HN58, a former Detective Chief Inspector who headed the Metropolitan Police's Special Demonstration Squad, gives evidence remotely (audio only) about his tenure covering the deployments of undercover officers "Touchy Subject" (DC Jenner) and "Psycho Dream" (DC Jim Boiling/Sutton). Counsel to the Inquiry probes falsified accommodation records, a magistrates' court left unaware an officer was undercover, a knowingly false communications-data application used to trace an ex-partner, and repeated claims that he did not know his officers were deceiving women — Allison and Rosa — into long-term sexual relationships. By the close of the day HN58 concedes he did in fact know of Boiling's relationship with Rosa well before it ended, and that he took no action over it.
00:19:04 Good afternoon everybody. Uh this afternoon's proceedings like this morning's are being broadcast by voice only over the live link after a 15minute delay. Those with mobile telephones may
00:19:16 delay. Those with mobile telephones may use them to report what they hear in the hearing room, but they may not be used for recording.
00:19:26 Thank you, sir. Um, can we go please HN58 to Do in February of 1998 where uh DC Jenner is arrested.
00:19:40 where uh DC Jenner is arrested. If we [snorts] have up please 526752.
00:19:46 Um I realize that I omitted to say they may report what they hear in the hearing room but only after 15 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're reporting. Apologies to everybody.
00:19:58 reporting. Apologies to everybody. Yes.
00:20:01 This is a file note which a minute sheet which deals with uh that arrest and we see uh right at
00:20:14 uh that arrest and we see uh right at the top there you writing to defective superintendent Pierce. This is a minor charge which if you agree should be allowed to take its normal course. I'll
00:20:27 allowed to take its normal course. I'll be monitoring the case closely, particularly in respect of any further contact with DC Jenner's Duff address. If we go to page four, I'll remind you of the events in question.
00:20:46 He'd been arrested at an AFA um well as an AFA member uh at opposing a national front march
00:20:58 a national front march and he was taken to DOA police station and charged with causing obstruction bailed to the first of April.
00:21:17 If you see on the fifth paragraph there, again, this document is written by you. It says, "I have fully debriefed the officer and I'm satisfied that his actions were completely commensurate with his target group. He maintained his
00:21:29 with his target group. He maintained his cover throughout the incident and I am satisfied that SDS operations remained secure. Indeed, this instant can only enhance his already high standing within AFA. On the welfare front, DC general
00:21:42 AFA. On the welfare front, DC general appears unaffected by the incident. Can you help us with where did you get your understanding
00:21:53 where did you get your understanding of how to deal with a UCO being arrested and what the normal approach would be?
00:22:06 Well, [clears throat] um my understanding of when a UCO got arrested, he should or he or she should remain
00:22:18 using their their target name uh for as long as possible. um and maintain their cover
00:22:29 um and maintain their cover um
00:22:31 um you know with all reasonable means and I think that was standard practice when I was on SDS
00:22:42 was on SDS um at the time. I can't I can't I can't remember where I actually got the information from, but I think that was standard practice. And the view that it could only enhance
00:22:54 And the view that it could only enhance his already high standing within AFA, that's a view we've seen expressed in relation to many arrests of UCOs. Was
00:23:07 relation to many arrests of UCOs. Was that a generally held view? Yes, I think it was. Yeah. And if we go to page two please,
00:23:17 we see um I took you initially to your um communication with Pierce. If we look at
00:23:29 communication with Pierce. If we look at uh Mr. Pierce's communication to you underneath. Uh he says, "Thank you for this notice which is further evidence of the outstanding fieldwork and credibility
00:23:40 outstanding fieldwork and credibility established by this officer over a long period. Please keep me informed of the outcome in the usual way. I would wish immediate notice of any development connected with the telephone call." Now,
00:23:51 connected with the telephone call." Now, the telephone call is a separate issue, isn't it? Uh relating to a threatening call that um DC Jenner had received. Can I take it from
00:24:03 Can I take it from uh DCS Pierce's response that everything you were doing was in the knowledge of and with the full approval of senior management?
00:24:14 management? Yes.
00:24:14 Yes. And throughout your time as DCI of the SDS, did it remain the case that that approach to arrests was the house line? Yes.
00:24:26 Yes. [snorts] And if we go to page uh seven please.
00:24:33 Uh this uh is a branch note dated the 8th of April 1998 produced it appears by you and it records
00:24:45 you and it records the appearance of uh DC Jenner with codefendants do magistrates court where he pleaded not guilty and the case was
00:24:59 he pleaded not guilty and the case was adjourned. Uh, am I right that the magistrate's court was not told that DC Jenner was an undercover police officer?
00:25:10 Jenner was an undercover police officer? Yes.
00:25:11 Yes. And was that for reasons of operational security?
00:25:14 security? Yes.
00:25:17 Yes. Was any thought given to the propriety of permitting DC Jenner to lie to a court about who he really was?
00:25:29 court about who he really was? I don't think so. No. [snorts]
00:25:32 [snorts] And was any thought given to the course of justice when the codefendant did not know that the man they were arrested
00:25:44 know that the man they were arrested with was really a police officer? Yeah.
00:25:48 Yeah. If you had dressed your mind to either of those questions, first of all, was it acceptable to let an officer lie to a court uh about his
00:26:03 an officer lie to a court uh about his identity? What would your conclusion have been?
00:26:10 that
00:26:13 um he he he used his his cover name to protect his identity and to protect the operation.
00:26:26 Shouldn't Shouldn't the court have been told
00:26:30 told Jenna's real identity?
00:26:35 Well, there was a risk that it would reveal who he really was. Um, and that might have leaked out to the other codefendants. It's a question of
00:26:46 codefendants. It's a question of protecting him and the operation.
00:26:51 So, if I'm understanding your evidence, the court the court is not told, even privately that this is an undercover police officer and that is for reasons
00:27:02 police officer and that is for reasons of source protection. Yes.
00:27:08 Did anybody give any consideration to the level of authority required to mislead a court? I don't think so. Did anybody give any attention to the fact that um the
00:27:23 attention to the fact that um the procedures in place are such that it is a cardinal rule that a court should not be misled? I don't think so. No,
00:27:34 I don't think so. No, the court should have been told, shouldn't it? In hindsight, probably should have been told. Even without hindsight, you knew your officer was in front of a court
00:27:45 your officer was in front of a court lying to that court. The court should have been told the true position.
00:27:52 position. Yes.
00:27:58 [snorts] Can we take that down now, please? DC Jenner
00:28:05 DC Jenner infiltrated the Colin Roach Center. What did you know about the Colin Roach Center?
00:28:14 Um, I can't recall. Can I would you disagree with the proposition that it was not itself involved in any serious public disorder?
00:28:28 serious public disorder? Yes.
00:28:30 Yes. Uh
00:28:32 Uh and it was a gathering point for political activists on the left in North London.
00:28:41 London. Yes.
00:28:43 Yes. What was the purpose of DC Jenner infiltrating such a center? [clears throat] probably because it was what his group
00:28:54 probably because it was what his group was doing and it would been quite difficult for him not to follow what his organization were targeting were looking at.
00:29:06 were targeting were looking at. Well, our understanding is he infiltrated the Colin Roach Center as well and then and joined groups later.
00:29:16 later. Did you understand that? I appreciate it's before your time. I I No, I don't. What was your understanding of what Jenna was doing when you assumed um
00:29:28 Jenna was doing when you assumed um command of the SDS? He was involved in the anti-fascist action group.
00:29:37 [clears throat] We know he was still reporting on the Colin Roach Center whilst uh you were in command. Could you see any justification for him doing that?
00:29:52 only if there were other organizations um [clears throat] that he was targeting um other members of his own group were
00:30:03 other members of his own group were involved.
00:30:05 involved. [snorts]
00:30:06 [snorts] Can we move now to the question of the woman that Detective Constable Jenner deceived into a sexual relationship and then cohabited with for the best part of
00:30:18 then cohabited with for the best part of 5 years who we are calling Allison. Can we have up please 749473?
00:30:33 [clears throat] Can we have page 12, please?
00:30:40 This is a diagram of the accommodation that Jenna was living in when you assumed command.
00:30:54 was living in when you assumed command. He was living in a two-bedroom flat uh with Allison. You will see that this diagram is
00:31:07 You will see that this diagram is labeled
00:31:09 labeled in a way which suggests a property in multiple
00:31:14 multiple occupation. In fact, it was a two-bedroom flat. Room one was the living room. Room two and room three were bedrooms. There was a
00:31:25 room three were bedrooms. There was a bathroom and a kitchen. We've heard evidence from Detective Constable Jenner that this diagram
00:31:37 diagram deliberately painted a false picture of the reality. And he also told us that detective inspector Lambert was well
00:31:50 detective inspector Lambert was well aware that it was not a reflection of the true position. When did you see this diagram?
00:32:03 I can't recall ever seeing it.
00:32:10 Can you recall whether this diagram was ever put to you as representative of Jenna's living arrangements?
00:32:21 Jenna's living arrangements? No, I can't. What was your understanding of Jenna's living arrangements when you took command?
00:32:34 I I assume he was living in a um a duff flat like all the other SDS officers.
00:32:45 officers. Did you speak to him
00:32:49 when I first came into SDS? Yes, I did. Presumably, you got to know all the officers under your command. Yes.
00:32:58 Yes. And would would part of the conversation that you had with Jenner have been about his accommodation? I can't recall. Probably not, but may have done.
00:33:11 Probably not, but may have done. Is it likely that you would have spoke to him about his accommodation? I don't think so. No. I beg your pardon? Don't think so. No, I don't know. I can't remember. Why wouldn't you?
00:33:25 Well, unless it's an issue that he would want to bring up, um, I wouldn't see any point in purposing it.
00:33:37 point in purposing it. So, is it your evidence that you didn't know one way or the other who he was living with? No, I didn't know he was living with anybody.
00:33:48 anybody. Can we go to 749473?
00:33:53 It's the same, sorry, the same document, page 21.
00:34:01 [snorts] This is um a document, a report, a note for file about a conspiracy uh that DC Jenner appears to have been
00:34:12 uh that DC Jenner appears to have been invited into. Uh it's being run by
00:34:19 run by Harold and Jamie. I'll give you a moment to refresh your memory from this this document.
00:34:59 This is just after you have joined the unit and assumed command. Uh, and it appears to be a significant development in the deployment. Can we
00:35:12 development in the deployment. Can we take it that you would have been made aware of this? I think I would have been. Yes. And we've got by this stage the names of the people in the group of conspirators.
00:35:26 the people in the group of conspirators. Uh but there is not at this stage any detailed planning going on. Is that fair?
00:35:35 Yes. It says at the end of this note written by Sergeant um is that Sergeant Webb?
00:35:48 Dealing with the product of his involvement will be difficult. In what ways would dealing with the product of his involvement be difficult?
00:36:01 But I would imagine reading the the group that he's been invited to join, there might be some um violence involved.
00:36:11 involved. That wouldn't explain why dealing with the product of his involvement will be difficult.
00:36:21 If the product is the intelligence reporting, what will be difficult about that?
00:36:26 that? Well, I
00:36:29 Well, I couldn't believe I don't quite see what the difficulty would be. Well, are we back in a a situation similar to to that which we were
00:36:41 similar to to that which we were discussing this morning where a UCO has got into a small group of conspirators and your objective would be to obtain
00:36:53 and your objective would be to obtain intelligence which could be used ultimately to help secure arrest and conviction without compromising the operational security of the officer.
00:37:05 security of the officer. could be. Yes. And
00:37:09 And was there a complication in this case uh being that your officer was living with Allison in a two-bedroom flat?
00:37:23 I I didn't I don't read that into it. um I wasn't aware that he was and that one of the foreseeable
00:37:34 and that one of the foreseeable consequences of an operation involving a small cell would be surveillance teams might need to be called in. It might be. Yes.
00:37:45 It might be. Yes. To gather evidence. And if one of the conspirators is a UCO and living with a woman in a two-bedroom flat as a couple,
00:37:57 flat as a couple, that would be a problem, wouldn't it? It would be. Yes. Can we look, please, at 749 325.
00:38:14 This is a file note dated the 31st of July 1997. The same date as the document I've just shown you. This is a document produced by Bob Lambert as a result of a
00:38:30 produced by Bob Lambert as a result of a meeting the same day with DC Jenner. starts off specifically referring
00:38:40 referring to the recent developments um involving Jamie and the cell which we have just looked at. It's a document which was copied to you.
00:38:55 which was copied to you. If we look at paragraph two first of all
00:39:14 we see their discussion about the conspiracy and one potential way of dealing with it namely disruption being floated.
00:39:25 floated. Can you recall did you discuss with DI Lambert
00:39:30 Lambert uh how you were going to deal with this conspiracy? No, I can't recall. [snorts] If we look now at at paragraphs 3 to five,
00:39:41 we look now at at paragraphs 3 to five, please.
00:39:43 please. Having had two paragraphs about the
00:39:49 plot, we then change subject uh and it goes into the question of accommodation but with this segue.
00:40:00 but with this segue. Given that surveillance might well be deployed in such an operation, touch subject felt it prudent to mention a significant change which has developed
00:40:12 significant change which has developed in recent months at his Duff address. In a nutshell, he now shares the premises, a large house originally split into several bedsits with friends, including
00:40:24 several bedsits with friends, including most notably anarchist activist privacy. privacy.
00:40:29 privacy. Privacy
00:40:31 Privacy and it goes on. I'll give you a moment to look at three, four, and five.
00:41:41 And if we could just finish off paragraph five over the page.
00:41:59 [snorts]
00:42:04 So essentially paragraphs four and five are extolling the virtues of living with activists, aren't they? Yes.
00:42:15 Yes. And if we go back to paragraph three, [cough]
00:42:23 which says he now shares a premises, a large house originally split into several bedsits with friends. That's not entirely consistent with the floor plan
00:42:34 entirely consistent with the floor plan we've just looked at, which showed a single floor rather than the large house, is it? No.
00:42:44 And uh it says original details originally supplied by the operative remain accurate including details of the landlord that's Allison and the rent and
00:42:56 landlord that's Allison and the rent and was happy to receive a combined amount of rent from a group of friends. That's quite difficult to reconcile, isn't it? How would rent stay the same
00:43:07 isn't it? How would rent stay the same if the property was now being occupied by a larger number of people who are sharing the rent?
00:43:19 Yeah, that's true. Touchy subject still enjoys the space and privacy of his own room at the house, but is able to share the communal facilities, eating, drinking, TV, etc.
00:43:31 facilities, eating, drinking, TV, etc. with a group of like-minded friends. Again, that's quite hard to reconcile with the floor plan we've looked at which showed just a communal kitchen, isn't it?
00:43:41 isn't it? It is. Unless that's just one floor. I don't know. If we go back to the second page
00:43:52 If we go back to the second page and you can look at the last three paragraphs,
00:44:02 you'll see that the tenor of paragraph six is just to assert that his home life had not been rendered significantly different.
00:44:18 And then seven and eight uh are rather more important for my immediate purposes.
00:44:28 It appears that he is being thanked for being open and frank and is positively advocating living with activists
00:44:40 advocating living with activists as a good thing for the SDS generally. And [snorts] you will see that Lambert is agreeing to discuss the matter with
00:44:51 is agreeing to discuss the matter with you.
00:45:05 Yeah. What did Lambert say to you on the subject of Jenna's accommodation?
00:45:17 I I can't remember.
00:45:25 Did he ever at any point talk to you about Jenna's living arrangements?
00:45:34 I can't recall. Would you have read this document when it was copied to you?
00:45:45 it was copied to you? Probably. Yes. How inquisitive were you about this apparent change in living arrangements?
00:45:58 apparent change in living arrangements? I probably would have spoken to the Lambert about the viability of doing it and whether it was going to put too much stress on the officer being in a accommodation where
00:46:12 accommodation where basically he couldn't get away from his target group. Were any checks run on the property and its occupants?
00:46:25 Not to my knowledge. I can't recall. Did you speak to DC Jenner about them? I don't believe I did. No.
00:46:40 The evidence we have had is to the effect that this document is a sham. Because the reality at all material
00:46:51 Because the reality at all material times was that Jenna simply continued to live with Allison as a couple in the two-bedroom flat.
00:47:05 Did either Lambert or Jenna or anybody else ever tell you what the real living arrangement was?
00:47:17 what the real living arrangement was? No.
00:47:20 DC Jenner should have told you, shouldn't he? Yes.
00:47:25 Yes. Did DC Jenner ever make any positive assertion to you directly about his living arrangements, which was
00:47:36 about his living arrangements, which was false?
00:47:42 I I don't believe he made any assertions to me about his living arrangements. And presumably he didn't need to because you weren't asking any questions.
00:47:53 you weren't asking any questions. What about his living arrangements? No. Even when you got this document? Yes.
00:48:04 Did Lambert ever make any assertion to you other than in this document about Jenna's living arrangements?
00:48:16 Jenna's living arrangements? No, don't think so. What is your reaction now to the evidence that this document was a sham?
00:48:33 disappointment.
00:48:40 Yeah.
00:48:46 I want to give you the opportunity to respond to this proposition. A possible motivation for producing this dishonest document
00:48:59 for producing this dishonest document might have been to deceive you. Are you able to help us one way or the other as to whether that was their motive?
00:49:13 I [clears throat] I I just can't comment on it. I mean I don't
00:49:24 Yeah. I I mean whether their intention was to deceive me, I don't know. Was there distance between you and
00:49:35 Was there distance between you and Detective Inspector Lambert or did you enjoy a close working relationship? I think we enjoy a relatively close working relationship. Did your relationship with Lambert improve
00:49:49 relationship with Lambert improve as you worked together?
00:49:56 Possibly.
00:50:01 Did you sense that you enjoyed his trust?
00:50:13 Yes. Did you trust him? Yes.
00:50:23 Would there have been any reason for Lambert not to come clean with you about
00:50:33 about Jenna's real living arrangements and the problem that the potential for surveillance generated?
00:50:46 Well, maybe that I wouldn't have agreed with the arrangement. I don't know. But it was vitally important that you should
00:50:57 it was vitally important that you should know the truth, wasn't it? It was.
00:51:04 Did they tell you the truth at some point?
00:51:11 No, I was never aware.
00:51:15 [snorts] Can we take that down now, please, and have 749473, please, at page 20.
00:51:32 [snorts] This is a strategy meeting with DC Jenner in January 1998.
00:51:44 You are said to be amongst those present and you're also copied into uh the record of the meeting. You'll see
00:51:55 uh the record of the meeting. You'll see from paragraph one that DI Lambert was also present along with two of your sergeants. Paragraph three is about Jaime's plot.
00:52:09 Paragraph three is about Jaime's plot. Again,
00:52:10 Again, there was little of substance known.
00:52:21 Then if we go to paragraph five, it says, "In a general sense, HN15 expressed satisfaction with his living arrangements and vehicle. His wife and
00:52:34 arrangements and vehicle. His wife and children have moved into a new house and have settled in extremely well." It would appear from that that at this strategy meeting at which you were
00:52:46 strategy meeting at which you were present, there was some discussion of Jenna's living arrangements, wasn't there?
00:52:54 there? It would appear so from that. Yes. Were you discussing his living arrangements as an undercover police officer?
00:53:07 Um, I assume from that, yes.
00:53:14 And unless he was telling blatant lies to you,
00:53:20 to you, he must have told you that he was living with Allison.
00:53:30 Was it by this stage an open secret that Allison was living with Jenna as a couple?
00:53:40 Not to my knowledge. No. And that
00:53:45 And that all four of you, that's you, Lambert, War, and Titty knew.
00:53:53 No.
00:53:56 Could I take that down now, please? Could we have 749473 page 19 please? It's the same document just page 19.
00:54:09 [snorts]
00:54:12 This is an important development in the course of DC Jenner's deployment because he has been invited
00:54:23 he has been invited to join
00:54:25 to join Red Action. Do you recall this? Yeah,
00:54:31 Yeah, I don't recall the actual note, but talk about red action. Yeah, the note does not bear your name,
00:54:43 Yeah, the note does not bear your name, but were you aware that your UCO had been invited to join Red Action? Probably. Yes. The second paragraph uh talks about the
00:54:57 The second paragraph uh talks about the significance of that development and particularly in the second half deals with Red Action as a group with particular reference to Pat Hayes who at
00:55:11 particular reference to Pat Hayes who at that stage was serving a sentence of life imprisonment for causing explosions and other things.
00:55:22 and other things. Were you aware of Pat Hayes? Yes.
00:55:27 Yes. [snorts]
00:55:27 [snorts] Pat Hayes um had committed his very serious terrorist offending um years before Jenner infiltrated Red Action,
00:55:40 Jenner infiltrated Red Action, didn't he? Yes.
00:55:46 Whilst you were in command of the SDS and Jenna was inside Red Action, is it right that nobody within Red
00:56:00 is it right that nobody within Red Action appeared to be involved in any form of terrorist activity?
00:56:10 Yes, that's correct. It is described in paragraph three as a terrorist support group,
00:56:21 terrorist support group, but it wasn't in fact during your tenure providing any material support to any terrorists, was it?
00:56:33 terrorists, was it? No.
00:56:37 Its members identified with the cause of Irish unity and may not have disapproved of violence to achieve that end. But they were not
00:56:51 to achieve that end. But they were not themselves committing any offenses in the cause of Irish unity, were they? Not that I was aware of.
00:57:03 The end it says TS's infiltration of such a closelyknit group at such a high level is worthy of a much higher accolade.
00:57:14 accolade. What does the phrase at such a high level add
00:57:20 level add to infiltrating a closelyknit group? I don't know. Is it just hyperbole? I think
00:57:29 I think it probably is. Yes.
00:57:35 It's reality that the main reason for being inside Red Action at this stage was just in case the peace process broke down or for any other reason there was
00:57:49 down or for any other reason there was an increased risk of someone from within Red Action doing something to assist terrorists. It may have been. Yes.
00:58:01 It may have been. Yes. a very small chance of a risk with very high consequences. Is that a fair way of putting it? Yes.
00:58:15 Red Action was also involved in street protest, wasn't it? I believe it was. Yes. Would
00:58:28 Would it be right that whilst you were in charge of the SDS, there was relatively little street process protest in which red action was
00:58:41 process protest in which red action was involved?
00:58:42 involved? Yes.
00:58:45 Yes. In my memory.
00:58:49 In your mind, which was more important, Jenna being in red action just in case another Pat Hayes appeared
00:59:01 another Pat Hayes appeared or because of the reporting on the potential for a resurgence of street activity.
00:59:12 I think probably a resurgence of street activity
00:59:17 and on that front in practice how useful was Jenner's reporting actually
00:59:32 I mean I don't know I don't know what reporting he did on red action can we move now to 749473 Three, page seven, please.
00:59:51 Beginning to move now to DC Jenner's withdrawal. And this is a document dated the 17th of January 2000, which appears to bear your
01:00:05 January 2000, which appears to bear your initials.
01:00:11 It says in the first long in the first indent,
01:00:17 indent, TS has successfully moved out of his Duff flat and is now renting a room in Bert's house. To distance himself further, he is currently working on a
01:00:28 further, he is currently working on a building project in Luton where [snorts] he is living in bed and breakfast. Then if we skip down to the
01:00:39 Then if we skip down to the last paragraph of text says TS seems happy with the way things are going. His main concern was moving out of the duff
01:00:50 main concern was moving out of the duff flat and Bert's plans. Bert's plans are now settled and the flat move was accomplished without problems.
01:01:02 accomplished without problems. First of all, that's a refle that's a reference to a flat and not a house uh in the way that you saw referred to in the July 1997
01:01:15 the July 1997 document.
01:01:16 document. Was that a difference that you noticed? No.
01:01:23 No. Why was
01:01:25 Why was Jenna's main concern moving out of the duff flat? I think probably to to distance himself
01:01:36 I think probably to to distance himself from
01:01:37 from his group [clears throat] more. To what extent did you discuss DC Jenner's extraction plan with him?
01:01:51 I mean I can't remember now. You've drafted this document. So presumably you had spoken to him at that stage.
01:02:00 stage. Yes.
01:02:02 Yes. And presume presumably excfiltration was something that you discussed in more detail with him generally. Yes. I mean but that's after he's
01:02:13 Yes. I mean but that's after he's probably discussed it with his cover officers or maybe the DI.
01:02:23 If he had been living on his own, it would have been no problem to leave his dove flat. If he's leaving, that must be
01:02:34 dove flat. If he's leaving, that must be right, mustn't it?
01:02:39 What? To leave his stuff flat. He's on his own.
01:02:41 his own. Yeah.
01:02:42 Yeah. Wouldn't have been a problem. No. Yeah. If he's living in a house of multiple occupation, again, it's not that difficult just to say you're moving on. You're going to
01:02:53 say you're moving on. You're going to work on a building project in Luton. Not difficult, is it? If you've been living for almost five years with Allison in a rel sexual
01:03:06 years with Allison in a rel sexual relationship, sharing her flat with her, it is a problem, isn't it? Could be. Yes.
01:03:16 And that was why it was Jenna's main concern, wasn't it? Not that I was aware of. No.
01:03:27 Not that I was aware of. No. Well, didn't you ask him? Well, I think that the bit the the main concern probably was from my point of view was actually leaving his flat and
01:03:38 view was actually leaving his flat and moving somewhere else to to the whole actually extraction is quite a difficult thing to do. We have to, you know,
01:03:49 thing to do. We have to, you know, why did Jenna say that the most difficult thing for him was going to be moving out
01:04:01 because I think he was living with other members of his organization or was sharing the house or whatever. Is is that an actual recollection of
01:04:12 Is is that an actual recollection of what he said to you? No, it's not not a recollection at all. I'm just trying to think of
01:04:17 think of why it might be a problem. It's the reality is it was very obviously a problem because he was living with Allison and was going to have to break up with her and you knew
01:04:29 have to break up with her and you knew that full well. No.
01:04:35 Can we go to 749
01:04:42 738 please? Sorry [snorts] it's 749473 page 8 please.
01:04:52 The next page in this file.
01:04:58 This is a document entitled touchy subject withdrawal strategy.
01:05:05 strategy. Um,
01:05:09 and if we go to page 11 to see the date in the signature,
01:05:20 we'll see it's the 28th of March, 2000, and you appear to have been on the circulation list. If we could go back to page eight,
01:05:33 If we could go back to page eight, please.
01:05:36 from this strategy quite lengthy. Can we take it that the strategy is both discussed and agreed between management and UCO?
01:05:51 agreed between management and UCO? I assume so. Yes. And if we look at the third paragraph, TS has for some time lived in shared accommodation and over the past few
01:06:03 accommodation and over the past few weeks he has slowly but surely begun displaying overt signs of antisocial behavior. This part of the sherad includes shortteeredness, grumpiness,
01:06:15 includes shortteeredness, grumpiness, and a general attitude of disdain and dislike to other housemates. In the week leading up to Exmas, this
01:06:27 In the week leading up to Exmas, this type of behavior will snowball into outright hostility and provoke the kind of outbursts that will lead to touchy subject leaving the address to go and live shortterm in South London.
01:06:41 live shortterm in South London. So can I take it? You were aware that this was the plan? Yes.
01:06:52 the need to show this sort of antisocial behavior,
01:06:59 behavior, short-temperedness and grumpiness would not have been needed if DC Jenner was simply sharing in a house of
01:07:13 was simply sharing in a house of multiple occupation, would it? Well, it might have been. Yes, he could just have said that he was going to move on in life and people
01:07:24 going to move on in life and people would have understood.
01:07:28 Yes, but I think his change of behavior would have made it perhaps easier and more understandable and maybe people would have said, "Well, thankfully you've gone."
01:07:39 thankfully you've gone." wasn't the actual problem that he was in a long-term romantic relationship with Allison and moving on in life wasn't going to wash.
01:07:52 moving on in life wasn't going to wash. He had to uh do more than that. He had to wreck the relationship, didn't he?
01:08:02 Not to my knowledge. And he did that with a manipulative sherard of short-temperedness, grumpiness, disdain, and so forth.
01:08:17 Again, isn't the reality that you and your fellow managers knew about the problem and were part and parcel of planning the solution?
01:08:28 planning the solution? No.
01:08:33 Could we go to MPS30180?
01:08:47 This is another document entitled withdrawal strategy at touchy subject. If we could go on this one to page two.
01:08:59 If we could go on this one to page two. This is 28th of March 2000. Again, you're on the circulation list. We could look at numbered paragraph 8, please.
01:09:14 What must not be overlooked is TS's family. Both S and the children were getting accustomed to TS being around and certainly there is an element of disappointment that this tour of duty
01:09:25 disappointment that this tour of duty may be slightly prolonged has been expressed. A home visit allied to a token of our appreciation for the wife and children may help alleviate some of
01:09:36 and children may help alleviate some of the disappointment. In reality, it would further display our commitment to the welfare and long-term well-being of field officers and their
01:09:47 well-being of field officers and their families.
01:09:49 families. Was there such a visit? I
01:09:55 I I certainly visited on one occasion. Whether it was this one or not, I don't know.
01:10:02 know. Did you visit them in connection with the forced move? this occasion. So on this occasion at the end of the
01:10:14 So on this occasion at the end of the deployment, do you think it was you or someone else who visited Mr. Jenner's family? It's me.
01:10:27 And what did you say to the woman we're calling S
01:10:33 calling S DC Jenner's then wife and his children?
01:10:40 on this occasion or on this occasion? Oh, I don't think I did go and see them. I only saw them once. Sorry.
01:10:50 Can we move now to MPS 309531?
01:11:00 [snorts] This is a file note. It's undated um by year and it refers in the text to the 28th of May which we think is
01:11:13 the 28th of May which we think is either 28th of May 2000 or 2001. Bob Lambert contacted the office on Friday the 28th of May to say that Terry had contacted him to say that he had had
01:11:25 had contacted him to say that he had had a phone call from a female calling herself Allison who [snorts] was inquiring where TS could be.
01:11:36 Presumably the fact that Allison had contacted Terry uh and was seeking to find um
01:11:51 uh and was seeking to find um Jenna would have been a matter of interest to you and drawn to your attention.
01:11:58 Yes. What was your reaction?
01:12:02 But it was a a former member of his target group who had perhaps come a little bit suspicious that he disappeared. But not just a former member of
01:12:15 But not just a former member of his target group, but his landlady, according to the official documents, the person he was living with.
01:12:28 person he was living with. Well, I wasn't aware that he was living with her. Um,
01:12:37 did you speak to DC Jenner about this? I can't remember. Would you have done? Probably. Yes.
01:12:49 Can you recall what he said?
01:12:55 No, I can't.
01:13:02 Did you ask any questions of anybody to try and ascertain why Allison would wish to trace Jenna?
01:13:13 No. Was that because you already knew? No.
01:13:22 Can we now move to Detective Constable Boiling?
01:13:33 He has managed to invagle himself into the core organizing group of reclaim the streets, hasn't he?
01:13:44 streets, hasn't he? Yes.
01:13:45 Yes. And what was your view of that achievement?
01:13:50 Very good. within the first year of uh your tenure in the SDS, he reports very extensively
01:14:04 he reports very extensively on the event that was known as J18 or the carnival against capitalism, didn't he?
01:14:11 he? Yes.
01:14:12 Yes. He gave extremely detailed, very accurate reporting on the planning for that event, didn't he? Yes.
01:14:23 Yes. He also had a role as treasurer within the organizing group, didn't he? I believe he did. Yes. So, he had a role in finding some of the
01:14:37 So, he had a role in finding some of the equipment that was used to execute the J18 plan.
01:14:45 J18 plan. He may have done. Yes. and he participated in the execution of the plan in particular by driving a car that was
01:14:56 in particular by driving a car that was used to block a road. Yes.
01:15:04 What was your view of the fact that boiling had played a role in the core organizing group and had been involved
01:15:15 organizing group and had been involved in the planning, preparation and execution of events on the day?
01:15:25 Well, that he was a a central member of the organization and
01:15:33 he was in a position to produce intelligence on what was likely to happen on the actual day. Did you set any boundaries for him as to
01:15:45 Did you set any boundaries for him as to the level of his participation in the preparation and planning and execution? Well, I think all officers knew that in the planning of the operation, they were
01:15:57 the planning of the operation, they were to not instigate plans, but maybe just to um you know, go along with what was being said by the main organizers.
01:16:08 Uh the day did not go well from a public order policing point of view, did it? It didn't.
01:16:16 didn't. Very badly, in fact.
01:16:21 That was very badly.
01:16:25 Despite the fact that your officer had identified the primary target as being the life building
01:16:36 there was inadequate policing on the day to prevent that building from being stormed.
01:16:43 stormed. Yeah.
01:16:46 What happened to the SDS's intelligence and why did it not lead to better policing on the day?
01:17:00 I have no idea.
01:17:05 Presumably at the time you would have been at least beused that your unit had been reporting extremely timely, detailed intelligence
01:17:19 extremely timely, detailed intelligence which did not appear to have been acted upon.
01:17:23 upon. Yes.
01:17:24 Yes. Did you ask any questions?
01:17:30 Well,
01:17:34 not of not of my my my own officers. Um I think I reported back that I thought the de to to um the main
01:17:45 the de to to um the main SB office that the demonstration had not been well pleased. Um and I thought the uniform would let us uniform side of policing would let us down. Could you speak up a bit please when
01:17:56 Could you speak up a bit please when when answering my questions? I thought we'd been let down a little bit by the uniform policing of the demonstration club. Um,
01:18:05 club. Um, by that do you mean the uniform policing of the city of London police? I don't know which I I think it was a
01:18:16 I don't know which I I think it was a combined city of London and Metropolitan Police. I don't I can't remember who is he.
01:18:21 he. Did you get any feedback? No.
01:18:30 Can we move now to MPS 301326?
01:18:53 We're moving forward now to 2000 and plans for the Mayday 2000 event which was also known as Guerilla Gardening.
01:19:07 MPS 301326.
01:19:30 Do you mean 3126?
01:19:36 It may be a possibility.
01:19:47 Thank you very much sir.
01:19:51 17th of March 2000 says [clears throat] on the 17th of March myself that's null war and h53 had a meeting with psycho dream
01:20:03 a meeting with psycho dream and RH to discuss that's red herring to discuss potential disruption tactics for the RTS Mayday extravaganza. Um,
01:20:14 Um, I'm interested in particular in paragraphs 3 to five.
01:20:33 I'll give you a moment to read that.
01:21:17 You'll see that the first of those three paragraphs is proposing that um a number of people are arrested.
01:21:29 that um a number of people are arrested. uh on the day of the event in order to disrupt it and not all of those who would be targeted would in fact be involved in order to disguise the plan.
01:21:44 involved in order to disguise the plan. Can you assist us with what happened with this plan?
01:21:59 I'm afraid I just can't remember. The subsequent paragraph um raises a possibility or seems to recognize the possibility there might be legal
01:22:10 possibility there might be legal difficulties with that disruption plan and then said if it wasn't viable, the same names will be subject to a fairly overt series of stop surveillance and
01:22:23 overt series of stop surveillance and general harassment. and that they would need to liaz closely on this to ensure that they have a control of certain elements of such
01:22:35 control of certain elements of such action. But overall, such a resolution should most not only seriously disrupt the organization of the Mayday event, but also materially assist PD with his withdrawal strategy. C squad were
01:22:48 withdrawal strategy. C squad were delighted with these developments and are sure that in turn uniform will relish the challenge of being let off the leash by SB. So there appears to be active
01:23:00 So there appears to be active consideration either of arresting a number of people including some who are entirely innocent and in
01:23:12 some who are entirely innocent and in the alternative simply stopping surveying and harassing people. Did these options come to your attention?
01:23:23 attention? I can't recall. This was a big event, wasn't it? Was a big event. Yes. I mean, and RTS was in the habit of a big event
01:23:36 RTS was in the habit of a big event every year, wasn't it? Yes.
01:23:40 Yes. Presumably, as head of the SDS, you would have been involved in discussions about how it was going to be dealt with.
01:23:52 about how it was going to be dealt with. Yes.
01:23:56 All of this is being committed to writing for the file. So there's no suggestion, is there, that any of this has been hidden from you? No.
01:24:10 What was your reaction to the proposition that activists should be subjected to a series of stop surveillance and general harassment?
01:24:24 surveillance and general harassment? I I can't remember. Or that a selection of people wide enough to maintain operational security should have their homes raided.
01:24:39 I'm a cult member.
01:24:43 Can we take it from the lack of any evidence of a reaction that you were not phased by any of these ideas? Probably not. No.
01:25:04 Uniform will relish the challenge of being let off the leash by SB. Was
01:25:13 the atmosphere such that uh uniformed officers would relish the chance to generally harass activists? I don't understand what that means. Off
01:25:26 I don't understand what that means. Off the leash by SP.
01:25:33 Did Uniform Police share the same disdain for activists that we have seen recorded in documents made by people under your command?
01:25:46 under your command? I don't know.
01:25:53 Can we have up 95 MPS 30 is 9520 please?
01:26:02 This is 28th of March 2000. This is in this is in your name and it refers to the plan to disrupt by executing
01:26:15 the plan to disrupt by executing search warrants. Says you've discussed the above action with uh Boiling and that he was content with the plan.
01:26:29 and that he was content with the plan. Can you recall whether it went ahead?
01:26:51 I can't remember whether it went ahead.
01:26:56 I'd like to bring up a piece of the transcript of DC Boiling's evidence to this inquiry, please. It's a transcript from the 10th of February [snorts]
01:27:07 from the 10th of February [snorts] of this year. Uh, starting on page 36.
01:27:19 If we start at line 20, this was Mr. Boiling's evidence about um connections between
01:27:33 um connections between the SDS and private companies. And I'll need you to look please starting as I say at line 20 going over the page all
01:27:44 say at line 20 going over the page all of 37 and then the first 25 lines of page 38. Perhaps you could let the projectionist know once you are ready to have the page turned.
01:27:55 have the page turned. Right.
01:29:02 Okay.
01:29:06 Down to line 25, which is bottom of the page, please.
01:29:51 Okay. Does this evidence accurately reflect the position? No, I don't think it does. In what respects do you think it is inaccurate?
01:30:03 inaccurate? is that I'm not aware that we ever dealt with private security companies.
01:30:15 private security companies. If you did not deal with them directly, did you ever deal with them indirectly? Even indirectly. Um,
01:30:26 are you sure? Yeah. I I can't recall any instances where a private company when we got asked that a private company
01:30:38 when we got asked that a private company was interested in intelligence that we were gathering.
01:30:45 Mr. Boiling's evidence is more to the effect that they had gathered intelligence
01:30:53 privately and commercially and were seeking
01:30:58 seeking verification of it. Did that happen? Not to my knowledge, you didn't know.
01:31:08 If it had happened officially, would you have known about it? I would I would think so. Yes. Might it have been happening unofficially?
01:31:19 I'm not in a position to say that whether it did. I wasn't aware of it happening at all.
01:31:31 If we could take that down now, please, and go to 526750.
01:31:42 And we're going back to a matter we page two, please. Going matter going back to a matter we touched upon fleetingly earlier, namely HN3's
01:31:54 earlier, namely HN3's arrest at uh the Mayday 2000 uh event, [clears throat] the Guerilla Gardening event.
01:32:05 the Guerilla Gardening event. You will see that on that first page is um a document produced by you which recites the events. I'll give you a moment to look at that.
01:32:53 Yes. So, rather like the arrest we looked at earlier when DS Thompson was arrested in Dover, this seems to be getting the standard response, namely, you've
01:33:06 standard response, namely, you've praised him because he's kept his cover and you think it's going to enhance his standing within his target group. Yes.
01:33:17 Yes. If we go to page five, please.
01:33:26 Again, a document of yours from a little later on, the 2nd of August, 2000.
01:33:41 And we see again that almost standard phrase
01:33:45 phrase I suggest that the case be allowed to take its normal course pending further developments. So this arrest getting the standard SDS treatment. Is that fair?
01:33:56 standard SDS treatment. Is that fair? And although this particular instance didn't go very far, that was not withstanding the fact there was a co-acused.
01:34:07 co-acused. Yes.
01:34:10 [snorts]
01:34:13 Can we have up now 748 100 page one please?
01:34:28 This is a document which predates your tenure. You'll see in a moment why I'm showing it to you. It produced by Bob Lambert the 27th of August 1996. So
01:34:40 Lambert the 27th of August 1996. So almost a year before uh you started about boiling. This note serves to place on record a meeting
01:34:51 serves to place on record a meeting Keith Edmonson and Bob Lambert had with HN14 at the West London OP on Wednesday the 14th of August 1996.
01:35:02 the 14th of August 1996. Boiling explained that his wife had left him in January. He had since been living on his own at their home in Wimbledon. His wife resident in Finchley. Relations
01:35:14 His wife resident in Finchley. Relations with his wife remained cordial, but the split was irrevocable and he remained very disappointed. And then it uh goes on effectively in
01:35:27 And then it uh goes on effectively in the vein that his deployment will continue but that his welfare would be carefully monitored.
01:35:38 Did you come to learn when you joined the SDS as its head that Boiling and his wife were
01:35:49 that Boiling and his wife were separated?
01:35:52 Yes, at some stage.
01:35:56 And did that cause you to monitor his welfare carefully?
01:36:06 Monitor his welfare whether it was careful or not. Did you speak to him about the subject? I don't believe so. No.
01:36:17 I don't believe so. No. Why not?
01:36:20 Why not? Well, I think probably because by the time I joined, I mean, he was been separated for two years or what? A
01:36:31 been separated for two years or what? A year. Two years. The SDS paid some store, didn't it, to officers having stable home lives.
01:36:43 officers having stable home lives. This officer does not have that. You know that. Shouldn't you have been speaking to him about his
01:36:55 about his home life?
01:37:00 Possibly. I mean, he he he seemed to be a happy um individual. Did you speak to him about where he was
01:37:11 Did you speak to him about where he was living?
01:37:15 No. You mean his private address? His evidence to this inquiry is he was spending very little time at his private
01:37:27 spending very little time at his private address after the separation and was spending the vast majority of his time living as an activist. Were you aware of
01:37:38 living as an activist. Were you aware of that?
01:37:39 that? No. [snorts] You should have been, shouldn't you, as his second line manager? I should have been made aware of that. Yes,
01:37:49 Yes, I didn't say made aware. You should have been aware of that.
01:37:56 Yes. coming.
01:38:01 [snorts] There are many issues that arise from having an officer who is separated deployed. One of which is his
01:38:12 deployed. One of which is his well-being, isn't it? Yes.
01:38:14 Yes. But the other is the risk of a sexual relationship developing with an activist, isn't it?
01:38:24 Potentially, but not necessarily. and particularly so in uh a sociable group.
01:38:35 Yes.
01:38:39 [sighs] Did you receive intelligence from sources other than the SDS about uh the groups that were being targeted?
01:38:54 Um,
01:38:59 do you mean from mainstream special branch or I mean from any source, but for example, would you sometimes see surveillance photographs taken of demonstrations at
01:39:12 photographs taken of demonstrations at which your officers were present? I personally wouldn't have. No. When you say you personally wouldn't have, can I take it that some of those
01:39:23 have, can I take it that some of those in your command would have done? They may have done. Um, would you have seen intelligence reports from other sources about what was happening within those groups?
01:39:36 happening within those groups? Unlikely.
01:39:37 Unlikely. Would you have had access to them if you'd wanted to look? I would presume so. Depends where they came from. Well, presumably special branch would be no problem at all.
01:39:53 [snorts] To what extent were you talking to Boiling uh about what he was doing, who he was mixing with and whether he had
01:40:04 he was mixing with and whether he had any issues. To what extent? Yes. To to what extent did you talk to Boiling?
01:40:12 Boiling? Well, on the regular meetings, I would ask him on occasions how, you know, how his group was going, who he was doing, but I mean, most of those interviews
01:40:23 but I mean, most of those interviews were taken by the the DS's or the DI.
01:40:29 [snorts] Mr. Boiling's evidence to this inquiry is that the first of the women he deceived, a woman that we are calling
01:40:40 deceived, a woman that we are calling Monica, was depicted on a surveillance photograph with him uh in circumstances suggestive of a sexual relationship.
01:40:52 sexual relationship. um a surveillance photograph which was seen by Sergeant Greeny.
01:41:01 Do you recall anybody saying anything to you about
01:41:07 you about oiling and a woman depicted in surveillance photographs in positions suggestive of a relationship?
01:41:18 suggestive of a relationship? No.
01:41:24 The second woman deceived by Jim Boiling was deceived for something in the region of a year and a half. We are calling her
01:41:35 of a year and a half. We are calling her Ruth.
01:41:40 What did you know about that?
01:41:45 Nothing. [clears throat]
01:41:50 Is the nature of the contact that you had
01:41:54 had with boiling such that he had to lie to you to keep that from you?
01:42:07 I suspect so. When you say you suspect so, can you help us? Only you say that because at no time during Boiling's
01:42:22 tour did did he indicate that he was having a sexual relationship with with a member of his target group. Cuz the alternative is you didn't ask
01:42:33 Cuz the alternative is you didn't ask and he didn't tell. Well,
01:42:40 that that could be an interpretation of it, but
01:42:44 it, but potentially I wouldn't no reason to ask if you don't know. Um, it's
01:42:51 it's or don't want to know. No, I didn't suspect. Was that the reality that you didn't ask your officers about sexual relationships
01:43:02 your officers about sexual relationships and so if they chose not to tell you, you would not know? No, I don't think that was it at all. despite the fact that it was clear from
01:43:13 despite the fact that it was clear from the tradecraftraft manual that they might be doing so
01:43:21 possibly. But if I was not aware from anybody that there was all sorts of transgressions, I wouldn't have
01:43:29 have Did you take any positive steps to ascertain whether any of your officers were involved in sexual relationships?
01:43:42 [snorts]
01:43:46 Even in a case where your officer was separated and spending almost all of his time undercover. Well, I wasn't aware that that was the case.
01:43:59 So, would this be a convenient time to take the break? Certainly. Uh, we'll resume in quarter. [snorts]
02:03:56 Yes, thank you sir. Could we have up please 748100.
02:04:10 Now I want to move towards the end of um DC Boilings deployment and this is if we go to page 29 of this
02:04:22 and this is if we go to page 29 of this document.
02:04:32 [sighs]
02:04:35 This is a document entitled psycho dream withdrawal strategy. It's dated the 10th of April 2000. Says Bob Lambert came into the office on Friday the 7th of
02:04:47 into the office on Friday the 7th of April 2000 to discuss with Psycho Dream the key aspects of John Dyn's withdrawal particularly visav its potential impact
02:04:59 particularly visav its potential impact on Psycho Dream's own tactics. Without going into the details which are recorded separately, the key elements of John Barker's life are as follows. And
02:05:10 John Barker's life are as follows. And then it um sets out some salient details from John Dyn's deployment. Before we go into those, can we have a
02:05:22 Before we go into those, can we have a look at page 31, please?
02:05:31 We'll see. We see there that it's written by HN53, but you are on the circulation list. Can you help us with how this
02:05:46 list. Can you help us with how this meeting came to be arranged? Not withstanding that Bob Lambert had by then left the unit.
02:06:00 No, no, I can't. Um,
02:06:08 no, I can't. I mean, I can summize, but I can't remember exactly. What is your informed supposition? I presume because he had experience
02:06:20 I presume because he had experience because he was um had a lot of experience of of DI when Psycho Green was there but also he had experience of
02:06:32 he had experience of um
02:06:34 um John Dy
02:06:36 John Dy John Dy his experiences when he was on because he knew um the history of Dines and he knew a
02:06:47 um the history of Dines and he knew a lot about psychopathy. That's probably why he came in, but I I can't recall exactly why. He knew a lot about Helen Steel's attempts to track down John Dyn, didn't
02:07:00 attempts to track down John Dyn, didn't he?
02:07:01 he? Yes, he did. Yes. And it was well known that Helen Steele had made attempts over the years to track him down, wasn't it?
02:07:12 track him down, wasn't it? Yes, it's Yes. which we'll come to in more detail later on. If we go back to page 29,
02:07:25 we see that uh that we see the bullet points which [snorts]
02:07:34 summarize what have been going on but focus on Helen Steel, don't they?
02:07:46 Yes.
02:07:50 The reason why [clears throat] Helen Steel was trying to find John Dyn was because she'd been in a sexual relationship with John Dyn, hadn't she?
02:08:03 relationship with John Dyn, hadn't she? It would appear at least. Yes. And obviously subsequently I found out about it as well.
02:08:09 well. We'll come [snorts] back to that in due course.
02:08:13 course. Wasn't one of the issues that Sergeant Boiling DC Boiling, sorry, was going to face when he extracted was that he was in a relationship with Rosa at
02:08:27 he was in a relationship with Rosa at the time, wasn't he? I I didn't know that. No. And that he had also mixed with Helen Steel undercover. Um
02:08:39 Um I wasn't specifically aware of that but and isn't the particular problem with boiling xiltration
02:08:51 with boiling xiltration that he [clears throat] has to leave Rosa
02:08:56 and he has been mixing in the same circle as Helen Steel and there's a risk that Rosa will want to find boiling and
02:09:09 that Rosa will want to find boiling and steel will be there with the forensic ability to help her to find him.
02:09:20 And I wasn't aware that Boiling was in a relationship. So is that why Lambert is brought in specially
02:09:29 specially to speak to Boiling about his withdrawal strategy?
02:09:35 strategy? Not that I was aware of. No.
02:09:41 If we look at page 30, please,
02:09:47 the fourth bullet point.
02:09:53 It is still not clear how close Steel has got to identifying John Dyn as Barker. Having established the dynome link, however, it is hard to see how even relatively basic research would
02:10:05 even relatively basic research would have failed to come up with the marriage certificate and JD's occupation because the marriage certificate had on it the fact he was a police officer, didn't it?
02:10:17 I I I haven't seen the marriage secret, so I wouldn't know. In all probability, the best guess is that Steel has gone as far as she can in identifying him, but has then been faced with the prospect of
02:10:29 has then been faced with the prospect of betraying what was obviously a deep and personal relationship. It is also likely that any outing of Barker at this late stage would be a considerable embarrassment to Steel and thus a
02:10:42 embarrassment to Steel and thus a further reason to maintain a dignified silence.
02:10:46 silence. [snorts]
02:10:46 [snorts] The phrase a deep and personal relationship is a it's a euphemism for a sexual relationship, isn't it? I think so. Yes.
02:11:06 To what extent uh did you speak to Boiling about his exfiltration strategy? um
02:11:16 um only to the extent that he was happy with it. Um did you speak to him about the risk of people coming after him trying to track
02:11:28 people coming after him trying to track him down after he'd exfiltrated? Well, there was always that risk. Did you speak to him about it? [snorts]
02:11:39 Did you speak to him about it? [snorts] I can't recall. I can't remember specifically
02:11:48 why was this meeting arranged only with boiling we've not [snorts] seen similar meeting notes between steel sorry
02:12:00 meeting notes between steel sorry between
02:12:02 between uh Lambert and other UCOs
02:12:09 I can only imagine that it's because land that knew
02:12:17 uh boiling
02:12:20 better than [snorts] other UC's. Well, he knew a lot of UC's very well, didn't he? So I think probably he had a an interest
02:12:31 So I think probably he had a an interest was able to help boiling in his extraction
02:12:38 because of his knowledge of steel and dimes.
02:12:42 dimes. Possibly. Yes. Can we go back up to the penultimate bullet point on page 29, please?
02:12:59 As with the dropping of the pole tax riot charge, Barker's deliberate emission from the McDonald's liel writ list will have added to the
02:13:13 list will have added to the subi suspicions.
02:13:18 Was that news to you? Yes.
02:13:22 Yes. Did it stand out to you when you read the document?
02:13:29 Not particularly, as it was dealing with a
02:13:33 a an undercover officer who was prior to my arrival. But the proposition that he had been deliberately omitted from civil
02:13:44 deliberately omitted from civil litigation,
02:13:47 is that something you spoke to Lambert about?
02:13:54 I don't think so. No. Did you speak to Lambert about the problems that might arise if Helen Steel discovered
02:14:06 discovered John Dyn?
02:14:12 I can't recall. I may need to come back to that later further down the line. Could [snorts] we take that down now and have up MPS
02:14:24 we take that down now and have up MPS three zeros, three threes, and then six?
02:14:33 We're moving on now from April into May 2000. This is the 9th of May 2000. It's a document entitled withdrawal
02:14:44 It's a document entitled withdrawal overview psycho dream. page two.
02:14:51 page two. Uh, and if we go down to the last paragraph under the heading summary, give you a moment to read that, but it's a second line that I'm particularly interested in.
02:15:39 Yeah, it does appear that there was a concern uh that uh his departure would raise suspicions. the phrase close social integration with
02:15:51 the phrase close social integration with a fairly small group of committed activists. What was the basis for that? Well, I think he had a well a close
02:16:02 Well, I think he had a well a close he was
02:16:05 he was closely involved with a with a fairly small group of committed activists. Is this another euphemism referring to the fact that he'd had
02:16:19 referring to the fact that he'd had multiple sexual relationships? I don't believe so. I didn't read it that way.
02:16:26 that way. Closed social integration being a euphemism most recently for his then ongoing relationship with Rosa. No.
02:16:35 No. Could
02:16:37 Could [snorts]
02:16:38 [snorts] we have 748100 page three please?
02:16:47 We're moving on now to November 2000. By this stage um DC boiling is is withdrawing. And
02:16:58 And this document which is copied to you refers to the fact that Rosa had visited Boiling's
02:17:10 had visited Boiling's old undercover address. Give you a moment just to look at the contents.
02:18:24 Okay. The third paragraph down uh makes clear that Rosa just seemed to be concerned for Boiling's
02:18:36 for Boiling's welfare.
02:18:38 welfare. Did you ask any questions as to why she in particular was concerned about Boiling's welfare?
02:18:52 No, just
02:18:56 quite a significant event, isn't it? An activist making inquiries trying to trace an undercover officer. Um, it's
02:19:08 Um, it's it's it's unusual. So, surely you would have asked, "Why is Rosa trying to find you?
02:19:21 "Why is Rosa trying to find you? Well, I assume that she was as she was an activist, she was suspicious of his disappearance,
02:19:32 disappearance, but this says she's concerned for his welfare. Not that she's suspicious, but
02:19:42 that would be a a reason why she would perhaps make that excuse for asking after psycho dream whereabouts he is. She may well have just said, "Well, I'm just concerned
02:19:53 just said, "Well, I'm just concerned about his welfare rather than I want to find out where he is." Did you do any checks on Rosa to establish who she was?
02:20:05 No, I just assumed she was a um an active member of RTS
02:20:13 RTS because an important thing to know if someone is pursuing one of your undercover officers is whether she's a threat or not, [snorts]
02:20:24 threat or not, [snorts] isn't it?
02:20:25 isn't it? Yes. But I would imagine that she was um
02:20:31 um she was known to a special branch in in the record section. There's a big difference, isn't there, between someone who might pose a threat
02:20:42 between someone who might pose a threat to boiling safety and someone who is an abandoned lover concerned only for his safety. Well, it's not only for his
02:20:54 safety. Well, it's not only for his safety, but also for his welfare as well.
02:20:58 well. Yeah. There's a big difference between those two, isn't there? Between someone who's a threat and someone who's caring. There is a difference between that. Yes. And it's important, isn't it, for you to
02:21:09 And it's important, isn't it, for you to know which of those two camps she falls into.
02:21:15 No way of me finding that out without speaking to Rosa. Well, you could speak to boiling. I don't think
02:21:39 indicates there
02:21:45 that he's unduly concerned. Yeah. Aware of developments but not unduly concerned. Did he explain to you why he wasn't
02:21:56 Did he explain to you why he wasn't unduly concerned? No, not to me.
02:22:04 Did he say anything to you about who she was?
02:22:07 was? No.
02:22:09 No. Can I take it you didn't probe? I didn't probe. No. Was
02:22:24 it the case that by this stage you did know that they had been in a sexual relationship? No.
02:22:32 No. If we have page 19 of this document, please.
02:22:42 12th of December, just a month later, four calls are received into the office from Rosa on three of them on the duty phone line and one on the office phone
02:22:56 phone line and one on the office phone line. She speaks variously to Sergeant War and Sergeant Greeny.
02:23:05 Greeny. Can we look especially at the fourth of those conversations that recorded as 12:25
02:23:13 12:25 p.m. Rosa says, "If you see Jim, tell him I'm leaving him and it's all over."
02:23:24 him I'm leaving him and it's all over." [snorts]
02:23:24 [snorts] Presumably, these dramatic events were drawn to your attention on the day. Yes.
02:23:37 Including the fact that she had said, "If you see Jim telling, I'm leaving him and it's all over." Yes.
02:23:49 The natural inference from that assertion is that they have been in a relationship. No, I don't take that. The natural inference, in fact, is that
02:24:01 The natural inference, in fact, is that Rosa thinks they still are because she is threatening to end it.
02:24:10 A bigger pardon? No, I don't accept that. Could you explain why not? because it's a she she's rung up three times has mentioned nothing about any
02:24:22 times has mentioned nothing about any relationship and that's a throwaway line at the end just to say I'm going goodbye. I don't think it in inferring that there's a relationship going on there at all. I had no no idea that
02:24:35 there at all. I had no no idea that there was a relationship between Rosa and Boiling at that stage. I'm leaving him and it's all over.
02:24:46 him and it's all over. Yeah.
02:24:47 Yeah. If it is not a romantic relationship, what is it? Well, it's a close relationship. It's a it's a it's a member of their own group
02:24:58 it's a it's a member of their own group that are close and he's and she's just saying, "That's it. It's finished. It's gone. I'm not going to see you again." You've got you've got a w You've got a woman who's been to his old address. you
02:25:10 woman who's been to his old address. you know about that from the month before. And she's rung up on two different numbers four times.
02:25:21 She's she's trying to elicit a response to find out who he is.
02:25:32 This makes it as plain as day, doesn't it, that there has been a sexual relationship? I don't think it does. No. Did you speak to Boiling about this?
02:25:44 Did you speak to Boiling about this? I
02:25:46 I don't think I spoke to him directly. I don't think he was in the I think at that stage he was not in the country.
02:25:56 Did you did you see it as relevant to know one way or the other what it was? whether it was a sexual relationship or
02:26:08 whether it was a sexual relationship or something else. Well, I had no reason to believe it was a sexual relationship. I had no reason to believe that. It's quite important to know, isn't it?
02:26:20 It's quite important to know, isn't it? Well, it is, but if you don't suspect that somebody is in a sexual relationship, why would you approach that subject? If a woman is making determined attempts to trace one
02:26:31 making determined attempts to trace one of your male UCOs and says, "I'm leaving him and it's all over." What more would it have taken for you to have suspect
02:26:42 it have taken for you to have suspect there was a sexual relationship?
02:26:47 Well, something more said, I guess. Is
02:26:51 Is it really your evidence that this wasn't enough even to raise a suspicion? Not really. I mean,
02:27:05 did you have your head in the sand? No.
02:27:13 Can we have page 15, please? Um, before we leave this page, look at the second phone call, which describes her as being in a distressed state.
02:27:34 If you marry that up with the fourth phone call, doesn't that at least raise the question?
02:28:02 I I still think that that what she's trying to do is elicit a response from the caller, from the person that she's calling.
02:28:17 For what purpose? to try and find out who Psycho Dream is.
02:28:40 So, page 15, please, of this file.
02:28:47 The next day, late the next day, 13th of December, 20 timed at 2326
02:28:58 timed at 2326 43 seconds. Uh, this is from Rosa to
02:29:06 to oiling.
02:29:08 oiling. It's a a long email. If you need to read it before answering my question, please say so. But my first question is, did you see this email?
02:29:19 you see this email? No. [clears throat] Ever?
02:29:22 Ever? No. Never.
02:29:27 Can we look on the first page at the sixth line?
02:29:40 [clears throat] It was one and a half months. I heard nothing as you were supposedly walking into a zone flaring into war. You hurt the person who loved you, making sure
02:29:53 the person who loved you, making sure they had no contact with anyone who may have been able to tell them if they were okay.
02:30:04 That is a clear expression that Rosa loved boiling, isn't it? Yes. Yes.
02:30:12 Yes. Yes. And suggestive of an intimate relationship. Yes.
02:30:20 If we look at the second paragraph, seventh line,
02:30:31 after a month of not hearing from you, decided to send a brief note to your brother.
02:30:38 brother. note, not your parents as they didn't know of me and I didn't want to worry them either. Again, that's suggestive of
02:30:49 them either. Again, that's suggestive of an intimate relationship, isn't it? Because there will be no other reason uh not to surprise Boiling's parents.
02:31:00 Yeah. If we go to the sixth line of text from the bottom, [clears throat]
02:31:10 the old activist scene. We were both disillusioned with that before you left. Surprised you thought I'd still be there.
02:31:21 there. That's evidence that she's no longer on the activist scene on the face of it, isn't it?
02:31:32 Yes. And staying in touch with him for personal reasons uh rather than activist reasons.
02:31:47 Yep. Second page, please.
02:31:54 The top two paragraphs. After much persuasion from my sister, I've started seeing someone two weeks ago. It's early days. I'm heavily
02:32:06 ago. It's early days. I'm heavily scarred, but life moves on. I'm [clears throat] glad life is good with you. I hope it will be for me, too. We did have some beautiful times together.
02:32:18 did have some beautiful times together. Those will stay in a part of my heart. I wish you well. Be gentle to your creativity and be wise out there, Jim Sutton. That's all suggestive of her
02:32:30 Sutton. That's all suggestive of her moving on from a relationship with Boiling to a relationship with somebody else, isn't it? Yes.
02:32:41 You sure you didn't see this email?
02:32:46 Yes. First time I've seen it. [snorts] Could we look at page 13 in this file, please?
02:32:58 This is a resumeumé of uh the email we have just looked at dated the 13th of December
02:33:09 December 2000. And if you see it, if you just cast your eye over it, you will see uh that it
02:33:17 that it is summarizing what we've just read.
02:33:31 Yeah,
02:33:35 this record is on the office file. Would you have seen that? I don't
02:33:44 I don't I don't remember it at all. This email, for the reasons we've been through, is extremely important, isn't it?
02:33:54 it? It is. Yes. And it makes absolutely clear that there's been a sexual relationship, doesn't it? Yes.
02:34:02 Yes. And somebody in the office has seen it because they've written a resume of it, haven't they? Yes.
02:34:12 There are a very small number of people running the SDS and you are the boss. This was would have been brought to your attention, wouldn't it?
02:34:24 attention, wouldn't it? I would have expected it to have been. Yes.
02:34:28 Yes. There would be no conceivable reason to withhold such important information from you, would there?
02:34:37 Don't think so. No. Can't see why.
02:34:43 And even on the basis of this summary, she has started seeing someone but seems to accept that life moves on is itself indicative that there's been a
02:34:56 is itself indicative that there's been a relationship, isn't it? Yes.
02:35:09 Isn't it clear that by this stage you did know that Rosa had been in a sexual relationship with Boiling?
02:35:21 No, I [clears throat] didn't see that email and I don't recall ever seeing that resume of the email.
02:35:32 And is there also evidence that nobody told you about such an important document? Not that I can recall.
02:35:47 Is it possible they did and it wasn't very important to you? I don't think so. No. When I say it, the fact that being a relationship was not very important to
02:35:59 relationship was not very important to you.
02:35:59 you. Yes. was would have been important.
02:36:09 If it is right that nobody told you either about the email or the resumeumé, would it be right that that would be
02:36:20 would it be right that that would be gross negligence?
02:36:26 Yes. I mean maybe. Yeah. I mean, maybe they expected me to have seen it and I didn't see it. I don't know. That would have been a deliberate act.
02:36:38 would have been a deliberate act. Was HN
02:36:40 Was HN 53 the sort of man given to gross negligence? HN53. [clears throat] Your detective inspector?
02:36:52 Your detective inspector? No.
02:36:54 No. Was
02:36:56 Was Sergeant War?
02:37:01 No. Sergeant Greeny? No.
02:37:05 No. Sergeant Titty? No.
02:37:13 Can we go to MPS309522,
02:37:17 please?
02:37:32 This is another document entitled resumeum of Jim's withdrawal and it is dealing with events at around this time
02:37:46 in December and there after 2000 running over into 2001.
02:37:57 Presumably, you would have been aware of this.
02:38:03 Well, I haven't seen what it is. I beg pardon. I haven't seen what the documents I can't see the documents. So, right. Okay. You must have a chance to read it. Could we ex expand the first
02:38:14 read it. Could we ex expand the first half, the top half of the document?
02:38:56 Yeah, if we move down to the rest of the document.
02:39:48 Yes. Did you see this document?
02:39:55 I can't recall seeing it. No. Is it likely you saw it?
02:40:03 No idea. Possibly. Would the contents have been communicated to you?
02:40:12 I would think so. Yes. I mean, who wrote it? [clears throat] I have absolutely no idea. If we look at the seventh bullet point from the bottom, the one which reads, "Rosa
02:40:25 the bottom, the one which reads, "Rosa talks of finding a new boyfriend and possibly going to live." And we've redapted the location for privacy reasons. Hooray.
02:40:38 It's worded in those terms. wasn't it? Because
02:40:44 Because the best thing that could happen for the SDS at this stage was for Boiling's activist girlfriend to find a new
02:40:57 activist girlfriend to find a new boyfriend and move on.
02:41:07 When would you stop her making inquiries about it? Yes.
02:41:15 Can we have from this file page 10 please
02:41:26 is 748100 page 10.
02:41:39 This is the 18th of December. HN58. Your initials appear to be at the bottom of this. It's a file note and it's recording a telephone conversation
02:41:51 it's recording a telephone conversation with uh Detective Constable Boiling on the 17th of December. I'll give you a moment to refresh your memory.
02:42:37 [snorts]
02:43:07 [clears throat]
02:43:26 Yes. He's keeping you fully appraised of developments, isn't he? It looked like it. Yes. And as we've seen because somebody had
02:43:37 And as we've seen because somebody had written a resume of the email and we've got the long email we looked at. He he send appears to be sending the emails into the office as well.
02:43:48 into the office as well. Don't know whether Yeah. Don't know whether the email was sent to the office. Was that Can I see the the report again? The email?
02:43:59 The email? Sorry.
02:44:00 Sorry. Sorry. Which which report? The last one you had up on the thing that I didn't catch the the document before this uh was MPS.
02:44:12 uh was MPS. The one that you've got
02:44:16 the next one
02:44:58 Yes. Okay. Sorry. He seems to be keeping you fully appraised from his side, doesn't he? Seem to be. Yes. You've decided not to keep him fully
02:45:10 You've decided not to keep him fully appraised. And in particular, you deliberately withhold from him the fact of the telephone calls of the 12th of December.
02:45:20 Yes. Why do you do that?
02:45:29 I can't remember. Is it because you didn't want to worry him?
02:45:35 him? It was I think it was probably that was the reason why on the 17th of December I don't know where he was.
02:45:49 And at this stage it appears as if Rosa has done a lot of research and has got as far at least of establishing that Jim
02:46:00 as far at least of establishing that Jim Sutton was not who he said he was. Yes. So that's quite a serious development, isn't it? For the purposes of operational security.
02:46:11 of operational security. Yes.
02:46:14 Yes. Presumably, it was a concern to you. Yes.
02:46:19 Yes. Can we take it therefore that you would have been careful to ensure that you were fully appraised of what was going on?
02:46:29 on? I would think so. Yes. both in the questions you asked of boiling and in checking file notes and
02:46:40 and in checking file notes and development with your staff. Yes.
02:46:54 If we go back to MPS30952,
02:47:01 page three, please.
02:47:25 [snorts]
02:47:32 If we look at the penultimate bullet point,
02:47:37 point, [snorts]
02:47:44 13th of December, Rosa sends an email to Jim as summarized in the attached sheet which Jim picks up while in Zimbabwe. That's the email we looked at earlier. Jim replies to email on the 15th of
02:47:55 Jim replies to email on the 15th of December. Between the 13th and the 31st of December, Rosa sends is at approximately 14 emails to Jim.
02:48:07 is at approximately 14 emails to Jim. None have been received since that date. Jim sends four emails to Rosa. The last one on the 14th of January 2001. And then if we see the last bullet point, that might answer your question
02:48:19 point, that might answer your question about where Boiling was. He was still traveling abroad until the 18th of January 2001.
02:48:29 It's an extraordinary number of emails to be sending, isn't it? In a short period of time. Yes.
02:48:42 The reality, the sum total of everything we've just been through is you must have known
02:48:48 known that there had been a sexual relationship and that Rosa was trying to find boiling because they had been in a sexual
02:49:00 because they had been in a sexual relationship.
02:49:04 It looks that way. Yes. Can we go now to 708026 please?
02:49:20 This is an application for communications data that was completed by HN 53.
02:49:32 by HN 53. uh you will see that the period for which the information is required is the 12th of November 2000 through to the 20th of January 201.
02:49:45 20th of January 201. And the statutory grounds on which that data was sought was the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension and prosecution of offenders. The nature
02:49:59 and prosecution of offenders. The nature of the inquiry is said to be criminal damage,
02:50:05 damage, threats [snorts] to public order. If we go to the next page, please.
02:50:17 Material benefit. This request for billing information is the only means of securing a specific piece of intelligence which is crucial to preventing the offenses listed above.
02:50:31 preventing the offenses listed above. There is no other means of obtaining that intelligence and the urgency of the request stems from the seriousness of the suspected offenses. The information
02:50:42 the suspected offenses. The information is is required as soon as possible. Then we see the telephone number or other information held and it says that the it
02:50:53 information held and it says that the it gives details of Rosa's address. Target of the investigation Rosa the investigation the target who is
02:51:04 Rosa the investigation the target who is a sole occupant of the address is an active supporter of a number of anarchist organizations including reclaim the streets. She has recently joined a small cell within the RTS and
02:51:18 joined a small cell within the RTS and is believed to have made contact with a number of violence activists around the country. The [snorts] information sought with will enable police to frustrate plans for public disorder and prevent
02:51:31 plans for public disorder and prevent serious criminal damage. No information which is not directly related to preparations for the commission of these offenses will feature in the
02:51:42 offenses will feature in the investigation and will be treated as unused material. We could go to the next page please.
02:51:56 23rd of January 2001.
02:52:00 I confirm the request and then there are various matters which are confirmed. I'll leave you to read those
02:52:13 confirmed. I'll leave you to read those yourself.
02:52:35 Okay.
02:52:39 Can you help us with the circumstances in which this request came to be made?
02:52:48 Well, I imagine it's because we wanted to find out what other numbers Rosa had tried to
02:53:00 what other numbers Rosa had tried to phone.
02:53:02 phone. Um, obviously she got the number of Jim Sutton's phone from a billing of his and it may have been we didn't know what phone numbers he had run.
02:53:14 phone numbers he had run. So we were trying to find out or the officer asking for the phone
02:53:23 information was trying to find out whether she had actually got numbers of other undercover officers.
02:53:37 What grounds did you have for suspecting that she might have the numbers of other undercover police officers? Because she had the number of Jim Sutton
02:53:50 Because she had the number of Jim Sutton on his telephone. Did you see the form before it was submitted? I don't think so. I don't recall seeing it. Did you discuss with HN53
02:54:03 it. Did you discuss with HN53 what the basis of the application should be?
02:54:07 be? I can't recall. Is it likely that you did? Probably. But I can't recall. [snorts] For the reasons we've been
02:54:18 [snorts] For the reasons we've been through, it was abundantly clear by the time this application was made that Rosa was distancing herself from activism,
02:54:29 activism, had been in a sexual relationship with Boiling and was trying to find him because she cared about him, wasn't it? That would appear to be the case.
02:54:41 That would appear to be the case. Uh we can go through it again if you wish but I you've seen the basis on which this application was made. It was wholly false wasn't it?
02:54:52 wholly false wasn't it? The application appears to be false. Yes.
02:54:59 An application that was in supposed to comply with the statutory regime. Yes.
02:55:11 Did you realize inevitably that if HN53 was going to make such an application and it was going to be granted, it would have to be
02:55:23 going to be granted, it would have to be made on a false basis?
02:55:28 Don't necessarily know. On what proper basis could it have been made? She could have been um as the application indicated um
02:55:41 an active member. We rec we claim the streets. So we try to cause
02:55:49 cause more damage. I'd just like to be just be very clear with you HN58. Are you asserting that the the information in this form was actually true?
02:56:02 was actually true? No, I don't think it was true. And if an application had been made on the true facts, it would have required the form to say,
02:56:16 it would have required the form to say, "We have an undercover police officer. Rosa is trying to find her. She's obtained various telephone trying to find him. She has obtained various
02:56:27 find him. She has obtained various telephone numbers. We want to know what numbers she's been dialing. Yes.
02:56:36 Yes. It wasn't made on that basis, was it? And was that because you thought that would be refused?
02:56:47 I I can't I can't recall. I mean, I suspect it would have been refused. Yes. And what another reason why you didn't want an application to be made on a
02:57:00 want an application to be made on a proper factual basis because it would have widened the circle of those who knew about the SDS?
02:57:12 of those who knew about the SDS? No, I don't. No, I don't think so. And is that because there would have been a way to make the application within trusted circles?
02:57:23 within trusted circles? No, at all. Why are you saying then it wasn't pitched as it was for operational security reasons?
02:57:36 No, I mean I mean I I didn't make the application so I can't comment particularly specifically. Would it have been possible to make an
02:57:48 Would it have been possible to make an application on a true basis in relation to the SDS?
02:57:54 I don't believe so. No. Why not?
02:57:59 Why not? Well, because we're trying to find out whether Rosa has a has numbers of other
02:58:10 Rosa has a has numbers of other undercover officers.
02:58:17 I don't think that would be a valid reason to
02:58:21 reason to I see. So in in the n of it if it's been made truthfully you thought it would have failed probably. Yes. [snorts]
02:58:40 I do want to be clear now. What is your best recollection? Did you know that a knowingly false application was being made?
02:58:52 application was being made? No.
02:58:53 No. Did you know that HN53 would have to make [snorts] a knowingly false application in order to get that data?
02:59:09 No.
02:59:12 Yeah,
02:59:18 I've asked you once before, but in the light of my further [snorts] questions, can you help us any further with any discussions that passed between you and
02:59:29 discussions that passed between you and HN53 about making this application? No, I can't. I can't recall.
02:59:38 Are we to regard this false application as
02:59:47 misconduct entirely attributable to HN53? Or is it misconduct in which you should fairly
02:59:59 fairly take some of the blame? Cool.
03:00:06 Cool. Um,
03:00:08 Um, don't really know how to answer that. I can't because I can't recall what discussions took place prior to the application. You are the head of the unit.
03:00:21 You are the head of the unit. You want to know this information. Your subordinate is making an inevitably false application
03:00:32 false application for that data. Does it not follow that you take at least some responsibility for that? It does does follow that I take some responsibility for that.
03:00:47 How much knowledge I had of it. I don't I can't recall. Could we go to MPS309518
03:00:56 please?
03:01:06 This is the write up for a commendation for Detective Constable Boiling. Um, if we go through to the end, we'll see that
03:01:18 we go through to the end, we'll see that you wrote it on the 29th of January, 2001. So you'll have noticed that 6 days after the application for the
03:01:31 after the application for the communications data and immediately in the aftermath of the document that I've been showing you for a little while now
03:01:43 been showing you for a little while now if we look go back to the top please of the Thank you. And if we look at the third
03:01:54 you. And if we look at the third paragraph,
03:02:02 give you a moment to look at that.
03:02:29 Yes. Now, this is a section of the document which is referring to events before you were the DCI of the SDS. Can you help us with where you got the information from?
03:02:45 I presume from his file or probably talking to um DI Lambert maybe. I can't recall exactly where I got the
03:02:57 I can't recall exactly where I got the information from. Now, the reference to the march for social justice um and the planned occupation of the
03:03:08 um and the planned occupation of the department of the environment building in Marsham Street and Boiling's reporting on the plans, the detail plans for that
03:03:21 the plans, the detail plans for that action were quite important. Were they something that you had been told about when you joined the SDS?
03:03:32 Oh, I I can't remember being told about it.
03:03:37 it. We've heard evidence that to the effect that DC Boiling's advice namely
03:03:48 namely let the activists occupy the building because if you don't there will be disorder
03:03:56 disorder was ignored and the march was diverted so that the occupation and they police numbers were such that the
03:04:07 they police numbers were such that the demonstrators could not break away and occupy the building. Did you hear anything about that? No.
03:04:16 No. [snorts]
03:04:16 [snorts] We've also heard evidence alleging that it was the home secretary who decided that the occupation should be thwarted.
03:04:30 that the occupation should be thwarted. Did you hear anything one way or the other about that? No.
03:04:37 No. Could we go to page two, paragraph three, please?
03:04:50 Now, obviously, some of this recommendation is based on events before your time, but a lot of it is based on events in your time, isn't it?
03:05:04 Yes. If we look at this paragraph which is coming towards the end, it says in order to become accepted by his target group and to maintain his position within it, DC boiling exhibited trade craft of the
03:05:17 DC boiling exhibited trade craft of the highest order and his total commitment to his operation is an example to his colleagues. Pitched very high that isn't it?
03:05:28 that isn't it? Yes.
03:05:29 Yes. Without any qualification.
03:05:32 Yes. And you wrote this at a time when you were dealing with Ros's attempts to find him
03:05:40 find him and when it had become abundantly clear that he'd been in a sexual relationship with Rosa.
03:05:48 Can we take it from the lack of any qualification to uh the superlatives that are being used here uh that you accepted the
03:06:01 used here uh that you accepted the sexual relationship and didn't think uh it merited any form of toning down of the recommendation? No, I think the
03:06:13 No, I think the the the recommendation of the highest order related to the work that he done in
03:06:19 in reporting [clears throat] on the activities of uh reclaim the streets
03:06:29 and that Boiling's misconduct in deceiving Rosa
03:06:37 Rosa didn't affect your view of his deployment at all? No.
03:06:49 Can I take it that that was because your mindset was the end justifies the means and officers sometimes have to do this
03:07:00 and officers sometimes have to do this sort of thing? Don't No, I don't think so. Why then is there no qualification? Because I'm concentrating in that report
03:07:11 Because I'm concentrating in that report purely on the operational aspect of what his intelligence did during his five years
03:07:22 years to ensure he gets accommodation. Well,
03:07:29 yes. I mean, yeah. Having learned that Boiling had been in a sexual relationship with Rosa,
03:07:40 a sexual relationship with Rosa, can I take it you did nothing about it?
03:07:45 I That's probably true. Yes. And no steps to have him disciplined? No.
03:07:53 No. Did you regard what he'd done as misconduct?
03:07:59 I think it was the wrong thing to do. [snorts]
03:08:02 [snorts] But it is conduct capable. Uh it's disreputable conduct, isn't it? Yes, it is. Did you even consider whether you should
03:08:13 Did you even consider whether you should take any steps towards initiating disciplinary action?
03:08:23 No, I don't think so.
03:08:32 So something simply to be overlooked and accepted.
03:08:41 Yes. Mhm. Did you speak to Boiling about it? No.
03:08:53 You ought to have taken action after you found out, shouldn't you? It could have. I should have done. Yes.
03:09:07 We now know that Boiling went on to rekindle that relationship. If action had been taken,
03:09:19 If action had been taken, it might have affected the course of future events, mightn't it? Might have done. And that was but one reason why action
03:09:34 And that was but one reason why action ought to have been taken. Yes.
03:09:40 Yes. And a clear line should have been drawn to make clear to Boiling that he had done wrong and to make clear to all the
03:09:53 done wrong and to make clear to all the other UCOs that they must not have sexual relationship. Yes.
03:10:01 Yes. When you handed over to DCI Dell, did you say anything to him
03:10:12 to DCI Dell, did you say anything to him about
03:10:13 about Boiling's sexual relationship with Rosa? No,
03:10:20 No, don't believe I did.
03:10:30 Why not?
03:10:34 Because I didn't think it was relevant at the time. Boiling had left the unit and was working
03:10:46 working in another department.
03:10:51 Yeah. not something that he might want to look out for in case any officers on his watch did the same thing.
03:11:03 I didn't never occurred to me to
03:11:09 the SDS office loc.
03:11:15 I appreciate that's a year after you had retired.
03:11:22 Can you help us with whether or not Boiling's deceit of Rosa or Jenna's
03:11:34 or Jenna's deceit of Allison or both contributed to a decision to move the SDS office or not?
03:11:46 I can't recall. I I I don't think so, but I don't know.
03:11:55 Can I move now to MPS30's 9432?
03:12:00 9432? [snorts]
03:12:08 This is a document dated the 10th of October 2000 entitled Operational Legends. If we could go to the next page please,
03:12:20 please, you'll see it's written by Sergeant Titty 10th of October 2000 and it is circulated to all the rest of the SDS
03:12:32 circulated to all the rest of the SDS management of the time including you, isn't it?
03:12:39 Yes, I'm there. If [snorts] we go to back to page one and if we zoom I want paragraphs five and six please. It's about um
03:12:52 and six please. It's about um using
03:12:54 using the potential to use pretend partners and so forth. If we look at paragraph five going over the page. Thank you.
03:13:05 five going over the page. Thank you. Partnerships in the left-wing field are by and large confined to the parties that they are members of. For example, they are a large number of cohabiting partners relationships within the SWP
03:13:18 partners relationships within the SWP and SP and anyone who enjoys single status over a certain period may invite and want suspicion. The most [snorts] difficult of this type of inquiry is
03:13:29 difficult of this type of inquiry is generally instigated from an attached female who may be taking soundings on behalf of one of her friends. The female antenni is a difficult creature to
03:13:41 antenni is a difficult creature to subdue and whereas as a rule they applaud monogamy, they do possess the ability to unearth doubts about perceived relationships.
03:13:52 perceived relationships. There have been recent operations, for example, Touchy Subject and Psycho Dream, where due to the lifestyle employed by the operatives, their
03:14:04 employed by the operatives, their bonafiders were considered unimpeachable. This is patently not the case in every operation, and consideration should now be given to providing additional operational support to field officers.
03:14:18 operational support to field officers. Do you recall Sergeant Titty initiating discussion about uh support to field officers?
03:14:29 uh support to field officers? Um I I don't recall I don't recall it. Um but I think it's one of those things that we would have
03:14:41 one of those things that we would have as a management would have discussed and and looked at as a possibility of introducing people as the partners or whatever.
03:14:52 whatever. Now, two recent exceptions to the potential need for such support are said to be Touchy Subject and Psycho Dream, DC's Jenner and Boiling.
03:15:06 DC's Jenner and Boiling. This the context of this is monogamous sexual relationships, isn't it? Well, I I mean I I say I can't recall
03:15:18 Well, I I mean I I say I can't recall receiving this document or or looking at it, but not necessarily. The female antenna is difficult creature to subdue and whereas as a rule they applaud applaud monogamy, they do
03:15:31 applaud applaud monogamy, they do possess the ability to unear doubts about perceived relationships.
03:15:38 Bonafide is in that context is monogous relationships, isn't it?
03:15:48 I don't think so. Doesn't necessarily don't quite know what he's necessarily trying to get at here that this report isn't the reality of the sentence. There
03:16:01 isn't the reality of the sentence. There have been recent operations, eg Touchy Subject and Psycho Dream, where due to the lifestyle employed by the operatives, their bonafiders were considered unimpeachable, a reference to
03:16:12 considered unimpeachable, a reference to the fact they were both in what appeared to be monogous relationships with activists. Yes. I mean, it's
03:16:26 they they were at the time. Yes. And that does not apply to your other open field officers. Didn't apply to 81 or to
03:16:37 field officers. Didn't apply to 81 or to your knowledge 16, 60 or three. Well, I think these two were involved in a very small group. Um
03:16:50 a very small group. Um and
03:16:54 I think their their bonafides came about as well with the fact that it was a very small group that they were attached to. H&81 was mixing with the small group. MFJ wasn't very big, was it?
03:17:08 MFJ wasn't very big, was it? No, but they but they were a different type of organization. H&16 was moving in quite a small circle of um
03:17:21 was moving in quite a small circle of um hunt saboturs.
03:17:27 Yeah, but they may not be of quite as close as these two, the groups that these two were involved in. HN3 was going into RTS or was in RTS
03:17:43 as an early stage. He said three. Well, he'd been in the field for about just coming up to two years when this was written. Yeah, that's quite it's a
03:17:58 Yeah, that's quite it's a these two had been involved in their groups of four years, five years. The only credible explanation for this form of words is that touchy subject and
03:18:09 of words is that touchy subject and psycho dream had been in seemingly monogous relationships in their undercover identities.
03:18:25 That's right, isn't it? Well, that's an interpretation, but it's not necessarily the one that I take. What did you make of this form of words when you read it?
03:18:37 when you read it? Well, I I took it as a as a a report which was probably looking at the possibility of introducing um a
03:18:50 um a if I could stop you there. I'm my question is directed at this particular sentence. There have been recent operations. Then the references to touchy subject
03:19:01 Then the references to touchy subject and psycho dream. What was your reaction to that sentence? particularly that they two officers who recently quite recently
03:19:12 recently quite recently um left the field after four or five years where they had managed to get themselves into a very small group of
03:19:24 themselves into a very small group of um like-minded members of their organizations and they've been been there for a long time and they were respected within that group
03:19:35 respected within that group due to the lifestyle employed. No, there was there was no doubt that they were genuine
03:19:46 they were genuine activists. But the same could be said of 816 163, couldn't it? Well, it could have been, but they weren't they hadn't been there for that
03:19:57 weren't they hadn't been there for that long.
03:19:58 long. All of those had been there for 2 years or more.
03:20:02 or more. Yeah. 81 had been in the field for a long time by that stage, hadn't he? He was 81. Infiltrated MFJ.
03:20:23 Yes. But he hadn't been there for he was in another organization before that. Um, your memory serves me right. for a while then he'd been he'd been in the field
03:20:34 then he'd been he'd been in the field for a very long time. Isn't the reality that when Titty wrote this sentence,
03:20:45 that when Titty wrote this sentence, you understood what he meant? And what he meant was that touchy subject and psycho dream had been in relationships
03:20:56 psycho dream had been in relationships with activists.
03:21:03 No, I didn't take that. That's why they didn't hadn't needed help with
03:21:10 help with cover girlfriend or anything like that. And is the reality that not only you but your whole management knew full well what Jenna and uh Boiling had done.
03:21:27 what Jenna and uh Boiling had done. I don't believe so then. Sir, is that a convenient time to rise? Yes, it is. Um I don't want to
03:21:41 Yes, it is. Um I don't want to reach [clears throat] a false impression but I have the clear impression from the answers that you have been given giving over the last hour or so that the
03:21:55 over the last hour or so that the documents that you have been asked to look at this afternoon demonstrate that by the time that uh
03:22:06 boiling
03:22:12 had reached December 2000.
03:22:17 2000. You knew that he had been in a sexual relationship with Rosa.
03:22:28 Yes, that's correct. I'm correct in drawing that conclusion. Yes. Thank you.
03:22:37 We will resume at 10:00 tomorrow. Thank you. I'm
03:22:47 um Thank you for your frankness.