HN58, a former Detective Chief Inspector who headed the Metropolitan Police's Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), continues giving evidence remotely about deployments including Detective Sergeant Thompson (Hunt Saboteurs/ALF), HN60, HN77, HN81 and HN9. Counsel to the Inquiry presses him on the lack of corroboration for Thompson's 'Operation Lime' firearms intelligence, the absence of rules governing officers' finances, false documents and sexual conduct, HN77's recruitment despite a dire psychological assessment, and the SDS's use of derogatory language for those it targeted. The session also covers the cover-up around the John Dyn/Helen Steel affair, HN81's targeting near the Stephen Lawrence campaign, and repeated concessions that deployments, training and safeguards fell far short of what should have been in place.
00:37:12 Good morning everybody. Uh this morning's evidence uh like yesterday's and the day before will be transmitted over the live link but by voice only and only after a 15minute delay. Those with
00:37:25 only after a 15minute delay. Those with mobile telephones in the uh room uh behind the uh part of the hearing room which in which the witness can be seen uh may use them to report what they hear
00:37:38 uh may use them to report what they hear in the hearing room but only after 15 minutes of elapse since the event that they're reporting they may not be used for recording. Yes, Mr. Ah,
00:37:49 Mr. Ah, you were going to reflect overnight on uh uh two documents that I asked you to read.
00:37:56 read. Have you have you had the opportunity of reading them and reflecting? Uh yes. [clears throat] And can you now tell me please uh what your best recollection is about what you knew about the living arrangements uh
00:38:09 knew about the living arrangements uh for Jenna. Well,
00:38:14 Well, uh, what I recall now, I don't I don't recall seeing documents. I guess from the, um, minute at the end where
00:38:24 where Di Lambert says he should discuss it with me, I suspect that I did have a look at the documents. Um, my view is that
00:38:34 that Di Lambert has spoken at length with uh, DC Jenner about his living accommodation and the arrangements which were um
00:38:47 arrangements which were um outlined in the thing there and it seemed that to me I it's it was slightly unusual but uh not
00:38:58 not um completely out of the question DC Jenner seemed to be happy with the arrangements as did um Di Lambert. I I
00:39:09 arrangements as did um Di Lambert. I I didn't feel there was any reason to um I just felt that it was it was a it was an arrangement that was could continue.
00:39:20 an arrangement that was could continue. Um Robert Lambert told me in evidence that the contents of the lengthy document were in significant part wrong uh due to errors as he put it made by
00:39:32 uh due to errors as he put it made by him.
00:39:35 him. Do you have any comment to make on that? I've
00:39:40 I've I don't what he this this document here was written by Lambert but yes
00:39:48 yes was wrong. I I I didn't know that.
00:39:55 Very well. Thank you. I'm sorry. I I was unaware. I thought the document was it was its face value. I didn't realize it was anything. Um No. Well, there's no reason why you should unless you were following the
00:40:06 should unless you were following the evidence [clears throat] live as it was given. Um, okay. Anyway, those are your answers. I I understand them. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bar. Thank you. So, could we have up
00:40:17 Mr. Bar. Thank you. So, could we have up MPS 306198,
00:40:21 please?
00:40:24 We're just going to go back briefly HN58 to HN81's deployment and MFJ. This is a report right at the very end
00:40:37 This is a report right at the very end of your tenure just as you are about to retire. It's dated the 2nd of July 201. It's about MFJ.
00:40:49 It's about MFJ. Could we have the two paragraphs of text expanded, please?
00:41:23 Yes. So, it's clear that the picture painted here is essentially of an impotent group, isn't it? It would appear to be a group on the
00:41:35 It would appear to be a group on the Wayne. Yes. A very small group. Yes. able to mobilize only very small numbers of demonstrators with some
00:41:47 numbers of demonstrators with some difficulty. Yes.
00:41:52 Yes. In the light of that, is it fair to say that MFJ itself uh was of little threat
00:42:05 in itself? Yes. and that the real point of infiltrating MFJ
00:42:13 MFJ was to have eyes and ears on the ground in Brixton and Tottenham.
00:42:23 Yes. To Yes. with the view of trying to assess assess intelligence on potential street protests
00:42:33 protests involving a wide range of actors including black justice campaigns. Yes. Yes.
00:42:43 Yes. Yes. Thank you. Can we take that down, please?
00:42:48 please? Going back to where we left off yesterday and Detective Sergeant Thompson's uh deployment, can we have up please MPS0719
00:43:01 696
00:43:13 [clears throat]
00:43:22 This is a document that was generated by HN53
00:43:29 HN53 after you had retired. Uh but it relates in part to events that occurred whilst you were serving.
00:43:42 I'll let you uh have a look at it. It runs over to a second page. We don't need to look at the last paragraph on the second page, but please could you read everything else?
00:44:19 [snorts]
00:44:32 Oh [ __ ]
00:45:18 Yes.
00:45:31 [snorts]
00:46:08 [snorts]
00:46:42 Yes. Yes. As you all have read, this document fundamentally makes two points. The first is there was never any
00:46:54 first is there was never any corroboration to what Detective Sergeant Thompson was saying about the events which are the subject of operation lime.
00:47:07 of operation lime. Is that a proposition with which you agree?
00:47:11 agree? Um I not not not entirely.
00:47:16 entirely. What independent corroboration, and by independent I mean independent of Detective Sergeant Thompson, was there?
00:47:31 Um, can't recall at the moment.
00:47:39 I mean is
00:47:45 I think the facts. Okay, cool. Wait a minute. the facts um or the the intelligence before
00:47:56 certainly um
00:47:59 um it was it was a an an attempt to to to have a revenge attack on a on a a hunt sabotur who I think was run over by a car. Um and so
00:48:13 think was run over by a car. Um and so that element was um a corroboration of the reason why Magenta Triangle was asked to go over to France to pick up the gun.
00:48:27 go over to France to pick up the gun. Um and that's separate.
00:48:31 separate. The fact of the running down is not disputed.
00:48:36 disputed. Okay. But after that, a plot for revenge.
00:48:41 revenge. The source of that was Detective Sergeant Thompson's intelligence, wasn't it?
00:48:46 it? Yes.
00:48:48 Yes. So, in terms of there being a plot to secure a firearm with which to extract revenge
00:49:00 extract revenge was entirely dependent on DS Thompson's intelligence, wasn't it? Yes.
00:49:06 Yes. And whether or not activists
00:49:12 activists or an activist with Thompson met someone in France and purchased a firearm, ammunition, and powder was again entirely dependent on DS Thompson's
00:49:25 entirely dependent on DS Thompson's account, wasn't it? Yes.
00:49:28 Yes. No corroboration whatsoever. No corroboration for that. No.
00:49:36 So having thought about it for a moment, can you identify any independent corroboration
00:49:47 any independent corroboration to the alleged wrongdoing? No.
00:49:53 No. The second point that this document is making is HN53 is asserting that the lack of corroboration was
00:50:06 that the lack of corroboration was something that he was voicing consistently during and after the operation in his discussions both within the SDS
00:50:17 discussions both within the SDS management team and with Mr. black. Can you help us? Is that correct?
00:50:30 Can you help us? Is that correct? In my recollection, it's not correct. No.
00:50:33 No. Can you recall HN53 ever expressing any reservations or concerns with you? No, I can't recall.
00:50:46 No, I can't recall. Is it a question that he might have done, but you simply cannot recall? Or are you saying that he didn't? I I don't think he did. I think it that's
00:50:58 that's something I think I would have remembered at any point. Yeah.
00:51:05 Yeah. Yes.
00:51:07 Yes. Did you ever have any reservations?
00:51:13 Um I don't think so. No.
00:51:18 [clears throat] Can we take the document down now, please?
00:51:23 please? [snorts]
00:51:26 We have heard evidence that in the latter part of Detective Sergeant Thompson's deployment, approximately the last two
00:51:38 deployment, approximately the last two years, there was a significant drop off in the volume of his reporting. Was
00:51:50 Was the volume of reporting monitored? Yes.
00:51:58 Yes. Do you recall noticing a drop off in the volume of Thompson's reporting? I don't think so. I can't I can't
00:52:09 I don't think so. I can't I can't remember. I certainly wasn't I don't think it was brought to my attention anyway. [snorts]
00:52:14 [snorts] How was the volume of reporting monitored? I think the cover officers would. Was it down to the level of the
00:52:25 Was it down to the level of the reporting of individual officers?
00:52:29 Yes, I believe so. Yes. Was the quality of reporting monitored?
00:52:38 Don't think so. No.
00:52:46 Questions have arisen about whether Detective Sergeant Thompson acted properly so far as financial matters whilst he was deployed was concerned.
00:52:59 whilst he was deployed was concerned. Are you able to help us with what Detective Sergeant Thompson should have done with earnings in his cover employment?
00:53:12 what he should have done with them. Yes,
00:53:18 I do think he should have had any ear earnings from his cover employment. We know that he did. Okay.
00:53:27 Okay. Were there any rules about what he had to do with those earnings?
00:53:36 Not to my knowledge. No. I I wasn't aware that he was earning.
00:53:44 Presumably, you would agree that there ought to have been rules. Yes. Yes. Yes. Uh we've heard evidence that he had multiple credit cards and bank accounts
00:53:56 multiple credit cards and bank accounts in his undercover identity. Was that something that he was permitted to do? No.
00:54:05 No. Were there any rules on the number of accounts or credit cards that a UCO could have in his or her cover identity?
00:54:16 could have in his or her cover identity? [snorts]
00:54:17 [snorts] I I don't think there were any specific rules.
00:54:22 rules. Was there a requirement to declare to management the number and nature of accounts held in a cover identity?
00:54:33 accounts held in a cover identity? I can't remember. Would you agree with me that there should have been? Yes.
00:54:39 Yes. Were there was there any system in place during your tenure to monitor the way in which undercover police officers were
00:54:50 which undercover police officers were spending
00:54:52 spending money in their undercover identities?
00:54:58 Sorry. Was should there have been a Was there
00:55:02 Was there was there? I don't know. No. And presumably, again, you would agree with me that there should have been. Yes.
00:55:11 Yes. We've heard evidence that Diaz Thompson obtained
00:55:16 obtained a number of passports in his cover identity.
00:55:23 identity. Were there any rules about the number of passports that a UCO could have in his or her cover identity? I mean just one would be
00:55:35 I mean just one would be and is that are you asserting that as a on the basis of any rule or instruction or just what you think should have happened?
00:55:45 happened? What I think should have happened not sure whether there was any written down rule.
00:55:52 Was there any system in place to monitor how many passports an undercover officer had in his or her undercover identity?
00:56:03 had in his or her undercover identity? No.
00:56:04 No. Or what they were doing with them? No.
00:56:10 No. Again, [snorts] should there have been? Should have been. Yes. We've heard that Detective Sergeant Thompson had multiple driving licenses
00:56:22 Thompson had multiple driving licenses in his undercover identity. Again, were there any rules about the number of driving licenses?
00:56:31 Just one. We've heard evidence that Detective Sergeant Thompson wanted an extra driving license because
00:56:43 wanted an extra driving license because he was concerned he might be banned from driving. And by having a second license, he would be able to
00:56:54 second license, he would be able to thwart the ban on driving in his cover identity. Was that an objective that he ever voiced to you or to anyone else
00:57:07 ever voiced to you or to anyone else within the SDS to your knowledge? Not to my knowledge. No. Would you have approved of such a tactic?
00:57:16 tactic? No.
00:57:20 And again, was there any system in place to monitor driving licenses? Um well there yes they were obtained by one of the the DS's in the office but
00:57:33 one of the the DS's in the office but in terms of was there any system in place to monitor whether undercover officers were getting further licenses or an abusing the system. I I can't see
00:57:44 or an abusing the system. I I can't see how they could have got another driving license in their in their cup of name unless they
00:57:54 they by by reporting the first one lost and applying for a replacement. Yes. Yes.
00:58:00 Yes. Yes. [snorts]
00:58:00 [snorts] Was there any instruction or monitoring? No. No.
00:58:11 We've heard evidence that Detective Sergeant Thompson significantly increased his education during his deployment by taking several open
00:58:23 deployment by taking several open university courses. Were you aware that he was doing that? No.
00:58:29 No. Was that something that it was open to an undercover officer to do? I would think it probably would have been. Yes. And would it would it matter uh whether
00:58:41 And would it would it matter uh whether they were doing it in spare time or whilst being paid by the Metropolitan Police Service? It would matter. Yes.
00:58:52 It would matter. Yes. Were there any rules or guidance about that?
00:58:57 Not not to my knowledge. No.
00:59:03 Could we have up please 0749478?
00:59:09 This is the witness statement of HN9. And you may wish to to confirm who HN9 was. One of your sergeants.
00:59:26 Yes. We have page 31, please.
00:59:33 This is HN9's statement to this inquiry. Use under the heading use of deceased children's identities. Uh
00:59:45 Uh the witness here is answering questions about Detective Sergeant Thompson's use of a deceased child's identity, Kevin
00:59:57 of a deceased child's identity, Kevin Crossland. not his authorized undercover identity, James Straven. I'd like you to read that page and when you're ready, we'll have the projectionist turn it
01:00:09 we'll have the projectionist turn it over. I'd like you to read till the end of paragraph 87, please.
01:00:26 Yes. Okay.
01:01:05 Yes. So, you'll see uh that this witness's recollection was that he thinks he told you
01:01:18 he told you about Kevin, the use of Kevin Crossland's identity.
01:01:25 Can you help us? Is that recollection correct? No, I I I don't recollect being told that and I've [snorts] not I haven't
01:01:39 that and I've [snorts] not I haven't heard the name Crossland at all. That name is new to me. Do you can we be clear? Are you saying you simply don't recall or do you
01:01:50 you simply don't recall or do you positively doubt the accuracy of HN9's recollection? Well, I I I doubt HN9's recollection. I just
01:02:07 Yeah, I I can't recall anything like that you said to me. Were there any rules to make clear to
01:02:19 Were there any rules to make clear to undercover police officers whether or not they could have a [snorts] further undercover identity over and above their
01:02:30 undercover identity over and above their original cover legend? I mean this just wouldn't happen. I mean I I well it's obviously has happened but I
01:02:44 obviously has happened but I no I mean it would be extraordinary to have two undercover names.
01:02:54 Should there have been a clear instruction that undercover police officers were not to use a second fictional identity, at least without
01:03:09 fictional identity, at least without management consent? Absolutely. Yeah. And can I take it there wasn't in your tenure such an instruction? I think there was in my tenure.
01:03:23 We have heard evidence that Detective Sergeant Thompson deceived two women into sexual relationships during the course of his undercover
01:03:35 during the course of his undercover deployment. The first is a woman we are calling Sara uh whom he deceived between the autumn of 1998 and around Christmas time 1999.
01:03:50 Did you know anything about that? No.
01:03:56 No. The second relationship was with a woman we are calling Ellie between early 2001 and March 2002.
01:04:09 Did you know anything about that? No.
01:04:15 No. Detective Sergeant Thompson went on to stay in touch with Ellie for a very long time after his deployment. and also a
01:04:27 time after his deployment. and also a woman we're calling Wendy. Did you know anything about that? No.
01:04:35 No. Was there during your tenure any instruction to undercover officers that they were under no circumstances to remain in touch with people they'd mixed
01:04:48 remain in touch with people they'd mixed with undercover after completing exfiltration? I I don't think there was any rules. No.
01:05:00 I I don't think there was any rules. No. Should there have been? Probably should have been. Yes. Did you ever
01:05:06 ever discuss with Detective Sergeant Thompson the question of collateral intrusion?
01:05:15 No, I don't think so. No. Could I ask you to speak up? Uh, please. Sorry. No. Sorry. [snorts] Was Detective Sergeant Thompson afforded any training
01:05:27 Sergeant Thompson afforded any training when the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act came into force?
01:05:35 I don't think so. No. Were any of your UCOs trained on the new regime?
01:05:41 regime? No.
01:05:44 No. Any such training would have included a focus on collateral intrusion, wouldn't it?
01:05:49 it? Yes.
01:05:50 Yes. And proportionality. Yes.
01:05:59 There should, shouldn't there, during your tenure have been a clear and unequivocal prohibition on sexual activity undercover?
01:06:10 on sexual activity undercover? Yes.
01:06:12 Yes. And that should have been periodically reinforced, shouldn't it? Yes.
01:06:18 Yes. And there should have been as part of regular communications with undercover police officers checks to see whether or not uh undercover officers uh were at
01:06:34 not uh undercover officers uh were at risk
01:06:35 risk of engaging in such activity. Yes.
01:06:42 Yes. Do [snorts] you think that the activity on cover telephones should have been monitored?
01:06:56 Um,
01:07:00 probably yes. Hindsight
01:07:03 Hindsight would have been possible for example to have a system of dip sampling, wouldn't it?
01:07:08 it? It would. Yes. I'm not suggesting it was necessarily a panacea to the problem, but it would have been another way of reinforcing a management regime to try
01:07:20 reinforcing a management regime to try and reduce the risk of sexual relationships. Yes, [snorts]
01:07:27 [snorts] I'm not going to suggest for one moment that there isn't a high degree of culpability on Detective Sergeant Thompson himself for what he did, but would you accept that you failed to take
01:07:42 would you accept that you failed to take all the steps that you could have taken to reduce the risk of DS Thompson and other UCOs under your command? and from
01:07:53 other UCOs under your command? and from engaging in sexual deceptions. In hindsight, yes, there probably would. It should have been. You could have addressed your mind to
01:08:04 You could have addressed your mind to the question at the time and take an action, couldn't you? Yes.
01:08:11 [snorts] Could we take that document down now, please? Could we have MPS 307389, please?
01:08:30 [snorts] This is another document when it's brought up that postdates your retirement and I'll bear that very much in mind in the questions I'm going to ask you about
01:08:42 the questions I'm going to ask you about it. If we look at the first paragraph, so you can orientate yourself as to what it's about.
01:09:40 Yes. Um, so it's a a document about Detective Sergeant Thompson's exfiltration. Could we go to page four, please
01:09:54 towards the bottom
01:09:59 where it says Wendy?
01:10:04 Wendy, I mentioned a moment ago a woman with w with whom Detective Sergeant Thompson had formed a close friendship and with whom he remained in contact after his deployment
01:10:16 after his deployment says recently moved into an address which he has bought following the death of her mother. Attempts to disrupt this purchase having failed. It is impossible
01:10:29 purchase having failed. It is impossible to predict how long she might remain there.
01:10:34 there. Our understanding is the address into which Wendy moved was not very far away from that occupied by Detective Sergeant Thompson's exwife and their children.
01:10:49 Thompson's exwife and their children. Can you help us with what is meant by attempts to disrupt this purchase having failed refers to?
01:11:01 failed refers to? Absolutely no idea. No. Can you recall whether during your tenure uh there was concern uh that Detective Sergeant Thompson was
01:11:14 uh that Detective Sergeant Thompson was mixing with activists who were close geographically to Diaz Thompson's ex-wife and children?
01:11:26 Not Not that I can recall. No. Can we take that down now, please? I want to move now to HN60.
01:11:40 And HN60, I'll give you a moment to check the cipher list. HN60 was recruited whilst you were head
01:11:51 HN60 was recruited whilst you were head of the SDS. Could we have up please 733151
01:12:05 and could we go to page four please? These are
01:12:12 These are documents for the presentation of his candidature.
01:12:22 This document relates to a visit.
01:12:27 a visit. The note is far note appears to have been written by you on the 13th of August 1997 and refers to a visit on the 12th of August. If we could look um please first
01:12:41 August. If we could look um please first of all at paragraph one.
01:12:56 Yes. Can you help us with what is meant by explain fully the implications of the lifestyle
01:13:06 lifestyle he is likely to experience during his posting to the SDS?
01:13:13 Well, I think in in in general terms, it's uh he will be required to live um in a in a duff flat. He will spend
01:13:25 in a in a duff flat. He will spend time away from the family home. Um and he will be probably keeping
01:13:36 erratic hours. Um
01:13:42 the t the timing. Sorry. Did you wish to add some more? No, I mean that's I think it's it's you know explaining that the
01:13:55 you know explaining that the lifestyle will change. This document is 12 days after the document that the chairman was
01:14:06 after the document that the chairman was asking you about at the start of this morning's session, which was
01:14:14 which was whether or not it was accurate talking about officers living with activists. Yes. Was that a prospect that you raised
01:14:28 Yes. Was that a prospect that you raised as
01:14:30 as a potential full implication of the lifestyle?
01:14:37 I don't think I don't think so. No.
01:14:43 How open were you and Mr. Lambert about the importance of operational security
01:14:54 security when speaking to HN60's wife.
01:15:02 Well, we we tried we tried to be as open as as possible. Um, we would understand that
01:15:13 possible. Um, we would understand that um, HN60 would probably talk to his wife about what he was doing and where he was going. Um,
01:15:23 was one of the things that you were seeking to do in this visit to impress upon HN60's wife how important it was that she should keep things secret?
01:15:37 that she should keep things secret? Probably. Yes. And to form a view as to whether or not she was likely to comply with that. Um,
01:15:49 Um, I mean, I think it's it was really more about
01:15:52 about um
01:15:55 um explaining and describing to her the change of lifestyle that would happen if the officer was uh embarked on his undercover work. and
01:16:08 undercover work. and um
01:16:09 um she was prepared for that. But presumably if you'd formed the view that she was unlikely to keep the secret, that would have been a concern. It probably would have been a concern.
01:16:20 It probably would have been a concern. Yes.
01:16:22 Yes. was another purpose of the visit to impress upon HN60's
01:16:28 HN60's wife the need for her to support her husband through what was going to be an ownorous and demanding posting. I think that was implicit in one of the
01:16:41 I think that was implicit in one of the in the visit. Was it also made explicit? Um I think it probably was. I I I can't recall
01:16:52 recall exact conversations we had. Was HN60's wife given a means of contacting the office? Yes.
01:17:02 Yes. And what was she told about the circumstances in which she might use that?
01:17:07 that? [clears throat] if she has any concerns about HN60.
01:17:17 Was she given any guidance about how the family was to cope with the pressures and strains of such an extraordinary duty?
01:17:33 No, I don't. Not Not from us. No, I don't think so.
01:17:41 Was anything said about the risk of a sexual relationship developing undercover? No.
01:17:55 That was a risk, wasn't it? Potential risk. Yes. Should it not have been raised fairly and squarely with the
01:18:08 been raised fairly and squarely with the couple so that they could discuss it and make a fully informed decision?
01:18:18 Probably. Yes. Why wasn't it raised then? because I don't think it was felt
01:18:29 because I don't think it was felt at [snorts] the time to be a problem. I didn't think it was a an issue worth raising.
01:18:41 Was the overall purpose of the meeting to ensure
01:18:45 to ensure that there was for HN60 a supportive and secure home environment? Yes. Would
01:18:57 Yes. Would you accept that the SDS expected a great deal from the partners of its undercover police officers?
01:19:07 officers? I think I think we did. Yes. And it did not fully share with them the
01:19:15 the risks and demands that were likely to arise.
01:19:23 Maybe not. It's
01:19:26 It's more than maybe not, isn't it? Well, I think we I mean, we normally have quite an open and frank discussion. Um,
01:19:35 Um, but not covering things like sexual relationships. No.
01:19:44 Which you knew were a risk. Yes.
01:19:49 Yes. Can we take that down now, please? Can we go to 247517 please?
01:20:01 And moving now to the background to the targeting of HN 60. This is a meeting note 26th of February
01:20:15 This is a meeting note 26th of February 1998 about a meeting the previous day strategy meeting with C squad at which you DI Lambert acting DCI HN67 temporary
01:20:28 you DI Lambert acting DCI HN67 temporary nominal 19 and another detective inspector
01:20:32 inspector were present. If we could go to page two, please at the bottom,
01:20:41 the general comment section.
01:21:06 [snorts]
01:21:16 Yes. Can you help us first of all with the concerns that had been voiced by the leadership of the trade union unison
01:21:28 of the trade union unison about infiltration of its union by militant left-wingers?
01:21:36 No, I can't.
01:21:41 But can I take it from that that a factor operating in your mind was that you were being told by C Squad that there was growing concern
01:21:53 there was growing concern about the SWP's activity relating to industrial relations and trade unions.
01:22:03 Yes.
01:22:07 and that there was a special branch interest in the influence within trade unions of groups such as the SWP which had revolutionary aspirations.
01:22:19 had revolutionary aspirations. Yes.
01:22:21 Yes. Moving now to Mr. Prescott. Could we have up please 399? It's a UCPI number 399 936.
01:22:42 This is um a newspaper article from 2024 uh after Mr. Prescott passed away, but it is referring to an incident which had
01:22:56 it is referring to an incident which had occurred at the 1998 Brit Awards shortly before uh this report uh is dated at which the lead
01:23:07 report uh is dated at which the lead singer of the band Chumba Wa had poured water over Mr. Prescott. Do you recall that incident?
01:23:19 Do you recall that incident? No.
01:23:24 Taking that down now, please. We read in the last document that Mr. Prescott had sought MPS MPS's view of
01:23:35 Prescott had sought MPS MPS's view of recent activities against members of HMG.
01:23:39 HMG. Is that what it was being referred to? I I assume it probably was.
01:23:48 Can you recall what Mr. Prescott's concerns were as relayed to you?
01:23:57 No. Can you recall what it was said by C Squad that he wanted done?
01:24:07 done? No.
01:24:09 No. Was
01:24:11 Was the upshot of the strategy meeting with Sea Squad that you uh thought about how to target your assets?
01:24:26 Yes. I mean it was a discussion meeting and we always look to see
01:42:20 Can we move now to HN 77 who use a cover name Jacqueline Anderson?
01:42:34 Can we go first of all please to 723226.
01:42:45 This is a document containing the psychological assessments in relation to a number of applicants to the SDS. Could we go to page four
01:42:58 to the SDS. Could we go to page four please?
01:43:02 [snorts]
01:43:05 This is a part of the assessment psychological assessment for HN 77.
01:43:16 77. If you could read the paragraph please. It starts in discussing self- discipline.
01:43:44 Yes. Concerning content, wasn't it? Yes.
01:43:52 Yes. And you no doubt would have read this as part of the assessment process. Yes.
01:44:00 Yes. Low moral ethical standards. That doesn't sound like the sort of person you would want in the SDS, does it? Doesn't sound the sort of person you
01:44:12 Doesn't sound the sort of person you want anywhere. would do almost anything if it would enhance her credibility. Again, particularly concerning.
01:44:24 Again, particularly concerning. Yes.
01:44:26 Yes. No bottom line rules. Further cause for concern,
01:44:36 isn't it? Yes.
01:44:39 Yes. Does not have a high level of discipline. Low personal standards not recommended.
01:44:51 Can you assist us with your reaction when you first saw that assessment
01:45:01 that she was not suitable for deployment? Can we have 738984 please?
01:45:43 Page two please.
01:45:47 This is a document which com is a compendium of the outcomes of psychological assessments. Uh
01:45:59 Uh under 31st of March 1999 do you see HN77's nominal?
01:46:12 Yes. And NR for not recommended. Yep.
01:46:18 Yep. I'm showing you that document to locate in time when the assessment we've just looked at was made. So, please bear that in mind. Can we now
01:46:31 So, please bear that in mind. Can we now go to 733191?
01:46:41 Page six, please. These are interview feedback notes.
01:46:51 Says SDS selection interviews 28th of May 1999.
01:46:57 May 1999. So about 2 months after the psychological assessment records that you chaired the panel with HN53 and Detective Sergeant
01:47:10 and Detective Sergeant War.
01:47:14 Can we go to page four, paragraph three, please?
01:47:28 During this, this is the interview feedback notes for HN77. During the scenario situations, she was able to understand the problems and the conflict of interest between personal
01:47:40 conflict of interest between personal security, ethical issues, and the requirement of the job. Her answers were wellthought out and convincing. She did not appear flustered by any of the
01:47:51 not appear flustered by any of the scenarios thrown at her. A gentle sense of humor emerged during the interview.
01:48:03 So this paints a very different picture to the psychological assessment, doesn't it?
01:48:08 it? Yes.
01:48:10 Yes. Can you help us? And as we know, HN77 is recruited. Can you help us with why first of all HN77
01:48:21 first of all HN77 proceeded
01:48:23 proceeded from the psychological assessment to the interview stage? Well, the psychological assessment was only part of the process of
01:48:35 only part of the process of um selection. It wasn't um a no or yes. it was just part of the assessment process.
01:48:49 So that takes me to my second question. Can you help us as to why it is that notwithstanding a truly dire psychological assessment,
01:49:03 a truly dire psychological assessment, HN77
01:49:05 HN77 was still recruited because it wasn't the assessment that we the assessment that came out of the psychometric testing didn't fit the person that we we knew.
01:49:19 person that we we knew. What is the point of having a psychological assessment if even a very strongly negative assessment is going to be
01:49:29 be ignored?
01:49:30 ignored? Well, it's all part of the process and I think the interview would have either confirmed that view or not. In this
01:49:41 confirmed that view or not. In this case, it didn't. Can we go whilst we're on this document to page eight, please?
01:49:53 [snorts] And this is a part of the recruitment documentation uh which sets out various scenarios to be put to candidates. Can we look first
01:50:05 be put to candidates. Can we look first of all at number three?
01:50:17 [snorts]
01:50:29 Yeah. Yes. The question is the about the use of the word wearies. This is an official document, isn't it? I I don't think it's sort of an official
01:50:43 I I don't think it's sort of an official document.
01:50:44 document. It's part of the selection document for your recruitment process, isn't it? Yes, it doesn't. I mean, it's not it's not go I don't think these
01:50:55 it's not go I don't think these documents went anywhere. Can I take it from the way that this is written that the use of the phrase wear is completely ingrained within the SDS?
01:51:09 is completely ingrained within the SDS? Yes.
01:51:10 Yes. And that it was used from the outset at the recruitment stage.
01:51:18 Uh yes. So, a new recruit to the SDS from the get-go would be inculcated with a negative
01:51:31 would be inculcated with a negative attitude and approach to those they were infiltrating.
01:51:38 Possibly. Yes. Can we look at number four, please?
01:51:46 Give you a moment to look at that.
01:51:55 [snorts]
01:52:02 This is a scenario which is positing a romantic advance by an activist to an undercover officer, isn't it?
01:52:13 undercover officer, isn't it? Yes.
01:52:15 Yes. Was there any ever any consideration of the contrary position, namely the temptation on the part of a UCO to make
01:52:26 temptation on the part of a UCO to make a sexual advance towards a member of the public?
01:52:32 I I don't No, I don't think so. And that was also a risk, wasn't it? Potentially. Yes. A serious ethical concern.
01:52:43 A serious ethical concern. Yeah,
01:52:44 Yeah, which was not addressed. No, it wasn't. [snorts] Could we take that down now, please? And have MPS 40919.
01:53:07 This is a pack of documents about selection interviews uh from an earlier recruitment exercise dating back to late 1997.
01:53:21 dating back to late 1997. Could we go to page 10, please?
01:53:28 uh at the top of the page. This is the blur for the panel for the second session of the uh round with the
01:53:41 session of the uh round with the interview round says DCI introduction to session. This is the session at which the various scenarios are going to be put. We understand no
01:53:54 are going to be put. We understand no right or wrong answers to various scenarios set. We are looking at a number of skills. Self-discipline,
01:54:05 number of skills. Self-discipline, self-motivation, energy, persistence, creativity, innovation, [snorts] reasoning, planning, quick thinking, handle moral, ethical questions, response to loss of status and
01:54:17 response to loss of status and constraints on social domestic life. Can you help us? When you introduced a recruitment, the second session of the
01:54:29 a recruitment, the second session of the recruitment interviews dealing with the scenarios, did you introduce it in those terms?
01:54:40 I I presume so. Yes.
01:54:45 And so again, rather like the psychological assessment where even if the candidate gets it wrong, it's not necessarily fatal to their application.
01:54:58 necessarily fatal to their application. Not necessarily fatal. No.
01:55:03 Can we take that uh down now, please?
01:55:09 Can we go to 722153?
01:55:19 page 11 please.
01:55:24 This is a section of documents about HN77's
01:55:32 HN77's withdrawal. Uh, I appreciate that it it comes after your time, but I want to take you on page 11 to the penultimate bullet point.
01:55:51 She has now switched off her mobile phone and given it to her relative for safekeeping. She said that she had quote told the scumbags that I'm anti-Mobile now and
01:56:03 scumbags that I'm anti-Mobile now and would simply use telephone boxes for contact with wearies. Were scumbags a term that you heard HN77 use to refer to those that she had mixed
01:56:17 use to refer to those that she had mixed with undercover?
01:56:21 No.
01:56:24 [snorts] appears to be yet another example, doesn't it, of the derogatory approach to those targeted by the SDS? Yes.
01:56:35 Yes. Can we take that down now, please? Is it right that during your tenure, the SDS continued to recruit wholly from within special branch?
01:56:47 within special branch? Yes.
01:56:51 Do you think that that approach had the effect of perpetuating the same mindset when it came to how to report?
01:57:06 Yes, I'm sure it did. And the perpetuated the same approach as to what was and what was not considered to be relevant.
01:57:20 Yes.
01:57:24 To move now to the question of uh assumption of positions of responsibility by UCOs under your uh command. We know
01:57:37 by UCOs under your uh command. We know for example that you had officers who were tre treasurers of RTS. What instruction were they given
01:57:52 What instruction were they given in relation to the assumption of positions of responsibility like that? where they were um
01:58:04 I mean encouraged to go for important positions because it meant that they were then more central within the organization be a better position to be to pass on intelligence
01:58:16 to pass on intelligence um on that particular organization. Were they given any guidance as to how to behave in those positions of
01:58:27 to behave in those positions of responsibility?
01:58:30 Um, in what sense behave? Well, for example, as to what role they should take in decision making,
01:58:42 should take in decision making, well, they should primarily be led by what other people say as far as possible.
01:58:49 possible. There is a tension, isn't there, between a requirement to be led by others and assuming a leadership position? Yeah, there is a tension there. Yes. Was
01:59:01 Yeah, there is a tension there. Yes. Was any instruction given to the officers about how to resolve that tension in a position of responsibility? Instruction. No.
01:59:13 Instruction. No. And reflection. Should that have been the subject of clear guidance? Yes.
01:59:23 We know that DC Jenner chaired the Brian Higgins Defense Committee which was defending a liel claim made by a trade union against Mr. Higgins. We've also
01:59:37 union against Mr. Higgins. We've also heard evidence that it was a rather smallcale affair. Presumably, you would have known that Jenner was chairing the Brian Higgins
01:59:48 Jenner was chairing the Brian Higgins Defense Committee. I I I think so. The name doesn't ring a bell, but um was any consideration given to the
02:00:00 was any consideration given to the proportionality of assuming that sort of position between the intrusion into the life of Mr. Higgins and the value uh in intelligence purposes?
02:00:16 value uh in intelligence purposes? I don't believe there was. If you'd addressed your mind to that, what would your view have been as to the proportionality of DC Jenner chairing a
02:00:29 proportionality of DC Jenner chairing a defense committee turning around the defense of civil proceedings brought by a trade union against Mr. Higgins? I think I would advise him to try and
02:00:41 I think I would advise him to try and step down from that role, not even volunteer for it. Can you remember whether or not you did so? No, I don't think I did.
02:00:52 I want to move now back to the question of
02:00:56 of authorization of deployments under the regulation of investigatory powers act which we looked at specifically in relation to HN [snorts] 81 yesterday.
02:01:08 relation to HN [snorts] 81 yesterday. Can we go first of all to MPS 0526923
02:01:15 please.
02:01:21 [snorts] If we go over to see what the document is.
02:01:28 So it's a code of conduct for officers and then it goes on to the code of practice. Can we go to page four please?
02:01:41 Can we have a look at uh
02:01:46 the paragraph 2.2? There's a definition here of serious crime.
02:01:55 Conduct is regarded as serious crime if and only if it involves the use of violence, results in substantial
02:02:06 violence, results in substantial financial gain or loss, or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose. or the offense or one of the offenses is an offense for which
02:02:17 of the offenses is an offense for which a person who has attained the age of 21 years and has no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of
02:02:28 sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more. Do you recall that guidance? [snorts]
02:02:36 [snorts] Um, not offhand. No. Can you help us with how that translates into considering authorizing deployments
02:02:48 into considering authorizing deployments for the purposes of assisting with policing public order events?
02:03:00 Um,
02:03:05 no I can't. If it is applied to public order events, would you agree that to be behaving in a
02:03:16 would you agree that to be behaving in a way likely for a 21-year-old with no previous convictions to be sentenced to 3 years or more? We're well above
02:03:29 above ordinary public order offenses and we're into offenses like riot. Yes.
02:03:39 So would that be an appropriate moment to take the morning break? Certainly. Uh we'll resume in 15 minutes.
02:23:02 Thank you, sir. Could [snorts] we go first to 526897, please?
02:23:07 please? HM58, we're going to some paperwork for the authorization of deployments in January 2000.
02:23:17 We'll see there that they're dated the 17th of January 2000 and it goes through various officers. If we go first of all to page seven,
02:23:32 we'll see that they're authorized by Commander Pierce on the 18th of January.
02:23:44 on the 18th of January. Can you help us with how these documents were prepared for Commander Pierce?
02:23:54 I'm I presume I I I can't recall, but I I presume they were prepared probably by either the DS's or the DI. And would you have uh approved them
02:24:08 And would you have uh approved them before they were sent to Commander Pierce? Probably. Yes. They are important documents, aren't they?
02:24:16 they? They are.
02:24:18 They are. There was probably been a minute sheet attached to it. I don't know. Could we go to page four, please?
02:24:33 And
02:24:37 looking for Yes. Um, HN16 4.1. Could we go go further forward and find HN16? Thank you.
02:24:50 Like you to have a look at that, please.
02:25:28 Yes. The target groups for Detective Sergeant Thompson were Cudon Hunt saboturs and people
02:25:38 people committing crimes under the banner of the ALF.
02:25:44 the ALF. The blur doesn't say anything at all about Cudden Hunt saboturs, does it?
02:25:52 No.
02:25:55 And it appears to be fairly generic about the ALF, doesn't it? Yes.
02:26:01 Yes. And the ALF was not a membership organization. It was a banner under which actions were taken in the name of animal rights. Yes.
02:26:12 Yes. By the time uh this was um authorized in January 2000, Detective Sergeant Thompson had been deployed for 3 years,
02:26:23 Thompson had been deployed for 3 years, hadn't he? Uh
02:26:28 Uh I Oh, yes. Okay. Yes. In that time, he had thoroughly infiltrated Cuden Hunt saboturs, hadn't
02:26:39 infiltrated Cuden Hunt saboturs, hadn't he?
02:26:41 he? I I believe so. I can't recall, but I believe so. Is it right that in that time he'd come across no threat to government personnel?
02:26:56 I'm I'm not aware. [snorts]
02:26:59 [snorts] No threat to any high profile figures?
02:27:08 No, I don't think so.
02:27:11 No threat to members of the royal family.
02:27:21 No, he [snorts] had been involved in quite a lot of hunt sabotage which one way or another had resulted in trouble with the hunting fraternity.
02:27:35 Yes. Yes. uh in circumstances where very often the hunting fraternity had metered out violence towards the
02:27:47 had metered out violence towards the hunt saboturs.
02:27:52 On occasions, yes, including on occasions to Detective Sergeant Thompson. Um
02:28:02 possibly. I can't I can't recall instances with And the level of criminality amongst [snorts] the hunt saboturs was
02:28:14 amongst [snorts] the hunt saboturs was very minor, wasn't it? Relatively minor. Yes. Not in the realms of serious criminality uh in accordance with the threshold we
02:28:26 uh in accordance with the threshold we looked at just before the break. No,
02:28:33 the sum total of that position being that this blurb seriously overstated the reality when compared to what Detective Sergeant
02:28:45 compared to what Detective Sergeant Thompson was actually doing, didn't it?
02:28:53 Yes. But the potential was there for those.
02:28:57 those. This could have been written far more factually accurately, couldn't it? Probably. Yes. And it would have, if accurate, painted a picture of an undercover police
02:29:09 a picture of an undercover police officer infiltrating hunt saboturs who were not committing serious offenses.
02:29:19 offenses. Yes.
02:29:22 Yes. and where the position was, you thought it was still possible that he might come across people who might commit serious
02:29:33 across people who might commit serious offenses.
02:29:34 offenses. Yes.
02:29:35 Yes. It's a very different proposition, isn't it? When it comes to the question of whether it's necessary and proportionate to deploy an undercover police officer.
02:29:47 to deploy an undercover police officer. Yes.
02:29:50 Could we have paragraph 4.2 please?
02:29:58 [snorts] This is HN60's authorization immediately below. Uh he'd been deployed by this stage for over 18 months into
02:30:10 by this stage for over 18 months into London animal action. Again, could I invite you to read the uh grounds for deployment? [clears throat]
02:30:21 [snorts]
02:30:33 [snorts]
02:30:39 [clears throat]
02:30:52 This is identical, isn't it, to the grounds given for Detective Sergeant Thompson?
02:30:58 Thompson? Yes.
02:30:59 Yes. Why?
02:31:04 Because I think the grounds are are very similar.
02:31:07 similar. um London Animal Action were potentially targeting
02:31:13 targeting um property and individuals. Well, is that right? Is the reality that a onesizefits all ground is being deployed for animal rights deployments?
02:31:25 deployed for animal rights deployments? Not necessarily, but it it might in certain in a lot of circumstances. act animal rights activists uh are a
02:31:36 act animal rights activists uh are a very broad church, aren't they? Yes.
02:31:40 Yes. From those described by your officers as fluffy through to people who are committing quite serious criminal offenses.
02:31:51 offenses. Yes.
02:31:52 Yes. It's very important, isn't it, to distinguish precisely
02:31:57 precisely who is to be targeted.
02:32:03 Yes. [snorts] And a onesizefits all ground of deployment for any any animal rights deployment which concentrates on the
02:32:15 deployment which concentrates on the most serious offending of a few is seriously misleading, isn't it? No, because I think you have to in order to get to the center of an organization,
02:32:28 to get to the center of an organization, you don't get there straight away. You get there by taking part in, you know, minor activities before you're perhaps fully accepted into that
02:32:40 perhaps fully accepted into that organization to do some more major activities. If that is the thinking, shouldn't the grounds for deployment be focused on the grounds for deploying into London animal action and to make it
02:32:53 into London animal action and to make it clear that London animal action is being used as a stepping stone?
02:33:02 Potentially. Yes. Because that is very important, isn't it, as time goes by as to whether or not it is proportionate to keep an officer there.
02:33:11 there. Yes.
02:33:13 Yes. And therefore this application is seriously misleading, isn't it?
02:33:23 A little bit misleading. Yes, I take the point.
02:33:26 point. Well, let's look at that a bit further then. HN60 by this stage had not produced any intelligence about any threats to government personnel, had he?
02:33:39 threats to government personnel, had he? I I don't know. or any other high-profile figures?
02:33:48 No, I I I don't know whether he did or not.
02:33:50 not. Or the royal family. I can't recall. If that is the basis, that sort of target is the basis for the grounds for
02:34:01 target is the basis for the grounds for deploying him. Surely the fact that nothing has resulted in the 18 months leading 20 months leading up to this authorization is significant, isn't it?
02:34:14 authorization is significant, isn't it? Yes, but he may be working his way up within the organization. The position ought to be properly represented in the grounds of deployment, shouldn't it? Yes.
02:34:25 Yes. And the reality is this wasn't a proportionate deployment, was it?
02:34:33 I I think it was in in the long term London Animal Action were to use the Parliament essentially fluffies.
02:34:47 I don't know. But I mean, you say you don't know. When I say I don't know, I mean what I mean is that some of them may have been what you refer to as fluffies, but some of them
02:34:58 refer to as fluffies, but some of them may have been a bit more militant.
02:35:04 That when judged against a threshold of serious criminal activity of the kind we looked at before the break, this deployment is not meeting that
02:35:18 this deployment is not meeting that need, is it? Not at the moment. No. That should have been very clearly set out for the decision maker, shouldn't it?
02:35:28 it? It should. Yes.
02:35:33 Could we take that down now, please? Can we have up 749112, please?
02:35:47 Uh, this is a letter from John Dyn to Detective Inspector Lambert. It's dated the 8th of January, 1998.
02:36:02 Uh, I'll give you a moment to look at it.
02:36:09 [snorts]
02:37:00 Yes. So this is a letter which clearly and succinctly communicates that Mr. Dyn is in New Zealand. Helen Steel has arrived
02:37:12 in New Zealand. Helen Steel has arrived in New Zealand and is looking for him. He and his relations are doing their best to thwart her. Uh but he felt he needed to raise that and was asking
02:37:25 needed to raise that and was asking Detective Inspector Lambert to communicate this news to appropriate senior staff.
02:37:36 senior staff. Did
02:37:37 Did Detective Inspector Lambert bring this letter to your attention as requested by Mr. Dyn?
02:37:49 as requested by Mr. Dyn? I I I can't recall I don't remember the letter.
02:37:55 letter. Do you remember Di Lambert raising the issue with you? Yes, I do. Is is it likely that he did so
02:38:06 so upon receipt of this letter? I assume so. Yes. We see from the letter and from the paragraph, I am able to add nothing to
02:38:18 paragraph, I am able to add nothing to the current situation saved to reiterate what we have discussed at length over recent years. When the matter was raised
02:38:30 recent years. When the matter was raised with you,
02:38:33 with you, in what terms was it raised?
02:38:41 I I I can't recall um how it was raised. Can you recall whether Di Lambert gave you a whome briefing?
02:38:58 I I don't think so. No. Can you remember how inquisitive you were about what was happening?
02:39:10 No, I can't. I'm sorry. Would you have been inquisitive? I think I would have been asked some questions. Yes. When you say you would have been asked some questions, do you mean you would
02:39:22 some questions, do you mean you would have asked some questions? would have asked some questions if if it had come up. I was unaware of the situation. Would you have wanted to know why Helen
02:39:33 Would you have wanted to know why Helen Steel was seeking John Dyn so many years after John Dyn had exfiltrated?
02:39:45 Yes, I guess so. Can you recall in any detail at all what you were told? No, I can't.
02:39:57 [snorts] Can we have UCPI? And it's 5035075,
02:40:05 please. This is your witness statement made for the purposes of our Tranch 2 investigation.
02:40:18 Could we have page 105, please? You made this statement on the 22nd of April, 2022.
02:40:32 Could I invite you to remind yourself of what you
02:40:36 what you uh wrote for the inquiry at about John Dyn at paragraph 187.4?
02:40:46 Yes. You say that you did become aware of an
02:41:00 You say that you did become aware of an intimate relationship with Helen Steel when you were the DCI in the SDS. Can you help us with when you found out?
02:41:27 I I I can't remember who. Is it likely that it was in January 1998 when John Dyn got in touch with
02:41:38 when John Dyn got in touch with detective inspector Lambert? I think it probably would have been
02:41:47 later. Why do you say that? Because
02:41:54 Because I don't think it became public.
02:41:59 public. Um I think I just I remember re read vaguely reading about it in the news in one of the newspapers. um
02:42:12 whilst you were DCI. I can't I can't Yeah.
02:42:19 I can't remember when I when I became aware of it. Can you recall how
02:42:34 it could have been? It could have been by um Mr. Lambert or it could have been via a news newspaper. I can't recall. I think [snorts] there was some publicity.
02:42:46 think [snorts] there was some publicity. Did you tell any superior officer about this discovery?
02:42:54 I can't I can't recall. Would you have done? Probably. Yes. Why would you have done? because it involved
02:43:05 involved a former SDS officer um who was living abroad and potentially potentially at risk.
02:43:18 [snorts] Can I take it from that answer that your concern was not so much that a woman had been deceived but that the officer and the SDS operation might be
02:43:29 officer and the SDS operation might be at risk?
02:43:32 at risk? Yes, I think so.
02:43:39 Can you recall whether detective inspector Lambert cons shared with you the concerns he had about
02:43:54 the concerns he had about what might flow if John Dyn was compromised?
02:44:03 I can't remember. Did he say anything to you about whether it might then lead to the discovery of
02:44:15 it might then lead to the discovery of other former undercover officers?
02:44:20 No, I don't think so. Including himself?
02:44:27 No, don't think so. Don't recall that. Did he share with you that this was a threat to operational security?
02:44:41 I I can't remember. Did he share with you anything to the effect [snorts] that it would enable people who had been
02:44:52 that it would enable people who had been convicted
02:44:53 convicted as a result of proceedings based on SDS intelligence being challenged?
02:45:04 being challenged? No, don't recall that at all. Did he share with you any concerns uh that if it was discovered that Mr.
02:45:15 uh that if it was discovered that Mr. Dyn was an undercover police officer uh that fact might be deployed in the M libel litigation?
02:45:27 libel litigation? No, not can't recall that. When you say can't recall, are you in a position to say whether it didn't happen or whether you simply cannot recall one
02:45:39 or whether you simply cannot recall one way or the other? I can't recall one way or the other. [clears throat] Can we have 247452, please?
02:46:02 This is a letter from Detective Inspector Lambert to uh a police officer in New Zealand dated the 26th
02:46:13 in New Zealand dated the 26th of January 1998.
02:46:18 if we give you a moment to look at it. But what I'm interested in is the second paragraph
02:46:25 paragraph and the first half of that second paragraph.
02:47:20 Yes. How significant an issue was this for you at the time?
02:47:31 I don't think it was a particularly significant. It was a threat to the SDS, wasn't it?
02:47:42 It was a threat to the SDS, wasn't it? It was a It was a potential threat to the SDS, but also it was welfare for the officer in New Zealand as well. So, is this course of correspondence one
02:47:53 So, is this course of correspondence one that you would have been kept appraised of?
02:47:58 of? I don't think I was. I mean, I can't remember. I don't can't recall the letter or being shown the letter. Are you likely to have been kept updated by Detective Inspector Lambert as to
02:48:10 by Detective Inspector Lambert as to what was happening? I
02:48:13 I think I would have expected to have been updated. Yes. Were you?
02:48:20 Were you? I can't recall. I can't remember. reads, "The persistent efforts of a former extremist animal rights activist to Tracy may well have a purpose that
02:48:32 to Tracy may well have a purpose that does not pose a threat to his security, but it is clearly prudent at this stage to consider worstc case scenarios.
02:48:44 to consider worstc case scenarios. appears that might well be a reference to the fact that there's no threat to his security at this stage because Helen Steel was trying to trace him
02:48:55 Helen Steel was trying to trace him because she was concerned for him. Did Lambert say anything to you about why he did not consider that steel posed
02:49:08 why he did not consider that steel posed a threat to Dyn's security?
02:49:14 No.
02:49:18 Did you ask?
02:49:22 I don't think so. No. Wasn't that [clears throat and snorts] quite an important fact?
02:49:28 fact? I I I can't recall.
02:49:32 Could we go please now to 749474?
02:49:44 And to page 114, please.
02:49:51 This is a minute sheet. The top minute is written by you, it appears. U could we have that first uh top half of the page expanded, please?
02:50:30 Yes. So, it appears here we have written evidence of you informing Detective Superintendent Pierce, as he then was, about developments.
02:50:43 about developments. Yes. So, can we take it that you were following development yourself? Yes.
02:50:52 Yes. And passing them up the chain of command.
02:50:55 command. Yep.
02:50:56 Yep. We go a beggar pardon. Yes.
02:50:59 Yes. Thank you. Could we go to page 116, please?
02:51:06 And we will see at the bottom uh half of the page a minute written on the 18th of February by Mr. Pierce
02:51:20 February by Mr. Pierce says I'm grateful for this written account and for the verbal briefings during January. Please note the comments of Mr. McLolin at minute 14 regarding further requests
02:51:31 at minute 14 regarding further requests for inquiries. I retain a very close interest in this case. Please consult immediately in the result of adverse developments.
02:51:42 developments. First of all, can you assist with what verbal briefings had been given during January?
02:51:54 No, I I can't recall.
02:51:59 Can we take it that they are likely to have been given by you or not? Well, either by me or by DI Lambert.
02:52:10 Well, either by me or by DI Lambert. And if given by Di Lambert, are you likely to have been party to the conversation?
02:52:19 Potentially, I don't know. I can't remember. or at least to have been told what it was that Lambert was going to tell senior managers.
02:52:32 I would assume so. Yes. And the fact that Mr. Pierce made clear he had a very close interest
02:52:43 made clear he had a very close interest in the case, would that presumably have meant that so did you?
02:52:52 Not necessarily. No. Well, you would want, wouldn't you, to do what your superior wished? Yes.
02:53:03 Yes. And that would require you to keep a close interest in the case, wouldn't it? Yes.
02:53:11 Yes. And presumably ask Detective Lambert what was going on.
02:53:20 Well, I presume Detective Inspector Lambert had probably told Mr. Pierce and to know as much uh about what was
02:53:33 and to know as much uh about what was going on and why as Detective Inspector Lambert could tell you.
02:53:40 tell you. Yes.
02:53:44 which would have included that John Dyn and Helen Steel had had a sexual relationship.
02:53:55 I can't remember him saying that to me. I can't remember the conversations we had regarding it. [snorts]
02:54:05 Can we go to 247543, please? [snorts]
02:54:15 [snorts] Moving on now to the 12th of March. Again, a letter from Lambert to the New Zealand
02:54:23 Zealand Police.
02:54:25 Police. Particularly interested in the first two paragraphs.
02:54:34 We'll see that by this stage Helen Steel has left New Zealand and traveled to Australia.
02:54:44 What Lambert is recounting in the second paragraph is it is especially reassuring to note that Steel is likely to be denied entry should she seek to return
02:54:58 denied entry should she seek to return to New Zealand in the future. Can you help us first of all with whether
02:55:07 whether you or anyone in the SDS asked the New Zealand authorities to deny Helensteel entry to New Zealand in
02:55:20 deny Helensteel entry to New Zealand in the future?
02:55:25 I was I was unaware of anybody asking that.
02:55:30 that. It
02:55:33 would appear that this outcome has arisen either because the SDS asked for it or on the basis of what the SDS had
02:55:45 it or on the basis of what the SDS had told the New Zealand authorities they thought necessary.
02:55:55 Would you agree with that proposition? I don't know. It is a proposition. Yes.
02:56:02 procuring a state of affairs whereby a member of the public is going to be denied entry should she seek
02:56:13 seek to return to New Zealand is a very serious interference with her freedom of movement, isn't it? It is
02:56:24 movement, isn't it? It is in circumstances where what Helen Steel was trying to do was find the man with whom she had been
02:56:35 was find the man with whom she had been in a relationship but had left her,
02:56:43 wasn't it? Yes. Yes. and as we've seen a couple of documents back was not regarded as posing any threat
02:56:55 posing any threat to Mr. Dyn's safety.
02:57:02 Yes. What was your reaction at the time to this letter? Well, I didn't know
02:57:15 but my reaction to the letter was that she's if I saw it and I can't remember seeing it um [snorts] well would be that it she was
02:57:26 well would be that it she was potentially being denied entry not from any information that we had provided but for some other reason. Would you have shared Bob Lambert's relief
02:57:38 shared Bob Lambert's relief and felt the reassurance that he expressed?
02:57:47 I don't think so necessarily. No. Because the threat of discovery of John Dyn and compromise of the SDS had ebbed away
02:57:59 away possibly and also the welfare of the officer.
02:58:02 officer. [snorts]
02:58:03 [snorts] Can we take it that Mr. Pierce, having expressed a very keen interest in the case, would have been made aware of this development?
02:58:14 made aware of this development? I would imagine so. Yes. Can you recall what his or any other senior officer's reaction was?
02:58:25 senior officer's reaction was? No. Is it likely that at the time they would have shared in the relief because the threat to Mr. Dyn's being uncovered for what he
02:58:39 to Mr. Dyn's being uncovered for what he really was and for the security of the SDS operation had receded. Yes.
02:58:54 In fact, the practical effect of the SDS's efforts to protect John Dyn
02:59:05 SDS's efforts to protect John Dyn were to prevent very serious wrongdoing from being uncovered, weren't they?
02:59:16 from being uncovered, weren't they? I don't know. I don't think that was the case.
02:59:20 case. Sorry. What did you say? Yes. At the end of that,
02:59:23 of that, I don't think that was the case. I think it was mainly to do with the welfare of the officer. The practical effect was the question. The practical effect of what you did
02:59:35 The practical effect of what you did was to delay
02:59:40 uncovering the truth and writing a serious wrong.
02:59:47 Yes. The practical effect
02:59:56 Can we go to page two please of this document?
03:00:04 This is from you up to Detective Superintendent Pierce the 13th of March.
03:00:23 This is the terms in which you updated in writing. Mr. Pierce, can you recall whether you spoke to him?
03:00:36 I can't recall. No.
03:00:42 Now, please,
03:00:47 were you aware of the litigation that Helen Steel and Dave Morris brought against the commissioner uh after
03:01:00 uh after a second set of proceedings where they were suing following [snorts] liel because of disclosures made by the police to McDonald's of private
03:01:13 police to McDonald's of private information. This is Steel and Morris against the commissioner, a 1998 claim. I I can't recall it.
03:01:26 I I can't recall it. Would you have been aware of it at the time?
03:01:31 time? Probably would have been. Yes, I think. And would the SDS have been following developments because there was a potential for
03:01:42 because there was a potential for operational security concerns to arise? Not that I was aware of. [clears throat] Did the SDS play any role in the
03:01:54 Did the SDS play any role in the disclosure of documents during the course of those proceedings? Not that I'm aware of. Can you recall whether the SDS was approached by
03:02:06 whether the SDS was approached by lawyers for the commissioner for the purposes of making disclosure? Not that I'm aware of. No. Did the SDS seek to encourage the
03:02:17 Did the SDS seek to encourage the settlement of those proceedings? Not that I'm aware of.
03:02:27 Was there any discussion within the S SDS about the role it had played historically in the matters which gave rise to the M
03:02:39 in the matters which gave rise to the M libel claim?
03:02:43 Not that I can recall. No. Did at any stage detective inspector Lambert say anything to you about whether or not he had had a hand in the Mac Li in the
03:02:57 had had a hand in the Mac Li in the leaflet
03:02:59 leaflet which led McDonald's to sue for liel. Not that I can remember. We saw yesterday a reference to the rem
03:03:12 We saw yesterday a reference to the rem the omission from the writ of Mr. Dyn from the M Liel proceedings. You sure that nothing was said by
03:03:24 You sure that nothing was said by detective inspector Lambert about the removal from the RIT or steps taken to ensure Mr. Dyn wasn't named in the RIT?
03:03:38 ensure Mr. Dyn wasn't named in the RIT? on call.
03:03:48 Can we look now please at 527564
03:04:02 page two please.
03:04:08 This is a file about the annual report for the SDS19697 which I fully appreciate is just before your time. But if we can go to the next
03:04:21 your time. But if we can go to the next page please.
03:04:25 This is the minute sheet. The minute here is the 25th of September 1997 by which stage you are the DCI of the SDS.
03:04:39 which stage you are the DCI of the SDS. This uh you will see shows that the document was to be put before the commissioner and also
03:04:50 commissioner and also AXO.
03:04:52 AXO. You will see the last paragraph. Yes.
03:04:56 Yes. We go to page four please.
03:05:03 [snorts] And if we look at minute three and four,
03:05:07 and four, you will see that first AXO and then the commissioner write in glowing terms praising the SDS.
03:05:28 Yes. And that
03:05:31 And that AXO is making clear uh that he's prepared to add a verbal briefing if that would assist.
03:05:42 briefing if that would assist. If we look at the bottom of that page, running over to the top of the next page,
03:05:50 a series of minutes which essentially show that
03:05:56 show that the consequence of those praising minutes is to arrange for AXO to visit
03:06:08 is to arrange for AXO to visit the unit.
03:06:11 the unit. What was your understanding of top brass's view of the SDS throughout your tenure?
03:06:26 I think they were very supportive. [snorts]
03:06:33 [snorts] I'd like you to be very careful not to transgress the boundaries of any restriction orders.
03:06:43 orders. Did you receive any criticism at any point
03:06:49 point from
03:06:52 from either Mr. Condon or Mr. Vaness?
03:06:58 Not to my knowledge. No. Any
03:07:04 cautions? By which I mean any cautionary words about the ambit of your operations? No, don't think so. And again being similarly similarly
03:07:18 And again being similarly similarly cautious
03:07:20 cautious any praise that stands out
03:07:28 specifically? No, not that I can recall. Was there any discussion with these very senior management managers about the management systems in place within the
03:07:40 management systems in place within the SDS?
03:07:43 Not that I can recall that. Were there any conversations about the management systems in place in the SDS at lower levels of the chain of command other
03:07:55 levels of the chain of command other than those we have seen relating to the authorization of operations?
03:08:04 No, not to my knowledge.
03:08:11 [snorts] Want to move now to the visit itself. Our understanding is AXO visited the SDS on the 7th of July 1998.
03:08:23 1998. If we could have up please 247717.
03:08:33 [snorts] These are documents preparatory to the visit which show that Chief Superintendent Black was to visit as
03:08:44 Superintendent Black was to visit as well. Is it your recollection that both Mr. Vaness and Mr. Black attended? I I think it was. Yes. And if we go to
03:08:55 I I think it was. Yes. And if we go to page two in the penultimate paragraph on page two,
03:09:02 this is a document bearing your name and it expresses the view that the visit is an opportunity to remind Mr. Vaness of the
03:09:13 opportunity to remind Mr. Vaness of the importance and nature of SDS operations. Was this viewed very much as an opportunity to market the SDS to Mr.
03:09:25 opportunity to market the SDS to Mr. Vaness?
03:09:27 Vaness? Um, I don't think so much as market. I think it was a good opportunity for Mr. Vaness to speak to the individual officers and to um give them support.
03:09:42 So, a morale booster. Sorry. Yes, a morale booster. But to what extent did it also
03:09:49 it also serve the purpose of further informing Mr. Vanesse about what the SDS was and was doing?
03:10:01 was doing? Yes.
03:10:04 And presumably with a very positive spin. Yes. I hope so.
03:10:14 Could we have 748091 please?
03:10:29 Ah [snorts] that is not the document uh I'm looking for. Could you just move forward a page and see? It seems very unlikely that will be what I want. No. Okay. We'll
03:10:42 will be what I want. No. Okay. We'll come back uh to that.
03:10:47 Can you recall if we take that document down now please? Can you recall when the visit happens what Mr. Vanessa's reaction was?
03:11:11 I mean, how do you mean what was his demeanor when he visited the unit?
03:11:17 the unit? Well, very supportive and um
03:11:22 um spoke to individual groups and then spoke to them all in a very supportive way. [snorts] And what feedback did he give you?
03:11:34 I think it was just a I mean I can't recall exactly the words he used but it was generally supportive and doing a good job.
03:11:42 good job. Did he raise any concerns with you? He didn't. No, not that I can recall. And what was Mr. Black's reaction?
03:11:55 Not not dissimilar.
03:12:01 Presumably he was pleased that Mr. Vaness was pleased. Possibly. Yes. Could we have up now 728
03:12:12 Could we have up now 728 620
03:12:14 620 [snorts]
03:12:19 over to page two. This is a draft, an incomplete draft of an annual report for the SDS for the year 97
03:12:32 the SDS for the year 97 98.
03:12:35 98. In other words, it would be the first annual report uh which would be in a year that concluded whilst you were head of the SDS.
03:12:51 We have not been able to find a complete annual report for this year. Was there one?
03:13:04 I I'm I'm sorry. I can't help you on that. I can't recall.
03:13:11 We have not found any other later annual report for the SDS.
03:13:22 for the SDS. Can you recall whether during your tenure there were annual reports?
03:13:32 I imagine there probably would have been. Um,
03:13:37 why are they not Yeah, I don't know. I can't I can't answer that. Can you positively recall signing [snorts] off any annual report
03:13:51 signing [snorts] off any annual report during your tenure? I can't I can't remember. Or whether you received any feedback as a result of submitting an annual report.
03:14:04 a result of submitting an annual report. No, I I can't. Can you recall whether you made a positive decision to stop the production of annual reports?
03:14:18 No, I can't remember that at all. Or receiving any instruction from higher up the chain of command to the effect that they were no longer necessary.
03:14:30 No, I can't recall that either.
03:14:36 Can we look at the second paragraph of this draft?
03:14:51 Can you help us with the link between the security services diminished coverage of subversive groups and the
03:15:03 coverage of subversive groups and the targeting of HN81 toward campaign groups in Brixton? This is written, isn't it? As if the first event led to the second.
03:15:20 Um, no. I
03:15:26 can't. Um, although I believe HM81 was possibly started off in the Socialist Workers Party.
03:15:38 Party. I can't recall. Was it a question of because the security service no longer had a need for what HN81 was initially doing, he
03:15:52 for what HN81 was initially doing, he could be moved to the next priority in line?
03:16:01 I think so. Maybe. Yes.
03:16:06 Campaign groups in Brixton. Yes. Could
03:16:13 we look at paragraph three please? Sorry, page three.
03:16:21 The statement of purpose says to provide quality service in the gathering and dissemination of high-grade intelligence. Now the phrase
03:16:32 high-grade intelligence. Now the phrase highgrade intelligence is one which we see
03:16:36 see consistently throughout the documents. Just like to ask you was the phrase high-grade intelligence simply reflecting it was intelligence produced
03:16:47 reflecting it was intelligence produced by a police officer or what did it mean more than that? I I would imagine it would probably mean because it was produced by a police
03:16:58 because it was produced by a police officer, but I I can't that's how I would read it. And the other phrase that we see a lot in the documents which is in this paragraph is
03:17:09 documents which is in this paragraph is the phrase public order events.
03:17:15 What was meant in special branch parliament at the time by a public order event?
03:17:25 event? A demonstration or a march or picket or a protest in the public. And [clears throat] so it did not necessarily mean an event at which there
03:17:36 necessarily mean an event at which there was going to be disorder.
03:17:41 Not necessarily. No just an event which might or might not need policing. I mean
03:17:52 I mean by and large the events needed policing.
03:18:00 Can we be clear? Does public order events span both events that needed policing
03:18:09 policing and events that might not? possibly. Yes.
03:18:18 And then another phrase in the statement of purpose, politically motivated crime and crime related to animal rights
03:18:29 crime and crime related to animal rights and environmentalist activity
03:18:34 activity [clears throat] for the SDS to be in this territory. Can you help us with
03:18:46 how criminal intelligence gathered by the SDS was envisaged to be used?
03:18:56 Um, I think it probably was to be used to to uh uh prevent further acts of
03:19:07 further acts of criminality. Was
03:19:12 any guidance given to undercover officers about what a politically motivated crime was? I don't believe so. No.
03:19:28 Could we have up now 74892, please?
03:19:36 We're going back to the document I couldn't find a moment ago uh relating to preparations for the visit in July of Mr. Vaness and Mr. Black.
03:19:49 Mr. Vaness and Mr. Black. This uh is the the first page from you about uh arrangements and it covers a pack of information.
03:20:03 and it covers a pack of information. The third paragraph says, I've attached a pen picture of each officer in addition to some other general briefing papers. Unfortunately, HN26 and HN81
03:20:14 papers. Unfortunately, HN26 and HN81 will not be present. Can you help us with whether Mr. Vaness received and read the pack?
03:20:27 I I can't. I I assume he probably did, but I can't. Did he say anything to you which reveal that he'd done his homework?
03:20:38 homework? Not that I can recall. No. The same question in relation to Mr. Black.
03:20:46 Black. Again, I can't I can't remember. Can't recall.
03:20:50 recall. Who wrote the pen pictures that follow? I would imagine it was probably the the DI or the DS's. Did you read the pack before it was
03:21:04 Did you read the pack before it was dispatched?
03:21:08 Why? I can't remember. Is it likely that you would have done so?
03:21:12 so? Probably would have done. Yes. Could we go to page nine, please?
03:21:22 This is the pen picture for HN81 at the top of the page. If we can look at the last paragraph of the pen picture for 81.
03:21:47 Yes. Those appear to be the terms in which 81's deployment is being depicted to senior officers.
03:21:59 Can you recall whether there was any reaction from either Mr. Vaness or Mr. Black to the statement that HN81 had recently provided intelligence on MFJ's
03:22:13 recently provided intelligence on MFJ's efforts to influence the Lawren family during the public hearing?
03:22:20 I I can't recall any reaction.
03:22:26 There's no mention here, is there, that MFJ's attempts to influence the family had completely failed? No.
03:22:40 HN81's deployment, particularly its proximity to MFJ's efforts to influence the Lawrence family were being held out here
03:22:53 Lawrence family were being held out here as a success story.
03:22:57 I think it was. Yes.
03:23:04 [snorts]
03:23:12 I I think I guess I don't know. I mean, I can't recall. Well, the picture I'm getting is it's checking process and procedure, but not
03:23:24 checking process and procedure, but not going as far as scrutinizing whether or not deployments are justified and that sort of thing. Okay. Is that is that have I understood properly?
03:23:37 Yes. And
03:23:39 And the inspection appears to have taken about an hour and a half. How thorough was it?
03:23:51 I don't know. It was as thorough as they wanted to make it, I suppose. Can you recall how much it depended upon what the UCOs said to Mr. Fine and how
03:24:04 what the UCOs said to Mr. Fine and how much it depended on the documents.
03:24:10 I can't remember.
03:24:16 Did Superintendent Finemore know that HN81 was reporting on matters relating to the Steven Lawrence campaign?
03:24:32 I I would assume that he did, although I can't I I don't know what questions he asked them. It says, "I propose that each field
03:24:44 It says, "I propose that each field officer gives a resume of their operation without going into too much detail, but giving a flavor of the type and work type of work and difficulties encountered."
03:24:55 encountered." How confident are you that Mr. Fimmore did know
03:25:00 did know about HN81's targeting.
03:25:05 I I I can't I can't I don't know. I wasn't there when they were speaking to him.
03:25:11 him. Can you help Can you help us one way or the other as to whether Mr. Finemore knew that HN26 had participated in the release of Mink
03:25:22 had participated in the release of Mink in Hampshire?
03:25:27 it. I don't know. I don't know. It
03:25:33 It appears that the inspector was satisfied. Is that right?
03:25:41 It it I can't see that in in this document.
03:25:45 document. No, I'm asking you a wider question now. Is it right that he was satisfied? I think so. Yes. Thank you. Could we take that document down now? I want to move to the subject
03:25:58 down now? I want to move to the subject of formal training. There was at the time, wasn't there, a course known as a nutak course for [snorts] undercover police officers involved in
03:26:11 undercover police officers involved in evidential deployment, wasn't there? I
03:26:17 I I believe there was. Yes. although I don't recall what the course entailed. And that course had been considered to be unsuitable for SDS officers, hadn't
03:26:29 be unsuitable for SDS officers, hadn't it?
03:26:31 it? I think it had. Yes. And was that because it was focused on evidential deployments as opposed to long-term intelligence gathering operations?
03:26:42 operations? Yes.
03:26:45 Yes. In the absence of an offtheshelf suitable
03:26:50 suitable training program, did you explore the need for a bespoke formal [snorts] training program for long-term intelligence gathering
03:27:03 for long-term intelligence gathering operations? No, I don't think I did. Did you give that any consideration at all?
03:27:11 all? Um
03:27:14 Um probably did. We were probably looking at other ways because up till now all the officers their training had been in in the back office and speaking to other
03:27:28 in the back office and speaking to other undercover officers. There might be a more formal way of doing it. And what was the upshot of that consideration? Well, I think we kept doing what we were doing, what we'd always been doing.
03:27:44 We don't need I think to go to the very lengthy training materials um for the nutak course but one component of that training is quite a long section on
03:27:56 training is quite a long section on legal obligations.
03:28:00 Was there any training on legal obligations other than azant provocator for your officers? Not that I was aware of. No.
03:28:11 Not that I was aware of. No. Would you accept that the significant gap in the preparation of your officers was the lack of specific training on legal opera on legal obligations
03:28:24 legal opera on legal obligations that would arise as a result of deploying undercover? Yes.
03:28:35 And would formal training on things like legal professional privilege and the constitutional position of elected representatives have been of assistance.
03:28:49 have been of assistance. Yes.
03:28:50 Yes. And was in fact lacking. Yes.
03:28:57 Can we move now to the question of the NPIU,
03:29:03 NPIU, the National Public Order Intelligence Unit? We we touched on it, I think, a couple of days ago. Could we look at MPS301
03:29:13 MPS301 1963, please?
03:29:19 This is an April 1999 memorandum to uh HN53 and others from you about the MPSB
03:29:32 and others from you about the MPSB business plan for 99 2000. If we could go to the bottom of the page,
03:29:45 the formation of the MOIU is an intrinsic part of this objective. SDS will devise a system whereby intelligence information with a national dimension can be passed effectively to
03:29:57 dimension can be passed effectively to this new unit while still maintaining the security of the SDS operation. This will be reviewed quarterly and will result in an agreed system of passing intelligence.
03:30:09 intelligence. What contact did you or your unit have with the MPIU in order to devise that system?
03:30:20 Um I think we had a I think one of the um recover officers was the sort of the point of contact with the NPOU
03:30:38 and how frequently did they meet? I think as frequently as required by the by the reporting.
03:30:49 required by the by the reporting. I don't for obvious reasons want you to use any names, but did the MPYU know
03:31:00 know the cover identities of your undercover police officers?
03:31:06 Not not to my knowledge. No. Again, no names. Did you know theirs? No.
03:31:19 Did you receive again no names at any point in time in your tenure? any reports, written or oral, of any
03:31:30 reports, written or oral, of any inappropriate behavior by anyone who was or was suspected of being an MPIU undercover police officer?
03:31:44 Not that I can recall. No.
03:31:50 Did the NIU ever raise any concerns with you about the behavior of anyone they knew or suspected to be an SDS undercover police
03:32:04 suspected to be an SDS undercover police officer?
03:32:06 officer? Not to my knowledge. No. [clears throat] Sir, would that be a convenient time to break for lunch? Certainly. Uh we'll resume two.