Former Detective Sergeant Stephen Beels (HN24), a cover officer and supervisor in the Special Demonstration Squad from around 2001, gives evidence on his handling of undercover officer Carlo Soracchi (HN104), including foreign trips that concealed romantic relationships with 'Lindsay' and Donna McClean. He repeatedly admits he was kept in the dark by senior managers about a wider pattern of undisclosed sexual relationships across the unit (HN14, HN15, HN16, HN18, HN60, HN91, John Dyn), conceding that supervision of officers abroad and reporting under RIPA authorisations were seriously inadequate.
00:28:30 Afternoon's
00:28:42 proceedings uh from now until about 4:00 uh will be transmitted over the live link after a 15minute delay. Those with mobile telephones may use them to uh
00:28:53 mobile telephones may use them to uh report what they hear in the hearing room, but only after 15 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're reporting. They may not be used for recording or photography. Yes. Thank you, sir. Um can we have on screen
00:29:06 Thank you, sir. Um can we have on screen please MPS09432?
00:29:11 Uh this isn't in um Mr. Beal's bundle but is in um HM127's bundle.
00:29:21 bundle. This is an office note titled um operational legends and it was written by DS Titty HN127.
00:29:32 by DS Titty HN127. It's dated the 10th of October 2000. So it's um around a year before you joined um the SDS, but it addresses the same sort of topic as the support roleplayer
00:29:44 sort of topic as the support roleplayer policy written by DS Gilbertson. Um, were you aware of this office note at the time you joined the SDS? Uh, no.
00:29:55 Uh, no. Um, looking at page two, paragraph five, please.
00:30:01 please. Um, thank you. section that says the the female antenna is a difficult creature to subdue and where as a rule they applaud uh monology
00:30:12 where as a rule they applaud uh monology I think monogamy they do possess the ability to unear doubts about perceived relationships and then this there have been recent operations eg touchy subject
00:30:23 been recent operations eg touchy subject and psycho dream where due to the lifestyle employed by the operatives their bonafidees were considered unimpeachable Uh the author of this note, DSTD accepts
00:30:35 Uh the author of this note, DSTD accepts that he was aware um that touchy subject who is DC Jenner HN15 and Psycho Dream DC Boiling HN14 had been involved in sexual activity whilst undercover at the
00:30:48 sexual activity whilst undercover at the time that he wrote this note. Um do you agree that um this suggests that these officers were engaged in sexual activity undercover and that it assisted their credibility in the field?
00:31:02 Yes. Um you at the bottom we can see it's circulated to HN58, HN53, NW and uh Bernard Greeny. Um did any of
00:31:16 NW and uh Bernard Greeny. Um did any of those um officers in particular perhaps HN53 and DS Greeny who were there when you were in the SDS ever mentioned to you that DC General DC Boiling had engaged in sexual activity undercover?
00:31:28 engaged in sexual activity undercover? No. Was it ever discussed even in opaque terms?
00:31:32 terms? Not to my recollection and it's the sort of thing I think I would remember. Um I want to look then now that can be taken down. Thank you. At um HN 104 um
00:31:43 taken down. Thank you. At um HN 104 um Carlos Saraki. Um you were his handler. Is that right? That's cover officer. Yes. Cover officer. Um how close were you with him? What was your relationship
00:31:54 with him? What was your relationship with him like? Um, it was I'm just trying to think back. I mean, it was obviously a professional relationship first and foremost.
00:32:05 relationship first and foremost. I'm trying to remember if I knew him before because obviously when you know somebody in a different work environment, you get get to know them differently. I can't remember if we were um I would knew him well professionally
00:32:18 um I would knew him well professionally mistakenly or whatever. I I I quite liked him. I thought he was a professional officer. um at that stage providing you know good intelligence on a on a on a group that
00:32:30 intelligence on a on a on a group that we were obviously interested in in terms of um potential public disorder. So um I had no reason to think um any other way to be honest.
00:32:41 way to be honest. Um did you think that you and he were able to communicate well regarding personal matters? [snorts] I thought so. Yes. Um did you discuss his home life with him?
00:32:51 him? I think I remember having discussions about yeah him, his wife, his son, thing to remember. Um went to visit his home
00:33:02 to remember. Um went to visit his home at least one, possibly two occasions. Were you aware at any stage that he was having uh marital difficulties? No.
00:33:12 No. Um,
00:33:14 Um, if you had been, would that have raised any concerns with you about any increased risk of sexual relationships undercover? Uh, yes.
00:33:25 Uh, yes. What would you have done about it? If he was having marital problems, issues, my obviously his welfare would be my concern.
00:33:36 be my concern. In [snorts] the normal course of events, I would be having a chat with him. See if I can give him, you know, any help personally. Beyond that,
00:33:47 any help personally. Beyond that, as you know, there was the um Ian Palmer psychiatrist available for any uh counseling issues. I would have um expected him to to take up that
00:34:00 expected him to to take up that opportunity um and
00:34:05 um and spoken to to um DCell.
00:34:10 Did you um talk to him about who his close associates in the field were? Uh I would have done. I can't remember who they were. Um did you ask him if he was close to
00:34:23 Um did you ask him if he was close to any particular women? No. [clears throat] Um, why not? When you say that, I mean, as if I would ask him about women as opposed to men.
00:34:34 ask him about women as opposed to men. [snorts]
00:34:34 [snorts] No. I mean, I would have asked him about his associates. They would been part of the the the day-to-day talking about his operation.
00:34:43 Um, I want to ask you about a trip to um Italy in December 2001. Um, your witness statement um doesn't address uh this trip at all, but you do say at paragraph
00:34:56 trip at all, but you do say at paragraph 245,
00:34:58 245, page 101 of your witness statement that you didn't have any knowledge of a sexual relationship with um Lindsay at any time. Is that right? Um,
00:35:10 Um, on this trip, um, HN 104 took a trip to Venice with Lindsay between the 17th and 19th of December in 2001. And you traveled with or at least
00:35:23 And you traveled with or at least separately um to, but you traveled on this trip to Italy as his cover officer um although you traveled to and stayed in Verona. [clears throat]
00:35:34 in Verona. [clears throat] Yeah.
00:35:35 Yeah. Do you recall this trip now? I do. Yes. Um when questioned um by council to the inquiry um Mr. Saraki couldn't remember whether he had lied to his managers uh
00:35:48 whether he had lied to his managers uh including his DS which was you about the reality of this trip or whether he told you the truth and you in turn deceived DCidell in order to to obtain authority
00:36:00 DCidell in order to to obtain authority for this travel. Um what was the purpose of the trip so far as you were concerned? Firstly, I had no suspicion whatsoever that this was anything other than an
00:36:11 that this was anything other than an operationally required trip. He he would brief me I either from memory or from what I've read that he needed to meet with some Italian activists.
00:36:24 with some Italian activists. Um I had no reason to disbelieve that wasn't the case. So I would seek authority for him to travel through normally the normal channel would be through um Mike Dell um and I if
00:36:38 through um Mike Dell um and I if approved I would then put the application in um and cover him as normal on this trip. I had no reason to doubt it was anything other than that. And so you got the information about the
00:36:51 And so you got the information about the reason and the necessity for this trip from HN 104. Yes. and solely from him as far as I can remember whether there was corroborative information that I
00:37:02 was corroborative information that I could have seen about a meeting of activists or a meeting of a particular group um which you know I would do if that information was available say there was a publication or he'd given me some
00:37:14 was a publication or he'd given me some sort of uh verification then I would obviously have that in my possession but I I can't remember if there was any other cooperation
00:37:25 other cooperation Um, if we look please at the travel authorization MPS0527780.
00:37:31 It's at tab B49 of the bundle. So
00:37:47 on page one we see that social socialist party activists will travel to Italy to extend links with their Italian counterparts and HN 104 is to accompany the activists.
00:37:59 the activists. Um this is DCI uh Dell's file note and it records um at the bottom that you will travel separately as cover from the 17th to the 19th of December 2001. And
00:38:12 17th to the 19th of December 2001. And if we go to page five please
00:38:17 there we can see expenses claims signed for by you and indeed DCIL. And if we look at page seven,
00:38:28 [clears throat]
00:38:32 uh that's the hotel bill. And then we I think over the page
00:38:42 can see that um your flights were to Verona. Do you see that? Yes. Um, and in terms of the reason you were accompanying HM104, was the general
00:38:54 were accompanying HM104, was the general idea that a cover officer would be on hand close by in the same country in case the UCO needed anything? Absolutely. Is that right? And and indeed in case anything went wrong? Indeed.
00:39:05 Indeed. Um, did HN 104 keep in contact with you during this trip? He in the normal course of events, he he would on at least a daily basis. I have no recollection that that he you know
00:39:18 no recollection that that he you know anything else happened. And would that be by phone? Yes.
00:39:23 Yes. Um never in person? No.
00:39:26 No. Um would you ever have seen him in person even if you didn't make contact with him?
00:39:32 with him? Uh I may have done if there was an event he was attending. I know I on a previous foreign trip I can't remember it might have been somewhere like Belgium or Holland he was attending an event um a
00:39:44 Holland he was attending an event um a march demonstration that I saw him then um so if there was an event that I could go as a member of the public observe I may have seen the presence if it was a private meeting of activists the
00:39:55 private meeting of activists the scenario that portrays it I wouldn't go anywhere near it now and we know on this trip according to Lindsay's evidence um that this was a romantic getaway so far as she is
00:40:06 romantic getaway so far as she is concerned and there was no contact at all with any activists. Um, does does that suggest that you didn't see him in person on this particular? I didn't see him in person at all. No,
00:40:17 I didn't see him in person at all. No, not on this trip. And is that a positive recollection or just your assumption given what you know now?
00:40:24 now? That I didn't see him that you didn't see him? [cough and clears throat] No, I he was No, he was meant to be in Venice. I was some distance away, which you know was for for operational
00:40:35 you know was for for operational reasons. Um I had no idea what his exact location was going to be. So there's no way I could monitor that and there were no public events that I was aware of that I could have attended to observe
00:40:46 that I could have attended to observe his presence. So no, I wouldn't wouldn't have seen him at all. Um so you didn't do any close close passes um on this particular occasion?
00:40:57 passes um on this particular occasion? No.
00:40:57 No. You know what I mean by a close pass? Yes. Um, uh, was it an attempt to see the UCO in person but not make direct contact such as walking past them in a public place and not acknowledge him?
00:41:08 public place and not acknowledge him? You didn't do any of those and and that was because you didn't know necessarily where he was going to be and there was no particular event to attend. Uh, not necessarily for that reason, a
00:41:21 Uh, not necessarily for that reason, a close pass, as he put it. It was not common tactic that we used. Um, if I knew where he was going to be, I might discreetly
00:41:32 discreetly keep, you know, an observation just to see he was there, just to see he looked safe. Um, but apart from that, we wouldn't have organized, you know, a pass by or anything or close pass. So, direct contact with him on this
00:41:45 So, direct contact with him on this particular trip was limited to a phone call.
00:41:48 call. Phone calls. Yes. And And do you recall if he phoned every day?
00:41:54 day? As I said earlier, I don't remember him not calling. So, it's more than likely the the protocol was he would call every day. If he hadn't, which I think I dealt with somewhere else where he didn't call, which I think was the Florence
00:42:05 call, which I think was the Florence trip. Um, you know, it was something I was conscious of and something I would I would deal with. Um, so my assumption is that he made contact each day. Yes. And do you recall the nature of those conversations? What was you what was he
00:42:17 conversations? What was you what was he telling you? It would be it would depend whether he was on his own. If he was on his own, he would just talk to me normally if he felt safe or there would have been a pretext
00:42:29 pretext uh that we would have established beforehand that would explain the conversation. I might be a work colleague or something of that nature, but I can't remember specifics. Um Lindsay gave some evidence that um on
00:42:43 Um Lindsay gave some evidence that um on this trip, which as I said, she um understood to be a purely romantic getaway for the two of them. they were um together the vast majority of the
00:42:54 um together the vast majority of the time. Um and uh it was essentially a holiday. They spent their time doing touristy type things. Um she gives some evidence that they split for for only a
00:43:06 evidence that they split for for only a matter of about 20 minutes or so in the Rialto Food Market. Um and so they were apart for some 20 minutes. And when she returned, she walked up to him from behind and noticed that he was on the
00:43:18 behind and noticed that he was on the phone and heard him saying something along the lines of, "Yeah, she's not here. She's pissed off with me, mate." And she believes um now following making inquiries of his um activist group that
00:43:30 inquiries of his um activist group that he was speaking to you as as his handler at that time. Do you recall any such conversation with um HM104 in which he used words to the effect of, "Yeah,
00:43:41 used words to the effect of, "Yeah, she's not here. She's pissed off with me, mate. In relation to Lindsay, I' have no remember no memory of that type of of conversation, but as I say, there may have been a pretext we'd agreed beforehand.
00:43:53 agreed beforehand. In terms of the wordings there, I don't I don't understand at all. And and I'm not quite sure where Lindsay would have got my name from either or the fact that I was a cover officer. I'm a bit
00:44:04 I was a cover officer. I'm a bit unclear.
00:44:04 unclear. Found out afterwards, but Okay. Oh, I see. Right. What she what she now believes is that he was talking to
00:44:11 to his handler, which was
00:44:13 which was Well, of course, it could have been anybody.
00:44:15 anybody. Um, what did you tell the SDS office or your DI and DCI about this trip? Um, afterwards, do you recall?
00:44:26 afterwards, do you recall? I can't recall. It would normally be a debrief one. I would normally sit down with 104, do a debrief. Who did he meet? What happened? What decisions were made, you know? Uh just a normal intelligence
00:44:39 you know? Uh just a normal intelligence gathering debrief. Do you recall what he told you? No, not now. No. Um did he provide you any particular intelligence arising out of this trip?
00:44:51 intelligence arising out of this trip? I can't recall. Um
00:44:55 Um if he did, what would have happened to it?
00:44:57 it? It would have been reported in a an update. Um given we know now uh certainly on Lindsay's evidence that and accepted I think by um HM104 this was a
00:45:11 accepted I think by um HM104 this was a romantic getaway but of a couple and he was not doing any reporting or um observing of activists or attending um any type of um activist events. Um
00:45:25 any type of um activist events. Um what's what's your view now on on how he was able to pull the wool? so firmly over your eyes if if it's right that you didn't know anything about it. Yeah. Well, my initial reaction, well,
00:45:37 Yeah. Well, my initial reaction, well, apart from once I've got over the um anger and upset of what had happened, um it was acute embarrassment,
00:45:48 it was acute embarrassment, professionally and personally. Um the fact that, you know, obviously I'd been deceived, that's not the most important thing, of course. Um
00:46:00 important thing, of course. Um it it shocked me to be honest. Was the supervision of UCOs abroad something of a blind spot amongst um SDS management?
00:46:11 management? [clears throat] Well, obviously on this particular case, I would say yes, but I'd
00:46:18 I'd done other um
00:46:23 um overseas visits that had gone very successfully, but occasionally with incident that I had to deal with um
00:46:34 deal with um but not with any other issues like this as far as I'm aware. The supervision is effectively involved complete trust in the UCO didn't it
00:46:46 complete trust in the UCO didn't it say complete trust but it was I think as I said this morning that the the trust was yes was a big element of it but it wasn't the only element there there would have been um corroboration as best
00:46:58 would have been um corroboration as best as possible and obviously on this occasion I'm not aware what corroboration there was for his reason for the trip but normally there would some other attendant reporting that we
00:47:11 some other attendant reporting that we might have um corroborated on. On this particular occasion, up until this stage, I had no reason to suspect that 104 was lying
00:47:24 suspect that 104 was lying and worse. Um, and the fact that he did, I feel
00:47:30 I feel deeply embarrassed, deeply disappointed, and you know, but I'm also conscious that it's not, you know, I'm not the real victim here. Um, if your management um or supervision
00:47:43 Um, if your management um or supervision of him had been more intrusive, um, he could have been discovered in this relationship on this trip, couldn't he? If I'd put surveillance on him. Yes. Um
00:47:54 If I'd put surveillance on him. Yes. Um because one couldn't fail to notice that this was a romantic trip if if if he'd actually been seen in the under surveillance. Yes. Um were you aware of um HM104's living
00:48:07 Um were you aware of um HM104's living arrangements at the time that you were his handler and particularly in the period of 2002 to 2004. Forgive me before we come to that just deal with a topic arising out of the
00:48:19 deal with a topic arising out of the trip to Venice. Um you see the date of the uh application for the trip which is the 30th of November. That was the document you were shown first. Yes.
00:48:30 Yes. Um you your evidence at the beginning this morning was that you thought you might have joined the SDS as late as January 2002. That plainly can't be right to
00:48:40 right to No. No. I mean and I wasn't sure. I just know it was post 911. Um and I I sus I felt it was something like 2 or 3 months after that but you know I
00:48:53 2 or 3 months after that but you know I could be wrong. On any view your trip out to uh Verona in support of HN 104 in Venice uh would have been your first foreign trip for
00:49:05 have been your first foreign trip for the SDS.
00:49:06 the SDS. Yes. True. and probably the first event of any incident.
00:49:14 incident. Sorry, the first event which was in any way noteworthy. Probably sir. Yes. Yes.
00:49:32 Had you known uh Carlos Rachi HN 104 professionally or personally before you joined the SDS?
00:49:45 I've tried to think about that whether you know obviously um I don't think so. I think the first time I met him was I think I said my statement when I met group of the UCOs at 53's house I think.
00:50:00 group of the UCOs at 53's house I think. Yes.
00:50:01 Yes. Um I don't recall if I did it might have been you know socially or something I our paths might have crossed but I didn't know him that well as far as I can recall.
00:50:12 can recall. So if you had known him, it would have been as a a professional colleague but a a not a close one. Exactly. So yes, very thank you.
00:50:24 Exactly. So yes, very thank you. Thank you, sir. Um I was asking whether you were aware of HN 104's living arrangements at the time. You were his hander in particular in between 2002 and 2004.
00:50:36 2004. I would have known. Yes, I would have. Yeah, obviously. And did you know if he was living alone or with someone else? Uh to my recollection he was alone.
00:50:49 Um did you discuss his um cover accommodation with him? I I would have done. Yes. Um did you ask if he was living with anyone?
00:50:58 anyone? I can't recall. Um and was it your responsibility to monitor his cover accommodation as his handler?
00:51:08 handler? Uh partly
00:51:12 Uh partly um in terms of the mechanics, the logistics we had I think and I can't remember if it was at this stage but we did have Matt Simons as a
00:51:23 stage but we did have Matt Simons as a logistics officer who dealt with all the uh as I say the mechanics and logistics of of properties, cars, that type of thing. If he was imposed then he would
00:51:35 thing. If he was imposed then he would have dealt with that. Otherwise uh HM53 was normally uh responsible for the for
00:51:44 the for the admin side of property and that type of thing.
00:51:48 of thing. Um in your witness statement you say at paragraph 110 page 44 that as cover officers we would visit the UCO's cover addresses. Is that right?
00:52:01 addresses. Is that right? No. Sorry. Did I say that? You did. Yeah. Paragraph. Visit the cover. Sorry. Visit their address. Well, their cover address. Yeah. We would visit the UCO's cover addresses.
00:52:13 visit the UCO's cover addresses. Okay. That's a mistake. Operational security would dictate. We we we wouldn't normally. We might, if we had reason to, we might observe. Again, it
00:52:24 reason to, we might observe. Again, it was in the normal course of events, the logistics officer would be the one who would know. The reason for that was quite he had a covert identity. So he
00:52:35 quite he had a covert identity. So he was able to um you know if he had to visit the accommodation to to help or to check on anything he had a covert identity if there was any security issues.
00:52:45 issues. So you didn't um visit HM4 cover accommodation. No. If that was said in the statement then it's a mistake. Sorry.
00:52:56 Yeah. It's on screen. Paragraph 110 says, "As cover officers, we would visit the UCO's cover addresses or the surrounding area to understand the environment they were going to be living in
00:53:06 in and to do a risk assessment." I think that was too precise. When I say visit the address, we'd visit the [snorts]
00:53:12 [snorts] the surrounding area just to to get a feel for the area. We would have done checks on who the neighbors were, that type of thing, in case there was any security issues. So,
00:53:23 security issues. So, I've written that in in a very unclear way. we visit the address environment, not the actual address because there will be security issues around that. Um, were you aware that prior to
00:53:34 Um, were you aware that prior to September 2002, HM 104 had been sharing accommodation with HN77?
00:53:43 I can't recall. So, this was when, sorry, 2002. Prior to September 2002, I can't recall that now. Um, is that something that all the
00:53:55 Um, is that something that all the management all managers in and supervisors in the SDS office would know?
00:54:00 know? I think so. Yeah. Well, yes, they would do. Sorry. Um, if you had known, would you have had any concerns about that type of arrangement? 77 was I think I known
00:54:16 um she was cenamed fever pitch. Um, yes, I would. Yes. Um,
00:54:24 Um, do you recall any discussions um about HM104's accommodation arrangements with HN77 changing in September 2002
00:54:36 HN77 changing in September 2002 or thereabouts? I'm struggling to remember to be honest. Um, no.
00:54:43 Um, there's a a file note MPS 0010203.
00:54:51 It's um not in Mr. Beiel's bundle, sir, but it is in HN 104's bundle at tab B61. It's a file note dated the 13th of September 2002
00:55:03 September 2002 and it refers to Craggy Island which is Mr. Saraki um discussion of his August note. Three issues discussed yesterday at West CI
00:55:14 issues discussed yesterday at West CI which is Cravy Island HM104. SB which is you I think Steve Fields um MD which is DCI Dell
00:55:23 DCI Dell moving in with weary Alfred linked to above moving out of FP which is fever pitch HN7's flat. So, and we see from at the bottom
00:55:35 flat. So, and we see from at the bottom that you were copied in um along with other um managers from the office. Um does that jog your memory at all?
00:55:48 does that jog your memory at all? No. I saw this in recent evidence and it was it was it was new to to my memory. So, you don't recall what the discussions were at that time? I can't, I'm afraid. Did anyone ever suggest to you that HN77 may have been involved in a relationship
00:56:00 may have been involved in a relationship with an activist? No.
00:56:04 No. Um, what inquiries did you make that you can recall about the reason that HM 104 was moving and who he was moving in with?
00:56:20 I'm just reading this again to try and refresh my memory. Um, and as strange as it may seem, I can't recall this at all. Um, so you don't know if you inquired
00:56:32 Um, so you don't know if you inquired why he was why he was moving and who he was moving in with? No.
00:56:38 No. Um, and I take it from your previous answers, you didn't visit his new cover address, but you may have visited the surrounding area. Yes.
00:56:46 Yes. Um,
00:56:48 Um, are you that can be taken down? Thank you.
00:56:51 you. Um, are you now aware that HN 104 started a relationship with Donna McClean um at the end of September 2002? And Donna McClean says that they were living together before Christmas 2002
00:57:03 living together before Christmas 2002 and that they lived together until May 2004
00:57:08 2004 only from the from what's been said at the inquiry. Yes. You didn't know at the time? No, I didn't have no knowledge at all. And so the reason HN 104 was no longer going to be sharing his accommodation with HN77 was because he was moving in
00:57:20 with HN77 was because he was moving in with Donna McClean. Um
00:57:25 Um do you recall any discussion amongst managers about HM 104's living arrangements at this time? I can't remember now. So um can we just look at at one more
00:57:36 um can we just look at at one more document? It's MPS0527068.
00:57:41 Again, this isn't in Mr. Bill's bundle, but it is in um HN52's bundle.
00:57:49 Uh this is a rent book that relates to the property that HN 104 shared with Donna McClean in in 2003.
00:58:01 And on the front we can see um the details
00:58:07 details uh Donna McClean as um rent collector and landlord uh next to the word landlord, Miss D. McClean. And then above we see tenant
00:58:19 McClean. And then above we see tenant Carlo Ner which is HN 104's cover name. Um the the address is in Elgen Avenue. Um, does that ring a bell as the
00:58:30 Um, does that ring a bell as the location of HM 104's cover accommodation? Elgen Avenue. It is does sound familiar, but I'm struggling to remember whether it's because I know Elgen Avenue or it's
00:58:42 it's because I know Elgen Avenue or it's from this. I haven't seen this document, so it's not from that. No. Um, it
00:58:46 Um, it um I think it would help if he were to have a hard copy of the document. Um, I understood one has been prepared, but if it hasn't been, uh, he can, um, have mine.
00:58:59 [clears throat]
00:59:03 There might be one somewhere on his desk, but thank you, sir.
00:59:24 There's no need to go beyond. Is it that page now up to the page that she's reached?
00:59:29 reached? Yes.
00:59:29 Yes. Um you're going to be asked about those but but not about what comes after I think.
00:59:33 think. Um if we could look at page six please as well.
00:59:41 So here we can see um and we can zoom in on the screen. Thank you. Um we can see um monthly entries from January 2003 to September 2003.
00:59:55 from January 2003 to September 2003. And in the middle column we can see the figure of um 685 pounds. And next to it we have um initials DMC,
01:00:07 initials DMC, Donna McClean, what look like the initials of Donna McClean. And then there are redacted initials of uh the landlord. Um have have you seen this document before? Did you see it at the
01:00:19 document before? Did you see it at the time?
01:00:19 time? No.
01:00:21 No. Uh are you sure about that? I don't recall this document specifically. I don't recall seeing any documents of this nature at all.
01:00:32 documents of this nature at all. Um, being careful of anonymity, do you know who would have been responsible for a document like this? Uh, normally a document of this kind
01:00:43 Uh, normally a document of this kind would be part of the logistics officer I spoke about earlier, Matt Simons. um part of his role in terms of the logistics, the documentation.
01:00:56 logistics, the documentation. So provided he was in office at the time and again I can't remember that would normally be his responsibility. So it would have come from the SDS back office just not necessarily from Yes. And if Matt Simons hadn't it would
01:01:08 Yes. And if Matt Simons hadn't it would normally be HM53 who was responsible for all the auditing of the unit.
01:01:19 of the unit. So, there's no real reason I would have been shown or seen the document. Um, what's your understanding of what Donna McCann's connection to the
01:01:30 Donna McCann's connection to the property is from this? Well, before seeing this or if you'd seen this document, I haven't seen But if you if you'd seen it, what would your understanding have been about Donna
01:01:43 your understanding have been about Donna McClean's connection to the property?
01:01:49 I [clears throat] don't think I knew at the time who Don McClean was. So, it would just been the landlord's name. Is that correct? Landlord. If we go back to Oh, I see. She's sharing
01:02:00 Oh, I see. She's sharing page two.
01:02:05 I see what you're saying. Yeah. She's described as rent collector. Rent collector and the landlord is someone different underneath the privacy reduction which it says landlord.
01:02:17 So the rent collector would be
01:02:22 whoever they're collecting the rent from.
01:02:24 from. Forgive me. The as I understand the document, the rent collector is either the landlord whose initials and uh have been redacted for to protect his privacy
01:02:37 been redacted for to protect his privacy or Donna Mlan. So there are two rent collectors named
01:02:46 Okay. Would this have prompted you to question whether um Carlos Saraki was living with someone in the sense of being a couple?
01:02:58 someone in the sense of being a couple? It would certainly be something looking at it now that that would been worthy of checking. Yes. Um and so would you if you'd seen this document, would it have prompted you to check who Miss McClean was?
01:03:10 check who Miss McClean was? I would have asked um 104. Yes. Um, and would you have carried out any other independent checks into who she was
01:03:20 was or would you have taken it on trust whatever HM 104? If if if I'd seen that and and it had raised um red flag for instance, yes, I would have done which wouldn't have been
01:03:31 would have done which wouldn't have been difficult just to do check out who she was.
01:03:34 was. Um, we saw that the figure of £685 was recorded in the rent book. What do do you understand that to represent? Would it have been rent alone or a composite of rent and expenses?
01:03:46 of rent and expenses? I have no idea. Page six.
01:03:54 This is the monthly rent well deposit followed by monthly payments.
01:04:01 Again, it's not a document I'm aware of. It's not um again it may be um this was dealt with by the logistics
01:04:12 um this was dealt with by the logistics officer or by HM53. I'm sure HM53 I know maintained a meticulous records. So I would it would be my guess that he would
01:04:24 would it would be my guess that he would know what this is. So in terms of the payment of expenses for HM 104's cover accommodation, you wouldn't have been involved in that as his cover officer. It would have been either the DI or the
01:04:38 It would have been either the DI or the logistics officer um Matthew Simons in the back office. Is that right? In the normal course of events, yes. And if there were any suspicions um then obviously that would have been
01:04:49 um then obviously that would have been raised with me. But as far as I can recall, and I think I would recall, there no suspicions were reported to me. Um,
01:05:01 Um, I'd like to look at another um trip abroad, please, in relation to HN 104. Um, a a trip again to Italy, um, to
01:05:12 Um, a a trip again to Italy, um, to Bologna with Donna McClean. um you were um the cover officer for um HN 104 on this particular trip. Um do
01:05:24 HN 104 on this particular trip. Um do you recall it now? This was mentioned before and I've I've struggled to remember going to Bologna. So
01:05:33 So I would ask if there's a travel authority or anything that the travel authorization uh is at MPS 0011603 at tab B61 of the bundle. So it's dated
01:05:47 at tab B61 of the bundle. So it's dated the 31st of January 2003
01:05:53 and it in fact provides authority to travel to Florence. Um but given the date um and it provides authority to travel
01:06:05 um and it provides authority to travel uh between the 7th and the 10th of February
01:06:10 February um which we can see at the bottom there DSPs will travel separately in support. Um, Donna Mlan has given evidence about a trip to Bologna for what she thought
01:06:21 a trip to Bologna for what she thought was HM 104's 32nd birthday and Valentine's Day in February 2003.
01:06:32 Um, sorry. Do you think therefore that this travel authority was for that trip? As I say, I struggled to remember a trip
01:06:44 As I say, I struggled to remember a trip to Bologna itself. Um, I have been to Bologna and as far as I was aware, it was the first time I've been since uh this date. Um, I did go to Florence. I
01:06:56 this date. Um, I did go to Florence. I remember that. Um, covering um, Craggy Island. Um, but [clears throat] was that in February 2003? I I'm
01:07:07 was that in February 2003? I I'm assuming so, but by the records, I've I've got no personal record. Did any other DS accompany you on that trip
01:07:15 trip to Florence? I remember traveling with Bernie Greeny.
01:07:23 Um
01:07:30 um did HMN 104 keep in contact um with you during that trip? I remember this because there was a loss of contact. Um
01:07:40 Um I think he missed either one or two of his daily calls. So we were obviously concerned. Um
01:07:51 I think we reported it back to the office that 104 was not responded. Um but by the time we'd
01:08:04 but by the time we'd escalated it any further, he'd uh he'd reconnected with us if you like and and apologized for not um being able to but because he was in a difficult
01:08:15 to but because he was in a difficult position with his activists something of that nature. So um there was you know obviously from our own operational security reasons we were concerned and
01:08:27 security reasons we were concerned and it was unusual not to be contacted by a UCO who was abroad. So that's why I sort of remember it now. Um but as I say before we escalated any further it was
01:08:39 before we escalated any further it was he made remade contact apologized and explained that gave us what probably was a story about um what he'd been doing
01:08:50 a story about um what he'd been doing and how he couldn't communicate with us. Did you see him at all um in person by sight on this trip that you recall in Florence?
01:09:01 No, I can't recall. So it's pro it's unlikely.
01:09:05 unlikely. Um so direct contact was again very limited with him. Yeah.
01:09:10 Yeah. Um
01:09:14 what was he telling you when he when he called? Do you recall? Other than that he
01:09:18 he I tried my brain to try and remember but I can't recall you know we need all I have to say is we were satisfied with with the explanation at the time. I was
01:09:29 with the explanation at the time. I was with Bernie and you know we're both aware of it. We were working together. So we'd obviously discussed it. What should we do here? Um and by the time we say we contact the
01:09:41 and by the time we say we contact the office as part of the protocol and then he he he remade contact so it was left at that. Um we know from Donna McClean's
01:09:52 at that. Um we know from Donna McClean's evidence um that uh again this trip was essentially a romantic one as far as she was concerned. Um they stayed in a five-star hotel. They ordered room
01:10:03 five-star hotel. They ordered room service. uh he had arranged everything and they went sightseeing and to a football match and um it was to celebrate um what he said was his 32nd
01:10:14 celebrate um what he said was his 32nd birthday and um for Valentine's Day. Um had there been more direct contact between you and indeed um DS Greeny and
01:10:25 between you and indeed um DS Greeny and HN 104 during this trip in terms of more intrusive supervision. It's likely that that relationship would have been discovered on this trip, isn't it? if we'd put surveillance on him. Yes.
01:10:38 if we'd put surveillance on him. Yes. Um, did he provide you with any intelligence arising out of this trip? Uh, that I can't remember. I mean, there would normally be a debrief report.
01:10:51 would normally be a debrief report. Um, we're not aware of one. Um, would a lack of intelligence have caused you to question the nature of this trip, do you think?
01:10:58 think? Yes. Yes. I would fully expect a debrief when he got back to the UK. Um, in which you say he must have lied to you.
01:11:07 to you. He's obviously lied consistently. Yes. Um, but is this again another example of of supervision abroad being something of a blind spot amongst SDS management? It's very handsoff trusting the ECO,
01:11:19 It's very handsoff trusting the ECO, isn't it?
01:11:21 isn't it? I think it does demonstrate. Yes. There are challenge, you know, serious challenges when an officer is operating abroad.
01:11:29 abroad. I will say that I've done a number of um covers of trips abroad and and and in some in some very difficult circumstances
01:11:40 circumstances without a problem operating on this system. But obviously the system didn't work on this occasion. So you I would need I would if I went
01:11:51 So you I would need I would if I went back with hindsight I would have to look at what we could put in place to provide that sort of corroboration. Um I'd like to move on then to another
01:12:04 Um I'd like to move on then to another topic involving Mr. Saraki. Um he his evidence to the inquiry on the 3rd of March was that he disclosed to DCIDell um both of his um relationships uh
01:12:17 um both of his um relationships uh undercover and he had told DCIL that he'd been in a relationship uh with Donna McClean and lived with her but the relationship was over which he which was
01:12:29 relationship was over which he which was a lie he he says um and he recalls this being at the end of uh 2003 um DCI Dell in his witness statement to the inquiry, we don't need to bring it
01:12:40 the inquiry, we don't need to bring it up, but for reference, it's MPS0749596,
01:12:45 paragraph 232A on page 163. Um says this, uh I accept that um CS uh did tell me on one occasion that he had
01:12:57 did tell me on one occasion that he had entered into a sexual relationship whilst undercover. I cannot recall exactly when he told me this, whether it was at the end of 2003 or some other time. He told me that the relationshipship was with a woman who
01:13:08 relationshipship was with a woman who was not an activist. He did not tell me that he had been in any other sexual relationships during his deployment. Um, did DCI Dell tell you that HM104 had
01:13:19 Um, did DCI Dell tell you that HM104 had disclosed to him that HM 104 had been in a relationship or relationships whilst he was undercover? No. [snorts] Um,
01:13:29 Um, why do you think that was as as HN 10
01:13:40 Okay. Okay. Well, let me let me ask and see if he can help. Um,
01:13:50 okay. Well, let me let me ask the question. Um, do you do you recall any conversation with DCell about um Carlos Iraqi disclosing to him a relationship?
01:14:01 Iraqi disclosing to him a relationship? No.
01:14:02 No. None at all. Now let's go. Um
01:14:04 Um I I think so to jog the memory if it's capable of being jogged. DCell's evidence was that this took place um
01:14:15 either uh at the end of uh 2001 or very early 2002 not 2003.
01:14:23 not 2003. Thank you sir. So still within this witness's period of time on the but it would be near near to the beginning of it rather than a little further in. Does that help at all, Mr. Spiels?
01:14:33 Spiels? Um, not in terms of recall. Um, because I'm
01:14:38 I'm I I know Mike never discussed this with me. So,
01:14:43 me. So, would you have expected him to have told you as HM104's cover officer? Um, I thought about this obviously a lot because, you know, I have a good relationship with Mike. I can only assess
01:14:55 assess that he for reasons of perhaps confidentiality between the two um he felt he couldn't breach that confidentiality and tell me um it's
01:15:06 confidentiality and tell me um it's obviously something I would as a cover officer
01:15:10 officer obviously want to know would be important in any sort of future observation or awareness. Um, I listened to Mike's evidence and I
01:15:23 I listened to Mike's evidence and I don't think that question was asked. So, you know, I'd be interested in what the answer was. I suspect knowing Mike's, you know, moral standing that he would have felt, you know, he's constrained by
01:15:35 have felt, you know, he's constrained by confidentiality. That's all I can think. Um, what would you have done if he had told you
01:15:41 told you that he was having an affair? He'd been told by HM 104 that he'd had sexual relationship undercover. Well, I would have been horrified on a
01:15:53 Well, I would have been horrified on a number of levels. I mean, it was I've seen I've heard the evidence, so I've seen how Mike dealt with it. I'm not sure if I would have dealt with it in the same way. What would you have expected him to do?
01:16:04 What would you have expected him to do? Um well I came back to the point I made earlier and I don't think it's a trivial one is that the officer was um subject to developed vetting. This was and and affairs
01:16:18 This was and and affairs put you in a position of vulnerability to blackmail and that would um almost automatically withdraw your vetting. If his vetting was withdrawn [clears throat] he'd be no longer employed in special
01:16:29 he'd be no longer employed in special branch.
01:16:30 branch. Um, would you have expected him to have removed HN 104 from his deployment?
01:16:40 It's difficult. You're asking me for my view and I've I've got huge amount of respect for for Mr. Dell, but I may have done things differently. Yes. And indeed removed him from the SDS.
01:16:52 And indeed removed him from the SDS. I think so. Yes. Um, he he wasn't [snorts] um removed. Uh DCI Dell um said in his witness statement that he instructed HM104 to
01:17:04 statement that he instructed HM104 to end the relationship immediately and that as long as he did so, he'd be allowed to remain on the unit. And he also says that he didn't remove him from the unit because um it was likely
01:17:17 the unit because um it was likely um that the relationship had not endangered his operational security and was more in the nature of an ill-advised extrammarital affair unconnected with his deployment. Um, and he says that HM104 didn't tell
01:17:30 Um, and he says that HM104 didn't tell him he was having or had been in a relationship with an activist and that if he had told him that, he would have removed him from the unit. Um,
01:17:41 if it suggested that the way that DCI dealt with this um, shows that he did in fact countenance improper behavior making a distinction between it being with an activist and a non-activist.
01:17:53 with an activist and a non-activist. Would you accept that? I would accept if it was with a non-activist I I that would still be red flag to me. Uh what action I would have taken.
01:18:05 would have taken. Obviously this is a would in danger getting into a private matter between 104 and his wife. Um, so it would be difficult to to be seen as intruding
01:18:16 difficult to to be seen as intruding into that and you know other officers may have marital problems but if it's not encroached onto his operation um
01:18:28 um you know it's still I still would come back to the vetting issue. We knew in the branch if we had affairs you know and they it was made known we would we would be out. It's contrary also to
01:18:40 would be out. It's contrary also to DCI's express direction on prohibiting sexual relationships whilst undercover, isn't it?
01:18:45 isn't it? Yes.
01:18:46 Yes. Um, in those circumstances, would you agree that your um assessment of DCIL having a strong moral comp moral compass was mistaken? No, I think he he has a strong moral
01:18:58 No, I think he he has a strong moral compass.
01:19:00 compass. These moral issues are never straightforward, are they? Um he I'm sure he dealt with it within that moral compass, but he probably dealt with it in a way some of us would would
01:19:12 with it in a way some of us would would have done differently. [clears throat] Um HN 104 says that he started a relationship with his current partner in 2005.
01:19:21 2005. Um were you aware of that relationship at the time? No.
01:19:25 No. Um did you did you hear anything about it from DCIDell? No. Um, HM104 uh said in evidence that he told DCI Flood in 2006 and then later told HN72
01:19:40 Flood in 2006 and then later told HN72 and he says DCI Flood gave him permission to tell his partner who he really was. Um, did DCI Flood or HN72 ever tell you that HN 104 had admitted
01:19:52 ever tell you that HN 104 had admitted to a relationship or that they had given him permission to disclose his real identity? No. Would you have expected them to as you were his coverer? Yes. Um
01:20:03 Um I seem to be kept in the dark a lot which may be you know a fault of my own but for whatever reason I didn't know. Um so you didn't know anything about um
01:20:14 Um so you didn't know anything about um that at the time? No.
01:20:18 Uh I want to move on please to uh DC boiling HN um 14. We know that on the 12th of December uh 2000, so before your
01:20:31 12th of December uh 2000, so before your time on the SDS, but not too far before, um Rosa, a woman who DC Boiling had had a sexual relationship with undercover, called the SDS um uh office on its
01:20:43 called the SDS um uh office on its office or duty number four times. Um now as I said it's before um your time but HN1 129DS wars evidence um indicates
01:20:54 HN1 129DS wars evidence um indicates that the calls to the office by Rosa alerted him to the fact of that relationship between DC Boiling and Rosa and that he subsequently shared um this information with SDS managers whose
01:21:07 information with SDS managers whose exact identities he can no longer recall. Um on your arrival in the SDS after this time sometime around October uh 2001 did you become aware of this
01:21:19 uh 2001 did you become aware of this relationship from any of the managers in the SDS like for example DS Greeny or HN53?
01:21:27 HN53? No I have no recollections. It would have been relevant information for any DS or supervisor or manager to know about, wouldn't it? That um both that uh
01:21:39 about, wouldn't it? That um both that uh DS DC Boiling had had a relationship um sexual relationship undercover and that his um former partner was trying to discover him and had rung the SDS
01:21:50 discover him and had rung the SDS office.
01:21:51 office. Yes.
01:21:52 Yes. Um and it would have been relevant information to know from a welfare perspective for your management of your UCOs to know that the risk the acknowledged risk of a sexual relationship had indeed eventuated in
01:22:04 relationship had indeed eventuated in the recent past. I agree. Yes. Um
01:22:10 um in order that you could supervise your UCOs in that knowledge. Indeed. Yes. Um would that knowledge have affected the way you supervised your UCOs? it
01:22:21 the way you supervised your UCOs? it would have raised my awareness obviously especially at an early stage when I'm you know new myself and just sort of finding my way um it it would have been very useful yes
01:22:32 very useful yes and it would have been important um information to know from an operational security perspective wouldn't it absolutely because this was quite a serious um
01:22:43 because this was quite a serious um breach or risk to operational sec security security widely known about at the time in the SDS It was, but I can't recall it, I'm afraid. I mean, again, it may be
01:22:55 afraid. I mean, again, it may be I was I was new. I was finding my feet. There was a lot going on. I mean, this might be something that was spoken about, but I wasn't clear what it was. I I can't recall. But um the SDS office moved um premises in
01:23:09 um the SDS office moved um premises in July 2002. So sometime uh some months after you joined um the SDS, the inquiry understands that that was prompted because um Rosa had discovered it
01:23:22 because um Rosa had discovered it essentially. Um were you aware of that at the time?
01:23:29 My memory was that we were due to move office uh whether it was operational security reasons but I can't remember what I mean
01:23:41 reasons but I can't remember what I mean certainly Rosa doesn't ring a bell as to why I thought this was perhaps just a you know every so many years we move offices for operational security reasons and I assumed that was the case whether
01:23:53 and I assumed that was the case whether I was being kept in the dark for um a reason perhaps because I was new Uh, I don't know. Um, HN16,
01:24:04 Um, HN16, um, James Thompson. Um, he was on the unit, um, deployed, uh, when you joined. He was withdrawn from the field in March 2002. Do you
01:24:16 from the field in March 2002. Do you recall him? I Yeah, I' I've thought back. I remember seeing him in the office once, possibly twice, but I did, you know, you weren't his cover officer. No. And then, you know, it's all
01:24:27 No. And then, you know, it's all unfamiliar to me. Um, at the time, did you know or have any suspicion about um him engaging in deceitful sexual relationships with women we're calling Sara or Ellie in his
01:24:39 women we're calling Sara or Ellie in his coverage?
01:24:39 coverage? Not specifics. I just knew there were serious questions about his deployment. And I knew that I think Mike and HM53
01:24:52 And I knew that I think Mike and HM53 were dealing with what I understood to be some very sensitive issues around [clears throat] his deployment, but that he was effectively off the unit by that
01:25:04 he was effectively off the unit by that stage. So, you know, I knew very little. He was I say I think I saw him in the office once or twice and I'm presuming he was just, you know, clearing up.
01:25:16 clearing up. That's that's all I can remember. Um, if we look please at MPS0719770.
01:25:23 This is DCI Dell's file note of the [clears throat] 22nd of March 2002 and it records an assessment of risk attached to the conclusion of HN16's
01:25:37 attached to the conclusion of HN16's um operation including modification of his exit strategy following the discovery of irregularities in the conduct of his operation. Um do you think you would have seen or were aware
01:25:49 think you would have seen or were aware of this file note at the time in March 2002? I don't recall it. I don't recall the circumstances either. Um,
01:25:59 Um, did you know that DCI Dell in HN53 had suspicions that Thompson had indeed engaged in sexual relationships undercover? Not that was told to me at the time. No.
01:26:11 Not that was told to me at the time. No. Um,
01:26:13 Um, those suspicions weren't further investigated. Um, what's your view about that now? Should they have been my view? Um I mean obviously I'm not
01:26:24 my view? Um I mean obviously I'm not familiar with the the exact circumstances. Yeah. But my initial reaction would be yes, but I obviously um was not involved with that. Does it call into question the view that
01:26:36 Does it call into question the view that sexual relationships were not tolerated by this time by the time you were in the SDS? And in fact they were. It
01:26:45 It tolerated. I'm not don't think they were tolerated. I think those happened. But as I come back to, you know, Mike's instructions were were quite clear.
01:26:56 instructions were were quite clear. Doesn't a failure to investigate those types of suspicions and con and institute disciplinary action constitute a toleration of the relationships? It could be seen that way. Yes.
01:27:09 It could be seen that way. Yes. um
01:27:16 disciplinary action wasn't taken against um Mr. Thompson. Um was the operational security of the unit seen as paramount over over pursuing any
01:27:28 seen as paramount over over pursuing any type of disciplinary action against an officer for this type of sexual misconduct? I wouldn't say it was paramount. It was it was you know a a major consideration.
01:27:39 it was you know a a major consideration. It took priority over disciplining an officer for for undertaking sexual relationships undercover. I don't know. I mean that's that's more uh I would say man managerial position.
01:27:52 uh I would say man managerial position. Um can we look at please MPS0719722?
01:27:58 This is um in HN53's bundle. It's a file note of the 5th of July 2002 and it's um HN53's file note.
01:28:11 [clears throat and cough]
01:28:13 Um this records an overview and summary of inquiries into James Thompson's uh activities during the course of his SDS operation. As you see from paragraph one
01:28:25 operation. As you see from paragraph one at the top there, [snorts] um it flagged up grave concerns about a number of different aspects of of his deployment. Um including the quality and quantity of
01:28:36 Um including the quality and quantity of his reporting, unauthorized travel, uh removing pages from his passport, creating a second false identity in the name of a deceased child, uh obtaining
01:28:47 name of a deceased child, uh obtaining unauthorized passports and driving licenses, and possible undeclared income. But importantly, it also um detailed the high volume of calls to
01:28:58 detailed the high volume of calls to Sara, Ellie, and Wendy. And
01:29:03 And um [clears throat] recorded HN16's privately expressed concerns to HM1 that the officer's inquiries related to the fact that he had established relationships whilst in the field. And there were also doubts about
01:29:14 there were also doubts about [clears throat] all aspects of Operation Lime. Do you think you were copied into this report? No.
01:29:20 No. Um, were you aware of any of its contents perhaps from discussions with HN53 or DS Greeny or anyone else in the SDS office? No, as far as I can remember, this was
01:29:32 No, as far as I can remember, this was obviously they were dealing with sensitive issues. Um and I think 53 uh Bernie Greeny and Mike Dell would have kept that with within themselves
01:29:45 have kept that with within themselves rather than um at that stage anyway bring bring me into it for for some reason.
01:29:50 reason. But wasn't weren't these suspicions particularly in relation to aspects such as um the suspicion of relationships whilst in the field relevant to all supervisors and managers in the SDS
01:30:01 supervisors and managers in the SDS office.
01:30:01 office. Absolutely. So they should have brought you in, shouldn't they? some point there should have been yeah some sort of conversation. All I knew was that yeah there was there was a lot of inquiry, a lot of investigation going
01:30:13 of inquiry, a lot of investigation going on to uh Thompson's operation and you know there were serious concerns. The specifics weren't weren't discussed with
01:30:24 specifics weren't weren't discussed with me.
01:30:25 me. Um that can be taken down now. Thank you. Um HN5 John Dyn and Helen Steel please. I'd like to ask you about that. Um, what did you know um during your
01:30:37 Um, what did you know um during your time of the SDS of Helen Steel's search for John Dyn and the steps being taken as part of Operation Muscat? Would you have known the details of that? I just only in general details perhaps
01:30:49 I just only in general details perhaps conversation, but we knew it happened and I seem to think at some stage 53 may have gone out to New Zealand. So, we
01:31:00 have gone out to New Zealand. So, we know that Helen Steele visited um John Dyne's genuine parents in London in 1995. And we know that her first visit to New Zealand was 1998 and her second
01:31:11 to New Zealand was 1998 and her second visit was December 2002 to February uh 2003. So, some of that obviously predates your time in the SDS and the latter um visit to New Zealand was
01:31:23 latter um visit to New Zealand was during your time of the SDS. Um, what did you know about the specifics of of her search for for John Dyn? I didn't know any specifics. I knew John
01:31:37 I didn't know any specifics. I knew John I knew it was being dealt with um in house. I knew um but I wasn't probably because I was not part of the investigation team if you
01:31:48 part of the investigation team if you like. I was outside that. So I knew very little. I knew I knew it was going on in sort of general terms. Did you know that John Dian had had a relationship with Helen Steel whilst undercover?
01:31:59 Helen Steel whilst undercover? I think I knew that was the reason for a lot of what what was going on. That was the reason she was making such efforts to find him. I don't know that. I I think that may
01:32:10 I don't know that. I I think that may have been the conversations that were being had. So that was known in the SDS um at the time. Uh
01:32:19 time. Uh I'm trying to recall conversations that were had, but I mean my knowledge is obviously influenced by what I know now and and since. But I think we would have suspected if not
01:32:32 I think we would have suspected if not known that if um Helen was going to that extreme
01:32:37 extreme length.
01:32:38 length. I think the likely interpretation there was some relationship. So it was effectively common knowledge by that time
01:32:45 time in the office. Within the office I suppose. Yes. Um in relation to HM15 um Mark Jenner, did you know about
01:32:57 um Mark Jenner, did you know about Allison's attempts to trace um Terry who was Mark Jenner's cover employer which which was um happening around the end of May 2001. So before your time. But did
01:33:10 May 2001. So before your time. But did you come to learn of those attempts uh to trace him by Allison when you joined the SDS?
01:33:17 the SDS? Um would that have raised um a similar suspicion as to why Allison was so keen to chase Mark Jenner? Absolutely. Yes. Um
01:33:28 HN91 had a sexual relationship whilst undercover disclosed his identity to her and remains with the woman in question to date so far as we understand. Did you know about that at this time?
01:33:41 know about that at this time? Can I just look? I'm not sure who win. Yes, of course. But do you look who 91 is?
01:33:57 No. Um HN60
01:34:02 Um HN60 um has recently admitted to a sexual relationship whilst undercover. Did you know of that sexual relationship at the time?
01:34:12 No. And HN18
01:34:17 And HN18 um Rob Hastings had a sexual relationship whilst undercover with a woman we're referring to as Maya. Were you aware of that relationship? Only through this inquiry.
01:34:28 Only through this inquiry. Um,
01:34:30 Um, looking back over your time as a DS and a supervisor in in the SDS, um, how how do you explain, um, not knowing and being oblivious to
01:34:42 um, not knowing and being oblivious to all these different UCO sexual misconduct?
01:34:48 It it it does look like uh very poor supervision. I I can see that. It's just plain to see. Um
01:34:59 It's just plain to see. Um I've told the inquiry what I know what I know and and you know honestly what my knowledge is when I look at it now is quite horrendous
01:35:10 horrendous and trusting placing that levels level of trust is insufficient. Yeah.
01:35:15 Yeah. Um and that should have been recognized at the time shouldn't it given the various different knowledge that had built up in relation to these different officers.
01:35:24 officers. Yes. I think that can't be denied. Um, a more intrusive approach to management could have uncovered many if not all of these relationships at the time, couldn't it?
01:35:35 couldn't it? Yeah. With what we know now, yes.
01:35:43 And um, this wasn't a case of just a single bad apple, was it? It was consistent with it with relationships of this nature almost being standard practice given the number of them that occurred over time. There is a pattern. Yes, definitely. Um
01:35:55 There is a pattern. Yes, definitely. Um and it's certainly um not a handful of officers as you say in your witness statement. It's rather more than that, isn't it? Yes.
01:36:05 Yes. Um
01:36:07 Um I'd like to move on please to [snorts] Ripper.
01:36:13 Ripper. Um,
01:36:15 Um, at paragraph 246B,
01:36:20 page 102 of your witness statement, you um suggest that the assessment of collateral intrusion in uh HN 104's um CHIS authorization review contained uh
01:36:33 CHIS authorization review contained uh generic terminology. Um, and I just want to ask you um about that. Um, when you say generic terminology, um, what do you mean by
01:36:44 terminology, um, what do you mean by that? Do you mean they're not words chosen by you for this specific authorization? No, it would be words. I mean, I I wrote the authorization, so I take responsibility for how it's worded.
01:36:55 responsibility for how it's worded. Yes, if we just take a look at it. Um, MPS0526932
01:37:01 at pages 89 to 92.
01:37:19 So that's the the front page of the authorization just so that you can see it and if we can look please at page 91 possibly a bit bigger [sighs]
01:37:31 possibly a bit bigger [sighs] and the top there. So it says under collateral intrusion, UCO Kraggy Island has taken necessary measures to avoid unnecessary intrusion into the lives of those not directly connected with the
01:37:43 those not directly connected with the operation. And you say that that that is the generic terminology. We had to deal with this in a standard format in the form and this acknowledged that he took
01:37:54 form and this acknowledged that he took measures to avoid unnecessary intrusion. Um the authorization doesn't state what measures he had taken to avoid unnecessary intrusion, does it?
01:38:05 unnecessary intrusion, does it? No, it doesn't. No. Um what steps did you take to satisfy yourself um that he had taken such measures, what they were, and that they would indeed avoid unnecessary
01:38:16 would indeed avoid unnecessary intrusion? Um
01:38:19 Um I can only come back to to what I've said earlier is that the officers were trained to get a complete picture
01:38:30 were trained to get a complete picture of it. So they would collect, you know, a lot of information. When it came to reporting that, that's when I'd see the actual intrusion would become um a
01:38:44 actual intrusion would become um a significant factor in terms of you know what's being reported. Um I can see that this
01:38:51 this is referring to act the actual act of intrusion in into other uh groups or individuals. Well, do you recall what he told you about what necessary measures he had
01:39:04 about what necessary measures he had taken to avoid unnecessary intrusion?
01:39:09 I can only interpret that as meaning he understood what collateral intrusion was and that he himself would take action to prevent
01:39:23 himself would take action to prevent in terms of actual reporting. Now it's difficult to say what he's done in terms of intrusion in action so to speak particularly given we know he had several sexual relations.
01:39:34 several sexual relations. Obviously yes. Yeah. um
01:39:38 um this kind of terminology um particularly copied over a number of different authorizations in exactly the same terms renders the the content meaningless in this regard doesn't it
01:39:51 meaningless in this regard doesn't it I think I certainly think it undermines it yes
01:39:54 it yes um
01:39:56 um does does the the generic terminology um apply to any other aspect of the authorization so far as you remember or was it this collateral intrusion the
01:40:07 was it this collateral intrusion the only example that I don't know you'd have to look at other examples um we were dealing obviously with a lot of authorizations over period of time so
01:40:20 over period of time so this may this wording may have been used a few few more times I can't I can't recall without actually looking and um do you know if this same terminology was used more widely by
01:40:31 terminology was used more widely by other DS's and managers in the SDS I can't say no. I don't know. Um, we know that it was used in another of York's authorizations for HN118.
01:40:44 of York's authorizations for HN118. Um, we we don't need to turn turn it up. Yeah, I accept that. Yeah, but the the reference um, sir, just for your note is MPS0526933
01:40:53 at page 215. So, it's certainly something of a standard practice so far as you were concerned across different UCOs and different authorizations. Be the case. Yes. Um so to to what
01:41:05 Be the case. Yes. Um so to to what extent or what what impact did this have on the assessment of necessity and proportionality in relation to these deployments given that this is for a ripper authorization.
01:41:17 ripper authorization. Uh all the officers knew what collateral intrusion was. They've all had training either u on the SDS or before they come to the SDS. They're all detectives. Uh
01:41:29 to the SDS. They're all detectives. Uh we all knew about Ripper. So there there was an awareness of what collateral intrusion is. So
01:41:38 normal sort of conversations between cover officer and the UCIO, you know, these things would be discussed. He'd be talking about a group and you know there may be stuff there he's talking about
01:41:51 may be stuff there he's talking about that's collateral intrusion. My concern was then whether it goes into reporting and you know is it necessary because often it would be necessary for legend building or legend maintenance that type
01:42:04 building or legend maintenance that type of thing.
01:42:06 of thing. Um DCI Flood and um McKini reviewed uh did a review on the 21st of March 2006. I don't think we need to turn it up but it's MPS0748940.
01:42:20 At page four, paragraph E, there's a recommendation that the section outlining collateral intrusion must be given more consideration and be completed on an individual basis, not
01:42:31 completed on an individual basis, not given a set few lines of similar content. Um, would you agree with that now?
01:42:36 now? I would. Yes. And and why wasn't that being done already at the time? That can be taken down. Thank you. I don't know. It look It does look
01:42:49 I don't know. It look It does look quite lazy. Yeah, I suppose. Yes. Um, was this subject um the subject of any training or guidance on RIPER that you received? Um, not on the SDS. I think bear in mind
01:43:03 Um, not on the SDS. I think bear in mind it was 2000, wasn't it? Uh, Ripper. Um when something like this major legislation came in, the special branch training unit would normally hold
01:43:15 training unit would normally hold sessions to um instruct you know what is this new legislation and what the implications are etc. I can't remember but I would have you
01:43:27 I can't remember but I would have you know I would have got my knowledge from that type of you know session which would have included something about collateral intrusion and the need to avoid it. Yes. Um, [snorts] in your witness statement at paragraph
01:43:39 in your witness statement at paragraph 186, page 77, you say, "In my view, there was a difference between reporting on and mentioning." And I just want to ask you what you think the difference is between those two things in terms of
01:43:51 between those two things in terms of reporting on or mentioning an individual in an intelligence report. Uh
01:43:58 Uh I think I'm probably meaning mentioning as um somebody who's come within that sphere but who's of not particular interest. So like an associate, somebody
01:44:09 interest. So like an associate, somebody within a network. I can only imagine that's what I meant. So someone who wasn't specifically targeted.
01:44:14 targeted. Yes.
01:44:15 Yes. But was included in an intelligence report.
01:44:17 report. Yes.
01:44:18 Yes. Um and what was the basis for um that distinction being applied in practice? How how did that actually um apply in practice?
01:44:28 practice? Uh
01:44:30 Uh again, I would expect when the officers gone to uh a meeting, an event, something of that nature, when we do a debrief, he would have given me as much
01:44:41 debrief, he would have given me as much information as possible, and that may have included names of individuals who weren't targets, but may be within that network that we're interested in. So
01:44:53 network that we're interested in. So he the officer would feel obliged to give as much information as possible. It's then for me to either filter that information to look at you know is this name something we should be checking
01:45:05 name something we should be checking that type of activity. Yeah. As you say in your witness statement we would also sanitize any reporting where content was considered not to be appropriate proportionate or for a lawful purpose. What sort of
01:45:17 for a lawful purpose. What sort of information would you sanitize out of reports then? As we said, if I considered it was totally irrelevant, then filter it out.
01:45:29 totally irrelevant, then filter it out. Were you given any guidance about whether something was to be considered appropriate, proportionate, or for a lawful purpose, or did you use your own judgment? My own judgment based on whatever
01:45:40 My own judgment based on whatever training I'd had. Um, we know that personal um sometimes very personal information was sometimes recorded. um why would that type of information have been recorded?
01:45:54 information have been recorded? I can only come back to what I said previously and I know it look it looks very outdated but as intelligence officers if you like we were
01:46:05 were trained to get gather as much information as possible that partial telephone number might be relevant to another part of the inquiry we don't know so I think it became ingrained into us to collect extensive
01:46:17 us to collect extensive data information um and as of As has been shown with the inquiry that obviously went beyond what we should have been collecting. Yes, I accept that.
01:46:28 accept that. Thank you, sir. Those are all the questions that I have for Mr. Beiels. Um I note the time. We need to take a break in any event to consider rule 10. Of course. Um how long do you anticipate
01:46:39 Of course. Um how long do you anticipate will be needed for that purpose? Could we say 15 minutes and I'll see if I Yeah. need anymore. Very break. 15 minutes.
02:06:54 Sir, thank you. There's just one short topic that I wish to ask Mr. Be about and then I'm finished and I understand there's no re-examination. Um,
02:07:03 Um, uh, Mr. feels in in relation to HN18's reporting um and in particular in relation to the woman that we're referring to as Maya whom he had a sexual relationship with when he was
02:07:15 sexual relationship with when he was undercover. I just want to look at one document please. It's MPS 00065807
02:07:22 at page two please. Perhaps we should see the first page first and then page two is the one I need.
02:07:31 need. um this is in um HN18's bundle. So
02:07:40 then at page two
02:07:45 and you see there towards the top of the page um there's reporting um on Mayer being a close associate of the activist Aif Chowdery. Um this uh document is a
02:07:59 Aif Chowdery. Um this uh document is a composite uh document of several different um individual intelligence reports and they're in they they individual reports of those around this
02:08:10 individual reports of those around this one occur in a numerical sequence. Um but the one that deals with this particular report as in the original individual report on Mayer being a close
02:08:22 individual report on Mayer being a close associate of Aif Chowdery is missing from that sequence. Um and we haven't been able to locate it. um HN18 was asked about it in in evidence and he
02:08:33 asked about it in in evidence and he said that he didn't know what happened to that report and he said that you DS Gilbertson and HN30 would have been the DS's writing up his reports at this time and I just want to ask you whether you
02:08:45 and I just want to ask you whether you know what happened to that missing report.
02:08:48 report. I don't know. Um, was there any sense in the office that if um an there was an awareness of an of an sexual relationship undercover that that person
02:08:59 relationship undercover that that person shouldn't be reported on in order to conceal the relationship? Sorry, can you ask that again? Was there an understanding in the SDS at
02:09:10 Was there an understanding in the SDS at the time that um reports shouldn't be made on those people who were in under who were in sexual relationships with the UCO in
02:09:22 sexual relationships with the UCO in order to conceal that sexual relationship? Not to my knowledge. No. Thank you, sir. Those are all my questions. Yes.
02:09:30 Yes. Thank you. No questions for Mr. Sanders. I understand. [clears throat] in in which case your evidence is now complete. Um, thank you for coming and uh speaking of all these matters all
02:09:42 uh speaking of all these matters all those years ago. Oh yeah.
02:09:44 Oh yeah. In a public in a public hearing. Thank you.
02:09:46 you. Thank you. Uh we will now um adjourn while the room is reset up for a private hearing uh with Helen Steel. Thank you, sir.