HN58, the detective chief inspector who commanded the SDS from 1997, gives evidence remotely on tradecraft, authorisation and welfare failures during his tenure. Counsel takes him through the tradecraft manual's guidance on "sexual liaison", the exfiltration and psychological monitoring of Peter Francis, and the covert deployment of HN26 "Roadbridge" into the Animal Liberation Front - including her authorised participation in a criminal mink release and her concealed relationship with the cell's target - before turning to DC Jenner's reporting on the Lawrence family during the run-up to the Macpherson Inquiry.
00:37:55 Good morning everybody. Today's proceedings like tomorrow's and Wednesdays and Thursdays uh will be broadcast by voice only over the live
00:38:06 broadcast by voice only over the live link and after a 15minute delay. Those with recording devices in the um uh hearing room behind the screen uh may with mobile telephones may use them to
00:38:18 with mobile telephones may use them to report what they hear in the hearing room, but only after 15 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're reporting. They may not be used for recording. Yes.
00:38:30 recording. Yes. Good morning, sir. Understand you have a Bible there. Yes.
00:38:36 Yes. Can you repeat after me, please? I swear by Almighty God I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth
00:38:47 shall be the truth the truth
00:38:48 the truth the whole truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and
00:38:51 and nothing but the truth. Thank you. Mr. Park, thank you sir. Uh HN 58
00:39:02 Mr. Park, thank you sir. Uh HN 58 are the contents of your witness statement for this inquiry dated the 30th of May 2024 true and correct to the best of your
00:39:13 true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief. Yes.
00:39:16 Yes. Can I start please with your service as in C squad? Uh you tell us that you served in S squad as a DCI in the mid
00:39:28 served in S squad as a DCI in the mid 1990s.
00:39:31 1990s. Without going into any specific intelligence, what level of contact did you have with the SDS as a DCI on C squad?
00:39:46 the SDS as a DCI on C squad? Very little. [snorts] Did you ever see people from the SDS face to face? Occasionally. Did you see their intelligence product?
00:40:02 Occasionally. Uh, did you issue any intelligence requirements or requests to them? No.
00:40:13 No. Are you in a position to assist the inquiry with the utility of SDS reporting to C squad during that era?
00:40:27 reporting to C squad during that era? Um, so I can't understand the question. Uh, are you able to assist us with the extent to which SDS intelligence
00:40:38 extent to which SDS intelligence assisted Squad when you were working on C squad?
00:40:43 C squad? Well, it assisted uh C squad in the in the assessment of public order events that were taking place in other areas within the Metropolitan Police area.
00:40:55 area. But can I take it from your earlier answers that you are not particularly well placed to help us with the detail of that?
00:41:02 of that? No.
00:41:07 Were you involved whilst on C squad with the int dissemination of intelligence for the purposes of giving people crimerevention advice?
00:41:20 crimerevention advice? No.
00:41:22 No. Um, for example, if you take a company like McDonald's, which was the subject to campaigning, did C squad either directly or
00:41:36 did C squad either directly or indirectly use intelligence to assist giving McDonald's crime prevention advice? Not to my knowledge.
00:41:49 Were you involved in the dissemination of intelligence for government vetting purposes either directly or indirectly? Not to my knowledge.
00:42:00 Not to my knowledge. Was C squad intelligence used for vetting purposes? To the best of your knowledge? No, not to the best my knowledge.
00:42:12 Were you involved in the dissemination of intelligence to private companies to enable them to vet potential employees? No.
00:42:23 No. Was anyone in C squad to your knowledge? No.
00:42:29 No. Directly or indirectly? In other words, were they providing intelligence to bits of the police that were doing that? Not to my knowledge. Was anyone doing that unofficially to the best of your
00:42:42 that unofficially to the best of your knowledge? No.
00:42:44 No. Was it prohibited?
00:42:49 I don't I think so. I I beg your pardon? Sorry. I I I would imagine so. Um, were you aware of a unit which we
00:43:00 were you aware of a unit which we understand was A7 which had within its remitt police accountability groups and police accountability campaigns?
00:43:13 accountability campaigns? No.
00:43:14 No. Was there any part of the police service that you were aware of uh that kept tabs on police accountability campaigns?
00:43:25 on police accountability campaigns? No.
00:43:26 No. To enable the Metropolitan Police Service to respond to them. No.
00:43:38 Can I move now please to your time on the SDS? When you took over the SDS, to what extent did you continue to rely upon the
00:43:52 extent did you continue to rely upon the established practice for the training of undercover police officers? We
00:43:59 We very much continue to estab to to to follow that line. Did you make any changes?
00:44:09 I don't think so. Uh did you rely on the established practices for the management of undercover police officers? Yes,
00:44:21 Yes, we're aware of a change that was had I think just been made when you arrived uh to the management of UCOs because of the
00:44:33 to the management of UCOs because of the move to three sergeants. Did you make any changes during your tenure? I think um
00:44:44 I think um we had a um a civilian member of staff added to the to the office. I can't remember whether that was before I just before I arrived or or after I arrived,
00:44:57 before I arrived or or after I arrived, but I think we had a civilian member of staff join the office. To what extent did you rely on extent practice in your professional
00:45:08 practice in your professional relationship with your detective inspector?
00:45:14 Um, sorry I don't I don't quite understand the question. When you arrived on the SDS, Bob Lambert
00:45:25 When you arrived on the SDS, Bob Lambert uh had been the detective inspector for some time. If I put it this way, to what extent did you rely on him uh to establish the relationship between you
00:45:37 establish the relationship between you and your detective inspector? Very much rely upon him. [snorts]
00:45:46 [snorts] We will come in due course to changes that we can see to the authorization of deployments first in 1998 and then with um the
00:45:57 first in 1998 and then with um the introduction of RIPER in 2000. But when you arrived on the SDS was there any written process for [snorts]
00:46:09 there any written process for [snorts] the authorization of deployments? Yes, I believe there was. Did you change that when you first arrived?
00:46:19 arrived? No, I think I carried on what was already what was already there. And what was the process when you arrived?
00:46:27 arrived? Well, the process was authorization was required before somebody was deployed from the um commander, the chief superintendent in charge of operations.
00:46:42 [snorts] When you arrived, uh, DCI Edmonson handed over to you. Did he ever say anything to you about undercover police
00:46:54 anything to you about undercover police officers
00:46:55 officers [snorts] forming sexual relationships with people in their undercover identities? No.
00:47:04 No. Or engaging in any form of sexual activity with members of the public in their undercover identities? No.
00:47:15 Did he say anything to you about the living arrangements of the undercover police officers you were taking command of?
00:47:26 were taking command of? No.
00:47:29 No. To move now to the trade craft manual. Uh you told Operation Hearn that it was a collection of good practices
00:47:40 a collection of good practices uh and that uh in your inquiry witness statement you'd instructed new recruits to sit down and read it.
00:47:51 to sit down and read it. Did you read the tradecraft manual yourself?
00:47:55 yourself? I think I did. Yes. When you first arrived at some stage? Yes. Can we go now please to MPS0527597
00:48:11 page 27 to paragraph 5.6 six.
00:48:19 Someone should um find that for you, I hope.
00:48:25 hope. Once it's been found for you, let me know.
00:48:40 [snorts] If there's any difficulty with finding it for you, let me know and I will just read the passage to you.
00:49:14 You should be able to The 5.6 is entitled sexual liaison. And 5.6.1
00:49:24 And 5.6.1 reads, "The thorny issue of romantic entanglements during a tour is the cause of much soulsearching and concern. In the past, emotional ties to the opposition have happened and caused all
00:49:36 opposition have happened and caused all sorts of difficulties, including divorce, deception, and disciplinary charges. Whilst while it is not my place to moralize, one should try to avoid the opposite sex for as long as possible.
00:49:48 opposite sex for as long as possible. When you read that, did you speak to anybody about what uh the past difficulties had been?
00:50:00 uh the past difficulties had been? Uh no.
00:50:02 Uh no. Did you have any knowledge of what the past difficulties had been? No.
00:50:11 No. [snorts]
00:50:12 [snorts] Uh if we go now to 6 5.6.3. While you may try to avoid any sexual encounter, there may come a time when
00:50:23 encounter, there may come a time when your lack of interest may become suspicious. In these circumstances, you can either try to introduce an appropriate male or female from your own relations or friends to meet the
00:50:36 relations or friends to meet the weareries on a few occasions or ask the office if they can find an ex.
00:50:47 We're having a slight technical difficulty here going over the page. A operative to fill such a role. Both options are fraught with difficulty, and you must make your own mind up about how
00:50:59 you must make your own mind up about how to proceed. If you have no other option but to become involved with the weary, you should try to have fleeting, disastrous relationships with individuals who are not important to
00:51:11 individuals who are not important to your sources of information. One cannot be involved with the weary in a relationship for any period of time without risking serious consequences.
00:51:23 consequences. Now,
00:51:25 Now, first of all, uh
00:51:29 uh the advice about potentially using your own relations or friends
00:51:38 friends uh to bolster your cover. That uh is a tactic that would have serious security risks, wouldn't
00:51:50 have serious security risks, wouldn't it?
00:51:51 it? Yes. you'd be using uh someone uh who would be untrained, potentially not a police officer at all,
00:52:03 potentially not a police officer at all, and the dangers are obvious, aren't they?
00:52:06 they? Yes.
00:52:08 Yes. Essentially, it's reckless advice, isn't it?
00:52:12 it? It's not good advice. No.
00:52:16 The phrase if you have no other option but to become involved with a weary uh implicit in it is that you might have
00:52:28 uh implicit in it is that you might have to become involved with u an activist in order not to break cover. Isn't it? Um
00:52:39 Um not necessarily. No. When you say not necessarily, if you have no other option but to become involved with the weary,
00:52:51 involved with the weary, it's implicit, isn't it, that you might have to do that in order to enable the mission to continue. I think I think there's there's always another option. I don't agree. There's
00:53:02 another option. I don't agree. There's never
00:53:05 never that's not what the advice says, is it? It's not what the advice says, but it's not my advice. And it's implicit from the advice that you can form a sexual relationship if
00:53:18 you can form a sexual relationship if you have to from that advice. Yes. And then it goes on to give specific advice about how to do that. Try to have
00:53:30 advice about how to do that. Try to have fleeting, disastrous relationships with individuals who are not important to your sources of information. Again, that advice doesn't just envisage
00:53:41 Again, that advice doesn't just envisage a sexual relationship. It envisages having a specific type of relationship in order to prioritize information gathering, doesn't it?
00:53:53 gathering, doesn't it? It does.
00:53:56 It does. And it's positive advice about who to target.
00:54:03 Yes, that advice is yes. for both sexual and emotional manipulation. Yes,
00:54:16 one cannot be involved with the weary in a relationship for any length of time without risking serious consequences. It appears there the focus is the
00:54:29 It appears there the focus is the consequences and not the act of deceit itself. Is that fair? Yes.
00:54:36 Yes. Uh this guidance doesn't actually prohibit any form of sexual relationship, does it? The guidance doesn't.
00:54:49 And it positively advocates fleeting and disastrous relationships with individuals unimportant to the target. It does appear to say that. Yes. That's
00:55:03 It does appear to say that. Yes. That's collateral intrusion in a grotesque form, isn't it? It is. No. Yes.
00:55:13 You read this document at the start of your tenure. You did not withdraw it or amend it, did you? I did not.
00:55:25 I did not. Did you give uh any consideration to doing so?
00:55:31 doing so? Um
00:55:33 Um it was a I mean I I I inquired as to where the documents came from how they were and I I believe they were other people's um
00:55:49 memories from what not memories but um advice having come off in the field and experienced those sorts of issues.
00:56:03 Did you give any thought to the morality of the guidance we've just been through? I did. Yes. And what was your thinking at that time?
00:56:14 And what was your thinking at that time? Well, that any sort of relationship of that nature was not acceptable.
00:56:23 If you thought that, why didn't you withdraw the guidance? because it was written by um I presume a previous
00:56:34 written by um I presume a previous SDS officer who was giving some thought to his own experiences or her own experiences and I I felt that
00:56:47 experiences and I I felt that potential people coming on to the SDS should should read it to experience what other people had done. Did you give any thought to the legality of the conduct
00:57:00 thought to the legality of the conduct that was being advocated? No.
00:57:07 No. If you had turned your mind to the legality of deliberately having a fleeting and disastrous sexual relationship with a member of the public
00:57:20 relationship with a member of the public unimportant to the target, what would your conclusion have been? That it was wrong.
00:57:33 Our understanding from your witness statement is that there was no further guidance.
00:57:39 guidance. Can we take it that you did not tell the officers under your command not to have sexual relationships?
00:57:52 Well, I I don't think I specifically said do not have sexual relationships, but I think it was an understanding that that was not acceptable. How can you say that when the guidance
00:58:05 How can you say that when the guidance which you had read and permitted to remain in circulation positively advocated it in certain circumstances
00:58:18 circumstances through the interview process that we had with the potential recruits. uh we made it very clear that they should have a
00:58:28 a a strategy for not allowing themselves to get involved with um
00:58:37 with um other people. Um we'll come we'll come to the terms of that selection process in due course. But that is a selection process. It is not an instruction not to have a sexual
00:58:49 not an instruction not to have a sexual relationship, is it? No, it's not. Did you revisit the question of the trade craft manuals guidance on sexual relationships when the regulation of
00:59:02 relationships when the regulation of investigatory powers act came into force?
00:59:06 force? No.
00:59:12 How important was the SDS's work regarded when you joined the SDS? Very important.
00:59:23 Very important. It's the reality that this guidance was seen as necessary, a way of behaving that was justified
00:59:35 a way of behaving that was justified because of the importance of the work. I don't believe so. Well, what did justify it then?
00:59:49 I don't know. Was the reality that the mindset at the time was that the end justified the means? I I don't think so. No,
01:00:06 you should have withdrawn this part of the trade craft manual immediately, shouldn't you?
01:00:18 In hindsight, maybe Paul, you say in hindsight, shouldn't it have been obvious to you when you first read it that it was an outrage?
01:00:31 Yes, but it's it had been part of the the trade craft manual for I don't know how many years. Um,
01:00:42 how many years. Um, it was there when I arrived. Did you give any thought to the women who would be deceived?
01:00:57 I don't think so. No. Did you give any thought to the partners who would be betrayed?
01:01:10 I mean, I think I I I I I gave
01:01:16 gave a thought to how the officers would need to keep our keep their their families um safe and well and the
01:01:28 families um safe and well and the relationships
01:01:32 doesn't quite answer my question. Did you give any thought to the partners who would be betrayed?
01:01:41 No.
01:01:45 The people who would be deceived and the people who would be betrayed were overwhelmingly female, weren't they? Yes.
01:01:57 Yes. It would be fair to characterize the answers you've just given me as a blind spot, wouldn't it? a blind spot to the harm that would be done to those women.
01:02:11 Yes. That's a form of misogyny, isn't it? Misogyny.
01:02:19 Misogyny. Sexism.
01:02:23 Sexism in which you were complicit as a manager for not identifying and preventing. Well, I we did try and we did prevent
01:02:35 Well, I we did try and we did prevent it. We did try and prevent it.
01:02:39 I'm speaking here specifically by withdrawing the tradecraft manual. Oh, okay. No,
01:02:48 no, you didn't prevent it or no, you take issue with my question. Oh, I um I take your question. Thank you.
01:02:58 you. [snorts]
01:02:58 [snorts] And the reality was any officer reading the tradecraftraft manual would be left with the impression that they should manage sexual relations as they saw fit.
01:03:14 Yes. And some at least would see it as inevitable.
01:03:24 No, I don't think so.
01:03:30 And they were inculcated, weren't they, with the need not to break cover under any circumstances? They weren't. Yes, they did not. Yes,
01:03:45 They weren't. Yes, they did not. Yes, we've heard that principle referred to as the golden rule. Did you ever hear it referred to as such? No. [clears throat]
01:04:00 The combination of the need not to break cover
01:04:04 cover and the permissive guidance that was given was a formula that was going to cause trouble, wasn't it?
01:04:17 cause trouble, wasn't it? Potentially. Yes. Well, actually,
01:04:23 wasn't it for the transcript? I see a nodding. Yes.
01:04:32 Yes. Can I move now to July 1997, the same month that you join the SDS, is the month that the Steven Lawrence public inquiry is announced.
01:04:47 Lawrence public inquiry is announced. Was that a topic of conversation within the SDS at the time?
01:04:56 Yes, it was. Yes, it was. In what sort of terms was it being discussed?
01:05:06 Potential uh public order issues that might emerge from the hearings. And what were the potential public order problems for the hearings?
01:05:19 for the hearings? Potentially from um extreme groups protesting outside the inquiry as witnesses turned up.
01:05:30 witnesses turned up. Was your concern confined purely to what you're calling extreme groups?
01:05:40 Yes. Were you not concerned with anybody else protesting?
01:05:48 I don't quite understand what you anybody else protecting. Well, ordinary members of the public who are not members of extreme groups decided to protest.
01:06:01 decided to protest. Was that a concern of yours? Of extreme groups protesting? Yes. In public order. But what about ordinary members of the public? to protect ordinary members of the public from disorder.
01:06:17 Was there any discussion about the potential consequences of the inquiry for the Metropolitan Police Service?
01:06:29 Well, I'm sure there was. Yes. What sort of opinions were being expressed within the SDS about that?
01:06:43 I mean, I can't recall.
01:06:48 Was it seen as a good thing or a bad thing?
01:06:53 thing? What the inquiry? Yes.
01:06:56 Yes. I don't think it was seen as a good or a bad thing. It was just seen as an inevitable consequence of um you know,
01:07:06 you know, the Lawrence inquiry. An important event with potentially serious ramifications for the Metropolitan Police Service. Potentially. Yes. Including for the reputation of the
01:07:18 Including for the reputation of the Metropolitan Police Service. Yes.
01:07:23 Yes. Which important to the MPS's ability to fulfill its functions?
01:07:31 Potentially. Yes. And potentially the source of significant criticism. Yes.
01:07:37 Yes. Including of racism. Yes.
01:07:41 Yes. What was said about that aspect of the inquiry's work
01:07:47 or within SDS? Yes.
01:07:51 Yes. I don't think there was any comment. I couldn't I can't remember any comments coming through on that. No comments at all of any description about the racial dimension of the
01:08:02 about the racial dimension of the inquiry's work. No, I don't. I can't recall. Is it likely that there was there could have be um I just can't
01:08:14 there could have be um I just can't recall.
01:08:17 recall. Can I move now to Peter Francis? Detective Constable Francis was exfiltrating when you took over the unit, wasn't he?
01:08:28 unit, wasn't he? Yes.
01:08:30 Yes. Did he bring any concerns to you about the inquiry? No.
01:08:39 No. Did he express any concerns for his safety given that he was deployed into anti-racist groups?
01:08:50 anti-racist groups? No.
01:08:53 Did he or had he to your knowledge sought to take that concern up the chain of command?
01:09:03 No, I recall that. When you say you don't recall, might he have done or are you sure that he didn't?
01:09:15 He might have done. Um
01:09:19 Um I don't think he did, but he might have done.
01:09:22 done. Was there ever a time when Mr. Francis came to you and expressed the view that his presence undercover should be
01:09:33 his presence undercover should be disclosed to Sir William McFersonen?
01:09:38 No. Are you sure about that? Yes.
01:09:46 [snorts] We understand there had been a disagreement between HN86
01:09:53 and Mr. Francis. If you need to to check who 86 is, you can do so. But he's two DCIs before you.
01:10:09 So, three three No, two DCIs before you.
01:10:16 Mr. Edmonson's predecessor.
01:10:27 Okay. Yes. We understand there've been a disagreement between H&86 and Mr. Francis in the months before you arrived about where he should be posted because
01:10:38 about where he should be posted because by that stage H86 was in a higher rank. Mr. Francis, we've heard wanted to be posted to surveillance. Did you become involved at all in
01:10:52 Did you become involved at all in discussions about Mr. Francis's future posting?
01:10:57 posting? I I can't recall um although he probably would have come up in discussion, but I I can't recall whether um
01:11:09 recall whether um I can't recall that previous discussion he had with with another manager. Um
01:11:17 Um can I move now to the exfiltration of Mr. Francis itself? Um [snorts] there's a document 527
01:11:29 there's a document 527 806
01:11:31 806 on page two of that file which is a memorandum from you to Commander Pierce dated the 11th of December 1997.
01:11:44 11th of December 1997. I hope that can be found for you. It's a a short page long.
01:12:42 Yes, sir. This document is fairly mundane in its terms and it describes there having been a change of the exfiltration plan. So
01:12:54 a change of the exfiltration plan. So that in the result instead of exfiltrating through Greece the exfiltration was through a trip to Spain.
01:13:05 through a trip to Spain. [snorts] What is your understanding of the circumstances in which that plan changed?
01:13:12 changed? I I I I don't know. I can't remember. We've had a rather more dramatic account of Mr. Francis's uh exfiltration.
01:13:24 of Mr. Francis's uh exfiltration. Uh one source for that is Sergeant War and another source is Mr. Francis himself.
01:13:34 himself. [snorts]
01:13:35 [snorts] Was the exfiltration eventful to your recollection? No.
01:13:42 No. Did Mr. Francis go in communicardo for a period?
01:13:50 Not to my knowledge. Was there ever any suggestion that he traveled initially to France and then into Spain with the partner of a senior member of
01:14:05 with the partner of a senior member of his target group? Not to my knowledge. Was [snorts] there ever a suggestion that he was by this stage using cocaine?
01:14:20 No. And was there ever any suggestion that the behavior of Mr. Francis and his target group abroad um was
01:14:32 um was well involved some petty criminal activity?
01:14:38 activity? No.
01:14:40 No. Did there come a time when Mr. Lambert had to call Mr. Francis back to the country?
01:14:54 Not to my knowledge. No. Do you have a positive recollection of the exfiltration running perfectly smoothly
01:15:06 smoothly or is it that you simply don't recall? I I don't really recall. Would you have recalled if there had been events as dramatic as those I have
01:15:17 been events as dramatic as those I have just put to you? I think I would have done this. Could we have up now please uh or provide it to the witness UCPI50
01:15:29 to the witness UCPI50 36
01:15:31 36 0 29
01:15:35 0 29 and if it assists the person assisting you that's not a document that's in your bundle
01:15:43 [snorts] but it is on Epic
01:16:15 [clears throat]
01:16:20 All right.
01:16:36 That should be a leaving card that was uh produced for Mr. Francis, you signed it uh on the left, although
01:16:48 you signed it uh on the left, although it's not your uh entry that I'm interested in. There is a an entry top. Sorry to interrupt. I can't see it at the moment. You can't see it at the moment. It maybe
01:17:00 You can't see it at the moment. It maybe I can deal with this without the document itself. This card has uh in an entry near the top someone has written in um a tribute to Mr. Francis
01:17:14 written in um a tribute to Mr. Francis which ends with the sentence, "They're weary [ __ ] and they deserve to die." Are you likely to have seen that
01:17:25 Are you likely to have seen that endorsement?
01:17:28 I'm unlikely to have seen it. Presumably, it would have depended whether you signed this card before the person who wrote that or not.
01:17:40 person who wrote that or not. I haven't seen the card, so I don't I can't quite [snorts]
01:17:47 [snorts] I'll try and deal with it without the card. We have some technical difficulties this morning. Getting there. Um,
01:17:54 Um, was the sentiment, they're weary [ __ ] and they deserve to die, directed at activists uh the sort of sentiment that
01:18:05 activists uh the sort of sentiment that was common within the SDS. No, no,
01:18:10 No, no, we have seen the word weary used within the trade craft manual. That term was common parliament, wasn't it?
01:18:22 [snorts] Was there generally um a disdain for the people who were being infiltrated?
01:18:33 being infiltrated? No, I don't know. What was the attitude of the SDS towards those it was infiltrating?
01:18:53 It's the entry. I was asking about the entry at the top center and it's the the end of that entry.
01:19:39 Thank you.
01:19:49 [snorts]
01:19:53 So the question just look at the card really make head or tail really. Well the qu the question I was asking you was what was the um attitude towards
01:20:05 you was what was the um attitude towards those who were being infiltrated? Well, they were I mean they were an organization that you were targeting. I mean there was you
01:20:16 you were targeting. I mean there was you know you had to get on with them in order to
01:20:22 order to you know get associations and be able to report on their activities. What did you what did your officers really think about these people?
01:20:36 I don't know. Did they think that they were weary [ __ ] who deserve to die? No.
01:20:42 No. Did they think uh that they were people worthy of disdain?
01:20:49 I don't believe so. No. Why then was parliament such as weary so common place? I think it was just a something that had
01:21:00 I think it was just a something that had grown up over the years. It was always referred to as as wearies cuz it's a general expression of a target group that you were going into. I don't
01:21:12 group that you were going into. I don't know how or why it started off as that expression, but that was the one that was used commonly. Was it because uh politics were wear?
01:21:24 Was it because uh politics were wear? Maybe. Maybe. It's a derogatory attitude though, isn't it?
01:21:30 it? Um, it's a derogatory term. Yes. Can we move now? We we may come back to this theme a little later, but for the moment, can we move on to Mr. Francis's wellbeing? What impression did you get
01:21:44 wellbeing? What impression did you get of Mr. Francis's wellbeing whilst you were managing him?
01:21:52 Um, it was he seemed to be all right. What was his behavior like? Um,
01:22:07 you know, he was good. I don't I mean, from my point of view, he he seemed to accept that he, you know, finished his
01:22:18 accept that he, you know, finished his his term on the SDS and he was looking forward to his next posting within special branch. Did he raise any concerns with you?
01:22:31 Did he raise any concerns with you? No.
01:22:33 No. We've got a manuscript note written by Mr. Lambert, Detective Inspector Lambert, as he then was on the 18th of January, 1998. It's at 747
01:22:47 January, 1998. It's at 747 558,
01:22:49 558, page two.
01:22:58 give you a moment to read that. But what I'm going to ask you about is the way it ends saying that you are to discuss with
01:23:09 ends saying that you are to discuss with Dr. Piper.
01:23:36 [snorts]
01:24:32 Yes. [snorts] Can you assist us as to why there is reference to the possibility of an interview with Dr. Piper at the end of
01:24:45 interview with Dr. Piper at the end of this document? I if my memory serves me right, when I came in as a chief inspector,
01:24:57 a chief inspector, we were in there were ongoing discussions with um Dr. Piper about potentially interviewing
01:25:09 interviewing officers when they came off SDS. Can you assist us as to whether or not anything came of this suggestion?
01:25:20 anything came of this suggestion? I I don't think it did. No, I can't recall.
01:25:24 recall. And uh was the pro the suggestion being muted as a matter of routine or because it was felt that Mr. Francis needed um
01:25:37 it was felt that Mr. Francis needed um psychiatric help? I think it was a matter of routine.
01:25:45 Was it routine for officers to be seen by Dr. Piper at this stage of the SDS's history?
01:25:52 history? No. No, I don't think it was. No.
01:25:58 Can you help us with why nothing came of the suggestion at this stage? I can't. No. going to move forward now 2 years to
01:26:11 going to move forward now 2 years to January 2000 as a document MPS30 417
01:26:19 page 4. Once you've got that, I'm interested in the last paragraph and the reference to
01:26:30 the last paragraph and the reference to Professor A.
01:26:37 You will you will need to see this document and to refresh your memory and see the context.
01:27:00 [snorts]
01:27:43 Yes. Can you help us? Was Professor A an occupational health doctor engaged by the MPS or was Professor A some other
01:27:58 the MPS or was Professor A some other form of doctor? I have no idea. Can you help us with what indication or
01:28:09 Can you help us with what indication or background you gave to Professor A about the sensitivity of the case?
01:28:26 [clears throat]
01:29:02 Yes, sorry. No, sorry.
01:29:07 Yes. The question the question [clears throat] was it it the paragraph says at the end that you were going to give um Professor A some indication background into the sensitivity of Mr.
01:29:18 background into the sensitivity of Mr. Francis's case. What did you communicate to Professor A? I I I can't recall I I just can't recall speaking to
01:29:31 I I just can't recall speaking to Professor A actually. Um and would there have been a nervousness because Peter Francis had been an undercover
01:29:42 Peter Francis had been an undercover police officer? Probably would have been. Yes. And would one of your concerns have been operational security? Yes.
01:29:50 Yes. And was by this stage their real concern that Mr. Frances might compromise the operational security of the SDS. I I don't think so. No.
01:30:03 I I don't think so. No. And
01:30:07 what would you have wanted to communicate to Professor A?
01:30:14 What would I have wanted to? I would have wanted to communicate to him that he was an undercover officer for a number of years and therefore
01:30:33 sorry and therefore and and what and therefore what would you have wanted professor A to do about that?
01:30:41 that? I wouldn't have I wanted Professor A to to look after the well-being of the officer,
01:30:49 officer, but in a way that did not compromise the operational security of the SDS. Of course. Yes.
01:30:59 Would you have needed higher authority to disclose to Professor A that Peter Francis was an undercover police officer?
01:31:08 officer? I don't believe so. No. Can you recall whether you discussed it with more senior officers? No, I can't. Staying with the same document, but page nine, please. This is a chronology of
01:31:22 nine, please. This is a chronology of contact with Mr. Francis, which follows the document you've just read. Um, the
01:31:32 the entry that I'm interested in is that for the 29th of September 2000. I'll give you a moment to read that. But I'm interested in the contact that you are
01:31:45 interested in the contact that you are said there to have had with Professor A.
01:31:57 [snorts]
01:32:22 [snorts]
01:33:37 Yes. It's evident from that section that you had met Professor A. Do you agree? Yes.
01:33:48 Yes. For what purpose had you met Professor A?
01:33:52 A? I think it was a my memory serves me right. It was a general discussion as to um
01:34:03 um uh and to create a better understanding of some sort of something like a post-traumatic stress syndrome. Um I think it the meeting was
01:34:15 syndrome. Um I think it the meeting was attended by other persons
01:34:23 as well as myself. Does that help you with who and I don't mean a name but role? Does that help you with what type of doctor professor A
01:34:35 with what type of doctor professor A was? I think it was a psychiatrist or psych psychologist. Psychiatrist and a a psychiatrist engaged by the Metropolitan Police or
01:34:48 Metropolitan Police or a different type of doctor.
01:34:55 I think it
01:34:58 I don't know whether he was employed by the Metropolitan Police or
01:35:03 or or engaged by or or engaged by the Metfor Police. I don't know. Can't remember. Was Professor A treating Peter Francis?
01:35:17 I don't think so. No. Are you sure about that? I'm not sure actually. Mr. Francis has complained here appears to be that you've been talking to his treating doctor behind his back.
01:35:32 treating doctor behind his back. Well, yes. Um
01:35:47 [snorts]
01:36:03 I think it was a good I I I mean I don't think it was the doctor that was treating
01:36:11 Peter Francis. I think he got confused as to who who I was meeting. I
01:36:23 who who I was meeting. I there seems to be some confusion as to which doctor was actually treating him. Did you speak to Professor Ray about Mr. Francis's case?
01:36:36 Francis's case? No, don't think we were specific about cases.
01:36:41 cases. So what was the purpose of speaking to professor A to have an understanding of what um
01:36:53 about post-traumatic syndrome? I think it was organized also by occupational health.
01:37:01 To what end?
01:37:06 the welfare of the officers generally. Generally,
01:37:16 can I move now to the question of Mr. Francis's commendation? Mr. Francis's evidence to the inquiry was that his commendation was handed to him in an envelope and not formally
01:37:29 him in an envelope and not formally presented. Is that correct?
01:37:35 I I have no idea. Um
01:37:43 I I don't know. [snorts]
01:37:46 [snorts] Was it normal during your tenure for commendations following the end of a undercover officer's deployment to be presented
01:37:58 officer's deployment to be presented formally?
01:38:00 formally? Yes.
01:38:01 Yes. Did that happen during your tenure for Mr. Francis? I I can't recall.
01:38:12 Can I move now to the question of the SDS's 40th anniversary in 2008.
01:38:25 Uh we've heard some evidence that there was some form of reunion event on or about the 27th of October 2008.
01:38:37 about the 27th of October 2008. Did you attend that? No, I can't remember. Were you involved in any of the preparations for that event? No. [snorts] Are you able to assist us with um
01:38:51 Are you able to assist us with um whether or not Mr. Francis was invited? No.
01:38:55 No. And were you are you able to assist us as to why Mr. Francis did not attend? No.
01:39:04 No. Uh are you have heard uh from Mr. Francis that he was essentially black ballalled?
01:39:16 was essentially black ballalled? Was he?
01:39:18 Was he? I have no idea.
01:39:21 Can I move now to another officer, HN 26?
01:39:28 26? Uh, her cover name was Christine Green. You may wish to, if that isn't sufficient, by all means, refer to uh the cipher list.
01:39:42 the cipher list. We are aware that HN26 was deployed into the animal rights field. And I'd like um to put to you first a report which is
01:39:54 to put to you first a report which is MPS 4474.
01:39:59 It's an intelligence report dated the 22nd
01:40:03 22nd of July
01:40:05 of July 1997.
01:40:09 Um, it reads, "Slowbased LAA activist privacy has recently been elected to her local council as a member of the Labor
01:40:23 local council as a member of the Labor Party. She has been absent from the more recent animal rights demonstrations in order to avoid any trouble that could affect her political situation.
01:40:35 affect her political situation. However, both she and her husband privacy have been active campaigners in all manner of AR and environmental issues, and she will no doubt use her
01:40:47 issues, and she will no doubt use her new position to assist those causes in every way possible. Privacy has recently had charges against him dropped following his arrest in Sir George
01:40:58 following his arrest in Sir George Young's garden during an envirro protest. He is now planning to sue the local conabulary for compensation. My interest uh is in the female activist
01:41:13 My interest uh is in the female activist elected as a labor counselor.
01:41:19 Can you assist us with what the practice was for [snorts] reporting on elected officials?
01:41:31 reporting on elected officials? But if they were part of a [clears throat] the target group, I suppose it would be updating the records as to what that person was doing,
01:41:42 person was doing, where they were. And can I take it as implicit from that answer that it did not matter whether or not they were an elected official, they would be reported on if they were still active within the
01:41:53 if they were still active within the group? Yes. Were there any specific uh SDS rules on reporting on elected officials or were
01:42:04 reporting on elected officials or were members of the SDS simply expected to follow normal special branch practices in this regard? Normal special branch practices.
01:42:17 Normal special branch practices. So [snorts] can I take it that this reporting was seen as appropriate at the time?
01:42:24 time? Yes.
01:42:30 This person is on the face of the report doing nothing unlawful. Is that fair? Mhm.
01:42:40 Mhm. And there's no reference within the report to any form of nefarious activity.
01:42:51 She is said to have been simply involved in animal rights and environmental issues.
01:42:59 issues. Perfectly legitimate interests. Yes.
01:43:04 Yes. And an elected representative to a very mainstream political party.
01:43:18 Did that ring any alarm bells for you? Well,
01:43:24 Well, no. Um, so I don't know. I haven't got the benefit of knowing what previous activities she'd been involved in, whether she was a
01:43:35 whether she was a a person who was of interest, a special branch. There will be records on her maybe. I don't know. And can I take it that during your tenure there was never any complaint
01:43:47 tenure there was never any complaint made to you that your officers were reporting on elected officials from mainstream political parties. Normal for special branch.
01:43:58 Normal for special branch. Yes.
01:44:02 Can we go now to MPS0247310?
01:44:12 This is uh a an intelligence report dated the 30th of October 1997.
01:44:21 Again, it's attributed to HN 26. It's about an individual whose privacy we are protecting. Um, I will read some of it. Since being
01:44:34 Um, I will read some of it. Since being dismissed from Privacy's premises in Waltham Stow, Privacy has imposed her personal hygiene problems on a number of other associates whom, one by one have
01:44:48 other associates whom, one by one have been glad to be rid of her. As accommodating friends become fewer, privacy has sought permanent shelter within the confines of Camp Raina, where
01:45:00 within the confines of Camp Raina, where her unique body odor and disagreeable habits are less frightening than within more confined habitats.
01:45:12 habitats. Uh
01:45:14 Uh it goes on in similar vein for another three [snorts] paragraphs.
01:45:25 The final paragraph concluding her fellow campers are now laughing at her and deriding her behind her back though only from a downwind position and her
01:45:36 only from a downwind position and her tenure at Camp Reena may not be of long duration. The only reason she has for staying is a lack of alternative accommodation allied to a necessarily thick and somewhat pungent
01:45:50 thick and somewhat pungent skin.
01:45:55 This appears to have been written in the terms it has been for the amusement of its readership. Would you agree? Yes.
01:46:06 Yes. And it is unprofessional. Yes. disrespectful. Yes.
01:46:13 Yes. Uh but also an official document. Yes.
01:46:20 Yes. What was your reaction to it at the time?
01:46:27 I I can't recall. Is it likely that you were as amused as the next member of the SDS by its content?
01:46:38 content? Probably
01:46:39 Probably not. I can't recall reading it anyway. But um
01:46:43 But um when you say probably not, why not? Well, because it's a it's not something that I find particularly amusing.
01:46:53 This report has been recovered. It had been filed and kept.
01:47:02 Was your job as a manager to stamp out this sort of thing, wasn't it? Yes. And you didn't, did you? No.
01:47:10 No. [snorts]
01:47:11 [snorts] And too much of it can become dehumanizing, can't it? Yes.
01:47:18 Yes. And that can lead to changes in attitudes and behaviors. Can do.
01:47:27 Can we move now to uh the point in time where the continuation of HN26's deployment is in jeopardy. It's
01:47:39 deployment is in jeopardy. It's MPSO247472.
01:47:51 This is a report. The initials RJ we understand to be um a cipher that Mr. Lambert was using. Um
01:48:03 Lambert was using. Um so we understand it to have been written by DI Lambert dated the 30th of January 1998.
01:48:12 1998. says, "On Thursday the 29th of January 1998, Bernie and I discussed targeting withdrawal strategy with Road Bridge."
01:48:23 withdrawal strategy with Road Bridge." That's HN26, you will recall. I put forward our view that her operation would be best terminated in March 1999
01:48:34 would be best terminated in March 1999 and [clears throat] made the following points. infiltration of the ALF at a national level was no longer a realistic option. Her operation [snorts] should remain focused on London Animal Action
01:48:47 remain focused on London Animal Action and related local ALF activists as at present.
01:48:53 present. A withdrawal strategy should be formulated which preserved her operational security and also allowed her to maintain maximum intelligence coverage through to her finish date. A
01:49:06 coverage through to her finish date. A new field officer would be targeted against LAA as soon as possible, maybe April May 1997 and Roadbridge would have an important role to play as mentor and
01:49:18 an important role to play as mentor and guide. Ideally by March 1999, the new source would be in a position to report to a standard that allowed our reporting to remain at the required level.
01:49:29 to remain at the required level. Roadbridge was disappointed that she would not be continuing her efforts to infiltrate the upper echelons of the ALF, but acknowledged that it had become increasingly difficult to achieve that
01:49:40 increasingly difficult to achieve that objective. She said that she would have needed a longer period in the field to do so. I said that she now had an opportunity to reflect on our view
01:49:52 opportunity to reflect on our view before discussing the situation with HN58
01:49:55 HN58 next who would then make a final decision.
01:50:02 So it appears the thinking was she wasn't going to get into the national level of at those committing actions in
01:50:13 level of at those committing actions in the name of the ALF and so it was time to draw stumps. Is that fair? Yes.
01:50:21 Yes. Had you been consulted on that before this meeting? No, not to my knowledge. called.
01:50:32 called. So is it right that the way the SDS was run in your time was such that the detective inspector could make a provisional decision on whether or not to terminate a deployment without
01:50:44 to terminate a deployment without recourse to you. Well,
01:50:48 Well, as as indicated by the by the minute on that that he would have consulted with me, but they were running the he was running the operation and he was making a decision on the base of where that
01:51:00 a decision on the base of where that person was within that organization. I want you to note in particular the uh date that document is the 30th of January. The meeting had been on the
01:51:11 January. The meeting had been on the 29th.
01:51:13 29th. Can we now go to 247517 please?
01:51:27 This is the record of a meeting on the 25th
01:51:33 25th of February 1998. uh a strategy meeting between the SDS and C squad. It uh records that you are
01:51:46 and C squad. It uh records that you are present along with detective inspector Lambert, acting DCIHN67 and detective inspector TN 19 as well as
01:51:58 and detective inspector TN 19 as well as a detective inspector whose name we are keeping fully redacted under it deals with a number of UCOs
01:52:09 UCOs under road bridge it reads an accepted member member of London Animal Action who has been involved in a number of campaigns outside London. Sabbing
01:52:20 campaigns outside London. Sabbing Hillgrove has recently become involved in a small group which has the potential to commit serious criminal damage.
01:52:33 to commit serious criminal damage. [snorts]
01:52:34 [snorts] So it would appear that in the intervening 27 days between these two documents that
01:52:45 27 days between these two documents that something significant has happened.
01:52:53 HN26 has become involved in an ALF cell, hasn't she? Yes. So, yes.
01:53:05 Yes. So, yes. Can you help us with what you were being told at the time about that development?
01:53:16 Um, I don't can't recall I can't recall being told anything about it. I just [snorts]
01:53:26 [snorts] Sir, would now be a convenient moment to take the morning break? Certainly. And um before we rise um it may be worth me giving the reference 247547
01:53:40 me giving the reference 247547 which will be the next document I'll take you to after the break and seek to jog your memory.
01:53:49 Right. We have a 15-minute break in the middle of each morning and afternoon to enable the transcribers uh to to have a pause. And also you
01:54:01 pause. And also you you rise for 15 minutes.
02:12:43 Yes. Thank you, sir. You'll be pleased to learn that the projection equipment is now working. Oh, good. That makes life easier. I'm very grateful to all of those who behind the scenes helped us to model
02:12:55 behind the scenes helped us to model through this morning. HN58,
02:12:59 HN58, as I said, we'd go to 247 uh 547.
02:13:04 uh 547. Uh Mr. Lambert's [clears throat] file note of the 16th of March, 1998. It's copied to you. Um we can see at the
02:13:15 It's copied to you. Um we can see at the end, but uh I'd like to start with paragraph one on the first page. And the start of that paragraph, Roadbridge has
02:13:26 start of that paragraph, Roadbridge has identified a London-based ALF cell with potential to commit serious crime. The leader of the cell is Joe Tex, an established and respected ALF
02:13:38 established and respected ALF activist.
02:13:40 activist. Uh,
02:13:42 Uh, and then it goes on to outline Joe Texas cell which HN26 has evidently
02:13:55 HN26 has evidently infiltrated.
02:13:59 Can you help us? How much [snorts] involvement did you have in this development in HN26's
02:14:12 development in HN26's deployment?
02:14:15 Um, not very much. How had she done it?
02:14:23 By her continued commitment to the cause of the ALF. I I guess. Did you ask her? No.
02:14:32 No. Why not?
02:14:34 Why not? Well, it was a note by Mr. Lambert. I assumed that that's what he had done. How often did you speak to your UCAs?
02:14:49 Well, fairly fairly regularly various of the weekly meetings. This was a big deal, wasn't it?
02:15:00 At this particular time, there seems to be
02:15:04 be So, didn't you speak to her about how she had
02:15:10 she had managed to get into an ALF cell? Well, I was I don't know. I can't recall whether I spoke to her or not. Is it likely that you would have done?
02:15:24 Is it likely that you would have done? Probably. I I need to look at the the note again. I'm afraid of. We'll go through some more of it. on that uh first page at the bottom, please.
02:15:39 [clears throat]
02:15:45 We will see that there is a paragraph which reads, "In recent weeks, Texas has taken RB into his confidence and this has opened up a rich seam of intelligence. It has also
02:15:57 rich seam of intelligence. It has also of course placed an increased burden on RB and she is now committed to her cover role to an unprecedented extent.
02:16:08 extent. There is [snorts] every reason to be confident that she will be able to exploit intelligence concerning Texas planned actions. While each case has to be judged on its
02:16:19 While each case has to be judged on its merits, SDS has the experience, most recently with Jeff Shepard, to mount successful preemptive operations in sensitive ALF cases where source protection is of the essence. So,
02:16:33 protection is of the essence. So, starting with she is now committed to her cover role to an unprecedented extent. What did that mean?
02:16:44 extent. What did that mean? Well, I presume that meant that she was now within the confidence of texts, where she hadn't been before.
02:16:55 where she hadn't been before. And did [snorts] you ask her how she had got into the confidence of texts? I can't recall
02:17:06 the bottom of that paragraph. successful preemptive operations where source protection is of the essence. What does that mean?
02:17:23 Well, it means that um RB would need to be protected. [snorts] Is this harking back to previous SDS triumphs?
02:17:37 harking back to previous SDS triumphs? First and most recently, HN1,
02:17:42 HN1, whose intelligence, we are told, contributed to the arrest of Jeff Shepard, who was subsequently imprisoned
02:17:55 Shepard, who was subsequently imprisoned for firearms offenses and possession of improvised incendurary devices.
02:18:05 It could well have been. Yes. And to Mr. Lambert's own deployment where his um intelligence was used to
02:18:17 where his um intelligence was used to lead to the arrest of Mr. Shepherd and Mr. Clark and set in train a course of events which led to their conviction and imprisonment.
02:18:30 Yes. Uh and the hallmark of those two cases being that in both instances
02:18:42 being that in both instances the presence of an undercover police officer
02:18:46 officer did not get disclosed and continued.
02:18:56 Yes. I'm I wasn't familiar with with the two cases
02:19:01 two cases is the goal here is what is being foreseen
02:19:05 foreseen fantastic news. We've got a UCO into an ALF cell again. Uh what's the key now is to use the intelligence without
02:19:16 to use the intelligence without compromising the officer. Yes.
02:19:21 Yes. And hopefully get another conviction. Yes.
02:19:27 Yes. What were your thoughts about that at the time?
02:19:34 Well, I think my thoughts were that it should be pursued. If we could go over to page two, please. And paragraph two.
02:19:47 The second that second paragraph, the last four lines especially.
02:20:07 [snorts]
02:20:17 Yes. Why was it that the absence of additional non SDS source reporting was so, to put it mildly, operationally
02:20:30 so, to put it mildly, operationally desirable?
02:20:37 I don't know. I don't know what I understand by that. Was one potential problem that if there were other sources reporting on HN26's
02:20:51 were other sources reporting on HN26's activities that if it came to a prosecution, there would be a problem with having to disclose their material.
02:21:04 It could have been. And was there an additional problem in this particular case? Uh, namely that HN26
02:21:14 HN26 was involved in a sexual relationship with Joe Tex.
02:21:22 I don't believe so. Can we go to paragraph four on the same page?
02:21:32 Roadbridge has made a significant breakthrough after a long period of frustration so far as the ALF is concerned to have gained access to the covert planning of a high caliber
02:21:44 covert planning of a high caliber activist like Tex is a testament to her ingenuity and dedication that it comes so soon after the writer's more downbeat
02:21:55 so soon after the writer's more downbeat assessment of her ability to provide high-grade ALF intelligence is a lesson to him and a tribute to Arby's willingness to explore all options
02:22:08 willingness to explore all options available to her. [snorts]
02:22:11 [snorts] What was the ingenuity that HN26
02:22:18 that HN26 had shown to bring about this rapid transformation in the fortunes of her deployment?
02:22:30 I don't know. And what were all of the options explored by her?
02:22:39 I I don't know what the writer means by that.
02:22:45 that. Did you ask? No.
02:22:50 No. Are you sure you didn't ask? Yes.
02:22:55 Yes. So, you don't ask HN26 herself. You don't ask Lambert. Why not?
02:23:05 Why not? Well, I probably asked Lambert. What did he tell you? I can't recall. I can't I don't remember.
02:23:14 remember. Did he tell you that there were some things that it was best not to commit to paper other than in euphemistic terms? No.
02:23:25 No. Can we go to paragraph five, please?
02:23:31 It does have a positive impact on her operation as a whole. Her confidence and commitment are at an all-time high and managers should capitalize on this without, [snorts] of course, neglecting
02:23:42 without, [snorts] of course, neglecting welfare considerations. She is currently enjoying a short skiing holiday. She is now regularly enhancing her cover credibility by staying overnight with
02:23:53 credibility by staying overnight with activists when they travel to different parts of the country on demonstrations and other business. In April, she plans to travel with Tex and others to a week-long animal rights gathering in
02:24:04 week-long animal rights gathering in Holland, and this will further enhance her standing. Did you pay any attention to
02:24:16 Did you pay any attention to this communication to you uh to the effect that she was staying overnight with activists?
02:24:27 didn't ring any bells with me. Um, traveling with activists different parts of the country, you would normally stay overnight
02:24:40 would normally stay overnight with them. She [snorts] goes to Leiden with other activists, including Mr. Frampton, who is Joe Tex.
02:24:53 Frampton, who is Joe Tex. Did you know she was traveling to Leiden with Mr. Frampton? I presume that she would have there would have been some
02:25:05 would have been some authority required for her to go to Holland with her with her group. Was uh any
02:25:14 any fed back from [snorts] Leiden at which another undercover officer was present to the effect that Frampton and HN26 were in a relationship?
02:25:26 relationship? Not to my knowledge. No. You sure about that? Yes.
02:25:32 Yes. Can we go to page three of this document and to the last paragraph?
02:25:40 In so far as leading national figures like Brendan McNal and privacy are shrewd enough to notice a change in RB's lifestyle
02:25:50 lifestyle commensurate with a progression to serious ALF status without them wanting to be aware of the operational details. There are already indications that she
02:26:02 There are already indications that she can expect to enjoy enhanced relations here in the months ahead. There was a concern last year that McNally might have been suspicious of Road Bridge. Suffice to say here, her current profile
02:26:16 Suffice to say here, her current profile can only help offset any lingering doubts that might exist in his mind. Going back to the second line, change in
02:26:27 Going back to the second line, change in Road Bridges lifestyle.
02:26:33 That's a reference to the relationship, isn't it?
02:26:37 isn't it? I
02:26:40 I don't believe so. Don't it doesn't say a change in Frampton's trust in her or in her involvement. It's a change in lifestyle.
02:26:53 a change in lifestyle. It's the reality that this is another euphemism
02:26:57 euphemism recognizing in code that 26 has entered into a relationship with Frampton.
02:27:08 No.
02:27:15 Can we go now to 247669?
02:27:30 This is a report of HN26ers uh about an action [clears throat] taken in support of a campaign against Hawkley Furs. It's from June 1998.
02:27:48 [snorts] If we could just scroll up a little bit so the witness can see the text.
02:27:58 Thank you. Give you a moment just to familiarize yourself with the report, but I will be asking questions um
02:28:10 um about
02:28:11 about legal professional privilege and also the substance of the report.
02:28:32 [snorts]
02:29:44 The first three paragraphs of this report are all about
02:29:53 litigation intentions of Mr. Grab it, Miss Percy, and another including uh naming
02:30:04 including uh naming their barrista and reciting the legal advice that's been given about the prospects of them winning a case against the Metropolitan Police, isn't it?
02:30:17 the Metropolitan Police, isn't it? Yes.
02:30:19 Yes. [snorts]
02:30:20 [snorts] What was the practice at the time about reporting on legal advice given to activists?
02:30:34 I'm not sure there was any advice given.
02:30:42 And was it therefore simply recorded in reports and those reports transmitted to C squad?
02:30:50 C squad? Um yes,
02:30:54 the [snorts] pickets outside Hawkley Furs were
02:31:00 Furs were not largecale pickets involving any serious crime or serious disorder. Were they?
02:31:10 No, but there was there were public public order events. [snorts]
02:31:15 [snorts] Yeah, public order events spans a very wide range of events, doesn't it? From small and entirely law abade abiding right up to large scale riots.
02:31:27 right up to large scale riots. Yes. But but nevertheless require police presence.
02:31:31 presence. These are at the bottom end of the scale, aren't they? Yes.
02:31:38 Yes. Uh the fifth paragraph is essentially relaying that hunt saboturs are hoping to be able to bring claims as well.
02:31:49 to be able to bring claims as well. Yep.
02:31:51 Yep. [snorts] And the final paragraph uh is reporting
02:31:56 reporting um the fact that a case brought by Helen Steel in the European Court of Human Rights um was pending and they were
02:32:07 Rights um was pending and they were awaiting the ruling. Yes.
02:32:11 Yes. So taken as a whole, this is not a report on serious crime or serious disorder, is it?
02:32:21 No, it is a report which includes some privilege material and a lot of intelligence about litigation intentions. Yes.
02:32:32 Yes. Litigation intentions against the Metropolitan Police Service. Yes.
02:32:38 Yes. [snorts]
02:32:39 [snorts] That's not a proper use of a Metropolitan Police Service undercover police officer, is it? No, but it is reporting on people who are subject to special branch records.
02:32:55 Can I take it that this rang no alarm bells for you at the time? No.
02:33:01 No. It should have done, shouldn't it?
02:33:06 In hindsight, maybe. Yes. When you say in hindsight, surely the sanctity of legal professional privilege should have been obvious to you at the time.
02:33:18 obvious to you at the time. It depends how the information how the undercover officer came by the information at a meeting or something where people were openly discussing it. Surely it
02:33:30 were openly discussing it. Surely it would be obvious that um people planning on suing the MPS would not want the illegal advice they were being given to be immediately relayed to the
02:33:41 be immediately relayed to the Metropolitan Police Service. That's true. Yes.
02:33:49 And it should have been obvious to you at the time, shouldn't it, that reporting on legal activity aimed at establishing the boundaries of protest rights was not an appropriate
02:34:03 protest rights was not an appropriate topic for undercover policing. It probably should have been, but it wasn't.
02:34:09 wasn't. Would
02:34:11 Would it also be fair to you to say that nobody else raised any concerns about this sort of reporting? No.
02:34:20 No. And was it standard for special branch at the time? Yes.
02:34:27 Yes. [sighs]
02:34:28 [sighs] Can we move now to the question of mink and 247766 please? And this is the action
02:34:39 please? And this is the action which HN26 participated in uh releasing Mink in Hampshire. We're going to start with a memorandum dated the 7th of
02:34:51 with a memorandum dated the 7th of August 1998 immediately before the action. This um is marked as copied to you.
02:35:05 give you a moment to um just familiarize yourself with it. I'm going to start on page two once you've orientated yourself.
02:35:28 [snorts]
02:36:05 Yes. And if we go to page two,
02:36:14 it's the last three paragraphs in particular that I'm going to be concentrating on.
02:37:21 [snorts]
02:37:25 Yeah. So the [snorts] position is your undercover police officer is going to participate in the release of a large number of mink put in the hundreds in this document and [snorts]
02:37:37 this document and [snorts] her participation has been authorized. Yes.
02:37:43 Yes. What was discussed before authorizing HN26
02:37:48 HN26 to do this?
02:37:52 what what it would entail for her
02:37:57 for her um RB and
02:38:02 whether what involvement she would actually have with the
02:38:09 the the action that was going to take place and what the uh future plans were.
02:38:20 uh future plans were. um to justify allowing this to take place.
02:38:24 place. Was that conversation a conversation that you had with her? I don't believe it was. No. Who had that conversation with her?
02:38:36 Who had that conversation with her? I think um Mr. Lambert did. And presumably you then spoke to Lambert?
02:38:43 Lambert? Yes.
02:38:47 And is it right to discern from this that the ultimate aim is to put Frampton behind bars for a long time? Yes.
02:38:55 Yes. Without compromising HN26? Yes.
02:39:00 Yes. Uh following the sort of strategy that had been used by the SDS in the past. Yes.
02:39:09 Yes. Was there any consideration given to the consequences of releasing the mink?
02:39:20 No, not that I can recall. It should have been, shouldn't it? Should have been. Yes. They are animals that can do quite a lot of damage when released into the local
02:39:31 of damage when released into the local ecosystem. Yep.
02:39:36 Uh, was that oversight essentially the product of the excitement of the prospect of getting Frampton convicted? I think it probably was. Yes.
02:39:52 Who authorized HN26 as participation? I believe I did. Did you give any consideration to seeking higher authority?
02:40:04 seeking higher authority? Uh I I did um and
02:40:12 but I didn't I mean I gave thought to it but I didn't seek higher authority. Why not?
02:40:19 Why not? Because I believed I had the authority to do it um to authorize it. Um and yeah,
02:40:27 yeah, I'll come back to that in a in a moment. It's right, isn't it, that the Hampshire police were not told that you were going to deploy a UCO who was going to
02:40:38 to deploy a UCO who was going to participate in this action? Yes.
02:40:42 Yes. Why was Hampshire not told? To protect this the source to protect And whose decision was that?
02:40:53 And whose decision was that? Um,
02:40:55 Um, probably mine and and Mr. Lambert. When you say mine and Mr. Lambert, did Mr. Lambert counsel you not to tell Hampshire?
02:41:07 not to tell Hampshire? Yes. Yeah. And what was his reasoning? Well, because it would reveal um Hampshire, it would it would basically
02:41:19 Hampshire, it would it would basically uh
02:41:22 uh stop this operation and would put a risk to RB's exposure. Was it a case um that you didn't need
02:41:33 Was it a case um that you didn't need any persuading anyway or was it a case that he persuaded you? I think he persuaded me. [snorts] Does that apply just to the question of informing Hampshire or does
02:41:45 question of informing Hampshire or does it apply also to the question of authorizing participation?
02:41:51 Both. And were you aware of Lambert's uh involvement in the cases in the 1980s
02:42:05 involvement in the cases in the 1980s which had led to the convictions of Clark and Shepard?
02:42:10 [clears throat]
02:42:14 I can't remember. [snorts] I'm exploring with you why you accepted Mr. Lambert's advice. Did it come with particular authority because he had deployed into the animal rights field?
02:42:26 deployed into the animal rights field? It certainly Yes. Because he'd been deployed into the animal rights field. Yes.
02:42:34 This action involved your officer participating in what crimes
02:42:42 in um the release of link? Burglary.
02:42:51 Burglary. That would be burglary. Yes. Can [snorts] we have up please? 247846. Sorry. 247864.
02:43:04 You will recall that the document I was just showing you dated from early August 19 uh 98.
02:43:15 19 uh 98. This is from two months earlier. The branch note undercover operations code of practice. The preamble says,
02:43:27 code of practice. The preamble says, "This note addresses the points raised in the draft code of practice for undercover operations in respect of SDS operations. While these codes of practice do not specifically relate to
02:43:39 practice do not specifically relate to SDS operations, current operating standards do fall within the spirit of the code. Uh, and I'll just if we zoom
02:43:50 the code. Uh, and I'll just if we zoom out a bit, just want to give you a moment just to if you're not already familiar with this document to get a flavor of its structure. There's the file note.
02:44:03 structure. There's the file note. It's talking about the draft code of practice.
02:44:07 practice. And then if we just flick through the pages so you can very quickly see what it what it is. Um, there's your name at the bottom.
02:44:18 the bottom. And then we have the code of practice uh which follows. [snorts] Do you recall and when we come to anything specific I'll show you in more detail but do you recall being involved
02:44:32 detail but do you recall being involved at around this time in discussions about the code of practice uh and the SDS's um practices? I I don't recall it. No. Can you see
02:44:43 I I don't recall it. No. Can you see from this document that you were so involved?
02:44:47 involved? Yes.
02:44:48 Yes. Could we go to uh page three please? This is a code of practice uh in the
02:44:59 This is a code of practice uh in the form it was at the time uh being developed. But you saw from the paragraph I took you to that it was asserted that SDS practice was along
02:45:10 asserted that SDS practice was along those lines. Anyway, if we look at um paragraph 2 1 1.6, we need to look at first.
02:45:25 If we could have 1.6 expanded, please. Thank you.
02:45:40 So you see there what is said about the commission of offenses. Now can we go over the page and look at to page four and look at paragraph 2.4
02:45:51 [snorts] where there is serious criminal activity being planned and the field officer is party to that activity then in accordance with the criteria laid down in paragraph 1.6 Six authorization
02:46:05 down in paragraph 1.6 Six authorization will be sought from commander special branch.
02:46:14 Burglary is a serious criminal offense, isn't it?
02:46:19 isn't it? Yes.
02:46:21 Yes. So the position seems to be that on the basis of a draft code that was being developed with your involvement
02:46:34 developed with your involvement in circumstances where you were asserting that SDS practices were essentially in line with this code. Two months later you make a decision
02:46:46 Two months later you make a decision which is in clear breach of paragraph 2.4.
02:46:52 You would have guessed so. Yes. And that what you should have done was go to commander Moss. Yes.
02:47:03 Yes. And that one of the purposes of going to such senior ranks is that decisions such as that you took can have
02:47:16 as that you took can have wide ranging repercussions. Yes. of the kind that in fact eventuated in this case.
02:47:26 Yes.
02:47:31 Can we go to 247777 please?
02:47:41 Uh this is an update. It's produced we understand by DI Lambert. It's the 10th of August. Um, it also has, if we go to the end,
02:47:52 Um, it also has, if we go to the end, we'll see you are we've got your I think those are your initials that will have been redacted out. So, does that mean you've acknowledged seeing it?
02:48:03 acknowledged seeing it? I presume so. Yes. This is the expos facto report. If we go back to the first paragraph, it records that um 3 to 6,000 m uh were
02:48:16 it records that um 3 to 6,000 m uh were recorded in the early were released in the early hours of the 8th of August and as we know they went on to do quite a lot of damage. If we look at the
02:48:32 a lot of damage. If we look at the fourth
02:48:34 fourth um
02:48:36 um thank you fourth paragraph as DS Greeny notes in his report further ALF actions are planned ideally in terms of gaining credibility RB would benefit from taking part in at least one more action
02:48:49 part in at least one more action possibly the Essex target before plans are made to launch a preemptive SDS operation against leading ALF activists.
02:49:01 activists. So again, that is recording the longerterm strategy. All of this is directed to an attempt to convict Mr. Frampton.
02:49:09 Frampton. Yes.
02:49:12 Yes. And were you discussing that strategy with DI Lambert as you went along? Yes.
02:49:20 Yes. Is it right that ultimately it came to nothing?
02:49:24 nothing? Yes.
02:49:26 Yes. And was that because the next two actions didn't proceed? Um, I I don't know. Could we take that document down now and
02:49:38 Could we take that document down now and go to MPS301985,
02:49:43 please? We're moving now to April 1999. And this is one of HN26's
02:49:54 uh reports. And I'll give you a moment to look at it, but it's the third the tone of the third paragraph um that I'm going to
02:50:06 third paragraph um that I'm going to ask you about.
02:50:18 And that reads, "In pursuance of her intention to make newcomers feel more relaxed and welcome, privacy suggested to her immense regret that it would be nice for individuals around the room to
02:50:29 nice for individuals around the room to report on any recent actions, events that they had been involved in." This rash invitation inevitably resulted in a succession of fluffy loons and retards
02:50:40 succession of fluffy loons and retards prattling on about their tedious animal welfare stories, when and where they do stalls, what they thought about certain television programs, etc., etc. All in
02:50:51 television programs, etc., etc. All in all, this wasted about 40 minutes of everyone's time and is unlikely to be repeated again. Now, [snorts] you've described this report in your witness statement as humorous and light-hearted.
02:51:04 statement as humorous and light-hearted. You said you can't recall whether feedback was given and that consideration was not given to whether it was necessary and proportionate.
02:51:15 it was necessary and proportionate. We've seen a number of similar reports already uh this morning. Um this is more of the same derogatory, disrespectful, unprofessional reporting, isn't it? Yes.
02:51:28 unprofessional reporting, isn't it? Yes. Yes.
02:51:29 Yes. Tolerated on your watch. Yes.
02:51:33 Yes. And putting aside the language and looking at the uh substance, even if it had been expressed professionally,
02:51:45 professionally, these people are simply not a threat, are they?
02:51:49 are they? No.
02:51:51 No. The SDS should not have been reporting on soft-hearted animal lovers, should it?
02:51:58 it? No, but it was a report on a meeting. It was trying to describe the general tenor of the meeting.
02:52:07 There doesn't appear to have been any filter between lawabiding, soft-hearted animal lovers and those uh whose
02:52:18 animal lovers and those uh whose passions had driven them into criminal conduct. Is there There should have been, shouldn't there? We should be. Yes.
02:52:29 We should be. Yes. Can we now move to M09496,
02:52:34 please? Moving now to the end of HN26's deployment and her resignation from the Metropolitan Police Service.
02:52:48 This document is dated the 31st of May.
02:53:07 And if we just scroll down a little bit so we can see. Yes, it's bearing your initials. End of May 2000.
02:53:18 initials. End of May 2000. And it follows a meeting at the West London
02:53:24 London office where Sergeant Greeny had had a meeting with HN26
02:53:32 HN26 at his home and that it records that 26 was going to resign from the MPS which had come as a
02:53:44 resign from the MPS which had come as a surprise. The second paragraph um records that you had spoken that evening to 26. Presumably that's because
02:53:56 evening to 26. Presumably that's because of the surprise news that she was intending to resign. Is that right?
02:54:04 Sorry for the transcript. Could you
02:54:12 Sorry. Did Did you call 26 because you had learned she was going to resign from the MPS?
02:54:21 MPS? Yes.
02:54:23 Yes. And says that uh she was guarded, but she'd said something to the effect of, "You know me, I plan everything."
02:54:35 "You know me, I plan everything." Can you help us with what she said to you on that occasion in any more detail, please?
02:54:44 please? No, I can't.
02:54:48 Was any reason given for the resignation?
02:54:56 No, apart from the fact that she was planning to do something else with her life.
02:55:06 What then happens is there is a potential compromise of HN 26. We've got a report dated the 6th of July 2000
02:55:20 a report dated the 6th of July 2000 about that which concludes that she would need to be moved. Do you recall that?
02:55:26 that? Yes.
02:55:27 Yes. Bearing that in mind, if we move to the 28th of uh July uh and a file note of that date about a meeting on the 25th,
02:55:38 that date about a meeting on the 25th, it's at 526750,
02:55:49 page three.
02:55:54 And this is quite a curious document for reasons we'll see if we go to page three please.
02:56:06 This is a report which says I if we go to the bottom we'll see who it is
02:56:16 HN53. If we go back to the start of that report.
02:56:23 So I 53 had a meeting yesterday afternoon with HN1 at his instigation. He said that he had had a day-long meeting with Magenta Triangle. Um that's
02:56:39 meeting with Magenta Triangle. Um that's HN16 James Detective Sergeant James Thompson and Road Bridge on Tuesday when one of the major topics of conversation was the increasing anxiety being
02:56:50 was the increasing anxiety being expressed by Red Herring. It's the officer we know as HN3. [snorts]
02:56:58 Then this report goes on at some length about HN3's arrest
02:57:04 arrest um at um the Mayday 2000 RTS demonstration. For the purposes of these questions, I'm not interested in that arrest at the
02:57:16 not interested in that arrest at the moment. What I'm interested in is why there's been a meeting between HN1,
02:57:27 between HN1, HN16,
02:57:29 HN16, and HN26
02:57:32 and HN26 cuz all three of them had deployed into the animal rights field, hadn't they?
02:58:15 I can only imagine that
02:58:20 HN1
02:58:23 has contacted
02:58:27 Magenta Triangle and Road Bridge
02:58:32 for the reasons indicated. I don't know why they would become involved in that. What I what I am driving at is at we
02:58:44 What I what I am driving at is at we understand the position to be by this stage HN26 had withdrawn from her deployment. She then had the potential compromise at
02:58:58 She then had the potential compromise at the start of the month. [snorts]
02:59:01 [snorts] She has been seen by HN1 and Detective Sergeant Thompson, both from the same field.
02:59:09 field. Were HN1
02:59:12 Were HN1 and Thompson being used to go and see HN26 either about the compromise or her decision to resign or both?
02:59:25 decision to resign or both? I have no idea. Can you recall whether they relayed anything to you about HN26 following that visit?
02:59:41 I can't recall anything. Were you concerned about HN26 at this stage?
02:59:49 Not particularly. No. Notwithstanding the potential compromise and the resignation.
03:00:18 Right. Um, sorry, I'm I'm a bit confused here. Um,
03:00:23 here. Um, if if the confusion is arising from this report only only concerns HN3, um, can I put this to you? Is the reason
03:00:34 um, can I put this to you? Is the reason there's nothing written about HN26 because it might concern the relationship with Frampton? I don't believe so. No. Was there any
03:00:48 I don't believe so. No. Was there any concern at the stage about a relationship between HN26 and Frampton? No.
03:01:00 Can we now take that down and go to 748089
03:01:08 once we've got it up to page 11 thereof
03:01:28 This is a file note apparently made by you on the 6th of September recording um a visit a meeting on the 5th of September with HN26's
03:01:41 September with HN26's partner.
03:01:43 partner. Yes.
03:01:43 Yes. And uh that was all to do with documents arising from moving as a result of the compromise, isn't it?
03:01:56 as a result of the compromise, isn't it? Yes. or potential compromise. It says in the second paragraph, I asked how HN26 was, and he indicated that she was getting on with her new job and that
03:02:07 was getting on with her new job and that they were considering buying a smaller house as a base. [snorts] Did HN did HN26's partner say
03:02:18 [snorts] Did HN did HN26's partner say anything to you about why they would want a smaller house?
03:02:27 I I can't I can't recall why. At this stage, uh did HN26's partner say anything to you about who
03:02:39 partner say anything to you about who was going to live in this smaller premises?
03:02:43 premises? No.
03:02:46 No. Could we have 746307, please?
03:02:53 This is moving on to the 26th of September.
03:03:01 [snorts] This is another file node of yours.
03:03:13 yours. Um, again connected to the move. I'll give you a moment to just familiarize yourself with the content of the type text to give you the context, but it's
03:03:26 text to give you the context, but it's going to be the manuscript note underneath that I will focus on.
03:03:42 Before [snorts]
03:03:48 we move to the manuscript note, is it fair to say that by this stage getting contact with HN26 wasn't entirely straightforward? Yes.
03:03:58 Yes. And she was becoming distant.
03:04:04 Yep. If we go to the manuscript,
03:04:26 it appears from this manuscript endorsement that both you and TN21 by this stage think that HN 1026 and her husband are possibly splitting up.
03:04:39 husband are possibly splitting up. Yes.
03:04:40 Yes. And what had given you that impression? The difficulty in contacting Road Bridge and
03:04:54 her husband. Well, it doesn't seem to have been too much difficulty in contacting her partner, does there? It's it's getting hold of her that's a problem, isn't it?
03:05:05 hold of her that's a problem, isn't it? Yes.
03:05:07 Yes. Did you have any understanding as to why they were splitting at this stage? No.
03:05:14 No. And it then goes on to say need to speak to JT and HN1. Again, those two officers from the same field as HN26.
03:05:25 from the same field as HN26. Is that because they were on good terms with HN26? Possibly. Yes. and understood what she'd been through and the field she had infiltrated.
03:05:38 infiltrated. Yes.
03:05:39 Yes. What did they say to you?
03:05:46 I I can't recall. I can't remember. [snorts]
03:05:52 There is another note we have dated at least the 2nd of November 2000, possibly slightly uh later uh which records that
03:06:03 slightly uh later uh which records that HN26's husband was moving into the new property alone. Do you recall becoming aware of that? I think so. Yes.
03:06:17 I think so. Yes. Then if we move to MPS309494,
03:06:22 this is the 2nd of November 2000. This is a record of a call between you and HN26's husband.
03:06:48 give you a moment to look at that. It's mainly about the conversation on the second uh but then at the bottom it relays uh the fact that uh that
03:06:59 relays uh the fact that uh that you learn from Sergeant Thompson that he'd received a call from HN26.
03:07:26 Yes. So by this stage, you know, they've moved, they've used the opportunity of the compulsory move to buy a smaller property. Only the husband is living in
03:07:38 property. Only the husband is living in it and uh his contact with his wife appears to be diminishing.
03:07:48 Yes. Further confirmation of your s suspicion that they were splitting up. Yes.
03:07:59 Yes. Can you help us um over and above what's recorded in the document either with what her husband said or what HN26 said
03:08:12 what her husband said or what HN26 said to Sergeant Thompson? No, I can't. We know that the truth was that HN26
03:08:23 We know that the truth was that HN26 had formed a sexual relationship with Mr. Frampton and was leaving her husband in order to be with him and was
03:08:36 husband in order to be with him and was leaving the Metropolitan Police Service in order to be with him.
03:08:46 You do not appear to have been aware of that at the time. Is that right? That's correct. If you had known
03:08:59 If you had known that
03:09:01 that HN26
03:09:02 HN26 was leaving her husband and the MPS in order to be with the cell leader of the cell she had
03:09:15 the cell leader of the cell she had infiltrated, would that have had a decision, an effect on the decision for public funds to have been spent on
03:09:27 for public funds to have been spent on her compulsory move.
03:09:34 Probably because they were going to have to sell the marital home anyway and divide the assets which appears to
03:09:45 and divide the assets which appears to have been facilitated um by the compulsory move providing a new home. Oh. paying for the move into a new home for HN26's husband. Is that
03:09:59 new home for HN26's husband. Is that fair?
03:10:00 fair? Yes.
03:10:02 Yes. Was that issue ever discussed?
03:10:09 No. Did there come a time when you found out that Frampton and HN26 had got together and left um HN26's husband for that
03:10:21 and left um HN26's husband for that reason?
03:10:23 reason? I I was I didn't become aware of that until many years later.
03:10:33 Would there have been concerns in any event that it would be a very bad time to disappoint HN26 by not paying
03:10:45 by not paying for [snorts] her move when she was in a position to spill the secrets of the SDS?
03:10:56 I'm sorry I lost the question at the beginning. Yeah. Well, I I I put to you first of all whether or not the true facts would have affected the decision to fund a compulsory move.
03:11:08 the decision to fund a compulsory move. What we would have done this I'm now as adding the additional twist. Would the SDS wanted to have fund the move anyway simply to try and keep HN26
03:11:21 move anyway simply to try and keep HN26 quiet and limit the damage? No.
03:11:26 No. What she did was a very serious breach of operational security, wasn't it? Yes.
03:11:39 Can we move now to Detective Constable Jenner? And we'll start with MPS 40794.
03:12:02 This [snorts] is a report from January 1998
03:12:07 1998 from
03:12:09 from uh Jenna and it is about anti-fascist action. I'll give you a moment to uh familiarize [snorts] yourself again uh with the contents. Uh,
03:12:24 yourself again uh with the contents. Uh, but I will be interested in asking you more about the references to the Lawrence family in this report.
03:12:47 [snorts]
03:13:30 Yes. Can I ask you first of all, what was your knowledge and understanding of anti-fascist action at this stage? Well, there were um an active
03:13:43 Well, there were um an active organization um protesting on the streets and quite a violent organization as well.
03:13:50 as well. When you say quite a violent organization, what was the basis for that? They confronted all right-wing activities, all right-wing protests.
03:14:01 activities, all right-wing protests. When you say confronted, do you mean would not be afraid to protest against them and exercise their right to self-defense if the far-right
03:14:15 right to self-defense if the far-right activists became violent? Or do you mean something more than that? No, no, I don't. I mean that
03:14:23 confront and exercise their right to self-defense.
03:14:28 Yes.
03:14:32 Describes in paragraph two AFA having had close connections with the family of Steven Lawrence before losing out in the
03:14:43 Steven Lawrence before losing out in the left-wing scramble for recruitment amongst victim families. What was the significance of close connections with the Lawrence family?
03:14:56 Well, I think it's the um the activities of anti-fascist action to try and exploit what they could um from
03:15:09 um from the Lawrence family position.
03:15:15 So, I'm understanding you correctly. You're asserting it was significant to special branch that a group such as AFA had close connections with the family
03:15:26 had close connections with the family because you wanted to know what influence they were having.
03:15:33 Well, it's all it comes down to public protest and whether they were going to try and exploit the Lawrence family for their own ends.
03:15:44 their own ends. How did you suspect they were going to exploit the Lawrence family for their own ends?
03:15:53 own ends? I'll try and get influence into the into into the Lawrence family campaign and
03:16:01 and probably promote um protests on the street
03:16:08 endorsed by the Lawrence family. I I don't know. Did that is that what you thought they were trying to do? I think that's what I thought they were
03:16:19 I think that's what I thought they were they were trying to do. What evidence did you have of that
03:16:27 from the reporting from the undercover officer?
03:16:32 officer? And if I've understood your earlier answer to my question correctly, this will be for the purposes of lawful protest against fascism.
03:16:45 protest against fascism. Lawful protest. Yes.
03:16:50 Why can't a political group in this country
03:16:54 country approach
03:16:56 approach a family such as the Lawrenes and
03:17:01 and express sympathy with their cause and discuss whether or not uh they would be interested in becoming involved with their protests?
03:17:12 their protests? Well, it's a it's a question of um public order. A bigger pardon? They have every right to do it. But but we are monitoring organizations for public order.
03:17:27 Even [clears throat] if it's entirely lawful.
03:17:31 Even if it's entirely lawful. Yes. I mean it's it's lawful to have demonstrations in this country. Um, but they do have to be monitored by police
03:17:43 they do have to be monitored by police because there are always factions in demonstrations where there's potential for public disorder. Why do they have to be monitored by police?
03:17:55 Well, police have a a responsibility to prevent public disorder. You have a duty to keep the king's peace.
03:18:06 peace. Why does that require undercover officers
03:18:10 officers reporting on the level of connection between a group like AFA and the grieving family of a murder victim?
03:18:21 grieving family of a murder victim? Well, because that that organization might um
03:18:27 might um organize public order events which could turn out to be could turn out to be disorderly. That's a mere possibility of disorder.
03:18:40 That's a mere possibility of disorder. There is a possibility. So there's a a possibility of the grieving family endorsing a demonstration which might possibly become disorderly.
03:18:52 become disorderly. No, not it's not targeting the grieving family. It's it's targeting the group that is trying to influence that family. But you told me the interest in the
03:19:03 But you told me the interest in the family was because you thought AFA might be trying to exploit their their name. Might be. Yes.
03:19:15 [snorts]
03:19:19 And exploit just means enlist in support of their political beliefs. Well, they might be enlisting their political beliefs. Yes.
03:19:30 political beliefs. Yes. And the Lawrence family, of course, entirely free to decide whether or not to cooperate with AFA. They did not need the police assistance
03:19:43 They did not need the police assistance to make that decision, did they? No, they didn't. No. [snorts]
03:19:50 [snorts] And then if we look at the fourth uh paragraph, it says,
03:19:56 it says, "Harold is therefore hoping that this respectable exterior will provide AFA with cover to operate against racist attacks in Tempsme and Southeast
03:20:07 attacks in Tempsme and Southeast London." What does that mean? Well, it it means that my saying it means that anti-fascist action are actually going to do some
03:20:20 action are actually going to do some activities themselves which may confront right-wing organizations.
03:20:29 No details about what confront means. No.
03:20:36 No. Cover to operate against racist attacks. It's rather dramatic language, isn't it? It is. Yes. How would association with Steven's
03:20:49 How would association with Steven's family provide cover to operate against racist attacks?
03:21:02 I can't answer that.
03:21:10 I mean, it's a nonsense, isn't it? The reality is AFA simply wanted to campaign against fascists. They might want to speak to the Lawrenes about that, but they're going to do it
03:21:21 about that, but they're going to do it anyway.
03:21:23 anyway. Possibly. Yes. The date January 1998. At this stage, a Steven Lawrence inquiry was still in its preparatory phase and it hadn't begun
03:21:35 preparatory phase and it hadn't begun its public hearings, although those were imminent due to start in the [snorts] following March. What was the atmosphere like
03:21:51 in what? You've got a major public inquiry into the Metropolitan Police Service making allegations of racism arising from a
03:22:02 allegations of racism arising from a botched murder investigation. What was the atmosphere like?
03:22:11 Well, I think we
03:22:19 I can't remember what the atmosphere atmosphere the atmosphere within SDS or the atmosphere in the police or is there a I can be more specific at
03:22:32 is there a I can be more specific at this juncture in time. Was there a particular interest in gathering intelligence on connections between
03:22:44 Steven's family and left-wing anti-racist, anti-fascist groups?
03:22:55 I think the atmosphere was what would be the reaction of anti-fascist action to the hearings and whether there would be any
03:23:08 whether there would be any uh counter demonstrations um
03:23:13 um at the hearings.
03:23:18 Can we take it then that the proximity of an inquiry into the MPS heightened the appetite
03:23:30 the appetite for this sort of intelligence?
03:23:35 I don't know whether it heightened it or not.
03:23:39 not. It
03:23:39 It was there anyway. Well,
03:23:42 Well, yes.
03:23:49 Did you give any consideration as to whether it was appropriate for Detective Constable Jenner to be reporting in this way on connections between AFA and
03:24:02 way on connections between AFA and Steven's family?
03:24:07 Well, I thought he Yes. I mean, he was reporting on his own organization and what it was proposing to do with regard to the Steven Lawrence campaign and and the hearings,
03:24:19 and and the hearings, but he's also reporting on Steven's family, isn't he? Not specifically. It is planned that Harold and Privacy will meet up with the Lawrence family
03:24:30 will meet up with the Lawrence family and other families who have suffered racial abuse. That's reporting on Steven's family, isn't it? Yes.
03:24:42 Given what you've said about lawful demonstration on the part of AFA, knowing that Steven's family were grieving for their murdered son and accusing the MPS of racism,
03:24:56 accusing the MPS of racism, don't you think it would have been better to stop Jenna reporting on links between AFA and Steven's family?
03:25:09 Steven's family? No, I don't think so. I think he was reporting on his own organization um that he that he had infiltrated and
03:25:23 I think that that organization's activities were relevant to the NPSB and the Metropolitan Police. I beg your pardon. relevant to
03:25:34 I beg your pardon. relevant to it was relevant to the NPSB and whatever activities were being proposed um for policing the Steven Lawrence inquiry.
03:25:47 policing the Steven Lawrence inquiry. So the activities of the family visav protest groups you thought was relevant
03:25:56 relevant policing intelligence? Yes.
03:26:02 Thank you section. So, is that an appropriate time to break for lunch? Certainly. [clears throat]
03:26:13 We'll uh resume at 2