Former SDS detective inspector and head of unit Michael Dell (HN36) continues cross-examination on a new day of Tranche 3 hearings, covering forged rent documents for an undercover officer's cover, HN18's racially-skewed and embellished 'suicide vest' reporting on the International Solidarity Movement and Atif Chowry, surveillance of trade unionists, MPs and grieving relatives, and Dell's professed ignorance of a known sexual relationship between undercover officer 'John Dyn' and activist Helen Steel. Dell repeatedly distances himself from practices he says fell outside his knowledge or tenure while defending the SDS's broader targeting rationale.
00:42:03 Good morning everybody. Uh, today's proceedings are being livereamed after a 15minute delay. Those with mobile telephones may use them to report what they hear in the hearing room, but only
00:42:14 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 uh recording or photography. Um Miss Hemingway, um there is a topic
00:42:26 Um Miss Hemingway, um there is a topic which uh we have I think agreed that I should raise with our witness first and then we'll proceed to your ordinary examination. Thank you. Could the document MPS0527068
00:42:39 be put up on the screen please? Uh you've been provided with hard copies of this or be it redacted? Yes, sir.
00:42:45 Yes, sir. Right. Have you had the opportunity of looking at them? Yes sir.
00:42:52 The redactions are there to conceal the name of the landlord. Yes.
00:43:00 Yes. And the handwriting which purport to be his.
00:43:04 his. Yes.
00:43:06 Yes. Um
00:43:09 this is the document which was used to verify and uh require payment of the rent of £685.
00:43:20 the rent of £685. [snorts]
00:43:20 [snorts] Yes.
00:43:21 Yes. We know perfectly well that the rent wasn't £685. Yes.
00:43:25 Yes. And you you have already criticized that.
00:43:28 that. Yes. Um what uh I'm anxious to try and get at is [clears throat] um how this document came into existence. Uh you said that u u Kalisarachi may have been
00:43:41 said that u u Kalisarachi may have been right in thinking that someone in the office um prepared this for the benefit of the auditors who funded the uh the SDS.
00:43:51 SDS. Yes.
00:43:52 Yes. Um
00:43:56 DS Beiels was the cover officer for uh Carlos.
00:44:02 Carlos. Yeah.
00:44:02 Yeah. And um was in place when this document was created and um uh it I think would follow from that that if anyone were creating this document in the office uh
00:44:15 creating this document in the office uh it would be him. I right is my assumption. It might be 53 who had an overall charge of the accounts or it might have been the uh civilian
00:44:27 or it might have been the uh civilian staff office manager acting on the instructions of bills or 53. Yes, the office manager uh if we need to look at a
00:44:37 look at a I think I' I've I've seen his name manag uh mentioned it's Richard Shaw. Yes.
00:44:47 If you look at the document with me a moment please. Um the first page uh identifies the rent collector as the landlord name redacted
00:44:59 collector as the landlord name redacted and Miss Mlan. Yes.
00:45:01 Yes. Uh the second page
00:45:06 identifies uh the landlord and the address. Yes. The third page is simply a typed page. uh as is the fourth. The fifth and
00:45:19 page. uh as is the fourth. The fifth and sixth pages are
00:45:23 not notionally receipts for the rent initialed by Miss Mlan. We can see her initials there and the landlord. Yes.
00:45:33 Yes. Um we have been told by Miss Mlan that that is not her handwriting and nor could it have been that of the landlord because uh he was not in the United Kingdom at the time.
00:45:44 Kingdom at the time. Yeah. If you then look over to the next page, page eight,
00:45:50 that is what looks like the first page of the assured shorthold teny agreement. Yes.
00:45:58 Yes. Um it isn't complete and it's not signed, but it looks like the first page and it gives uh it identifies the landlord on it and the tenant Caroner
00:46:09 landlord on it and the tenant Caroner and the rent £685. Yes,
00:46:12 Yes, this is as it were the formal lease document. Um, is it your suggestion that this document might have been created by someone in the office?
00:46:23 someone in the office? Yes, it might have been. Uh, on the face of it, this would look like someone in the office for reasons that I can't understand
00:46:35 that I can't understand forging documents so as to mislead the auditors.
00:46:39 auditors. Yes. Um
00:46:43 the auditors would have been used to um auditing the accounts of covert units throughout the police and I think this was to
00:46:54 was to it was to save them the embarrassment I would imagine of um having to audit accounts where there wasn't the required receipt
00:47:04 receipt and it would have been a burden upon them if we were to say um
00:47:11 um well actually we've we've forged it. It would be mean simpler just to present them with this and not bring them into the awkward situation which you just
00:47:22 the awkward situation which you just described sir and I'm just guessing [clears throat] um I can't think of of any other reason for doing it doing it. It's I know that
00:47:33 for doing it doing it. It's I know that there is a supplementary worry which has just struck me that the people in the office could be in co cahoots with um 104
00:47:44 um 104 to share the proceeds between them of the difference between the rent that was paid out and I I can see that now just this instant but I can assure you it wasn't that um [clears throat] that
00:47:57 wasn't that um [clears throat] that possibility had I'm bad to say not occurred to me. I I had we're hearing from um uh Mr. Beals tomorrow and um I'll be able to make my own he'll be
00:48:08 I'll be able to make my own he'll be able to give his own account of it and I'll be able to make my own judgment about him. Yes. But I I did not have that in the back of my mind.
00:48:14 my mind. Right.
00:48:14 Right. Um but the your evidence is that it is a distinct possibility that this is not uh Carlos Sarra
00:48:25 Carlos Sarra forging the document. Yes.
00:48:27 Yes. But someone in the office. Yes. forging them. Yes.
00:48:31 Yes. With a view to prevent presenting something to the auditors. Yes. Rather than no receipt or no rent book at all. Yes. Yes. That's exactly it.
00:48:39 it. Okay. Thank you. Yes. M. Thank you. Mr. D, just a few bits to clarify from
00:48:50 Mr. D, just a few bits to clarify from the evidence yesterday, please. Um, in terms of the timing of the prohibition on sexual relationships, can I refer to HN3's evidence about
00:49:03 can I refer to HN3's evidence about this? He gave a statement and it was a statement to her, an MPS0723153.
00:49:11 Please,
00:49:17 if we go to the first page, we can see that this is an interview uh notes of an interview on the 9th of July 2013. If we go to page seven, please at paragraph two.
00:49:39 We can see under the subheading activist relationships.
00:49:46 So, paragraph two under the subheading um
00:49:51 um during 2003, possibly in the wake of misconduct by James Thompson, we were told, we were called into the office by Mike Dell and all told in very serious terms not to have sex with wearies. It
00:50:04 terms not to have sex with wearies. It was also about this time that I signed the codes of conduct around use of documents and discipline when deployed. Um, if we can go to that document, the
00:50:15 Um, if we can go to that document, the code of conduct, it's at MPS0745282.
00:50:29 And if we can go over the page, we can see that HN3
00:50:37 signed and dated that on the 10th of April, 2003. Yeah.
00:50:44 Yeah. So his evidence his to say that the instruction from you on the prohibition was around April 2003.
00:50:54 2003. Yes. Um and and he tethers that to this signing of the code of conduct. Um does that help you at all in terms of timing? No, [clears throat] it doesn't. It
00:51:05 No, [clears throat] it doesn't. It suggests that HN3's memory is as hazy as anyone's. But on this particular point, um I I I do have a couple of things to
00:51:18 um I I I do have a couple of things to locate the time. If I can just I'll just state them again for my own benefit. Yeah,
00:51:24 Yeah, it was after 911 and it was before March uh 2002 when Thompson had gone. So Thompson was done and finished
00:51:35 Thompson was done and finished and it was in that early stage after 911 when we began our inquiries on Thompson.
00:51:46 when we began our inquiries on Thompson. And I did dwell on the fact that I would rather keep the Thompson investigation as quiet as possible for as long as possible
00:51:58 possible until I realized that it's the obvious point with Thompson. It was a complete alternative lifestyle and one ingredient of that could well be sexual relations.
00:52:10 of that could well be sexual relations. Therefore, I had to make the warning to the others earlier in investigative terms than I would have wanted to do. But in any event,
00:52:21 But in any event, it was March 2002 because Thompson was effectively gone by then. So, I I think it's just a question of of hazy memory.
00:52:32 it's just a question of of hazy memory. Um,
00:52:34 Um, and by March 2002, we're we're already talking at almost a year into your joining the SDS. Well, I I took over operational control in July of 01. Yes. So, 9 months,
00:52:48 in July of 01. Yes. So, 9 months, whatever. Yeah. Uh, is it right though that that you've been present since the May first joined? Yes.
00:52:56 Yes. Thank you. Can I ask you then to clarify this point about the ACPO um authorization? We looked at that in relation to HM118 going to Scotland. If
00:53:07 relation to HM118 going to Scotland. If you recall that was behind MPS 0526873
00:53:16 page 31.
00:53:20 [cough] [clears throat]
00:53:27 And you rightly uh noted that quill feather was a a completely different code name to the one that he would normally have which is red herring. And we understand that that that quill feather code name was for the
00:53:40 that quill feather code name was for the operation that was G8 and because it was up in Scotland he had a different code name for that. Yeah. And this is an ACO um application which is we can see on uh page 43
00:54:00 towards the bottom we should be able to see that that is signed by DI TN24 that's the cipher on the 21st of June 2005 and and TN24
00:54:15 on the 21st of June 2005 and and TN24 if you need your cipher list is somebody from Squad know who that will have been. Yes. Yeah, that's a person from C Squad. Is it? Yes.
00:54:23 Yes. We can see on page 45 that it's signed off by you
00:54:32 and on page 48
00:54:39 by Commander Williams. Yeah.
00:54:44 And it was the reference on page 35 that I drew your attention to yesterday which was in relation to collateral intrusion. Yes.
00:54:54 Yes. Um and we can see that at the very bottom of the entry in box six where it stated a review of previous conduct has shown no significant collateral intrusion. And it was in
00:55:06 collateral intrusion. And it was in relation to the reporting on Emily Apple, if you recall, and her pregnancy and the birth of her her child. Yeah.
00:55:15 Yeah. Um that I was uh putting to you. Yes. That of course had one had regard to the reporting of 118, one could see that yes,
00:55:25 yes, there were various amounts of collateral intrusion, that was one particular uh uh uh report. Yes. which I suggested was quite significant intrusion in someone's
00:55:37 quite significant intrusion in someone's private life.
00:55:41 Um, thank you. Then that can be taken down. The other point I wanted to clarify was in relation to the suggestion that MT, the person that we know as MT, yes,
00:55:52 yes, was uh planning on wearing a fake suicide vest as the stunt to uh confront Ariel Chiron when he made the visit to to London. Yes,
00:56:03 to London. Yes, if we can bring up please MPS 0028780.
00:56:16 That was the report um that I referred you to that we understood was HN18 uh relaying that plan over the phone to somebody in the back office.
00:56:27 somebody in the back office. Yes.
00:56:28 Yes. And we uh know that when he gave his evidence to this inquiry,
00:56:37 he suggested that the bit about leaping over the control barrier and approaching Chiron before whipping the coat open, he suggested there's a little bit of poetic license there for whoever typed this up.
00:56:49 license there for whoever typed this up. And when that was put to DS Gilbertson when he gave his evidence to this inquiry,
00:56:59 his [clears throat] answer was that well if that's what he says then fair enough. But it was the impression I got at the time that that was going to be the plan. Yes.
00:57:09 Yes. If I can refer you just to a series of reports around that uh suspected plan. Um
00:57:19 Um to put it in context, we know that MT is a a Pakistani national and not an Arab as described in the reporting. Right.
00:57:29 Right. Um and it I suggest that that is a a a racial profiling issue there. It's a it's a racist uh uh representation of MT
00:57:41 it's a racist uh uh representation of MT and who he was in the group. Do you accept that? Sorry, I understand the question, but I think it's just an ominous mistake. Um,
00:57:52 Um, the reports on the Sharon incident become increasingly um, uh, more fantastical. I suggest if we can go to the first one, MPS0027866.
00:58:10 This should be a report from the uh 15th of July 2003.
00:58:22 And we can see the second paragraph under source comment. Yes.
00:58:32 MT is referred to there as an apparently determined individual who may carry out this action of his own valition. despite fellow activists considering
00:58:43 despite fellow activists considering that that was too dangerous. Um the next report 00027874
00:58:50 please is a report of the following day the 16th of July 2003
00:58:59 again second paragraph.
00:59:05 Yes, I can see the suggestion that MT was talked out of doing it, having had a long conversation with Guy Taylor, the deacto head of Globalized Resistance. Yeah.
00:59:19 And the next report, please. 0028
00:59:26 0028 780.
00:59:28 780. A report from the 4th of August, 2003.
00:59:35 in particular the third paragraph. This is the the report we've already uh looked at, but it's the third paragraph here.
00:59:42 here. Yeah.
00:59:49 Which talks about MT Yeah. starting to build props for this uh uh stunt.
01:00:09 And at the very bottom of that page under the source comment again, we can see that it says perhaps fortunately MT was talked out of this potential potentially suicidal endeavor by two
01:00:20 potentially suicidal endeavor by two other members of the globaliz steering page steering committee. Yes.
01:00:32 And finally then uh report MPS 0527121
01:00:44 page three please.
01:00:52 This is a a subsequent report from 2007 in relation to value for money and this is included as one of the examples of the SDS providing intel to uh uniform
01:01:05 the SDS providing intel to uh uniform police and we can see under the the heading Ariel Chiron and it's written by 18118 isn't it as well this by Simon
01:01:18 well this by Simon um
01:01:18 um I think I think HN72 asked him to to give examples. Yeah. To give examples out it. It might be that it signed off at the bottom. Um we can go to that on page
01:01:30 bottom. Um we can go to that on page two.
01:01:38 Yes, you're right. It he authored that document.
01:01:45 So going back to um page three, please.
01:01:58 And we can see that third paragraph down at the bottom
01:02:03 about the SDS provided detailed and highly accurate intelligence on this endeavor.
01:02:10 endeavor. And eventually the SDS officer was able to persuade the de facto leader of the group to confront MT about the action. And the officer was then one of the two people picked out by that individual into talking MT out of carrying out his
01:02:23 into talking MT out of carrying out his plan the next morning. And this was successfully achieved and the dummy vest was retrieved by the officer and destroyed. Um
01:02:34 Um the fact that MT is referred to throughout all of these documents when we've heard evidence that MT was not involved in this at all. In fact, it was
01:02:45 involved in this at all. In fact, it was a a white British male who had initially kind of voiced this in a jokey way and was quickly talked out of that in a in a
01:02:56 was quickly talked out of that in a in a social environment. Um,
01:03:01 this ongoing reporting and then to present it as a a a realistic plot that had been foiled by an SDS officer. Yes. in respect of an Arab man that was
01:03:13 Yes. in respect of an Arab man that was threatening to to pull this stunt on on on such an important state visit um or prime minister's visit. Um is that an
01:03:24 prime minister's visit. Um is that an elaboration or embellishment of the of his reporting to present this as value added reporting for public order policing?
01:03:34 policing? Yes, I'm I'm aware of that discrepancy. Is it are there any more documents that can help me? When this was presumably put to uh 118, what was his response to
01:03:45 put to uh 118, what was his response to this discrepancy in the evidence? Uh cuz I don't I don't think I've seen any. Is there a response anywhere? Um it was put to him that this was not the right person.
01:03:56 the right person. Yeah. [clears throat] Um
01:03:58 Um during his oral evidence? We can find the read it. But No, I don't need proof. It's just Yeah.
01:04:04 Yeah. Um I did I saw his oral evidence, but I haven't retained all of it and before I answer I'm just want to see what his response was. I think it was MT that said I had
01:04:17 I think it was MT that said I had nothing to do with it at all. It was a completely different person. But did what what did 118 then when that was put to him say? Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah. Um uh we can we can pull up the
01:04:28 can we can pull up the I don't need proof of it. Okay. He he thought he was right. That's all I can say. um a a conflict of evidence. Um I'm afraid I can't help.
01:04:42 I'm afraid I can't help. You you you believed everything that he was putting forward in the report presumably and you thought that this was a a significant piece of reporting. Yes. This was the basis of course of the whole operation, the the the trust which
01:04:55 whole operation, the the the trust which we spoke about yesterday. And this is why it's so disastrous when that trust is is betrayed. And I'm not saying he betrayed the trust. It's such a pivotal point
01:05:08 a pivotal point and I can't go past it, I'm afraid. I I don't have anything else to add to it either to defend or attack him. Was there any practice at all amongst uh
01:05:19 Was there any practice at all amongst uh the DS's in embellishing the reports that were coming in in order to justify reporting and to make the reports more interesting to the customers that you had particularly the uh special branch
01:05:31 had particularly the uh special branch desks and and other customers.
01:05:38 If if there [clears throat] were discussions about gone then tell us why you want extra money for the SDS. People would put the best gloss not lie but put the best gloss on their achievements.
01:05:51 the best gloss on their achievements. This is um um this is I don't think this is a report.
01:05:58 report. The main document is um his response to 72's request for material with which to support an application to keep the SDS going. So I could understand that the
01:06:11 going. So I could understand that the best gloss they would want to put that on it.
01:06:15 on it. Um
01:06:19 I say it's 2 years after I'd left. Um but I can understand that they'd want to do that. Now, if that shaded over into complete uh fabrication, well, I
01:06:32 complete uh fabrication, well, I [snorts] can offer no view either way. And the sense that MT is being put forward as the the the suspect as a a young Arab man with extreme left-wing
01:06:43 young Arab man with extreme left-wing political views as opposed to the other evidence, which is that it was just one of the white British fellas in the group. Does does it add something to the
01:06:56 group. Does does it add something to the reporting which would make this seem potentially more serious a threat than it was? Is that something that was being uh promagated by the SDS?
01:07:08 uh promagated by the SDS? No, I take the I take the point. Um, it it's something we wouldn't do because in the very beginning, for reasons I spoke about yesterday, the likelihood he would be short, we
01:07:20 the likelihood he would be short, we needed to have a really accurate description of him. And that's gone way past embellishment to fabrication if we accept that he was
01:07:31 fabrication if we accept that he was doing it deliberately. And it's just it would be an honest mistake. it doesn't add any value to it. The the value of the report is that someone is
01:07:42 value of the report is that someone is going to have a go at your own. Um and and that's if that was the one line you got out of it, that would be it. Whether is Arabic or or white or whatever,
01:07:55 is Arabic or or white or whatever, no consequence. Thank you. Um
01:08:05 sorry just to clarify I think I I suggested that MT was of a a Pakistani national it's not his he's his uh um he's got Pakistani background right
01:08:15 right so it's his uh ethnic his race rather than um his nationality as before it matters not [snorts]
01:08:25 [snorts] I'd like to ask you about HN18 Rob Hastings is uh deployment now. He was targeted towards the ISM, the international solidarity movement. Yes.
01:08:36 Yes. Um
01:08:40 and at your in your witness statement at paragraph 350C, you say that it was that targeting was informed by the intelligence requirements of our customers in the
01:08:53 requirements of our customers in the usual way. In terms of the customers who were asking uh for that sort of intelligence, would that have been Cesk or Ees or a combination? It would be E squad.
01:09:06 It would be E squad. And as I mentioned yesterday, it was a a jumping off point. There was a sense that this was a floating uh deployment. So that he went
01:09:17 floating uh deployment. So that he went in to
01:09:20 in to uh the field with a floating uh um uh instruction which like you say was a stepping stone to something else. It was it was legend building. We're not
01:09:31 It was it was legend building. We're not that far from 911 and we're quite near to the London [snorts] transport bombings in 2005. Yeah.
01:09:40 Yeah. So again pretty Febra atmosphere.
01:09:47 H&18 when he gave his evidence on the 24th of March of this year said my recollections that it was a very it was very general launching into ISM for
01:09:58 very general launching into ISM for example. I recall a conversation with Mike Dell where he indicated that the expectation was my operation would run for between five and seven years and that the area of interest would be
01:10:09 that the area of interest would be initially to float and ISM would be a first organization that I would initiate contact with but that left open the possibility from uh for me to move at a
01:10:20 possibility from uh for me to move at a later date. So in terms of that it was a stepping stone. Yes, we understand that he did remain within ISM for
01:10:29 ISM for quite some time and particularly attached to one of the uh members of that at Eive Chowry if you recall. Albeit by the time that HN18 launched, Ative Chowry had withdrawn from
01:10:42 Ative Chowry had withdrawn from day-to-day activism within the group and was really just there to help organize some events every now and again. But his main focus was the Zetun grassroots uh enterprise which imported
01:10:56 grassroots uh enterprise which imported um Palestinian olive oil. That's right. Yeah. Was your sense of the reports coming in from HN18 that it could be very quickly established that ISM was a peaceful
01:11:09 established that ISM was a peaceful international organization where uh individuals from London or England would go to Palestine to assist people in the territory displaced from
01:11:21 people in the territory displaced from their homes and suffering the effects of uh military aggression in the area. And yes and that that's why he was directed that in that way. Yes.
01:11:33 that in that way. Yes. Given that he was directed though and it was established there was peaceful organization. Yes.
01:11:39 Yes. What was the advantage of him remaining uh reporting on ISM? Um, yes.
01:11:48 Um, yes. I found out that he hadn't done that when I began to read the evidence of the inquiry and and as I said yesterday, I was disappointed that he had stayed there. That that wasn't my intention.
01:12:01 there. That that wasn't my intention. And I saw a lot of to and fro in evidence hearings where if I'd been there, I would have just said, "Look, yes, no, we weren't targeting him." It
01:12:12 yes, no, we weren't targeting him." It was a jumping point. Um, so I was I was I was a bit dismayed about it, but I can't again say what my successors were thinking.
01:12:24 successors were thinking. I I really can't. Um,
01:12:28 Um, that awful phrase that you will be speaking to them, it will enlighten me. Why? Why he stayed on? We'll be hearing from somebody called
01:12:39 We'll be hearing from somebody called John Boucher in the course of this phase of the hearings. Did you have dealings with John Boucher during the course of your tenure? No.
01:12:47 No. No.
01:12:48 No. Uh we understand that he was in SO13 um
01:12:53 um before the merger to SO15. SO3 being the the counterterrorism anti-terrorist branch. Anti-terrorist branch. Yeah.
01:13:01 Yeah. Um
01:13:02 Um did you have dealings with his predecessors at all in the anti-terrorist branch? uh not while on um SDS. Did you ever have requests coming in
01:13:15 Did you ever have requests coming in particularly post 2001 and 2005 that the terrorist attacks both in America and London?
01:13:22 London? Yeah.
01:13:23 Yeah. Did you have any requests coming into you for any intel that the SDS may be able to provide on Alqaaida for instance from from 13? Yeah. Uh well if we had we had a cell of
01:13:36 Yeah. Uh well if we had we had a cell of was it three officers in there and there would be a routine exchange of it because we obviously work very closely together.
01:13:46 together. Um
01:13:51 okay could could you could you identify who John Bouch's predecessor was? Sorry which role was he in SO3? Oh, in SO3.
01:14:03 in SO3? Oh, in SO3. Yeah. Was there anybody that you had a particular contact with in SO3? No, we we would have contact through the cell
01:14:10 cell which were three three SB officers in there.
01:14:13 there. And
01:14:15 And I during my time I can't recall us ever having contact through the cell either way.
01:14:22 way. And when you're talking about the cell, are you is that the cell that coordinated between S12 special branch and S SO13 anti-terrorism branch? Yes, they're they're three branch officers and they
01:14:34 they're three branch officers and they were the they were the gobetween at that level.
01:14:37 level. Yeah.
01:14:38 Yeah. And obviously they were extremely close um working relationship um which is probably why they merged them in the end. But you didn't have much contact with
01:14:49 But you didn't have much contact with those special branch people directly with SDS. Not not while on SDS or C squad. No. Is this is this cell as you call it three
01:15:00 this is this cell as you call it three branch officers in E squad? No, it's it's three branch officers and I could give you the identity of my time on B squad, sir, when we were dealing with those matters.
01:15:12 with those matters. Yes.
01:15:13 Yes. Who they were when I was on C squad and SDS, I have no idea because I didn't exploit that link and that relationship, but they would be drawn from the branch. Now, it might have been at this time
01:15:25 Now, it might have been at this time with international matters becoming more important that they'd come from E squad, but I don't know. This is a special branch cell of three
01:15:36 This is a special branch cell of three special branch officers. Yes. Who communicated intelligence to whichever uh squad needed to have it? To whichever to to whichever section of
01:15:48 To whichever to to whichever section of SO13 needed it. Yeah.
01:15:51 Yeah. and would also uh bring requests back to us from SO30. And it was at that level there was much higher level of cooperation as well uh between the two
01:16:02 cooperation as well uh between the two commanders.
01:16:06 I'm trying to correct my understanding of the internal organization of special branch at the time that this is a squad of or cell of three officers who communicate with SO3, the anti-terrorist
01:16:17 communicate with SO3, the anti-terrorist branch. Yes. Not or not necessarily the same as those with whom you would speak in uh [snorts]
01:16:27 [snorts] C squad or for that matter B squad. I think that's right. They were the they were a conduit for all branch contact between between the
01:16:39 all branch contact between between the two
01:16:41 two and that's why I had no dealings with them. I didn't have but other squads may well have had it was a conduit a liaison function. Yeah. Uh are they a liazison function
01:16:52 Yeah. Uh are they a liazison function for all of the squads and so for the for the whole branch? Right. So all each of the squads and SO3.
01:16:59 SO3. Yes. Got it. Yeah. Yeah. If it is this sir I know um Mr. voucher. Uh we'll be giving more evidence in relation to that as well when he
01:17:11 relation to that as well when he um so we've got this cell which is like a a coordination cell between SO12 and SO13
01:17:18 SO13 a conduit more a conduit. Yeah. Um and uh but but they weren't uh they weren't tasking you or they weren't influencing
01:17:30 tasking you or they weren't influencing tasking of HN18 at the very start of his uh deployment. In terms of Ative Chowry being an identified individual that HN18 became
01:17:42 identified individual that HN18 became close to,
01:17:44 close to, it's known that at the time he was the only person in ISM London of Asian Muslim heritage, although he wasn't a practicing Muslim himself at the time.
01:17:56 practicing Muslim himself at the time. And despite his withdrawal from the day-to-day activities of ISM, um, H&18 became very close to him and stayed very close to him for the duration of his deployment.
01:18:08 duration of his deployment. There's a document that I'd like to draw your attention to, MPS0065297
01:18:16 at page five, please.
01:18:25 I'm sorry, what was the date? Sorry, ma'am.
01:18:27 ma'am. Um,
01:18:29 Um, the date of this. Um, sorry, what was the date? I think if we go back to the top, we'll be able to see it.
01:18:40 be able to see it. I think this is an overview of ISM. So, it'll be it'll be dated um later. I have a
01:18:51 later. I have a I have a date of March 2006. It's certainly post your deployment.
01:18:58 Okay. No, no worries. Anyway,
01:19:03 it may even uh be have been drafted um in 2007.
01:19:11 No matter. Uh but the the references in relation to two two recent suicide bombers had traveled to the region as members of the ISM.
01:19:25 Yes, if that can be shown on the document. So it's at the penultimate paragraph at the very end
01:19:36 of that penultimate paragraph. Um, this reference to two recent suicide bombers, uh, we've seen evidence that that relates to suicide the suicide bombing
01:19:48 relates to suicide the suicide bombing of a a bar. Yes. Mike's bar. Yeah. Mike's bar, which was in 2003. Yeah.
01:19:54 Yeah. So, it had been a a number of years previously. Yeah.
01:20:01 Yeah. Um,
01:20:03 Um, sorry, I may have got the date wrong in relation to that.
01:20:13 Um sorry I'll get the date in relation to the the bombing of Mike's bar but um the the point is in terms of um Aif Chowry
01:20:26 and HN18's uh deployment it wasn't influenced by that suicide bombing incident because it was that predated the suicide bombings predated uh 18's
01:20:39 the suicide bombings predated uh 18's deployment by some time. Yes.
01:20:42 Yes. And the two suicide bombers had not been identified as ISM members. No.
01:20:50 No. And both of those had been killed. One in the uh suicide bombing event itself and the other had been found dead uh shortly thereafter. One in the sea. One in the sea. Yeah.
01:21:02 One in the sea. One in the sea. Yeah. It was 2003. Yeah, it was it was 2003 the bombing. [clears throat] Um,
01:21:13 so you may not be able to help us with this actually because it does pre post date. Um,
01:21:21 date. Um, I retired to 2005 05. Yeah.
01:21:24 05. Yeah. Sorry, bear with me a moment. Just get my dates in the right order. By were you aware in in 2003? It's the 30th of April 2003. You were aware of the bombing of
01:21:36 2003. You were aware of the bombing of Mike's bar. That would have been something that was on your radar. Is that right? Yes.
01:21:41 Yes. And it was in the news. Yes.
01:21:44 Yes. And the identity of those two uh uh uh suicide bombers was known. Yes.
01:21:49 Yes. And there was an investigation into that. Um that um they had um gone for tea. I think they'd met an ISM member for tea.
01:22:01 met an ISM member for tea. Yes. But the ISM member hadn't known those two people. Yes. And they they'd attended a vigil um at one of the the sites in the Palestine uh Palestinian territories.
01:22:12 Palestinian territories. Yes.
01:22:12 Yes. And then gone on and committed their uh criminal act. Yes.
01:22:21 It was known to you at the time, is that right? That they had not been engaged at all with ISM in I don't know what what do the documents show and obviously I accept whatever
01:22:33 show and obviously I accept whatever they show. I don't I don't Well, they they don't show any connection at all. In fact, the ISM Yes, I remember the documents, but the dating of them is is during my tenure if it Well, I accept that. Yes.
01:22:44 it Well, I accept that. Yes. So, the date of the bombing was 2003. Um,
01:22:51 by the time that this is written in 2006, 2007, Yes.
01:22:59 Yes. Yes.
01:22:59 Yes. the suicide bombing was not a recent event.
01:23:02 event. No.
01:23:02 No. And it was known that there was no link with the ISM members by then given the investigations that had happened. Yes.
01:23:10 Yes. In relation to that event. So my question is, how is that making its way into an overview report of HN18's uh deployment?
01:23:21 uh deployment? Yes.
01:23:23 Yes. Trying to make that connection, which is my Yes. Sorry. Which is my my question. Yes. Why is asking about the dates? Because
01:23:34 it's either an elaboration or it's an ignorance of the the true facts and not an awareness of it. I can't speak to that. But yes, this is 2007
01:23:45 that. But yes, this is 2007 and the two events have been conflated and for whatever reason
01:23:53 reason um in 2003 when the uh suicide bombing event happened though [clears throat] um were you satisfied that this was not to do with ISM
01:24:05 not to do with ISM in London? Do you remember having um involvement in any investigation? No, I I can't remember what I thought then. But again, just to give the context, my target was not the ISM or at
01:24:19 context, my target was not the ISM or at Chowdery.
01:24:21 Chowdery. Um
01:24:22 Um but the three together, I had no interest in portraying ISM as violent. Um,
01:24:30 Um, can I ask you about MPS 0526935?
01:24:46 I may be able to assist with the date of the document that you were looking at. My note suggests that it was updated in March 2006. Thank you. Yeah, I've got the 13th of
01:24:57 Thank you. Yeah, I've got the 13th of March, 2006 as a date, but it wasn't on the face of the document, I don't think.
01:25:05 Oh, page seven.
01:25:10 Right. Uh, is this MPS 35? Yes, page three, please.
01:25:31 We can see that this is a later document um at least post the 11th of September 2007
01:25:42 and it's an again a a front page if you like as part of the ripper authorization. of HN 18.
01:25:54 of HN 18. So this is a document up front in terms of the the compilation of Ripper authorizations. It looks like some sort of rough notes to that effect. Yes. Yeah. And um it's the list of associates that
01:26:07 And um it's the list of associates that I'm interested in. Up at the top we have the two suicide bombers of Mike's bar, the two people who were associated with that. And then directly underneath ative Chowry. And it's that juxtaposition of
01:26:21 Chowry. And it's that juxtaposition of these two. Yes. The naming of those three up at the top of the um the list. And why that would be occurring given what was known and in the public domain
01:26:33 what was known and in the public domain at the time that the two uh bombers Hanife and Sharif were not linked to ISM London. Um they were they were both uh
01:26:46 London. Um they were they were both uh dead several years before this document was created. Yes.
01:26:51 Yes. And put right next to Atif Chowry's name. We've heard from Atif Chowry and he was horrified to see his name at the top of a list like this. What What do you Are you able to say why that may
01:27:05 you Are you able to say why that may have made its way onto a document like this? Was there a racial um uh Yes. a
01:27:14 a approach to the targeting of Atif Chowry in that way? Yes. Reason reasonable question. I wasn't there, but I'm absolutely certain there wouldn't have been. Absolutely certain.
01:27:26 certain. There would be no point to it. Um,
01:27:31 and when I appear to pass it off, it's not flippantly, but like that, I'm not being dismissive. I entirely understand how active Chowry
01:27:43 I entirely understand how active Chowry must have felt and [clears throat] in no way would I try to justify the targeting of him or ISM. Um, and I'm not sure anyone else is. I
01:27:57 Um, and I'm not sure anyone else is. I think they well the best gloss I can put on it is they haven't got a clarity of view of what their information is telling them.
01:28:10 what their information is telling them. I'm absolutely certain from knowing 118 there would be no deliberate attempt to pick at Chowry out as somebody uh worthy of attention if he wasn't. And if
01:28:23 worthy of attention if he wasn't. And if 118 thought he was then I think that is a lack of clarity of what the information is telling you. And that is I'm sorry but that's the best I can do on that.
01:28:35 best I can do on that. In terms of listing those two people at the top of the list of associates is it an attempt by the SDS to manufacture links between ISM and Islamic extremism
01:28:48 links between ISM and Islamic extremism and castif Chowry then in a sinister and false light? Not. No. But I I I take the point of that question and
01:28:59 that question and I can understand that if the people, whoever's authored this, if the people thought there was some sort of link, then yes, they would seek to exploit
01:29:11 then yes, they would seek to exploit that link for their own internal purposes
01:29:15 purposes in terms of we in the SDS, you need to keep us working, etc. I can understand that point.
01:29:23 point. Um,
01:29:24 Um, do you think that's that is what was going on or I don't I don't know. I I I prefer I I prefer to think that um
01:29:35 they're just not interpreting the information correctly. Now the the there's two people on there 72 and 30 who have put in in the same category of
01:29:48 who have put in in the same category of they they wouldn't dream of doing such a thing.
01:29:52 thing. um 35. Um
01:29:55 um 35. Um I I don't know who that person is. Um
01:30:01 but he was this person, he or she was not working with me on the SDS. Do you want to check who it was on the Yeah.
01:30:10 Yeah. cipher list?
01:30:22 Oh yes. Yeah. That that was a sea squad officer
01:30:29 who who I knew but um I I didn't work with him on the SDS because he wasn't on the SDS.
01:30:40 Can I refer you to to um MPS 004113
01:30:47 please?
01:30:59 And we can see here in relation to common wheel H18 value to sea squad provides information on demonstrations pickets and other events relating to leftwing activity more especially
01:31:11 leftwing activity more especially concerning issues relating to stop the war the Palestinian issue and public order activity concerning ISM. M. Um,
01:31:22 in terms of value to E squad, it is the the
01:31:27 the information on groups who associate with or have contacts to groups in the Middle East whose activities are either unclear or are alleged by other foreign intelligence agencies as being either
01:31:38 intelligence agencies as being either subversive or terrorist groups. and Commonwealth's activity takes him into close contact with both foreign and UK nationals whose main aims are overseas
01:31:49 nationals whose main aims are overseas um
01:31:51 um but due to the prosecution of their campaign intentionally cause or potentially cause profound embarrassment to the UK government. Is it that embarrassment and the potential for
01:32:03 embarrassment and the potential for embarrassment to the UK government that really led to why he was targeted towards a Palestinian um support group in England.
01:32:15 um support group in England. No, I think that's part of the general general tasking. The profound embarrassment was I would interpret that to mean is that a bomb explosion. Um the government hasn't got a grip. We
01:32:28 Um the government hasn't got a grip. We know what how the press goes into overdrive immediately after such an event demanding immediate answers. And
01:32:39 one such event led to um led to us losing primacy on Irish publican terrorism. For instance, the government was extremely embarrassed when a projectile landed in the back garden of
01:32:51 projectile landed in the back garden of number 10.
01:32:55 Who was I think you said that the the customer when you first targeted um HN18 to ISM
01:33:06 when you first targeted um HN18 to ISM was C squad? Yes.
01:33:08 Yes. And was there any other customer was MI5 uh security service in involved in targeting of HN18? I can't remember at which point I started discussing the
01:33:21 which point I started discussing the refocusing of the unit to this area with security service. If I'd spoken to them as early on as that, it wouldn't have been in terms of
01:33:32 that, it wouldn't have been in terms of the value of targeting ISM for the reasons we've discussed. Um but obviously [clears throat] um
01:33:45 as time went on and particularly after the London bombings the relationship with scurit service was closer much closer um which was normal.
01:33:58 closer um which was normal. We can see behind um MPS 0065493
01:34:06 at page three.
01:34:19 Um this is the um annual review of HN performance review of HN18.
01:34:35 We can see in box two of the behaviors box, DC Hastings has gathered intelligence from his particular field of interest for the benefit of MPS special branch and public order branch
01:34:47 special branch and public order branch as well as the security services uh service.
01:34:51 service. Yeah.
01:34:53 Yeah. Um, and if we close that down
01:35:06 and reference is also made to the security service in the box down at the bottom, the reporting officer's overall comments and rating. um in terms of value to the security
01:35:19 um in terms of value to the security service
01:35:21 service knowing what you know and I appreciate that 18 was very much in the field post your uh tenure had ceased. Yeah. Is it fair to say that the
01:35:32 Yeah. Is it fair to say that the reporting that was coming from um 18 in relation to ISM would not have been of any real value to the security service given that in large part it was in
01:35:43 given that in large part it was in relation to Chowry his private life and the the finances of ISM.
01:35:54 Are you able to comment on that at all? Yes. Um,
01:35:57 Yes. Um, yes, I can see I can see every element of that. I wouldn't dispute it. But once um the security service expresses an interest in it, it's then not for you to
01:36:08 interest in it, it's then not for you to make a judgment as what might be useful or not. And so if it fell in the area, you would pass any report to them and it would be for them to shred them or use them. We wouldn't make we wouldn't
01:36:21 them. We wouldn't make we wouldn't second guess what their their intentions were. we would just comply with the requirements.
01:36:31 Was there a sense that your customers were seeking to gain intelligence on Palestinians rather than um public order or serious crime issues in the UK?
01:36:46 Um you you mean the security service or or E squad or Yeah. any of the customers that were feeding into the targeting of H&18? No. And and again, it comes back to the
01:36:58 No. And and again, it comes back to the issue there. There was no partiality in the branches to one side or another. Um it was certainly not
01:37:09 it was certainly not to say adopt, shall we say, a pro-Israeli stance. Um that that was just that is just fantasy. Or a pro Palestinian stance. Um, no.
01:37:23 Palestinian stance. Um, no. And nor were the requirements of our customers couched in those terms. Can we have a look at some of the Reaper
01:37:35 Can we have a look at some of the Reaper authorizations in relation to his deployment? Uh, MPS0526805
01:37:43 behind tab B138. Sir
01:37:49 firstly page 62 if we can. So this is a composite of u the reaper authorizations firstly the application the authorization then the reviews and updates as that they were required.
01:38:00 updates as that they were required. Yeah.
01:38:22 And we can see reference of the that fourth bullet point
01:38:29 to information assisting police to proportionately control public order situations at legitimate business interests.
01:38:40 legitimate business interests. particularly the M at Marks and Spencers and Caterpillar. Yeah.
01:38:46 Yeah. Um in terms of those events um and this is now the 3rd of December 200 uh 4, so still within your tenure.
01:39:00 200 uh 4, so still within your tenure. I think it's a review which follows the last review on 3rd of December. Okay. So, so up until the 3rd of December 2005.
01:39:11 December 2005. Yes. Yeah. Um, do you recall events taking place in protest in relation to M&S and Caterpillar?
01:39:22 Caterpillar? Yes. In relation to uh Israel's actions. Yes.
01:39:27 Yes. And and the reason why they were protesting against Caterpillar was because they Caterpillar provided the the construction vehicles to demolish homes in the Palestinian territories. Yeah.
01:39:38 Yeah. Some of the um uh well the pro one of the protests was to walk into I think it was John Lewis and put Caterpillar boots on and stand in the
01:39:50 on and stand in the the the shop for for some time um and protest in that way. um create a disturbance, create some attention. Yes.
01:39:59 Yes. Um and and and get the message across. In terms of that being public order situations that would require undercover police officer, an undercover police officer to infiltrate the group to
01:40:12 officer to infiltrate the group to provide information to um the the police in that way. Yes. Would that be in your view a disproportionate use of undercover policing for smallcale
01:40:24 policing for smallcale types of events direct action like this? No. It would have been if we know that three people are going there and we then decide to infiltrate those three people
01:40:35 decide to infiltrate those three people um the fact that there are only only three people going uh is the product of someone being there. And this is the crucial difference. Sorry to go on, but it's way back to ' 68 that we have to be there beforehand
01:40:49 68 that we have to be there beforehand proactively, not reactively. And so, no, I wouldn't. If at some point it became apparent that this particular group was doing nothing else but putting
01:41:00 group was doing nothing else but putting Caterpillar boots on and there only three of them, then yes, it would become disproportionate. But it's good news for Uniform that no, you don't need to deploy any extra resources.
01:41:12 resources. Can we look at page uh 73 please?
01:41:41 Um,
01:41:46 and can we go to the end of that particular authorization? There should be a comment by the commander, Commander Williams.
01:42:03 the next page
01:42:11 if we can scroll on.
01:42:18 So it's this page 77.
01:42:26 I can enlarge that please.
01:42:45 We can see the authority for conduct which is signed off by commander Janet Williams
01:42:53 Williams uh
01:42:56 uh to allow for the deployment from the 20 uh 24th of August 2004 to 2005 for that year.
01:43:07 authorizes it for specific reasons. Prevention of public disorder, early detection of attempts by those same individuals and groups to subvert legitimate forms of protest.
01:43:21 And that conduct will include establishing relationships with members of globalized resistance who will not know the sources of police officer. Anything more intrusive than the
01:43:32 Anything more intrusive than the establishing of relationships and living the life of the committed activist is not authorized. And the controller, the controller being you, I think, wasn't it? Yeah.
01:43:42 Yeah. And the sourcer aware that the legislation provides for unforeseen circumstances that those circumstances will be brought to my attention and that no further action beyond that which is necessary to ensure the safety of the
01:43:53 necessary to ensure the safety of the officer will be taken without my authority. Yeah.
01:43:57 Yeah. How much information was sent to Janet Williams
01:44:03 Williams um in relation to this deployment? Is it is it the reaper authorization that's the extent of it or was she involved at at any other point during the course of
01:44:14 at any other point during the course of the deployment? Um she would discuss this the authorization with me before she signed it. And did she ever challenge you in terms
01:44:27 And did she ever challenge you in terms of the extent of the authorization? Yes.
01:44:31 Yes. And ask for further information in relation to the deployments? Yes. ve very very thorough investigation by her. Yeah. Um was she seen as part of the the the
01:44:44 Um was she seen as part of the the the new batch of people that were coming in? You spoke about um the uh briefs that you were providing for Janet Williams. Yes.
01:44:50 Yes. Uh on Monday, you spoke about she she she'd come in new to the role and you were providing information that she would be required to know at that stage. Yes.
01:45:00 Yes. Um
01:45:01 Um in terms of her approach to the authorizations, was she asking questions? She was querying the proportionality of this uh sort of
01:45:12 proportionality of this uh sort of deployment. Yes. Yes. Very thorough. Yeah.
01:45:18 And did you feel that you were able to justify HN18's deployment um given what you knew by this stage of ISM?
01:45:29 ISM? um in particular. Yes. Be because of my aims for him. Um and Janet Williams certainly wouldn't have signed that unless she was
01:45:41 have signed that unless she was satisfied
01:45:42 satisfied with what I was saying.
01:46:02 Can we go to page 14, please?
01:46:15 Um, if we can go to the page
01:46:20 uh the beginning of this uh authorization
01:46:27 So this is an update. So I think the date will be at the end of the authorization. So a few pages down.
01:46:51 Um, if we scroll through to page 22,
01:47:00 we can see this is an uh signed off on the 1st of September 2005
01:47:08 by HM53. in over the next page, please.
01:47:17 Got the customer comments.
01:47:33 So, this is a 2005 document going back to
01:47:40 Uh, page 14, please.
01:47:53 We can see in box 4 A at the bottom of the first uh paragraph
01:48:05 reference to um the ISM
01:48:11 playing an increasing role in self-appointed monitoring of coalition forces in Iraq. back and although UK based, its primary focus
01:48:22 and although UK based, its primary focus is on the Israeli defense uh forces. Whilst there was a focus on Israeli um action in Palestinian territories,
01:48:35 um action in Palestinian territories, this reference to the coalition forces in Iraq, um it's said that there there was no interest at all of ISM in relation to coalition forces in Iraq and
01:48:48 relation to coalition forces in Iraq and query. Where did that come from? How has that managed to make its way into a a reaper authorization? Was it your understanding that there was a focus on
01:48:59 understanding that there was a focus on uh military activity in Iraq? No, I have to say that um
01:49:07 um uh that's news to me. Um
01:49:13 I'm hesitating because I haven't applied for this although I'm the controller. I'm hesitating because I'm not ducking out a responsibility for it. So, I'm hesitating to think
01:49:26 hesitating to think um what is the context here?
01:49:31 And I can't answer that. I I I don't know why that's in.
01:49:37 Would would that have triggered further interest in ISM that perhaps wasn't justified? Um,
01:49:49 if it were not to be the case, then plainly yes.
01:50:00 Can I look at MPS 0042125, please?
01:50:13 This is a report in relation to Rachel Cory's parents who are visiting the UK. Rachel Cy being a young member of um ISM International who was killed in
01:50:24 um ISM International who was killed in Gaza
01:50:26 Gaza um by one of the Caterpillar Yeah. um uh uh vehicles and her family were coming to uh meet with people that she knew as part of the
01:50:38 with people that she knew as part of the wider organization. Yes.
01:50:41 Yes. Um in terms of the justification of reporting on her grieving family, would you say that that was collateral
01:50:52 would you say that that was collateral reporting that was not justified given that again it's a it's a Well, there there is no public disorder
01:51:03 Well, there there is no public disorder um uh implications of their visit. Yes, but of Yes, I understand that. Of course, the reporting is not on Rachel Cy or or her parents. It's on the ISM.
01:51:17 Cy or or her parents. It's on the ISM. And this is giving the context again about what's happening, what has happened, what will happen. It's it's nothing to do with um monitoring her parents.
01:51:30 monitoring her parents. It it does look at their plans for the visit, doesn't it? And who they're going to meet and that they're going to arrange a social at the cafe. Yeah.
01:51:39 Yeah. Um for people that knew Rachel. Yes. Um, in terms of ISM's involvement in that, it's it's
01:51:50 ISM's involvement in that, it's it's very low key in terms of there not being any um threat of public disorder. Is there is there a reason why that needed to be part of an intel
01:52:01 that needed to be part of an intel report?
01:52:02 report? Yes. An example, TO20 might have got wind of this themselves and is there any concern for us? Do we need to gear up with extra uniform people? It's part of
01:52:14 with extra uniform people? It's part of painting the painting the picture rather than just shouting fire when one is discovered. Um and again the context is these reports don't go anywhere outside
01:52:27 these reports don't go anywhere outside the branch. These reports don't go out the branch. If the information goes out the branch, it's not in the form of this report.
01:52:35 report. And so but yes, I I can see the concern you're expressing. Yeah. And it's it's some years into his deployment by now. So although um when one talks about shouting a fire once
01:52:48 one talks about shouting a fire once it's lit, there surely must be some suspicion that there's going to be a fire otherwise you start looking elsewhere. Do do you see what I mean in terms of there's no there's been no
01:53:00 terms of there's no there's been no suggestion up until this point at least that ISM were involved in any serious crime or serious large scale public disorder or anything like that. It's part of the whole picture in our
01:53:13 It's part of the whole picture in our fire prevention task.
01:53:17 In terms of the information that was coming through on Ative Chowry, I have a list of references of reports. I don't intend to take them uh take you
01:53:28 I don't intend to take them uh take you to them all, but um a report of the 30th of August 2005 is a profile on Chowry. There's a f unless you want me to take
01:53:39 There's a f unless you want me to take you to them, but I think you're probably fairly familiar with the type of reporting that was coming through in relation to him. um a report on the 30th of October 2005 related to his family and their
01:53:52 related to his family and their employment and we know that one of his brothers was employed. Yes.
01:53:56 Yes. Um in in government department. Yes.
01:53:59 Yes. And a report of the 21st of the 3rd 2005 relates to his grassroots enterprise zetune.
01:54:08 zetune. Yes.
01:54:09 Yes. Is painting the picture of the person. We don't just report the the bad bits if you like which there weren't any but it's the whole picture. It's another report of the 16th of May
01:54:22 It's another report of the 16th of May 2006 is the email address of his girlfriend and a report on the 18th of February 2006 is related to Chowry and his family visiting his brother in
01:54:34 his family visiting his brother in Libya. Um, so a family holiday where he uh went to uh see his nephews as well for a birthday party. Yeah,
01:54:43 Yeah, that all of that was a good picture as you say that painting the picture and it should have been known by then that he wasn't of any interest at all to special
01:54:55 wasn't of any interest at all to special branch. Is that fair to say? Before I forget, I mean, yes, including the email address of the girlfriend in there, that's going too far. Um but yes the the other general picture
01:55:07 Um but yes the the other general picture is is valid. Um
01:55:12 Um I know it's difficult for people to understand but it looks as if we are preparing a case against someone
01:55:21 someone and as I say I our function of the whole branch was to have this colossal database and I'm I'm aware of all the arguments about whether you should do that but putting that to one side once
01:55:33 that but putting that to one side once that is legitimized and the a special branch is desired This is what the work is in terms of S squad.
01:55:47 Aside from what the value might be to policing,
01:55:50 policing, is it counterbalanced by the potential negative effects on Chowry and his family um reporting on Atif uh traveling with his mother um to Libya to visit his
01:56:03 with his mother um to Libya to visit his brother and nephews? Um the report included uh the fact that his father drove them in the car. I think it reported his uh registration
01:56:14 think it reported his uh registration number plate and
01:56:18 and reporting on individuals around Chowry could have could it not an impact a negative impact on their lives and in particular the employment of his
01:56:29 particular the employment of his brothers. If if something were to be picked up in vetting for on speurious grounds like this when they've not been involved in any unlawful activity at all.
01:56:40 unlawful activity at all. Yes.
01:56:41 Yes. Um having a potential for that negative impact is actually a reason not to report this sort of material, isn't it? And have that resting on a file.
01:56:53 And have that resting on a file. I take the point. The issue of course is is with one exception secrecy. Um this doesn't come out. Um the value of it is
01:57:05 doesn't come out. Um the value of it is again it explains who these individuals are who are associating with him should he become of interest and that they are of no consequence. This is who they are.
01:57:16 of no consequence. This is who they are. As to regard the vetting um there there are no circumstances in which a firm can just ring the branch up and say
01:57:27 and say what have you got on so and so. Um any such request if you were a government employee would go through the channels to the branch's own vetting office dedicated vetting officers who then
01:57:41 dedicated vetting officers who then would come to discuss with someone like me what is what is the story behind this? What is the exact value of this? Is this exaggeration? Is it supposition?
01:57:54 Is this exaggeration? Is it supposition? And so that a vetting view could then be provided back to the government department which sponsored uh the request foreign office or wherever and
01:58:05 request foreign office or wherever and that's the only circumstance in which uh material relevant to vetting would go out of the out of the branch is isn't
01:58:14 is isn't so yes the accuracy that's at the more more important to keep the information accurate. Uh yeah, that was going to be my next question. Isn't the danger the fact that
01:58:26 question. Isn't the danger the fact that if somebody were to vet his brother for a government department job, the chances are they would see his ative Chowry, the brother associated with two suicide
01:58:38 brother associated with two suicide bombers on the page on the on the page without any further understanding of the context of how they would Yes. Sorry to interrupt you.
01:58:49 would Yes. Sorry to interrupt you. Do you wish to cont they um they wouldn't see that this is where the vetting office would get a sanitized view
01:58:59 view and that would be passed out. Um
01:59:03 Um I take your point entirely but if the information is incorrect um I have personal experience of that proceeding myself when I applied as a PC
01:59:15 proceeding myself when I applied as a PC that
01:59:17 that I was rejected on erroneous not full vetting grounds but initial grounds of vetting. So I know exactly what you're talking about.
01:59:29 what you're talking about. Um to finish in relation to Atif Chowry, he was particularly upset by the fact that H18 attended his sister's wedding um and was present.
01:59:42 um and was present. Yes. uh there that that that infiltration and presence at intimate family events like that is particularly upsetting when that is uh discovered. Do
01:59:53 upsetting when that is uh discovered. Do you do you accept that the the the extent to which HN18 invagled himself into not only at's personal life but the personal lives of his family members
02:00:04 personal lives of his family members in principle? No. But I think possibly in this case, yes, that an error of judgment. It was not necessary in this case, but it would
02:00:16 necessary in this case, but it would have been an error of judgment
02:00:20 because Atif Chowry was not of a a stature as a target to to to warrant something like that
02:00:33 because he wasn't a target.
02:00:43 Sir, I'm about to move on to the issue of true spies. It may be that we take a slightly earlier break. Um certainly. Um I I have a question before
02:00:54 certainly. Um I I have a question before we rise and um it may require you to um uh think and write something down uh during the break. Uh you may remember being asked about um 40 minutes ago
02:01:05 being asked about um 40 minutes ago about the reasons for um reporting on ISM. Yes. which included um and I quote uh
02:01:17 Yes. which included um and I quote uh the that the u potentially they could potentially cause profound embarrassment to the UK government. Yeah.
02:01:26 Yeah. Now your answer uh about that was that that was embarrassment from press reporting about the government failure to deal with bombing if I've correctly
02:01:39 to deal with bombing if I've correctly understood your answer. Um, and maybe I've not expressed it correctly that uh I no way intended to link ISM to I'm not for a moment suggesting that ISM
02:01:50 I'm not for a moment suggesting that ISM is should be linked to to um bombing, but um
02:01:57 but um your explanation of the reference to something that was potent which could potentially cause profound embarrassment to the UK government. Yes. Yes. Her explanation was that if there were
02:02:09 Her explanation was that if there were bombs exploded, then the press would criticize the government for failing to deal with it beforehand. Yes.
02:02:18 Yes. Um, just answer my next question. Yes or no, if you would. Is that the only reason why that phrase appears in the document?
02:02:33 I can't answer it in one word. Uh it's yes, it's the only thing I can
02:02:43 I can think to explain that phrase. Yes.
02:02:46 Yes. If I look back, I can't think at this moment of other causes of embarrassment. Right. Um
02:02:56 Right. Um would you reflect on that over the short?
02:02:58 short? Yes. And if um on reflection, yes,
02:03:02 yes, you think that they were refer referring to other causes of embarrassment. Yes. Could you write down what those causes might be?
02:03:09 might be? Yes, I will. Thank you. If the answer remains that's the the cause of embarrassment. Nothing need no need to write anything. Sure.
02:03:17 Sure. All right.
02:22:41 I can't help you any further, sir. Thank you.
02:22:44 you. Yes. Thank you. Um, Mr. to delve the broadcasting of True Spies that that docu documentary between October and November 2002
02:22:56 November 2002 um during the course of your tenure. Can you help us with um what you know about how that came about? Who was it that um
02:23:08 how that came about? Who was it that um uh was involved from the policing side of things? I think I I've since discovered it was um a decision by the AKO TAM lead on
02:23:20 um a decision by the AKO TAM lead on this matter who was the chief constable of Cambridge then and he on behalf of SBS had agreed to it and that's I understand the line of
02:23:33 and that's I understand the line of authority only because of what I've read and given you were head of the SDS. Yes. um at the time, were you involved in providing any information for the
02:23:45 in providing any information for the production of that? No.
02:23:48 No. And when it aired in 2002, uh you were involved subsequent to the airing in a a risk assessment report. You were required to write a report that
02:24:01 You were required to write a report that Yeah.
02:24:02 Yeah. Um, how did that come about that you were asked to uh write a risk assessment or an impact assessment? I should imagine because it was the
02:24:14 I should imagine because it was the was there any threat to the operational security of the officers or to their their personal their identities. Um, can we have that impact assessment
02:24:26 Um, can we have that impact assessment on screen please? It's MPS0719704 [clears throat]
02:24:37 and we understand the date it well the dates on the face of the page 28th November 2002
02:24:48 and have you had chance to refresh your memory in relation to this? No, I haven't I haven't seen this since. No.
02:25:30 Yeah. Have you had a chance to read that? The penultimate bullet point, please. The consequences of the near identification of John Dyn. Yes. As an undercover police officer. What did you know about that at the time?
02:25:44 did you know about that at the time? Yes. And I smile because that is is news to me. I'd forgotten I'd written this. I'd forgotten that I'd included John Dyn in there. My impression was that I I'd
02:25:56 in there. My impression was that I I'd never heard of John Dyn until the final attempt by Helen Steel to trace him. So I smile when I see that
02:26:07 trace him. So I smile when I see that and say, "Oh, obviously I've consulted other people's." Um, so other people will have fed into this. Oh, yes. Did Bob Lambert feed into this report?
02:26:18 report? I wouldn't have imagined so. No, I I think I would have been speaking to 53. Um,
02:26:25 Um, I
02:26:28 I I barely remember the report and I can't see myself going outside the SDS.
02:26:41 Uh in in terms of your discussions with HN53,
02:26:48 HN53, were they uh it was a thorough research in terms of the risks in light of true spies? Is that fair to say?
02:27:00 Can you recall what HN50? [clears throat] I'm just going up to the um proceeding uh sentence before the bullet points just Yeah,
02:27:09 Yeah, just to help myself. If we can have the second page on screen as well, please that will will help.
02:27:21 And I see I've written there that um the issue of John Dyn was raised by true spies. I mean again I don't remember I don't I do remember the
02:27:33 remember I don't I do remember the series but I I I don't remember a particular episode with D or most other people to be honest.
02:27:48 We can see well I I refer on the second page uh point2
02:27:54 uh point2 to DI53's thorough research. So where he's identified the following most vulnerable of the former SDS officers. So my my guess was correct
02:28:07 officers. So my my guess was correct that he would have been as usual the font of a heck of a lot of information. So, so he's fed in to this uh report and we can see that um H H H H
02:28:21 uh report and we can see that um H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H HM5 John Dyn is mentioned second down in the the large redacted box and the gist put over the top.
02:28:27 the top. Yes.
02:28:27 Yes. Is that John Dyna ALF 1987 to 1991? Yes.
02:28:34 Yes. Helen Steel research. Is it fair to say that at that time you understood that Helen Steel was looking for John Dyn? Just repeat that. At that time we
02:28:46 Just repeat that. At that time we you understood that Helen Steel was looking for John Dyn. When was the final time that she did look for him? Because my memory is that's the first time I come across the
02:28:59 that's the first time I come across the name John Dyn. Obviously not. Uh how close was it to this? I I got the impression it was nearer 20034. Is that
02:29:11 impression it was nearer 20034. Is that correct?
02:29:11 correct? I think that's a later time that she um goes to New Zealand. And that's the time that's the time when I have it that I don't I've never met John Dyn. It
02:29:23 I don't I've never met John Dyn. It doesn't [snorts] mean anything to me, but obviously he's on a list here that has been provided of people. So I have heard of him before. Okay. And in terms of what you stood of
02:29:35 Okay. And in terms of what you stood of Helen Steel research, did what had you been told about that? I don't know. Um, just above that entry, we've got
02:29:46 Um, just above that entry, we've got reference to Stefan Scott of SWP. Yes.
02:29:50 Yes. 1985 to 1987. Potentially hostile.
02:29:56 Why did you describe him as potentially hostile?
02:29:59 hostile? That's 53. and he will explain why I I didn't know anything about Stephan Scott. I'd heard the name and equally just above that in the
02:30:11 and equally just above that in the normal type Mike Chitty. Yeah.
02:30:15 Yeah. Um AR 1983 1987 potentially hostile. Um again why was he potentially hostile? Well, again, as I I mentioned yesterday,
02:30:27 Well, again, as I I mentioned yesterday, I had to Google him to find anything about him. I Google him a few weeks ago. Um, so again, that's obviously in the context of
02:30:38 context of I think he was disciplined, wasn't he? But there was the issue of the fear that he would
02:30:46 he would publicize the extent of the SDS if he were and
02:30:52 were and would he be on this program as potentially hostile. Um it looks like when sorry when did the program air this looks like it's before the program goes
02:31:03 looks like it's before the program goes out. Um I think it's a uh it's the program aired between October and November 2002. So this is after so this is well after. Yeah.
02:31:14 so this is well after. Yeah. So it's a it's a few weeks after um because it was a three-part series. It went out over a period of I think three weeks.
02:31:23 weeks. Yes. I remember seeing it. Yeah. And so this is shortly there. Very shortly there. So it's afterwards. That's the key thing. Yeah. So why he's described as potentially hostile, I'm not sure because if you've seen the series, you
02:31:35 because if you've seen the series, you would know whether or not he was. So I don't know. We can see the entry penultimate gist in the large box. Jim Boiling RTS 1995 2000
02:31:51 the large box. Jim Boiling RTS 1995 2000 research by Rosa. Do you remember putting that uh uh as as part of the No, but it's it's my risk assessment and
02:32:04 No, but it's it's my risk assessment and I've asked for information and I've incorporated a list into my report, but obviously these are PE some of the people are from quite long ago. Um,
02:32:18 people are from quite long ago. Um, and on
02:32:22 I mean on that list
02:32:26 I met Peter Francis, Jim Boiling to be introduced to. Um, I hadn't met anybody else on the list, never mind worked with them. So,
02:32:40 list, never mind worked with them. So, and and when you say you met him, you met him for the purposes of this risk assessment, no, the impact assessment or you met him previously? I think it was when Jim had left and was
02:32:51 I think it was when Jim had left and was he on extended leave and came into the office maybe or am I confusing him with Mark Jenner? But he was in that category. No, I used him when he went to
02:33:02 category. No, I used him when he went to a post on ES squad as liaison with the Canadian with the Canadian embassy and others and he arranged a meeting for me and
02:33:14 and he arranged a meeting for me and that was it. And and by this time in November 2002, we know that the office has moved. We understand that the office moved in July 2002 because Rosa had identified where
02:33:26 2002 because Rosa had identified where the office was and was contacting the office. So yes, was that something you were aware of by then?
02:33:31 then? That would be the incident I'd be I would be aware of that. Yes.
02:33:38 Yes. Um, so in terms of research by Rosa, you fully understood at least by this point as to what was happening there. Did you you understood that that was a a a a
02:33:50 you understood that that was a a a a girlfriend partner searching for Jim Boiling?
02:33:53 Boiling? No, I didn't understand that. I understood that an activist was making inquiries
02:33:59 inquiries about um Jim Boing. Um
02:34:04 Um and as we discussed yesterday, I I didn't understand that she was his girlfriend. Had had HM53 not relayed that to you given that we know she'd effectively
02:34:16 given that we know she'd effectively said that and in one of the messages that she'd left left with the office. If you recall, we looked at that note about, you know, tell Jim I'm leaving him. It's over.
02:34:28 him. It's over. Yeah.
02:34:28 Yeah. If I can't find him. Um,
02:34:34 that was HN53 2000 a few months before you joined on the sheet now. Yes. I I I don't know. I I just can't explain [clears throat] uh
02:34:46 uh why I can't react, why I can't recollect what my reaction was. Um, I just don't know. Um, we've got a few people noted as
02:34:57 Um, we've got a few people noted as hostile. So, we we've got Mike Chitty. Yeah.
02:35:01 Yeah. Stefan Scott. Yes.
02:35:03 Yes. Um, and then at the bottom in the large redacted box, we've got Peter Francis, militant, 1993, 1997, potentially
02:35:14 militant, 1993, 1997, potentially hostile. Why had you described him as potentially hostile?
02:35:22 Um, again, presumably that's on the list because Peter, um, I think by that time had he finished his
02:35:34 I think by that time had he finished his suit against the Met, I think he had, and that had been settled. And so it was reasonable to assume that um
02:35:47 reasonable to assume that um he might want to go further and and appear in that program, but it's potentially hostile. So it's a list that's been compiled
02:35:59 it's a list that's been compiled as if it's forwardlooking, but then put into an expost report. So yes, I I can't I think again it's just a clerical thing. So it's likely
02:36:12 just a clerical thing. So it's likely that it's because of the litigation that he was seen as a potential threat to the SDS at that point. Yes. The why potentially is there I think it must be an old list or
02:36:23 think it must be an old list or something. And in terms of those people being identified as potentially hostile and this is a threat to the SDS as it was in November 2002 of which you were managing
02:36:36 November 2002 of which you were managing it ahead of the SDS. Did you make further inquiries in relation to these individuals who were a potential threat to your SDS unit? No.
02:36:46 No. Why? Why was that? Isn't it Isn't it Wouldn't it be seen as um likely that you would want to know exactly who these people are and why they were a threat?
02:36:57 people are and why they were a threat? No.
02:36:59 No. um
02:37:01 um it's SDS history and the point of this threat assessment is closely defined it's threats to it's an impact
02:37:14 it's threats to it's an impact assessment on individuals who are serving in or have served in my concern at that time was visiting the families of the present UC's who were not at all
02:37:26 of the present UC's who were not at all pleased
02:37:28 pleased who were not at all sorry at all pleased and asked your question did I have any part in it. Um
02:37:39 so no is the answer the answer to your question
02:37:43 question in terms of those that have been identified as um being researched. So we've got Jim Boiling research by Rosa. We've got John Dyn Helen Steel research.
02:37:57 We've got John Dyn Helen Steel research. We've also got in the middle of that large redacted box the gist Mark Jenner RA AFA 94 to 2000 research. And you understood it at that point that the research was by the woman we are
02:38:10 research was by the woman we are identifying as Allison. Is that what you meant by research? [clears throat] No, I I and again I didn't actually write the words research. So when they're presented to me, um
02:38:22 they're presented to me, um it's
02:38:25 it's people who had activists chasing them. I'm not sure that I paid a lot a lot of attention to it. Is it fair to say that this was a a big
02:38:38 Is it fair to say that this was a a big issue at the time when True Spies aired? There was a lot of uh upset caused within special branch. Yes. And in particular by the undercover officers who were still alive. Yeah.
02:38:49 officers who were still alive. Yeah. At the time. Yes, it is. Um and by that mean on deployment. Um but also there was then a a a considerable amount of work done in
02:39:01 a considerable amount of work done in rel in relation to contacting past um UCOs like Boiling and Jenna. Yes. um to fig to to establish what they needed from the SDS in terms of any
02:39:13 needed from the SDS in terms of any support.
02:39:14 support. Yes.
02:39:14 Yes. It it must be mustn't it that you understood at that time what was happening in relation to these UCOs given your responsibility towards them as the head of the SDS at the time.
02:39:27 as the head of the SDS at the time. I had no contact with previous officers. I had the contact with the current field.
02:39:34 field. Uh, I remember Colin Black give a a briefing to enough people to fill a 300 person briefing room as to what was going on, mentioning the
02:39:45 as to what was going on, mentioning the fact that Mike Dell's not here today because of what I was actually doing precisely on that in seeing the current field who were obviously not at the
02:39:56 field who were obviously not at the briefing.
02:39:58 briefing. Um,
02:40:00 Um, and I'd also been engaged with Peter Taylor to try and get some redactions from the program beforehand, but the MPS had not reserved editorial
02:40:14 the MPS had not reserved editorial rights over it, so it was difficult.
02:40:20 Is it more likely that by this time in 2002,
02:40:26 2002, it was clear that there were a number of officers who had ex uh uh partners looking for them. uh
02:40:37 looking for them. uh Rosa Allison, Helen Steel, and then you have the two officers who had uh been involved with uh uh women in their deployments, Mike Chitty and Stephan Scott, and that you knew about all of
02:40:50 Scott, and that you knew about all of those deployments and the women that were involved in that with those officers.
02:40:55 officers. There is,
02:40:58 There is, sorry, not uh Stefan Scott was a different um issue. There is a clear pattern. Um, it's for you to decide how stupid I am for not
02:41:11 you to decide how stupid I am for not detecting that pattern. My answer is I didn't have all the information. Again, I'm not running away from it. That is just my the fact.
02:41:25 Is it at least um true that HN53 would have been aware of that information?
02:41:41 I I can't speak uh
02:41:45 uh as to 53's disposition when each of these cases come off. And that is not to say no. I just can't speak. I don't know where he was, what he was doing,
02:41:56 where he was, what he was doing, how he was deployed, and what he knew. So,
02:42:04 So, I dearly I dearly, dearly wish that I knew then what I know now.
02:42:14 Can we have a look please at MPS0738090?
02:42:23 Sorry. Um
02:42:30 yeah, the the detective chief superintendent Alan Mitchell's Operation Hearn interview, he talks about um the program
02:42:41 program um in in particular in relation to Operation Sparkler, but I don't know if you're going to be able to help us with it. Can you can you help us with that at [clears throat] all? Operation
02:42:49 Operation Sparkler.
02:42:50 Sparkler. I recognize the name. Yeah,
02:42:57 that don't worry about that. I'm going to um I'm going to leave that and ask you um I don't want to ask you any more about um True Spies. I would like to ask
02:43:08 about um True Spies. I would like to ask you please about Muscat. Operation Muscat.
02:43:12 Muscat. Does that ring any bells? Yes, it does. Just remind me, was that the covert housing thing? That's in relation to um Helen Steel and her search for New Zealand
02:43:23 her search for New Zealand John Dyn.
02:43:24 John Dyn. Yes. Yeah. In terms of HN53 and his involvement in that um operation, is it fair to say that a lot of his time was taken up by
02:43:37 that a lot of his time was taken up by uh his involvement? Yes.
02:43:42 Yes. and
02:43:43 and and and and sharing an office with HM53. Were you equally uh involved in at least some discussion around what was happening with Operation
02:43:55 around what was happening with Operation Muscat?
02:43:56 Muscat? I didn't share an office with him. We had separate offices, but obviously I take your point. We were we were working together.
02:44:04 together. The issue came up that an activist was trying to locate John Dyn and it was appropriate that the 53 who
02:44:15 and it was appropriate that the 53 who knew him should deal with it. And it was not a good idea for me with no background knowledge to any of the case to be well out of the UK for some
02:44:28 case to be well out of the UK for some time.
02:44:29 time. um
02:44:32 um when somebody asked to run the SDS can you remind me just what the time scale was of of this particular instance just to get I can get context again this is around the same time so
02:44:43 again this is around the same time so it's 2002
02:44:44 it's 2002 right
02:44:45 right um there's a particular document MPS 000011352
02:44:54 which is dated the 23rd of December 2002 too. So this is shortly after your true spies impact assessment. Yes.
02:45:04 Yes. Then next month on we have
02:45:06 we have Can I just could I just ask do you have documentation? Is the Helen Steel inquiry coming out of the the back of the true spies then? Is the is this
02:45:18 the true spies then? Is the is this shortly after? And here's an activist looking for one of one of ours. Um, no. I think the the reference to Helen Steel looking for John Dyn is something that
02:45:29 looking for John Dyn is something that had been known about for a while. No, but this this last one, this particular last one where 53 goes to New Zealand.
02:45:35 Zealand. Yeah.
02:45:36 Yeah. Um, is that in 2002? Yes.
02:45:41 Yes. And is it before or after True Spies? Well, hopefully this document will help with that. So, this is 23rd of December 2002 document. So, it's a month less than a month after
02:45:53 So, it's a month less than a month after Yes. Yeah, exactly. Um, travel authority, a request by you to Commander Roger Pierce.
02:46:04 And this, as you rightly say, is a seen as a threat to a former SDS officer, HN5 John Dyn, and the current need to relocate him and his family from New
02:46:17 relocate him and his family from New Zealand to Australia. Yes.
02:46:19 Yes. So, he'd been in New Zealand for some time.
02:46:21 time. Yes. Yes, Helen Steel had been looking for him for some time by now. Um, but this is in in particular a request for HN53
02:46:32 HN53 to go out to see him. Do you do you recall that happening? Oh, yes, I do. Yeah.
02:46:41 Um it's recognized in that final paragraph that 53 has a close um uh rel working relationship with the relevant police department in Oakland. And so
02:46:54 police department in Oakland. And so there's liaison between the two in relation to um uh the search that Helen Steel was making for John Dyn. And by
02:47:05 Steel was making for John Dyn. And by this time, I think she'd already been out to New Zealand uh looking for him and making inquiries. Yes. And 53 has written this because that's his font style and how I signed
02:47:16 that's his font style and how I signed my signature. But I've obviously signed it and I can remember I had no idea who John Dyn was and 53 knew him
02:47:28 and 53 knew him and that was the top and bottom of it. And I'm not ducking and I'll take further questions obviously. I mean I'll answer further questions. There there must have been some discussion around what on earth was
02:47:39 discussion around what on earth was going on. We've got somebody going to the other side of the world to go and see a former officer. What what had he told you about um the need for that trip?
02:47:50 um the need for that trip? Well, that's why I asked about the timing. Uh it's it's three weeks after True Spies
02:48:00 and it's an activist looking for one of the people who had appeared on True Spies. Um and that that's that's how I understood it.
02:48:12 understood it. And as 53 was a long-standing friend of him is and worked with him, it's obviously appropriate he deal with it. It certainly wouldn't have been appropriate for me to go out there
02:48:23 appropriate for me to go out there because I would have had to establish a relationship with Dyn for a for a start.
02:48:34 Um, can we have a look please at MPS 0017943?
02:48:59 Okay. So, she had been to New
02:49:19 Oh, sorry. Yes, it's um 0 000017943.
02:49:26 In terms of clarification, I think Helen Steel um had not been to New Zealand before uh the airing of True Spies. It was true spies that um potentially gave
02:49:38 was true spies that um potentially gave the link to New Zealand for her to fly out there, right? Yes. Sorry. So, so Muscat does flow from uh the true spies. From the two spies, right? Yeah.
02:49:54 Do we have MPS 0017943?
02:50:11 If we don't have that, can I have MPS 0077318,
02:50:16 0077318, please?
02:50:25 So this is a letter from HM53 to the [clears throat] New Zealand High Commission. And we' seen previously that there was a a relationship between HM53
02:50:37 there was a a relationship between HM53 and the New Zealand Police. Yes.
02:50:47 And we can see the third paragraph down. In 1995,
02:50:51 In 1995, Helen Steel and Norman Blair from class war, two committed Londonbased activists
02:51:00 visited Coldplay's genuine parents in London making inquiries about their missing friend. Both parents were shown a photograph of Coldplay that's referenced to um uh John Dyn and
02:51:14 that's referenced to um uh John Dyn and it was made clear to them that the activists knew that the photograph was of their son and protective measures were put in place in the UK and Leos and was established between this office between Bob Lambert at the time and
02:51:26 between Bob Lambert at the time and police in New Zealand. Yeah. Were you aware of these communications between HN53 and the New Zealand uh high commissioner
02:51:37 and the New Zealand uh high commissioner high commission in terms of what was going on who was looking for John Dyn the context of that and and how long that had been going on for? No. And there was no need for
02:51:50 No. And there was no need for HM53 to give thought to telling me in in relation to this document. This is um a consequence of true spies. It It's now making sense to me. A consequence of
02:52:02 making sense to me. A consequence of true spies. It's nothing to do with the current SDS and [clears throat] inserting me into the process would add no value either way.
02:52:16 MPS 0011 340, please.
02:52:27 [clears throat]
02:52:31 So this is looking back at uh Helen Steel's research from 91 to98. Yeah. And we can see here in relation to um her her trip
02:52:45 um her her trip uh and and further investigations in Oakland in relation to some of John Dyn's real uh family members. Yeah.
02:52:58 Again, you weren't aware of any of this. Is it is it not something that would have been a really significant part of the SDS operation if it's taking up a
02:53:09 the SDS operation if it's taking up a lot of your uh detective inspector's time that he wouldn't be telling you how the investigation was going and and the detail of that? No, because it had no consequences for
02:53:20 No, because it had no consequences for the current operation as I understood the facts. And again, I was quite pleased to have someone of as I saw it. Well, no. I was
02:53:31 someone of as I saw it. Well, no. I was as I saw the circumstances to have someone like 53 to deal with it and that was my reaction to it and it coming out of the true spies
02:53:43 and it coming out of the true spies gives me that bit of context as well. Um um we know that um Helen Steel returns to New Zealand. We have MPS 0011337
02:54:06 which is a report dated the 18th of December 2002
02:54:15 and that she's traveled there with her her parents um significant reporting on her given that's a file note an SDS file note
02:54:26 that's a file note an SDS file note would you have seen this Would you have read it?
02:54:30 read it? No, because it'd be Operation Muskat, which wouldn't have been any interest to me.
02:54:39 Um, and the chronology set out at MPS 072
02:54:45 072 0851.
02:55:04 And if we go over the page please,
02:55:12 you can see the chronology here as to to what was happening when um Helen Steel returned to uh New Zealand and started making investigations. Again, you say you wouldn't have had any involvement in
02:55:25 you wouldn't have had any involvement in that. You wouldn't have had any knowledge of this. No.
02:55:29 No. Please, if you've got a document which shows I had, please show it now. Um, MPS0749288
02:55:49 is not particularly helpful, but it does show us the date. It's the 14th of September, 2004. Is there any further Okay.
02:55:59 Okay. Uh the part I'm interested in is that it's an MPS um attendance note. So uh the directorate of legal services attendant note of a meeting of that date. And we
02:56:12 note of a meeting of that date. And we should be able to see that it's Commander Williams that is attending this meeting.
02:56:23 Ah, if we if we go back to the few words that are part of this document.
02:56:33 Um, yeah. Okay. So, what we can deduce from the very small amount of this document [clears throat] that's still left in open. Um, somebody asked whether there was a sexual rel relationship
02:56:45 there was a sexual rel relationship between that's known HB is John Dyn and HS Helen Steel, right?
02:56:51 right? um HN53 was at the meeting and said that there was but that John Dyn maintained his objectivity. JW which was Janet Williams, Commander
02:57:04 JW which was Janet Williams, Commander Janet Williams said that such a relationship would not have been disapproved of then although it is now. Yes. Were you aware of this meeting taking place in September 2004 with the
02:57:18 taking place in September 2004 with the DLS
02:57:20 DLS starting to investigate what was going on?
02:57:22 on? No.
02:57:23 No. Uh in terms of Helen Steel and John Dyn's relationship. Um what we can see is that your detective inspector who you managed knew that there was a
02:57:35 who you managed knew that there was a sexual relationship um uh there and also your senior officer commander Janet Williams knew that there had been a sexual relationship. Is it
02:57:47 had been a sexual relationship. Is it plausible that those two people knew of this sexual relationship between one of the ex undercover police officers and a woman that we're still searching for him
02:58:00 woman that we're still searching for him potentially of real threat to the SD? Sorry.
02:58:10 Yes.
02:58:16 Oh, so you you're okay. Um I think there's an interpretation of this document that Janet Williams was not part of that meeting.
02:58:27 meeting. No, you said that she knew about
02:58:35 Yes. I I think I'm I'm potent perhaps I'm wrongly inferring the fact that because it was discussed and asked whether a sexual relationship between them there had been rel a sexual
02:58:47 them there had been rel a sexual relationship between them and then HM53 said that there was isn't Janet Williams then she has that she found out about it then
02:58:58 she found out about it then yes
02:59:00 yes you think she knew about it was sorry just in terms of clarification What I'm putting to you, Mr. Dell, is that Janet Williams knew about the sexual relationship as of this meeting
02:59:12 sexual relationship as of this meeting at least of the 14th of September, 2004. Yeah.
02:59:17 Yeah. And your DI knew about it obviously. Yes.
02:59:22 Yes. And is it plausible that you in 2004 didn't know about that sexual relationship? Yes. Because there was no again no reason to insert me into it. the
02:59:35 reason to insert me into it. the commander was dealing with 53.
02:59:41 I mean, just as if the commander had been dealing with me on another issue which didn't concern anyone else in the SDS, we would have kept it to ourselves. So, there was no sense that, oh my
02:59:53 So, there was no sense that, oh my goodness, can you believe what's going on here? There's a sexual relationship by an undercover officer. It wasn't uh, you know, dynamite news at the time. It
03:00:04 you know, dynamite news at the time. It was simply not discussed. Is that your evidence? It wasn't made clear to you.
03:00:13 you. No, no, I didn't know about it. Um,
03:00:23 and we are talking about a relationship which ended was it 95? 1995. Um, so
03:00:32 Um, so 19912
03:00:34 19912 9102 sim.
03:00:39 So I refuse to duck out, but I'm not doing that. So if you've got a document which shows I knew and I just forgotten, then
03:00:50 shows I knew and I just forgotten, then then produce it. But please, but I can't add anything to that really. Was it that sexual relationships just it wasn't
03:01:02 sexual relationships just it wasn't news? It wasn't newsworthy enough to discuss it with the person that you know H for HM53 to discuss it with a person that he's sharing an office with that it was just kind of known about not
03:01:13 was just kind of known about not something to to you know write a letter home about. I reflected on that last night and I thought there is the possibility that 53 thought I knew.
03:01:25 thought I knew. He assumed I knew but on the same until this last instance the issue of John Dyn wouldn't have come up but he he he
03:01:37 wouldn't have come up but he he he assumed I knew um that then reconciles
03:01:44 that with my belief that 53 would not go out of his way to deceive me. Um,
03:01:54 Um, if it's not that then I I don't know. Um, can we have please MPS 0011371
03:02:12 and again it's a December 2002 document, Operation Muscat. And we can see here that uh Commander Roger Pierce briefed the as ACSO
03:02:26 the as ACSO on the 23rd of December in relation to reimbursing John Dyn's uh cost for relocation.
03:02:38 Yes. Yeah. And and so was it your understanding that Commander Pierce and the um uh assistant chief uh assistant
03:02:51 assistant chief uh assistant commissioner of special operations was also involved in Muscat in the investigation from this note. Yes. and they had knowledge as to why
03:03:03 and they had knowledge as to why the MPS was being put to such expense and effort in relocating this particular officer.
03:03:11 officer. My knowledge is limited to the extent of this note. I'm afraid.
03:03:27 Um I'd like to move on now to HN43 Peter Francis.
03:03:31 Francis. Yes.
03:03:32 Yes. And in terms of what you knew about um the litigation between officer with officer A and officer B against the MPS.
03:03:44 officer A and officer B against the MPS. Can you recall um what you knew at the time in terms of yes that litigation which was ongoing I think in 2002.
03:03:54 When did it conclude just so again I can have context please. Um I'm not too sure of exactly when the settlement was. Find the date for you if that would be helpful. No matter. Um,
03:04:06 that would be helpful. No matter. Um, yes. Yes, I was I was aware of that litigation going on and I think I'd been aware of it if it [clears throat] fits with the time scale before I joined the SDS. if that fits
03:04:17 before I joined the SDS. if that fits with the time scale. I I think I did know of it because preparing to
03:04:28 preparing to come on to the SDS, I had identified that there were obviously great undercurrents
03:04:39 there were obviously great undercurrents about the welfare provision and therefore I should turn my attention to that.
03:04:46 to that. That was the extent of it. But I was obviously aware that Peter and Officer A were engaged in this.
03:04:58 Um I've been passed a note. It's settled in January 2006 or June 2006. So it's gone right through my my tenure. So it's on ongoing fairly significant litigation against Yes. at the Met and
03:05:11 litigation against Yes. at the Met and and I think your evidence is welfare was high up on the agenda because of that reason. Is that right? Yes. And that was the extent of my knowledge. Was I aware of the twists and turns in the litigation as it proceeded?
03:05:24 turns in the litigation as it proceeded? No. No.
03:05:29 Were you aware um as part of that uh litigation of the uh claims made by Peter Francis about sexual misconduct of
03:05:41 Peter Francis about sexual misconduct of officers undercover? No, my only knowledge of it was limited to the lack of welfare provision or dissatisfaction with it. And of
03:05:54 or dissatisfaction with it. And of course I I I couldn't judge whether that was a founded allegation or not. I had no means to judge it. What kind of communication did you have
03:06:05 What kind of communication did you have from the wider MPS at all as to the detail of the litigation? Did sorry
03:06:12 Did sorry and and what the SDS needed to be mindful of in terms of ongoing welfare provision and the nature of the the um the undercover operations. didn't have any communication re the process of the
03:06:26 any communication re the process of the litigation nor any suggestions or guidance as to how we might mitigate some of the consequences thereafter.
03:06:39 Um is it right to say that you were aware of the uh litigation before you joined the SDS part of special branches? I think so because it was the only issue
03:06:52 think so because it was the only issue that I knew about that the SDS was involved in and I think I did so that I gave time to right we'll take a look when I get there and
03:07:06 we'll take a look when I get there and and how widely known was it about the content of the litigation? Was it known that it was in relation to psychiatric injury that had been suffered by the two officers?
03:07:15 officers? Yeah, that was yes that was known. Was there any uh understanding or consideration as to the appropriateness of wider uh special branch and the wider metropolitan police uh being aware of
03:07:28 metropolitan police uh being aware of the detail of those the litigation brought by the officers which anybody would understand would be quite personal. Yes. Detail.
03:07:39 quite personal. Yes. Detail. Yes. Well, no, because we weren't briefed, but these matters get out and so people get a fraction of the story. But it was plain to everyone that
03:07:53 But it was plain to everyone that officer ZB was suing the Met uh for the psychiatric and psychological damage they suffered. And what was the general response to officers
03:08:06 general response to officers particularly within special branch and including up the chain? So you know how did commander Williams uh respond to any discussion about the litigation?
03:08:18 discussion about the litigation? I I don't I don't remember ever having discussed the matter with her and I think I I'm not even sure if she would have heard of it as commander I suppose
03:08:29 have heard of it as commander I suppose but that that's where she would have got it because the issue was not a topic of constant conversation. It was
03:08:39 It was it was widely known outside the branch. I think this was as well. I think we have one document that is in relation to a a gold group meeting. So
03:08:50 relation to a a gold group meeting. So MPS0749706.
03:09:05 So in relation to operation magma as you know will be the operation name for um the response to the litigation the risk caused by the litigation
03:09:16 the risk caused by the litigation right
03:09:16 right um second gold group meeting of the 20th of January 2004 at New Scotland Yard we've got the people present Commander Williams
03:09:29 people present Commander Williams uh Detective Chief Superintendent Mitchell
03:09:33 Mitchell uh Detective Chief Superintendent Benjamin
03:09:37 Benjamin Detective Superintendent Renol, you, your DI, HN53, [clears throat] and somebody from the DLS. Um, can you recall the type of
03:09:50 Um, can you recall the type of discussions? I mean, the the these are the minutes here anyway, but in terms of the the the attitude towards the um litigation, do do you have any
03:10:01 litigation, do do you have any recollection of what was discussed at those high levels? I I don't even remember them occurring, but plainly they did. It doesn't mean anything to me.
03:10:11 me. Um, and in terms of who was there, is that effectively the line of command uh of the SDS through to the top level of um special
03:10:22 through to the top level of um special branch at the time? I'm not sure who Mr. or Miss Ms. Benjamin was. I don't know. Okay.
03:10:43 I mean, again, Superintendent Renul would would have no knowledge of the events.
03:10:55 I'd like to move on, please. In relation to blacklisting. Yes,
03:11:00 Yes, you do mention blacklisting in your witness statement,
03:11:05 page 126, paragraph 118A.
03:11:12 188A.
03:11:17 Um, page 126. And if we can have page 127 as well on screen.
03:11:26 [clears throat] Um, oh yes,
03:11:27 oh yes, trade unions and trade union members. We know that Carlos Saraki was reporting on trade unions uh during the course of his deployment.
03:11:40 I'll give you a moment just to refresh your memory as to what you say in your witness statement.
03:12:17 Yes. Um but effectively Carlos Saraki is reporting on trade unions and a and you set up well he's not reporting on the trade unions themselves but rather the individuals uh in relation to those uh
03:12:31 individuals uh in relation to those uh indiv individuals over the page onto um paragraph 189A.
03:12:45 Um you you recognize that he did end up obtaining intelligence vicariously. Yes. On individuals in relation to the the unions. Yes. Um well well on individuals and
03:12:59 Yes. Um well well on individuals and therefore on unions. Yes. Um, we know from a summary of HN 104's deployment, and that's at MPS 00071
03:13:12 deployment, and that's at MPS 00071 94.
03:13:32 This is an overview, a chronology of the deployment of HN 104 um Carlos Saraki from January 2000 to 2006. Go to page eight, please.
03:13:54 Second paragraph we can see that he provided up to-date assessments of militant trade union activity particularly in relation to the
03:14:05 particularly in relation to the socialist party and the socialist workers party activists and a number of unions are listed there. Um, in particular, the last sentence
03:14:17 Um, in particular, the last sentence says that the report was passed via desk to the home office. In terms of reporting in relation to these unions,
03:14:29 these unions, termed as the awkward squad, what sort of information was going up to the home office, as you recall? I don't know because this report was written
03:14:39 written after I'd left and I wouldn't have written it in those terms.
03:14:46 terms. And
03:14:48 And there was no requirement from the home office in my time for information on trade unions.
03:14:58 Um I think we understand from his reporting that he was reporting on the unions during the course of your tenure, but you're saying that that didn't go past the C squad. Uh
03:15:11 past the C squad. Uh yes. So, so the information that was coming in in relation to any union activities and the individuals that were active in those unions that would only go as far as you knew to C squad. Is
03:15:22 go as far as you knew to C squad. Is that
03:15:22 that Yes.
03:15:23 Yes. Yes. And it would and it would be in the in the in the context of events. It wouldn't be here is the latest update on Unison or Unite or the FBU
03:15:35 or the FBU because that was not the tasking. It was the individuals. And so if Person AB is active in this union. The report is on AB. He might be he might be don't
03:15:49 is on AB. He might be he might be don't see trying to inflame an industrial dispute into a political action but the report con concentrated on that
03:16:00 but the report con concentrated on that not on what the union was doing. in terms of um any information that's coming in from Carlos Saraki during your tenure
03:16:10 tenure once that goes to C squad. Yes.
03:16:13 Yes. Do you you don't have any control of of where that goes? Yes. Because if it if it went anywhere outside like the home office and the home office had not requested it as an
03:16:25 home office had not requested it as an intelligence requirement. Um it's very similar to the third party rules which apply between MI5, MI6 and ourselves where if we want
03:16:36 MI5, MI6 and ourselves where if we want to use intelligence you have provided us we have to ask you and that was strictly complied with by all three. So no um I just just by background I had
03:16:52 So no um I just just by background I had I can be particularly sure about what the relationship was because in the 70s I used to teach on industrial relation courses for shop stewards and just as then the problem never was the trade
03:17:05 then the problem never was the trade unions
03:17:06 unions it was the it was the militant shop stewards and I I don't use the word militant in a pjorative sense militant shop stewards pursuing the notion of work control.
03:17:17 work control. Who are the problem? Never the trade unions. The trade unions were queuing to get into number 10 for beer and s beer and sandwiches. Presumably let the prime minister know exactly what was going on. It's the shop
03:17:29 exactly what was going on. It's the shop stewards. I can't if anyone at any time during the branch's history tasked people against unions, then they plainly didn't understand the situation.
03:17:44 Was any of the information coming in in in regard to the individuals active within the trade unions sent to other desks? Was there was there still an
03:17:55 desks? Was there was there still an industrial desk at the time when you No, there wasn't. So, what replaced the industrial desk? I don't know. Where would that information go? Well, it wasn't regarded as separate
03:18:06 Well, it wasn't regarded as separate information on trade unions. it would it would it would adhere to the individual and wherever the individual's reporting ended up on his own file on a group file
03:18:19 ended up on his own file on a group file or whatever that's where it would end up.
03:18:22 up. And in terms of any information that could influence employment decisions or vetting Yes.
03:18:30 Yes. Um or blacklisting? Yes.
03:18:33 Yes. What would happen to that information? Um
03:18:38 Um were you c can you help us with yes I take how information would um uh uh appear on any blacklist. Were you familiar with Yes. Oh yes I was I was familiar with
03:18:50 Yes. Oh yes I was I was familiar with it. I I think this actually is it's an extrapolation of what was public knowledge in the 70s the very big case with Taylor Woodrow and their
03:19:02 big case with Taylor Woodrow and their relationship with such the branch and such information and I think possibly people think that [snorts] carried on right the way through there wasn't a channel for
03:19:15 through there wasn't a channel for providing information but in and if any information was given on an individual. It was given on an individual in the context of legitimate
03:19:26 context of legitimate vetting requests. Lookups is what they were called. Just a if you're going to be a carer in a care home, there'd be a lookup with the branch to see if you got
03:19:38 lookup with the branch to see if you got any offenses against children or old people or whatever. But
03:19:45 But there was no blacklisting. There was no formal mechanism of blacklisting. Um there were no requests for it. Uh so
03:19:56 Um there were no requests for it. Uh so sorry if bodies chose to blacklist that was for them but the branch had no part of it.
03:20:05 of it. Um
03:20:06 Um were you aware of any relationship between um special branch and private organizations? No.
03:20:17 Um,
03:20:25 in terms of the economic league, was that something that you were familiar Yes.
03:20:29 Yes. with
03:20:30 with and was there any stream of uh information flow from the reports that you were receiving to uh the economic league? No, I think that uh
03:20:43 economic league? No, I think that uh withered away anyway and then we had what the consulting association or something which I've read. I had to read it because there was no link with us.
03:20:58 The these bodies are filling the gaps. They're fulfilling a market requirement presumably from people who wish to take action against people they
03:21:09 wish to take action against people they didn't want to employ. In terms of the usefulness then of reporting on these individuals, what policing use did it have or what use at
03:21:21 policing use did it have or what use at all did it have to anybody beyond the SDS
03:21:25 SDS in terms of again
03:21:29 again um
03:21:32 um an entirely legitimate desire by some on the left to um
03:21:42 um support and activity being carried out by individuals in an industrial dispute say with the aim being to support it for its
03:21:53 with the aim being to support it for its own self but I'm sure it would be to try and politicize them entirely legitimate. It's
03:22:02 It's um is it in pursuit of the ultimate of workers control or the more sort of Ralph Milliband idea of democratic
03:22:13 Ralph Milliband idea of democratic workers councils within a parliamentary democracy? I don't know. But I would have found that quite interesting to read about. Uh in terms of entism though that that
03:22:25 Uh in terms of entism though that that that that's something that uh the socialist party weren't interested in at by that time at all were they? Uh no that that that had waned. But one
03:22:36 Uh no that that that had waned. But one union on that list is is is or was a classic it was classic entryist in the sense that if you wanted to have more
03:22:47 sense that if you wanted to have more direct influence over workers you would you would become a shop steward. But in the days when for God's sake they had such things as apprenticeship. That meant you had to serve a 5-year
03:22:58 meant you had to serve a 5-year apprenticeship and then you had to work your way up before you could become a shop steward. But if you joined the fire brigade, you'd get your 15 weeks basic training. You're a fully qualified
03:23:09 training. You're a fully qualified firefighter and you can then become a shop steward. Again, nothing nefarious about that. But if you are interested in politics, that's my way in. Entirely legitimate entism if
03:23:23 way in. Entirely legitimate entism if you like.
03:23:25 you like. Um can we have on screen please MPS 0042159.
03:23:33 Um and this is in relation to um HN3. Yeah.
03:23:38 Yeah. And uh reporting in relation to companies that uh have uh well either manufacture or deal with arms. Um,
03:23:50 manufacture or deal with arms. Um, in terms of any information going to private companies relating to uh a disarmed DS dice group,
03:24:01 relating to uh a disarmed DS dice group, was information passed from the SDS to those private companies in terms of informing them of any potential direct action against them or protests at say the big the big fair
03:24:12 the big the big fair um in September, the the annual event only only indirectly through the chain. to the crimerevention industrial officers or whatever they
03:24:23 industrial officers or whatever they were who would yes pass on you need to update your security because we're not happy that we can police this every time. That was the route. Certainly not
03:24:34 time. That was the route. Certainly not a direct contact between us and um we wouldn't have direct contact with anybody outside the branch presumably for your own security cuz
03:24:45 presumably for your own security cuz nobody knew about the SDS. In terms of the indirect route then um companies like um um e edo MBM technology limited
03:24:59 like um um e edo MBM technology limited read or spearhead in BA BAE systems would they have received information that was relevant to them um through the SDS reporting
03:25:12 to them um through the SDS reporting that they would have received information but it's significant you mentioned BA BA systems. When I was on ES squad, I remember someone on C squad telling me that BA systems had suffered
03:25:24 telling me that BA systems had suffered another attack from people who had gone into an aircraft hanger and took pots of paint over a fighter or whatever they'd done. BAE had offered the branch money
03:25:37 done. BAE had offered the branch money to finance so that extra resources could be put into this. And as he said, well, of course, we couldn't take that. We had to, you know, we had to say no. So
03:25:49 to, you know, we had to say no. So obviously, because you would be seen as a almost like a private security agency for the company.
03:25:54 company. Exactly. And even though the branch could well have done with the money, um, they'd made the offer to the commissioner obviously and it had to be declined. So,
03:26:06 declined. So, and in terms of the information that was being filtered out to them, is that the sort of information that next Saturday there's going to be about 20 people attending outside your premises
03:26:17 attending outside your premises or was it the private information that was being collected, Emily Apple is, you know, living in this particular area and she's leazing with
03:26:29 particular area and she's leazing with this person and that person and all the private information that was being collected. Yes, I take your point and I I agree with the concerns. It was the former. It was crimerevention advice
03:26:40 former. It was crimerevention advice that when your premises are closed, make sure they're secure. And how could you be sure that it was limited to that specific uh uh you know, information on potential criminal uh
03:26:53 information on potential criminal uh offenses or serious public order offenses and not the private information? How did you distinguish between the two in terms of what information was filtered out? Well, of course, I can't be sure, but I I can
03:27:05 course, I can't be sure, but I I can only describe the system of sanitization and then the conduit through which it goes. And this is why we had three three people on each area as aerial leasison and officers. But if it was if it was a
03:27:18 and officers. But if it was if it was a commercial firm, then it would go up to um whatever office office it was in the yard for the crime prevention officers to go around there and engage in what
03:27:30 to go around there and engage in what they call target hardening. Um
03:27:35 Um moving on, reporting on politicians and dissemination. Yeah. uh to uh before we get on to politicians, can I ask a question arising out of about the trade unions? Um you you were asked um
03:27:48 trade unions? Um you you were asked um what the policing um justification was for reporting on individuals engaged in trade union activities of the sort that
03:27:59 trade union activities of the sort that we've been discussing. Yes, it it was not their activities as a trade unionist. It was their activities as a political activist.
03:28:11 political activist. And if there was any suggestion that they were using their position as a trade union um official or whatever, was that of any relevance to anyone? And
03:28:22 was that of any relevance to anyone? And did it assist in in policing? What were their motives greater than being a politically motivated shop steward? Or were they
03:28:33 motivated shop steward? Or were they deliberately using the events in which a union was engaged such as an industrial dispute
03:28:41 dispute um for their own political ends? Um and understand the interest in that, but the policing justification for the interest in it is what I'm interested
03:28:53 interest in it is what I'm interested in. I think there is a reference in there in some evidence given about a dispute at Hackne Town Hall and the concern there would be again from the
03:29:05 concern there would be again from the uniform.
03:29:08 Do we need just to produce this uh to police this as [snorts] it appears? It's a picket of six people. Can we expect any more than that? Are there anybody
03:29:19 any more than that? Are there anybody going any activist going to come along and um enhance the process the protest such that we need to deploy extra people? It's purely on that line.
03:29:31 people? It's purely on that line. So the ultimate policing justification is public order. It's public order. Right.
03:29:39 Right. Thank you. Thank you sir. Um yes reporting on um uh politicians. Yes.
03:29:49 Yes. Uh
03:29:51 Uh MPS 0018503 please.
03:30:01 This is a report. Yeah.
03:30:03 Yeah. Uh from Carlos Saraki dated the 6th of May 2003
03:30:09 May 2003 uh in relation to the Socialist Party and George Galloway. We can see that George Galloway is meeting with people uh within the Socialist Party to to discuss uh potential future moves uh
03:30:23 discuss uh potential future moves uh in recognition that he might be expelled from the Labor Party and and what his next steps would be. Yeah.
03:30:31 Yeah. Um
03:30:33 Um the general opin paragraph one the general opinion was that Galloway will stand as an independent candidate at the next elections. Yes. In terms of the intentions and the
03:30:46 In terms of the intentions and the political strategy of an MP. Yes.
03:30:52 Yes. What was the justification for reporting that
03:30:58 and and essentially where did that information go? Yes. Yeah. To do anything other would assume that they are outside the law
03:31:09 assume that they are outside the law and to assume that parliamentary privilege extends beyond the chamber of the House of Commons and the committee rooms.
03:31:20 The last photo photograph I saw of George Galloway was in February in the Times when he's flanked by two Hamas figures.
03:31:30 figures. Uh, one of whom had just been taken out by the Israelis. I think that photograph gives a shorter answer than I can give, but a shorter
03:31:41 answer than I can give, but a shorter answer to the fact that MP or not, he was of interest. And if I were to put it in a broader context, I would say
03:31:55 context, I would say I would be pleased to, had I been alive, to have received reporting on Constance Marovitz, Oswald Mosley, MP for seven years.
03:32:10 Oswald Mosley, MP for seven years. Tom Dryberg, probable Russian spy. Jerry Adams, MP. Martin McInness MP. So you can see my point that I hope you see
03:32:23 you can see my point that I hope you see my point. Sorry that
03:32:28 that they have no immunity. Um as D as Lord Denning said to the attorney general, "Be never so high. The
03:32:39 attorney general, "Be never so high. The law is above you." When he refused to come to court in the spy catcher case. get yourself here. I don't care whether you are the
03:32:50 I don't care whether you are the attorney general.
03:32:54 In terms of George Galloway and the the list of public figures uh you mentioned there, they make no secrecy of their politics though. And in terms of the information that is in the public domain
03:33:06 information that is in the public domain in relation to those people, did it really require an undercover officer
03:33:12 officer to be uh reporting on them given what we know about the limits of reporting on members of parliament? Given that we know about the limits
03:33:23 Given that we know about the limits in terms of what were those limits? Well, in terms of limits of reporting on uh uh members of parliament and and uh the dealings that they have with their constituents,
03:33:34 that they have with their constituents, did you did you understand that there were no boundaries at all in terms of any reporting on uh uh members of parliament? No. No, there were no Harold Wilton had tried to impose that, but he found he
03:33:48 tried to impose that, but he found he couldn't do it back way back. Um and again um
03:33:58 it's not the question of the individual discussion. It's a question of George Galloway is as much much an activist as anyone else. And so the same
03:34:11 anyone else. And so the same justifications for targeting would apply to him as anyone else. And it's not being partial against George Callaway. Um,
03:34:21 Um, it doesn't matter who the MP, Oswwell Mosley on the right wing.
03:34:30 Um, and the instruction manual to all new recruits at the training school used to say that you will report any encounter you have, say, with a
03:34:41 any encounter you have, say, with a member of parliament and your chief superintendent will ensure a report goes to SB.
03:34:48 to SB. Um
03:34:51 Um yeah, they they are no different to any other activist. Um
03:34:58 Um MPS
03:34:59 MPS 00071153
03:35:04 please.
03:35:14 uh page 14.
03:35:19 Don't know why that's a landscape print, but it's in relation to um uh I think it's a composite of uh reports.
03:35:30 it's a composite of uh reports. But the um the bit I'm interested in here
03:35:42 is in relation to general um
03:35:51 general uh uh uh reporting on political activity. And in in uh specifically the last bullet point, ongoing attempts by the Socialist Party
03:36:03 ongoing attempts by the Socialist Party to influence and manipulate certain trade unions. This reporting has been invaluable to the security service and the Cabinet Office and remains a standing requirement. In terms of
03:36:15 standing requirement. In terms of intelligence about the operations of uh uh political parties,
03:36:23 parties, was there information that was going up as high as the Cabinet Office? As far as you recall, there might have been the individual request because we had an attachment in
03:36:35 request because we had an attachment in the Cabinet Office. The branch did those would have been ad hoc. um requests. There was no sort of system
03:36:46 um requests. There was no sort of system where we would routinely pass reports. I am not aware of any going, but that doesn't mean to say they won't have gone outside of my tenure, but I wasn't aware
03:36:57 outside of my tenure, but I wasn't aware of any.
03:36:59 of any. And in terms of the interest in respect, can you recall what that was in relation to?
03:37:04 to? Yes. I mean, again, George Galloway involved in that. Um
03:37:11 Um and so it was not just him as an individual but in terms of the party that he was well no not the party but um where he is going. George Galloway had a a slot on
03:37:23 going. George Galloway had a a slot on Russia Today TV. He interviewed Saddam Hussein once. These people are of interest. What's he doing? Where is he going? Was he of particular interest to the
03:37:34 Was he of particular interest to the Labour Party at that time? Um, and was information going up to the Cabinet Office for that reason? Oh, no. Um, well, I obviously can't speak for the Labor Party, but I
03:37:47 speak for the Labor Party, but I wouldn't have thought so. Um,
03:37:50 Um, or or the the government uh government specifically in the the cabinet office. I can only speculate and I'd say it'd be
03:38:01 I can only speculate and I'd say it'd be very surprising if political requests of that nature were passed through official channels. If I were a politician making that request, I would do it quietly with
03:38:12 that request, I would do it quietly with a friend I knew in wherever.
03:38:20 Um, reporting on socialist party election plans. There are reports, but were you aware of that going further than SDS?
03:38:31 aware of that going further than SDS? No.
03:38:32 No. Well, C squad. C Squad.
03:38:36 C Squad. Yeah.
03:38:44 Um, I ought to take you to this report MPS 007.
03:38:50 MPS 007. Oh, same document as this. Page five, please.
03:38:58 And it's the penultimate paragraph in respect of the socialist party has provided the red desk with a briefing on the
03:39:09 the red desk with a briefing on the potential emergence of a new workers party incorporating the more extreme elements of the trade unions and other revolutionary groups. The intention would be for those elements to forsake the Labor Party and operate
03:39:20 the Labor Party and operate independently and the implications for industrial relations and therefore public order could be significant and Craggy Island will continue to monitor the progress of this fledgling
03:39:31 monitor the progress of this fledgling group. So um in the context of what we've been speaking about and industrial relations to trade unions and and political parties all of this
03:39:43 political parties all of this set out in a a ripper authorization document was seen as justified uh reporting by Craggy Island signed off by um uh uh commander for um uh uh
03:39:58 by um uh uh commander for um uh uh furtherance of the operation. Is that is that fair to say? Well, this of course is is a 2006 review and I certainly wouldn't have
03:40:09 review and I certainly wouldn't have written that paragraph had I be still being in tenure. I wouldn't have written the paragraph marked with the yellow dot. Um
03:40:19 dot. Um the more extreme elements of the trade unions and other revolutionary groups. Are the trade unions revolutionary groups or am I just being too literal? Um, either way, I would have
03:40:31 Um, either way, I would have I wouldn't have written it like that. Was there any sense within the SDS that trade unions were a threat and were subversive?
03:40:42 No, that view had been in the past because that's why I didn't get into the branch when I was a PC. um
03:40:53 um my association with the trade unions. I work for the national union mine workers and
03:41:02 and on educational courses in industrial relations. So I can see where that question where that question's coming from ma'am and but I don't I I I know it
03:41:13 from ma'am and but I don't I I I know it had no validity during my tenure.
03:41:21 Um those are all the questions I have and I note the time so maybe time lunch
03:41:30 we'll um resume at 5