'll do the deployment and that'll be the end of it. There is there's always the possibility
02:26:52 There is there's always the possibility that there's a close friend of his on the surveillance team and I I don't wish to impugn them at all but whatever unit it is it's extremely difficult as you obviously appreciate to
02:27:04 difficult as you obviously appreciate to investigate someone internally. It's
02:27:11 uh MPS 0719651
02:27:15 please behind tab B92.
02:27:22 This is a file note authored by you on the 14th of November 2001 in relation to DS Thompson
02:27:34 and it relates to a meeting on the 20th of November where you would have a meeting uh with uh Detective Chief in Superintendent
02:27:46 uh Detective Chief in Superintendent Black at South. Was that the safe house? South
02:27:50 South uh no that was the main office. Okay. The main [clears throat] office um and will confront DS Thompson with their knowledge of his presence under covert
02:28:01 knowledge of his presence under covert identity in the Far East in early October.
02:28:06 Um
02:28:10 DS Colin Detective Chief Superintendent Colin Black, he was engaged in the investigation, was he as well? He was kept updated. Yes, he was not engaged in
02:28:22 kept updated. Yes, he was not engaged in it. He was he was shown the final thing and he was he was briefed on it during it of course. Um we can see paragraph six
02:28:34 um that the inquiries established that on the 5th of October Thompson had used his credit card in Singapore to settle a hotel bill and to buy an item from an electrical goods
02:28:46 buy an item from an electrical goods shop. And that's what I was referring to in relation to the laptop which he then brought to one of the plenary session meetings and showed it off. Yes.
02:28:57 off. Yes. Uh page two please
02:29:02 paragraph two
02:29:11 in terms of the exit strategy. Now we can see the last part of that paragraph says that you've discussed this with DI HM53 and DS Greeny and you were content
02:29:24 HM53 and DS Greeny and you were content that DS Thompson may properly close his operation by the 27th of January. So a very short timeline for withdrawal and he was to be out yes
02:29:34 yes of uh operation and penultimate paragraph here he cannot be recommended to any outside body and so
02:29:46 and so clearly was it your view that this was not a person to be recommended to others and you didn't want him operating under your watch anymore.
02:29:59 Um,
02:30:04 we can see from a minute sheet behind MPS0748359,
02:30:14 behind tab B93.
02:30:33 that this I think this is a note by uh Pierce. Can we just go over the page as well please?
02:30:47 Uh, in fact, that's a that's a note, a handwritten note by Colin Black. Yeah.
02:30:53 Yeah. And we can see that he has sent this up to Commander SB to see. And then I think that's Commander uh Pierce's reaction
02:31:04 Pierce's reaction that we see handwritten on on page two. If we can go to page three, please, just to show the name at the bottom of that manuscript entry. Um,
02:31:14 Um, sorry. No, that's um Eric McGlaughlin. Yeah, McGloin's note.
02:31:26 Um, Commander Pierce, he was sent this file to see. What was his reaction to it? Do you recall having
02:31:37 his reaction to it? Do you recall having any correspondence or discussion with Commander Pierce? I can't remember. No, I I don't know what his reaction was. I wonder if he I wonder if he he was
02:31:49 I wonder if he I wonder if he he was even there because Colin Black signing himself acting commander at some point during this time. Um
02:31:58 Um the sense that we get from this minute sheet though is that by November 2001 everybody is aware of uh the activities of HN16 and that he's fully under
02:32:11 of HN16 and that he's fully under investigation. Yes, it seems so. Yeah.
02:32:17 Um,
02:32:23 what we can see from McLaughlin's note
02:32:32 at the bottom of page two. Yeah. where it says please let me have something along these lines summarizing the efforts of all field officers on a monthly basis.
02:32:45 I'm not only interested in the frequency but also the nature of reporting
02:32:51 for which reason the intelligence requirement code and level should be identified alongside each item. Can you recall having that directive and sending in
02:33:04 having that directive and sending in some kind of uh statistical analysis of what your officers were reporting on and uh the nature of that reporting?
02:33:16 nature of that reporting? I I can't remember doing that and I was a bit beused when I saw that minute from Eric. Um,
02:33:23 Eric. Um, [sighs]
02:33:24 [sighs] it's as if we were unaware that Thompson had been misbehaving when we've just written a report to that effect. I think this is relating to the efforts of all field officers. So, all of your
02:33:37 of all field officers. So, all of your officers in the SDS as well did. But the implication is that we're not doing that. And well, how many per month do you want us to throw out? I was a bit beused by that. Um, and what I did, I I
02:33:51 beused by that. Um, and what I did, I I can't remember. Um, but why do you want to do my job? Was this an attempt by McGloin to have
02:34:02 Was this an attempt by McGloin to have some kind of oversight as to what was going on in the SDS? What type of reports were coming in and at what frequency in order to assess whether this was, you know, whether everybody
02:34:13 this was, you know, whether everybody was on the scam or whether it was a a oneoff in HN16? perfectly legitimate ambition, but well then why don't you do it right from the beginning at this
02:34:24 it right from the beginning at this point? It's as if you've got to get a grip. Well, we are getting a grip. And I have great regard for Eric. That's why I'm beused by the minute. Um what what
02:34:37 I'm beused by the minute. Um what what would you do that I wouldn't do? I mean, given the very recent attempts by the Mets by scrapping three ranks to compress the chain of command so that
02:34:48 compress the chain of command so that people couldn't dodge responsibility by simply bumping it up the chain. Oh, I don't know. You better have a look at it.
02:34:56 it. And Eric is now going the other way. Um, you you'd only be doing my job. So, you don't think that you actually complied with that request? I don't know. Uh, I don't know. 53 has a
02:35:09 I don't know. Uh, I don't know. 53 has a filing cabinet memory. He'll remember, I I would think, but I don't. Um,
02:35:15 Um, at the bottom of page three, we can see that the extraction deadline was delayed. So, uh, given that the 1st of sorry, the 27th of the 1st was too soon,
02:35:28 sorry, the 27th of the 1st was too soon, it was pushed back to the 7th of April 2002
02:35:32 2002 as being more practical. Can you recall that? I can recall the actual discussion over it and obviously I was in favor of the earlier um
02:35:45 extraction but that was it wasn't to be but for operational reasons was it seen that he needed to go through the uh the process of withdrawing?
02:35:58 uh the process of withdrawing? I I I thought in in operational terms his operation had been a scam for ages. There was no threat to him and it was an administrative date i.e. as soon as we
02:36:10 administrative date i.e. as soon as we can and but he persuaded whatever he persuaded people that it he needed more time.
02:36:18 time. Do you think that he was uh persuading McGlaughlin or even Pierce? Was he talking to Pierce? Do you think I I don't know honestly I don't have any recollection
02:36:30 don't have any recollection of him speaking to Roger Pierce. Um, can we look at please MPS0719701?
02:36:51 This uh wasn't a document that was in your bundle uh Mr. Dell, but it's in relation to his extraction now. Yeah. Page two,
02:37:04 Yeah. Page two, please.
02:37:08 By sub paragraph C, we can see a note in relation to Wendy, and it's in particular about her house purchase. Um, we understand that Wendy uh when she
02:37:20 Um, we understand that Wendy uh when she knew Thompson had not long lost her mom uh and as a young woman, she was looking to buy a house. And there's a suggestion that um
02:37:35 there were attempts to disrupt that house purchase because the house that she wanted to buy was in the vicinity of Thompson's ex wife and children.
02:37:47 wife and children. Yeah.
02:37:48 Yeah. Do you recall that? Yeah. Yes. I'm not sure when I recalled it from cuz I've read this before. What is the date of this please? Um, I'm not sure I have the date. It might
02:38:00 I'm not sure I have the date. It might be in the index. I don't think the dates on If we go to the very bottom of the page, I don't think the dates on the face of the document, unfortunately. No, no date on it.
02:38:15 I mean, it what I'm asking is, is this written before he's rumbled or is it after?
02:38:27 I I we're looking for the date, but I I think it's after he's rumbled and it's a it's a deep dive into his right.
02:38:35 right. Um
02:38:36 Um that that's fine if that that that's the answer. Yeah. In into his uh uh operation
02:38:47 n we've got a date on the index of the 19th of the 10th 2001. that that's pulled from the metadata. Does that make sense?
02:38:55 sense? Yes. Yeah. And so you would have been aware of this document.
02:39:00 document. Yes.
02:39:01 Yes. Midocctober. Yes. And I have read it several times. That's why I couldn't discern when I'd And what were the attempts that were made to disrupt the house purchase?
02:39:13 Um I took that when I was reading his evidence that he had tried to disrupt the purchase. [clears throat] Um,
02:39:23 Um, I can't remember why, what reason he gave.
02:39:26 gave. Do you recall how he tried to do that? No.
02:39:32 Do [snorts] you recall there being any suspicion at that time that there were young women that he was closely involved with and that there might be something more going on? No.
02:39:43 more going on? No. With these women? No. This is what 2 days before that 21st of October memo which you showed before where I used that as a benchmark to say
02:39:54 where I used that as a benchmark to say well my warning must have come after the 21st of October. So
02:40:00 So this looks like it's developing at this time but um detail of it I don't think so at that time. Can we have MPS 0719806
02:40:12 Can we have MPS 0719806 please?
02:40:19 This is a file note of the 29th of May 2002 now by HM53
02:40:31 and we can see towards the top
02:40:35 that um HM53 met with HN1 to discuss James Thompson's uh situation.
02:40:52 And we can see from paragraph 4 that MT Magenta triangle told HM1 that he believed that most of the current suspicions about his operation stemmed
02:41:04 suspicions about his operation stemmed from SDS management disapproval of field officers becoming involved in romantic relationships during the course of their operation. So that gives you the latest date about
02:41:17 So that gives you the latest date about which my warning could have been issued even though I know it was much before that but that's the latest date because he's aware of it there. Okay.
02:41:27 Okay. And so
02:41:29 And so in relation to Saraki thing the Saraki evidence that coraborate corroborates it. Okay. it.
02:41:39 Okay. it. So by saying that are you suggesting then that uh HN16 Thompson is only saying you have suspicions about disapproval of officers having romantic
02:41:51 disapproval of officers having romantic relationships because of what you've said.
02:41:55 said. That's how I read it. Yeah. Or is this because H16 knows he's been in romantic relationships. He's had sexual relationships undercover and he thinks you're on to him. I I think the
02:42:06 thinks you're on to him. I I think the two go together, isn't it? He's he's implicitly admitting that he's in romantic relationships. And given that he's admitting that, and
02:42:17 And given that he's admitting that, and this is on a file note in 2002, is it right to uh infer that at least DI HM53
02:42:30 uh infer that at least DI HM53 knew that he must have been in a sexual relationship, at least one. Well, by this time 53 has finished his report and yes, that would be in there
02:42:43 and yes, that would be in there because 53's identified the phone traffic, hasn't he? With at least three women.
02:42:48 women. Yes. And not just 53, but I would be aware.
02:42:53 aware. Yeah.
02:42:54 Yeah. So by the 29th of May 2002, you in DIHN53
02:43:01 DIHN53 are aware that HN16 is effectively admitting to having had sexual relationships undercover. Yeah, it's a tacic admission, but I think I think 53 makes reference
02:43:13 think I think 53 makes reference somewhere to the fact that we didn't have enough to nail him down for disciplinary. Now, I can't remember why we didn't have at that point
02:43:24 we didn't have at that point and given the fact that Thompson was totally uncooperative.
02:43:31 Does it also suggest to you that H& 16 is implying that a number of field officers were in romantic relationships during the course of their operation?
02:43:43 during the course of their operation? I don't
02:43:43 I don't given that it's written in the plural. Sorry. Yes.
02:43:49 So I just checked that.
02:43:54 No, I read that as one must not. He's written it in plural field officers. That's just my reading of it.
02:44:10 [clears throat] And whilst HN53 reassured HN1 that the suspicion about sexual relationships did not form part of any suspic any part of the suspicions
02:44:23 of any suspic any part of the suspicions about his operation was
02:44:27 was Was that your understanding or did you think actually these suspicions are going to be further investigated? No, he he did. They went to court suspicions.
02:44:38 suspicions. They went to the basis of our suspicion that his operation was a sham that they were uncovered during that investigation. It I see as a separate
02:44:50 investigation. It I see as a separate point.
02:44:52 point. It's it that wasn't that wasn't the starting point of suspicion which led us to investigate him further. It came out of the investigation
02:45:06 It came out of the investigation and I think I think 53 says that um we didn't have enough at that time for disciplinary action
02:45:19 on that score for the women. We had plenty on [clears throat] the credit cards and the other such things.
02:45:27 things. Was there
02:45:29 Was there any further investigation about the relationships that you suspected he had with the uh uh two women that he had a lot of phone
02:45:42 two women that he had a lot of phone traffic with? No, as I remember it, it was bundled together in in certainly my mind anyway, but I think our minds that uh it was
02:45:53 but I think our minds that uh it was part of the whole misconduct.
02:45:59 And that consideration would then be given right where do we go rediscipline? Which parts do we pick up? What can we identify as
02:46:10 do we pick up? What can we identify as amanable to disciplinary action? Was that not one of them? Now yes, that would have been and that would that would have been one of them. But at that point uh it was to it would would
02:46:21 that point uh it was to it would would have been to collect everything and present
02:46:26 present Um the inquiry understands that there was no really no further investigation into the suspected relationships he had with the two women
02:46:38 relationships he had with the two women identified and that no disciplinary action was taken in relation to those sexual uh relationships he had. Yes.
02:46:46 Yes. Why was that? Um well the decision was taken not to not to discipline him. What who took that decision not to discipline him in relation to the sexual relationships?
02:46:58 relation to the sexual relationships? Well, it was in relation to the whole file.
02:47:03 Whose decision was it to focus upon one element of the uh uh investigation? No, no, it wasn't in focusing on it. The
02:47:18 here's the evidence for consideration by solicitors. what possible charges there are. But we didn't get that far. Decision was taken for operational reasons not to prosecute
02:47:31 for operational reasons not to prosecute him either discipline wise or criminal. And so
02:47:38 And so uh no aspect of it was investigated. It it wasn't singling out the the women. It was that the whole lot was wasn't proceeded with. And whose decision was that? I don't
02:47:51 And whose decision was that? I don't know whether that would have been Colin Blacks or ultimately Roger Pierce's but it um it would have been at that level.
02:48:08 Um part of the investigation was in relation to the creation of uh separate identity under the name of Kevin Crossland. Yes.
02:48:22 A file note of uh the 4th of April 2002 is behind tab B119 MPS0719747
02:48:38 and this is a meeting on the 3rd of April 2002 with you HN16 HN53 and and um and self
02:48:49 with you HN16 HN53 and and um and self to discuss outstanding items relating to [clears throat] his operation. Yes.
02:48:58 [snorts]
02:49:01 And we can see at the foot of that page, you told MT Magenta Triangle
02:49:11 that if he persisted in offering the view that Crossland was created to ease his covert entry into the USA following your refusal
02:49:23 but weeks ago to allow MT to be in the USA under his operational cover identity and unsupervised MD would be compelled to report that MT was lying.
02:49:37 Yeah. And was it your understanding that in fact he'd created the false identity under that name of Crossland about two years prior to that?
02:49:49 years prior to that? Yes. If not for operational reasons, it was for personal gain. Um
02:50:04 given that was for personal gain when it came to be that the National Crime uh uh service was looking at uh the
02:50:17 uh uh service was looking at uh the National Crime Squad, the NCS was looking at um uh Operation Wisdom. and investigating the use of deceased children's identities for uh criminal
02:50:28 children's identities for uh criminal purposes.
02:50:29 purposes. Yeah.
02:50:31 Yeah. Why was it that you chose to speak with the NCS to prevent HN16 being prosecuted? I don't I don't remember doing it, but
02:50:42 I don't I don't remember doing it, but obviously it looks like I did. Um can you help me with documentary evidence cuz I I don't even remember doing that. Sorry, bear with me one moment.
02:50:54 Sorry, bear with me one moment. I certainly wasn't embarking on a course of keeping him out of trouble.
02:51:07 MPS0719 695, please.
02:51:21 In fact, I think it's HN53 who met with the DI of the NCS on the 17th of April, 2002,
02:51:28 2002, right,
02:51:30 right, regarding that operation um to investigate the use of uh uh deceased children's identities. Yes. And the answer to that is it's not
02:51:42 Yes. And the answer to that is it's not to protect Thompson, it's to protect the you've heard it many times, operational security.
02:51:52 Um, and was it this the case that operational security came above all other considerations?
02:52:02 De facto. Yes.
02:52:08 Did you have any consideration at the time of the interests of the family of Kevin Crossland to know the truth about the appropriation of their child's identity and to have justice seen to be
02:52:21 identity and to have justice seen to be done by H& 16 being prosecuted for the misuse of their child's identity? I didn't appreciate that at the time. Why was that? I I can't explain why I did. I failed to
02:52:34 I I can't explain why I did. I failed to appreciate it. I didn't. I do now. Um, is it the sense that you had that nobody in the SDS really took any uh to took
02:52:48 in the SDS really took any uh to took into consideration the the ethics of such a a method of creating an identity. It was a sin of emission, not commission. It wasn't a deliberate
02:52:59 commission. It wasn't a deliberate callousness.
02:53:03 Do do you think now in hindsight that in fact agent 16 should have been referred to operation wisdom for investigation and prosecution um for his unsanctioned appropriation of Kevin Crossland's
02:53:16 appropriation of Kevin Crossland's identity?
02:53:21 I don't see how you can ask that question without asking should he been referred for all of the matters in the 53 report. Um would I pick that out as an
02:53:34 Um would I pick that out as an exception?
02:53:39 I would have to balance it against the interest of the Crossland family and
02:53:52 I mean those are the difficult decisions you have to make. Miscreants like him put you in this position where you have an impossible decision to make.
02:54:03 an impossible decision to make. And whose side would I rather be on? The Crosslands or Thompson? It should be obvious by now. And does that equally apply to the women deceived by not only HN16 but the other
02:54:17 deceived by not only HN16 but the other officers as well? Yes.
02:54:19 Yes. That in fact when it was identified that those officers had uh deceived and abused women uh in the course of their operation, those women should have been
02:54:30 operation, those women should have been told the truth as to what was happening. Yes.
02:54:33 Yes. As opposed to protecting the operation. Yes. And even though we didn't prosecute, but if if we
02:54:42 if we didn't prosecute, I was going to say we should have still told the women, but the operational security issues there are great. And another impossible decision.
02:54:55 decision. I'm I'm trying to keep calm because each time I consider the Thompson case, I get extraordinarily angry about not just his behavior, but about
02:55:07 about not just his behavior, but about the positions he was putting his weak, his work colleagues in that includes me and people like Colin Black who were making decisions which imper imperil our
02:55:21 making decisions which imper imperil our our employment, pension and reemploy employment possibilities. He is forcing us to make this and that's why I get angry. That doesn't answer the
02:55:33 why I get angry. That doesn't answer the question of should we have favored the women, should we have favored the Crossland family. I have to say
02:55:42 say um I have to go with the operational security.
02:55:47 security. Is it right that actually the women were known about, but it was hushed up, not spoken about because operational security came first? No. No, they weren't they were revealed
02:56:01 No. No, they weren't they were revealed during the investigation, but they weren't um known about previously. And again, it it it was for operational security, not for protecting
02:56:12 operational security, not for protecting individuals. By taking by taking that stance, we put ourselves in grave peril. And that's why I was so so angry with
02:56:23 And that's why I was so so angry with Thompson
02:56:25 Thompson and his attitude, his failure to put his hands up and give us the truth and the compromise. I I said it to the effect that if you if you if you
02:56:38 to the effect that if you if you if you work with us, we we will do the best we can in the circumstances stances. But that would have mean discipline rather than criminal proceedings. He would still have suffered.
02:56:50 still have suffered. But
02:56:52 But you're still left with the operational security aspects of telling the women and I would have to go with that. An impossible decision, but I've got to make it. And that's the one I'd make. And that doesn't just relate to
02:57:06 And that doesn't just relate to who we now know, Sara and Ellie, who were deceived by HN16, but that would apply to the other women, would it? In relation to the other officers? Yes.
02:57:16 Yes. Under your management. It it's a a principle and a principal failure as well.
02:57:33 Um MPS0719722
02:57:39 please behind tab one B133
02:58:01 This is actually HM53's report that we've been talking about dated the 5th of July 2002.
02:58:13 Uh do you recall reading this or have you managed to refresh your memory about it? page 10 to 11 then please if we can have both pages up on screen
02:58:27 we can see these are the the calls. This is the call analysis that identified that it appears there were reasons to to suspect that HM15 was in a a
02:58:39 suspect that HM15 was in a a relationship with Sara and Ellie at different stages of his relation of his deployment. And we can see it paragraph 4.3
02:58:54 And we can see it paragraph 4.3 of page 12.
02:59:04 A summary of action required.
02:59:13 uh an a suspicion that there may have been sexual relationships with Ellie, Wendy, and Sara. We know that there wasn't a sexual relationship with Wendy,
02:59:24 wasn't a sexual relationship with Wendy, just a close uh friendship um or deceitful friendship, but there was sexual relationships with Ellie and Sara. And and the one with Ellie continued long after his deployment had
02:59:36 continued long after his deployment had ceased.
02:59:38 ceased. Um,
02:59:40 Um, it recommends a uh investigation
02:59:46 into that and I've already asked you uh why that investigation wasn't conducted.
02:59:57 investigation wasn't conducted. Um,
02:59:58 Um, no. I I'm not sure whether the investigation wasn't conducted, but I'm sure that action wasn't taken as a consequence of it, either in respect of Thompson or in the women themselves. I
03:00:09 Thompson or in the women themselves. I just can't remember how far we took it. Do you ever recall then coming to the clear conclusion that in fact he had been having sex undercover?
03:00:20 been having sex undercover? It seems
03:00:22 It seems that you'd come to that conclusion. Yeah.
03:00:27 Yeah. And did you relay that quite clearly to your superior managers? I don't remember making um it a specific topic of conversation.
03:00:40 um it a specific topic of conversation. I might have done but I don't remember. Can we have please on screen MPS0722
03:00:48 89.
03:01:05 Uh this is relation to the outcome of the investigations. And uh I think we can see on page 11 please if we can have page 11 and 12 up
03:01:16 please if we can have page 11 and 12 up on screen.
03:01:21 You can see that this is a report as to the outcome authored by Colin Black, chief superintendent on the 19th of September 2002.
03:01:33 on the 19th of September 2002. And at the um penultimate paragraph on page 11,
03:01:41 there is no doubt that the officer has behaved in appalling manner and d endangering his own operation in the very existence of the SDS
03:01:53 and it's clear that he entered into relationships in the course of his work which are inappropriate.
03:02:02 Um the final paragraph
03:02:07 says that his operation should stop forth with and his vetting status will be reduced and reviewed and that for now he will work under close supervision on a squad
03:02:24 and that he's come very close to central discipline and criminal investigations and that if it were not for the secret nature of the operation
03:02:36 and the need [clears throat] to protect his colleagues, he would be long gone. Um the actual uh [clears throat] disciplinary action against DS Thompson
03:02:48 disciplinary action against DS Thompson uh was minimal, wasn't it? Yes.
03:02:51 Yes. Uh not proportionate to the type of behavior he had uh exhibited. I agree.
03:03:00 I agree. What was Can we take that down, please? Because I think there's one bit that I want to refer you to as well.
03:03:16 What was that? Sorry.
03:03:20 And this was obviously sent up to Pierce, this report.
03:03:27 So Pierce was uh uh uh informed about the outcome of this Yeah.
03:03:35 Yeah. investigation. Yep.
03:03:37 Yep. And what was the sense of uh
03:03:44 what was the sense in the SDS as to the outcome of this? I can I can see from your evidence that you were not um uh happy with the outcome. No. Um,
03:04:00 I'm not sure it was discussed generally in the SDS. I'm sure the I'm not sure the field were fully aware
03:04:11 I'm not sure the field were fully aware of the extent of the investigation and I'm wasn't party to their discussions.
03:04:20 53 and I believed that he should have been disciplined.
03:04:28 Um, but I understand totally Colin Black's position where again he has to decide between that and operational security.
03:04:39 security. I my opinion was reinforced at the time by the visceral loathing I had for Thompson.
03:04:47 Thompson. And so that I'm sure didn't color my view, but it reinforced it.
03:04:56 But and if I if I'd been in Colin Black's position, I would have probably charged him. But that would been the wrong decision. Colin Black was right with his decision,
03:05:07 Colin Black was right with his decision, and
03:05:09 and I was letting my anger get ahead of me. Um
03:05:17 he he was right that do we sacrifice all this for the behavior of
03:05:28 the behavior of somebody who shouldn't even be in the branch never mind reposted. Um the fact that no steps were taken in relation to the people injured by his
03:05:40 relation to the people injured by his behavior
03:05:44 meant that uh
03:05:48 uh I'm thinking in particular Ellie who was the the woman that he deceived into a relationship from early 2001 to 2002 and carried that on to 2018.
03:05:59 carried that on to 2018. Yes. She continued to be uh
03:06:07 abused by Thompson.
03:06:11 Thompson. In a deceitful way. Yes.
03:06:13 Yes. Manipulated by him. Yes.
03:06:15 Yes. And we've heard evidence from her um that it's had a a really significant impact on her life. And we could have prevented that. You do you accept that that could have been
03:06:27 do you accept that that could have been prevented had other steps been taken? Yes. And uh and that's my fault as much as anybody's. I'm not sticking it up the chain to call him black. Yes, we we could. And you see it with
03:06:40 Yes, we we could. And you see it with the benefit of hindsight. And you Oh gosh, it sounds like every public sector employee, but you do learn it unfortunately too late for people
03:06:52 it unfortunately too late for people like Ellie.
03:07:05 Did you raise your concerns about the failure to discipline uh Thompson with any of your senior managers? Did you did you directly confront Colin Black or
03:07:17 you directly confront Colin Black or Pierce at all about the outcome? Immediately after the interview with him, um, I did so and Collib Black quite rightly said,
03:07:28 and Collib Black quite rightly said, "What do you want? S1 crawling all over this." The serious organized crime squad who would, which it was then, would have investigated it. And as I say, I
03:07:40 investigated it. And as I say, I there's no loss in pride in saying that uh he was right, even though he's not right. We should have disciplined him. with that impossible decision again
03:07:53 with that impossible decision again that's the decision I should have taken at the time should have taken had I been him
03:07:59 him and had a criminal investigation been uh taken place into the operation would that have been a wider investigation into the SDS do you think exactly well that's the that's the point
03:08:11 exactly well that's the that's the point the as Colin Conan was saying the whole thing will blow up and I knew that I knew that and and by that with the consequence of being that other
03:08:22 being that other victims of the SDS operation will also have been uh uh uh saved in a way. It's the wrong word to use, but that that the behavior towards them would have been
03:08:33 behavior towards them would have been prevented, which wasn't a consideration of mine at the time cuz I didn't know about them. But yes, had I known about them, then that would have been no, we just got to
03:08:44 that would have been no, we just got to wrap this up. We There's too much damage here.
03:08:49 here. But I didn't know that at the time. Is it fair to say that by this time um towards the end of 2002 though there was enough information within SDS that had
03:09:01 enough information within SDS that had there been proper discussions about the issues that were uh plain for all to see.
03:09:08 see. um
03:09:12 that it should have steps should have been taken to prevent any furtherance of the operations. For where I sit, the evidence from in 2002 looking backwards is clear, but I
03:09:26 2002 looking backwards is clear, but I didn't have it at the time. And
03:09:33 I'm very clear about it. If I had the evidence, it would have been totally different. But I didn't. Should you have had it at the time? [clears throat and sighs]
03:09:50 Again, the environment in which you're operating is in very much like silos.
03:09:57 back to my earlier thing about leaving B Squad and then three three days later, you're not privy to what they're doing.
03:10:08 you're not privy to what they're doing. Um, people didn't tell people what it was about. As I said, I had to Google Mike Chitty to find out what it was about. That was a month ago, 6 weeks
03:10:19 about. That was a month ago, 6 weeks ago. So even within the SDS operation itself,
03:10:24 itself, there wasn't information being discussed between managers who were responsible for the operations. No, not of that type. Were you then hampered in your ability
03:10:36 Were you then hampered in your ability to actually manage properly? Expost. Yes. But at the time the others were
03:10:47 But at the time the others were behaving as we all behaved in relation to information and intelligence that people who I know it sounds corny but needed to know needed to know. Now in
03:10:59 needed to know needed to know. Now in retrospect I needed to know but the patterns weren't as obvious as they are today.
03:11:12 Sir, I'll note the time. I'm about to move on to a different topic. Then um we will break but I'm afraid after I've returned to a topic that I
03:11:23 after I've returned to a topic that I asked you about before the um dates on which uh you uh told uh HN 104 Carlos Sarachi
03:11:34 Sarachi uh and others that uh they must not engage in sexual relationships. And when Carlos Sarachi came back and told you yes
03:11:45 yes that he had Yes. Um, can I just put to you some dates which may assist with this? All right.
03:12:04 By the 20th of October, when you'd had uh a meeting uh directing uh Thompson to uh terminate his deployment
03:12:17 Thompson to uh terminate his deployment in at the end of January. Yes.
03:12:20 Yes. Um
03:12:24 You knew uh that he had lied about his trip to Indonesia. Yes.
03:12:32 Yes. He had not gone to can. Yes.
03:12:34 Yes. And you knew because uh his credit card had been debited in Singapore. Yes.
03:12:44 Your memory is that it was that or something like that that prompted you to say to your officers, "You must not engage in
03:12:56 your officers, "You must not engage in sexual relationships or you will be off the squad." It was at least after that date. That's what I did. after that date. But we
03:13:06 But we and two days after you said that, uh, Sarachi came back to you and and said he had had a relationship. Yes.
03:13:16 Yes. We know from documents that uh, Carlos Sarra went to Venice between the 17th and 19th of December 2001.
03:13:28 2001. Mhm. Uh, and that was uh that was a trip with Lindsay. A trip with Lindsay. We know also that Sergeant Beiels went to Verona to act as his cover officer.
03:13:39 his cover officer. Yeah.
03:13:40 Yeah. Um, and thinking about it now, was it before or after that trip to Venice that you uh spoke to the officers and he
03:13:51 you uh spoke to the officers and he confessed [clears throat] about Lindsay? I don't know. But there was nothing in the trip to Venice which heightened [clears throat] my suspicions. I didn't have any suspicions about Carlo. I I don't know whether it was
03:14:03 Carlo. I I don't know whether it was before he went or after that, but it would be um a pretty barefaced bit of cheek. Oh, yeah.
03:14:11 Oh, yeah. For him to confess that he'd been involved with an activist with someone who wasn't an activist. Yes. And then uh within a week or two thereafter
03:14:22 thereafter Yes.
03:14:22 Yes. going off to [snorts] um Venice. Yes. With a cover officer from the unit. Yes.
03:14:30 Yes. And I I would like to pin it down because it would nail him down even more. But I can't honestly say when it was sir in terms [clears throat]
03:14:41 when it was sir in terms [clears throat] of days in October, November, whether it's before Venice or after. But it was very early in the in the
03:14:53 But it was very early in the in the Thompson investigation and the Thompson investigation itself began well during his trip to Indonesia.
03:15:05 began well during his trip to Indonesia. So it's it's that time period but I can't be specific. Again 53 might have it at his fingertips. uh he'll be asked but um
03:15:18 uh he'll be asked but um you can't say one way or another whether in effect um Carlos Sarra told you a really barefaced bit of cheek [clears throat]
03:15:29 [clears throat] or uh he had been to Venice before you told him the officers generally and before he confessed. Uh yeah, I can't say. No.
03:15:40 No. Okay.
03:15:42 Okay. Uh with apologies for revisiting that topic. We will resume again at 10 tomorrow. Okay. So thank you