Afternoon session of Day 11 (Tranche 3, Phase 3), continuing evidence from HN36 DCI Michael Dell, who managed the SDS from 2001-2004. He is questioned in detail on HN3's deployment (the Emily Apple prosecution and baby report, Fairford Coaches) and on Carlo Saraki HN104's undisclosed relationships with Lindsay and Donna McLean, his move into her flat, and the Lois Austin civil claim briefing to MPS lawyers. The session closes on HN118 Simon Wellings' long infiltration of Globalise Resistance, including a report that an activist planned a fake suicide-bomber stunt during a VIP visit.
00:17:48 Good afternoon everybody. Uh, this afternoon's proceedings are being livereamed subject to a 15minute delay. Those with mobile telephones may use them to report what they hear in the
00:17:59 them to report what they hear in 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. Uh before
00:18:10 for recording or photography. Uh before the lunchtime adjournment, I made uh a direction that there must be no disclosure or publication made of information stated between 12:44 and
00:18:21 information stated between 12:44 and 12:46.
00:18:23 12:46. That direction stands. Its purpose is to protect the privacy rights of an individual who has not yet been contacted by the inquiry.
00:18:34 Yes. Thank you, Mr. Dell. I'd like to ask you about legal proceedings regarding Emily Apple, one of the activists that HN3 reported on, in particular in relation
00:18:45 reported on, in particular in relation to the protest at Grovener House in July 2004.
00:18:50 2004. Um, it's understood that the SDS sought discontinuence of proceedings of charges uh relating to possession of articles to
00:19:01 uh relating to possession of articles to commit criminal damage. Yes. Another act activist at that time was charged with section 4 public order act offenses and an assault on PC police constable uh HN3
00:19:15 police constable uh HN3 was asked to give evidence for the defendants. Do you remember that? Yes.
00:19:19 Yes. occurrence. If I can refer you please to MPS 0038751.
00:19:26 0038751. It's behind tab B176.
00:19:32 This is a document dated the 26th of October 2004, a special branch report entitled request for MPS solicitors advice. And this is you seeking advice
00:19:44 advice. And this is you seeking advice from the Met Police Solicitors. And we can see
00:19:53 the penultimate paragraph
00:19:58 says that the solicitor acting for both defendants has asked the officer and other activists to make statements supporting the defendants fabricated in comma's version of events that the dolls
00:20:10 comma's version of events that the dolls were props for use use in street theater. The officer has also been told to expect to give evidence in court. Um, you go on to say that I can in
00:20:21 Um, you go on to say that I can in instruct the officer to let down his activist associates. This would involve the implementation of a one only contingency plan which would bring the intelligence operation to a close. Advice is sought please on alternative
00:20:32 Advice is sought please on alternative courses of action. Um, do you recall writing that request for advice from the solicitors? Yes, it was a protocol. I knew exactly
00:20:43 Yes, it was a protocol. I knew exactly what I wanted and I knew exactly what they would give me. Discontinuation, discontinuation of the procedure. Yeah. It was just the protocol way of
00:20:54 protocol way of formulating that request. And was that in recognition that your officer couldn't mislead the court? Yes.
00:21:02 Yes. And by misleading the court, is that reference to giving evidence in a a false identity? And not just that, but being being present at the time and being arrested.
00:21:16 present at the time and being arrested. I think he was arrested with the activists. Okay.
00:21:21 Okay. So that would be sufficient for me to request withdrawal. [clears throat] Um the notion that the defendants had asked for support, evidential support in
00:21:34 asked for support, evidential support in him giving an account. Yes.
00:21:37 Yes. That was fabricated. Yes. Is it right there was no report from him, contemporaneous report from HN3 that the evidence would be fabricated?
00:21:48 that the evidence would be fabricated? Yeah, I've I've seen a document which says
00:21:52 says um well that the dolls were props for use in street theater whereas the intention was to Was this the one running at the car
00:22:04 running at the car to to to um throw the dolls at the car? It was Chiron, was it? Ariel Chiron's visit.
00:22:09 visit. Um, I [clears throat] can take you to the
00:22:13 the um
00:22:13 um No, it wasn't. It was the um annual George.
00:22:18 George. No, it was the annual was Was it George Robinson?
00:22:21 Robinson? George Defense. George Robinson. They're quite right. Yes.
00:22:24 Yes. Yeah.
00:22:31 I'm just trying to find the reference of the
00:22:35 the report itself. Bear with me.
00:22:41 Uh yes, Lord Robertson's uh car uh MPS 0035526.
00:22:55 So that report of the 13th of July 2004,
00:23:02 Gala dinner for the Farmra air show at the Groven House Hotel.
00:23:13 And you're right, in reference to Lord George Robertson, uh, who they suspected was going to be presented with a ceremonial sword at the dinner. And the activists planned to make their own presentation to Lord
00:23:25 make their own presentation to Lord Robertson, which consisted of a a doll possibly filled with fake blood to represent children killed during conflicts by the arms trade. And there may also be other dolls and legs and arms of dolls thrown onto the point
00:23:38 arms of dolls thrown onto the point where Lord Robinson's car would pull up. Yes,
00:23:42 Yes, the source comment from HN3 is there's no hostile intent in throwing the dolls, but it may be the only way the activists can ensure Lord Robertson sees their protest if his security keeps them away
00:23:54 protest if his security keeps them away from him.
00:23:55 from him. Yes. Um, a HN3's evidence to this inquiry was it may be that you saw that report and interpreted that as a a fabricated
00:24:06 interpreted that as a a fabricated defense in that it was inconsistent to throw the dolls and that not be street theater.
00:24:14 theater. Fine. Um, but do you accept that the two can uh are not mutually exclusive and that part of a theater of that is [clears throat] is throwing the dolls and the arms and legs and and that be
00:24:26 and the arms and legs and and that be representative of what's set out there and it's a protest against the arms trade. What was the charge? Was it a public order or was it going to cause criminal damage or I think it was to cause criminal damage in relation to Emily Apple.
00:24:39 in relation to Emily Apple. Well, that that then is the is the the essence of the issue then. He's being asked to give evidence in that context. And
00:24:48 And um
00:24:49 um but in in terms of any uh there being no hostile intent and no criminal damage caused
00:24:56 caused well that would be for the court to decide, wouldn't it? My issue was again ensuring that the court was not misled, which is why I put fabricated in in parenthesis. That that was not the
00:25:09 parenthesis. That that was not the issue.
00:25:10 issue. putting it in parenthesis fabricated um indicates that I'm aware of the uh LPP issue
00:25:21 LPP issue and that
00:25:23 and that evidence being fabricated means that legal privilege is waved between lawyer and client and therefore I was not breaking any uh protocol
00:25:34 I was not breaking any uh protocol there.
00:25:35 there. Sorry. Were you when you said fabricated, did you mean that HN3 had been invited to provide a a a inaccurate
00:25:46 been invited to provide a a a inaccurate account of his evidence? Yes. And the the lawyer was asking Emily Apple to ask the activist to provide this alternative account in court.
00:25:59 this alternative account in court. And
00:26:02 And I knew that the lawyer didn't have to be aware that he was engaging in a criminal activity for legal privilege to be waved. And that's why it and that's why
00:26:15 waved. And that's why it and that's why it was in brackets. The fundamental issue remained um
00:26:20 um this officer can't give evidence. So I'm not seeking advice. I know what the outcome is. You've got to drop the charges.
00:26:28 charges. In terms of the fabricated advice, fabricated evidence though because um I'd just like to clarify that point. HN3 um we can have his well I'll read out
00:26:40 um we can have his well I'll read out the relevant bit of the transcript of his evidence on the 26th of February of this year
00:26:47 this year which I didn't have when I was of course no so this is not contemporaneous. This is his evidence to this inquiry. Um,
00:27:00 he was asked, "Hn3, on what basis, to the best of your understanding, why did Mike Dell write in paragraph 5 that the defendant's version of events
00:27:11 that the defendant's version of events that the dolls were props for use in street theater? Why did he say it was fabricated?" H&M 3 answers, I'm afraid I can't help you. My only thinking you you you seen
00:27:23 you. My only thinking you you you seen have seen my report that they were to be thrown. Perhaps he's disputing that street theater and throwing them were incompatible. I can't comment for him, but his evidence essentially was that he
00:27:35 but his evidence essentially was that he wasn't being asked to give fabric fabricated evidence to the court. He was just simply being asked to provide a defense witness statement in support of the defense. His evidence was that he
00:27:47 the defense. His evidence was that he wasn't sure what what he was being asked. What matters is the contemporaneous documents and my contemporaneous action. Um um Emily Apple and the the core
00:28:01 um Emily Apple and the the core participants who were the subject of this report are very clear that they did not invite him to provide fabricated evidence. They invited him to give a
00:28:13 evidence. They invited him to give a defense witness statement in support of their defense, but a truthful defense witness statement. Do you accept that uh that
00:28:24 that can be entirely uh accurate within uh what's represented here in this report? They're presenting their defense. Sure,
00:28:36 They're presenting their defense. Sure, that's what a court's fault to weigh up the two cases. My only concern was we can't be involved. Whatever the truth of the matter. My intent was not to demonstrate that
00:28:48 My intent was not to demonstrate that they were
00:28:51 they were committing this offense of getting someone to provide fabricated evidence. It's my acknowledgement of the issue of LPP.
00:29:01 LPP. Do do you
00:29:02 Do do you The issue was this case must be dropped because of his very presence and that is the only issue of concern. And in terms of the invitation being made to provide fabricated evidence, do
00:29:15 made to provide fabricated evidence, do you accept that that may be just a mistaken interpretation on your part? Yes.
00:29:23 MPS 0039592
00:29:32 is an SA12 special branch undercover operation letter from Alan Mitchell. I think we'll see his name at the bottom of the letter to Commander Allison.
00:29:45 of the letter to Commander Allison. This is a rewrite of my note, isn't it? Yes. Yeah. And
00:29:51 And essent ultimately on page two we can see the conclusion is I can instruct the undercover officer to let down his activist associates and this would involve the implementation as you set
00:30:03 involve the implementation as you set out in your uh your request to the solicitor. Yeah. So Alan Mitchell uh in his uh role as DCS
00:30:17 uh role as DCS OCU commander in special branch in management line management of you of the SDS
00:30:25 SDS writing to the commander above in the West Burough Westminster Burough Commander so outside of the SPS. Yes.
00:30:42 We can see in that first paragraph on page two that DCIDell has had an initial meeting with an inspector and a police sergeant of the Westminster Criminal Justice Unit to discuss the possibility
00:30:56 Justice Unit to discuss the possibility of discontinuing both of these cases. and you you take the action that you consider was right and was um uh clarified by the the letter to the solicitor
00:31:06 solicitor and they'd obviously told me to get your boss to write to our boss to square this square the up. Yeah. And that resulted in the the case being dropped.
00:31:14 dropped. Yeah.
00:31:29 Did any senior officers query whether the better course of action would be to conclude HN3's deployment rather than drop charges or mislead the court? Was
00:31:42 drop charges or mislead the court? Was that ever an alternative option? What was the verb there? To his deployment to to drop the charges or to to conclude HN3's deployment.
00:31:53 HN3's deployment. No. and and have him give evidence? No, no, no. That wouldn't happen. [clears throat]
00:32:02 U So, is it fair to say there was really no discussion around the different options? you determined what what the right course of action was and that was then fed up the line and and
00:32:13 then fed up the line and and and that was agreed by but they wouldn't contemplate anything other.
00:32:30 Can we move to the event of Fairford coaches and this is RAF Fairford where the coaches that were taking the activists uh um were stopped
00:32:41 activists uh um were stopped and people were held within the coaches who returned on the motorway and sent back to London and that resulted in a a significant uh claim against the Metropolitan Police didn't it in the
00:32:53 Metropolitan Police didn't it in the case of Leaport against uh the Met um it's
00:33:01 um it's The date of that event was the 22nd of March 2003. So it's during the course of your tenure. And HN3 was on one of those coaches. Is that right?
00:33:13 coaches. Is that right? I don't know if it say so. Yes. I I don't I don't know. Um in terms of any advice that you had given to HN3
00:33:25 given to HN3 in terms of becoming a participating informant. Yes. Uh, can you Well, let's I'll take you to MPS0749
00:33:35 596, please, at page 79.
00:33:54 So this is um this is your witness statement. Uh
00:34:05 this is your witness statement. Uh at
00:34:11 sorry I don't know the number of the paragraph but it's the little C that I'm looking at at the bottom of that page. Can you see that?
00:34:21 And if we can go over the page, please.
00:34:49 You've given evidence on that already in terms of um advising HN3 on becoming a participating informant. Can you recall any discussion that you had before his
00:35:01 any discussion that you had before his involvement with the Fairford Coaches case? No, I didn't even remember the case until I saw other witnesses evidence.
00:35:10 evidence. And can you recall what dealings you had with the court in relation to HN3's involvement with that case? What happened to him? Was he arrested?
00:35:26 Um I would have to check that and I will come back right uh to that point.
00:35:34 And what difference would it just I will check that but what difference would it make whether he was arrested or not in terms of your communication with the court? The next question was then what happened? Did did it go to court
00:35:46 happened? Did did it go to court where the convictions in terms sorry in terms of my question it's not about the question of the criminal um uh or any criminal case. I'm
00:35:57 criminal um uh or any criminal case. I'm not too sure if there was a criminal case. I will have to check that. But in terms of the civil action that was brought by the activists against the MPS for uh their detention on the bus. Yeah.
00:36:09 bus. Yeah. And being returned and sent back to I think they brought a civil civil action and I think it was article five um that they claimed had been breached or maybe maybe false imprisonment
00:36:22 or maybe maybe false imprisonment [clears throat] and that was brought um well after the event which was the 3rd of uh uh March 2003.
00:36:32 2003. He was not on the coach.
00:36:37 Um
00:36:40 uh Mr. Dell, I'll have to come back to that point because I think I have misled you actually in saying that HN3 was there on one of the coaches. I don't think he was on the coach.
00:36:54 Uh sir, I've clearly not got [snorts] my facts right in relation to that case. So I will come back to that. But that will be a question that I'll ask you a little bit later about the civil action and uh communication in relation to that.
00:37:06 communication in relation to that. uh the extent of HN3's uh involvement in computer related criminality. Then HN36 uh sorry uh HN3
00:37:17 uh sorry uh HN3 we understand was involved in some uh low-level uh uh criminality relating to computers. Um,
00:37:27 Um, were you aware of any involvement of him being involved in um hacking
00:37:37 uh or computer misuse in his capacity as an activist within disarm? DIY?
00:37:48 disarm? DIY? No.
00:37:50 No. Do you know whether he was involved or solicited any other people to be involved in um such activity as part of the disarmed dicey campaign? No.
00:38:03 Were you involved in um pirated DVD or software? Yes. Sales.
00:38:14 Sales. And what about the scale and the quality of quantity of um his involvement? It wouldn't have made him rich.
00:38:26 It wouldn't have made him rich. It was very minor between friends. Um
00:38:33 Um it [laughter] wasn't it wasn't a commercial enterprise. And to that extent, did you consider that to be low-level crime that he could participate in in or in order to enhance
00:38:44 participate in in or in order to enhance his cover within the group? Yes.
00:38:46 Yes. And he he always kept me briefed about that.
00:38:55 And in terms of seeking any authority for that, was that something that he would need to seek authority for or was that just part of his deployment?
00:39:06 that just part of his deployment? I can't remember because obviously I want to know what the level was, whether it would go to for formal authorization by the commander or whether it fell within his original authorization.
00:39:20 within his original authorization. And I I can't remember what I decided.
00:39:25 Reporting on Emily Apple's pregnancy and the birth of her son. Yes. [snorts] MPS 00031267,
00:39:36 MPS 00031267, please. A report of the 5th of January 2004.
00:39:47 There are two reports uh prior to this that relate to her being pregnant. And then this one, the title of the report is that Emily Apple
00:39:58 title of the report is that Emily Apple has her baby. We can see that it's redacted out, but the date of birth and the child's name is included on this report. And we can see that the special branch references
00:40:11 see that the special branch references the bottom of the page. Note Emily Apple's uh uh reference number and also lists the child's name under her with the initials NT.
00:40:24 with the initials NT. Is does that stand for no trace? No trace. Yeah. including the child's name on a an intelligence report like this,
00:40:34 this, would it risk a a trace uh well a reference file being created in relation to the child? Yes, that's a mistake.
00:40:45 Yes, that's a mistake. [clears throat] I note at the top I don't I don't know if this has actually gone anywhere. There's no report number. The report number is from a central index at the
00:40:57 number is from a central index at the yard.
00:40:59 yard. Uh so whether it whether it went anywhere, I don't know. But the answer is still the same to your question. It was incorrect. In terms of the level of detail here, we
00:41:11 In terms of the level of detail here, we know that Emily Apple was an activist. Um, and does this fall within your pattern of life sort of uh information that would be collected or actually is
00:41:25 that would be collected or actually is this information that shouldn't be part of a report and and really is beyond the limit of collateral intrusion? It is part of the pattern of life and
00:41:36 It is part of the pattern of life and there's no suggestion that Emily Apple would fit into the circumstances I describe.
00:41:44 describe. But it was the SB practice because let's say that Emily Apple were going to be arrested.
00:41:51 arrested. Then the advice could go out. You do realize, let's say for argument's sake, she's a single mother. She's a single mother with a young child. She has um nursery care provision.
00:42:05 She has um nursery care provision. Between these times, her child might be have some sort of allergy which needs attention. So if you are going to arrest her, be aware of her personal
00:42:16 her, be aware of her personal circumstances. Now that's just off the top of my head and that is what pattern of life uh intel is about that it gives say the arresting officers all the
00:42:28 say the arresting officers all the context they need to take a particular action. There could be many other actions
00:42:36 actions uh not as extreme as that that I've just chosen to use. Well, that information might be useful.
00:42:46 That example, of course, you you've just put that up on the spot and of course you haven't had there's no suggestion about that. Yes. That she would be involved in anything like that. But but anything like that is the sort
00:42:58 But but anything like that is the sort of information that Emily Apple could give to the arresting officers herself and they would take that on board when deciding whether it was necessary for her to be detained or whether she needed to be released to to tend to her child.
00:43:10 to be released to to tend to her child. But there there are less intrusive ways of getting that information. What would you accept? Don't go at 7 in the morning when she'll be feeding the child.
00:43:21 be feeding the child. It's um
00:43:24 It's um it's it's difficult to give examples when you are painting a picture and as I say then the one ingredient that pictures pulled out the picture is is
00:43:35 pictures pulled out the picture is is Emily Apple as a whole. Bear in mind, as I've said at the beginning, the point of SB was the creation of a database. It wasn't to go anywhere.
00:43:48 It wasn't to go anywhere. And similarly, no one else could ring us up and have these reports. Doesn't matter who they were. We would give a sanitized version. And
00:43:59 We would give a sanitized version. And if we were asked what's her domestic circumstances because we need to go and speak to her. This is the local police say. We would say yes, she's a young
00:44:10 say. We would say yes, she's a young married, single, whatever mother with one child
00:44:16 one child and she lives at so and so in reality is that the date of birth and child's name not something with any policing value and shouldn't really have
00:44:27 policing value and shouldn't really have been included within this. That's right. Yeah. I mean, so that that level of detail is not necessary. Um, in terms of reaper authorizations,
00:44:38 Um, in terms of reaper authorizations, MPS0526873,
00:44:43 page 35, please.
00:45:02 We can see the last three lines of that entry on it. This is a normal um reaper authorization form, isn't it? Um
00:45:11 Um who is
00:45:11 who is or renewal? Sorry. Who is Quill Feather?
00:45:21 Um, that's not I don't know if that was uh an operational name for an HN3 attending Scotland for the G8.
00:45:35 attending Scotland for the G8. Um,
00:45:38 Um, again, we'll check that one before I come to it. Um,
00:45:52 I've I've got if we can go back to the Fairford Coaches case, please. Um Oh, it it is HN3. Quill Feather is the code name that uh related to HN3.
00:46:06 code name that uh related to HN3. The G8.
00:46:07 The G8. Is it G8?
00:46:11 at least when he attended um Yes. It says the Scottish Scottish Yeah. third paragraph up from the bottom. It refers to the G8. Yeah.
00:46:23 bottom. It refers to the G8. Yeah. Um
00:46:25 Um so part of his renewal of reper authorization says that only information and this is the last three lines only information regarding those involved in public disorder and subversion and those
00:46:37 disorder and subversion and those associated with it will be sought and actioned and prudent tasking and thorough debriefing will minimize this. a review or previous conduct of previous
00:46:50 a review or previous conduct of previous conduct has shown no significant collateral intrusion. Um, excuse me. Is this is this a MSB form or is it a Scottish police?
00:47:02 is it a Scottish police? This is um a Reaper authorization form. So, if we scroll up a few pages, we can see that.
00:47:10 Are they re are they reauthorizing him for operations in Scotland? because out of the jurisdiction of England and Wales.
00:47:21 England and Wales. Let's have a look at the top.
00:47:27 [clears throat] If we go to the very um it'll be back a few pages because the top of a rep authorization form goes back to number one. So this is this is the beginning of
00:47:39 one. So this is this is the beginning of it.
00:47:40 it. So this is Scottish police authorizing him to act as a UC in the Scottish jurisdiction.
00:47:52 And there's his real his MPS cover name Red Herring written in pen on on it.
00:48:09 um in ter in terms of that there I mean I can take you to another reper authorization document and I'll get the reference for that a little bit later. The point is it was fairly standard
00:48:21 The point is it was fairly standard wasn't it? uh um almost to cut and paste in reper authoriz authorization documents that collateral intrusion kept to a minimum by um only reporting on
00:48:34 to a minimum by um only reporting on those who were part participating in um actions
00:48:40 actions uh activist actions. Yes, because it's reviewed four times a year and if the circumstances don't change.
00:48:49 change. Um, is it right though that the collateral intrusion was fairly broad spectrum and did report as you as you have said on those patterns of life sort
00:49:01 have said on those patterns of life sort of uh uh details that that is collateral intrusion and was fairly extensive. The principle is the same. It's just a question of where the boundaries are
00:49:19 in terms of Fairfield coaches. What we
00:49:24 What we the information we have
00:49:29 is that HN3 says he was not involved at all with the Fairford Coaches uh uh activity. Emily Apple disputes that and says it
00:49:41 Emily Apple disputes that and says it was that's not correct. HN3 was actually privy to the meetings and the discussion around that action. [snorts] Um and uh she's provided diary
00:49:54 [snorts] Um and uh she's provided diary entries that tend to corroborate that and that was part of the exhibits attached to her witness statement. Um,
00:50:04 Um, it's alleged that HN EN32 Rod Richardson was on the coaches and he's an NOIU uh uh officer, so not under your command. Yes.
00:50:15 Yes. Uh, what involvement did you have then in relation to the Fairford Coach's civil action, if any, and did you have any um liaison with NIU in relation to
00:50:28 any um liaison with NIU in relation to that?
00:50:29 that? The last bit? No. Um, [clears throat] unless you can provide documentary evidence to refresh my memory, I I don't remember any involvement in that civil
00:50:40 remember any involvement in that civil action. I would have remembered it if one of ours had been involved and I had sought amendment to the charges or in the civil action. I would certainly have
00:50:51 the civil action. I would certainly have informed
00:50:53 informed revealed it to our side for them to dis disclose to the other side and I would then be stepping in and saying please don't do that. But no, I don't remember
00:51:05 don't do that. But no, I don't remember anything.
00:51:07 anything. Do you recall uh being contacted at all? No. by um the Metropolitan Police to see if you had any information about the action, whether you had any
00:51:19 the action, whether you had any information on the activists who were involved in that case. I don't remember. Um,
00:51:26 Um, is it is it the sort of thing that you might have had some involvement in or at least they would be seen as a customer seeking information from the SDS as to the the people who were on the coach
00:51:37 the the people who were on the coach when it was turned around and sent back to London. I can't guess what other people would would ask of us. Uh, honestly, um,
00:51:48 would ask of us. Uh, honestly, um, I can't say that. I'll be coming on to a a case that Carlos Saraki had some involvement in which was the Austin against the Met uh
00:51:59 which was the Austin against the Met uh civil action when uh Lewis Austin brought a a claim against the Met I remember that um uh detention infog square.
00:52:08 square. Yeah.
00:52:09 Yeah. U had you had other requests like that for um SDS intel on people who were bringing claims against the police? Yes. I mean, no, that that stands out
00:52:20 Yes. I mean, no, that that stands out for me. Um, that does that does stand out for me as being unusual. And I remember not being sure about the
00:52:31 And I remember not being sure about the propriety of it. But then I thought and I think I've referred to it in a supplementary statement that I would seek advice from Met Solicitors. But then I thought, well, why are you saying
00:52:43 then I thought, well, why are you saying that? It's a lawyer who's asking you for this. And so presumably it's a correct action. So I wouldn't need advice on how I responded to it. Yet I did provide a
00:52:54 I responded to it. Yet I did provide a statement saying that's the route I would go.
00:52:58 would go. There' be no need to the lawyers asking for it and moving on to Carlos Saraki then now he was deployed from 2000. Yes.
00:53:09 Yes. Uh throughout the course of your tenure. Yes. And
00:53:18 in his evidence at paragraph 75, I don't want to bring it up, but he says that the managers kept his deployment going despite a 2 to threeyear quiet period.
00:53:30 despite a 2 to threeyear quiet period. A how long period? A 2 to threeyear quiet period. Would that be your recollection? No.
00:53:39 Was there any point at which you contemplated closing his operation down? No.
00:53:47 No. Um, we've heard evidence from you already in relation to his disclosure disclosure to you about a sexual relationship. And obviously the time shifted a little bit from when you made
00:53:59 shifted a little bit from when you made your witness statement to when you started giving your evidence yesterday. Yes. Um, I'd like to ask you about
00:54:09 about uh
00:54:11 uh about that in the context of what um Carlo Saraki Carlo Saraki's evidence was to this inquiry. If I can bring up please UCPI
00:54:25 If I can bring up please UCPI 40129
00:54:29 page 13. And this is a transcript of the evidence that Carlo gave on the 3rd of March, 2026.
00:54:48 And we're the bottom two paragraphs, are we?
00:54:53 Yeah, that's it. From page line 17, please.
00:54:59 Line 17. What I'm interested in though is did there come a time when you told detective chief inspector Dell and he said yes and this is in the context of
00:55:11 said yes and this is in the context of uh having relationships and line 20. Can you help us with when you told Detective Chief Inspector Dell anything about Lindsay? The answer I think it would have been at
00:55:23 The answer I think it would have been at the same time when we had the discussion about Miss Mlan [snorts] um Donna Mlan which was the relationship that he entered after Lindsay and their relationship was from
00:55:35 Lindsay and their relationship was from about September 2002 to November 2004. There's a discrepancy uh on the the months between Carlo's recollection and Donna Mlan's recollection but it's 2002
00:55:48 Donna Mlan's recollection but it's 2002 2004
00:55:53 Um, he goes on to say, "I think we had a meeting and he put it to me and I explained that I had relationships." So, we're
00:56:05 we're we're over the page now. [clears throat] And I understood that I could be withdrawn
00:56:12 withdrawn and should be withdrawn. And that obviously it had an effect on my marriage. It was part of the reason we were breaking up.
00:56:21 question. If I have heard you correctly, you say he put it to you. Yes. What did he put to you? Have you been having affairs? And did he call this meeting? I can't remember, sir. Sorry. Did he have
00:56:33 can't remember, sir. Sorry. Did he have grounds for suspicion that you'd been involved in sexual activity with people in your undercover identity? I'm sorry, sir. You would have to ask detective chief inspector.
00:56:44 chief inspector. Um, towards the bottom of that page, line 22, what exactly did you say to him about Lindsay? I can't remember exactly what I said. I recall saying to him,
00:56:57 what I said. I recall saying to him, and I believe it was just myself and the the detective chief inspector in the meeting that I had had a couple of affairs, that I had got things wrong, that this had had a big effect on my
00:57:09 that this had had a big effect on my marriage, and things were beginning to fall apart. Now, line seven. How inquisitive was Detective Chief Inspector Dell about what had happened? Answer. It's hard for
00:57:21 what had happened? Answer. It's hard for me to say. I mean, he took everything on board and obviously said to me there would have to be discussions and a decision made. He definitely asked me if this was all over now, and I confirmed
00:57:32 this was all over now, and I confirmed that it was. Now that accords to some extent with your evidence that you've given to uh this inquiry apart from the fact that
00:57:43 this inquiry apart from the fact that Carlo Saraki seems to be talking about two
00:57:46 two Yes.
00:57:46 Yes. sexual relationships and the timing and the fact that I didn't ask him
00:57:56 um line 18 please.
00:58:04 What I'm driving at is how much detail did you give Detective Chief Inspector Dale about Lindsay and how much did he ask? I can't remember, sir. There were definitely conversations speaking about
00:58:15 definitely conversations speaking about both Lindsay and Donna. I don't think he asked me that much. I don't think I was asked for names, addresses, things like that. It was more of a conversation of I've done wrong. He was like, "Yes, you
00:58:27 I've done wrong. He was like, "Yes, you have indeed. We need now to go away and work out what we're going to do about this.
00:58:35 Line six on page 16. Did he want to know who these people were? I can't recall. I don't think so. I think he was more interested in whether the relationships had stopped. Did he
00:58:47 the relationships had stopped. Did he want to know whether they were members of your target group? I don't recall him asking me that. No. Did he think Did he ask you anything to establish whether or not they were anti-fascists?
00:58:59 not they were anti-fascists? He asked me, I think, how I had met them, and I said I had met them whilst I'd been out and deployed with the people that I was alongside.
00:59:10 people that I was alongside. Bottom of the page, well, page at line 22. Did detective Chief Inspector Dell ask you anything about how long the [clears throat] relationships had gone on for? He may have done, and I would
00:59:21 on for? He may have done, and I would have told him, but I don't recall that specific question. It wasn't a long meeting. How forthcoming were you with Detective Chief Inspector Dell about the detail? I think I told him that I had
00:59:32 detail? I think I told him that I had had a relationship with Lindsay for a good few months and that following on from that later in that year I had met Donna and that I'd lived with her, but that it all come to an end. I do not
00:59:44 that it all come to an end. I do not think he said to me that he wanted more detail than that. He was most concerned that these had stopped.
00:59:57 Um it goes on a little bit as to what your reaction was and [clears throat] you were angry about that.
01:00:06 Um so in terms of his recollection and what he's told the inquiry, it relates to both the Lindsay relationship, the Donna relationship,
01:00:17 relationship, the Donna relationship, and he must have therefore told you a little bit later. his evidence was it must have been towards the end of 2003. Um your evidence is uh clearly different
01:00:28 Um your evidence is uh clearly different to that in that it happened towards excuse me the very beginning of your um uh uh uh tenure. Yeah. [clears throat] In the October. So about about five
01:00:40 In the October. So about about five months, I can't don't if my math is right there, between May and October, but um
01:00:44 but um July because that's when I actually took over operational control. Um do you recall at all Carlos Saraki saying to you that he had had two
01:00:56 saying to you that he had had two relationships? No. And that
01:01:00 And that the name Donna Mlan didn't mean anything to you at all. Donna Mlan means a lot to me because I've read the evidence at the time. But this is a fact. This is a lie.
01:01:09 a lie. It's complete lie. If he had he can't even pick the right lie. If he told me about two people at that date, he would have been again walking out the door.
01:01:20 have been again walking out the door. So if you're going to make it up, Carlo, I do better than that, mate. Did the name Donna McClean mean anything to you dur during the your tenure ship?
01:01:32 to you dur during the your tenure ship? again. It it seems such a familiar name now because I've followed this in some detail.
01:01:38 detail. Um
01:01:39 Um um I did she did I know her as an activist? I don't know. I must have done.
01:01:48 done. Um I'll come to the point at which he moves in with Donna and what your knowledge was around that in a moment. But can I go back to December 2001?
01:01:59 But can I go back to December 2001? So, this is a month or two after you say he disclosed the information about Lindsay to you. Yes.
01:02:08 Yes. And it's something that um the chairman asked you about yesterday, the trip to Venice. Yes.
01:02:14 Yes. With Lindsay, we know that DS Beals was the cover officer.
01:02:19 officer. Yes.
01:02:19 Yes. For Carlos Saraki. Um MPS 527780, please.
01:02:29 At page two, this is the authority to travel request from you to Commander Pierce. Yes.
01:02:40 Yes. An activist in the plural and and uh that's behind tab B96.
01:02:48 104 in his evidence to this inquiry on the 2nd of March did not recall speaking to you about this trip. But would it be a normal course of action that if he was going to be going on the trip, it would
01:02:59 going to be going on the trip, it would be you that applies for the authority to travel?
01:03:02 travel? Yes. How would I know he was going? Um
01:03:07 Um 104
01:03:09 104 when asked could not recall whether he deceived his DS presumably DS Beals or told the truth to the DS who then deceived you.
01:03:23 Do you have any comment on the likelihood of what would have happened there?
01:03:31 there? I not not the likelihood. I know that is a lie.
01:03:36 in terms of whether he had told his DS the truth of the nature of that trip, which we understand was a romantic trip to Venice with his uh then girlfriend Lindsay.
01:03:50 uh then girlfriend Lindsay. If he had told the truth of of that to his cover sergeant, would the cover sergeant have told you the nature of that trip?
01:04:01 the nature of that trip? Oh, yes. Yes. And why are you so sure about that? Because I know I know Steve Beals extraordinarily well.
01:04:15 Why the heck would Steve Beals want to cover up for Craggy uh 104?
01:04:35 Um, we understand that during the course of that trip to Venice,
01:04:44 um,
01:04:48 it was a a a short 3-day trip and,
01:04:56 and, uh, he stayed in nice hotels. Well, stayed in a nice hotel um with Lindsay and her evidence was that she was away from him for maximum 20 minutes.
01:05:12 from him for maximum 20 minutes. And when she returned to him, she heard him on the telephone to somebody she now suspects was DS Beiels, who was the cover officer. And I think it was DS Beals, wasn't it, that went out to Italy
01:05:23 Beals, wasn't it, that went out to Italy and and uh was there during that time. And he would, as a matter of routine, contacted him at least once a day. Well, not more than once a day either. Once a day.
01:05:39 And she heard him say on the phone as she returned to be beside him, "Yes, she's pissed off with me, mate." and she suspects that was being said to uh DSB
01:05:53 suspects that was being said to uh DSB on one of those telephone calls that would have been had between uh Carlo and his cover officer. Yes, you would you would arrange beforehand that I'll ring you about the football match Saturday
01:06:05 you about the football match Saturday and we'll have a conversation about that and
01:06:10 and he can then say to the person he's with, oh, it's just my mate Joe was season ticket holders at Manchester City or wherever. And had he said that to DSB,
01:06:23 wherever. And had he said that to DSB, it could be inferred, could it not, that she that that DSPs was aware that Carlo was with a woman and there was a relationship between
01:06:35 and there was a relationship between them?
01:06:37 them? Uh, no. No, it can't be inferred. Um,
01:06:42 Um, you can imagine it, but it can't be inferred.
01:06:45 inferred. And in reality, if you didn't know about this trip, well, I can't you can't comment on I don't know that I didn't know that. Is it Allison was with
01:06:58 Is it Allison was with Lindsay?
01:06:58 Lindsay? Lindsay, sorry. I didn't know that Lindsay was with him. No.
01:07:07 And nor would Steve Bales. Given that by this time you say you were aware that Carlo had been in a relationship,
01:07:18 had been in a relationship, is it your evidence that he told you in October
01:07:23 October 2001
01:07:24 2001 that that relationship was over? Yes.
01:07:29 Yes. And so when he went to Italy for a few days, were you did you take any steps at all to check that he wasn't with a woman that he'd
01:07:41 that he wasn't with a woman that he'd been in a relationship with? No, I didn't. And just to remind ourselves of the chair's point yesterday that that date of October is my best
01:07:52 that that date of October is my best guess.
01:07:54 guess. I know it was nearer there than it was 2003.
01:07:59 2003. Whether it was before the Venice trip, I do think it was, but I obviously I I can't be sure, but it was certainly
01:08:10 can't be sure, but it was certainly before Thompson left in March O2. Well, that's when he was off the unit anyway. So, are you saying it could be that you you hadn't been this relationship hadn't
01:08:24 you hadn't been this relationship hadn't been brought to your attention by the time of the Venice trip? It could be. I can't prove otherwise. That's the best I can do. Had it been, would you have taken more
01:08:35 Had it been, would you have taken more steps
01:08:37 steps to determine who he was with and what he was doing on that trip?
01:08:49 I'm not so sure that I would. I think I was wrapped up with the Thompson thing. As I said to you yesterday, I felt quite
01:09:00 As I said to you yesterday, I felt quite smuggly pleased that my warning had flushed one person out. And what a mistake. There you are. I don't think I would. No, I had enough
01:09:14 don't think I would. No, I had enough uh to deal with. So, no. Had I got a suspicion, had something really sparked, then yes.
01:09:27 had something really sparked, then yes. But starting from nothing to investigate him. No, not I was I wouldn't have done that.
01:09:35 that. How easy would it have been for you to make further inquiries both of ports uh the ports authority but also of DSB to check up on what Carlos up to during
01:09:48 to check up on what Carlos up to during this deployment? Who is he with? What's he doing on this trip abroad?
01:10:00 I could run such 24-hour intrusive inquiries on the entire field.
01:45:22 Mr. Dell, we understand that Carlos Saraki moved in with Donna in her accommodation. Uh the date of the first request in
01:45:34 Uh the date of the first request in relation to that was uh behind M MPS uh 0010203.
01:45:52 And this is where it appears that you speak with Carlo about the prospect of him moving in with a weary as as as they called the um target individuals.
01:46:05 called the um target individuals. 13th of September 2002, this final note is created. Yeah.
01:46:12 Yeah. SB and MD. So that'll be Steve Beals and Mike Dell reiterate their concerns about the effects on family life. and it was agreed that should such a move occur, it
01:46:25 agreed that should such a move occur, it would be reviewed after no more than 6 months.
01:46:30 months. Um, in relation to who he was moving in with, it's redacted and Alfred is the cipher. Yeah, it may be that you want to refer to your cipher list or it may be that you recall
01:46:42 cipher list or it may be that you recall who that is, but it was not Donna Mlan. It was a a man, one of the uh uh uh uh people that he knew through his
01:46:53 people that he knew through his deployment. Okay. Yeah. Do you recall this conversation happening? Yes. [clears throat] Given that this is September 2002,
01:47:07 we can take it, can't we, that he's already disclosed the fact that he had a relationship? Yes.
01:47:13 Yes. At least one. Yeah.
01:47:15 Yeah. Um, did you have any well any really suspicion that he might be moving in with a woman? No.
01:47:26 No. Did you have any concerns that moving in with a weary at all would be have a serious impact on on him, his personal life, his psychology and um the impact on uh uh his
01:47:40 and um the impact on uh uh his deployment in general? Yes. I think yes it did. We put the time limit on it for 6 months. Yeah. Why was it allowed at all?
01:47:53 There was obviously an operational necessity and I can't remember what it was.
01:47:59 was. It being a necessity, do you mean that there was no accommodation that could be found for him? No. Or operationally beneficial? I I can't remember. But whether it's a
01:48:12 I I can't remember. But whether it's a man or a woman, a member of the public, having an undercover officer being authorized to move into their home is a massive intrusion on their private life, isn't it?
01:48:22 isn't it? It is, but I might be able to justify that if I could remember what it was about, and I can't. Um,
01:48:30 Um, [snorts]
01:48:37 is it fair to say that in Carlos Saraki's deployment, there could have been no uh justification for him moving in with anybody given the sorts of
01:48:48 in with anybody given the sorts of things that he was uh reporting on? No, it's not fair to say that. What could have possibly justified him having to move in
01:48:59 having to move in with somebody, a member of the public? Ask me to write a novel. Um, I I'm not going to speculate on what the
01:49:12 I I'm not going to speculate on what the circumstances actually were, which is all that matters. Whereas you are testing me on my ability to come up with a list of possible scenarios.
01:49:23 scenarios. And I'm afraid I can't. I suppose my my my query is for anybody reporting on left-wing activities such as Carlos Saraki was, could there be any
01:49:37 as Carlos Saraki was, could there be any justification at all in extending the nature of that deployment into the home of a member of the public? Yes.
01:49:48 Um, knowing what we know about Carlo's move, it obviously wasn't justified in this circumstance, was it? Knowing that he he actually moved in
01:50:00 Knowing that he he actually moved in with Donna Mlan, that that can't be justified, can it? No, obviously not. No. Thank you. Um, in terms of um,
01:50:13 in terms of the rent book, I don't know if you followed the evidence that arose out of Donna Mlan's evidence. Yes.
01:50:19 Yes. Um, when the rent book was put to her and uh, behind MPS 0527068,
01:50:32 page two. And you'll recall that Donna's uh uh evidence in relation to that was well she'd never seen this document before and it was that it was never the
01:50:44 before and it was that it was never the case that there was a rent book in relation to her home address and in fact her evidence was that she had agreed a sublet from a housing association. Yes.
01:50:55 Yes. [clears throat] So where
01:50:58 So where where did this rent book come from? Are you able to help us with that? 104 might be telling the truth because and you will you will get that
01:51:09 because and you will you will get that more I think from uh 53 and well really the office manager who I don't think is up here um it might have been
01:51:21 have been um to keep the book square for the auditors
01:51:26 auditors uh given that in many cases rent books wouldn't be issued but we are using public funds And
01:51:35 And obviously you can't explain to the auditors
01:51:39 auditors how this money was spent and why. And so this is this might be a squaring of the books. I think the real issue which you've surely come to is the amount of the rent.
01:51:48 the rent. Yes. And on page 6 to 7 we can see some of the entries there seem to be initialed as receipts for payments. Yes.
01:52:03 And we can see that the amount £685, which the evidence that we went into with Carly Saraki was that that was large. And the evidence of Donna Mlan was that she
01:52:15 the evidence of Donna Mlan was that she wasn't paying that sort of money for the I think it was a one-bedroom flat, wasn't it, that they were sharing?
01:52:23 Did you know it was a one-bedroom flat that he was sharing with somebody? Can't remember. If you'd have known the address, it would have been easy to establish that that was a one-bedroom flat, wouldn't it?
01:52:34 flat, wouldn't it? Yes.
01:52:35 Yes. And was any inquiry made at all about the nature of the accommodation?
01:52:42 Um, yes. Uh, no. Sorry. No, because it wasn't Carlo's it wasn't Carlo's flat. Um,
01:52:53 Um, no. But again, with no suspicion,
01:52:59 We're reading the book from the backwards to the front here, aren't we? Um,
01:53:07 Um, when you say you had no suspicion that Do you mean no suspicion that he was in a sexual relationship? Yeah.
01:53:13 Yeah. Um, if it was a a one-bedroom flat that he was sharing with somebody, would you have been aware that he was sharing the flat with somebody?
01:53:24 flat with somebody? Well, I was aware of it because This is the same one he's moving in with, isn't it? Yeah. So, to that extent, yes, I'd have been aware.
01:53:33 aware. And so, what type of questions were you asking him as to who he was living with? Well, the answers are over the previous page, Alfred. And was it your understanding that he
01:53:45 And was it your understanding that he was sharing a one-bedroom flat with the person ciphered as Alfred? Yes. Um,
01:53:54 Yes. Um, did you take Carlo at face value in relation to that or did you did that not raise some suspicions as to sleeping arrangements?
01:54:05 arrangements? No,
01:54:07 No, we're not talking about the circumstances in which you and I might live.
01:54:13 live. Did you What? Did you think he was on the sofa or I I don't know.
01:54:26 What type of What were the conversations that you had with him about about that accommodation?
01:54:35 25 years ago, I don't know. Did you make any inquiries as to who was actually living at that address? And I'm thinking more about police
01:54:46 And I'm thinking more about police national computer database or electoral role checks or anything like that. I don't know because I personally wouldn't have conducted them.
01:54:57 wouldn't have conducted them. Who would who would have conducted those checks?
01:55:05 Um,
01:55:11 if I pick a name out, it's only because they work with me. So, I'm not going to lumber lumber the blame on to somebody else.
01:55:20 else. Um, if there's an admission here that we should have done it, then I'll take responsibility for it. Um, it it is you've heard it before. It's 25 years ago and it's a flat occupied by a
01:55:34 years ago and it's a flat occupied by a UC against whom you have no sus suspicion. I really wish I had the answers cuz I'm not frightened of giving you the truthful answer. I I don't know.
01:55:46 truthful answer. I I don't know. [snorts]
01:55:46 [snorts] Um,
01:55:48 Um, when you say if there's an emission then you would hold your hands up. Do you accept there was an emission check?
01:55:55 check? I didn't say that. If the inquiry thinks there is an omission then I'll then that's that rest with me because everything rests with me. Do do you now looking back realize that
01:56:07 Do do you now looking back realize that there was an anomission to make basic checks on his cover accommodation? No. You were desri you you were describing the ingredients of an ideal situation
01:56:20 by 2003. Um where we can see he's living with Donna.
01:56:27 Donna. Um
01:56:29 Um you'd already had your suspicions, hadn't you? In relation to Thompson. Yes.
01:56:34 Yes. And
01:56:36 And um in relation to Rosa. You were aware that she had been making checks and you'd move moved offices I think by then. Is that right? We ma we moved offices as far as I was
01:56:48 We ma we moved offices as far as I was uncon concerned in response to one activist looking for Jim Boing. We we've managed to do some investigation about that and I think the date of the move was July 2002. Does
01:57:01 date of the move was July 2002. Does that ring any bells? No, but it's handy to know for future questions. Yeah, that's handy.
01:57:13 Given that um Carlo had made disclosure to you by at least about at least one relationship, were your suspicions not aroused at all?
01:57:24 were your suspicions not aroused at all? Did you think that we should be making further checks just to make sure this is not another relationship that he's got himself involved in? No. And
01:57:33 No. And why not?
01:57:37 I had the choice of either doing it or not doing it. And I chose not to for the reasons given that we weren't
01:57:48 for the reasons given that we weren't working in an ideal environment. And that is not being complacent and excusing.
01:57:56 excusing. It's just a fact. If I could plug them all into a laptop each Monday, which would decipher what they'd been up to the previous week and when they were lying and when they
01:58:07 when they were lying and when they weren't. Yes, that would have been good. But
01:58:11 But I couldn't. Did you ask him whether he'd entered another sexual relationship? No.
01:58:19 No. Why not simply ask him? Because he would have lied to me. But he'd been open with you before. What makes you think that he would have lied to you on this occasion? Back to the original framing of my answers
01:58:30 original framing of my answers yesterday. The easiest person of the triumvirate, if you like, was me to deceive. He just has to say no to me.
01:58:42 has to say no to me. His wife
01:58:44 His wife knows him better. It's a much harder job to deceive the same person every day. the woman he's associating with,
01:58:56 the woman he's associating with, it's it's she's possibly the second hardest to deceive. C can I just check your evidence just for clarification in relation to what he
01:59:07 for clarification in relation to what he said to you when he disclosed a relationship to you before? Yeah. because at your uh in your witness statement on page 166 at paragraph 232A
01:59:21 at paragraph 232A uh you say
01:59:24 it's little B I cannot recall the specific details of the conversation that we had about this but the outcome was that I instructed him to end the relationship immediately and that as
01:59:35 relationship immediately and that as long as he complied with that instruction he would be allowed to remain on the unit. So that's what you said in your witness statement, but I think your evidence earlier was that when you had the conversation with
01:59:47 when you had the conversation with Carlo, he made it clear to you that the relationship had already ceased. So I'm just wondering if you if you can actually clearly recall which was it.
01:59:58 actually clearly recall which was it. No, the first applies. He was finishing it and that's why I said to him, well, he's got to finish Carlo. Um, and so when it came to the fact that he
02:00:09 and so when it came to the fact that he was moving in with somebody, Yes.
02:00:12 Yes. was there any suspicion in your mind then that he was potentially moving in with the woman that he was still in a relationship with and he hadn't actually stopped that relationship?
02:00:23 stopped that relationship? No. No suspicion. [clears throat]
02:00:35 Sorry. Did he move in?
02:01:08 Sorry, I've just been asked to clarify something in relation to that first um file note in relation to moving in with Alfred.
02:01:18 Alfred. Mhm.
02:01:20 Mhm. um that was a separate conversation to the one that occurred in relation to Donna Mlan. So [clears throat] my understanding is and
02:01:31 [clears throat] my understanding is and having checked the um transcript of Carlo's evidence is that that document that I referred you to before about moving in with Alfred that was in relation to moving in
02:01:44 Alfred that was in relation to moving in with that person we know as Alfred. Yes. He never moved in with Alfred. In fact, a couple of months later, there was a conversation about him moving in with a woman. And so,
02:01:58 with a woman. And so, Carlo's evidence is that he did mention to you, and I can read it out if it if it helps.
02:02:07 it helps. Um, the question was, since you were moving in with a woman, would they have asked you how many bedrooms there were in the flat? answer. I don't recall them ever asking. Again, I'm not sure what I
02:02:18 ever asking. Again, I'm not sure what I told them. I think I did tell them that I was moving into a premises to share with a woman, but I don't think we ever ever talked about the relationship.
02:02:29 And then, did they ask any questions about whether or not this person was an activist or a member of your target group? Answer. I don't think they asked me that.
02:02:50 Um, I think I do recollect that I think I obviously mentioned that I had an opportunity to move into this place if I paid this much rent and that it would look good for me as it was somebody who
02:03:02 look good for me as it was somebody who knew members of my target group. And is it right that you registered on the electoral role at Donna McClean's address? If I'm shown on it then yes but I don't don't recall doing that.
02:03:15 I don't don't recall doing that. Okay. And that's when they moved to the the teny document. So just to clarify it appears that um Carlos Saraki came to you on two occasions. First in relation
02:03:26 you on two occasions. First in relation to a move in with Alfred. He didn't actually move in with that person but then did move in with Donna Mlan. uh didn't give you the details of that
02:03:38 didn't give you the details of that other than he thinks that he said to you that it was a woman. So, does that accord with your recollection that there were two potential moves?
02:03:50 potential moves? The [clears throat] second of which is can you bring up the corroboratory documentation um where we would have reported that fact and recorded it [cough and laughter]
02:04:01 [cough and laughter] um in relation to his that second move in
02:04:05 in into his evidence where he says he told us he moved in with a woman. I mean is there corroboratory evidence of that?
02:04:14 of that? We'll we'll check that. Um, and I will certainly
02:04:17 certainly because otherwise it's just Carlo's evidence, isn't it? And you don't have any independent recollection of that. No.
02:04:24 No. But you do have a recollection of that first request, do you? In relation to Alfred, or that's just been very very vague. Yeah. But yes, that's been assisted by that documentation.
02:04:35 documentation. Yes, indeed. Um,
02:04:40 Um, so you have no recollection at all of him saying it was a woman that he moved in with?
02:04:43 in with? No, but I'm prepared to be proved wrong.
02:04:58 So your evidence is rent book went out for who who would have completed that? Would that have been something completed in the back office or would that be
02:05:09 in the back office or would that be something that was handed to Carlo for him to
02:05:12 him to Yeah. if that were the arrangement that it was to square it with the auditors and I can't be certain. I'm just saying that's a possible explanation of it. I can't be certain because I didn't deal with it.
02:05:22 with it. Um,
02:05:24 Um, and so he his version might well be the accurate one. For me, the issue is the money. I think if he were forging the document as well,
02:05:35 if he were forging the document as well, that would aggravate the offense obviously, but the defense of taking more money than he was entitled to.
02:05:53 So, just to clarify, I think my question to you previously was about him ending the the relationship immediately. That's your recollection now to clarify your
02:06:04 your recollection now to clarify your evidences. You told him to end the the relationship. Did you take any steps to ensure that he had ended that relationship? No.
02:06:13 No. And again, why why not? Gosh, I'm back to the earlier answers about I was smug. I'm admitting I was smug. I thought my warning had had an
02:06:24 smug. I thought my warning had had an effect and I was surprised because we weren't on to him and
02:06:32 and yeah, there's my mistake.
02:06:36 Do you recall at any point HN9 going to visit HN 104's then wife? Again, I've read read this and I'm not
02:06:48 Again, I've read read this and I'm not sure that I do remember it, but I'm not I'm not questioning it, obviously. Um, is that the sort of thing that you would have asked one of your sergeants
02:07:00 would have asked one of your sergeants to do?
02:07:01 to do? That's something if you had any concerns about the the officer
02:07:06 officer if I had any any concerns. But it's also something that HN9 would have done off his own initiative as well. And that that's what I expect of them.
02:07:17 I expect of them. And was that before or after the revelation to you about at least one relationship that relationship that you say with Lindsay?
02:07:28 say with Lindsay? Um
02:07:31 I would imagine it's after given that my warning was early and Carlo's disclosure was
02:07:40 was 4 days after my warning. So I would imagine yes, it was after that particular event. And Carlo's account of HN9 attending the
02:07:53 And Carlo's account of HN9 attending the family home was that he asked his then wife intrusive questions about their family life. Was that instigated because there were concerns about uh that affair
02:08:05 there were concerns about uh that affair that you were aware of? I don't know. But it demonstrates you can't win, doesn't it? My point again that you try to um
02:08:15 um enhance the welfare provision but the old rank structure as well and by rank structure I mean bosses against us
02:08:28 structure I mean bosses against us uh steps in and people think there's something
02:08:32 something an ulterior motive for HN9. Why is he coming making all these inquiries this and you can't win? Given that the approach was that a
02:08:44 Given that the approach was that a spouse at home would provide an anchor for an officer, what sort of um uh support would you have been able to give his ex-wife at that stage given the
02:08:57 his ex-wife at that stage given the knowledge that you had of that uh relationship with with Lindsay? H how did you see that? um playing out
02:09:08 did you see that? um playing out at that stage and if it was as described by Carlo then I wouldn't have been able to give I wouldn't have wished to give any support because I possibly wrecked their
02:09:20 because I possibly wrecked their marriage if I said I'm here to support the fact that you in the fact that your husband's having an affair.
02:09:29 Was there any consideration to terminating his operation at that stage? No.
02:09:35 No. In an effort to potentially save that family relationship? No. And as as I explained before, um, it was a unique circumstance. It was before my warning.
02:09:48 It was before my warning. He had come clean and volunteered it and it wasn't an activist. Those circumstances didn't apply to anyone after the warning. Those distinctions
02:10:00 after the warning. Those distinctions wouldn't have been made. So, it was a unique circumstance. Carlo's evidence, the transcript of the 3rd of March 2026 was that on page nine at lines 1 to two
02:10:13 was that on page nine at lines 1 to two was that by by the autumn, he was asked, "By the autumn of 2002, was your marriage deteriorating?" And he said, "Oh, definitely."
02:10:24 And he said, "Oh, definitely." We also know that in June 2002 his mother had died. Yes.
02:10:33 Yes. And do you recall providing any support to him at that point? Yes. Having face tof face discussions with him.
02:10:46 So this would have been shortly after the relationship with Lindsay had ceased.
02:10:54 ceased. and a few months before his relationship with Donna started. Yeah.
02:10:59 Yeah. So, we can see that around the time that he was having a relationship with Lindsay and you had you say you had that conversation with him in the autumn of 2001.
02:11:10 2001. Yes.
02:11:10 Yes. He was in the relationship with with Lindsay which finished in the spring of 2002.
02:11:17 2002. In June 2002, his mother died. Yes. Yes. And we can see then the relationship with Donna started um in the autumn of 2002.
02:11:29 2002. Was there any sense by that summer of 2002
02:11:34 2002 that 104
02:11:37 that 104 should not really be continuing in this particularly uh stressful and intrusive role as an undercover officer given what you knew
02:11:49 undercover officer given what you knew about him at the time? What I knew about him at the time was that his mother had died. The two relationships either side of that I didn't know about. Well, the first one you knew about, didn't you? Yes, I knew about, but I didn't know it
02:12:00 Yes, I knew about, but I didn't know it continued. Right.
02:12:02 Right. And it continued into 2002. Then you get the death of his mother, then you get the new relationship. Yes. A a pretty stressful thing uh which he brought out
02:12:14 stressful thing uh which he brought out on him upon himself. What I had was his mother had died. My mother had died fairly recently around that time, but you know,
02:12:26 you know, I didn't expect special treatment for that.
02:12:29 that. But you weren't deployed into a an operation that required you to change your identity. There's a very different requirement, isn't there? Different pressures on Carlos Saraki at the time.
02:12:41 pressures on Carlos Saraki at the time. Yes. And given that his marriage was obviously in difficulties, if you'd have pulled him out at that time, it clearly would have prevented the uh uh damage
02:12:52 would have prevented the uh uh damage done to Donna Mlan by that second relationship. Do you accept that? It would have accidentally done that. Yes. It wouldn't have been a deliberate act of mine. No, you wouldn't have had foresight in
02:13:04 No, you wouldn't have had foresight in relation to that. But do you accept that by having a more of a a a directive control over his operation by pulling
02:13:15 control over his operation by pulling him out over welfare concerns for him if nothing else? Then that would have potentially been a a a better decision
02:13:27 potentially been a a a better decision to make and would have had the benefit with hindsight in that he wouldn't have had the further relationships that he did.
02:13:35 did. You've got the evidence that I spoke to him about this and it was our view that he should come out. He persuaded us, I'm okay. I want to
02:13:46 He persuaded us, I'm okay. I want to continue.
02:13:47 continue. It's another example. It's another example
02:13:51 example like the ultimate abuse of women is to blame the victim. It's always somebody else's fault, isn't it?
02:13:58 it? I didn't have a support role player, so I I just couldn't help myself. if you wanted him out of the operation at that stage. I didn't want him out. I I I put it to
02:14:10 I didn't want him out. I I I put it to him that it might be in his best interest that he come out.
02:14:17 My job was to run the STS and hopefully keep people in operations. But I think I do have a pretty good record
02:14:28 record of dealing with people on welfare issues like that very same one. And there was another one with a closed officer where I proposed the same course of action in relation to a bit of danger
02:14:41 of action in relation to a bit of danger he had been in. But he and his wife insisted that they wanted him to continue. And in that case, nothing untoward happened.
02:14:53 untoward happened. And one of the best officers on the unit produced more good work. So
02:15:04 I don't want to come out of the unit, but I'm such a child that when things go wrong for me, I have to blame you for not taking me out of the unit.
02:15:17 not taking me out of the unit. This is where perhaps you are an adult, Carlo. Not you're a big boy, look after it yourself, but we you ought to own up
02:15:28 it yourself, but we you ought to own up to your responsibility for your actions. And in terms of any responsibility on the management of him at that time, knowing that his marriage was in
02:15:40 knowing that his marriage was in difficulty, he'd had that other relationship with Lindsay and his mother had died. Do you accept that there was some responsibility? Yes. To look out for his welfare and Oh, yes. That's why I'm speaking to you.
02:15:52 Oh, yes. That's why I'm speaking to you. And given the policy as it was in the SDS at the time, the policy, was there still a policy about um having a stable relationship at home?
02:16:04 a stable relationship at home? It was guidance. Okay. So, it wasn't a strict policy as far as
02:16:08 far as I interpreted that as I saw best. And I, as I explained before, whether it was a gay relationship, uh, a single person, or someone living with their brother or sister,
02:16:20 with their brother or sister, the essence was stability, someone to vent to when you went home. Was there any sense that this was no longer stable?
02:16:29 Yes, obviously it was. I was speaking to him about that and the meeting was instigated by our desire to are you sure you can carry on Carlo?
02:16:43 you can carry on Carlo? He assures us he was and then blames us for not pulling him out. I I I just can't I can't come to grips with that.
02:16:55 can't I can't come to grips with that. [clears throat] Can I ask you about the the firebombing inciting to arson incident? Roberto Fior.
02:17:01 Fior. Exactly. Yes. Yes. So, if you're familiar with that, um that was understood to have happened on the 31st of December 2002, right?
02:17:11 right? Um no reporting in relation to that. Um but obviously you've heard the evidence in relation in relation to when he tries to instigate it. Do you mean
02:17:22 mean the allegation is that he, as you know, he suggested to others that that be something that uh would be potentially an action that they might
02:17:33 potentially an action that they might contemplate and and drove them by the the shop?
02:17:36 the shop? Yeah.
02:17:36 Yeah. Um had
02:17:40 Um had to what extent were you aware of that at the time
02:17:43 the time about him suggesting that? I wasn't aware at all. And did he ever report that there was a a plan to firebomb?
02:17:54 that there was a a plan to firebomb? Don't know if you turn up a document then yes he did but I I don't know. Can you can I just add an overrider here? I'm in now Thompson mode that
02:18:10 they were the two liars on the unit. So anything he has said isn't worth a lot lot much to me.
02:18:22 They were both narcissistic selfing liars.
02:18:34 Can I take it that you have heard his evidence in relation to that? I did what? Sorry. Can I take it you've heard his evidence in relation to the Robert Fury incident and can I take it that you've
02:18:47 incident and can I take it that you've heard any of the other core participants evidence in relation to that as well? Um I think I have. Yes. Dan Gilman was one of the people that spoke about that. Yeah.
02:18:58 Yeah. Are you able to assist the inquiry at all with any further information in relation to that? No. Incident?
02:19:03 Incident? No.
02:19:05 No. in relation to um the Austin against the Metropolitan Police Service civil claim. Yes.
02:19:12 Yes. Um again, have you heard evidence in relation to that as to what is suggested um happened? Um obviously that's
02:19:25 um happened? Um obviously that's uh evidence in relation to 104 providing intel in intel or intelligence to the Metropolitan Police Council.
02:19:37 Metropolitan Police Council. John Begs. Yeah. John Begs Casey who was in charge of uh the defense for that um civil claim. We understand from the documentation we've recovered in relation to that that
02:19:50 we've recovered in relation to that that the clandestine meeting between John Begs uh at the time and 104
02:19:59 and 104 [clears throat] Carlos Saraki was on the 17th of January 2005. Um the 17th of January was the first day of the civil action. a trial had started
02:20:12 of the civil action. a trial had started and it was on that evening that that uh meeting happened. [clears throat]
02:20:23 Can you recall prior to the 17th of January 2005 being contacted by special branch in order to speak to 104 for him
02:20:34 branch in order to speak to 104 for him to provide uh intelligence at such a meeting? No, the I've seen the documentation, but I I can't actually remember it, and I I was aware of John
02:20:46 remember it, and I I was aware of John Begs's reputation that long ago. I dare say if I had gone along and met him, I would have remembered it. I might well have done, and I've forgotten that. But
02:20:57 have done, and I've forgotten that. But John Begs to me [clears throat] is in the
02:21:00 the Michael Mansfield uh tier of people of well-known lawyers and it just shows how my memory is going
02:21:11 and it just shows how my memory is going if I can't remember meeting one of them. MPS0749817
02:21:20 [clears throat] is the telephone attendance note written by the lawyer for the MPS. It's dated the 7 17th of January, 2005, timed at 5:50 p.m. And we
02:21:32 January, 2005, timed at 5:50 p.m. And we can see that the telephone call with John Begs
02:21:35 John Begs was for him to tell the lawyer that he was to attend a certain location at a certain location between 4:30 and 6:30 to meet the SB informant.
02:21:48 to meet the SB informant. Um, he's been there since 5:15. No [clears throat] one yet showed up. gave him Privacy's mobile number. We know that mobile number is actually
02:21:59 We know that mobile number is actually Alan Mitchell's mobile number, right?
02:22:03 right? Does that make sense? Do you recall Alan Mitchell having anything to do with the um the request for that meeting to happen?
02:22:09 happen? I don't doubt the meeting occurred, but I just don't remember it. Um just to flag that MPS0749960
02:22:29 page nine and this is um lawyer one's witness statement. Now
02:22:39 at paragraph um 25
02:22:45 can see down at the bottom this is where they refer to that telephone call and it's the penultimate line where they say that the mobile number of another person am i.e. Alan Mitchell. So that's where
02:22:57 am i.e. Alan Mitchell. So that's where we get that from that it's Alan Mitchell whose mobile number is being provided to John Begs on that evening as they wait to meet. MPS0749866
02:23:09 please
02:23:12 is the email from John Begs to lawyer 1 at 10 that night saying the subject being SB special
02:23:23 saying the subject being SB special branch good meeting some useful general information about nature of the beast but nothing specific on anyone but Lois Nile who was her partner and just about
02:23:35 Nile who was her partner and just about some privacy that can be taken down. Um, in terms of what you understood that meeting to be, the purpose of it, what can you tell
02:23:47 be, the purpose of it, what can you tell us about that? It was Mr. Begs um, asking for any background information about the
02:23:59 any background information about the personality of of Lois Austin. [clears throat] which might assist him in his cross- examination.
02:24:10 examination. I must admit when brought to my attention during this inquiry I I was surprised that that could be done but apparently you know as lawyers it can be done. I was surprised
02:24:23 lawyers it can be done. I was surprised doesn't affect the fact the meeting took place
02:24:26 place and that's it really. And and you took it your evidence was earlier that you took it. Well, because the lawyers are asking, it must be something that they're entitled Yeah. to do. And so you provided HN 104. And
02:24:38 to do. And so you provided HN 104. And did you have a meeting with HN 104 prior to him going and meeting John Begs? Yes, I would have done. And what would you have talked about? What I wrote in in the note um where I
02:24:52 What I wrote in in the note um where I referred to Lois Austin, I think as a wild radical and
02:24:59 and Mr. begs can be forgiven for not knowing that anything I knew about Lois Austin came from Carlo. So if Carlo gave a more sober account as
02:25:11 So if Carlo gave a more sober account as Mr. Begs says he did orally than the written one, well the source is the same.
02:25:20 same. So, um, that written briefing that John Begs makes reference to where he's saying that there was some hyperbolic reference to Lois Austin being this wild
02:25:32 reference to Lois Austin being this wild radical sort of person. He says that's the sort of thing I wanted to test for myself. Yes.
02:25:39 Yes. Um, that was a written briefing by you. Yes. But it was the the same source of the information which was Carlo. Um he talks about written briefings and he
02:25:51 talks about written briefings and he talks in the plural in relation to that. Were there a number of different I don't know briefings that you provided or was it what was your recollection? I don't have a recollection of even
02:26:04 I don't have a recollection of even providing that first one if you find them. Yes. But I I don't know.
02:26:10 know. And the the source of it you say it was 104.
02:26:13 104. Yes. Was that through the oral meeting that you had with 104 or was it based on the reporting that he'd been putting in?
02:26:24 the reporting that he'd been putting in? It it's why I said yes to would I have had a meeting with Carlo before because yes I would have I would said what what is she like Carlo you know because initially I think it was for can you give us a written report I go to the
02:26:37 give us a written report I go to the source.
02:26:39 source. So you asked Carlo for a written report did you? I asked Carlo for his his opinion of Lois Austin. In terms of um Carlo's interaction with Lois Austin, we
02:26:50 Carlo's interaction with Lois Austin, we understand that that was pretty limited. Yes.
02:26:53 Yes. Uh and he was there in uh uh Trafalga Square in the Mayday uh uh demo 2001, which was the subject
02:27:05 uh uh demo 2001, which was the subject of the civil claim. Yes.
02:27:06 Yes. But he didn't really know her that well. No.
02:27:10 No. um and was more of a peripheral um associate of hers. Yes.
02:27:16 Yes. Through the through the activist world if you like. Yes. Um much more reporting was done on Lois Austin through earlier um uh UCOs
02:27:29 Lois Austin through earlier um uh UCOs including uh Peter Francis and I think uh HN78
02:27:36 uh HN78 in relation to the anti-Nazi uh demonstrations and protests um
02:27:43 um uh through her work with the youth against racism in Europe
02:27:50 When you received the information, the the request
02:27:55 um did you go looking for other reports? I don't
02:28:00 I don't held on the SDS files or or with C Squad. What research did you do? I don't know, but I presumably are lighted upon Carlo because he was the prime source I had at the time. Um,
02:28:15 prime source I had at the time. Um, so I get an oral briefing from Carlo and I I write the note and then they want to see Carlo himself to test that not realizing it come from him in the
02:28:26 not realizing it come from him in the first place. And just to check when you say the request came from John Begs, well
02:28:32 well I again I don't recall it at all. Is it more likely that it would have come from Alan Mitchell? I don't know. I can't think John Begs. No, John Begs wouldn't send a note to me.
02:28:44 wouldn't send a note to me. No, that that's what I'm asking. What was the route of I mean I'm nobody. He'd send it to the organization and it would get put put through to Alan Mitchell and downwards.
02:28:56 through to Alan Mitchell and downwards. So you think although you don't have a very clear recollection, the likelihood is that it would have been Alan Mitchell that contacted you? Yes, the likelihood. Okay. And is that because he was direct
02:29:08 Okay. And is that because he was direct line manager at the time? Yeah.
02:29:13 And in terms of your question uh your meeting with 104 would you also have discussed the actual event itself the Mayday 2001?
02:29:24 Mayday 2001? I would have obviously said what's the background Carlo but again I'm only summizing what I would have done what is obvious I would have done.
02:29:35 have done. Um
02:29:39 and so when he went to that meeting on the 17th of January, um you can't recall specifically if you went with him. No. But when we have uh John Begs in his
02:29:52 But when we have uh John Begs in his witness statement saying that, and this is at paragraph 8 of his first witness statement, there were I think two other officers at the meeting of higher rank, perhaps a DI and a DCI. Do you think that's likely to
02:30:04 and a DCI. Do you think that's likely to be you?
02:30:05 be you? Could well be. And the DI, is that likely to have been HN53?
02:30:12 HN53? Most likely. Was there anybody else in the meeting? I can. Yes,
02:30:19 can. Yes, you've already said you don't remember the meeting, but is it likely that um such a meeting as that you would have tried to keep it as only SDS people?
02:30:30 only SDS people? Oh, yes. Yes. So, is it likely that it was John Begs HN 104,
02:30:38 HN 104, you and your DI HN53? It's likely. Would you have taken a note about that meeting?
02:30:47 meeting? No.
02:30:48 No. Why would you not have taken not? I say obviously not because you haven't produced one. Um, there would have been some notes if we'd had a meeting. There would surely have been some record of it. Yes. But we
02:31:01 have been some record of it. Yes. But we haven't been able to identify that. Do you know what might have happened to such a note or record? No, but I don't know what's happened to all the records. Um, I heard from a thirdand source that
02:31:13 Um, I heard from a thirdand source that when the new regime came in, uh, there was a great bonfire or at least toward at perhaps at at the end of the SDS, there was a a bonfire sort of
02:31:24 the SDS, there was a a bonfire sort of thing getting rid of all the records. Now, that's just anecdotal evidence from a former SB officer.
02:31:38 I don't know what the strength of it is. Which SB Which SB officer would that have been? He's not an SDS officer. He's never had no connections with it. We'd worked
02:31:49 no connections with it. We'd worked together on two squads and we became friends after we'd both retired. It might be I I don't know who you're going to say, but it might be somebody that you write down.
02:32:00 that you write down. Yeah.
02:32:00 Yeah. Depending on It won't make any. Okay. You still want it? Yes, please. Yeah.
02:32:28 Thank you.
02:32:40 It's okay.
02:32:58 Um, your evidence is that you don't recall the meeting itself. No.
02:33:02 No. Um,
02:33:05 Um, I would have had a lot of conf uh uh questions for you had you remembered the meeting at all. Um, can you help us at all with um the nature of the meeting? Who was leading the meeting? who was
02:33:16 Who was leading the meeting? who was asking questions or not. I don't recall it at all.
02:33:27 Do you remember having any further dealings with the MPS legal team post your meeting with John Begs? No.
02:33:38 No. Do you remember following the civil action at all, the trial? It was in the high court and it went up to Yes, I I remember the decision and reading the report, but I didn't take
02:33:50 reading the report, but I didn't take any interest in the proceedings.
02:33:55 And did you have any further interest in Lois Austin and her activities?
02:34:03 Only by normal reporting.
02:34:09 And whether there was any reporting on Lois Austin, well, the records would have to tell us.
02:34:24 Was
02:34:37 the provision of um a briefing something that the SDS was quite pleased
02:34:48 something that the SDS was quite pleased to be able to provide? Do you remember any sense within the SDS that this is, you know, a useful uh use of SDS reporting or intel?
02:35:01 uh use of SDS reporting or intel? In professional terms, if if someone thinks we can assist and we can, yes, it's satisfying. Was it an aim and and an object and a key performance indicator of ours? No.
02:35:15 Um, MPS 0526804
02:35:21 is a uh a composite of HM104's Reaper authorizations. And at page 41,
02:35:34 um,
02:35:40 there is reference. Can you see the penultimate paragraph? Uh the penultimate bullet point. Craggy Island provide a personal background briefing to MPS Defense Council in the Mayday uh
02:35:51 to MPS Defense Council in the Mayday uh 2001 civil action by members of the Socialist Party. Um can you recall that being something that was some you know something to put in the Reaper
02:36:02 something to put in the Reaper authorization to show that oh he's of value his uh authorization needs to be renewed. Yes. One of the examples of the type of activity that he's he's engaged in.
02:36:15 activity that he's he's engaged in. Yes. It's evidence of what he has done rather than what we say he might do. Um you say there's reference to um the socialist
02:36:26 there's reference to um the socialist party. Can you remember giving any briefings in your written note to John Begs? You talked about Lois Austin and uh you describe her as a wild radical.
02:36:37 uh you describe her as a wild radical. Do you remember describing the Socialist Party at all? Is it in that document? We don't have the briefings that you've No, sorry. I have Well, I have seen my document
02:36:49 I have Well, I have seen my document where I describe Lois Austin as a wild radical.
02:36:55 Um that that's where I've got it from from a document which was referred to in earlier evidence probably of 104. Yeah, we we have John Begs who describes the written
02:37:06 have John Begs who describes the written briefings, but I don't think we've got the written briefings them themselves. Maybe it was that then that I'm confused. Yeah. Um, we can check that, but it's at least
02:37:17 Um, we can check that, but it's at least my understanding that we don't have those written briefings that John Begs is talking about in his witness statement. That's maybe where I got it from then. Yeah. [laughter]
02:37:29 Um, can you assist us with whether there was any information that was passed on in writing about the Socialist Party and any Socialist Party members? And I can't assist. I don't know.
02:37:47 Um,
02:38:29 I think those are all the questions I have in relation to HM 104.
02:38:41 Um, so I'll move on to HM118. Simon Wellings. Yeah. He was deployed throughout your um
02:38:52 He was deployed throughout your um tenure. Deployed well at the at the very start 20 u August 2001. Yeah.
02:38:59 Yeah. Um, in terms of political policing, yesterday we touched on the intention to mount a destructive operation uh, post compromise. No, it wasn't an intention to mount it.
02:39:13 No, it wasn't an intention to mount it. It was an option used as a device to support my argument to persuade Commander Williams that the situation was under control.
02:39:24 was under control. Was
02:39:26 Was there any sense that um HM118 was trying to sew division in globalized resistance before the compromise? No.
02:39:38 Um I think I've asked you this uh in a slightly different context previously. Was creating disharmony in such groups a direct aim of the targeting?
02:39:50 direct aim of the targeting? No. And as I said yesterday, it would have been harmful to us. Yes. In terms of the quality of HN18's reporting, um, much of it had nothing to
02:40:01 reporting, um, much of it had nothing to do with public order. Would you accept that?
02:40:04 that? Yes.
02:40:05 Yes. Um, and
02:40:08 Um, and in terms of why his operation was continued, allowed to continue for as long as it did. What was the policing value of HM118's reporting?
02:40:22 the policing value of HM118's reporting? back to my idea of what SDS was about and it was reporting on the people who saw themselves as a revolutionary card
02:40:34 saw themselves as a revolutionary card whose job was to educate others to support others to build up a movement from below and I know latally it's it's come down
02:40:47 and I know latally it's it's come down more to top down the revolution become more top down but at that time it was bottom up and they were as far as I was concerned an
02:41:00 they were as far as I was concerned an important group of people. They were consistent. They in one form or another been around then
02:41:08 then um 70 years. So
02:41:13 So they weren't flybyes. They had a coherent philosophy. They were the thinkers.
02:41:23 The fact they went ripping up the turf in on College Green is neither here nor there.
02:41:31 there. They saw themselves as the instigators of nonviolent revolutionary action.
02:41:39 action. And
02:41:39 And so they were important. And in terms of potency though, if they were not capable of overthrowing parliamentary democracy and they'd been in existence for some time without
02:41:52 in existence for some time without causing too much disruption to society in general, what was the what was the reason for an undercover police officer infiltrating them? You could ask them the same. What was the point of your activities? and
02:42:04 the point of your activities? and they'll probably give me the same answer as I've given that because the people in the 50s and 60s failed doesn't mean say we're going to fail. We are determined
02:42:16 we're going to fail. We are determined to bring about what we see as a fairer society, a red redistribution of wealth on those terms. And that the fact the rest of us might
02:42:27 And that the fact the rest of us might say you're never going to do it hasn't deterred them so far.
02:42:37 Sorry. Yeah. So um so if PC plot decides that the SD SWP say are a waste of time that's it you
02:42:50 say are a waste of time that's it you SWP disband go away. No
02:42:55 I think their ideas are on the left are a damn site more coherent than the twaddle of identity politics that's gripping some areas of the left.
02:43:08 gripping some areas of the left. I think in in terms of I think we might be at cross purposes. HM118 Simon Wellings was um deployed into globalized resistance. Yeah. Which is SWP.
02:43:20 Yeah. Which is SWP. Oh, I see. I see what you mean. Yes. Um in terms of the main customer for for that reporting, who was the main
02:43:31 that reporting, who was the main customer taking that C squad?
02:43:36 C squad? uh that product. What about um uh CIS security service? No. If they'd asked for it, yes, but they didn't.
02:43:48 This is 25 years ago, 20 years ago. And the basis for C squads continuing requests, were they involved in the targeting of 118?
02:44:01 targeting of 118? Yes. Yeah. Yes. I mean, obviously the discussions between um SDS office and sea squad there was a clear intelligence
02:44:12 there was a clear intelligence requirement and I could see why and that's why as I said when I wanted to when we when I say I I mean the whole office when I I'm what I'm meaning is I
02:44:24 office when I I'm what I'm meaning is I have responsibility but the refocusing of the unit would have included that component that one person looking at these people on the left who uh the most
02:44:38 left who uh the most consistent and influential.
02:44:44 Can you can I ask you about a specific incident that occurred in July 2003 and that's the the person that we call MT and you can have a look in your cipher
02:44:55 and you can have a look in your cipher list and the suicide vest incident. Yes, I don't need to. I'm aware of that. Yeah. at MPS 0028780 please.
02:45:13 We understand from HN 1118 uh evidence to this inquiry on the 16th of March 2026 at page 104.
02:45:24 of March 2026 at page 104. He suggests that somebody in the office typed this up with HM118 on the other end of the phone. Is that is that something that would have produced this report?
02:45:36 produced this report? Looks like it because it's it's not a report. It's a note. So somebody one of your DS's would have typed this up. It's as if Simon had done it himself as a rough note and put it in but over the
02:45:47 a rough note and put it in but over the phone.
02:45:48 phone. And then what happens to something like this? Would that then be sanitized and put into a to C squad? C squad.
02:45:55 C squad. Yeah.
02:45:56 Yeah. Um
02:45:57 Um and then and then this retained just in case we need need we in case we need to go back to it to elaborate for C squad or whatever. So this relates to the intelligence that
02:46:11 So this relates to the intelligence that third paragraph down it's now emerged that MT sorry second paragraph please
02:46:22 MT one of the members of uh uh globalized resistance recently hatched a plan with the intention of embarrassing the protection effort surrounding Ariel Chiron on his recent visit to London.
02:46:35 Chiron on his recent visit to London. Yeah,
02:46:35 Yeah, MT planned to dress as a Palestinian martr bomber and get close enough to Chiron to be photographed by the media. His uh the evidence around that is
02:46:46 His uh the evidence around that is probably shot at the same time. Yes.
02:46:48 Yes. Um what is your evidence in relation to that? Are you able to help us with how that report was received in the SDS when that first came in?
02:46:59 that first came in? Oh, I can't remember. It would obviously have been of Yes. got to pay attention to this because the circumstances you described, the person himself would have
02:47:10 described, the person himself would have been shot
02:47:13 had it had it gone to plan. Um what sort of um
02:47:23 um contact was then made with um HM118 in relation to this supposed plot? Well, we were just spoken to remember about it. Yes.
02:47:35 about it. Yes. Do you remember having any personal involvement with it? Did this immediately come up to you as something to be flagged? It would have done. I I I I don't remember it. Um I do remember the
02:47:48 remember it. Um I do remember the incident but I I don't remember what meetings I had but yes it's um it's self-evident that it's important thing to resolve whether it's true or a load
02:48:00 to resolve whether it's true or a load of rubbish.
02:48:09 Um if we can take that down please. Sorry just reduce that down please.
02:48:17 We can see that it's suggested that um at paragraph 4
02:48:26 that the suggestion is he was partially inspired by the alternative comedian that breached security at Prince William's 21st birthday at Windsor Castle.
02:48:36 Castle. Yeah.
02:48:37 Yeah. Um,
02:48:39 Um, did you seek any sort of clarification as to the context in which this arose? Was this a, you know, around a pub
02:48:50 Was this a, you know, around a pub table? Was it people having a laugh? Or was it a serious plot? Oh, yes. To uh uh
02:48:57 To uh uh carry out this stunt. Yes. I mean, Simon would not need to be told, "Come on, then. Come in when soon as you can. We We've got to talk this through." and and see uh what the
02:49:09 through." and and see uh what the strength of it is. Yes.
02:49:21 um Gil DS Gilbertson was asked about um this report and that his his response to this question um
02:49:34 his his response to this question um sorry [snorts] the question was
02:49:41 yeah HM118 says about the bit about the leaping over the control barrier and approaching Cheron before whipping the coat open. He describes that as I think
02:49:53 coat open. He describes that as I think there's a little poetic license for whoever typed this up.
02:50:01 So, he's been asked about that reference. Sorry, which reference? Sorry, I've got part of a transcript in front of me. Um,
02:50:18 So 118 when he gave his evidence said that there's a little bit of poetic license in this report. Right. Yeah. Sorry. And then DS Gilbertson um says that if that's what he says then
02:50:30 um says that if that's what he says then fair enough. But that was the impression I got at the time that that was going to be the plan. So the report came in. DS Gilbertson took that very seriously. Yes. He didn't take it as a report that's
02:50:42 He didn't take it as a report that's coming in about a a stunt. Yes.
02:50:46 Yes. Um
02:50:50 with with no serious harm intended, but he took it as a a serious right plan that was going to take place and so wrote it up. Um as such
02:51:10 um in terms of who this is targeted towards or who MT is in fact we've heard evidence that
02:51:22 in fact we've heard evidence that suggests that the the the kind of jokey uh uh suggestion was made by a white British man who was quickly dissuaded from the idea idea, you know, in a in a
02:51:34 from the idea idea, you know, in a in a social environment. Yes.
02:51:36 Yes. Um,
02:51:46 sorry. Bear with me one moment. Yeah.
02:51:59 Um the fact that MT is
02:52:06 sorry. Okay.
02:52:14 Um MT that the report as to um his ethnic background is that he's an an Arab. He's reported that that's how he is described in reporting. I don't think
02:52:26 is described in reporting. I don't think that was correct. I think he was of a different uh national background, right?
02:52:31 right? Um but was there a sense within the SDS at the time that because of his uh supposed
02:52:40 supposed race that this was going to be a more serious plot to disrupt Ariel Chiron's visit, particularly the link between his
02:52:51 visit, particularly the link between his supposed race and the fact that it was a suicide uh bomber. Is there a racial element to this and a racist element to this?
02:53:00 this? No, that factor is in there so that a squad know who to shoot
02:53:06 because we pass that on our protect our a squad does the protection [clears throat] and you describe you describe the person.
02:53:18 person. um the fact that HM118 has got this person very very wrong and has attributed the the planning to a a different person, somebody that didn't have any dealings at all in this plan.
02:53:31 have any dealings at all in this plan. Um is there a a a supposed racial element to that in that it's racial profiling given he's the the person that is not the white British male within the
02:53:42 is not the white British male within the group?
02:53:44 group? Well, the premise is incorrect. If you stated that 118 was wrong because you have conflicting evidence. Um, who knows who was right? A racial
02:53:56 Um, who knows who was right? A racial element. No, it's a serious business. You describe a person so a squad know who the target is.
02:54:03 is. I can see how the information was put into a report once it comes over the SDS back office desk. Yes. My question more is concerned with
02:54:14 Yes. My question more is concerned with HM118's reporting. How is it that he's got this reporting so [snorts] wrong and is reporting then something to the SDS back office that will then go to C
02:54:27 back office that will then go to C squad, I think you said. Yes.
02:54:29 Yes. And potentially have uh uh uh policing uh repercussions further down the line. and he's attributing this to um somebody who
02:54:42 to um somebody who um is described in the report as an an Arab man.
02:54:48 Arab man. Well, again, you you have you have simply got conflicting evidence. It seems to be that if if evidence comes from an activist,
02:55:00 from an activist, it is de facto true. It might be true, [clears throat] it might be false, it might be mistaken just as his evidence might be. Um, but
02:55:12 just as his evidence might be. Um, but then to build on that premise and say, "Ah, well, the only explanation of being wrong
02:55:20 is racism, of course, utter nonsense."
02:55:29 Sir, I note the time. I'm moving on to a different topic with 118. Is now a convenient time to break? Certainly, it would be. Can I explain something to you about the questioning by council? Uh, she is not only asking
02:55:41 by council? Uh, she is not only asking questions that she and those in the inquiry uh would like to ask you and have your answers upon. She is also doing her best to put questions
02:55:53 doing her best to put questions put to her by others who participate in the inquiry. So you shouldn't I do understand take it out on her. No, I do understand and I do apologize. No, there's no need to apologize. I
02:56:05 No, there's no need to apologize. I simply wanted to ensure that you understood what was going on. No, I shouldn't get irritated and I do fully understand um council's role. Yes.
02:56:17 Yes. Then we will resume uh tomorrow at 10:00. I understand there's some event at 5:00 in the afternoon, so it is possible we will finish in time.
02:56:28 until 10.