HN36 Michael Dell, former head of the Special Demonstration Squad (2001-2005), concludes his third and final day of evidence, examined by Ms Hemingway on the Justice for Jean (Menezes) campaign, mishandled legally privileged material, officer welfare and psychiatric provision, the 2004 Walton and Crane reviews of the unit, his strained relationship with Commander Janet Williams, and the SDS's one-off ban on undercover sexual relationships. He repeatedly concedes institutional failures, including an undisclosed officer relationship, welfare provisions doubling as litigation protection, and disciplinary decisions that never weighed the risk posed to women in the community.
00:22:24 Good afternoon everybody. This afternoon's proceedings uh like this morning's are being livereamed on the uh live link but only after a 15minute delay. Those with mobile devices may use
00:22:37 delay. Those with mobile devices may use them for reporting what they hear in the hearing room, but only after 15 minutes of elapse since the event that they're reporting. They may not be used for recording or photography.
00:22:49 recording or photography. Yes, Mr. Hemingway. Thank you, Mr. Dell. Can I ask you about reporting on campaigns, please? Firstly, um the campaign against
00:23:00 Firstly, um the campaign against McDonald's and that resulted in the McLeel uh campaign and the litigation that went through the high court starting in 1997 and concluded in the European Court of
00:23:12 and concluded in the European Court of Human Rights in 2005. Um,
00:23:18 Um, who within special branch or
00:23:25 was communic who who within special branch was communicating with McDonald's as far as you were aware?
00:23:33 aware? Um,
00:23:36 Um, I wasn't aware of the specific case. I was aware of the case but not who was communicating. Um this this was before my time, wasn't it? Well um the initial the actual leaflet
00:23:50 Well um the initial the actual leaflet obviously was um in terms of the litigation it started in 97. It concluded in 2005. So it does overlap with your um tenure by about
00:24:01 overlap with your um tenure by about four years. Yes. Well, that would certainly not have been direct to any of the squads. it would have been presumably to the commissioner and then downwards if any
00:24:14 commissioner and then downwards if any information was sought. Um
00:24:18 Um I have no recollection of what information if any was sought. Okay.
00:24:24 Okay. And and so that was in relation to McDonald's suing um yes Helen Steel and um Dave Morris in relation to the the alleged um
00:24:36 relation to the the alleged um uh liel uh of Macdonald, but you weren't aware of any of the intelligence coming in about the campa the the litigation or the campaign being
00:24:47 the the litigation or the campaign being filtered out to McDonald's. That's right. Yeah. Um, in terms of the just justice for Jean Charles Dominesz's campaign,
00:24:59 campaign, can I refer please to MPS 0748828
00:25:12 and here we can see a a report of the 30th of August 2005. So this is just before your departure as
00:25:23 So this is just before your departure as manager.
00:25:25 manager. It's in relation to a specific individual who is described as being involved with the political campaign arising from the death of Jean Charles Domineszes. Yes.
00:25:34 Yes. The fact that it's called a political campaign. Is that the way it was viewed by SDS?
00:25:43 Now, I can only assume that is relating to those who are secondary to the main campaign.
00:25:51 campaign. Um, I don't take that to mean a family campaign for justice and for proper investigation. Uh, I take that to mean outside that.
00:26:04 Uh, I take that to mean outside that. Um,
00:26:06 Um, there's no reference to another group. No. Um and so realistically can it be considered that this person was involved in the campaign which was run by the
00:26:18 in the campaign which was run by the extended family and people supporting uh the family in their campaign as opposed to a different political group. I think that that that report allows you
00:26:30 I think that that that report allows you to speculate but I don't think it can draw reasonable inference. Can we look at please MPS 0065522?
00:26:44 [clears throat]
00:26:52 This is probably relating to the same person Alistister Alexander an activist working with the Justice for Jean campaign. Yeah. So it's specifically that campaign and it's his email address
00:27:06 that campaign and it's his email address that's recorded on the Yes.
00:27:09 Yes. Face of the report. So it is the campaign itself that is uh being reported on, isn't it? An activist within that campaign. Yes, it is. Do do you know who um who
00:27:20 Yes, it is. Do do you know who um who produced this report? I think this is HN18's report, right? Yeah.
00:27:29 So this from the 19th of Yes. April. It's 2006. So it's it's uh within your tenure. No, it's not. No, it's outside.
00:27:40 No, it's not. No, it's outside. 6 months.
00:27:40 6 months. Sorry, you're right. It's the year after.
00:27:42 after. I take your point anyway. The point's the same.
00:27:45 the same. Um again, MPS 0065545.
00:27:57 This is another individual again specifically involved with the the justice campaign and again this is from the 19th of April 2006. So after your
00:28:08 the 19th of April 2006. So after your departure and can we please look at MPS 0065523
00:28:19 and this is another individual again working with the campaign itself. Um these individuals at least Assad Ramen was somebody that was reported on by HN18 because he was
00:28:32 was reported on by HN18 because he was also involved in ISM. Yes, I recognize the name. Yes. Um but it's the the particular link to the Justice for John campaign. Yes.
00:28:42 Yes. Um that is uh of of significance. Is that the sort of thing you would have said steer clear? Because I think at
00:28:53 said steer clear? Because I think at some point you did tell HN 18 and and other people to to not report on the campaign.
00:29:00 campaign. Yes. Is this in breach of your uh direction not to report on the Justice for John campaign again 6 months after after I left and
00:29:14 it's a question is it a report on Assad Rayman Raymond or is it contrary to instruction on the campaign um
00:29:25 um the drift of the material you've produced suggest it is in the campaign We can see at the top dissemination is authorized to C and E squad and the
00:29:36 authorized to C and E squad and the security service. Yes.
00:29:38 Yes. Was the security service interested in the Justice for John campaign? I don't know. Um what about CE squad? Yes, I can see that. But um I I don't
00:29:52 Yes, I can see that. But um I I don't know. Um
00:29:54 know. Um I've left six months prior to that. I don't remember them certainly I remember them not expressing interest when I was there.
00:30:10 Um MPS 0722169
00:30:14 0722169 please.
00:30:18 And this is a log of HN18's deployment activities. Yeah.
00:30:27 Yeah. from 2004, but it extends throughout his deployment. And we understand it to have been drafted by HN30, one of the DS's on um the SDS.
00:30:38 um the SDS. Yeah.
00:30:39 Yeah. And we can see at page three, please.
00:30:46 The special note at the very top, the 11th of October, 2005. So, I think that's the month that you actually uh left the SDS. Is that right?
00:30:57 left the SDS. Is that right? No, I left um 17 days later at the end of the month. Yes.
00:31:05 And it says CW Commonwe has been instructed not to seek out nor to place themselves in a position where they will have access to legally privileged or confidential
00:31:16 legally privileged or confidential material. Yes. And that's in relation to the Jean Charles dezzes campaign. Was it your understanding that at that time he was engaged with the campaign or at least reporting on the campaign but he
00:31:29 least reporting on the campaign but he was given that restriction. So there's a boundary around any legally privileged or confidential material but not actually uh prevented
00:31:41 actually uh prevented uh or prohibited from reporting on the campaign itself. That's the inference I would draw that if I've I've not written this but if I've made [clears throat] that specific instruction then I take it there would
00:31:54 instruction then I take it there would have been a reason for repeating the instruction.
00:31:59 I know you have uh you say you have no independent recollection of that now but is that the sort of instruction you would have given? Is this is this reporting your instruction to him? It's I don't know if it if it is mine.
00:32:11 It's I don't know if it if it is mine. I'm still in charge there and uh it I would have given it but whether I did or not I can't be sure.
00:32:22 There's a a further note that we have from HN 104 Carlos Saraki's account to Hearn, Operation Hearn, MPS0738088
00:32:35 at page 30.
00:32:46 So we can see the subheading of dezzes about halfway down the page, just over halfway.
00:32:53 halfway. Um Q came up in a meeting CS not deployed.
00:33:03 Mike Dell made clear you do not go anywhere near that. Yeah.
00:33:09 Yeah. So it I think what it's saying is the a question came up in a meeting. um CS was not deployed into that area, but Mike Dell made it clear you don't go anywhere near that.
00:33:20 near that. Yes.
00:33:21 Yes. Was that an instruction that you remember giving not to go anywhere near the campaign? I don't actually know, but I would have done.
00:33:31 done. Um in terms of the nuance between the two notes, this is obviously a handwritten note uh some years later from 2013 in relation to Carlos Saraki. Ah, is it more likely that the note that is
00:33:43 is it more likely that the note that is recorded by HN30? Yes. On the uh uh summary of the deployment is more accurate and it's probably more likely that you gave a prohibition to
00:33:55 likely that you gave a prohibition to reporting on the LPP material in relation to the campaign as opposed to not report on the campaign itself. Do you see the distinction? That that's the inference I've drawn from the remark about me. Uh, even
00:34:08 from the remark about me. Uh, even though it doesn't specifically say that, I assumed it was trying to say that.
00:34:16 Um, we know that
00:34:27 um, Jean Charles Dunezes was uh, shot and killed by police in uh, uh, 2005. Yes.
00:34:37 Yes. in terms of the response. Yes.
00:34:40 Yes. And that was post the um 77 Yes.
00:34:43 Yes. attack on in London and he was uh shot some days later. Yes.
00:34:48 Yes. Um in terms of the response of the SDS to that news. Yes.
00:34:56 Yes. And what that meant for targeting of operations. Was there a sense that there needed to be somebody near that campaign to see what the public order uh response
00:35:09 to see what the public order uh response would be to something like that? Something so significant as that? Um can you recall the conversations, the discussions that were going on? No.
00:35:20 No. At the time in the days post the the shooting?
00:35:23 shooting? Yes.
00:35:25 Yes. No, but um the political sensitivities were obvious at the time and that is something that would have been a concern to me. Yes.
00:35:36 to me. Yes. Was there any concern coming from above coming from commissioner level downwards because of the reputation of the MPS and the the impact that that event would
00:35:47 the the impact that that event would have on the reputation of the police? I if it did come down from above, it didn't reach the SDS anyway. um that may have been a general instruction to other people in the Met but not to us.
00:36:07 Um MPS 0720946
00:36:46 Sorry, this is from some time ago. I'll move on from from page nine, please.
00:37:09 Um, were you familiar with um,
00:37:17 No, I I'll I'll leave that because I don't think you can assist us with that uh uh point. Um,
00:37:31 I think the point is in relation to paragraph two of this document, there's reference to uh uh uh the real family. Do you recall the death of Ricky Real?
00:37:42 Do you recall the death of Ricky Real? Yes.
00:37:43 Yes. The the young man who was uh uh found in the rivers near Kingston. Yes.
00:37:49 Yes. Um and it was suspected that he had been the victim of a a racist murder. Yes. The fact that that was a family justice
00:38:01 The fact that that was a family justice campaign to try and seek justice for Ricky with again the potential for uh embarrassment to be caused to the the Met police.
00:38:12 Met police. Yes.
00:38:15 Yes. Was there a similar sense around the killing of Jean Charles Domineszes in that there needed to be some kind of undercover source reporting on the campaign and its
00:38:28 reporting on the campaign and its direction
00:38:30 direction in order for the MPS to have a a sight of that and to understand what it was potentially facing in terms of um uh further action against the police or or
00:38:41 further action against the police or or reputational damage. The requirement of us of us was not so broad.
00:38:47 broad. I think the requirement of us was simply the the response there might be on the streets and it was confined to that. Um
00:38:58 streets and it was confined to that. Um I was not aware of a ra a racial dimension to it. [clears throat] Um not aware of a racial dimension to the Jean Charles to the to the tasking to
00:39:10 Jean Charles to the to the tasking to the requirement. Okay.
00:39:34 Can I ask you please about um in terms of uh LPP legal professional privilege? We've obviously addressed that to some extent already, [clears throat]
00:39:46 extent already, [clears throat] but specifically in relation to uh London Animal Action. Um I started to address it the other day, yesterday, and
00:39:58 address it the other day, yesterday, and didn't have the reference to hand. Um and I'm going to take you there now. Hopefully I will have the reference to hand this time. Um, can I take you please to MPS 0040641
00:40:12 can I take you please to MPS 0040641 please?
00:40:15 And this is in relation to
00:40:21 uh civil claim against LAA in the high court. If we can increase that a little please.
00:40:31 please. So it's it's dated the 1st of February 2005
00:40:37 and we can see the title is seek legal advice from privacy surname unknown. And we can see that that person has been
00:40:49 And we can see that that person has been consulted by LAA in connection with recent the recent freezing of their assets by the high court on behalf of Huntington Life Sciences. Privacy has given LAA free legal advice
00:41:02 Privacy has given LAA free legal advice in the past and he believes that and then it's blanked out for LPP. So obviously the legal advice has been reported in this report. Yes,
00:41:13 Yes, privacy intends to seek specialist legal advice from a lawyer with experience in some such matters in order that and again redacted for LPP. Yes, privacy acknowledges that this
00:41:25 privacy acknowledges that this particular area of corporate law is very complicated. He will represent LAA at the next court hearing. No further details with regard to time, date or place. He will inform the high court
00:41:37 place. He will inform the high court that
00:41:38 that we'd acted for LPP. So, we can see that there's a sign significant amount of LP that is recorded here. Yes. Um
00:41:48 Yes. Um the legal advice for the litigation strategy
00:41:53 strategy was something that had that been reported.
00:41:57 reported. Yes.
00:41:57 Yes. On your evidence, it should have been quarantined. Yes. But we can see at the top of this report, we can decrease that. It says that dissemination is authorized
00:42:09 It says that dissemination is authorized to the NPIU and UK
00:42:13 and UK HSBs. Is is that's UK special branches? It's a special branch. Yeah. Uh for information only. Um but what what do you say about that that there
00:42:25 what do you say about that that there was LPP that was being reported in relation to specific civil litigation involving the uh uh activist groups
00:42:38 uh activist groups and that that was being disseminated more widely. mis mistake. The the default um qualifier as to regards dissemination
00:42:49 qualifier as to regards dissemination should have been deleted because that's just the standard uh rider on a on any report any report that's going outside the map.
00:43:02 I mean that's that's certainly not something that would have gone to those destinations.
00:43:21 [snorts]
00:43:26 I'd like to ask you about welfare please.
00:43:28 please. Yes. um
00:43:31 Yes. um in terms of the sufficiency of welfare provisions on behalf of the UCOs under your your management um your your evidence has been that there's a number
00:43:42 evidence has been that there's a number of different welfare provisions that you had uh in place and long-standing sorts of welfare provisions such as the the bi-weekly contact, the daily phone calls
00:43:53 bi-weekly contact, the daily phone calls and ad hoc meetings. Um and that was at least some way to go towards monitoring the welfare of your officers.
00:44:02 officers. Yes.
00:44:03 Yes. Um we understand from paragraph 371 of your witness statement that you were keen to commission a full review of all welfare provisions to ensure that it was fit for purpose. Yes.
00:44:14 Yes. Um can you recall why it didn't happen under your watch? Yes. Yes.
00:44:22 Yes. Yes. I discussed it with Ian Palmer and I put in a fully costed bid of a study to be done by him under the supervision of
00:44:34 done by him under the supervision of Professor Tom Fahhe at the Mordsley. They were both professors, but Tom Fahhei would act as if he were supervising a PhD student and the cost
00:44:46 supervising a PhD student and the cost of it was would be £60,000. And I asked for and and the intention of it was to see the best practice everywhere. And Ian, of course, had very
00:44:59 everywhere. And Ian, of course, had very good contacts abroad. It wouldn't it'd be a phone call. It wouldn't need to travel the world to complete the survey. Um,
00:45:08 Um, and I put the reporting, the request for funds.
00:45:14 funds. And my recollection is it wasn't stopped within the branch. my recollection I don't remember and it's a negative thing because
00:45:25 and it's a negative thing because it keeps going up the chain until someone stops it and then it goes out to the relevant department which discovers
00:45:36 looks at um appeals for funds and [clears throat] I can't remember what the response was it was obviously negative how it was communicated to me
00:45:48 negative how it was communicated to me and where it came from I don't know but uh I didn't get the money okay and in where at what time was that during the
00:45:59 where at what time was that during the course of your tenure was that towards the end or I can't remember um certainly if you have Mary Piper as our consultant psychiatrist and then it moves to Ian
00:46:10 psychiatrist and then it moves to Ian and this is sometime I can't remember how soon into Ian's 's tenure.
00:46:19 tenure. But like everyone else, like 58, my pre predecessor, not satisfied with the provision
00:46:28 provision we could provide. And we were aware that people could say, "Well, couldn't you go around and meet the wife?" But we wanted to see if anybody anybody else had got better
00:46:40 anybody anybody else had got better ideas
00:46:42 ideas wherever from wherever. and devise a proper system of welfare. Um, can we have on screen please
00:46:53 Um, can we have on screen please MPS0718892.
00:47:04 This is a document from 2002 2003. It's the schedule of twice yearly um psychiatric appointments for UCOs.
00:47:16 Do do you recall that being one of the provisions that there were two yearly sessions that yes would be available for appointments? Yes. And it it it went on to having the
00:47:28 Yes. And it it it went on to having the grid on a clipboard in full view in the office to normalize the procedure and that was one of the achievements that it became normal for you to ask.
00:47:40 became normal for you to ask. Was there a sense at all that you were aware of amongst the officers that was it was a bit of a sort of Damocles situation in that you're going to be
00:47:51 situation in that you're going to be able to um disclose any matters causing you concern but at the same time if those reported is going to be even more of a concern because it may be that you're deemed unfit to to carry out your
00:48:04 you're deemed unfit to to carry out your job. H how was that managed? I'm not sure whether I mentioned it, but I'll so I so I will repeat it. So I'm not sure. The agreement with Ian Palmer
00:48:18 not sure. The agreement with Ian Palmer was that there would be the normal uh doctor patient confidentiality unless there was something in there that Ian felt I should know.
00:48:31 Ian felt I should know. Ian would then say to the client, "Mike needs to know about this. I'm going to tell him.
00:48:38 tell him. And they knew that upfront, didn't they? They knew that if if they disclosed anything that would have been of concern.
00:48:44 concern. Yes.
00:48:45 Yes. And and if and if the UC didn't agree to that, then the patient client relationship would cease and similarly the person would be
00:48:57 and similarly the person would be removed from the unit. The patient client confidentiality would be maintained. It was the officer's choice as to whether I was informed.
00:49:09 whether I was informed. And yes, not a perfect system, but it's trying to get them to unload as much as they can.
00:49:17 they can. But there are limits. You can't get top cover by saying, "Well, I told Ian." If he feels I need to know, then that's it. There was one officer and we're going to take care around his uh
00:49:30 going to take care around his uh anonymity, a closed officer, HN91, right?
00:49:35 right? And it's known that he was operative, he was in operation towards in the last part of the uh SDS, right?
00:49:45 right? And we know that at some point your uh management and his operation over overlapped. So for at some point you were his manager. Is that right? Yeah.
00:49:56 Yeah. And we know from his witness statement that he had a relationship with a woman and it was in the first part of his uh
00:50:07 and it was in the first part of his uh deployment and very quickly disclosed to her the nature of his job and who he was.
00:50:15 was. without going into any more detail as to that uh
00:50:22 that uh that sexual relationship um or his deployment area. Please can you tell us whether you became aware
00:50:34 can you tell us whether you became aware of that sexual relationship at all? Because it's our understanding that he told uh Dr. Palmer in in one of the sessions about that sexual relationship.
00:50:46 sessions about that sexual relationship. My answer might be already clear to anybody seeing the look on my face. When you mention that is complete dismay, not another one. That's the first I've heard of it.
00:50:58 That's the first I've heard of it. Is that the sort of thing you would have expected Dr. Palmer to raise with you? Yes. Dr. Palmer mentions in his note that the UC's were aware that that was the capital offense,
00:51:12 the capital offense, illicit sexual relationship. So similarly was aware Dr. Palmer um recognized that the principal threat uh that the officers
00:51:25 principal threat uh that the officers saw in their relationships in their operations was women. Yes.
00:51:30 Yes. Um but I I'm not too sure that he presented that as a a capital offense. It was more that yes they were disclosing to him that women were a threat to their operation and
00:51:41 were a threat to their operation and that's how they perceived it. I accept that correction entirely. Yes, I've got it wrong. Yes. Did did you have discussions with him about women in the course of an
00:51:52 about women in the course of an operative's deployment and the the the significance of that for your officers? No, it's just at the beginning where we
00:52:03 No, it's just at the beginning where we Ian and I agreed what the terms of uh engagement would be and we had a list of an oral list of areas where I must know I need to know
00:52:16 areas where I must know I need to know sexual relationships, criminality and and hard drugs. I think that was it. the three areas
00:52:27 the three areas um
00:52:29 um and they were the capital offenses but the the women for me was the number one. So Ian Palmer would have known what your attitude to that was which was that was
00:52:40 attitude to that was which was that was the capital offense and you would be required to know about that. Yes.
00:52:43 Yes. And so how did it come to pass then that he didn't tell you about HN91? Don't know. Do you think it could be that he didn't tell you about others?
00:52:55 that he didn't tell you about others? Entirely likely. H
00:52:59 H how often did you just have those discussions with him? How often did you touch base with him to see how things were going? That was at the beginning.
00:53:10 That was at the beginning. Ian would then send me periodically a letter of generic issues,
00:53:17 but it never arose that we had discussions where there was a a terminal problem.
00:53:30 So bear with me one moment. Yeah.
00:53:45 A closing report uh was drafted after the closure of the SDS and that closing report is dated uh 25th of June 2009.
00:53:58 25th of June 2009. Can we have it on screen please? MPS 0722622
00:54:03 [laughter]
00:54:13 and we can see the front page of this. It's drafted by DS HN273.
00:54:20 Um, is this a report that you've had chance to read before? No. No, I hadn't seen this. Can we go to page 30, please? Essentially,
00:54:34 the closing report looked at the history of the SDS and all of the issues that arose during the course of that. Um, hey, paragraph [clears throat] five on this page, please,
00:54:46 this page, please, in seeking to address a number of welfare issues that had arisen. I'll give you a moment to read that.
00:55:07 I think um Keith Edmonson uh gave us some idea of when Mary Piper was first engaged. So that would be back in the '9s.
00:55:30 Yeah, I I'm not I think this is in relation to the twice yearly uh sessions uh with the psychiatrist. the the particular point of interest of
00:55:42 the the particular point of interest of this paragraph is that it's suggesting that you recognized at the time oh yes
00:55:50 oh yes that the need for psychiatric assistance was to construct demonstrabably valid defenses and my question is was that
00:56:01 defenses and my question is was that something that you did recognize and was that in response yes to the AMB litigation that's my wording in fact that which they've taken from another report. Was there a sense at the time that in
00:56:13 Was there a sense at the time that in fact we need to get these welfare provisions in place not necessarily for the benefit of the officers but to protect the uh the SDS? Yes, a reasonable concern, but no. Um,
00:56:26 reasonable concern, but no. Um, the there were the two reasons. It's valid in itself. And then again, when you're trying to get money for a system, you
00:56:37 you you bring everything in your support and it will save you money, might get us more money out of the job. So, that's why that was in there. in terms of providing
00:56:49 in terms of providing genuine psychiatric assistance to the undercover officers who were dealing with specific issues during the course of their uh deployments. was the
00:57:00 was the need to have an in-house psychiatrist employed
00:57:05 employed um with the the um uh
00:57:10 the um uh uh caveat that anything that they did disclose which would be of concern to the SDS would be disclosed to you. Was that a need that the SDS had to protect
00:57:22 that a need that the SDS had to protect their own operation? Was that a security issue for you as opposed to allowing them to see psychiatrists full with full patient confidentiality that they could say anything and nothing
00:57:33 that they could say anything and nothing would get back to the managers? No, for me it was a discipline thing that um if if they contravene the instructions given to them, then I
00:57:44 the instructions given to them, then I want to know. My my first concern was was was the welfare but with that caveat.
00:57:56 Can we go please to MPS0737953
00:58:01 and this is behind tab B226.
00:58:07 This is an if we go to the first page operation hear witness statement from Dr. Felicity Gibling who was one of the chartered occupational psychologists that were employed.
00:58:19 that were employed. Yes.
00:58:20 Yes. Um, this is a a witness statement from 2014
00:58:26 2014 at page five. Do do you recall having anything to do with uh Dr. Gibling? Oh, I knew I knew her well. Yes. Yeah.
00:58:35 And we can see here.
00:58:59 It's the first paragraph. If you if you can read the first paragraph.
00:59:24 Yeah. And we've we've heard of this a little bit before and particularly in regard to training that the SDS saw itself as an isolated exempt um unit.
00:59:37 isolated exempt um unit. Well, it
00:59:38 Well, it that that wasn't policy. You may have, forgive me, you may have heard that from individual officers, but that wasn't
00:59:49 that wasn't that wasn't the accepted outlook. Sorry. in relation to training. Um, you may be right. I think I'm referring to the SO10 training or the new TAC
01:00:01 to the SO10 training or the new TAC training which wasn't seen to be uh applicable to the SDS because the SDS operate in a different way. So that's the the point I was trying to make in relation to training. Yes.
01:00:11 Yes. Would that be would that be a fair summary?
01:00:14 summary? No, I I don't think so. Um, I was disappointed when I read that HN67 had gone on the course and observer and I read the next bit and no, he's not
01:00:25 read the next bit and no, he's not recommending that we do it. It's no good for us. So 67 had he thought it of value to go along there on the course as an observer. How could we benefit from it?
01:00:38 observer. How could we benefit from it? But unfortunately, we we couldn't. Uh, so we didn't ignore it. No. in terms of what Felicity Gibbling is saying about psychiatric support.
01:00:49 saying about psychiatric support. Yes.
01:00:50 Yes. Is is it a that that is the sort of thing that she is saying is happening here that there's almost a snobbery from the managers in terms of this is not how the SDS works.
01:01:04 terms of this is not how the SDS works. The SDS is different. um it's not going to be subject to the similar sorts of you know international guidelines wider practice
01:01:14 practice in terms of welfare in terms of welfare now just in terms of the psychiatric input I can only speak for myself but when I joined the SDS I went to the Met police
01:01:27 joined the SDS I went to the Met police occupational health department again the first stages of how we can improve this and they told me that over the years
01:01:38 and they told me that over the years many many officers had self-referred to them
01:01:43 them but for the reasons you stated were keen to keep that quiet. Um my attitude was not an isolation and
01:01:54 Um my attitude was not an isolation and and a snobbery. I had to
01:02:00 I had to marry my desire to improve the welfare and by that I mean it was it was evolving from Keith Edmonson through 58 to me and I wanted
01:02:13 Edmonson through 58 to me and I wanted to improve it better but I had to recognize that there was a problem of stigma
01:02:19 stigma and that anyone also going to occupational health might again you've referred to it endanger their vetting and th be thrown off. And so the system
01:02:31 and th be thrown off. And so the system which Keith had set up with Mary Piper I thought was the appropriate one. I then addressed myself to trying to remove the stigma
01:02:42 stigma and that was the I that was an idea behind having you you know you you must go twice a year and it will be publicly noted on the wall when you're going.
01:02:54 noted on the wall when you're going. Everybody will know and you can use it as many times as you wish and so can your family. So I'm not disputing what Felicity says.
01:03:05 So I'm not disputing what Felicity says. It's just I can only say what was happening in my time.
01:03:12 Was psychiatric support available to spouses?
01:03:17 spouses? Yes.
01:03:17 Yes. Um during the course of the operation? Yes. We have evidence from S, which was Mark Jenner's ex-wife. Yeah.
01:03:26 Yeah. Um, and she says that, and we can bring her witness statement up. It's behind UCPI 38
01:03:33 UCPI 38 020
01:03:34 020 at page two.
01:03:38 Uh, she understood that that was later withdrawn. Paragraph six. We can see her her evidence in relation to that.
01:03:54 I I uh I can't I can't comment on that. I'm sorry. It's 2009 and
01:04:05 so I I can't I just can't comment on on that.
01:04:11 that. During your tenure, was it your understanding that spouses would have access to a psychologist a psychologist should they need it um for as long as they needed it and that didn't cease
01:04:24 they needed it and that didn't cease once the deployment of their their husband has had finished? That's that's exactly it. Yes. And were you aware of any take up on that during your tenure? Yes, I was. I can't remember specifics.
01:04:37 Yes, I was. I can't remember specifics. Um, which is enormously imit irritating. It wasn't a wholesale take up.
01:04:50 I mean, [sighs] if that's okay if you if you don't recall. No, I don't. No. Um, in terms of whistleblowing, yes,
01:05:00 yes, we meant we touched on it the other day, but um, would a whistleblowing channel or provision for that have been able to assist, do you think, had it been
01:05:12 assist, do you think, had it been available? Yes.
01:05:14 Yes. And in in what way do you say that that would have been of assistance? Well, it's it's the ability to um provide information which is going to be
01:05:26 provide information which is going to be extraordinary valuable knowing that your identity is secure and that your interest will be protected. So yes, that is that is a good idea.
01:05:39 So yes, that is that is a good idea. And had that been available at your time, do you think that you would have encouraged that to have been used or would there have been actually in reality too big a concern about uh
01:05:51 reality too big a concern about uh operational security? No, I would have encouraged it to be used and I'd have done me to make sure that no one needed to, but
01:06:02 that no one needed to, but most of my instructions have come to nothing anyway and most of my attempts came to nothing. So, and in practice, where would you see that working best um in terms of where
01:06:15 that working best um in terms of where would the whistle have to be blown? Who would be uh responsible for that? Would that have to be somebody outside of special branch for it to have an effect? I'm not ducking it, but I think
01:06:26 I'm not ducking it, but I think accept the principle and I think that is right. Let's s sit down and set up a whistleblowing thing and you need to look at other whistleblowing mechanisms. What's the best way to do it?
01:06:38 best way to do it? During your tenure towards the end in 2004, there were two reports commissioned and we understand the first one was by Detective Chief Inspector
01:06:49 one was by Detective Chief Inspector Richard Walton in April 2004 and we understand that that was commissioned by Janet Williams. Yes. Do you recall that happening? Yes, I do. I I remember meeting meeting
01:07:00 Yes, I do. I I remember meeting meeting Richard. Yeah. That report is behind MPS0722.
01:07:08 Oh, sorry. That's That's okay. That's the closing report I've just referred you to actually.
01:07:23 Um the the outcome of it was that there were eight recommendations. Do you know why uh DAC Janet Williams
01:07:36 Do you know why uh DAC Janet Williams had commissioned the report? Well, naturally, she she'd just taken over, I think, and she wanted a quick overview from those not directly
01:07:48 overview from those not directly concerned, people like me, who would obviously give her a biased opinion. So, [clears throat] I think that was the reasoning behind him. Entirely
01:07:59 reasoning behind him. Entirely legitimate.
01:08:03 Um, we understand that the original copy of the report is is missing, but overall we understand that the unit was found to be a professionally run and well-managed
01:08:14 be a professionally run and well-managed unit. And it uh it says in the closing report that I've just referred you to that some reform in certain areas was required and that was detailed in the
01:08:26 required and that was detailed in the review and that the head of the SDS was supportive of the kind of changes proposed. Do you recall that being the case?
01:08:34 case? Yes. I don't I I've never seen those recommendation but yes. You hadn't seen the recommendations of of that report by Rich Walton? I don't think I saw the report. No, because [clears throat] Janet Williams
01:08:46 because [clears throat] Janet Williams had commissioned it and it was it was for her for her. It was for her eyes. Yes.
01:08:50 Yes. Okay. Did you see the recommendations? No, I don't think I did anyway. Um maybe I did, but I I can't recollect. It would make sense for you to see the
01:09:01 It would make sense for you to see the recommendations, wouldn't it? In order to then improve the recommendations. Yes. Which is why I corrected myself. I surely would have seen them, but But you have no independent recollection of that. Okay. No. Um
01:09:14 although
01:09:17 that that was a report that uh uh concluded that it was a a well-run unit. There was another report that was
01:09:28 unit. There was another report that was commissioned shortly thereafter and that was the review of DS Crane. Do you remember that review being done in 2004? Yes, I do. And if you have my response to that, I don't know if you do.
01:09:42 I wish you'd just compare the two because um
01:09:49 uh [groaning]
01:09:52 I don't want to find myself letting off steam here responding to that report. I responded to it in writing and if you are able to take that as my response now then and I'm happy. I can't
01:10:05 response now then and I'm happy. I can't remember what I said. We can take I'm not I'm not sure I could assist you much now.
01:10:13 much now. [snorts]
01:10:14 [snorts] Um
01:10:20 your your
01:10:26 we understand that um the crane review came about because of uh Commander Janet Williams taking over. Um, and this is what you say about it in
01:10:38 Um, and this is what you say about it in your witness statement. She thought the SDS should be closed down. Was that the sense that you got? She'd come in, she'd got one report by
01:10:50 She'd come in, she'd got one report by um Richard Walton, but actually she needed another review because she was she was of the view in her in her view that that the the SDS should be closed
01:11:01 that that the the SDS should be closed down.
01:11:04 down. I [snorts] mean, she was in in entirely entitled to that view. And I did ask, do you intend to shut the SDS down? If so, give me a year and I'll do it properly.
01:11:16 properly. Um,
01:11:18 Um, the what what you've just repeated there is my opinion, but I can't support it with evidence. It's it's an opinion.
01:11:29 It's it's an opinion. Um,
01:11:31 Um, I was surprised the the SDS lasted as long as it did after I retired, lasted another two years till the end of 2007.
01:11:41 2007. And I think you talked about the the the new batch of people coming in. Uh, we know that um, uh, DCI McKini took over
01:11:52 know that um, uh, DCI McKini took over the the running of the, uh, the SDS and then DCI Flood came in as well. Right. I knew DCI McKini. And And did you have any more dealings
01:12:03 And And did you have any more dealings with the SDS after you had left in 2005? No.
01:12:12 Um the recommendations of the crane report were not um were not all accepted. Is that fair to say?
01:12:24 accepted. Is that fair to say? I can't remember. Um, I have to say this is a report by a sergeant. Yes,
01:12:30 Yes, I'm not being snobby about it, but a sergeant who didn't know anything about undercover work, or if he did, he didn't display that knowledge and make use of it.
01:12:46 Was there a sense at the time that the SDS was resistant to external accountability? [clears throat] external accountability. Yeah. Yes.
01:12:57 external accountability. Yeah. Yes. Somebody from Well, not just outside the S branch, but particularly outside the SDS.
01:13:06 Oh, no. Uh, you've clarified what I was going to ask you by external. Um, no, that's no, that's not true. Um,
01:13:19 Um, no, that's no, that's not true. Um, Colin Black would, you know, would would visit monthly and go through the papers, go through the accounts.
01:13:30 go through the accounts. Um,
01:13:32 Um, that's not fair. So, you were more than happy for accountability within a special branch. Yes.
01:13:41 Yes. Outside of the SDS, you were more than happy for people to come in. Yes. Was it then, you know, it was outside special branch um people that didn't understand the the
01:13:52 um people that didn't understand the the workings and the culture of special branch that was you were potentially more resistant to? Yes. I mean the nature of the job we would be resistant to it not resistant to say HMIC the inspector
01:14:09 but either you're having a secret thing within the branch which is pretty secret or you're not. And that's that's where
01:14:20 or you're not. And that's that's where our resistance was directed at.
01:14:26 I know that there's somewhere in there that I was resistant to change or something to that effect because I I didn't see the actual
01:14:38 effect because I I didn't see the actual report or the actual a note which described me as being in in effect reactionary, resistant to change, which I deeply resented.
01:14:50 I deeply resented. Um, so
01:14:53 Um, so that's why my response to Crane was described I know. I say I know because it wasn't circulated to me, but I discovered it
01:15:04 circulated to me, but I discovered it was described as a rant. I resented that because I took apart each part of the report point by point and it wasn't an off-the-cuff rant.
01:15:17 and it wasn't an off-the-cuff rant. But at this time you get the feeling the writing is on the wall and that's when I asked look let me shut the thing down properly because you have a right to shut it down obviously
01:15:29 shut it down obviously uh let me do it.
01:15:33 Um,
01:15:44 the Walton report, we do have the reference for that actually. It's 0736907
01:16:08 and the recommendation. If we go to the first page actually just to set the purpose of that report
01:16:22 at page four
01:16:31 we can see the terms of reference of that.
01:16:35 that. [snorts]
01:16:36 [snorts] So paragraph two, Commander Williams through Detective Superintendent Andy Rento
01:16:42 Rento requested the report for that purpose.
01:16:56 And then the recommendations themselves are set out at pages 18 to 19.
01:17:30 We you'll you'll see it recommend recommendation three, the proposed academic research into the psychological effects of working as an SDS field officer. And I think that's what you were talking about.
01:17:42 what you were talking about. Yeah.
01:17:42 Yeah. When you were um seeking funding for for that piece of research. Yeah,
01:17:51 that can be taken down please. uh reduced but the recommendations left.
01:18:02 Does that jog your memory at all about having seen those recommendations and whether whe those were accepted.
01:18:20 I must admit it's like reading it as if it were for the first time.
01:18:29 We can see recommendation 8 is in relation to creating a separate dedic dedicated squad combining the source unit with the SDS under the same dedicated line manager who would also
01:18:40 dedicated line manager who would also act as a dedicated authorizing officer for all chises bringing continuity and consistency to the role. Was there a sense you you thought that there was going to be a closure of the SDS? Did
01:18:52 going to be a closure of the SDS? Did you see what was going to come after that um at this stage or not? No, I didn't. No. [snorts]
01:19:05 Um in terms of Reaper,
01:19:12 um what you say at paragraph
01:19:18 um 41 of your statement is that it was a a to a large extent a bureaucratic change and I think you gave that evidence on Monday actually in that
01:19:31 that evidence on Monday actually in that um it was a formalization of um what you were having to do in terms of uh reviewing operations anyway. Yes. Um,
01:19:43 will we will we address the issue of how Janet Williams handled the authorization process compared to Roger Pierce?
01:19:54 process compared to Roger Pierce? We we can look at that if you like. I wasn't I didn't have any particular questions in relation to that, but did you think that she handled that in a se a different way? I just noticed in other evidence that it was put to a witness that she asked more intrusive questions
01:20:08 that she asked more intrusive questions and yes she did because entirely understandable she's a newcomer and she has to ask all these range of questions of us um to understand what's going on
01:20:21 of us um to understand what's going on and be confident that it was it was proper for her to give her authority. Now, Roger Pierce was commander SO10, SO11 and SO12, the three
01:20:34 SO10, SO11 and SO12, the three intelligence agencies. He had vast experience of of intelligence gathering. He was commander of three outfits
01:20:45 commander of three outfits and an authorization which was repeated four times a year didn't need the same level of written explanation. This is the problem, isn't
01:20:57 explanation. This is the problem, isn't it, of when any outfit regulates itself internally that people begin speaking to each other
01:21:08 that people begin speaking to each other rather than for the benefit of an outside
01:21:12 outside uh scrutiny body. So,
01:21:18 So, it was not definitely not a question of Roger Pierce couldn't be bothered to ask the questions or um he just wasn't interested. It's just he had this vast
01:21:29 interested. It's just he had this vast experience incomparable to someone coming in from the outside who would naturally ask more questions. So I just wanted to
01:21:41 So I just wanted to um in some of the authorizations that Commander Williams reviewed, she required further input and we addressed that to some extent earlier. Yes.
01:21:51 Yes. And she would put shorter timelines on things, I think, wouldn't she? So she would say, well, I I want to report in the next 3 weeks. Yes.
01:22:00 Yes. Um otherwise, this isn't going to be authorized anymore. I'll authorize it for a 3 week period as opposed to another
01:22:05 another Yes. uh three month or six month period. Um was that problematic for you as a unit? Um did you did you resent that level of oversight?
01:22:16 level of oversight? It it was certainly a bureaucratic burden.
01:22:21 burden. It was not the requirement for Commander Williams itself. It was it was bit what it
01:22:30 it portended
01:22:32 portended that again if you'd look just shut the thing down if you don't want it. And so I would meet those requests with that frame of mind and not give of my best.
01:22:45 and not give of my best. You know it would color my views.
01:22:51 Their questions were entirely justified. Um,
01:22:57 Um, in hindsight, do you think that perhaps she's come in with a fresh view of some of the operations and and really doubted whether there they were justified in accordance with the principles of of
01:23:09 accordance with the principles of of RIPER, the necessity, proportionality, and lawfulness? Yes. And but then we never discussed strategy.
01:23:19 strategy. We never discussed how I wanted to reshape the unit. So
01:23:29 So that's my my only criticism of our relationship. Um
01:23:37 our relationship was frosty from the start and and it was frosty before we even got down to the business of running the SDS. It was on a personal
01:23:49 running the SDS. It was on a personal level and I don't I can only guess why, but I don't know why. When when Commander Williams and I first met, she shook my hand and said, "We've met
01:24:00 she shook my hand and said, "We've met and walked off." And
01:24:06 And I
01:24:07 I thought, "What's that about?" And it was Frosty from there on. And so that colored it was a it was it was a personal thing as well which right
01:24:19 was a personal thing as well which right from the off we didn't establish a personal rep uh relationship. I'm not criticizing her. I'm just saying what the facts were. We didn't gel.
01:24:31 the facts were. We didn't gel. What was was there any level of uh sexism or a misogynistic attitude because of the culture of the SDS and special branch at the time? Here
01:24:42 SDS and special branch at the time? Here was a a woman coming in at a high level shaking things up a bit. No, no. I I've offered it to other people. I I actually prefer I actually offered the view I prefer working with
01:24:53 offered the view I prefer working with women. They don't have the ego. They don't have the emotional baggage of men. There's too many men want to be kicking ass and doing this that and being the big Mr. I am. I find it easier to work
01:25:06 big Mr. I am. I find it easier to work with women. Women tend to know what they want and what they don't want. And that could have developed into a good relationship with Janet Williams,
01:25:17 good relationship with Janet Williams, but it never got off the ground. Never got off the ground.
01:25:26 Sir, those are all the questions I have at the moment. There are a number of rule 10 questions which I can feed into um a [laughter] a further stage of questioning but it may be that we take
01:25:37 questioning but it may be that we take an early break so that I can consolidate the questions that we've had handed in certainly and if there are any more that have arisen then they can be put to in the interval. Yeah. 15 minutes or longer. Um
01:25:49 15 minutes or longer. Um it may be 20 minutes if we can please. At least 15 minutes then. Thank you.
02:10:25 Thank you. [snorts] Can I have on screen please MPS 0040023?
02:10:35 Mr. Dell, this is the response to the crane review that you referred to earlier. And I didn't the uh uh
02:10:43 uh uh the reference to hand. You can see if we bring up the second page
02:10:50 page that this is your final note of the 22nd of December 2004 signed off by you and it's in response to that crane review. And it's paragraph two that I think you
02:11:02 And it's paragraph two that I think you were probably thinking of when you referred to your um response. Yeah.
02:11:07 Yeah. And we can see there in in effect um you thought it was a pretty shoddy and thoroughly dishonest piece of work and you've set out your reasons as to why
02:11:18 you've set out your reasons as to why you thought that or was there anything more you wanted to say on that given we've now got the document.
02:11:25 document. No, thank you. Um,
02:11:28 Um, True Spies. Yeah.
02:11:30 Yeah. In oral evidence, you said that you'd been engaged with Peter Taylor to try to get some redactions from the program beforehand. Is it right that the only redactions
02:11:41 Is it right that the only redactions that were made in relation to that program were the ones relating to Operation Sparkler, which was the Debenham's uh IID campaign in the 1980s
02:11:52 Debenham's uh IID campaign in the 1980s that H&10 Bob Lambert was involved in. I I don't remember that and I don't remember get getting any redactions. We hadn't reserved the Met hadn't reserved
02:12:05 hadn't reserved the Met hadn't reserved editorial control and so it was a take it or leave it. I and I don't remember anything about a redaction for sparkler. Um the the reference that we have in
02:12:16 Um the the reference that we have in relation to that is um from superintendent uh chief superintendent Mitchell.
02:12:21 Mitchell. Yeah. And [snorts] it's MPS 0738090.
02:12:40 Um, so this is his a note of his interview to to Hearn and it's page four of that interview.
02:12:50 So obviously it's sometime later. Yes.
02:12:53 Yes. Um
02:12:55 Um and we can see that he says there was only one segment of the program that was edited effectively by SB. Yes.
02:13:03 Yes. If we can bring that up. It's the uh bottom paragraph. Yes. And that was the part relating to operation sparkler as we believed to as
02:13:15 operation sparkler as we believed to as as it was believed to pose too much of a risk to the officer involved which was uh Bob Lambert. Yeah. So do you accept that that's probably correct given that it was Mitchell and
02:13:26 correct given that it was Mitchell and how involved was Mitchell in the uh True Spies
02:13:31 Spies uh production itself and or the fallout of that production? Yeah, I don't know to either of those questions. Yeah.
02:13:43 Um, we went to the Fairford Coach's case in in the context of HN3's uh uh operation.
02:13:54 HN3's uh uh operation. Yes.
02:13:55 Yes. Um, and it was clarified eventually that HN3 wasn't on uh one of the coaches and um you weren't aware of any dealings that he had with the Fairford Coaches
02:14:06 that he had with the Fairford Coaches case. We do have evidence from HN118 Simon Wellings where he said in evidence to this inquiry on the third at 17th of
02:14:17 to this inquiry on the third at 17th of March 26
02:14:19 March 26 at 7 minutes past 3 in the afternoon that he recalled there were a series of mini meetings between H&3 and managers which were about Fairford.
02:14:31 which were about Fairford. Um I can go to his specific uh uh evidence in relation to that. He recalls
02:14:40 recalls um when asked about whether those meetings were anything to do with Fairford and HN3. He says literally only that it was a clearly a
02:14:52 literally only that it was a clearly a thing. There was a situation ongoing and that it involved HN3. To what degree, I couldn't tell you, but it was for a while
02:15:01 while something that was being discussed where we used to meet. There were other little rooms and and he's clearly getting pulled into a 10 to 15 minute discussion which apparently was all about that in
02:15:13 which apparently was all about that in in reference to the Fairford coaches. Um
02:15:20 and shortly thereafter he's asked afterwards you you then say words to the effect well what was all that about yes and then he said something to you
02:15:31 yes and then he said something to you that related to Fairford coaches and so that's the evidence that we've got in relation to 118 understanding that HN3 was having these mini meetings in with management about the Fairford
02:15:43 in with management about the Fairford coaches case. Does that ring a bell for you? And and can you tell us what those were about? No, nothing at all. No, I just want to clarify the dates in
02:15:55 I just want to clarify the dates in relation to MLE. Um the domestic litigation around that was or or the the the uh trial in relation to that was
02:16:07 the uh trial in relation to that was between 1990 and 1999 through the high court. Um
02:16:16 Um and eventually it went to Strasburg uh 2000 to 2005. Yes.
02:16:23 Yes. So obviously it's the Strasburg uh uh hearings that were relevant to to to your uh uh tenure. Yeah. And um
02:16:36 Yeah. And um is it fair to say that there wasn't any real uh involvement of any of your officers in relation to that? That's right. Yes.
02:17:07 We touched on intelligence sharing with private companies. Um there's another report by HN3 about companies involved in the arms trade. Um it's the report I
02:17:19 in the arms trade. Um it's the report I showed you this morning, MPS0000 42159.
02:17:35 So again, these are rough notes. This is the raw reporting of HM3. And um if you recall, you said that um information wasn't passed to arms
02:17:46 information wasn't passed to arms companies other than only directly through the chain to the crime prevention industrial officers. Yes.
02:17:53 Yes. Do you remember saying that? Um, on page two,
02:18:00 we can see that it refers to at least four activists from Brighton have been served with injunction papers for them to appear at the high court in April. If
02:18:11 to appear at the high court in April. If we can draw your attention to that bit. Yeah,
02:18:14 Yeah, it's the the third paragraph from the from the bottom. The attempt is to prevent any kind of protest outside the offices of EDO who have been subject subjected to a
02:18:26 have been subject subjected to a campaign by the Smasho group. The legal action has been brought by the now infamous firm of solicitors and this firm has been actively seeking clients
02:18:38 firm has been actively seeking clients which have been targeted by protesters and offering help offering to help them.
02:18:46 Yes.
02:18:51 It's this it's the next paragraph down I think that is also helpful.
02:19:01 Um the above is interesting as those named in the injunction were recently acquitted for aggravated trespass. Um and in previous injunctions all those names had been convicted of an offense
02:19:12 names had been convicted of an offense at the target company. and that this injunction if granted will backfire on the company and will increase the level of protests and harassment against them. Already members of the disarmed diocy
02:19:24 Already members of the disarmed diocy group
02:19:26 group are considering actions against EDO. Consideration should be given to the question of what advice to give should the reed/sp spearhead companies approach the desk as
02:19:39 spearhead companies approach the desk as to whether they should follow EDO's lead.
02:19:43 lead. Yeah.
02:19:45 Yeah. The suggestion appears here to be that there is advice being given through the conduit of the desk in special branch
02:19:57 conduit of the desk in special branch directly to read or spearhead as a private company. Yeah.
02:20:03 Yeah. And that there is some level of direct communication between them and advice would be given as to what steps they should take in light of the intelligence that has been reported here. Yes.
02:20:15 that has been reported here. Yes. Are you able to help with what you understood to be the case and what was happening here? That's that represents really a clear
02:20:27 That's that represents really a clear misunderstanding of the process. Um there wasn't communication with those companies and I can speak of having come from as being DCIC squad myself immediately prior. No, there was no
02:20:39 immediately prior. No, there was no question of um and they've never approached the desk. They might well go to their local police station and ask
02:20:50 to their local police station and ask for advice, general. What do we do? Crime prevention advice, but they wouldn't uh well, they might do, but they wouldn't get an answer to the question, what do
02:21:02 get an answer to the question, what do we do about a litigation strategy? because this is notes and it it wouldn't go anywhere. These notes would be put away. These notes would be regarded by
02:21:14 away. These notes would be regarded by us as background intelligence which has been in inadvertently disclosed to the activist and it was not tasked to get. Was there any indirect way that this the
02:21:26 Was there any indirect way that this the companies could approach the desk? No. Would would they have some sense that they could indirectly get information from spe special branch as to um intelligence that would inform
02:21:41 to um intelligence that would inform their uh their decisions as to what steps to take? No.
02:21:45 No. What next steps to take? No. No.
02:21:50 No. No. Where would HN3 have got this idea from? I don't know. Um saying it gently the it's not
02:22:01 saying it gently the it's not necessarily the necessarily the case that the field officers given their relative youth most of them were familiar with
02:22:12 familiar with the workings of the branch. Uh we've seen it over the issue of when is a file opened and why it's opened. These are understandable misconceptions
02:22:23 These are understandable misconceptions and
02:22:26 and I don't know. HN3 might have assumed that
02:22:30 that we did pass this advice on, but we didn't. And there was no mechanism, no conduit, informal or formal for doing it.
02:22:38 it. In discussions with HN3, was he given the impression that that was part of his targeting? Did he understand that to be the purpose of his operation? No, it wasn't his targeting. No.
02:22:50 No, it wasn't his targeting. No. Fair question, but it No, it wasn't. Did he understand that to be a a part of his operation? No. Uh, sorry. Yes, he did understand it
02:23:01 No. Uh, sorry. Yes, he did understand it was not part of his operation. [snorts]
02:23:05 [snorts] Sorry. If he had understood it wasn't part of his operation, he presumably he wouldn't have reported that. Well, no.
02:23:12 Well, no. Is it fair to infer that he thought this was him doing his job? No. Well, again, he's reporting everything he's come across and these are rough notes.
02:23:25 Um
02:23:28 and and he's just suggesting advice off his own bat to these companies. Yes.
02:23:35 Yes. Um in terms of targeting of lesser interested groups, we talked about um in terms of HN18s. So moving on from this point, sorry. um HN18's deployment, you said that he was
02:23:47 HN18's deployment, you said that he was deployed first off into ISM and your understanding was that that was to be a bit of a springboard into other areas or other groups. Yes, depending on what he found because it was not a panic response, but it was
02:24:00 it was not a panic response, but it was certainly not a a measured slowtime response
02:24:06 response uh to the terrorist events in in um America. And um equally in in regard to HN77's
02:24:17 um equally in in regard to HN77's deployment, she was first um deployed into critical mass. Yes.
02:24:22 Yes. Again, would you say that that was a bit of a jumping point to other groups depending on what she found? Yes.
02:24:30 Yes. Um
02:24:33 Um we know from previous uh deployments as well for instance HN15 Mark Jenner was deployed into CRC. Yes. In a in an effort to see you know what
02:24:47 In a in an effort to see you know what else he could identify and and with a view to moving into AFA and other yes other uh uh groups of interest. Was there any sense
02:24:59 Was there any sense of how long one would remain in a group like that if it wasn't of interest itself?
02:25:09 itself? The it would be most efficient to remain in it for as short a time as possible. [clears throat] a shorter time as possible, which would allow you to achieve the objective of
02:25:20 allow you to achieve the objective of using it to determine whether there was anything useful there or as a springboard elsewhere. And of course, this was the point of 77's [clears throat] termination
02:25:32 termination that she was well past that point. And was there any consideration given as to the proportionality and necessity of actually reporting on that group if its purpose was really
02:25:44 purpose was really a stepping stone to other groups if there was nothing really of any serious value to report on the group? Yes, take your point. Um there is always some
02:25:57 your point. Um there is always some value to be gained but the issue is is that value sufficient for her to continue
02:26:05 continue but yes please report on what little value there is um for HN18 given that he was deployed into um ISM.
02:26:17 into um ISM. Yes. What would your response have been if he had come back month after month just saying, "Well, there's not really much of any serious uh interest going on, so I'm not
02:26:31 serious uh interest going on, so I'm not putting in a report. My report is literally nothing to report." Yes.
02:26:35 Yes. What would the SDS response have been to that?
02:26:37 that? Two-part answer. One, objective achieved. Secondly, as long as he'd gone to Palestine and this was the part of it and helped
02:26:48 and this was the part of it and helped just in assisting refugees, it would have that was the point of it to build up his his legend. And once those two were achieved, that would be the end of
02:26:59 were achieved, that would be the end of ISM,
02:27:02 ISM, at the end of deployment to ISM. I don't think he ever he didn't go to Palestine. I don't think he ever intended to go to Palestine. Did
02:27:14 intended to go to Palestine. Did I think this is post your management now?
02:27:17 now? Pardon?
02:27:18 Pardon? We're talking about Rob Hastings. Yeah. Yes.
02:27:22 Yes. Yeah.
02:27:22 Yeah. Rob Hastings. No, that was that was the intention to use this as a jumping point, increase his legend
02:27:34 increase his legend by being invited to assist with refugee operations and just get a bit more credibility. It it was a it was a a rush deployment in the sense that it wasn't
02:27:46 deployment in the sense that it wasn't worked out over a long period. It was our quick response to events and this was seen as a shortcut to achieving credibility
02:27:59 to achieving credibility and that's why I was disappointed he hadn't taken the opportunity to go.
02:28:05 Thank you. Um in relation to uh true spies please there's an impact going back to the impact assessment um that you prepared and we referred you
02:28:18 um that you prepared and we referred you to earlier MPS0719704
02:28:36 We can see in paragraph two there, operation patron has been but one element of close and vigorous monitoring of all sources of intelligence and open
02:28:47 of all sources of intelligence and open information.
02:29:02 [snorts]
02:29:06 um and effectively suggested that this is um looking at or trying to discover activists reaction to the program. Yes.
02:29:17 Yes. If if we just decrease that paragraph there, was that your understanding of part of the the um purpose of the impact assessment? Yes. What was the consideration around
02:29:31 Yes. What was the consideration around putting those activists under surveillance as a result of the SDS choosing to participate in the documentary? It would have been impossible.
02:29:44 It would have been impossible. If you wish to put an activist under 24-hour surveillance, you need three surveillance teams. You actually need four because one has to be off duty.
02:29:55 four because one has to be off duty. So, was was there a thought that we need to monitor the activists who were um linked to the the officers who are now deemed to be at threat? And I'm thinking
02:30:06 deemed to be at threat? And I'm thinking in particular in relation to Miss Steel and
02:30:11 and the the the uh assumed threat to HM5 John Dyn. Yes. No. Um, it was just heightened monitoring in terms of the resources we
02:30:24 monitoring in terms of the resources we already had and turning their attention to that. Not that you need really to turn the attention to your own security because the field officers were about that all the time, but it wasn't no
02:30:35 that all the time, but it wasn't no thought was given to applying for extra resources to do it. They just weren't available anyway.
02:30:46 Um, another Operation Muscat document behind MPS 0017943.
02:30:55 I wonder if we can bring that up.
02:31:09 We weren't able to bring it up previously because it Yeah. Okay. I understand it's not on Epic,
02:31:17 Epic, so we don't actually have access to that. Okay, fine. Um,
02:31:32 in relation to your uh prohibition to the plenary group meeting,
02:31:40 meeting, yeah,
02:31:41 yeah, you suggested at one stage in your evidence that you had a a oneshot shock opportunity and you used that to tell all the officers there at the time that
02:31:53 all the officers there at the time that they were not to have sexual relationships in their undercover identities. Yeah.
02:31:58 Yeah. Um why did you consider that to be a one-shot shock?
02:32:06 It's because the the impact can't be repeated. Um,
02:32:14 it was a shock because it was uh unique
02:32:20 uh unique and you you can't repeat that because they've heard it before. They've chosen to comply or not and the shock value has
02:32:31 to comply or not and the shock value has disappeared. So it becomes a repetition of the instruction and so make sure with your one shot that
02:32:42 and so make sure with your one shot that you drive the message home. Why would that become a shock to them though? Is that a message that you understood they hadn't heard before that that wasn't the policy beforehand? No,
02:32:54 that wasn't the policy beforehand? No, it was the way in which it was delivered and
02:32:59 and the consequences of of of such misconduct. No, wouldn't be people know people won't make it easy for you. There won't be any deals.
02:33:11 for you. There won't be any deals. You'll be straight off. And that was the that was the shock thing. And so people I know have expressed surprise that there was no discussion after that amongst the UC's. And I think it's
02:33:23 amongst the UC's. And I think it's because well that element of it worked. It was a shock. The fact that not all of them were listening is another issue. Was there no attempt by you then to
02:33:35 Was there no attempt by you then to reiterate that message or no in what sense did you reiterate the message?
02:33:43 message? No. No I didn't not to the people who heard it first time. I followed it up with the new officers in the case of say Rob Hastings directly in front of his wife.
02:33:55 in front of his wife. Um
02:33:59 I think at paragraph 223 of your witness statement, you you say that you reiterated the instruction. So it it seems that the evidence that you've given orally in relation to the oneshot
02:34:11 given orally in relation to the oneshot shock is in in slight contradiction of the uh what you say in your witness statement of paragraph 223 if that can be brought up just so you can have a
02:34:22 be brought up just so you can have a look at your ju just tell me what it is and
02:34:25 and um it's where you say you re reiterated the instruction. Well, yes, I I made sure that succeeding people were aware of it, but I didn't
02:34:36 people were aware of it, but I didn't reiterate it in a a plenary session.
02:34:42 You you in fact in my view diminish your authority
02:34:46 authority when you repeat this this same instruction. [clears throat] Would it have helped do you think now in hindsight to make sure that that message was a part of the
02:34:59 that that message was a part of the culture of the SDS that it was it was repeated and it was spoken about? I I think you can deduce from the evidence you've seen from the UCOs
02:35:11 evidence you've seen from the UCOs that I think all of them acknowledge remembering it and I think that's a measure of its impact and its effectiveness
02:35:22 effectiveness in terms of the consequences that they were told they would face if they were engaged in sexual misconduct after the prohibition. Is it fair to say that
02:35:33 prohibition. Is it fair to say that there weren't consequences? Even when Carlos Saraki revealed his um his relationship to you, he wasn't struck off.
02:35:44 off. Yes, fair enough question. But I but I think we have covered that where I made that distinction and it was at a particular moment in time before I delivered my instruction and
02:35:59 before I delivered my instruction and the circumstances my distinction between the two categories of women if you like and that was an exception. um would it have been something that the
02:36:11 um would it have been something that the other officers might have found out about and just thought well there's no consequence here. So it's it's a policy that's the party line but in reality the practice is that business as usual it
02:36:25 practice is that business as usual it doesn't really matter. It's not it's not something that is prohibited. They they might well have done, but I don't
02:36:36 I I don't think they could have inferred that from what I said. They might just have decided um they might have done that. Yeah, there are no consequences, but they
02:36:47 there are no consequences, but they wouldn't have inferred that it was the party line. And I think their statements, I hadn't seen the statements, but the transcripts uh confirmed that
02:36:59 uh confirmed that that was their impression.
02:37:14 um in terms of the options that were set out in your report in the Thompson Yes.
02:37:23 Yes. affair um and and you're writing the report as the different options for the purposes of um
02:37:34 Colin Black. Yes. only set out three options informal uh formal and I think the third one was um
02:37:45 I think the third one was um can't remember sorry I've forgotten the last one myself I think it was to um uh that he should be disciplined uh informal discipline formal discipline
02:37:56 formal discipline and criminal the third one sorry criminal
02:38:01 criminal we can bring up the document um uh 07197 770.
02:38:15 Page three, please.
02:38:22 I think it was at the bottom of page two.
02:38:25 two. In terms of the options, arrest and charge. That was it. Yeah. Formal formal discipline, informal discipline, and arrest and charge. Yes. And then in terms of the
02:38:38 Yes. And then in terms of the um
02:38:46 the risks of the uh preferred option which was you put that forward as being the informal discipline option.
02:38:58 the informal discipline option. There are a number of bullet points on page three.
02:39:04 There is no reference to the risk of further harm to members of the public and in in particular thinking about the risks to women.
02:39:15 risks to women. Yes. Um by now I think just looking at the date
02:39:21 the date this report
02:39:25 at the beginning on page one
02:39:33 22nd of March 2002
02:39:40 um there was indications wasn't there that Thompson had been in a relationship because of the the um uh phone
02:39:51 uh phone uh uh uh phone records. Yes.
02:39:57 Yes. Why was it that the the impact on members of the public of not taking proper disciplinary action against the officer did not appear to
02:40:10 against the officer did not appear to form part of the considerations as to what to do in response to his uh mis uh misconduct? I don't know. I I accept that's an
02:40:21 I don't know. I I accept that's an omission.
02:40:27 I think the phone billing doesn't come until April 2002, but it may be that um
02:40:42 in terms of in terms of threats to member of the public in any event, was that was that ever part of your consideration?
02:40:52 Um the the dangers to a miscreant undercover officer still
02:40:59 still um
02:41:02 being deployed with amongst members of the public. Yes. Yes. I accept that. That's an admission. Yes.
02:41:25 throughout the documentation in general, the lack of reference to uh
02:41:34 uh uh uh women in the community um being impacted. Uh,
02:41:42 Uh, is there a sense that this didn't really matter to the people who were involved at the time? No. Um,
02:41:53 we we were concerned with we were concerned with proving guilt. And once the decision is taken not to
02:42:05 And once the decision is taken not to prosecute in some form
02:42:10 then yes the um the effects on particularly women were not considered and I've accepted that is an omission
02:42:25 but it was not a question of misogyny.
02:42:30 Just if if people are happy to settle for incompetence on my part then yeah in terms of your welfare concerns about
02:42:43 in terms of your welfare concerns about HM104
02:42:45 HM104 um obviously you had some concerns when his mother died. Yes.
02:42:50 Yes. Um and you had concerns for him. Um, you were aware that he'd been in at least one relationship by that time. Yes. And he had concerns for his wife
02:43:02 And he had concerns for his wife at the time.
02:43:06 There doesn't appear to have been a concern for the that the members of the public that may still be
02:43:18 members of the public that may still be at risk of an undercover officer being deployed in their midst who has for whom there are serious considerations about his well-being. So although he had
02:43:31 his well-being. So although he had persuaded you that he was absolutely fine and he could continue with his uh operation. Yes.
02:43:38 Yes. Knowing that he had deceived one woman already into a sexual relationship. He just lost his mother. Was there any consideration at all as to whether he may pose a danger to uh women
02:43:51 whether he may pose a danger to uh women in the community? I I accept accept that as a question. Obviously I do. Um No. Um, he would have been a similar risk if he were thrown
02:44:04 been a similar risk if he were thrown out of the job on on on accepting the premise of that argument.
02:44:11 argument. Um, just to follow up on that though, in terms of the the context of that, he wouldn't be an undercover officer anymore. He wouldn't have the the oper operational um background and props of
02:44:25 operational um background and props of an undercover operation, a false identity. At least he shouldn't be using that still at that stage. Is Is that fair to say? It is fair to say, but he would Yes. He would basically have to pay for his own entertainment, wouldn't he?
02:44:39 entertainment, wouldn't he? And I don't mean that in a flippant sense in relation to the women. It's just
02:44:46 just it's my dismay at his conduct. It it it is a a point that you make though and and and
02:44:56 and and effectively what the deceived women were providing
02:45:01 providing was
02:45:02 was free support to the undercover officers who were deployed and deceiving them into a sexual relationship, weren't they? I if if
02:45:13 they? I if if sorry,
02:45:13 sorry, sorry to just to complete that point. if the officers such as Carlos Saraki uh and um other officers who had deceived women into a sexual relationship had not
02:45:26 women into a sexual relationship had not done so in the way that they had. Yes.
02:45:33 If that was for operational reasons, you would have had to provide a a support role player for which you say you didn't have the resources. Is is it that uh women were being used
02:45:46 Is is it that uh women were being used for free as props in an undercover operational capacity? No, it was for personal satisfaction and gain.
02:45:56 and gain. I've said I don't buy I don't buy that argument that they were either seduced or
02:46:05 or it was necessary for my operation. Um, it's just a deliberate lifestyle choice on their part.
02:46:20 And just to clarify, that's a a lifestyle choice by the UCOs. Oh, yes.
02:46:27 Oh, yes. Were you aware of a note by DS Steven Tidy that referred to that lifestyle choice in uh an operational Is this the one about the female antenna?
02:46:37 antenna? Exactly. Yes. How could one forget that? Was that something you were involved aware of when you first took over the year after? I think it was he made that note in October 2000.
02:46:49 that note in October 2000. Yeah.
02:46:50 Yeah. And uh you joined in the May 2001. Yes.
02:46:55 Yes. That note was it something that you were aware of? No, because I was really the amusement when I saw it. Amusement at how Steve could write anything so crass
02:47:06 how Steve could write anything so crass uh was heightened when I did read it.
02:47:15 So I don't know whether that external noise is interfering with the um the audio in this room.
02:47:27 Oh, it's spells. All it is is falls. Yes, it is. Yeah, I realize that. Um,
02:47:37 Um, were you aware when you took over uh well when when you joined as as uh in a shadowing capacity in May 2001 of
02:47:49 shadowing capacity in May 2001 of the lifestyle choices that had been used by previous uh operatives in terms of women in terms of living with uh a women? No.
02:47:59 No. In an operational role? No. None of the DS's spoke about that. No.
02:48:04 No. And HM53, he did didn't mention that as a no.
02:48:08 a no. A beneficial lifestyle choice on the part of the UCOs. No. Um and I'm I'm sure his directions were just the same as mine.
02:48:25 Um, I want to correct something um that I said
02:48:30 I said when I questioned you in respect of uh a report about Assad Raymond and his involvement with the John Charles Domineszes
02:48:42 Charles Domineszes uh campaign. I said that he was also part of the ISM uh group. In fact, he was part of the NMP, the new uh uh newer monitoring project.
02:48:54 monitoring project. Yeah. Yes, of course. Yeah. You got that right. Is that NMP?
02:49:17 [snorts]
02:49:21 Is that the document we're going to bring up?
02:49:26 That's the document.
02:49:30 Thank you. I think those are all the questions that we have. Thank you. Do you have any questions in re-examination?
02:49:41 Yes, please, sir. Just um one topic. Um most cathedrals ring their bells when I when I do. So um it's just some
02:49:52 when I do. So um it's just some questions about very briefly about HN91 and Dr. Palmer. Yes.
02:49:58 Yes. Which we touched on before the last break.
02:50:00 break. Yes.
02:50:02 Yes. Um obviously HN91's a closed officer, so we're
02:50:05 we're Yes.
02:50:06 Yes. treading carefully, but it's it's known that he's a man. Yes. Um,
02:50:11 Um, it is inopen because he said this in his impact statement in connection with the anonymity order process. Um, I'm going to read something out from his impact statement so I can be sure
02:50:22 his impact statement so I can be sure that I'm only saying what's in open. Okay.
02:50:24 Okay. He said, so this is around 2018 2017. After my relationship with my first partner ended, I started a new relationship towards the end of my deployment with my current partner who
02:50:36 deployment with my current partner who was not involved in any activism or campaigning. For the first few months of this relationship, my current partner knew me by my cover name, but I then told him
02:50:47 by my cover name, but I then told him her, which is her, that I was in fact the UCO and we have remained together since then. Um, so that's the that's what he's disclosed there.
02:50:58 what he's disclosed there. So in relation to Dr. Palmer, roughly how often how frequently would the UCO see Dr. Palmer? Mandatory twice a year and then as many times as they wished after that. It
02:51:11 times as they wished after that. It became very common when I was very pleased for an officer to come in the office and say, "Where's the grid? I need to see Ian in full view of everybody else." And that was at least
02:51:22 everybody else." And that was at least a measure of success. Thank you. So, if HN91 had told I just want to understand your evidence, if he'd told Dr. Palmer that he'd begun a
02:51:33 he'd told Dr. Palmer that he'd begun a relationship with a woman in his cover identity, would you have expected Dr. Palmer to tell you? Yes. Yes. Emphatically, yes. If HN91 had told Dr. Palmer that he was
02:51:46 If HN91 had told Dr. Palmer that he was in a relationship with a woman in his real identity, but when they first met and started seeing each other a few months ago, he had be he had been in his cover identity. Would you expect Dr.
02:51:57 cover identity. Would you expect Dr. Palmer to have told you that? Yes.
02:52:01 Yes. And what would be the concern there?
02:52:08 Was [clears throat] HN91, excuse me, married at that time? Then that for me is a sacking offense because it is the tripartite agreement.
02:52:22 because it is the tripartite agreement. And he said in his impact statement that it was after his first marriage had ended. [snorts] His first marriage had ended. Yes.
02:52:32 Yes. [clears throat]
02:52:39 I'm hesitating because I'm having to try and
02:52:47 try and condense a couple of hours thinking about it into now. I would I would my starting point would be sacking and I would need to be convinced I'd need to convince myself
02:52:59 convinced I'd need to convince myself that there were reasons that he shouldn't be sacked and at this point I can't identify any but either way you'd want to know and you'd expect
02:53:10 you'd expect I'd want to know. Yes. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you sir.
02:53:18 As I understand the position, it is that uh if um he refused to allow Dr. Palmer to tell you uh then Dr. Palmer would tell you that
02:53:30 uh then Dr. Palmer would tell you that uh he was unable to provide information to you.
02:53:35 to you. Yes.
02:53:35 Yes. Of a kind which you ought to know. Yes. And that was a saddling effect. Yeah.
02:53:42 Thank you very much for attending for three days and for giving detailed and um thoughtful evidence uh and indeed at some points forceful evidence about your
02:53:54 some points forceful evidence about your time uh in the um SDS. Very grateful to you.
02:53:59 you. Thank you, sir. Um tomorrow we will resume at 10 with uh Steven Beiels. uh he will give evidence it's anticipated until about 4:00 or
02:54:11 it's anticipated until about 4:00 or perhaps a little before and at that time there will be a private hearing uh in which Helen Steel will give evidence about a matter of importance to the inquiry which she wishes to give
02:54:22 inquiry which she wishes to give privately
02:54:23 privately until tomorrow.