Continuing his evidence from Day 14, HN58 — the former DCI who headed the Special Demonstration Squad — is taken at length through HN81's reporting on the Lawrence family, Dwayne Brooks and a succession of black justice campaigns, conceding this surveillance of lawful anti-racism activity was "cheating", that its 2000 authorisation form was "substantially divorced from reality", and that it "could be seen" as itself a manifestation of institutional racism. The session then turns to Detective Sergeant James Thompson (cover names "James Straven" and "Kevin Crossland"), covering a report sexualising a child dismissed at the time as "humorous", his arrest at a Huntingdon Life Sciences protest, and the France firearms plot known as Operation Lime, before HN58 is told to reflect overnight on what he really knew about HN15 Jenner's cohabiting relationship.
00:27:27 Good afternoon everybody. Uh this afternoon's proceedings are being livereamed but by voice only and with a 15minute delay. Those with mobile telephones uh in the uh rear of the
00:27:39 telephones uh in the uh rear of the hearing room may uh use them to report what they hear in the hearing room after 15 minutes of elapsed since the event that they're reporting they may not be used for recording. Yes. Thank you, sir. Could we have up
00:27:52 Yes. Thank you, sir. Could we have up please MPS0748390
00:27:57 please?
00:28:05 [snorts] HM58. We're moving now to December 19 98. And this is a minute sheet. We can
00:28:16 98. And this is a minute sheet. We can see from minute number one that you are writing to DCS Black
00:28:26 Black and you say that you understood from understood that DCS Black had requested from detective inspector HN53 a summary of the state of play of
00:28:39 a summary of the state of play of left-wing involvement in the Steven Lawrence inquiry. The attached note has been compiled from a secret and reliable source which must
00:28:50 a secret and reliable source which must be protected. A similar intelligence report has been sent to C squad. Can you help us please with the background to this request being made?
00:29:03 this request being made? Um, not that I can recall.
00:29:09 But can we take it that senior management interest in the far-left uh and its involvement with the Steven Lawrence inquiry remained high?
00:29:22 Lawrence inquiry remained high? Yes.
00:29:25 Yes. Minutes two and three appear to show this report going to both the
00:29:36 this report going to both the assistant commissioner special operations Mr. Vanesse and DAC Grievve. Is that a fair understanding of uh those two minutes?
00:29:49 Yes.
00:29:56 And if we certainly to assisting commissioner specialist operations. I can't see. Oh, hang on. Yes, I can. Sorry. Yeah, got it. Thank you. Yeah, if we could go to the update itself,
00:30:08 if we could go to the update itself, which is a page two.
00:30:13 I'll give you a moment to refresh your memory.
00:31:56 Yes. And that first paragraph or perhaps before I ask that this is all based on SDS reporting, isn't it? Um I believe so. Yes.
00:32:09 Um I believe so. Yes. That first paragraph is effectively telling us that the Lawrenes are not supporting MFJ's
00:32:21 supporting MFJ's uh efforts uh on the subject of street action, are they?
00:32:28 they? Yeah, that's true. Uh but had the Lawren's called for a civil rights march, then it's not unrealistic to imagine that a 100,000 people may have taken to the streets. And that's a far
00:32:40 taken to the streets. And that's a far cry, isn't it, from the numbers that MFJ were actually able to muster? Yes. Was the influence of the Lawrenes
00:32:54 Yes. Was the influence of the Lawrenes in that respect so great that they were of interest to you?
00:33:05 No, the Lawrence the movement for justice were of interest to us, not the But if you are in the business of public order reporting and the position of the
00:33:18 order reporting and the position of the Lawrenes
00:33:20 Lawrenes uh affects the turnout by two orders of magnitude, the difference between a thousand people and a 100,000 people. Is it really right
00:33:32 a 100,000 people. Is it really right that you were not interested in their position?
00:33:37 Well, we Yeah, we were interested. If they were supporting the march, then that would create a lot more people coming on it. If we go to paragraph two, we see that
00:33:48 If we go to paragraph two, we see that MFJ are pressing ahead with their much smaller march on the 6th of February. And uh that's a march that's going to be publicized, isn't it?
00:34:04 It says they're attempting to mobilize support for it. Yes.
00:34:11 Yes. Um [snorts] it's also apparent that they'd lost the support of other black and Asian justice campaigns, hadn't they? Yes. Is the relevance of that similar to
00:34:23 Yes. Is the relevance of that similar to the relevance of the Lawrenes in that it might affect the nature of the protest and the scale of the protest? Scale of the protest. Yes.
00:34:36 And then the third paragraph deals with um the potential for an inaugural meeting of the National Civil Rights Movement on the 20th of March 1999.
00:34:49 Movement on the 20th of March 1999. So again, the SDS keeping tabs on the embryionic development of the national civil rights movement. Yes.
00:35:02 None of this is unlawful, is it? No.
00:35:06 No. And the events such as they were going to be were going to be advertised.
00:35:16 Yes. This is intelligence which could have been obtained without a UCO, couldn't it? Um, that side of it. Yes.
00:35:27 Um, that side of it. Yes. And no suggestion of disorder.
00:35:39 Not not to that report. No. Could we move now please to MPS 301707?
00:35:51 [snorts] This is the 21st of January 1999
00:35:57 1999 and this is approaching the time in February when the report of the Steven Lawrence inquiry was published.
00:36:10 The first paragraph on the first page says that the report provides a synopsis of the current standing of groups and individuals
00:36:21 individuals in relation to the Steven Lawrence inquiry
00:36:25 inquiry details likely events in the aftermath of the release of the inquiries findings.
00:36:33 findings. Can you help us with how this report came to be? Was it requested or was it produced of the SDS's own
00:36:45 or was it produced of the SDS's own valition?
00:36:47 valition? I I can't recall. Can you recall who wrote it?
00:36:57 No. Did you see it? I I can't recall whether I saw it or not.
00:37:04 not. Is it likely that as a head of the SDS you saw this significant report? I can't categorically say I did. [snorts]
00:37:14 [snorts] I I missed the first part of that answer.
00:37:17 answer. I probably did see it, but I can't categorically say that I did because I can't remember it. We go to the second paragraph, please. on the first page.
00:38:15 Yes. And this is essentially all about the family justice campaigns and their position, isn't it? Well, it is. And it's also about the
00:38:27 Well, it is. And it's also about the position of the movement for justice within that campaign. detailed
00:38:34 detailed reporting on Neville Lawrence's position and that of the likes of Joy Guard Joy Gardner's campaign, Ricky Real's campaign, the Brian Douglas campaign, so
00:38:47 campaign, the Brian Douglas campaign, so on.
00:38:49 on. Yes.
00:38:50 Yes. And it is confirming, isn't it, what we've already seen in other reports, namely, they are most certainly themselves not a threat to public order.
00:39:01 themselves not a threat to public order. Yes.
00:39:02 Yes. And none of them ever have been?
00:39:07 No. Can we move to paragraph three, please?
00:39:59 [snorts]
00:40:10 What was the basis for reporting that MFJ had mercenary motives for supporting racial justice campaigns.
00:40:25 I don't know. I can't recall. And similarly, the new and south monitoring groups use
00:40:36 the new and south monitoring groups use being very interested in money and using financial muscle. What was the basis of that reporting? I don't know. [snorts]
00:40:47 [snorts] We've had evidence from these groups to the effect that what was reported about them financially was factually incorrect.
00:40:58 incorrect. Were you in a position to verify whether or not what was being reported about their finances was correct? No.
00:41:08 No. Can we move now to the section there about sorry in that blow up about Neville Lawrence? That's it. Thank you very much. The very bottom of the page
00:41:20 very much. The very bottom of the page and then the top of the next page.
00:41:28 It says that widely spoken that Neville Lawrence has received the sum of £500,000 from the lottery. It has also been reported that he will allow his name to go forward in order to contest
00:41:39 name to go forward in order to contest cander for the appointment of mayor of London. Putting aside again whether or not it is true that there was £500,000
00:41:51 not it is true that there was £500,000 of uh lottery money going to uh Dr. Lawrence which he says is in fact incorrect. Again, it's further interest in Dr.
00:42:05 Again, it's further interest in Dr. Lawrence's finances. We saw some of that this morning. You are still not remotely concerned about reporting on the
00:42:16 concerned about reporting on the Lawrence campaign's finances.
00:42:20 Not not at the time. No. At the time, did you think it was a good thing to be aware of this sort of information? Well, it's it's just a a general report on the state of as a report.
00:42:33 on the state of as a report. Does it go to the potency of the campaign?
00:42:38 campaign? How well funded it is? No.
00:42:41 No. Well, it is material to that, isn't it?
00:42:47 I don't think it affects the camp the campaign.
00:42:52 campaign. Well, a wellunded group is able to do more, isn't it? if they have the support. Yes. Is that why you were interested in uh the financial aspects of the campaign?
00:43:08 the financial aspects of the campaign? No, I don't believe so. And so far as reporting a rumor that uh Dr. Lawrence might stand
00:43:19 a rumor that uh Dr. Lawrence might stand in the contest to be mayor of London. It's quite anti-democratic, isn't it, for the police to be reporting on that
00:43:30 for the police to be reporting on that sort of aspiration. I think it's just a reflection of what the general report was about. Um, I don't think it
00:43:42 I don't think it in what way was
00:43:47 was what this report was about linked to Neville Lawrence's or rumors that Neville Lawrence might stand for mayor.
00:43:58 stand for mayor. Well, it hasn't got any real real relevance at all.
00:44:04 It might be a considerable problem for the MPS if someone very critical of the MPS who
00:44:15 if someone very critical of the MPS who believed it to be a racist organization were to be elected mayor. Is that right? I don't think so. I don't think it was thought of in that way. And was was the
00:44:28 thought of in that way. And was was the prospect of that happening something it was felt should be reported? No, I don't I don't think so. Can we go on that second page to the
00:44:41 Can we go on that second page to the second paragraph?
00:44:54 [snorts]
00:45:32 Yeah. Apart from reinforcing further Dr. Lawrence's consistent disapproval of riots and public order. This report goes
00:45:43 riots and public order. This report goes a little bit further about him. It involves
00:45:46 involves expressing the opinion as can be deduced he has too much going for him. So he is unlikely to be sidetracked by one small group with no known prominent backers.
00:46:01 group with no known prominent backers. As can be deduced, he is too much going for him. That's referring back into to the reference that he's received £500,000
00:46:11 £500,000 from the lottery and is thinking of standing as mayor, isn't it?
00:46:20 Possibly. I don't know. Well, if it isn't, what's the basis for it?
00:46:25 it? I don't know. I just think that he's I don't know.
00:46:32 In fact, he's simply a bererieved father campaigning for justice for his murdered son, isn't he? He is. Yes. And that the tone of this reporting is
00:46:44 And that the tone of this reporting is snide, isn't it? It's what? Sorry. Snide.
00:46:53 I don't think so. No. [snorts] It's a nasty view to express about a berieved father fighting for justice to suggest that he's motivated by money and office.
00:47:07 I don't think that's the tenor of it entirely.
00:47:14 I should make clear that Dr. Lawrence has refuted the factual basis on which this opinion appears to have been expressed.
00:47:26 expressed. Would it not have been more accurate to report that Dr. Lawrence was a man who was not going to be sidetracked by a small Troskyist group because [snorts]
00:47:37 small Troskyist group because [snorts] he was at all times focused on seeking justice through the mechanism of the inquiry and other more effective means.
00:47:51 Yes, probably would have read better. Yes. And was the fact that he was not reported in these terms a reflection of a cynicism within the Metropolitan Police about justice campaigns?
00:48:05 Police about justice campaigns? No, I don't think so. This is shameful reporting, isn't it? No.
00:48:15 Is it the product of bias against a black man who's criticized the police? No.
00:48:25 No. Could we look at paragraph four, please?
00:48:58 It is 20 years after the death of Blair Peach by the time of this report. To your knowledge, had there ever been trouble at any of the
00:49:11 there ever been trouble at any of the anniversary marches to mark the death of Blair Peach?
00:49:22 Not to my knowledge.
00:49:28 Synonymous with the Lawrence death and therefore unite all of the disperate groups under one banner. Is that a way of saying a large number
00:49:40 Is that a way of saying a large number of people who were concerned about the conduct of the Metropolitan Police and its record on racism were going to be attending a single commemorative event?
00:49:56 Yes.
00:50:00 There was no real reason to think, was there, that there would be any disorder at a memorial event like this?
00:50:12 Well, I think there was potential for disorder as the report indicates.
00:50:19 Does the fact that Blair Peach's memorial marches were being reported on 20 years afterwards
00:50:30 20 years afterwards reflect the intense interest of the MPS in matters relating to anti-racist campaigning connected with criticism of
00:50:42 campaigning connected with criticism of the police?
00:50:49 No, I mean I think it's a report on a future of event that's going to take place where there might be large numbers of people present and the potential for disorder is there.
00:51:07 Can we take the document down now? In February 1999, the Steven Lawrence inquiry report was published. Am I right to understand that at no point was that
00:51:20 to understand that at no point was that inquiry told about the presence of HN 81 reporting on the Lawrence family campaign?
00:51:30 campaign? Yes.
00:51:32 Yes. Was there any discussion about whether or not his presence ought to be disclosed to that inquiry? No.
00:51:46 Did you give it any thought at all? No.
00:51:52 No. If you had directed your mind to the question, would you have concluded that the inquiry ought to have been told?
00:52:05 I I don't think so. No. Why not? because HN81 was reporting on a organization
00:52:17 reporting on a organization that was potentially potentially could create disorder at the inquiry or outside the inquiry.
00:52:27 The fact that his reporting had gone far wider
00:52:31 wider than matters concerning MFJ in public order, would that not have suggested that you should have disclosed it?
00:52:43 it? No.
00:52:45 No. No. Would the fact that MFJ was itself involved in stage two of the inquiry whilst being infiltrated by an
00:52:57 whilst being infiltrated by an undercover police officer have indicated that you should have disclosed his identity? No. [snorts] And there could be no suggestion, could
00:53:08 And there could be no suggestion, could there, that Sir William McFersonen was not entirely trustworthy so far as a secret like that was concerned?
00:53:20 I no opinion on that. No opinion on whether No, no, no idea whether that was part of the concern. I can't recall that at all. Well, you've
00:53:32 I can't recall that at all. Well, you've told us no consideration was given to the question at all at the time.
00:53:40 That a security consideration could not have been a legitimate concern, could it? Because Sir William McFersonen was a retired high court judge. Yes.
00:53:54 And we've seen that it was left-wing activity
00:53:59 activity connected to the inquiry that was of interest to your superiors. They were requesting reports about it, weren't they?
00:54:08 they? Yes.
00:54:10 Yes. When an undercover police officer is reporting on events connected to a public inquiry, surely the inquiry should have been told.
00:54:23 It never crossed my mind or anybody else's above me that they should have been.
00:54:36 What was your reaction to the conclusions of the Steven Lawrence inquiry?
00:54:48 Um
00:54:52 just I mean I can't just can't recall that um
00:54:59 the inquiry was completed. The conclusion was that police were institutionally racist. Um I didn't quite understand what that meant. Um, and we were Yeah, I mean,
00:55:17 yeah, I can't remember what my full reaction was at the time. Did you read the report? No.
00:55:28 No. Did you take any steps to understand what was meant by the finding of institutional racism? I think I did read it. when I so I
00:55:39 I think I did read it. when I so I didn't read the report. I think I read bits of the report. I can't remember how.
00:55:45 how. Did you come to gain an understanding of institutional racism or not? I think I did to a certain extent.
00:55:56 I think I did to a certain extent. What was your understanding at the time? people's
00:56:03 people's reaction to um other people's color was
00:56:12 was set in their own minds and they had to change their attitudes had to change.
00:56:22 Were there any pronouncements or any was any guidance given through the chain of command to you as to how you should conduct yourself in the light
00:56:36 you should conduct yourself in the light of the inquiry's findings?
00:56:41 No, but I did everywhere in the Metropolitan Police went on a racial awareness course. I remember going on that.
00:56:53 I remember going on that. Can you
00:56:55 Can you tell us in a nutshell what that involved?
00:57:00 Well, I think it um my memory serves me right. Um, it was a presentation of about an hour from somebody who was
00:57:12 about an hour from somebody who was explaining what racism was and how a person, a black person would feel if they were confronted in any particular way or spoken to in any particular way.
00:57:27 Did you discuss the findings of the Lawrence inquiry with your staff?
00:57:40 No, I think they all they all read it. How do you know that? Well, because it was over all the papers at the time.
00:57:51 at the time. Was there discussion of it? Sorry.
00:57:53 Sorry. Was there discussion of it within the SDS?
00:57:57 SDS? There probably was. I can't remember what those discussions were. What was the reaction of those under your command to the report?
00:58:08 I can't recall. We heard evidence from DC Jenner uh who spoke of a rather negative reaction to the report. Were you aware that there
00:58:19 the report. Were you aware that there was negative feeling? Not particularly. No. Did you take any steps to promulgate the message of the inquiry
00:58:32 message of the inquiry to those under your command? I don't remember doing so. Does that mean you probably didn't? Yes. I don't I can't recall.
00:58:48 Can we go to 728625, please?
00:59:02 And if we go, thank you to page 11, please.
00:59:10 This is a document when we get to it. That's dated 31st of January, 2000.
00:59:18 2000. uh
00:59:20 uh strategy meeting about HN81 at which you HN53 and Sergeant Tiddy are present with HN81.
00:59:32 HN81. Um, if we look at paragraph one, please
01:00:03 sites fermenting unrest and violence at protests, for example, the Steven Lawrence inquiry. Can we be clear what unrest and violence is being referred to there?
01:00:21 No. The only
01:00:25 The only disorder that we've seen evidence of in the reporting is the disturbance on the day that the five suspects gave evidence
01:00:36 day that the five suspects gave evidence or appeared at the Steven Lawrence inquiry, isn't it? I I can't remember all the reporting on it.
01:00:46 it. But
01:00:47 But this paints a suggests that MFJ fermented unrest and violence. There is scant evidence that it did
01:00:59 There is scant evidence that it did that, isn't there?
01:01:04 They certainly tried to ferment unrest at one of the protests. The high point being their activities on the day that the five suspects appeared.
01:01:20 Yes. And that wasn't particularly serious disorder, was it? No.
01:01:28 No. And it's clear from this that uh MFJ were getting nowhere, weren't they?
01:01:39 Well, there was still uh a protest group that was seeking to influence others.
01:01:50 influence others. We weren't having much success at that time.
01:01:53 time. We have paragraph three, please.
01:02:26 Yes. The first observation of this has got nothing to do with MFJ, has it?
01:02:35 Uh well,
01:02:39 not on the surface, but I presume he's talking about MFJ as an organization providing a catalyst for unrest.
01:02:51 This is about the temperature amongst black youth, isn't it? It is. Yes. And is that what ultimately the police
01:03:03 And is that what ultimately the police wanted to assess?
01:03:08 No, I think in this particular case it's it may may be seen as an opportunity for MFJ to um ferment some sort of pre pre uh street protests.
01:03:20 uh street protests. This is much wider than MFJ, isn't it? This is about the temperature in Tottenham amongst black youth, isn't it?
01:03:34 amongst black youth, isn't it? Yes.
01:03:38 And that was effectively an intelligent requirement.
01:03:49 uh
01:03:56 only in as far as how an organization like MFJ could could influence it. Are you suggesting that the SDS wouldn't be interested in public disorder if it
01:04:08 be interested in public disorder if it was caused by anybody else? No. No, that's not what I'm saying. [snorts] I'm saying that because
01:04:19 81 was [snorts] an infiltrator to the MFJ then that's the that that's the organization he was speaking from speaking about
01:04:30 speaking about and the Metropolitan Police Service did not need a UCO inside MFJ to assess the temperature in Tottenham did it?
01:04:43 in Tottenham did it? But it may not have been able to to uh test the temperature any other way.
01:04:54 Well, there are lots of other ways of testing the temperature in Tottenham. This is this is just one other this is just a report which may have been um
01:05:05 just a report which may have been um intelligence about an organization which may have married up with some other reports of um unrest. Police community liaison for example can keep a finger on
01:05:17 liaison for example can keep a finger on the pulse within any part of London can't it? If done properly. If done properly. Yes. Maybe.
01:05:27 Could we take that down now and have MPS 304118
01:05:31 304118 please?
01:05:37 [snorts] This is a report the 5th of October 2000. It's about the civil rights march uh due on the 14th of October
01:05:51 uh due on the 14th of October 2000
01:05:57 and it give you a moment to read it. It's to the effect that the Lawrence family have effectively ended their involvement.
01:06:11 Yes. So, right to the end, the Lawrence family's campaigning reported on.
01:06:21 Yes. Could we have up please 73 1 044
01:06:34 29th of November 2000. This is from DCI Dell to your detective inspector HN53
01:06:45 Dell to your detective inspector HN53 and it's about current SDS targeting domestic and subversive. Does that mean domestic extremist?
01:06:58 It's in the t in the title current SDS targeting domestic/subversive. Is that shorthand for domestic extremists and subversive? I think so. Yes. If we look under the
01:07:11 I think so. Yes. If we look under the left wing heading,
01:07:17 second bullet point, the groups covered by windmill tilt, movement for justice, community-based groups in Brixton and movement against the monarchy are high priority and we hope that windmill tilt
01:07:32 priority and we hope that windmill tilt will be succeeded.
01:07:36 Now, first of all, it's clear from that, isn't it? Uh that the interest in community-based groups continued and was
01:07:50 community-based groups continued and was coming to the SDS from Squad. Yes.
01:07:56 Yes. And when it says the groups covered by windmill tilt, that is recognition, isn't it? that HN81 isn't confining
01:08:08 isn't it? that HN81 isn't confining himself to MFJ. He's using his position in MFJ to report on many different groups.
01:08:19 groups. Yes.
01:08:20 Yes. And that the interest in broad terms is communitybased groups in Brixham and movement against the monarchy.
01:08:31 the monarchy. Yes. Were
01:08:42 you to what extent were you influenced by C squad's requirements?
01:08:53 Well, I mean quite quite a bit really. I suppose they were um
01:09:01 were um we we always consulted with them about future targeting and where they felt there was a gap. Could we have 731043
01:09:14 Could we have 731043 up please?
01:09:22 5th of December 2000 now. And this appears to be your response because it [snorts] says that on Tuesday
01:09:33 because it [snorts] says that on Tuesday the 5th of December 2000, you'd met with DCIDell
01:09:38 DCIDell and uh a detective inspector and another under the heading leftwing. We can have that expanded please.
01:09:54 Windmill Tilt's reporting was very useful in the context of local policing in the Brixton Tottenham area. I said that he would be difficult to replace in MFJ it being so small but that we would
01:10:07 MFJ it being so small but that we would explore other community type groups which could provide a similar barometer of local unrest. Can we take it from that your own words that a barometer of
01:10:20 that your own words that a barometer of the local temperature was the intelligence requirement?
01:10:33 Yes. And it was not the precise group that was infiltrated that mattered. It was access to community type groups.
01:10:44 access to community type groups. Well, I think it would also in order to test the barometer, we would have to look into another another group. [snorts]
01:10:54 [snorts] Going into another group because you could not repeat a deployment into MFJ would have the same effect, wouldn't it? You would have someone in the Brixton or
01:11:05 You would have someone in the Brixton or Tottenham areas who could report on the local temperature. Yes.
01:11:17 [snorts] Was HN81
01:11:22 Was HN81 in your time actually replaced?
01:11:29 I I don't think he was.
01:11:32 he was. And can I take it that because you retired, you're not able to assist us as to what ultimately happened on this front?
01:11:42 front? That's correct. Yes. Can we have up please MPS30 2448?
01:11:51 2448? [snorts] Moving now to a seam of reporting about Dwayne Brooks. This is a report dated the 17th of September
01:12:03 September 19
01:12:05 19 999. And if we could have up paragraph two please.
01:12:15 Give you a moment to read that.
01:12:47 Yes. To start with, Mr. Brooks, he was the victim of a racist attack, wasn't he?
01:13:01 I I believe so. Yes. Well, there's no real doubt about it, is it? He was with Steven Lawrence on the night that Steven was murdered. Yes.
01:13:12 Yes. And a direct witness to that horrific racist murder. Yes.
01:13:21 Yes. And here, your officer is reporting on Mr. Brooks's hardening political attitudes.
01:13:34 Why is the SDS reporting on Mr. Brooks's political opinions
01:13:49 when he's reporting on it from obviously a meeting that he's had with he's had with his organization the MFJ and this has come out. It's just general reporting. his background intelligence.
01:14:01 reporting. his background intelligence. I would suggest of what relevance of what policing relevance is Mr. Brooks's political opinion?
01:14:18 None whatsoever. I don't think Why then was this intelligence not excised from the report?
01:14:31 I have no idea. Was it because Mr. Brooks was critical of the MPS and therefore the MPS wanted to keep tabs on
01:14:47 therefore the MPS wanted to keep tabs on what he was doing? I don't believe so. not just critical of the MPS, but as a victim of the same attack as led to
01:15:00 a victim of the same attack as led to Steven's murder, a man with some influence.
01:15:08 I don't think so.
01:15:13 This report goes on, doesn't it, to report on Mr. Brooks's views about his civil action against the Metropolitan
01:15:25 civil action against the Metropolitan Police Service and also MFJ's views about that litigation,
01:15:33 doesn't it?
01:15:41 A beggar pardon? I can't see the report. says, "Fundamental to MFJ's, perhaps we'll get it up for you, but it's the same paragraph, paragraph two. Fundamental to MFJ's activities will be the civil case
01:15:55 MFJ's activities will be the civil case brought by Dwayne Brooks against the Metropolitan Police for racial discrimination during the Steven Lawrence investigation." and it picks up. It is the considered
01:16:06 and it picks up. It is the considered opinion of many within the hierarchy of the MFJ that in the current political climate, Brooks is most unlikely to lose his case. Brooks has also intimated that
01:16:17 his case. Brooks has also intimated that he will not settle out of court. This is something that is vital to MFJ as they will attempt to capitalize on the publicity that the case will generate.
01:16:28 publicity that the case will generate. It is the intention of both OAD and Brooks to get the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police into court in order for him to answer questions about alleged CL crimes committed by the
01:16:40 alleged CL crimes committed by the police. So your officer is reporting on MFJ's and Mr. Brooks's attitudes towards his claim against the Metropolitan
01:16:53 his claim against the Metropolitan Police Service. Yes. That was entirely legitimate activity, wasn't it? Yes.
01:17:02 Yes. Seeking to vindicate his rights through the courts. Yes.
01:17:08 Yes. There was no proper policing purpose in reporting on Mr. Brooks's attitudes
01:17:19 reporting on Mr. Brooks's attitudes towards his litigation against the MPS.
01:17:27 No, the only legitimacy would be the MFJ's
01:17:31 MFJ's um part in it. Well, what is the policing purpose in understanding MFJ's attitude towards litigation?
01:17:52 I don't know. I don't know. As a campaigning organization campaigning against what it viewed to be racism in the police, it was entitled,
01:18:06 racism in the police, it was entitled, wasn't it, to hope that Mr. Brooks would be successful and hope that the commissioner would have to answer questions in court.
01:18:20 Yes. [sighs]
01:18:23 [sighs] And of course, if the commissioner had had to give oral evidence uh as uh was being there supposed that might have led
01:18:34 being there supposed that might have led to embarrassment for the Metropolitan Police Service, mightn't it? it might have done. And was that prospect of embarrassment to the Metropolitan Police uh one of the
01:18:46 to the Metropolitan Police uh one of the reasons that this was actually being reported?
01:18:51 No, I don't believe so.
01:18:56 If we go to paragraph three, please
01:19:21 [snorts]
01:19:43 Why is one of your UCOs musing in an official report about the combined effects of litigation brought against
01:19:54 effects of litigation brought against the Metropolitan Police Service alleging racism by both Dwayne Brooks and Steven's parents?
01:20:04 Well, I I think in this one he's expressing the movement for justice's stance on it. And again, they're entitled to a stance,
01:20:15 And again, they're entitled to a stance, aren't they? They are. Yes. When one party is being sued in civil litigation, do you see a problem uh with it deploying an undercover police
01:20:26 it deploying an undercover police officer who reports on the attitudes of the claimants?
01:20:38 Not at the time. No, I didn't see any now at all. I think now with hindsight there probably would be issues.
01:20:49 there probably would be issues. Those issues should have been apparent at the time, shouldn't they?
01:20:56 Don't Well, they they may have been should have been apparent at the time, but they weren't.
01:21:06 [snorts]
01:21:11 Can I go to MPS304908,
01:21:16 please? Give me a moment before the next document.
01:21:22 The only public order element of this report is the beginning paragraph and the last paragraph.
01:21:37 The movement for justice have been inactive but view the autumn as a time to reinvigorate their activities. First paragraph and then a long discussion of the cases uh of Dwayne Brooks's case.
01:21:50 the cases uh of Dwayne Brooks's case. Then MFJ accept that in order to influence cases they need to be known for their activities. It was therefore agreed [clears throat] they now need to step up the don't walk on by campaign
01:22:01 step up the don't walk on by campaign challenging police stop and searches in uh South London.
01:22:09 What's the relevance of the bits in the middle, the reporting on the litigation?
01:22:24 I'm not sure. Um, I think it's just setting the scene of what the MFJ's stance is in relation to those
01:22:37 in relation to those campaigns.
01:22:41 If the legitimate policing interest is in public order difficulties which might be created by MFJ, all uh that needs to be put in the
01:22:52 all uh that needs to be put in the report is that they uh will step up their challenge to police stop and searches in South London. Yes.
01:23:03 Yes. The rest of it is irrelevant to that, isn't it? It is. Yes.
01:23:13 This is one of the more extreme examples of reporting on matters that may be of interest to the police but are not the proper subject of police reporting.
01:23:26 proper subject of police reporting. Why was nothing done about it?
01:23:31 because at the time it was the acceptable way to to report on activities of organizations and groups.
01:23:40 The the legitimate reporting on the activities of organizations and groups is the bit we've just looked at the last paragraph.
01:23:52 paragraph. The rest of it nothing to do with that.
01:23:58 Why was nothing done about it? I can't answer that. No. All right. Thank you, sir. Mps uh trip 04908,
01:24:11 Mps uh trip 04908, please.
01:24:19 This is the 19th of December, 2000. If we could have that blown up, please. Again, 81's reporting again on Dwayne
01:24:31 Again, 81's reporting again on Dwayne Brooks. Dwayne Brooks civil case against the Metropolitan Police continues unabated.
01:24:37 unabated. He has been offered £75,000 in settlement, but is most unhappy with this derisory sum. He [snorts] is after a similar amount to that offered to the
01:24:49 a similar amount to that offered to the parents of Steven Lawrence, £300,000. However, there is a possibility that he will lose legal aid if he refuses the
01:25:00 will lose legal aid if he refuses the offer brackets if the barristister thinks that the offer is reasonable. Brooks does not enjoy general black community support due to his lack of patronage for other similar causes.
01:25:12 patronage for other similar causes. The Dwayne Brooks case is therefore unlikely to cause any future largecale public demonstration.
01:25:23 public demonstration. So reporter your UCO is reporting here on the settlement negotiations between the MPS and Mr. Brooks.
01:25:35 the MPS and Mr. Brooks. Did this ring any alarm bells?
01:25:44 No. What was done with this reporting? What was done with it? Yeah, it was
01:25:53 it was sent to C squad for for filing in. Do do you get any feedback about this report?
01:26:02 report? No.
01:26:06 Can you really not see a problem between a def defendant in civil litigation spying on the claimment and reporting on
01:26:19 spying on the claimment and reporting on his attitude to a settlement offer? Yes, I can. It's important. It's cheating, isn't it?
01:26:30 It's cheating, isn't it? It's cheating. Yes.
01:26:38 Can [snorts] we
01:26:43 take that down now, please? And we could go to MPS301717,
01:26:50 please.
01:27:00 Before we go there, uh, no, we'll we'll carry on with this. This is moving on to reporting
01:27:07 reporting on the friends of Roger Sylvester in a march of the 24th of January 1999. So if we look at the first uh paragraph
01:27:20 So if we look at the first uh paragraph just to set the scene for you, this is about a a march or a vigil that took place in Tottenham or had taken place.
01:27:33 place. Can we look at the second paragraph, please?
01:27:44 Give you a moment to read that
01:27:52 again. Care being taken to record various representatives of various black justice campaigns.
01:28:05 Relatives of Michael Menson, George Silcott, and Neville Lawrence. If we go to paragraphs four and five,
01:28:18 this [snorts] is an expose facto report and therefore contains an account of what happened.
01:28:52 Yeah. Would you agree that there is nothing particularly unpredictable here? Uh, no. I mean, I I I agree there's nothing particularly unpredictable. If
01:29:03 nothing particularly unpredictable. If we go to page two please in the last paragraph.
01:29:25 We see there that the moderate line taken by the families is remarked upon very much
01:29:37 the families is remarked upon very much the consistent picture, isn't it? Yeah.
01:29:41 Yeah. But then it posits a different type of family may take a different line. Was there ever a different type of family?
01:29:52 Not that I'm aware of.
01:29:57 Could we have MPS 301752, please?
01:30:09 And paragraph one, please. 4th of February 99 report about a an MFJ meeting on the 2nd of February 1999 for
01:30:21 meeting on the 2nd of February 1999 for the friends of Roger Sylvester and it says the purpose of the meeting was to introduce them to MNA Simpson, George Silcot and Dwayne Brooks. The
01:30:32 George Silcot and Dwayne Brooks. The evening went very well. two members from the Sylvester family privacy attended so the friends can now claim some authenticity even [snorts] if the parents don't ultimately support this venture.
01:30:46 ultimately support this venture. So reporting on MFJ in its capacity is bringing together a number of black justice campaigns.
01:30:58 Yes. and uh reporting on some of the internal dynamics within the friends of Roger Sylvester campaign
01:31:09 Roger Sylvester campaign particularly the attitude of Mr. Sylvester's parents.
01:31:20 Yes. So this is very much in the same vein, isn't it? You've got a man in MFJ reporting on the justice campaigns that they're uh liazing with and reporting on
01:31:35 they're uh liazing with and reporting on the dynamics within those justice campaigns. Yes.
01:31:41 Yes. The same sort of thing that we saw in significant volumes with the Lawrenes. Yes.
01:31:50 Yes. Can we go to paragraphs two and three please?
01:31:55 please? [clears throat and snorts]
01:32:13 You see there there's nothing specific from a public order. No specific planning from a public order perspective, is there?
01:32:42 Well, apart from favoring street action, there's no no specific plan. No, no, no. Could we have MPS trip01895,
01:32:54 Could we have MPS trip01895, please?
01:32:56 please? This is a 15th of March 99 report on a march that had occurred two days earlier on the 13th. Um it's entitled Community Coalition Against Injustice and Racism.
01:33:10 Coalition Against Injustice and Racism. Again, if you look at the first paragraph to set the scene, please
01:34:02 Yeah. Would you have discussed this report with HN81?
01:34:13 I probably wouldn't have done that. Would you have read it? It's possible I could have read it. Yes. Is it likely you would have read it?
01:34:24 Is it likely you would have read it? [clears throat] Probably likely. Yes. [snorts] the phrase, "It attracted a vocal, aggressive crowd of about 200 young black people."
01:34:37 black people." What would you have made of that?
01:34:42 Well, it was quite a volatile
01:34:47 march. The most militant group to attend was the Friends of Roger Sylvester. This group of young black men and women are all highly volatile and clearly looking
01:35:00 all highly volatile and clearly looking for the right opportunity to cause trouble.
01:35:05 trouble. What did you make of that? Well, I
01:35:09 Well, I assume that was just the assessment of wind tilt to the the makeup of the people attending the march. Did you think that was significant?
01:35:25 potentially. Would you have tested this with HN81 or sought further information?
01:35:41 Wouldn't have thought so. No. Did it strike you that they were all being described as highly volatile and looking for an opportunity to cause
01:35:53 looking for an opportunity to cause trouble?
01:36:06 Yes, I think so. Uh, in what respect? went in so far as an aggressive crowd of about 200 young black people
01:36:17 about 200 young black people and then the group of black people and black men and women all highly volatile. I think it's probably referring back to that is it? And so how did that strike you?
01:36:38 Well, I mean, it's a potential for for for some disorder in the March. Did you consider that there might be some racial stereotyping going on in
01:36:49 some racial stereotyping going on in this report?
01:36:53 No. Black people being universally described as highly volatile and clearly looking for the right opportunity to cause trouble.
01:37:05 No, I think he's referring to the the people that were there. The friends of Roger Sylvester was what I was referring to. Well, the the earlier one, the 200 black
01:37:18 Well, the the earlier one, the 200 black people.
01:37:20 people. Do you think that aggressive black people or volatile black people or black people looking for an opportunity to cause trouble, did any of that ring?
01:37:33 cause trouble, did any of that ring? at least some possible concern in your mind that there may be some stereotyping here.
01:37:43 Don't think so because he describes the group as as black people. Can [snorts] we look at paragraph two, please?
01:38:01 [snorts]
01:38:47 Yes. This is a march that was organized by a collaboration essentially of black justice campaigns, wasn't it? Yes.
01:38:57 Yes. So, what intelligence picture is this report helping to build up?
01:39:05 Well, it's a it's a report of the of the march and what happened on the march.
01:39:14 [snorts] And they're not actually causing disorder, are they? No.
01:39:21 No. And certainly not serious disorder. It was the feeling that these black justice campaigns needed to be monitored because they were often volatile and
01:39:34 because they were often volatile and looking to cause trouble. No, I don't think so.
01:39:43 Could we take that down and have MPS 301908,
01:39:47 301908, please?
01:39:51 [snorts]
01:39:54 This is a report on the MFJ's inaugural national conference on the 20th and 21st of March 1999 at Suzuk Suzuk University
01:40:08 of March 1999 at Suzuk Suzuk University Students Union. Um this is a month after the Steven Lawrence inquiry report has been submitted. If we look at paragraph one,
01:40:21 submitted. If we look at paragraph one, you [snorts] will see that it was described as a weekend of political workshops.
01:40:42 Yeah. We go to paragraph three, please.
01:40:49 see here that Delroy Lindo of the Winston Silkot Defense Campaign was at the conference and uh was talking about expanding MFJ's
01:41:01 and uh was talking about expanding MFJ's campaigning to Tottenham campaigning that would take the form of setting up a stall at Seven Sisters Tube Station every Saturday for 2 hours.
01:41:25 Yeah. Paragraph 4.
01:41:31 You'll see there are plans here for MFJ and the friends of Roger Sylvester to attend the Harring Police Consultative Committee
01:41:41 Committee to further the Friends of Roger Sylvester campaign [clears throat]
01:41:58 goes on to say that Mr. Oarde and Mr. Lindo would influence sufficient control to ensure that there would be no disorder that Mr. Michael Mansfield was
01:42:11 disorder that Mr. Michael Mansfield was due to speak at the meeting. Goes on to say there might also be a token presence at the meeting of the Islington Police Consultative Committee. [snorts] Do you
01:42:22 Consultative Committee. [snorts] Do you see that?
01:42:24 see that? Yes.
01:42:25 Yes. If we go to page two and the handlers comments please
01:42:34 says that the meetings at Haring Gay in Islington passed to acting detective inspector and then we've redacted the name 23rd of March 1999 at 10:00. Does
01:42:47 name 23rd of March 1999 at 10:00. Does that mean the reporting to the effect that MFJ and friends of Roger Sylvester were likely to attend the Harring Police Consultative Committee to further their
01:43:00 Consultative Committee to further their campaign and might attend the Islington meeting was passed to Uniform Police
01:43:10 um
01:43:13 possibly um or passed to someone who was going to pass it to uniform police. Yes, probably. What was the thinking in the wake of the
01:43:25 What was the thinking in the wake of the Steven Lawrence inquiry about this sort of reporting?
01:43:38 I mean, I don't know. I can't recall. [snorts] I mean, the sort of reporting that we saw in the runup to and during the inquiry
01:43:50 runup to and during the inquiry essentially appears to have continued unchanged afterwards. Is that a fair comment?
01:43:58 comment? Yes.
01:44:00 Yes. The prospects of any public disorder at a police consultative committee meeting at which Mr. Mansfield was speaking and
01:44:11 at which Mr. Mansfield was speaking and in the light of the reporting we've read was negligible, wasn't it?
01:44:18 Was was Michael Mosfield going to be at that same meeting? I can't remember. We can go back to um the paragraph four on the last page.
01:44:31 the paragraph four on the last page. [snorts]
01:44:35 St. Michael Mansfield is due to speak at this meeting and also at a similar meeting on Thursday which is at Islington.
01:44:49 Okay. Yes. So
01:44:52 So negligible risk of public disorder here, isn't there?
01:44:59 Yes. This is political campaigning against racism.
01:45:09 Yeah. And in particular against racism within the police.
01:45:19 Yes. A month after a public inquiry has found the Metropolitan Police Service to have been institutionally racist. Yes.
01:45:31 Why is the SDS still reporting on this sort of political campaigning? Because the MFJ are still involved or
01:45:42 Because the MFJ are still involved or potentially seeking to get involved within those groups and there may be some public protest on the streets. Was there any consideration as to whether it was disproportionate to
01:45:54 whether it was disproportionate to continue to do so?
01:45:59 Don't think so. No. Or insensitive?
01:46:04 No. Or risky?
01:46:14 And was the need to report this felt to arise from the nature of the protest as anti- police and anti-racist?
01:46:25 No, I think it's because of the involvement of movement for justice.
01:46:32 Did was any consideration given to
01:46:39 to the justice campaigns that were being so heavily reported on and whether a manifestation of institutional racism
01:46:52 institutional racism was the desire to report on people like this pursuing their legitimate campaigns?
01:47:06 I don't think there was any thought given to that. If you give thought to that now from the perspective of those being reported on, these black justice
01:47:19 reported on, these black justice campaigners are being reported on for their legitimate activities, aren't they?
01:47:28 they? Yes.
01:47:30 Yes. That is a disadvantageous outcome for them, isn't it?
01:47:38 Um, yes, it probably is. And it arises essentially in the context of their anti-racist, anti- police
01:47:51 of their anti-racist, anti- police campaigning, doesn't it? Yes.
01:47:56 Yes. Do you see that that is a manifestation of institutional racism?
01:48:08 Could be seen as that way. Yes. Sir, is that an appropriate time to break?
01:48:15 break? Yes, it it is. Um, you may not have heard, but I did, the concluding observations of Bernard Renwick, uh, Roger Sylvester's relative,
01:48:28 Roger Sylvester's relative, uh, who, um, said that there is a place for surveillance, but surveilling grieving families
01:48:39 grieving families is not the time. Uh, I I was moved by that. Um, may I take it that you agree? Yes, I do. Thank you.
02:10:33 1858. I want to move now to some reports about Lee Lawrence. Could we have up MPS 303577,
02:10:45 please? When it's up, you'll see this is a report about the trial of Mr. Lee Lawrence on the 7th of July 2000. And
02:10:58 Lawrence on the 7th of July 2000. And the report is 4 days later. If you look perhaps if we could have the first
02:11:07 first three paragraphs
02:11:28 Would
02:11:41 you agree that this shows first of all the support being afforded to Mr. Lawrence by among stealth's two prominent black justice campaigners Mr.
02:11:52 prominent black justice campaigners Mr. Brooks and Mr. Lindo and also that the reporting in the second and third paragraphs is entirely confined to reporting events in and around the
02:12:03 reporting events in and around the court. [clears throat] Yes. [snorts] If we go to paragraph four, please.
02:12:14 Paragraph 4. I'll give you a moment to read it, but it appears to be about how it was said MFJ was seeking to use the case to criticize the police.
02:12:26 case to criticize the police. [snorts]
02:12:48 These were legitimate concerns to hold, weren't they? Yes.
02:12:53 Yes. And there's no criminal intelligence here?
02:12:58 here? No.
02:12:58 No. There's no direct public in public order intelligence here?
02:13:05 No. There's no real threat to the state. No.
02:13:10 No. But what there is is reporting on police accountability campaigning by black people involved in black justice campaigns.
02:13:23 justice campaigns. Yes.
02:13:25 Yes. Could we have MPS 30758, please?
02:13:36 And this is a report of the 3rd of August, 2000 about events at the resumed hearing of Mr. Lawrence's trial on the 3rd of um August.
02:13:49 3rd of um August. If we have the text expanded, please. [snorts]
02:14:23 Paragraph one is essentially confined to events at court and the dismissal of the case against Mr. Lawrence, isn't it? Yes.
02:14:33 Yes. And the second and third paragraphs are about the consideration that were being given to challenging the CPS's decision to prosecute Mr. Lawrence in the first
02:14:45 to prosecute Mr. Lawrence in the first place.
02:14:54 Yes.
02:14:57 No crime is being committed here by MFJ or Mr. Lauren saw his supporters. No.
02:15:07 No. And there's no direct public order intelligence here. No.
02:15:14 No. But it is further reporting on a police accountability campaign?
02:15:21 Yes. And on the potential for seeking lawful redress?
02:15:29 redress? Yes. Could we have MPS 30373 please?
02:15:47 This is a report dated the 11th of August 2000. It's about uh a report a meeting of MFJ on the 8th and a meeting with council on
02:16:00 on the 8th and a meeting with council on the 10th of August. Could we start please by looking at the three paragraphs of text on page one?
02:17:04 So this is again reporting on a meeting focused on seeking legal redress against the Crown Prosecution Service in the wake of the prosecution, isn't
02:17:15 wake of the prosecution, isn't Mhm.
02:17:16 Mhm. If we go over to page two, please in the source comment
02:17:38 [snorts]
02:17:51 That [snorts] seems to record the view that MFJ was using Sher Gross, Lee Lawrence, and Steven Lawrence cases to help their anti-racist
02:18:03 Lawrence cases to help their anti-racist campaigning.
02:18:07 Yes.
02:18:11 But there's again here no criminal activity being reported on.
02:18:22 No. No direct public order intelligence.
02:18:41 Well, potentially there might be
02:18:47 the don't walk on by campaign. The don't walk on by campaign is about confronting officers who are conducting stop and search, isn't it?
02:19:00 stop and search, isn't it? Yes. that that may create disorder on the street. The their purpose in doing it was to try
02:19:11 The their purpose in doing it was to try and ensure that those powers were only used properly. Mhm.
02:19:22 But beyond the risk that that might create some sort of incident, there is no
02:19:29 no no. And that is not direct evidence of public disorder, is it? It's just a mere possibility. Is a possibility. Yes.
02:19:40 Is a possibility. Yes. And what this really is in substance is further reporting on anti-racist campaigning.
02:19:49 Yes. These three reports that we've just been through, they weren't necessary reporting, were they? Well, they were reporting on the stance
02:20:01 Well, they were reporting on the stance of movement for justice within the other organizations they were trying to manipulate or get into. Well, manipulate's a very cynical way of
02:20:13 Well, manipulate's a very cynical way of looking at it. They were all campaigning against racism within the police, weren't they? The wrong wrong word to use. I apologize for that. But is that not indicative of the
02:20:25 that. But is that not indicative of the mindset
02:20:27 mindset that they were considered manipulative? They would say they were simply campaigning against racism within the police.
02:20:35 police. I know it's a mistake. I used the wrong expression. This reporting on entirely lawful campaigning activity wasn't proportionate, was it? [clears throat]
02:20:48 proportionate, was it? [clears throat] Um,
02:20:50 Um, I think the officer was reporting on the activities of his organization that he was targeted into. That's not an answer to my question. It wasn't proportionate reporting, was it? I
02:21:00 I think it was. Yes. How could it be proportionate for an undercover police officer to be reporting on entirely legitimate campaigning, a man
02:21:13 entirely legitimate campaigning, a man being acquitted by a court and seeking advice on potential avenues for legal redress?
02:21:25 But it also reported on that group's activities in relation to the organizations that they were trying to create ties with.
02:21:39 This is more reporting of the kind we've looked at where black justice campaigners are reported on a great deal simply because they're campaigning against the
02:21:50 because they're campaigning against the police. Isn't it? They are campaign. Yes.
02:22:00 Can we take that down now, please?
02:22:05 Some general questions standing back now about HN81's deployment. You told us that the intelligence was going generally to C squad. We've seen
02:22:17 going generally to C squad. We've seen some examples of specific reports going further up the chain within the Metropolitan Police Service, either directly from the SDS or relying on SDS
02:22:30 directly from the SDS or relying on SDS reporting. Who were the other customers for HN81's reporting?
02:22:40 Um I mean apart from those that have been noted in the minute sheets though I'm aware of anybody else's. Do you know whether Chief Superintendent
02:22:52 Do you know whether Chief Superintendent Foy in the Brixton area was receiving any of this reporting in actual or sanitized form? I don't know. I have no idea.
02:23:05 I don't know. I have no idea. [snorts]
02:23:05 [snorts] What feedback did you get
02:23:12 [clears throat] specifically to windmill tilt? Yes.
02:23:17 Yes. Don't think I can't recall getting any feedback.
02:23:21 feedback. Can you recall whether you got any specific requests other than anything we've been to uh today for intelligence which you would be able to obtain
02:23:33 which you would be able to obtain through HN81?
02:23:36 I don't think so. Not that I can remember.
02:23:40 remember. Can we move now to 728625?
02:23:44 This is HN81's withdrawal strategy drafted by Sergeant War and it's dated the 20th of July 2000.
02:23:56 the 20th of July 2000. Um, if we could just move through to the next page, please. Thank you. That's the recommendation for accommodation. And I'm looking for the withdrawal strategy.
02:24:10 Thank you. Um the 20th of July version. That's an earlier one.
02:24:24 Thank you. That was it. That 20th of July one. So if we can go back that Thank you. One more page forward. Thank you. Um,
02:24:35 you. Um, paragraph four, please.
02:24:45 This would you have seen this document, the withdrawal strategy for HN81?
02:24:55 Um,
02:24:58 it's possible. Is it likely Pablo would have seen it? Yes. I'll give you a moment now to read that paragraph.
02:25:27 [cough and clears throat]
02:25:52 [clears throat]
02:26:20 [snorts]
02:26:23 What did you understand to have been HN81's progress within MFJ?
02:26:33 Good. It talks about progressing through the admittedly thin ranks. Was it a very was your understanding that it was or was
02:26:44 your understanding that it was or was not hierarchical?
02:26:53 I think it probably reflects that it was quite a small organization.
02:27:02 says Winmill Tilta is quite candid in admitting that he was largely responsible for their adoption of the Steven Lawrence case and the rest, as
02:27:15 Steven Lawrence case and the rest, as they say,
02:27:17 they say, is history. Did HN81 ever say anything to you to the effect that he was responsible
02:27:29 effect that he was responsible for MFJ
02:27:32 for MFJ adopting the Steven Lawrence case or in any other way supporting the Steven Lawrence case? No.
02:27:43 No. Are you able to help us with whether or not this assertion is factually true? No, I don't. No. No. You're not able to help.
02:27:54 No. You're not able to help. No, I I don't think it's factually true. You don't think it's factually true? And would you have had a view one way or the other as to whether or not your undercover officer ought to steer a
02:28:06 undercover officer ought to steer a group towards support for the Steven Lawrence case? Yes. I don't think they should be central in that.
02:28:18 central in that. Why is um Sergeant War writing this then?
02:28:27 No idea.
02:28:31 Appears that he believed that getting into the Steven Lawrence case had given access to good intelligence about it.
02:28:42 Was that a general sentiment held by you and management within the SDS?
02:28:54 That I think he he'd had good access. He had good access.
02:29:02 Yes. [snorts] and is even if it is not strictly factually accurate, it is recording a reflection of how interested
02:29:13 recording a reflection of how interested the SDS was in the Steven Lawrence case, isn't it?
02:29:20 Yes. Could we take that down now, please? Could we have up 728 625, please?
02:29:36 And can we have page three?
02:29:41 This is a recommendation for commendation. It's dated the 2nd of October 2001. And so it's created after your retirement. And I will bear that in
02:29:53 your retirement. And I will bear that in mind. But I would like um to put the
02:29:59 put the second bullet point to you. This is a series of bullet points extolling the virtues of HN81's deployment. Detailed
02:30:10 virtues of HN81's deployment. Detailed and timely intelligence on the plans of the extreme left and anarchists to join environmentalists and disrupt the commercial life of London with anti capitalist. copy of the home secretary's
02:30:22 capitalist. copy of the home secretary's appreciation of the quality of the public order operation mounted in June 1998
02:30:28 1998 communicated to AXO rests on DC81's
02:30:34 file.
02:30:37 Was there any letter of appreciation from the home secretary in relation to HN81?
02:30:50 Not that I can recall. Is [snorts] there some confusion here? And is this a reference to
02:31:00 Boilings operation and the J8 the J the 1998
02:31:09 the 1998 RTS
02:31:11 RTS protest?
02:31:14 It could be. Um, was there a letter of appreciation from the home secretary in relation to Boiling's work
02:31:28 Boiling's work in 1998?
02:31:30 in 1998? I can't recall. [clears throat] I can't recall seeing anything. Would you have been likely to recall it
02:31:41 Would you have been likely to recall it if there had been a letter from the then Home Secretary? I think so. Yes.
02:31:50 Pass on from that little curiosity to the authorization paperwork for HN81's deployment. Can we go first to 526760,
02:32:04 deployment. Can we go first to 526760, please?
02:32:13 Thank you. We understand this to be the 9th of October 1998 version of the SDS code of practice.
02:32:24 version of the SDS code of practice. Yesterday I took you to a slightly earlier draft. If we look at paragraph 1.3,
02:32:34 authorization of undercover operations may only be granted in furtherance of the prevention or detection of crime, prevention of public disorder, the preservation of community
02:32:47 preservation of community safety and national security. Bear that in mind. And then can we go o down the page to paragraph 2.2? two
02:32:59 page to paragraph 2.2? two over the page sorry to 2.2
02:33:04 Before authorizing such a deployment the authorizing officer must be satisfied that the operation is in furtherance of those objectives set out in paragraph
02:33:17 those objectives set out in paragraph 1.3 which we've just looked at. The deployment of an undercover officer is likely to be of substantial value in obtaining these objectives. The
02:33:29 obtaining these objectives. The deployment is the most effective method of achieving these objectives. And if we could go down to 2.5 please.
02:33:43 In cases where the likely consequence of the undercover deployment would be the acquisition of knowledge of matters subject to legal privilege or confidential personal information or
02:33:55 confidential personal information or confidential journalistic material. Such a deployment will only be authorized by commander special branch on the recommendation of the operations commander. The foregoing,
02:34:07 commander. The foregoing, notwithstanding, any action which involves trespass to property will only be authorized in accordance with part 111 of the police act of 19
02:34:18 111 of the police act of 19 97.
02:34:21 97. And then finally, can we go on page five to paragraph 4.1?
02:34:33 Sorry, you'll have to go back a page. It's four paragraph 4.1. Um, thank you. Authorization for deployment will be for four years. This will be reviewed on an
02:34:45 four years. This will be reviewed on an annual basis before the authorizing officer who will give his or her written authorization for continuation. There will also be interim reviews as and when
02:34:56 will also be interim reviews as and when decided necessary by the authorizing officer when an undercover officer is redirected to a new target. Now if this comes into force in October
02:35:08 Now if this comes into force in October 1998 by that stage HN81 is already deployed.
02:35:15 deployed. We've got an application for authorization for HN81 which is dated May 1999 to which I shall take you in just a
02:35:27 to which I shall take you in just a moment. Can I take it that that May 1999 application for authorization would be following the process of annual
02:35:41 would be following the process of annual authorization annual review of authorization for an extent deployment.
02:35:50 Yes. If we go to 748789
02:36:00 [snorts]
02:36:07 this is uh an application for authorization. It's for a series. It's for all the extent uh deployments. If we go to page
02:36:19 extent uh deployments. If we go to page eight,
02:36:26 can see that it bears your signature and you are saying to detective chief superintendent black that herewith are
02:36:37 superintendent black that herewith are the annual authorization forms for the continuation cessation of current operations as required under the current codes of practice for the deployment of undercover for police officers. If we go
02:36:49 undercover for police officers. If we go to page four, please.
02:36:54 This is the application in respect of HN81.
02:36:58 HN81. Records the commencement date, the target group. If we look at the developments and summary, please.
02:37:15 [clears throat]
02:37:29 Yeah.
02:37:32 The portrayal here of MFJ
02:37:39 MFJ rather overstates the reality, doesn't it?
02:37:47 Well, I I don't know that it does. I mean, they're constantly attempting to galvanize community groups to oppose CLE.
02:37:55 CLE. We've been at the front of public border events. Well, put another way then, it doesn't in terms say that they are causing
02:38:08 in terms say that they are causing public disorder. No.
02:38:12 No. And isn't causing public disorder very important to the question of whether or not this deployment was justified?
02:38:25 Yes, it is important, but you don't know where the public disorder when it will occur. [snorts] And against the criteria that we've
02:38:37 And against the criteria that we've looked at, this doesn't really engage in very much detail, does it? as to why a deployment into MFJ would be justified
02:38:48 deployment into MFJ would be justified on public order grounds uh going to be of substantial value and not
02:38:56 not an a goal achieved by some other manner does it?
02:39:02 does it? No.
02:39:07 And by this time you at MFJ were not actually involved in serious public disorder, weren't you?
02:39:17 Yes. They were essentially angry and viciferous, but not violent.
02:39:25 Well, there's a fine dividing line between anger, viciferous, turning it into violence. So, and there's no mention here, is there,
02:39:36 and there's no mention here, is there, of the considerable volume of reporting that we've seen into [snorts] the groups with which MFJ was either communicating or trying to communicate?
02:39:50 communicating or trying to communicate? No.
02:39:51 No. No mention of considerable reporting on the Lawrenes or other black and Asian justice campaigns.
02:40:02 No. So it wasn't a very wholesome explanation of what HN81 was actually doing?
02:40:12 doing? No.
02:40:13 No. And that was relevant to whether or not HN81 ought to continue, wasn't it?
02:40:24 I don't No, I don't think so. To what I beg you pardon, sorry, I think it's just a very succinct report.
02:40:35 report. To what extent did DCS Black know what HN81 was doing
02:40:47 um to
02:40:51 to quite a large extent actually. What I'm driving at is is this a very succinct summary in circumstances where DCS Black knows full well what 81 is doing or is
02:41:03 knows full well what 81 is doing or is this a succinct summary in circumstances where he will be left non the wiser? Well, I think he probably knows very well he knows very well what
02:41:14 well he knows very well what 81 is doing.
02:41:18 It goes to uh Detective Chief Superintendent Black if we have up 526906
02:41:25 526906 please.
02:41:30 If we go Thank you. And we see there a copy of the the same application but this time signed the day afterwards by
02:41:41 this time signed the day afterwards by DCS
02:41:43 DCS Black.
02:41:45 Black. [snorts]
02:41:46 [snorts] When I took you to the code of practice about the level of authorization for confidential information, that was commander special branch.
02:41:58 that was commander special branch. We've seen, haven't we, that HN81 was reporting confidential personal information, wasn't he?
02:42:13 Yes. and you're applying to DCS Black. Shouldn't you have been applying to
02:42:24 Shouldn't you have been applying to Commander Moss?
02:42:29 Um,
02:42:37 yes. On occasions I probably should have been.
02:42:40 been. On this occasion you should have done, shouldn't you? Yes. Yes.
02:42:46 Yes. Yes. Are you able to help us one way or the other as to whether it is likely that Commander Moss would have signed off the continuation of HN81's deployment?
02:43:03 I I have no idea. Have to ask Commander Moss that.
02:43:11 Could we take that document down now please and have up 743 949.
02:43:22 [clears throat]
02:43:26 We're moving now to authorizations after the coming into force of the regulation of investigatory powers act. Um
02:43:37 powers act. Um this is the signed version of the authorization for 81. You will see that you are down as the deputy
02:43:50 see that you are down as the deputy controller as such. Would you have seen this paperwork?
02:44:02 I think I probably would have done Yes. If we can go over the page to 2C p to section C. This is the
02:44:15 section C. This is the justification. And if we look under the grounds for authorization at the top, it says for the prevention of public disorder within the MPS for the prevention and detection of crime,
02:44:28 prevention and detection of crime, namely racially motivated crime in the burough of Lambeath and elsewhere in the MPS.
02:44:38 What crime was 81 supposed to be preventing and detecting?
02:44:57 R racially motivated crime. What racially motivated crime was MFJ involved in?
02:45:09 Well, they were they they weren't involved they personally weren't involved in any racially motivated crime, but
02:45:21 MFJ might have witnessed racially motivated crime.
02:45:31 I am struggling, I am afraid, HN58, to understand why the possibility that MFJ members might witness a racially motivated crime
02:45:44 might witness a racially motivated crime might justify infiltrating them with an undercover police officer. Can you help me? Yes. I'm sorry though, put that rather clumsily. Um,
02:46:00 [snorts]
02:46:05 I can't I can't answer that one, I'm afraid.
02:46:10 It is baffling, isn't it? Yes.
02:46:16 Yes. Was there a [snorts] perception that what MFJ was doing was racially motivated and criminal? No, I don't think so.
02:46:27 No, I don't think so. as a ground for the authorization of the deployment of HN81 [snorts] into MFJ. It's surreal, isn't it?
02:46:41 Well, prevention of public disorder, the NPS is not so real, but the other number two battles that one. I didn't catch the very end of that
02:46:53 I didn't catch the very end of that answer. Number two, I can't see that how that be. It is quite surreal, isn't it? Yes.
02:47:06 Yes. Can we go down to the fifth paragraph? The fifth row, which is the impact.
02:47:16 The [snorts] consideration is Yeah. impact on the community. While there is minimal support for the activities of extreme left-wing organizations amongst
02:47:27 extreme left-wing organizations amongst the community as a whole, it is possible that there might be a degree of adverse impact on community confidence arising from the use or conduct of this source or information emanating there from.
02:47:40 or information emanating there from. This however is likely to be outweighed by the positive impact on enhanced community
02:47:49 community safety.
02:47:51 safety. First of all, impact if HN81 had been revealed as an undercover police officer. If
02:48:03 police officer. If during the course of this Steven Lawrence inquiry or immediately afterwards, it had been discovered that an undercover police
02:48:16 discovered that an undercover police officer was mingling with multiple black and Asian justice campaigners and reporting on the machinations of their
02:48:27 reporting on the machinations of their campaigns, including details such as the state of the marriage of the Lawrenes. It would have caused serious trouble,
02:48:38 It would have caused serious trouble, wouldn't it? Yes.
02:48:43 The other side of the inqua equation, positive impact on enhanced community safety. We've been through a good deal
02:48:54 safety. We've been through a good deal of HN81's reporting and do you assert now that what he was reporting had the effect of enhancing community safety?
02:49:15 It potentially it did. Yes, potentially it did. Did it enhance community safety? And if so, how?
02:49:28 community safety? And if so, how? By reporting on public order events in the area in which it was working. We've been through them. They were on the whole very minor events, weren't they?
02:49:39 they? They were minor events, but I believe they did enhance the community safety in some small way.
02:49:50 in some small way, even if we accept that, doesn't begin to outweigh the risks that were taken
02:50:01 outweigh the risks that were taken if he'd been discovered, do they?
02:50:08 Oh, probably not. Could we go to the next row, please?
02:50:18 Thank you. Details of who will be affected, including collateral intrusion, extreme left-wing activists who are involved in public disorder, and racially motivated
02:50:30 public disorder, and racially motivated crime. [snorts] Only information regarding those involved in such activity will be sought and actioned. So extreme left-wing activists who are
02:50:43 So extreme left-wing activists who are involved in public disorder and racially motivated crime, public disorder. First of all, the reporting we've seen has been more
02:50:55 the reporting we've seen has been more along the lines of these people might be involved in public disorder, wasn't it? Yes.
02:51:06 And there is very little evidence that those activists were actually involved in public disorder, isn't there? A little bit.
02:51:17 A little bit. A little bit. Not much though, is there? Not Not a great deal. And we're back now to racially motivated crime. extreme left-wing activists
02:51:31 crime. extreme left-wing activists involved in racially motivated crime. Can you explain to me please what is meant by that?
02:51:45 what is meant by that? I don't know. It is again quite surreal, isn't it, to suggest that these activists were involved in racially motivated crime?
02:51:59 involved in racially motivated crime? Yes.
02:52:00 Yes. was the thinking that to protest against racism,
02:52:08 if one did so in a way that for example breach the public order act was a racially motivated crime.
02:52:20 No. No.
02:52:26 only information regarding those involved in such activity will be sought and actioned. That appears to paint the picture that only extreme left-wing activists
02:52:40 only extreme left-wing activists uh would be the subject of information gathering. Is that a fair reading?
02:52:51 Yes. Yes. And yet we have been through today very considerable volumes of reporting
02:53:01 reporting on
02:53:02 on black justice campaigns which were not extreme left-wing campaigns, haven't we?
02:53:14 campaigns, haven't we? We have.
02:53:19 And we have seen that that reporting was not just sought and recorded, but it was also transmitted up to the highest levels within the Metropolitan
02:53:32 highest levels within the Metropolitan Police Service, wasn't it? Yes.
02:53:39 [snorts] Can we look at the eighth row, please? Proportionality. Two two rows below.
02:53:56 It is essential that police monitor the activities of those involved in public disorder and racially motivated crime. The use of the source in this area is
02:54:07 The use of the source in this area is the only means of obtaining the requisite direct intelligence to enable police to deal effectively and proportionately with such
02:54:19 with such activities.
02:54:23 So we've been through in respect of a number of reports a lot of the information about relevant to whether or not there was going to be a risk of public
02:54:36 was going to be a risk of public disorder
02:54:37 disorder could have been obtained using conventional methods, couldn't it? Much of it could have been. Yes. And so
02:54:49 Much of it could have been. Yes. And so far as racially motivated crime is concerned, that is simply a nonsense, isn't it?
02:54:56 isn't it? Yes.
02:55:01 So in terms of proportionality, because anything to do with public disorder risk could largely have been obtained by other means, this simply
02:55:14 obtained by other means, this simply wasn't a proportionate use of an undercover police officer, was it? There was no no other way of receiving intelligence about the movement for
02:55:26 intelligence about the movement for justice and their activities other than targeting that group with an undercover officer.
02:55:33 officer. Well, a good deal of what they were doing was easily ascertainable because they weren't hiding it, were they? Well, I think the their motivations behind in their meetings were
02:55:47 behind in their meetings were take took place in private. So, but all sorts of legitimate campaigning groups meet in private, don't they? Yes, they do. But extreme groups when
02:55:59 Yes, they do. But extreme groups when you're interested in potential public disorder.
02:56:04 disorder. Are you seriously suggesting it was a proportionate use of the undercover tactic to infiltrate the MFJ as we've seen?
02:56:12 seen? Has a potential there? Yes. We've been through this form in some detail.
02:56:20 detail. It provides a wholly inaccurate picture of what HN81
02:56:31 picture of what HN81 was doing and what he was being used for, doesn't it? No, I don't think so. You don't think that applying for an authority on the
02:56:43 that applying for an authority on the basis that is going to prevent and detect racially motivated crime is misleading. That is misleading. Yes, I can't.
02:56:55 That is misleading. Yes, I can't. And that reporting will be confined to extreme left-wing activists actually involved in public disorder or racially motivated crime is misleading.
02:57:08 motivated crime is misleading. Yes.
02:57:16 You were the head of the SDS when much of this deployment took place and you were still head of the SDS when this
02:57:29 you were still head of the SDS when this document was produced. How did you allow this form to go forward as it did?
02:57:42 I I don't know. It shouldn't have gone forward in this form, should it? Shouldn't have gone forward in that prison form. Yes.
02:57:53 Completely divorced from the reality.
02:57:58 Not completely divorced. [snorts]
02:58:03 [snorts] Which um which adjective would you like to use?
02:58:08 to use? Which describing word would you like to use? If it's not wholly divorced, it's very substantially divorced from the reality, isn't it?
02:58:19 Divorce. We only picked up the first half of that answer.
02:58:23 answer. Not only divorced. Do you agree? Substantially divorced from reality. Yes.
02:58:33 Can we take that down now, please? Uh, I'm going to move on now to the deployment of Sergeant James Thompson,
02:58:44 deployment of Sergeant James Thompson, who used officially the cover name James Straven,
02:58:49 Straven, uh, but also had a second identity, uh, under the name Kevin Crossland. Can we start with MPS 40843,
02:59:00 Can we start with MPS 40843, please?
02:59:06 This is an intelligence report based on information obtained on the 9th of February, 1998.
02:59:15 I'll give you a moment to read the text.
02:59:35 There is some uh legitimate reporting of this person's involvement in making a hoax call to a farmer. But [snorts]
02:59:46 hoax call to a farmer. But [snorts] underneath it says, "Miss surname unknown, 17 years. Recently commenced a career in the modeling field specializing in tasteful poses for
02:59:59 specializing in tasteful poses for gentlemen's magazines. Your witness statement, you accept that this second part of the report was
03:00:10 this second part of the report was irrelevant and you describe it as humorous or lighthearted. Was it typical of SDS humor?
03:00:23 Not particularly. No. Was it the sexual dimension that attracted attention? I I don't know. I I
03:00:34 I I don't know. I I can't comment on that. Was it perceived as humorous by both UCOs and managers alike?
03:00:46 I don't know whe the UCOs
03:00:50 ever saw it. Amongst those who did see it, was it seen as humorous by all? I think so. No. Can you help us as to who did find it
03:01:01 Can you help us as to who did find it humorous?
03:01:03 humorous? Well, I'd imagine that the officer who was who wrote it probably found it may have found it humorous. I don't know. And the officer who wrote it up doesn't appear to have seen the need to take it
03:01:15 appear to have seen the need to take it out.
03:01:16 out. No.
03:01:17 No. And presumably you are likely to have seen it.
03:01:20 seen it. May have seen it. And you haven't taken it out.
03:01:27 Was anything done about this?
03:01:34 Not to my knowledge. No.
03:01:39 Explicit modeling by a child is child sexual exploitation, [clears throat] isn't it? It is.
03:01:48 It is. What's funny about that? Nothing's funny about it.
03:01:55 Is the fact that you have dismissed it in your witness statement as irrelevant, humorous, and lighthearted an example of sexism?
03:02:09 an example of sexism? I don't think so. No. Why isn't it?
03:02:15 Well, because I I think it's a probably a
03:02:20 a a comment that's made at the the bottom of the page which is trying to be humorous but probably fails or does fail. And it's about a female child in a
03:02:33 And it's about a female child in a sexual context. Isn't the fact that that is regarded as funny rather than a serious issue an example of sexism?
03:02:45 Probably is. Yes. And a sexism that appears to have permeated the SDS.
03:02:55 I don't think sexism permeated the SDS. Certainly it here appears to have affected the writer the UCO and assuming you saw it you
03:03:09 the UCO and assuming you saw it you well I don't know whether I did see it but I'm assuming that's why it was written that way. Well certainly whoever wrote it must have appreciated that you might see it
03:03:23 have appreciated that you might see it might have done. Yes. and presumably felt completely safe writing it down. Yes, that's fair comment.
03:03:34 Yes, that's fair comment. Could we take that down now, please? Could we have a 526751
03:03:47 and page Thank you. Could we have page three, please? This is about the arrest of Detective Sergeant Thompson
03:03:58 of Detective Sergeant Thompson at a protest against Huntington Life Sciences on the 29th of August 1998.
03:04:07 1998. Uh you will see in the first paragraph the brief facts
03:04:19 had been arrested with others for obstructing police and bailed until the 22nd of September. If we look at paragraphs three and four,
03:04:34 this is written by detective inspector Lambert. You will see from paragraphs three and four that the officer's actions appear to have been supported by the detective inspector and regarded as
03:04:47 the detective inspector and regarded as further advancing his deployment.
03:04:56 Yeah. If we
03:04:58 If we go back now to the minute sheet on page two,
03:05:07 we'll see the top minute is you reporting this matter to Detective Superintendent Black as he then was. I am satisfied that the officer acted within accepted
03:05:19 that the officer acted within accepted guidelines and that the security of SDS operations was not compromised. From a welfare perspective, having spoken to the officer, I am satisfied that he has not suffered any ill effect from his 10
03:05:30 not suffered any ill effect from his 10 hours of detention. If you agree, I suggest that the case should be allowed to take its normal course. Any further developments will be reported. So, this seems to be taking exactly the same
03:05:43 seems to be taking exactly the same course as the other examples we've looked at. Standard SDS treatment of an officer who's arrested. Yes.
03:05:54 Yes. So, can I take it the local police were not informed that Detective Sergeant Thompson was in fact a police officer?
03:06:04 Yes. And is the uh manuscript sign the manuscript above the entry which says agreed? Is that Detective Superintendent
03:06:15 agreed? Is that Detective Superintendent Black endorsing the course of action you were proposing? Yes.
03:06:22 Yes. And then if we look at the second minute, we see HN58 at the bottom. So it's you writing again to Detective Superintendent uh Black. And if we look, if we expand
03:06:35 uh Black. And if we look, if we expand the manuscript text, please.
03:06:46 [snorts]
03:06:49 and that um is describing uh events namely that detective sergeant Thompson was no longer required to attend the police station and it describes it as a good result increasing his street
03:07:01 good result increasing his street credibility. So very much the house view on an arrest uh actually enhances the credibility of the officer. Yes.
03:07:11 Yes. Thank you. Can we take that down now? Can we have up MPS 307403 please?
03:07:31 [cough] [clears throat]
03:08:07 MPS 307403 may well be from HN16. bundle.
03:08:26 Looking for a meeting note from May 2000.
03:08:56 Right. I think that I've got the wrong [clears throat] reference and we will find that in a moment.
03:09:05 Can we go in the meantime to 526880, please?
03:09:15 Moving now to what we're calling operation lime. Um, this was the information that you were given to the effect that some of the people Detective
03:09:26 effect that some of the people Detective Sergeant Thompson was mixing with wished to procure a firearm, ammunition, and black powder from a contact in France. Do you remember that?
03:09:37 Do you remember that? Yes, I do. Uh this is the reaper authorization for the dry run. Could we go to page
03:09:49 for the dry run. Could we go to page five please? [snorts]
03:09:58 And if we could look please at the risk assessment under the personal risk paragraph. [snorts]
03:10:09 the end of that first paragraph.
03:10:15 Give you a moment to read that.
03:10:25 [snorts]
03:10:29 Yeah. This is at a very early stage when the dry run is being authorized. At this stage, did you have any
03:10:40 stage, did you have any reason to doubt the veracity of what Detective Sergeant Thompson was saying to you?
03:10:48 to you? No.
03:10:49 No. Did you have any suspicions at all? No. No. No. The proposition in this risk assessment,
03:11:00 The proposition in this risk assessment, it remains the assessment that a physical attack in the event of a compromise is unlikely. Although it should be borne in mind that extremist animal right groups do contain
03:11:11 extremist animal right groups do contain violent and resourceful individuals. I can tell you is a phrase we see in other animal rights risk assessments.
03:11:23 Did you think that the risk of physical attack in the event of a compromise was unlikely?
03:11:31 unlikely? Yes, I did. This is a plot to obtain a firearm and ammunition presumably with a view to using it.
03:11:46 Did it not strike you that there was a dissonance between obtaining a firearm and ammunition with a view to using it on
03:11:57 ammunition with a view to using it on the one hand and the longstanding assessment that the people Detective Sergeant Thompson was mixing with were unlikely to pose a physical threat to
03:12:10 unlikely to pose a physical threat to him in the event of compromise.
03:12:19 not I think the people who to go with him. I think he was secure [clears throat] in his own undercover role.
03:12:32 Well, this is about the risk of physical attack in the event of a compromise. So, it's assuming a compromise. Yeah.
03:12:45 I mean, I I I would imagine that I took from his own assessment of what it would be if he was compromised that there wouldn't be a physical attack.
03:12:56 physical attack. And did it not strike you, it's rather odd that if these people weren't violent, they were said to be seeking a firearm and ammunition with a view to using it.
03:13:10 emergency mod at all. This was really at the initial stages of the operation. Could we go to page six, please?
03:13:28 Operational risk. If we could have a look at the last paragraph under that heading.
03:13:37 [clears throat]
03:13:48 There's some mention here of driving the intelligence towards a prosecution. Was a prosecution being seriously thought about at the
03:14:00 being seriously thought about at the time?
03:14:04 [snorts] it was being seriously thought about, but it was certainly one of the options that was on the table.
03:14:15 [snorts] That would give rise to serious disclosure issues, wouldn't it? If one of your UCOs had actually participated in obtaining a firearm and then
03:14:27 in obtaining a firearm and then the person he was with was prosecuted. Yes. Ultimately, the plan was to disrupt, wasn't it? Yes.
03:14:37 Yes. So, to what extent was there consideration of repeating what had been done with Clark and Shepherd in the past, namely trying to secure a conviction whilst leaving your man in
03:14:49 conviction whilst leaving your man in place?
03:14:55 I don't think there was I'm not familiar with the with the with the case that you mentioned.
03:15:03 As we've been through yesterday, the SDS had in the past produced intelligence which was used to inform
03:15:13 inform subsequent police action which led to convictions in the 1980s of Clark and Shepard during Bob Lambert's deployment
03:15:24 Shepard during Bob Lambert's deployment in the early 90s of Mr. Shepherd again as a result of HN 1's deployment and we know that in under your tenure there was
03:15:37 know that in under your tenure there was at least consideration of doing something similar with HN26 and Frampton wasn't there. So was there serious consideration given to doing the same
03:15:49 consideration given to doing the same here?
03:15:51 here? I don't think there was.
03:15:55 We [snorts] can go back to the document that I wish to show you. First of all, it was my fault. Apologies. The correct reference is MPS 30343.
03:16:13 This is May 2000 and it's a file note appears to bear your initials and was circulated within SDS management. We'll
03:16:25 circulated within SDS management. We'll give you a moment to look at that.
03:17:10 Yes. So, it appears that thoughts are turning at this stage to terminating Detective Sergeant Thompson's deployment early in
03:17:21 Sergeant Thompson's deployment early in 2001
03:17:23 2001 and that he's disappointed about that. Yes.
03:17:28 Yes. Did you get a sense as to why he was disappointed?
03:17:37 No, I don't think so.
03:17:43 Could you help us with the second paragraph? In view of MPIU's everexpanding remmit, it is becoming increasingly difficult for SDS to operate effectively outside London on
03:17:55 operate effectively outside London on anything other than an occasional basis. What is [snorts] that a reference to, please?
03:18:04 I think it's a reference to the NPIOU being more active outside outside London.
03:18:16 outside London. [snorts]
03:18:16 [snorts] Is it a reference to the MPIU's special operations unit deploying undercover police officers in the animal rights field outside London?
03:18:28 rights field outside London? It may well be. Yes. To what extent did you have liaison contact with the Miu?
03:18:41 Very little. Did Did you have any way of communicating with them either to coordinate or deconlict
03:18:53 either to coordinate or deconlict your operations?
03:18:57 No. Was any such activity undertaken at a higher level of management? I don't believe so.
03:19:11 [clears throat] Could we take that down now, please? For Operation Lime, Detective Sergeant Thompson appears to have been given a
03:19:23 Thompson appears to have been given a separate code name, Cotton Bud. Can you help us with why that was? Well, I think it was probably because in case there was any compromise,
03:19:35 case there was any compromise, um, bearing in mind he was going abroad, if there was any compromise, it would not come back to his original
03:19:46 his original cipher code name. Um, was there any thinking at that stage as it might be useful in the event that there were legal proceedings, for example, a prosecution?
03:19:58 example, a prosecution? I don't think so. No.
03:20:05 Can I ask for MPS 305257 to be brought up?
03:20:16 This is one of a number of documents which has some timings in it. Um I'm bringing it up to give you some idea of the dates and timings. But what I'm
03:20:28 the dates and timings. But what I'm going to be asking you about is your own recollection. If we could have the text expanded, please. [snorts] Moving now to what actually happens on the main
03:20:39 what actually happens on the main uh event in France in January 2001.
03:20:46 2001. This document records that on Saturday the 6, Sergeants War and Greeny had traveled to the south of France and rent jeets in Avenue. And on the Monday,
03:20:57 jeets in Avenue. And on the Monday, Detective Sergeant Thompson and the person we're calling L3 had crossed the channel using the Dover Calala route. It asserts here they were driving to
03:21:08 It asserts here they were driving to Bordeaux. We know that that wasn't in fact what they did. Then says the following day, DCI HN58
03:21:19 HN58 traveled to Bordeaux, arriving at 4:30. Did you travel to Bordeaux? Yes.
03:21:28 Yes. And did you travel the before, at the same time as or after Sergeant Thompson and L3?
03:21:43 Afterwards. Yes, I think it's afterwards. And did you travel to Bordeaux because you understood the plan was for L3
03:21:55 you understood the plan was for L3 and
03:21:58 and Detective Sergeant Thompson to travel to Bordeaux.
03:22:04 I I think that I think so. Yes, I think that was
03:22:08 that was We've heard evidence that in fact they headed straight to Marseilles. Is that what they in fact did?
03:22:18 I think I don't know. I I can't remember whether that's in what they did. Can you recall suddenly being suddenly learning that the plan had
03:22:29 suddenly learning that the plan had changed and they'd gone to Marseilles? Yes, I did receive a message. Did Did you have to hot foot it from
03:22:41 Did Did you have to hot foot it from Bordeaux to Marseilles? Do you recall doing that? Yes.
03:22:48 Yes. Can you help us with how that message was communicated to you?
03:22:57 you? [clears throat]
03:23:00 I I mean, I can't I can't remember whether it was a phone message or whether it was a a text. suspect it was probably a text, but um
03:23:17 was there a delay before you were told that there had been a change of plan and you needed to go straight to Marseilles?
03:23:28 you needed to go straight to Marseilles? Yes.
03:23:30 Yes. Did you question Detective Sergeant Thompson about that later? I did. Yes. Can you help us with what he told you?
03:23:40 told you? I think he had some um communication problems with his He said he had a communications problem with his phone.
03:23:50 How persuaded were you that that was a truthful explanation of what had happened?
03:23:58 happened? Well, I I have no reason to to doubt it. His evidence to this inquiry was that he sent you a coded message and you misunderstood it. Is that true?
03:24:12 misunderstood it. Is that true? I don't think so. No.
03:24:17 There came a point in time, didn't there, when you learned that as planned, Detective Sergeant Thompson's vehicle was parked up with the weapon,
03:24:28 was parked up with the weapon, ammunition, and powder inside it. Did you go and inspect the vehicle? Yes.
03:24:35 Yes. Could we look at MPS304959,
03:24:40 please?
03:24:51 Is that the powder in a plastic? Well, appears to be more than one plastic bag.
03:25:00 I think so. Yes, we have three zeros 4963, please.
03:25:13 Is that the handgun? Yes.
03:25:18 Yes.
03:25:18 [clears throat] We have three 4969.
03:25:26 Are those the bullets? Yes. And is that how they were found? All those items, is that how they were found in [clears throat] the back of Detective Sergeant Thompson's vehicle?
03:25:37 Detective Sergeant Thompson's vehicle? Yes, I think they were, you know, undercover as it were. I don't think I obviously the torch had a the top on it. I can't remember exactly where the gun
03:25:49 I can't remember exactly where the gun was, but it wouldn't have been open as it were in [clears throat] the boot. So, is that a convenient moment to break? Certainly.
03:26:00 break? Certainly. Um,
03:26:02 Um, may I ask you to think about one matter overnight and I think for that purpose it may be necessary to show you on screen the document that you saw yesterday. Could we have on screen
03:26:13 yesterday. Could we have on screen please um
03:26:17 please um MPS 0749325?
03:26:27 That's right. Um
03:26:33 would it assist to provide you with a printed copy so that you can read it overnight?
03:26:52 Yes, then [clears throat] I I see a nod. That can be done if you uh uh we'll be patient, please, and and wait until one can be provided to you.
03:27:03 wait until one can be provided to you. Um, this concerns uh HN15
03:27:10 HN15 uh Jenner
03:27:12 uh Jenner and uh this document uh purports to describe his living conditions uh when you joined the SDS as DCI
03:27:26 you joined the SDS as DCI give or take a week or two. Okay. And you remember, I I take it having been shown um yesterday uh a drawing of the flat which he in
03:27:39 uh a drawing of the flat which he in fact shared with Allison.
03:27:45 Do you remember being shown that drawing?
03:27:47 drawing? See that? Yes. Yes. I I don't think you need to have another copy of that. But again, if you do need one uh and for it to be printed, that can be done.
03:27:58 that can be done. if you'd like. Would you like that or not? No. Right. [sighs and gasps] Um
03:28:08 I want you to reflect upon uh the answers that you gave yesterday uh about your knowledge or belief about
03:28:19 uh about your knowledge or belief about uh Boiling's living arrangements. Both the drawing which you say you didn't see and this document which you're going to provide a copy with
03:28:33 you're going to provide a copy with uh describes him living not on his own in duff accommodation as you said you thought but either with uh an activist
03:28:44 thought but either with uh an activist or with activists
03:28:49 and I want you to reflect upon the answers that you gave and uh tell me tomorrow whether on reflection you knew or believed that he was in fact not uh
03:29:03 or believed that he was in fact not uh occupying his own single person duff accommodation but sharing with another or with others.
03:29:15 Think about that overnight, please. And when you've done so, tell me what you actually believed
03:29:27 what you actually believed uh about his living arrangements at the time that you were the DCI.
03:29:35 Will you do that for me? Yes.
03:29:37 Yes. Thank you. So, just to clarify and for the record, I think at one point there you said boiling where you meant to say Jenner.
03:29:45 Jenner. I meant to say Jenner. You're absolutely right. I do apologize. That's my fault. Um, it's Jenner I'm concerned about, not boiling. We we I have your answers on boiling already and I don't intend to
03:29:57 boiling already and I don't intend to cover that ground again. Thank you. Thank you very much for that correction. Um, shows it's the end of the day. [snorts]
03:30:05 [snorts] At least if I'm lucky. until tomorrow. [snorts]