In this morning session (Day 15, Tranche 3 Phase 3), former SDS manager HN58 gives evidence remotely, audio only, about the 1997-1998 deployment of HN81 (undercover in Movement for Justice) and its extensive reporting on the Lawrence family and the wider Stephen Lawrence campaign during the MacPherson Inquiry. HN58 denies ever witnessing racism in three decades of policing, defends the targeting of MFJ as a public-order measure, but under sustained questioning concedes that large parts of the reporting - on the Lawrence family's private life, on an officer driving Ricky Reel's grieving mother home, and in a secret briefing routed to the Commissioner - served no proper policing purpose.
00:29:01 Good morning everybody. Uh today's proceedings are being livereamed but by voice only and only after a 15minute delay. Uh those with uh mobile
00:29:12 delay. Uh those with uh mobile telephones in the hearing room uh in the closed part of the hearing room um uh that part which cannot see the screen uh
00:29:23 that part which cannot see the screen uh may use their devices to report what they hear in the hearing room but only after 15 minutes have elapsed they may not be used for recording. Mr. Oh, thank
00:29:34 not be used for recording. Mr. Oh, thank you, [snorts] sir. H 58. I want to take you back now to the 1970s when you first joined the Metropolitan Police Service.
00:29:45 joined the Metropolitan Police Service. In those days, attitudes to race within society were different, weren't they? I think they were. Yes. And the MPS itself was less diverse
00:29:59 itself was less diverse uh than it came to be later in your career.
00:30:05 Yes. Uh especially so in the higher ranks.
00:30:16 When you were serving in the Metropolitan Police Service in the 1970s, did you ever hear officers make racist jokes? Not to my knowledge. No.
00:30:28 Not to my knowledge. No. Any racist banter? Don't think so. No. Any racial slurs used? Not that I can remember.
00:30:40 Not that I can remember. Any racial stereotyping? Not to my knowledge. Or any other form of racism? Not.
00:30:51 Not. None at all in the 1970s.
00:30:57 How well equipped were you to detect all but the most blatant racism?
00:31:07 Well, only from my my own upbringing, I guess. Would you, for example, have had an understanding of indirect discrimination in those days?
00:31:18 discrimination in those days? Probably not. No. Or of subconscious racism? No.
00:31:27 Did that change
00:31:31 in me? Yes. Your ability to detect racism, did that change? I think it did over the years. Yes. and and how did that change?
00:31:42 and how did that change? Well, I recognized that um
00:31:48 um comments of a derogatory nature directed towards somebody was not a right thing to do just because of their skin color or their appearance.
00:32:00 Did [snorts] you have any training? No.
00:32:04 No. Anything at all? I can't recall training. If I were to ask the same questions about your experiences of the police in the 1980s,
00:32:17 the 1980s, would your answers be different?
00:32:25 I don't think so. No. Even around the time of, for example, the Brixton riots? [clears throat]
00:32:39 I don't think so. No. And if I were to move us forward in time to the 1990s before you joined the SDS, would your answers be the same or different?
00:32:50 different? Probably the same. [snorts]
00:32:54 [snorts] Whilst you were serving in the SDS, did you at any time hear any member of the SDS make a racist joke? Not that I can recall. or any racial
00:33:06 Not that I can recall. or any racial banter?
00:33:09 banter? Not that I can record. Did you hear any member of the SDS use a racial slur?
00:33:18 I don't not. Uh, did you come across any racial stereotyping by members of the SDS?
00:33:31 Or any other form of racism? the life of the court. Would I be right to understand
00:33:42 Would I be right to understand your evidences that between joining the MPS in the 1970s and leaving the SDS in 2001 upon your retirement, you never
00:33:55 2001 upon your retirement, you never came across a single instance of a police officer being racist in any way whatsoever?
00:34:06 being racist in any way whatsoever? Not that I can specifically recall.
00:34:11 Are you asserting that it was racially from a race discrimination point of view perfect?
00:34:20 perfect? Probably not. No. When you say probably not, could you explain why not? Well, because I think people came with different attitudes. I didn't hear it
00:34:33 different attitudes. I didn't hear it openly expressed. Um, but I'm sure some people were um have racial um tendencies, racist tendencies.
00:34:46 um tendencies, racist tendencies. And how did that manifest itself? [snorts]
00:34:52 I don't know. I can't remember. I can't recall. I'm just saying that's probably people are different. How significant an issue was it on your
00:35:03 How significant an issue was it on your agenda?
00:35:07 Not specifically, not very significant. Was it something you ever gave any thought to?
00:35:17 Not really.
00:35:20 Can I move now to the deployment of HN 81
00:35:26 81 who use a cover name David Hagen?
00:35:49 Have you confirmed who it is? Can we have up please first of all 728625
00:36:09 at page 22 please.
00:36:14 Now this is a document if you could have the text expanded please. Uh which bears your initials at the bottom. It's uh a targeting strategy for
00:36:27 bottom. It's uh a targeting strategy for HN81.
00:36:30 HN81. It refers to a meeting, a discussion on Monday the 28th of July. We understand that to be the 28th of July 1997.
00:36:43 that to be the 28th of July 1997. In other words, uh pretty much upon your joining the SDS. I'll give you a moment to look at it.
00:37:07 Yes. The background to this if we have seen um immediately before your time in the SDS
00:37:16 SDS uh that HN81 had been given a brief what was described as a roving brief in Brixham uh with a view to settling upon
00:37:28 Brixham uh with a view to settling upon a longerterm target. This meeting at which you appear to have spoken to HN81 appears to be taking that forward uh with a more specific goal of
00:37:42 forward uh with a more specific goal of penetrating the legal defense and monitoring group. Can I start please with your understanding of what the legal defense and monitoring group was?
00:37:55 Um I I can't recall. Was it a group uh which attended demonstrations and gave advice to demonstrators
00:38:08 and gave advice to demonstrators and gathered evidence which might assist them in the event that they were arrested?
00:38:17 Possibly. Yes. Why did the SDS wish to infiltrate the LDMG?
00:38:28 I would I would I I can't recall specifically, but I would imagine it's because there were other organizations that perhaps it was a way in for the
00:38:39 that perhaps it was a way in for the officer to get into another organization.
00:38:46 Essentially, not a stepping stone, but the center of a web. I think probably a stepping stone. A stepping stone to where
00:38:59 A stepping stone to where to another organization that was more active on the streets, I suppose, of protest groups. As far as we can tell from the reporting, HN81 did not end up
00:39:12 reporting, HN81 did not end up infiltrating the LDMG. Is that correct? I think it probably is correct. I can't recall. Why didn't
00:39:23 recall. Why didn't this goal of penetrating the LDMG come to pass?
00:39:31 I I can't recall. [snorts]
00:39:33 [snorts] We do know that HN81 ended up infiltrating MFJ and reporting a great deal upon MFJ.
00:39:46 To what extent would it be fair to say that MFJ became the clearly more favored target?
00:39:56 target? At what time you Well, this is this is the very start of your tenure. Um we'll be picking up in a moment uh with uh reporting from about
00:40:07 moment uh with uh reporting from about the spring late spring of 1998 where we start seeing a lot of reporting on for example relating to the Lawrence inquiry
00:40:18 example relating to the Lawrence inquiry in MFJ.
00:40:25 Sorry, I've forgotten what the question was. Sorry. The question was, would it be fair to say that MFJ became a more favored target?
00:40:33 target? Yes.
00:40:34 Yes. And why was that? Because they were involved in a lot of u street activity, protests on the street. [snorts]
00:40:46 [snorts] At that early stage of your tenure at the SDS, what knowledge did you have of MFJ?
00:40:56 Not much. And what sort of street activity did you understand MFJ to be involved in? Any protests on the street um
00:41:08 Any protests on the street um against racist groups, lawful demonstrations? Yes, I imagine. So, did you understand MFJ to be involved in
00:41:21 did you understand MFJ to be involved in any unlawful activity? No.
00:41:29 And so was the purpose of infiltrating MFJ from a public order point of view simply to assist policing numbers?
00:41:41 policing numbers? Yes.
00:41:43 Yes. But not to detect or prevent crime. Yes.
00:41:50 Yes. [snorts]
00:41:50 [snorts] Could we take that down now, please? Could we have MPS 40872 please?
00:41:58 please? [snorts]
00:42:02 This is a memorandum uh to you from Sergeant Titty. It's undated. Our understanding is it appears
00:42:13 undated. Our understanding is it appears to date from early in 1998. If we could have the text expanded. I'll give you a moment to read it.
00:42:29 [snorts]
00:43:01 Yes, looking at that first paragraph, it asserts that the cross-section of groups MFJ class war and movement against the monarchy leaves windmill
00:43:14 against the monarchy leaves windmill Tilta ideally placed to report on a wide range of single issue campaigns. that may give rise to public order. Am I
00:43:26 that may give rise to public order. Am I right to understand then that this is essentially a preemptive deployment
00:43:34 aimed at groups where there is only a possibility of public disorder? Yes. Did you give any thought to the
00:43:45 Yes. Did you give any thought to the proportionality of deploying an undercover officer into single issue campaigns that only might
00:43:56 single issue campaigns that only might give rise to campaigning which caused public disorder or led to public disorder? Well, I think you you didn't know where
00:44:10 Well, I think you you didn't know where what the future was going to hold. Um, and if there was a potential for public disorder, then if you
00:44:22 if you targeted an an officer there initially, then you would likely to get more information when and if it appears. What was your understanding of class war at the time?
00:44:35 at the time? Um
00:44:40 I think it was quite a small group.
00:44:45 group. Um
00:44:46 Um would it be fair to describe it as a very small group that by this stage was something of a spent force? I can't
00:44:57 I can't movement against the monarchy again very small.
00:45:03 small. Yes.
00:45:06 Did you have any knowledge of either of them having recently caused or been involved in public disorder?
00:45:17 disorder? I I [clears throat] can't recall. And so far as MFJ is concerned, I've asked you similar questions a moment ago.
00:45:28 ago. Can I take it from your answers that there was no real threshold of gravity for the potential for public disorder in this targeting?
00:45:42 Yes, I think that's a fair comment. Were there any other reasons to target these groups other than the possibility that they might be involved in events at
00:45:55 that they might be involved in events at which public disorder might occur?
00:46:01 I don't think so. No.
00:46:07 [snorts] Can we take that down now, please?
00:46:12 The hearings of stage one of the Steven Lawrence public inquiry occurred between March and July [snorts] of 1998.
00:46:26 March and July [snorts] of 1998. What was the atmosphere like whilst those hearings were ongoing?
00:46:38 I mean the atmosphere in in in the police generally or uh I would be interested specifically in
00:46:49 uh I would be interested specifically in the atmosphere as you perceived it at the time as a head of the SDS. Well, the police would be interested in any potential public disorder that
00:47:01 any potential public disorder that resulted as a result of the um McFersonen inquiry. And what about uh the atmosphere so far
00:47:12 And what about uh the atmosphere so far as the criticism of the Metropolitan Police Service during that inquiry was concerned?
00:47:21 I think there was an acceptance that the inquiry would go ahead and we would have to we would look at the the findings. The police would look at the findings at the end of the inquiry.
00:47:33 end of the inquiry. Were you aware that the inquiry was quite adversarial at times?
00:47:42 Don't think so. No.
00:47:48 Can we have up please MPS 301098?
00:47:58 This is the 18th of an event on the It's a report of the 21st of May. Is that
00:48:12 1098?
00:48:19 Yeah, that I don't think is report the right report. I'll have to come back to that. could have MPS30's triple13 please.
00:48:37 Uh this is a report on movement for justice
00:48:41 justice um
00:48:44 um dated the 1st of June 1998. It's one of HN81's uh report. Can I take it that you would have seen HN81's reporting?
00:48:58 HN81's reporting? I would think so. Most of it anyway. And presumably you would also have had the opportunity to speak to HN81 about what he was doing uh at the bi-weekly
00:49:11 what he was doing uh at the bi-weekly meetings?
00:49:14 meetings? Yes.
00:49:14 Yes. And would that have involved him telling you about the temperature at the Steven Lawrence inquiry? I can't recall, but I would imagine it
00:49:25 I can't recall, but I would imagine it probably would do. [snorts]
00:49:27 [snorts] Uh, if we look at the first paragraph, please.
00:49:47 It appears uh doesn't it from this that MFJ want to become more involved in the Steven Lawrence campaign.
00:50:00 And if we look at paragraph two,
00:50:14 it appears that what they're seeking is a rally with associated media coverage um connected with the appearance of the
00:50:27 um connected with the appearance of the five then suspects. at the inquiry. Yes.
00:50:34 Yes. And if we look at paragraph three,
00:50:41 they want to work with the family but will pursue their own aims come what may.
00:50:52 may. Yes.
00:50:53 Yes. Is this what you mean by a far-left group seeking to exploit the family? Yes.
00:51:03 Yes. But all in the context of legitimate campaigning. Yes.
00:51:10 Yes. And if we look at the source comment
00:51:21 appears on the face of it that MFJ weren't intending to cause trouble and were going to act peacefully. Yes.
00:51:32 And their aims as set out in the second paragraph of the source comment. They'd like to see officers sacked and brought to justice and they want an inquiry uh
00:51:45 to justice and they want an inquiry uh with broader terms of reference. All entirely legitimate opinions to hold, aren't they? Yes.
00:51:58 Given that even at this early stage it's apparent that their goals are lawful and their intentions
00:52:09 lawful and their intentions peaceful.
00:52:11 peaceful. Was did you give any thought to whether it was proportionate to continue reporting on MFJ in its dealings with the Steven Lawrence campaign?
00:52:25 Well, I think there was still uh an opportunity or demonstrations and which had to be policed albe it from
00:52:36 which had to be policed albe it from this. It appears that they were going to be peaceful but they still have to be policed potential for other demonstrations opposing de protest to take place at the same time. So I think
00:52:49 take place at the same time. So I think um from our point of view was still important to keep looking at the movement for justice. Why was it so important to keep looking
00:53:01 Why was it so important to keep looking at MFJ
00:53:04 at MFJ given that it is a small group with peaceful intentions? Well, because they had the potential to to demonstrate on the streets
00:53:17 to demonstrate on the streets were interested in finding out how many numbers and how many people were going. Was it because the allegations of racism being made against the Metropolitan
00:53:28 being made against the Metropolitan Police Service within the Steven Lawrence inquiry were incendury.
00:53:40 No, I I don't believe so. Was it because the campaign that MFJ was mounting
00:53:52 campaign that MFJ was mounting alleging racism against the police? Uh was itself incendurary?
00:54:02 No, I don't think so.
00:54:05 was the fact that this was campaigning against the police in century?
00:54:16 No. Was it of particular interest to you because of the subject matter of the campaign?
00:54:26 campaign? No.
00:54:27 No. Why are you deploying an officer for so long into MFJ when it is so small and generating so little risk if it is not because of the
00:54:39 little risk if it is not because of the potentially incendurary issue of race?
00:54:47 There's the potential of protest on the street in the future on the issue of race. on the issue of of of anything they
00:54:59 on the issue of of of anything they decided to protest on. But they were protesting against the police, alleging the police to be racist, weren't they? Yes.
00:55:11 And that was why you were interested in them?
00:55:16 them? I was interested. We were interested in them because they were potential protests on the streets.
00:55:26 Could we have MPS3017 please?
00:55:34 This is a report dated the 3rd of June 1998
00:55:39 1998 uh entitled the Steven Lawrence campaign. So appears to be focused not on MFJ but the Steven Lawrence campaign.
00:55:50 on MFJ but the Steven Lawrence campaign. Give you a moment to read the text.
00:56:11 The only mention of MFJ there is that they are going to be attending a planning meeting, isn't it?
00:56:36 Yes, but it's also reporting on the fact of two other demonstrations that are going to take place in the future. And these are demonstrations which on the
00:56:49 these are demonstrations which on the face of this report are attributed to the Steven Lawrence campaign, aren't they?
00:56:56 they? Yes.
00:56:59 Yes. So is uh 81 reporting on the Steven Lawrence campaign here because it is organizing demonstrations
00:57:14 of which his organization will be taking part in the MFJ will be taking part in those demonstrations.
00:57:24 But is that's not quite an answer to my question.
00:57:28 question. is 81 reporting on the Steven Lawrence campaign here because the Steven Lawrence campaign is organizing demonstrations.
00:57:39 demonstrations. Yes.
00:57:42 What was your understanding of the Steven Lawrence campaign at this stage? I asked that because I note that Steven Laurens's campaign is capitalized
00:57:54 Laurens's campaign is capitalized in the first line of the text.
00:58:07 It was it was organizing trying to organize demonstrations
00:58:15 and there were other groups involved in those demonstrations.
00:58:25 What was your understanding of the connection between Steven's family and the Steven Lawrence campaign?
00:58:40 I can't recall. Would you have discussed that at the time with HN81?
00:58:50 Possibly, but I can't recall.
00:58:56 We have heard evidence to the effect that there was the Steven Lawrence campaign which was the core campaign of the family
00:59:07 the family uh who had the benefit of some close advisors such as Suresh Grover and Imran Khn.
00:59:17 Khn. Does that remind you?
00:59:23 No. Um, we've also had evidence that there was a wider group, the Steven Lawrence
00:59:34 the Steven Lawrence family support group [clears throat] at which
00:59:40 at which a much a wider group of people participated to support uh the campaign for justice. And that was uh a forum in which many
00:59:53 And that was uh a forum in which many different groups participated. Does that ring any bells?
01:00:01 Not. No.
01:00:06 [clears throat]
01:00:08 This report ends by saying that MFJ now felt they could influence the emphasis of the campaign. How?
01:00:23 I mean, I can't recall exactly, but I would imagine to take a more leading role um creating more protests on the street.
01:00:33 street. [snorts]
01:00:34 [snorts] Did you discuss that with HN81?
01:00:40 Possibly, but I can't recall. [snorts]
01:00:43 [snorts] Did you discuss MFJ's prospects of succeeding in that endeavor? I can't recall. Could we go to MPS30120,
01:00:56 please?
01:01:02 This is a report uh of the of information obtained on the 4th of June uh 1998.
01:01:12 uh 1998. It's entitled Movement for Justice Steven Laurens inquiry. If we look at the first paragraph, please
01:01:26 I'll give you a moment to read that.
01:01:38 [snorts]
01:01:46 Yes.
01:01:50 And we see that MFJ are attending a rally, a small rally at which a spokesperson for the family campaign, Mr. Grover had
01:02:01 for the family campaign, Mr. Grover had been talking about plans for um a demonstration and MFJ are
01:02:12 and MFJ are essentially calling for a demonstration somewhat earlier resulting in a decision to hold another meeting. [clears throat] All of that entirely legitimate
01:02:25 All of that entirely legitimate campaigning, isn't it? Yes.
01:02:28 Yes. Can we go to the source comment for please?
01:02:38 Again, if we look at the first paragraph,
01:02:43 we see a repeat of MFJ's seeking a much wider uh inquiry and uh some leafleting being referred to. Again, perfectly lawful activity.
01:03:03 Yes. Second paragraph is about MFJ's intention
01:03:10 intention still intent on working with the Lawrence family campaign rather than attempting to take it over. Yeah. [snorts]
01:03:21 Yeah. [snorts] So it would appear that by the 4th of June
01:03:26 June you were aware that MFJ were not seeking to take over the campaign, weren't you? Yes. [snorts] And in fact, the nature of
01:03:37 Yes. [snorts] And in fact, the nature of that campaign was such and the nature of MFJ was such that it would be would have been fanciful to suggest that MFJ could have taken over the family's campaign,
01:03:52 have taken over the family's campaign, wasn't it?
01:03:56 I think so. Yes. Could we have MPS30129,
01:04:03 please?
01:04:14 We're still in the period here before the [clears throat] then suspects had appeared at the inquiry and uh preparations are being made to
01:04:25 preparations are being made to demonstrate when they do. This is the 11th of June entitled Lawrence Family Support Group. If we could have the
01:04:36 Support Group. If we could have the first two paragraphs, please
01:04:45 give you a moment to read that.
01:05:20 Yep. Essentially here, Mr. Grover from the Steven Lawrence campaign is addressing the Lawrence family support
01:05:31 addressing the Lawrence family support group, the wider support group, and communicating to them what had been agreed with the inquiry about arrangements
01:05:43 arrangements for the attendance at the inquiry of the suspects, isn't he? Yeah. Can Can we go to paragraph three, please?
01:06:00 The mood amongst those attending the meeting was hostile and rowdy, especially amongst a number of the women. Several members of the audience stated that they would not allow
01:06:12 stated that they would not allow themselves to be searched and they would not accept any police presence whatsoever. Grover was asked to report these facts back to the inquiry.
01:06:26 back to the inquiry. [snorts]
01:06:28 Was mood something that you were interested in?
01:06:38 I mean I think probably yes there was potential for um disorder but on this instance it's clear from what is being reported that the mood of those wishing
01:06:53 reported that the mood of those wishing to attend was being communicated directly to the inquiry in any event. wasn't it?
01:07:07 Yes. And there's certainly no mention here one way or the other as to whether these people have anything to do with MFJ.
01:07:21 Correct. Yes. This is simply reporting on members of the public who are interested in supporting Steven's family's campaign for justice.
01:07:34 Steven's family's campaign for justice. Yes.
01:07:36 Yes. Paragraph four, please.
01:07:48 Give you a moment. But this is essentially about planned tactics.
01:08:05 [clears throat]
01:08:21 Yes. [snorts]
01:08:23 [snorts] The majority of what's being muted there is entirely lawful protest, isn't it? Yes.
01:08:31 Yes. Some of it might tip over into minor criminality.
01:08:39 Is that fair? Yes.
01:08:42 Yes. But this is certainly not a proposal for serious public disorder. No.
01:08:49 No. Were you interested in intelligence about potential modes of disruption?
01:08:58 Yes. [snorts] If we go to the next paragraph, please.
01:09:23 What appears to be set out here is HN81's assessment of the risk of disorder
01:09:30 disorder and some advice on tactics to keep the temperature from boiling over. Is that fair?
01:09:44 from boiling over. Is that fair? Yes.
01:09:45 Yes. And then if we go over leaf
01:10:05 essentially rather cursory mention of MFJ and ANL
01:10:36 So this is having been through it in detail um I need to ask you a few questions about [snorts] it. First of all your officer is reporting here not
01:10:48 all your officer is reporting here not so much on MFJ but directly on the Lawrence family support group isn't he?
01:10:57 But he's he's reporting on on on both. Um,
01:11:05 did you discuss any boundaries with him in his reporting on issues relating to the inquiry?
01:11:18 Not to my knowledge. No.
01:11:22 as someone who, as we've seen, has reported on the Steven Lawrence campaign, now a report on the Steven Lawrence
01:11:32 Lawrence family support group, reporting made from his position within MFJ. He is a spy in the Lawrence camp in
01:11:43 MFJ. He is a spy in the Lawrence camp in that sense, isn't he?
01:11:48 Yes, I guess so. Yes, he's not mingling directly with the family members themselves, but he is reporting on their campaigning efforts.
01:12:03 reporting on their campaigning efforts. Yes.
01:12:07 Did you consider the propriety of allowing such reporting?
01:12:17 while he was reporting as a member of the movement for justice which is his target organization. Can I take from that answer that you did not directly address your mind to
01:12:30 not directly address your mind to whether it was proper to have a UCO in the Lawrence camp?
01:12:38 Yes. Would it be right that you didn't consider the wisdom of it either?
01:12:49 Yes, as we've seen, this report is and does have information which might be of some
01:13:00 have information which might be of some interest to those charged with maintaining order.
01:13:07 order. What was done with this intelligence and HN81's
01:13:13 HN81's advice for policing on the day? Well,
01:13:19 Well, the report would have been sent to the relevant desk in special branch for assessment
01:13:30 for assessment of public holding in that area. I'd be grateful if you could speak up please. Would that it would have been it would have been would have been sent to the MPSB
01:13:42 would have been sent to the MPSB C squad to assist the desk who were tasked with assessing public order events in and around the Steven Lawrence campaign would have helped them make an
01:13:55 campaign would have helped them make an assessment for the area for the poling. Do you know what they did with it? Not specifically. No. Would you have expected them to have fed it in
01:14:06 expected them to have fed it in sanitized form to uniform police officer in police officers in the area? Potentially. Yes.
01:14:16 Did the SDS have any direct contact with the Steven Lawrence inquiry?
01:14:23 No. Did Squad, to the best of your knowledge? No.
01:14:38 Could [snorts] we have MPS30 11:34 please?
01:14:48 This is the uh 12th of June 1998 and it's a public meeting about the Lawrence Family Support Group organized
01:15:00 Lawrence Family Support Group organized by the SWP. If we could have the first paragraph, please.
01:15:10 Give you a moment to read it.
01:15:28 Yes. This report contains in this paragraph information about the
01:15:38 about the age, sex, [snorts] and race of those attending the meeting. Why did you want to know about the
01:15:52 Why did you want to know about the partic the characteristics of those attending an SWP organized public meeting?
01:16:02 I don't think we did specifically want to know. I think the officer who reported it was just reporting on the meeting and the makeup of the meeting.
01:16:13 meeting and the makeup of the meeting. Did you give any advice to HN81 that that sort of information wasn't necessary? No, I don't think so. Was that because in fact you did consider it useful in painting the full
01:16:27 consider it useful in painting the full picture?
01:16:29 picture? Well, it painted the full picture of who was there. And what conclusions did you draw from the composition of the audience?
01:16:49 just as as reported. Were you in fact interested in whether or not the SWP was gaining traction with London's black
01:17:01 was gaining traction with London's black population?
01:17:05 Not specifically. No.
01:17:09 Why not in circumstances where uh a high-profile public inquiry is ongoing criticizing the police?
01:17:23 criticizing the police? Well, I mean, the SWP had potential to bring more numbers onto the street than probably other organizations. So, it was
01:17:35 probably other organizations. So, it was interesting from that point of view. But you're taking a particular interest here, aren't you? In what race they are, what age they are, and what sex they
01:17:47 what age they are, and what sex they are. Was that because you well recognize there was a racial dimension to the Steven Lawrence inquiry
01:17:59 the Steven Lawrence inquiry and the atmosphere at the time that you wanted to keep an eye on?
01:18:07 No, I don't think so. I think that's fair at all.
01:18:15 We see in the second part of the paragraph that the speakers are recorded to have included Joy Gardner's mother, George Silcot, Surish Grover, and Wayman
01:18:26 George Silcot, Surish Grover, and Wayman Bennett as well as the MP Bernie Grant who failed to attend as did Steven Lawrence's father.
01:18:37 Lawrence's father. These are all people, if putting aside Wayman Bennett as the SWP speaker, the rest of them are all people involved in
01:18:48 rest of them are all people involved in campaigning for racial justice, aren't they?
01:18:52 they? Yes.
01:18:53 Yes. Why is the SDS reporting on people simply because they speak at an SWP event?
01:19:04 event? Well, I I mean, it It was practice that when they attended SDS attended these meetings and reported on they were they reported on the
01:19:15 on they were they reported on the numbers attended and who was speaking it was a
01:19:18 was a it was what was normally done.
01:19:23 If we go to paragraph two,
01:19:33 81 has recorded here details of what the speakers were saying in particular here, what Mr. Grover was saying. Why did the SDS want to know what Mr.
01:19:49 Why did the SDS want to know what Mr. Grover was saying about the inquiry and his views about it. Well, as I said before, I think he was just reporting on the content of the
01:20:01 just reporting on the content of the meeting and the mood and the people who were speaking. I'll give give you a moment to look at the next two paragraphs.
01:20:12 The questions are going to be the views recorded here are all lawful and none of them are advocating violence or disorder.
01:20:29 Yes.
01:20:32 If we go over the page
01:20:37 again, we see that source comment and handler's comments about the the mood, particularly the source comment, the general mood of those
01:20:48 comment, the general mood of those present was very angry. If similar numbers attend on Monday, there is potential for severe public disorder when the five appear. Can you help us with what was done with that intelligence other than the routine
01:21:01 intelligence other than the routine transmission of it to C squad?
01:21:07 No, I can't. The proposition that the attendance of the five suspects at the inquiry uh was
01:21:18 the five suspects at the inquiry uh was going to be an emotive event was obvious, wasn't it? Yes.
01:21:27 And you don't need an undercover officer going along to an SWP meeting uh to tell the police that.
01:21:40 Well, I I don't know how else would you get that information.
01:21:46 Well, that it's going to be an emotive issue when the five suspects appear at the inquiry. It's obvious, isn't it? Well, not necessarily obvious, but um if
01:21:58 Well, not necessarily obvious, but um if you have somebody there actually at the meeting, they can report direct. And the groups are leafleting about their protests, aren't they? Yes.
01:22:08 Yes. And an ordinary special branch officer can attend a meeting. Um
01:22:15 Um depends what the nature of the meeting was.
01:22:19 was. Well, this was a public meeting attended by hundreds of people.
01:22:25 Yes, and indeed probably normal special branch officers may well have attended the meeting as well. Can [snorts] we have MPF 30147 please?
01:22:40 This is 25th of June. This is uh the new monitoring project uh holding a meeting about the Steven Lawrence inquiry. [snorts]
01:22:51 [snorts] If we look at paragraph one, we'll see again it's a a large meeting [snorts] organized by an anti-racist group with a lot of speakers who were
01:23:04 group with a lot of speakers who were campaigning for racial justice.
01:23:14 Yeah. And again we see reporting on age, sex, and race.
01:23:24 It's fair to say that 81 is keeping a very close eye, isn't he, on campaigning in support of Steven Lawrence?
01:23:35 in support of Steven Lawrence? Yes.
01:23:39 [snorts] Paragraphs two and three. I'll give you a moment to read, but the question will be the content of the speeches as recorded here was all entirely lawful,
01:23:51 recorded here was all entirely lawful, wasn't it?
01:24:13 Yes, that includes reporting on a short speech made by Neville Lawrence.
01:24:24 speech made by Neville Lawrence. Was there any consideration of the propriety of reporting on Steven's father's legitimate views being expressed at a lawful public meeting?
01:24:38 expressed at a lawful public meeting? No.
01:24:39 No. No. [clears throat]
01:24:43 Why was he being reported on? Because
01:24:50 when officers reported on meetings, they reported on all the speakers and who was there and it was a that's the way the meetings were reported. Can we have page two, please? Par the
01:25:03 Can we have page two, please? Par the first two paragraphs.
01:25:42 [snorts]
01:26:02 [snorts] Uh what's striking about what's recorded here is that the Trosky speaker from the floor got absolutely nowhere. Did she?
01:26:15 nowhere. Did she? It would appear so. Yes. And wasn't that typical? When the family justice campaigners were present, they were grateful for
01:26:28 were present, they were grateful for support
01:26:29 support but not interested in extremist politics.
01:26:37 Yes. Yes. And that was clearly understood, wasn't it, by the SDS.
01:26:48 I'm not sure whether it was clearly understood by the SDS, but [snorts] I think the organizations that would try to influence
01:26:59 would try to influence the campaign would you never knew what their next step was going to be.
01:27:08 [snorts]
01:27:12 So, am I understanding your evidence correctly? You wanted to follow these family justice campaigns because you didn't know what their next steps would be.
01:27:23 be. No, I mean talking about the movement for justice. [snorts]
01:27:27 [snorts] The MFJ's steps in relation to those campaigns. Yes.
01:27:34 Yes. But if the if it is clear that the campaigns are a peaceful and b not in not interested in extremist politics, doesn't that tell you all you need to
01:27:46 doesn't that tell you all you need to know?
01:27:49 know? At that time, yes.
01:27:54 If we go to paragraph three and four on this page.
01:28:33 [snorts]
01:28:58 Yeah, there a number of propositions you can see here. First of all, MFJ is itself operating entirely openly, isn't it? Leafitting about its forthcoming demonstrations.
01:29:09 demonstrations. Yeah.
01:29:11 Yeah. And that it wishes to support the Real Families campaign.
01:29:23 None of that's very surprising, is it? No.
01:29:27 No. And none of it requires an undercover police officer.
01:29:37 We the intentions of MFJ would not be known without
01:29:46 undercover police officer being there. Well, the fact that they want to organize a demonstration would be well known, wouldn't it? because they're handing out a lot of leaflets.
01:29:59 leaflets. Yes. But they may not be well known to the police who may have to police the demonstration.
01:30:07 That logic would apply to anybody in London organizing a lawful demonstration, wouldn't it? Yes, but not a necessarily a militant organization. Not necessarily a militant
01:30:20 organization. Not necessarily a militant protest.
01:30:25 But there's no evidence that MFJ were organizing events at which there was serious public disorder. Is there?
01:30:38 Well, the final sentence, they hope to make the demonstration as militant as possible.
01:30:46 possible. Militant can mean a variety of things, can't it?
01:30:50 can't it? It can mean a variety of things. And it is not unlawful um to to demonstrate viciferously, is it? No.
01:31:03 There's no suggestion. going to organize an unlawful demonstration or promote violence. Is there
01:31:14 a could mean violence? [snorts]
01:31:23 To your knowledge at this stage, had MFJ actually been involved in violent demonstration? Not to my knowledge. No. Could we have
01:31:34 Not to my knowledge. No. Could we have MPS30 1149 please?
01:31:42 This is uh a report by 86 20th of June 1998
01:31:49 1998 about the Steven Lawrence inquiry and a steward's meeting. I'll give you a moment to read it.
01:32:29 [snorts]
01:32:37 Yeah. So, you've got an undercover officer here attending a stewarding meeting of the Lawrence Family Support Group.
01:32:47 Group. Yes.
01:32:50 Yes. And there's no question here, is there, of either Mr. Grover or the Lawrenes seeking any disorder? No.
01:32:59 No. On the contrary, they don't want disorder.
01:33:06 Yes. There's a suggestion that seat allocation within the inquiry might become contentious.
01:33:17 become contentious. Yes.
01:33:18 Yes. Can I take it from your previous answers? You can't help us as to whether that intelligence was fed back to the inquiry somehow or not. I I I don't know. I can't. And
01:33:30 I I I don't know. I can't. And presumably this is information that would have been well known to uh Mr. Grover and which he could have communicated himself with the inquiry
01:33:41 communicated himself with the inquiry about.
01:33:43 about. It's possible. Yes.
01:33:48 And [snorts] uh there isn't on the face of this um a risk of serious disorder. There is a risk of some disorder when
01:34:00 There is a risk of some disorder when the suspects leave the building. Yes.
01:34:06 Yes. Again, are you able to help us with whether that intelligence made its way to those policing on the day or not? I don't know.
01:34:18 And if we go over the page,
01:34:24 we see that the officer has commented that MFJ will be quick to exploit any confrontation that develops and ideally would either like to see the fiveman
01:34:35 would either like to see the fiveman handled or have riot police deployed to protect them. So effectively they want a spectacle, don't they? Yes. But not anything which not actually
01:34:47 Yes. But not anything which not actually a riot.
01:34:52 Well, I I guess it depends how things develop.
01:34:56 develop. Well, again, can you help? I' I've asked the question already. You are not able to help us as to whether this intelligence was relayed to police or not.
01:35:04 not. No.
01:35:09 Did you discuss with HN81 his feelings uh about how the day might develop?
01:35:17 develop? I can't recall. Did you get any feedback at all from C Squad or anybody else having submitted this intelligence?
01:35:30 Not not me personally. No. Did anyone to your knowledge? Well, they they may have done, but not to my knowledge. We know that the arrangements for
01:35:42 We know that the arrangements for [snorts]
01:35:43 [snorts] the attendance of the suspects at the inquiry did not change. They were in fact brought in and out through the front door. So, can we conclude that
01:35:54 front door. So, can we conclude that this intelligence made no difference to the arrangements?
01:36:01 Yes. Can we have MPS30's 11154, please? This is a report immediately after the day on which the suspects appeared at
01:36:13 day on which the suspects appeared at the inquiry. It's dated the 30th of June about events on Monday the 29th. I'll give you a moment to look at the text.
01:36:38 [clears throat]
01:37:26 [snorts] Yep.
01:37:27 Yep. Presumably you would have seen this report.
01:37:30 report. I would think so. Yes. Did you know that HN81 was going to attend on this day? Probably. Yes.
01:37:41 Probably. Yes. And it was a significant event, wasn't it?
01:37:43 it? It was. Yes. It's clear, isn't it, from the third and fourth paragraphs that Dr. Lawrence acted very, didn't he?
01:37:54 acted very, didn't he? Yes.
01:37:55 Yes. With remarkable dignity. Yes.
01:37:58 Yes. In very difficult and emotive circumstances. Yes.
01:38:03 Yes. And there's no question here of MFJ controlling him, is there? No.
01:38:10 No. Quite the reverse. Yes.
01:38:14 Yes. and he's controlling MFJ to enable the inquiry to proceed.
01:38:25 Yes, you could have no clearer example than this that the Laurens family were no threat whatsoever to public order, were
01:38:38 threat whatsoever to public order, were they?
01:38:40 they? No. On the contrary, they were going to be a significant restraining force.
01:38:50 Yes. Did you receive any intelligence during the course of the day from HN81?
01:39:02 Not to my knowledge. No. Did you consider whether or not it was wise to have an undercover officer in this unruly crowd outside Hannibal House
01:39:16 this unruly crowd outside Hannibal House on the day?
01:39:20 Well, I think it would have been very difficult for the officer not to be there
01:39:25 there in mind.
01:39:26 in mind. Sorry.
01:39:28 Sorry. I think it would have been very difficult for the officer not to have been there bearing in mind he was part of that organization. Is that why you permitted it?
01:39:41 Yes. It was part of his his target group merely to maintain his cover [clears throat] and to report on events. Yes.
01:39:54 and to report on events. Yes. Dr. Lawrence takes particular exception to an undercover police officer having participated in the demonstration that he had to calm
01:40:05 in the demonstration that he had to calm down. It's entirely understandable that he should feel that way, isn't it? Yes.
01:40:14 Yes. Could we go to page two, please? [snorts]
01:40:20 [snorts] And if we could look at the fifth and sixth uh paragraphs, please
01:41:02 We can see from that report that some summary justice was uh metered out to the suspects, but it was of relatively minor severity, wasn't it?
01:41:17 Yes. And [snorts] SDS intelligence doesn't appear to have prevented or reduced it, does it?
01:41:31 No. Very much against the wishes of Dr. Lawrence.
01:41:38 Lawrence. Yes.
01:41:40 Yes. [snorts]
01:41:40 [snorts] And would it be fair to say that on this occasion the SDS hadn't been of any assistance to the Lawrenes?
01:41:50 I don't think the SDS were in a position to
01:41:55 to um
01:41:59 influence the crowd.
01:42:04 you were providing intelligence uh before the event and the proposition is you if it suggested that the SDS was in some way helping the Lawrenes, it
01:42:16 some way helping the Lawrenes, it appears here it has not.
01:42:23 Well, I don't know what the what the the general policing uniform policing would have been at that event. I I can't recall.
01:42:31 recall. Would it be fair to say that in fact had it been known that HN81 was in the midst of the protesters, it would only have exacerbated the problems on the day.
01:42:46 If it had been known that he was there. Yes.
01:42:49 Yes. Yes.
01:42:54 Could we have the penultimate paragraph on this page, please?
01:43:21 Yes.
01:43:24 The phrase, "It is clear that the family themselves do not want any confrontation with the police other than on political
01:43:35 with the police other than on political grounds.
01:43:36 grounds. In what way were the Lawrenes confronting the MPS politically? I I don't know. I don't I can't recall what that
01:43:48 Did that phrase strike you at the time?
01:43:53 No, I can't recall. Did you discuss it with 81? I don't think so. No. [clears throat]
01:44:08 Was that the way that you looked at it that the Lawrence family were confronting the MPS politically? No.
01:44:21 No. And was that in fact one of the reasons why they were being reported on? No.
01:44:31 No. They were challenging the MPS, accusing it of racism.
01:44:40 Was that regarded as a political challenge? I don't think so. No. A challenge though that could be very
01:44:51 A challenge though that could be very damaging to the Metropolitan Police Service.
01:44:55 Service. Yes.
01:44:59 [snorts] And was it that potential for reputational damage on racial grounds, a reason
01:45:08 a reason why we have seen so much reporting on the family in the runup to and
01:45:16 and on the day the suspects are produced to the Lawrence inquiry? No, I don't believe so.
01:45:27 No, I don't believe so. Could we have MPS30 1181 please?
01:45:36 This is a report on the MFJ from the 16th of July. Uh and although the title says it's about MFJ, it embarks
01:45:47 says it's about MFJ, it embarks immediately. If we look at um paragraph one
01:45:57 on the the Lawrence family
01:46:22 It's the reality that your officer is continuing to report on the Steven Lawrence campaign.
01:46:35 Yes. Yes. [clears throat] And if we look at the penultimate paragraph on that page
01:46:55 read with that first paragraph we saw, you can fairly say, can't you, that your officer is reporting on the machinations of the wider Steven Laurens campaign.
01:47:29 Yes, it's MFJ. It's MFJ's
01:47:39 continued intention to uh be involved in the Lawrence campaign. But [snorts] it's more than just that, isn't it? You are
01:47:50 isn't it? You are deploying a UCIO who's reporting on the machinations of the campaign. We can we saw it in that first paragraph. We see it here. focusing on what Neville
01:48:01 it here. focusing on what Neville Lawrence is doing uh visav other groups. Yeah.
01:48:10 And there is significant attention paid, isn't there, to Dr. Lawrence?
01:48:18 Yes. Could
01:48:23 Could we have MPS 30191 please?
01:48:31 [snorts] This is the 20th of July 1998 entitled Steven Lawrence inquiry. It's about uh a rally on the last day of
01:48:44 about uh a rally on the last day of stage one of uh the inquiry. And I'll give you a moment to look at it, but it shows further reporting on the machinations with the within the wider Lawrence camp,
01:48:57 with the within the wider Lawrence camp, doesn't it?
01:49:41 Yes, [snorts] we take that down now. Uh, could we have MPS 301212, please? This is a meeting of the
01:49:52 please? This is a meeting of the Lawrence family support campaign on Monday the 20th of July 1998.
01:50:02 Uh this is quite a long report um about uh the the meeting and events at and immediately after it. Would you have seen the report or spoken
01:50:15 Would you have seen the report or spoken to HN81 about it? Um, I may well have seen the report. I can't recall whether I'd spoken to H 81 about it.
01:50:26 about it. Would it have been normal to speak to HN81 about significant reports?
01:50:34 Sometimes.
01:50:38 Could we have a look at page three, please? The top paragraph.
01:51:12 This was further evidence, wasn't it, that the Lawrence family were entirely independent of what you would describe as extremist groups and didn't want to
01:51:23 as extremist groups and didn't want to have anything to do with them? Yes.
01:51:27 Yes. Uh, and that was a very clear and consistent picture by this stage, wasn't it?
01:51:34 it? Yes.
01:51:35 Yes. Could we have uh the second paragraph?
01:51:41 I give you a moment to read that. But it's the second half of that this paragraph that I'm going to be asking about.
01:52:05 Yes, [snorts]
01:52:08 [snorts] the second half of that paragraph reports the fact that Dorene and Neville had in reality separated and were continuing together as a front for the
01:52:21 continuing together as a front for the campaign.
01:52:23 campaign. It then reports the separate wishes and intentions of Dorene and Neville. That is first of all highly personal
01:52:35 That is first of all highly personal data about the state of the marriage of the Lawrenes, isn't it? It is. Yes.
01:52:43 is. Yes. There was no proper policing purpose for reporting that, was there? No.
01:52:51 Why did you permit it to remain in this report?
01:52:56 report? Well, I think it was
01:53:02 obviously part of the meeting was openly talked about in the meeting and I think the officer was just reporting what he heard, but
01:53:14 heard, but it shouldn't have been in the report. And he goes on to report information which if one wished to follow
01:53:25 which if one wished to follow the Steven Lawrence campaign in detail is pertinent
01:53:33 because it records a divergence of view doesn't it? Yes.
01:53:40 But it is not proper a proper subject for police reporting is it? No. [clears throat]
01:53:56 Why is the Metropolitan Police Service using an undercover police officer to report the views of Dorene and Neville
01:54:09 report the views of Dorene and Neville Lawrence down to the extent to which they disagree on the continuity of an entirely lawful
01:54:20 on the continuity of an entirely lawful and just campaign.
01:54:28 It shouldn't have been reported. It shouldn't. But that's not my question. My question is why was it? because I think it was accepted that
01:54:40 because I think it was accepted that that was that was an acceptable report of a meeting which was recorded by the officer who was there because the Metropolitan Police Service had an intense interest in understanding
01:54:53 had an intense interest in understanding the campaign.
01:54:58 I don't believe No, I don't believe that because of the potential for the allegations of racism to damage the reputation of the MPS.
01:55:12 No, I don't accept that. I beg your pardon? Don't accept that. No.
01:55:20 Could we have uh the third paragraph, please?
01:55:32 Give you a moment to read it.
01:55:44 This paragraph seems to particularize reasons why the Lawrenes did not want particular people or groups attending a forthcoming social event.
01:55:59 forthcoming social event. Is that a fair summation? Yes.
01:56:05 Yes. Reporting on who the Lawrenes do and do not want at a social event is not
01:56:16 not want at a social event is not necessary police intelligence, is it? It's not necessary police intelligence, but again, it's a report what occurred at the meeting.
01:56:29 at the meeting. We're a very long way here from a proper policing purpose, aren't we?
01:56:38 It's a report of a beating where MFJ were present. And are you asserting that that was enough to justify reporting on who the
01:56:51 enough to justify reporting on who the Lawreners did and did not want at a social function?
01:56:57 Not necessarily, but it's it's a report of a meeting that was attended and he's just gone down the the reporting officer has gone down to say what the content of
01:57:09 has gone down to say what the content of the meeting was. Again, is the reality that the MPS is very interested in every little detail about the machinations within the Steven
01:57:22 about the machinations within the Steven Lawrence campaign.
01:57:29 I think they were interested in all the protest groups that might get involved in the Lawrence campaign.
01:57:39 So would that be an appropriate moment to stop for the morning break? Um yes it would. Um but before we do, I would like to ask you to reflect over the next 15
01:57:50 to ask you to reflect over the next 15 minutes on the topics that have just been discussed. Um it's clear that you rightly conclude that a lot of the reporting of HN81 about the Steven
01:58:04 reporting of HN81 about the Steven Lawrence family and campaign was not serving a proper policing purpose. Uh, I have the impression that you didn't do anything about it. Um,
01:58:17 anything about it. Um, I would like to know why not, but I'm not asking for an instantaneous answer, but if you would reflect on that over the next 15 minutes and answer it then, I'd be grateful for your answer.
01:58:29 I'd be grateful for your answer. Thank you. We'll adjourn for 15 minutes.
02:18:08 Yes. Um, I asked you to reflect upon a topic over the 15 minutes. Have you been able to do so?
02:18:16 to do so? I have indeed, sir. Yes. And um, are you able to give me an answer?
02:18:21 answer? Well, I would the answer I give you is that
02:18:25 that reports, special lunch reports of meetings and things like that always gave the full contents of the meeting. I don't think any uh consideration was
02:18:36 don't think any uh consideration was given to the appropriateness or otherwise of the contents of the port in regard to details of individuals. Uh so
02:18:47 regard to details of individuals. Uh so that was in the time that I was there that was the the way the reports were written. Um and I accept that now in
02:18:58 written. Um and I accept that now in hindsight looking at those reports uh there were parts of the reports that should not have been written.
02:19:10 You yourself uh didn't do anything about it.
02:19:13 it. No, I didn't. Um
02:19:16 Um Did anybody else senior to you uh discuss the matter with you or consider it as far as you know? No.
02:19:29 [clears throat]
02:19:34 Thank you. Thank you, sir. Could we have up please 728625
02:19:52 and page 12 please?
02:19:58 This is a file note uh made by Bob Lambert relating to a meeting on Friday the 14th of August 1998
02:20:11 the 14th of August 1998 um attended by him HN81 [clears throat] and Richard Walton.
02:20:23 Are you familiar with this meeting? I have. Yes. [clears throat] Before we go into the detail of the note itself,
02:20:34 go into the detail of the note itself, can I check your recollection now as to who organized this meeting? I I I can't recall who organized it
02:20:48 and for what purpose. I believe the purpose was to explore
02:20:58 what groups the Metropolitan Police could deal with uh in the uh sort of the Brixton in the London area where everything seems
02:21:10 London area where everything seems particularly Brixton. That was my understanding of it. What do you mean by deal with? well to approach groups might um be able to
02:21:21 approach groups might um be able to assist the police in improving relations in the local communities. You said in your witness statement that the meeting was organized by Lambert.
02:21:35 the meeting was organized by Lambert. On what basis did you say that? because I
02:21:42 because I he was he Lambert came to me to say that the meeting was going to take place. So I assumed it was done by him. Yes. Right.
02:21:52 Right. From that answer was going to take place. Can I take it? He told you before it happened.
02:22:02 Yes.
02:22:06 [snorts] What did he tell you about who he was going to introduce HN81 to to um
02:22:16 to um [snorts]
02:22:17 [snorts] DI Walton
02:22:22 who was
02:22:25 part of I think um I can't remember which
02:22:30 which um department he was in but it was something to do with Steven Lawrence um
02:22:37 um unit.
02:22:38 unit. I beg your pardon. I'm part of the Steven Lawrence unit in the in the Metropolitan Police. Did you have any understanding
02:22:50 Did you have any understanding independent of what DI Lambert told you about Walton's precise rank?
02:23:06 No. And his job title at the time of the meeting?
02:23:11 meeting? I don't think so. [snorts] If we look at the first three uh paragraphs, please
02:23:43 [snorts]
02:23:58 If you let me know when you've read those first three paragraphs. Oh, sorry. I can't They're not on the screen,
02:24:03 screen, aren't they?
02:24:08 Ah, are they Are they there now? They are there now. Thank you.
02:24:15 [snorts]
02:24:19 [clears throat]
02:25:00 Yeah. And then if we look at the three areas that are addressed below
02:25:21 [snorts]
02:25:58 Then if we go to the top of the next page, please
02:26:19 And then if we zoom out, you can see your endorsement at the bottom.
02:26:29 Yeah. So having [snorts] read that, can you help us first of all with why you regarded it as an excellent meeting and
02:26:42 regarded it as an excellent meeting and a good example of the strides windmill Tilta had made over the last 12 months? Well, I think it was um an example where
02:26:55 an example where we were able to assist another uh police department um
02:27:05 with with what they were um charged with doing. And I think it was a an example of windmill titers windmill tiltter's
02:27:17 of windmill titers windmill tiltter's um ability to
02:27:22 be part of the MFJ and their um
02:27:29 um and through that the knowledge of the groups that they had allied themselves with.
02:27:35 with. And in terms of assisting the Metropolitan Police Service, was it in the three respects set out in the report
02:27:46 the three respects set out in the report which amount to assisting with the closing statement for stage one of the Lawrence inquiry, providing some intelligence
02:27:57 intelligence of use to engagement in stage two of the inquiry, and looking forward forward to the need to
02:28:08 the need to rebuild confidence in policing of racial matters.
02:28:15 matters. I think particularly the third one to rebuild confidence in policing racial matters.
02:28:24 Is that answer based purely on this document or anything else?
02:28:33 I think it's based on this document. Did Di Lambert say anything to you about events at the meeting?
02:28:46 Event? No, not not that I can recall. Did he say anything more to you in particular about its importance to either the Home Secretary or the Prime
02:28:58 either the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister?
02:29:03 No, I can't I can't recall. Did anyone else speak to you about this meeting?
02:29:14 No, I I spoke to the commander of operations in special branch about it, but I think that was beforehand.
02:29:25 beforehand. And what did he say? Well, I just I I think it it had been passed through him and I was just clarifying that he knew about the meeting. Is
02:29:37 about the meeting. Is that Colin Black? Yes.
02:29:41 Yes. So, can I be clear? Are we talking before or after the meeting? It's before the meeting. And
02:29:49 And if I've understood your answer correctly, you're saying it was the meeting with cleared with Mr. Black beforehand. I believe so. Yes.
02:30:00 I believe so. Yes. Was did you approach him for clearance? No, I think it had already I think he was already aware of it. And how had he become aware of it?
02:30:12 And how had he become aware of it? I I I don't know. Can you recall whether you spoke to him or he spoke to you about this? [snorts]
02:30:21 I can't recall. And what was Chief Superintendent Black's state of mind about this
02:30:33 mind about this before the meeting?
02:30:38 Well, he he was in favor of it. Did he did he say why? Because I think it was assisting another police department and we were in a
02:30:50 police department and we were in a position to help. Did you speak to H&81 about the meeting? Did Did I? Yes.
02:31:04 Probably, but I can't recall.
02:31:09 Did you speak to Walton about the meeting?
02:31:14 meeting? No.
02:31:17 [snorts] Did you accept the account of the meeting as set out in Detective Inspector Lambert's note?
02:31:28 Yes.
02:31:36 You have praised the meeting. Was Detective uh Chief Superintendent Black's response to the meeting after it had happened also positive?
02:31:48 had happened also positive? Also positive. Yes. Did [snorts] he say anything to you about it after the event? I I can't recall. Um
02:32:02 I can't recall. Was there a sense that these were issues that were of importance not just high up in the Metropolitan
02:32:14 not just high up in the Metropolitan Police Service but also uh at a political level?
02:32:21 Not that I was aware of. Well, the report itself refer you refers to both the home office and the the prime minister.
02:32:32 prime minister. Um
02:32:33 Um yes, I mean I assume there was interest in how police were going to take this forward.
02:32:44 were going to take this forward. [snorts]
02:32:45 [snorts] Did you discuss that with anybody or did anybody say anything more to you about the political interest in how the Met was dealing with the inquiry?
02:32:57 was dealing with the inquiry? No. or with rebuilding community relations
02:33:03 relations going forward? Can't recall. I don't think so.
02:33:10 Could we have up please 720 946.
02:33:27 This is a minute from you to Superintendent Black um dated the 3rd of September. A few
02:33:38 um dated the 3rd of September. A few weeks after the Walton meeting, it says, "As requested, DI Lambert has prepared a briefing note which outlined two key areas, including extreme left-wing
02:33:50 areas, including extreme left-wing involvement in the Steven Lawrence
02:33:55 Lawrence inquiry.
02:33:58 inquiry. Can you help us with the circumstances in which Superintendent Black requested a report, a briefing note from you?
02:34:17 No, I can't recall.
02:34:23 Did it follow the meeting between HN81, Walton, and Lambert? I believe so.
02:34:36 And was it picking up on the same feeling that the SDS could be of use on important
02:34:47 SDS could be of use on important matters?
02:34:53 Yes, I think so.
02:34:58 Could we uh go to page eight, please?
02:35:06 And if this is the briefing note itself. And if we look at the first paragraph please
02:35:38 There is a problem with the factual accuracy of this paragraph, isn't there? In the sense that to describe MFJ's
02:35:49 In the sense that to describe MFJ's attempts to influence the Steven Lawrence campaign as largely successful seriously overstates the position, doesn't it?
02:36:00 It would seem to. Yes. We looked this morning, earlier this morning at reports which showed they were getting no traction [clears throat] whatsoever with the family.
02:36:13 Did you read this report before submitting it to Superintendent Black?
02:36:21 I assume I did. Yes. And can you help us with whether you recognize that this was an exaggeration or not? [snorts]
02:36:33 or not? [snorts] It it looks like to be an exaggeration. Did you realize that at that at the time?
02:36:40 time? No.
02:36:43 No. Could [snorts] we go to paragraph two, please?
02:36:53 I'll give you a moment to read it.
02:37:11 Yeah. [snorts]
02:37:14 [snorts] Is the if the the vice of the last paragraph was exaggeration is the vice of this paragraph that it understates the role of the Lawrence family. Says
02:37:26 the role of the Lawrence family. Says they'd sought to prevent extremist activists from taking over the campaign. The reality was they had prevented, hadn't they, and had gone further and
02:37:37 hadn't they, and had gone further and actively enforced order as we saw this morning.
02:37:46 Yes, but I think Movement for Justice was still intent on trying to influence the camp the inquiry. But this is still an understatement,
02:37:57 But this is still an understatement, isn't it?
02:37:58 isn't it? An understatement. Yes. [snorts]
02:38:02 [snorts] And if we look at uh paragraph three please
02:38:39 is the vice of this paragraph that [snorts] to say that the SDS had provided valuable public order intelligence for C squad in relation to
02:38:52 intelligence for C squad in relation to uh the Lawrence campaign is overstating it.
02:38:56 it. Well, I don't think so. I think it it was valuable that it was public order intelligence. As we went through this morning, uh they were well publicized events and SDS
02:39:09 were well publicized events and SDS intelligence doesn't appear to have changed the course of events at all. Well, there was quite a few of those events there was
02:39:20 quite a few of those events there was potential for public disorder. How was SDS intelligence valuable if it was reporting on large public meetings inevitable tensions
02:39:32 inevitable tensions and appears to have made no difference?
02:39:38 Well, I think it assisted the police in policing those events.
02:39:50 goes on then to refer to the meeting with Walton uh in terms of it being invaluable. Did you regard that meeting as
02:40:02 Did you regard that meeting as invaluable?
02:40:06 Um
02:40:10 I I can't recall whether I my thoughts on the meeting. Do you regard it as invaluable now? probably not invaluable.
02:40:22 Uh but this is being trumpeted up the chain of command, isn't it? But it's going up the chain of command about trumpeted
02:40:33 portrayed as invaluable. Yeah.
02:40:39 Yeah. [snorts] And was the uh perception at the time that this meeting would be regarded favorably by people further up the chain of command?
02:40:52 the chain of command? I think so. Yes. On what basis? That it was assisting another area of police department which we were
02:41:03 area of police department which we were able to provide help to. Could we have page nine, paragraph two, please?
02:41:49 Can I take it that you would have read this and approved it before it was sent to Superintendent Black? I think so. Yes. Uh now in terms of windmill tiltter
02:42:04 Uh now in terms of windmill tiltter being very well placed uh to report on developments between MFJ and the family of Ricky Real. It is
02:42:15 and the family of Ricky Real. It is right that he was very well placed to do that, wasn't he? Yes.
02:42:22 Yes. [snorts]
02:42:22 [snorts] Were you aware that he'd driven Mrs. real home
02:42:29 real home following um the meeting with MFJ.
02:42:37 I can't remember. Can't recall. When did you learn that HN81 drove Mrs. Real home?
02:42:49 I I can't recall. The inquiry has heard evidence that he did so. What is your reaction to the fact that one of your UCOs drove the
02:43:02 fact that one of your UCOs drove the grieving
02:43:04 grieving mother of Ricky Real home after a meeting with MFJ?
02:43:15 Well, my feeling now is that it was an inappropriate to do that, but it probably would have from the HM81's point of view would have
02:43:28 from the HM81's point of view would have been probably quite difficult not to, bearing in mind he had a vehicle and it would have been a
02:43:37 probably expected of him to to to drive her home. Essentially, what is being communicated in this report is that HN81
02:43:49 report is that HN81 is spying directly on relations between a grieving family who were accusing the Metropolitan Police of Racism and a small group of
02:44:02 Police of Racism and a small group of political activists.
02:44:06 when he's reporting on the activities of the protest group and their attempt to influence. Um
02:44:18 uh it's the same thing, isn't it? They cemented good liaison contacts with Sukdev Real, Ricky Real's mother, and
02:44:29 Sukdev Real, Ricky Real's mother, and are now planning to assist her in mounting a largecale campaign against the police. This is reporting about communication between the family and
02:44:41 communication between the family and MFJ, isn't it? It is. Yes. Spying directly on those relationships. It's reporting about the activities of
02:44:53 It's reporting about the activities of the Movement for Justice, which is his target organization and where they're seeking to um
02:45:03 um influence other organizations. It is entirely lawful, isn't it, to plan a campaign
02:45:12 campaign complaining that the police have failed to investigate a death properly and have done so on racial grounds?
02:45:25 done so on racial grounds? Entire. Yes.
02:45:31 And it's entirely wrong for the police to spy upon and report by reporting upon the family's activities to further that
02:45:44 family's activities to further that campaign, isn't it?
02:45:53 I think it probably is. Yes. If we look how this report continues, it is important to emphasize here the extent
02:46:04 important to emphasize here the extent to which the real's case has potential to cause police embarrassment on the same scale as the Lawrence case.
02:46:19 Is that the reason why this development was being reported?
02:46:32 No. [clears throat] Why is that sentence there then?
02:46:41 I think it's just a
02:46:45 it's just part of a report. I don't think it's necessarily um
02:46:53 um it's not the reason why when Mil Tilta was in the movement for justice. The reason why
02:47:06 The reason why the Ricky Real issue is being reported on, isn't it? Because it was regarded as the next big [snorts]
02:47:17 [snorts] criticism of the Metropolitan Police on racial grounds. I think the main emphasis was that Wimble Tilta would be in a position to
02:47:28 Wimble Tilta would be in a position to to provide intelligence upon any uh street activity protest that may ensue.
02:47:40 Police embarrassment you tell us in your witness statement you understood to mean a finding of racism. Yes.
02:47:52 And that explains the importance of this issue and why it has been flagged up in a report to a senior officer, doesn't it?
02:48:02 it? Potential potentially because it could result in protests on the street. Yes. It's not just about violence on the street, is it? It's about the
02:48:13 street, is it? It's about the Metropolitan Police's reputation.
02:48:20 Well, it is about the B's reputation as well. Yes.
02:48:29 Could [snorts] we look at the third paragraph, please?
02:49:02 Yes. What involvement did the SWP and ENL have in the second phase of the Lawrence inquiry?
02:49:12 inquiry? I can't recall. Why is the involvement of these groups in a public inquiry
02:49:23 of these groups in a public inquiry regarded as a legitimate subject of undercover police reporting? Because
02:49:32 potential for those organizations to get involved in public protests which may lead to disorder. Is it because they makes may stoke the
02:49:44 Is it because they makes may stoke the fires of criticism of the MPS as well?
02:49:50 I don't believe so. No, they certainly were critical of the MPS, weren't they? Of course they were. Yes. And that was a matter of concern, wasn't it?
02:50:01 it? I don't think it was a matter of concern because I think those organizations were always critical of the NPS. And what has the involvement of these groups in the inquiry
02:50:13 inquiry got to do with public disorder? Well, because they might
02:50:22 organize protests on the street. That's a separate thing, isn't it? If they organize a protest as opposed to being involved in the inquiry.
02:50:36 Well, I think involvement meant precisely that. Could we look at the next paragraph, please?
02:50:48 [snorts]
02:50:52 There's a reference there to additional discrete briefings to acting detective inspector Walton when necessary. Were there any further briefings
02:51:06 there any further briefings as far as you are aware? Not as far as I'm aware.
02:51:19 Could we go now to 720946?
02:51:36 with page two, please.
02:51:40 These are back at the minutes. We saw the the first minute originally. You're sending the document to black. We see a second minute from Detective
02:51:52 second minute from Detective Superintendent Mccclaclin at the bottom of the page. So we can assume that he saw the report as well, can't we? Yes.
02:52:01 Yes. If we go over the page to the third minute, and this is a minute from the ops commander, chief superintendent
02:52:12 the ops commander, chief superintendent Colin Black um to the
02:52:17 um to the detective superintendent in charge of S squad, the 14th of September.
02:52:27 He describes the SDS there as being well positioned at the focal crisis points of policing
02:52:38 policing in
02:52:39 in London.
02:52:43 You had did you presumably you saw this minute?
02:52:47 minute? I presume so. Yes. You were well aware that you had the full and enthusiastic support of Mr. Black in what you were doing?
02:53:00 doing? Yes.
02:53:01 Yes. [snorts]
02:53:02 [snorts] The use of the word focal crisis point of policing in London.
02:53:12 Demonstrations such as the type we looked at
02:53:17 looked at this morning were not themselves focal crisis points of policing in London, were they? No.
02:53:28 No. The focal crisis point of policing in London was the Steven Lawrence inquiry, wasn't it? Yes.
02:53:40 Yes. We can take it that Mr. Black was communicating to you that it was the SDS's intelligence about that
02:53:51 it was the SDS's intelligence about that that was so valued
02:54:02 I think so. Yes. He goes on then to explain that he is setting up a correspondence route to
02:54:15 setting up a correspondence route to uh DAC grieve. Did he speak to you about doing so?
02:54:27 I can't recall. Did you have an understanding of why he was doing that?
02:54:35 No,
02:54:41 we could go now to MPS 301290.
02:54:49 [snorts]
02:54:53 Picking the reporting up again. This is the 10th of September 1998. a report from 81 about the Steven Lawrence inquiry.
02:55:04 Lawrence inquiry. Uh if we look at the text please
02:55:12 [snorts]
02:55:39 We're moving towards stage two of the Lawrence inquiry. And the development here is MFJ are being given a role within the inquiry, aren't they? to the
02:55:53 within the inquiry, aren't they? to the extent of presenting a petition
02:55:59 on behalf of various family campaigns.
02:56:06 Yeah. Yes. Was any consideration given to the propriety of reporting on MFJ's own participation
02:56:18 participation in this public inquiry?
02:56:29 Sorry, I don't [snorts] You're not here reporting on anything to do with public order. Your officer is reporting on MFJ's engagement with the
02:56:40 reporting on MFJ's engagement with the inquiry itself. Yes.
02:56:42 Yes. Did that distinction strike you at the time?
02:56:47 time? Not particularly. you know, he was reporting on his target organization and what their latest activities were. So, their participation in a public
02:56:58 So, their participation in a public inquiry, inevitably critical of the Metropolitan Police Service, was not regarded as offlimits in any way. No. and goes on then to refer to
02:57:12 No. and goes on then to refer to Ricky Real's mother Suckdef Real uh and her position visav the inquiry namely that she was still awaiting a decision
02:57:23 that she was still awaiting a decision as to whether she could address the inquiry. Was there any consideration given as to whether reporting on the state of communications between Mrs.
02:57:34 state of communications between Mrs. real and the Steven Lawrence inquiry was legitimate police business. [snorts]
02:57:41 [snorts] I don't think any consideration was given.
02:57:44 given. If consideration had been given to that, what would have been your conclusion?
02:57:53 Probably was not necessary to report it.
02:58:04 Were you blinded to the problematic nature of this report by the importance
02:58:16 by the importance of the issue to the Metropolitan Police Service?
02:58:24 No, I don't believe so. [snorts] It's coming just after you're getting wholesome praise from [snorts]
02:58:34 Chief Superintendent Black for the SDS's work to date. Was the feeling that you needed to produce more
02:58:46 feeling that you needed to produce more of the same? No.
02:58:51 No. Why then was this reporting permitted? Because it was a it was the way meetings were reported. It was
02:59:04 were reported. It was Could we
02:59:07 Could we have 748392 please?
02:59:19 This is um the 14th of September we've moved on to now. And this is a docu. This is a note in a minute to a note signed by
02:59:32 signed by the ops commander Mr. Black. Note is marked secret and is for the attention of the named addresses only.
02:59:43 addresses only. Any further dissemination should be discussed with the detective superintendent C squad in SO2 CO24
02:59:53 CO24 referred.
02:59:55 referred. In other words, this document is going to be passed in secret to some named addresses only. Is that right?
03:00:08 Look. Yes. Uh but CO24 does referred mean that they will see it as well.
03:00:17 as well. I I don't know. Could we go to page two, please?
03:00:25 [snorts] This is a special branch note dated the 10th of September 1998 on the Steven Lawren campaign
03:00:39 on the Steven Lawren campaign associated organizations. And if we could have please the italic text underneath that title expanded.
03:00:52 text underneath that title expanded. This note is produced for the information of the commissioner of police DAC Grieve and superintendent Thornton.
03:01:01 Thornton. Contains secret and delicate source material. There should be no downward dissemination of this document without reference to the detective superintendent SO12C squad. Can I take
03:01:13 superintendent SO12C squad. Can I take it then that the named recipients referred to in Chief Superintendent Black's minute we've just looked at are the commissioner DAC
03:01:24 looked at are the commissioner DAC Grieve and Superintendent Thornton. I would assume so. Yes.
03:01:36 There follows a report on the campaign and associated um groups. Could we have a look at page
03:01:47 um groups. Could we have a look at page two please and the last paragraph? The the last full par paragraph. This is a section on MFJ.
03:02:17 And if we go over the page when you're ready.
03:02:32 Yes. Over the page, please.
03:03:03 That's a section on the MFJ that appears to have been drafted by special branch using intelligence available to them which would include SDS sourced intelligence wouldn't it?
03:03:15 intelligence wouldn't it? Yes, I believe so. If we could go uh to the third paragraph on page three of the file. That's the
03:03:26 on page three of the file. That's the one just sorry the one just above the MFJ.
03:03:31 No, sorry, the page before. The one that starts as for the Lawrence family.
03:03:39 As for the Lawrence family, Dorene and Neville Lawrence split up during the first stage of the inquiry. Although this is not public knowledge, Neville remains the more politicized of the two,
03:03:50 remains the more politicized of the two, although Dorene has recently been vocal in her calls for the commissioner to resign. Neville feels a measure of ownership of the inquiry and resents others who seek to make capital of it,
03:04:01 others who seek to make capital of it, particularly when they call for public disorder. Stopping there, that has come from the report that we've just looked at earlier today, hasn't it?
03:04:13 at earlier today, hasn't it? It looks like it. Yes.
03:04:18 Then it goes on to say that to voice the opinion that Laur Neville Lawrence is not a good public speaker but will attend meetings and speak if invited.
03:04:30 attend meetings and speak if invited. I'll let you read the rest of it.
03:04:44 That's analysis which appears to be based on SDS reporting, isn't it?
03:04:55 It would appear so. Yes,
03:05:01 but it may have come from other reports as well. I don't know. Uh and it is also making clear that Dr. Lawrence stood against disorder, doesn't
03:05:13 Lawrence stood against disorder, doesn't it?
03:05:17 Yes. If we could have page four of the file, please, the last paragraph of section two, the one that begins more recently.
03:05:44 That intelligence about MFJ's role in the inquiry to present the petition appears to have been lifted straight out of the report we looked at a moment ago,
03:05:56 of the report we looked at a moment ago, doesn't it? Yes.
03:05:58 Yes. Can we look at page five at the top, please?
03:06:24 [snorts]
03:06:33 This [snorts] is about the SWP and what this is doing is listing for the benefit of the commissioner and the other recipients of this report
03:06:45 other recipients of this report which
03:06:46 which members of which justice campaign s have been speaking at SWP events, doesn't it?
03:06:58 speaking at SWP events, doesn't it? Yes. [clears throat] And as we went through this morning, this information appears to have come from SDS reporting, doesn't it?
03:07:10 from SDS reporting, doesn't it? Um,
03:07:14 yes.
03:07:19 If we go to page six, please section seven.
03:07:28 The justice for Ricky real campaign being the heading.
03:07:36 This campaign surrounds the death of an Asian youth whom his supporters believe was the victim of a racist attack. As previously stated, Sir Grover is a spokesman and has not been slow in
03:07:47 spokesman and has not been slow in drawing parallels with the Lawrence inquiry claiming Real's death shows up further proof of police racism. Sukdev Real has appeared as invited speaker at
03:07:58 Real has appeared as invited speaker at SWP organized public meetings concerning the inquiry and has gained a measure of publicity from both the local and national media. The campaign planned to march on Kingston Police Station on the
03:08:11 march on Kingston Police Station on the 14th of October and Mrs. Real intends going on hunger strike. Mrs. Real also hopes to be invited to address the inquiry but is awaiting their decision.
03:08:25 inquiry but is awaiting their decision. Parts of that appear to have come from SDS reporting, don't they? We looked a moment ago at a report about her interactions with the SLR.
03:08:39 interactions with the SLR. Yes.
03:08:39 Yes. And there is a considerable focus on the actions of Mrs. Real herself in this section of the report, isn't there?
03:09:00 Yes. Can we have um on page seven the conclusion and the last paragraph of the conclusion?
03:09:14 [snorts] The inquiry has politicized sections of the black community who hitherto would not have aligned themselves to any cause or campaign.
03:09:25 themselves to any cause or campaign. This could impact on existing events where public disorder is a possibility as any action by police may provide a catalyst for serious disturbances.
03:09:36 catalyst for serious disturbances. Ultimately, sections of the community who would have condemned such action may now feel that it was justified. This is precisely the atmosphere in which political extremism flourishes. A fact
03:09:49 political extremism flourishes. A fact not lost on the leaders of politically extreme groups. Is [snorts] that a conclusion that you would have agreed with at the time?
03:10:03 Probably yes. That the inquiry had politicized people. Does that explain the interest in the
03:10:16 Does that explain the interest in the inquiry?
03:10:22 I think um I mean I can't comment on that. Um [snorts]
03:10:34 I don't know I can't comment on that. Was
03:10:37 Was the view expressed here commonly held within the SDS?
03:10:44 I can't recall. I can't remember. Amongst your superiors.
03:10:53 I don't know. I can't recall. Did you see this report before it went to the named recipients? I I don't think so. I can't [clears throat] recall it. Did you get
03:11:05 [clears throat] recall it. Did you get any feedback to the effect that SDS intelligence had helped to inform a report prepared for very senior members
03:11:17 report prepared for very senior members of the MPS? I I can't remember
03:11:27 to return to the substance of that conclusion. Wasn't it in fact the racism that tainted the investigation of Steven
03:11:38 tainted the investigation of Steven Lawrence's murder and the way that the Lawrenes, Steven and Dwayne Brooks, were treated that politicized members of the black
03:11:49 politicized members of the black community?
03:11:57 It it may have been. I don't know.
03:12:02 Not the fact that a public inquiry was held.
03:12:07 held. It was the underlying facts that were the problem, wasn't it?
03:12:13 Yes. [snorts] and that spying on those who were exercising their democratic rights to protest about a botched murder
03:12:25 to protest about a botched murder investigation tainted by institutional racism was wrong, wasn't it? I don't think it was at the time. No. Why not?
03:12:37 Why not? because the the groups that were being targeted were potentially could result in public protests and disorder on the streets
03:12:49 streets monitoring those groups. But we've been through a great deal of reporting HN58 which shows that the focus
03:13:00 which shows that the focus was on the machinations of the campaign and that there was relatively little reporting on public order, wasn't there?
03:13:14 reporting on public order, wasn't there? I think there was quite a lot of reporting on potential public order that focus on members of black or Asian justice campaigns,
03:13:25 justice campaigns, who they were talking to, what they were doing, whether they were going to embarrass
03:13:33 embarrass the MPS
03:13:36 the MPS was wholly inappropriate, wasn't it?
03:13:41 I don't think so. at the time. [snorts]
03:13:44 [snorts] What do you think now? I think aspects of it were probably inappropriate. Yes, I beg your pardon. Aspects
03:13:53 Aspects it were.
03:13:56 it were. And was the reporting on them born of an attitude that they were anti- police?
03:14:05 I don't think so, though. and that racism was so toxic an allegation that those protesting about it needed to be monitored.
03:14:19 Returning
03:14:23 to the meeting between Walton
03:14:28 Walton HN81 and Lambert.
03:14:36 You should have prevented a meeting between an undercover police officer and a police officer who was involved in the Metropolitan Police Services
03:14:48 the Metropolitan Police Services response to the Lawrence inquiry. Shouldn't you?
03:14:54 No. Why not? because that officer had an opportunity to assist another police department with his unique knowledge of
03:15:06 department with his unique knowledge of activities of protest groups. An undercover officer spying on people who are protesting against the Met.
03:15:17 who are protesting against the Met. Talking to another police officer who is defending the Met in legal proceedings by way of public inquiry. Not a problem. Well, he was reporting on a a group that
03:15:31 Well, he was reporting on a a group that were seeking to align themselves with the movement for justice. Sorry, for the Lawrence campaign. Well, he was infiltrating that group,
03:15:42 Well, he was infiltrating that group, but he was actually reporting on a whole lot more, wasn't he? Yes, he was.
03:15:51 Can we move now to MPS 301370?
03:16:03 This is a report dated the 5th of October 1998. Movement for justice Lawrence inquiry. If we set the scene by looking at the
03:16:15 If we set the scene by looking at the first paragraph please.
03:16:23 This is referring to the appearance of the commissioner at uh the inquiry and a vocal demonstration
03:16:34 vocal demonstration prior to and following his attendance. Could we look at paragraph two, please?
03:16:49 Give you a moment to look at that. But this is reporting
03:16:55 on an offer to
03:16:59 to MFJ to make a oral submission to the inquiry.
03:17:13 Paragraph three, please.
03:17:22 We'll see that there's reporting there, isn't there? On what Mr. Olad is likely to use his time in
03:17:35 Mr. Olad is likely to use his time in front of the inquiry to say.
03:17:42 And if we go to the penultimate paragraph,
03:17:50 there's reporting on Neville Lawrence again and what he is said to have been saying to MFJ.
03:18:06 We look at the last paragraph.
03:18:14 more reporting on Mrs. Real's contact with MFJ.
03:18:23 MFJ. Yes. and that runs over the page.
03:18:34 And then finally, some comment on machinations relating to a proposed civil rights march.
03:18:45 civil rights march. Give you a moment just to skim the contents of that second page.
03:19:23 Nothing unlawful is mentioned in this report at all, is it? No.
03:19:31 No. There's no suggestion of disorder, is there?
03:19:42 No, this is a report on political organizing
03:19:50 against the MPS, isn't it?
03:19:56 Yes. But it's also report on activities, street activities, demonstrations at various points.
03:20:09 We're back to Chief Superintendent Black's comment about the focal point of crisis for police in London. The focal point for crisis of crisis for police in London
03:20:22 crisis of crisis for police in London was the Steven Lawrence inquiry. And this report is reporting on that, isn't it?
03:20:33 it? And other events as well. Did this report ring any alarm bells when your UCO is reporting on MFJ? What
03:20:44 when your UCO is reporting on MFJ? What MFJ is going to say to Sir William McFersonen and his panel?
03:20:54 I don't think I don't think so. It's just the activities of MFJ and what they were doing. This goes far further than MFJ, doesn't
03:21:06 This goes far further than MFJ, doesn't it? It's reporting not just on their political activities, but those of the Reels and the Lawrenes as well. Yes, but it's all about
03:21:18 Yes, but it's all about activities that MFJ were involved in as well.
03:21:21 well. Could we have up M30 MPS 301486, please?
03:21:34 This is a report dated the 2nd of November 1998. Uh if we
03:21:42 Uh if we expand the text please, I'll give you a moment to look at it.
03:23:00 Yep. So, this is reporting about machinations within the civil rights movement, isn't it? Or the proposed
03:23:11 movement, isn't it? Or the proposed civil rights movement. Yes.
03:23:16 Yes. and it's reporting on the position of various black justice campaigns visav
03:23:26 visav proposals made by MFJ.
03:23:31 Yes. [snorts]
03:23:33 [snorts] And it is also reporting once again intelligence to the effect that Dr. Lawrence is steadfastly opposed to public disorder.
03:23:46 Yes. [snorts]
03:23:48 [snorts] As well as purported information about his finances.
03:23:59 Yes. Yes. It's a reality that HN81's position within MFJ is being used as a
03:24:10 position within MFJ is being used as a place from which he can report on the activities of these various justice campaigns.
03:24:23 Yes. But he's he's he's a member of an organization that is targeting these campaigns to try and gain influence within them.
03:24:37 Your interest is wider than MFJ's fate, isn't it? Your interest is is knowing what is going on on the ground more widely, isn't it?
03:24:51 on the ground more widely, isn't it? only in so far as the MFJ
03:24:58 are concerned or is that really right? Is he put into the MFJ solely to look at MFJ rather than as a position within the community from which to survey what's going on?
03:25:11 which to survey what's going on? Well, it's it's it's MFJ were trying to influence all sorts of organizations within the locality. We looked a little bit at how HN81 came to be in MFJ.
03:25:27 bit at how HN81 came to be in MFJ. That was as a result of a meandering course, wasn't it?
03:25:35 A little bit. Yes. And we'll come in due course to look at discussions about whether or not he should be replaced. is the reality that MFJ was used as a situation from which
03:25:48 MFJ was used as a situation from which to gather wider intelligence.
03:25:54 No, I don't believe so.
03:26:00 There is a dispute about the accuracy of the financial information recorded about uh Dr. Lawrence in this report. But putting that aside,
03:26:14 putting that aside, what justification was there for reporting on Dr. Lawrence's finances and their potential use for campaigning
03:26:25 their potential use for campaigning purposes?
03:26:29 I can't see any value in that at all. I think he was just reporting everything that he had found out. Can we take it that you gave no thought
03:26:41 Can we take it that you gave no thought to excising uh that unnecessary and inappropriate information from the report?
03:26:48 report? If if I read the report, no. Um I can't recall the report. Is it likely that you read it? I may well have read it, but it would
03:26:59 I may well have read it, but it would probably been after the report had been written and sent, but I don't I can't comment.
03:27:05 comment. Sir, would that be an appropriate juncture to break for lunch? Certainly. Um, we will resume at 2.