In the concluding session of his evidence, heard remotely and audio only, former DCI HN58 admits the SDS never delivered any mandatory post-Stephen Lawrence Inquiry training on institutional racism, and concedes welfare and psychological support for undercover officers was inadequate given the 'extraordinarily high incidence of mental ill health' among them. He is pressed on a largely undocumented handover to his successor DCI Dell, disputes Detective Constable Saraki's account that he sanctioned sexual relationships with activists as not 'an absolute prohibition', and reflects on cultural blind spots toward the women deceived by officers and the black and Asian campaigning families the SDS targeted. The session closes with questioning on reporting linked to Lee Lawrence, barrister Michael Mansfield QC and activist Suresh Grover, and HN58 confirming the SDS never had a formal whistleblowing policy.
00:25:10 Good afternoon everybody. This afternoon's proceedings are being uh transmitted on the live link but by voice only and only after a 15minute delay has occurred. Those with mobile
00:25:23 delay has occurred. Those with mobile telephones in the room behind the uh part of the hearing room where uh the proceedings are taking place may uh use them to report what they hear in the
00:25:34 them to report what they hear in the hearing room but only after a 15minute delay since the event that they are reporting about. They may not be used for uh recording.
00:25:45 for uh recording. Mr. Bar.
00:25:47 Mr. Bar. Thank you sir. Could we go first please to MPS305746.
00:25:57 [clears throat]
00:26:00 This is another visit HN58. Again a visit by uh Mr. Vanesse. This time on Thursday the 26th of April
00:26:13 the 26th of April 2001.
00:26:14 2001. And this document uh is one of yours and it is preparatory to that visit. I'll give you a moment just to to look at the
00:26:27 give you a moment just to to look at the contents of the document.
00:26:54 Okay. Yes. Uh, it says that Mr. Vaness is a personable individual who is genuinely interested in and supportive of our work
00:27:06 interested in and supportive of our work being careful not to breach any restriction orders. How did that interest manifest itself?
00:27:16 By his um wish to come out and see members of the field and by
00:27:27 the previous time that I met him, he he showed an interest. Uh again, there is a brief which has been prepared with a little penned picture of each officer's work. Are you
00:27:42 picture of each officer's work. Are you able to assist us as to whether or not that was sent ahead of the visit? Um
00:27:50 Um I I I don't know. I I would imagine it was, but I I can't remember. And are you able to assist us with whether or not its contents had been digested by Mr. Vaness
00:28:02 digested by Mr. Vaness I don't I don't know. Did he manifest the interest he'd expressed in the unit by showing some knowledge of what you had written?
00:28:14 knowledge of what you had written? I I can't remember. Do you have any reason to suppose you would not have read it?
00:28:23 I don't think so. No. [snorts] Can we go to page two, please?
00:28:31 And if we look under the heading extreme left wing and at the bottom of the page, one officer targeted against extreme leftwing groups in Brixton
00:28:44 leftwing groups in Brixton with potential for public disorder movement for justice. very active during the Steven Lawrence inquiry and are continually trying to capitalize on
00:28:55 continually trying to capitalize on local campaigns, particularly where black and Asian individuals are the victims of perceived police harassment. You will recall this morning we looked at a document from pretty much this time
00:29:08 at a document from pretty much this time from the start of April 2001 which portrayed um MFJ as a minimal force, didn't it? Yes.
00:29:20 Yes. is the reality that what this pen picture is trading on is HN81's history of reporting on events connected
00:29:31 history of reporting on events connected to the Steven Lawrence inquiry. Yes.
00:29:37 Yes. And was there any reaction to that from Mr. Vaness that you can recall? Not that I can recall. [clears throat] And presumably if there had been for
00:29:49 And presumably if there had been for example a strong negative reaction no doubt that is something you would have recalled.
00:29:56 recalled. I would think so. Yes. [clears throat] Could we take that down now please? Uh I want to move to the specific question
00:30:07 want to move to the specific question of the mandatory training that was promulgated throughout the MPS following the report of the Steven
00:30:18 following the report of the Steven Lawrence inquiry. Could we Could [clears throat] we have up please 527 610?
00:30:32 And can we have page 14 please?
00:30:38 This is a document uh bearing your name at the bottom 28th of June 1999 about training for SDS officers on the
00:30:51 about training for SDS officers on the subject of uh mandatory training. Give you a moment to refresh your memory.
00:31:07 [snorts]
00:31:23 Yes. So we can take it, can we, that your view was that most of this mandatory training, everything apart from the emergency life saving simply wasn't apt
00:31:36 emergency life saving simply wasn't apt for your undercover police officers. Yes.
00:31:42 Yes. Go to page five, please.
00:31:48 The first minute.
00:31:53 This is you communicating to detective superintendent Mccclaclin that [clears throat] you need to discuss with him aspects relating to that to the
00:32:04 him aspects relating to that to the courses. And if we go to the minute below,
00:32:12 we see Detective Superintendent Mccclaclin's response.
00:32:28 [snorts and clears throat]
00:32:33 [snorts] It appears there that the the idea that detective superintendent Mccclaclin is having is well the queue is so long for this training that UCOs can join the
00:32:47 this training that UCOs can join the back of the queue once they finish their deployments. Is that a fair summation of his position? Yes.
00:32:55 Yes. Can we go to page eight, please?
00:33:01 And minute 8, the bottom minute appears to be again Mr. McLaclin
00:33:18 seeking expedition of local training. And if we zoom out,
00:33:26 see your uh minute two, detective superintendent s above.
00:33:35 Um, sorry that DCS Blacks. Sorry,
00:33:40 Sorry, forgive me. Could we go to page nine? Minute number nine. [clears throat] Sorry, this is your your minute. Give you a moment to look at that.
00:34:16 [snorts]
00:34:22 Yes. And there appears to be a question here of dealing with the problem of excluding SDS personnel as and when those burers
00:34:35 SDS personnel as and when those burers start their racial awareness programs. Is that does [clears throat] that advert to the need to exclude SDS personnel from them when they come to deliver the
00:34:49 from them when they come to deliver the training in their burrows? Yes.
00:34:53 Yes. If we go over to page 10,
00:35:00 this is from a detective inspector who we've anonymized to detective superintendent Mccclaclin, you and uh a number of detective
00:35:11 you and uh a number of detective inspectors about racial incident training. Uh could we have the text including the manuscript at the bottom expanded, please? Thank you.
00:36:08 Yes. You able to help us uh with whose handwriting that is at the bottom? No. [snorts] Can you help us with where
00:36:19 No. [snorts] Can you help us with where this left your UCO so far as the mandatory training was concerned?
00:36:31 I think the um the critical incident management
00:36:40 was was done. Yeah, I think [laughter] Looking at this, I think everybody on the unit
00:36:51 the unit did the critical incident management course,
00:36:55 course, but not the racial incident training. I can't
00:37:04 How was the critical incident management training delivered? I think they they came out to um our office and did it. if it's the one
00:37:15 our office and did it. if it's the one I'm thinking of. Um, so it was done within our office. Was that confined to managers or was it managers and UCOs?
00:37:27 managers and UCOs? I I've got a feeling it was UCOs as well, but I can't
00:37:35 can't can't fully remember, I'm afraid. And so where did that leave the racial instant awareness training?
00:37:50 I don't know. Um,
00:38:04 I don't know. Are you able to help us with whether or not your officers receive this training at any time? I I don't know. can't remember.
00:38:16 can't remember. We've heard a moment ago that it was your view that it wasn't apt for someone deployed as an undercover police officer. Did you address your mind as to
00:38:27 officer. Did you address your mind as to whether there was any training that was required on the question of race discrimination arising from the finding of institutional racism made by the Steven
00:38:40 institutional racism made by the Steven Lawrence inquiry?
00:38:45 I I don't think I I did [snorts] and I think I may have already asked you this earlier, but just to confirm, there was no bespoke
00:38:56 was no bespoke race discrimination training delivered to any member of the SDS during your tenure, was there? Don't think there was. No. [clears throat]
00:39:08 [clears throat] If you had directed your mind to the question,
00:39:13 question, there was a need, wasn't there, to train
00:39:19 train members of the SDS as to the meaning of institutional racism and awareness of what that was and how to avoid it?
00:39:31 what that was and how to avoid it? Yes.
00:39:33 Yes. [snorts] If you had thought about it, was that something you could have gone to the training team about and asked to develop some training? I think so. Yes.
00:39:46 I think so. Yes. Is that something that you should have done?
00:39:49 done? I think it probably is. Yes.
00:39:54 Thank you. Can we take that document down now, please? Can we go to MPS0749763?
00:40:12 to the next page, please. Thank you. Uh, this is a letter signed by an anonymous UCO who we're calling HN123's
00:40:24 UCO who we're calling HN123's partner. You may wish to consult the cipher list.
00:40:40 Yep. [snorts] The letter is addressed to Mr. Vaness. It's dated the 8th of August, 2002.
00:40:51 Um, and it is a reply to Mr. Vanessa's letter of the 5th of August of that year. Could we have the unredacted text
00:41:02 year. Could we have the unredacted text of that letter expanded, please?
00:42:11 [snorts]
00:42:18 Yes. I don't want you to give specific years, but were their Christmas parties at which you attend? you were present and so was HN123's
00:42:31 so was HN123's partner.
00:42:43 I I can't remember. I I can't remember. Is it likely? It's possible.
00:42:52 Were partners ordered by SDS management to attend? Not of course in the official sense, but in the de facto sense.
00:43:04 sense, but in the de facto sense. No,
00:43:06 No, I don't think so. Were SDS Christmas parties held in public places? No, they were normally held in private
00:43:18 No, they were normally held in private rooms. a private room but in hotels or similar. Yes.
00:43:26 Yes. To which other members of the public were permitted? Not not into the rooms. Those were private I say private rooms but the hotels were public.
00:43:37 hotels were public. Can [snorts] you recall anyone laughing uh about Mr. Pierce's uh conduct undercover? No.
00:43:50 Did you hear undercover [snorts] officers boasting about extrammarital affairs whilst undercover? No.
00:44:01 No. Or in any other way referring to them? No.
00:44:06 No. Either heterosexual or homosexual? No.
00:44:12 No. Did you hear anything to the effect that children had been born as a result of some affairs? No.
00:44:27 Is it possible that HN123's partner did hear things to this effect?
00:44:38 May have done. I don't know. Okay.
00:44:44 Did [snorts] the SDS Christmas party continue throughout your tenure?
00:44:54 I I don't think it did. No. Can you recall when the SDS ceased to have Christmas parties?
00:45:07 I I think my memory serves me right. I think we had
00:45:15 had two
00:45:16 two two Christmas parties. Um would that be 97 and 98 or 97 98 or 98 99? I can't recall. I
00:45:28 or 97 98 or 98 99? I can't recall. I think
00:45:29 think why were there only two? because the SDS officers weren't particularly keen to have Christmas parties.
00:45:41 to have Christmas parties. And what feedback did you receive to that effect? a lack of um lack of interest really
00:45:54 were indiscretions
00:45:58 at the Christmas parties such as those summarized here by 123's partner one of the reasons for ceasing to have
00:46:10 one of the reasons for ceasing to have the parties not not to my knowledge no was another reason that it involved people who knew that officers were
00:46:21 people who knew that officers were having
00:46:22 having sexual relations under cover having to look their partners in the eye with that knowledge. Not not not to my knowledge.
00:46:36 Not not not to my knowledge. Could we take that document down now please? Like to move to the question of welfare arrangements. [snorts] We've seen that there was a
00:46:47 [snorts] We've seen that there was a degree of psychological screening at the recruitment stage during your tenure. Was there any other psychological
00:47:00 Was there any other psychological support provided by professionals whilst you were serving in the SDS?
00:47:10 Yes, there was a sort of ad hoc arrangements with an army uh officer who's a psychiatrist I think
00:47:22 uh officer who's a psychiatrist I think but nothing but nothing formal. That ad hoc arrangement was it again don't identify anybody but was it ever used during your tenure?
00:47:36 used during your tenure? Yes, it was. How often?
00:47:42 Um, not not very often.
00:47:48 Are you able to help us with whether or not it was effective when it was used?
00:47:58 No. There was a mentoring program, wasn't there?
00:48:05 there? There was. Yes. That did require the mentor to contact management in certain circumstances, didn't it?
00:48:16 didn't it? Yes.
00:48:17 Yes. It wasn't entirely confidential.
00:48:22 It was I think when I came it was supposed to be confidential
00:48:32 but I don't think I ever received a a call from a mentor. But those being mentored knew that there were limits to the confidentiality.
00:48:45 were limits to the confidentiality. I would assume so. Yes. And that itself limits the welfare benefit of mentoring, doesn't it?
00:48:56 mentoring, doesn't it? Could do. Yes.
00:49:01 Could we look at 732795, please?
00:49:15 This is a welfare policy. It's dated the 6th of June 1997. It's produced by DCI Edmonson. So, it slightly
00:49:26 Edmonson. So, it slightly precedes
00:49:28 precedes your time. One of the things uh it refers to in the second paragraph on the first page,
00:49:39 first page, if we have that expanded,
00:49:43 is an annual visit to the officer's home.
00:49:54 Can you help us? During your tenure, was there in fact an annual visit to each SDS officer's home?
00:50:06 each SDS officer's home? No, I don't believe so. Can you help us as to why not?
00:50:15 I can't. I'm sorry. I can't recall. There's also reference to psychiatric support during and after deployment.
00:50:26 support during and after deployment. Can I take it from the answer that you gave earlier that all that was available was ad hoc support? Yes. Apart from um
00:50:38 Yes. Apart from um occupational health uh in the metropolitan police in general.
00:50:45 general. Understood. That ad hoc support, was any of it during your ten tenure given to someone post deployment?
00:50:57 No.
00:51:00 It would have been possible, wouldn't it, to put in place a more comprehensive package of professional support, wouldn't it? Yes, it would.
00:51:11 Yes, it would. um with mandatory periodic appointments with trained professionals. Yes.
00:51:22 Yes. Aimed at preventing the development of psychiatric illness as a result of the pressures of acting undercover. Yes,
00:51:33 pressures of acting undercover. Yes, we know there is an extraordinarily high incidence of mental ill health amongst SDS UCOs
00:51:42 SDS UCOs in this era. I'm not confining that to your tenure, but in the trunched three era generally, would you accept that welfare support
00:51:55 would you accept that welfare support for UCOs
00:51:58 for UCOs was inadequate?
00:52:01 I think I would. Yes. and that I'm want to make clear I'm not directing this solely at you, but as one
00:52:12 directing this solely at you, but as one of the heads of the SDS during the relevant period, it was an omission on your part
00:52:24 it was an omission on your part not to put in place a more thorough system of support. Yes. Could
00:52:35 Yes. Could we move now to your handing over uh to your successor DCI Dell? There was unusually quite a extended handover
00:52:48 unusually quite a extended handover period, wasn't there? I can't remember how long we had a hand. Mr. Dell's evidence is that he started with the SDS in May and took over when
00:53:00 with the SDS in May and took over when you retired in July. So that would have him in the SDS for approximately two months when you were still there.
00:53:12 Did you say anything during that handover period to DCIDel about undercover police officers having sexual relationships in their undercover
00:53:23 relationships in their undercover identities?
00:53:26 I don't believe I did know. [clears throat] Or the risk of that happening. I I may have done. I can't recall. Did you say anything to him about Rose's
00:53:40 Did you say anything to him about Rose's then recent efforts to find DC boiling?
00:53:46 I can't recall. Did you say anything about Allison's efforts to trace DC Jenner?
00:53:59 efforts to trace DC Jenner? I
00:53:59 I I I can't recall. Did you say anything to him about Helen Steel's
00:54:07 Steel's effort to trace John Dyn?
00:54:12 I can't remember.
00:54:16 How likely is it that you mentioned any of those things to Mr. Dell?
00:54:26 Um, I don't know. I mean, I I can't recall whether I said anything to him or not about those. Were they matters that you regarded as important or unimportant?
00:54:40 important or unimportant? Probably important.
00:54:45 If you didn't tell him about important matters, why was that? I don't know. I can't I can't recall whether I told him about
00:54:57 I can't recall whether I told him about them or not.
00:55:03 I want to ask you to stand back now um and reflect on your time in the SDS. One of the functions of a public inquiry is
00:55:14 of the functions of a public inquiry is to learn lessons for the future.
00:55:20 I'll be grateful for your reflections first of all about the lack of formal training.
00:55:31 training. I think you've given answers along the way which suggest indicate that you think that more formal training would have been
00:55:40 have been a good idea. Can you give us your reflections having managed the SDS as to how much difference you think formal training
00:55:51 difference you think formal training might have made?
00:55:55 Well, I think it would have enabled the undercar officers to work with a better understanding of what the
00:56:07 with a better understanding of what the risks
00:56:08 risks and legal structure by which they were operating under give them probably more confidence in knowing what they should report and what they shouldn't report.
00:56:20 report and what they shouldn't report. Um
00:56:22 Um and also I think you know a more formal training in fieldcraft would probably be of assistance as well.
00:56:34 of assistance as well. Uh that is an answer directed at the undercover officers. If I now ask you to do the same thing for your own role,
00:56:45 do the same thing for your own role, what benefit do you think formal training
00:56:49 training might have given you which would have made a difference?
00:56:55 I think a a a more authoritative understanding of what
00:57:03 what uh undercover officers could do and couldn't do. um and a more un greater understanding of the risks involved in undercover police work.
00:57:19 A feature of your management was both of your both of the detective inspectors who served under you were former UCOs
00:57:31 who served under you were former UCOs as you were. Do you think it would have been better if at least one of the two of you had not been a former UCO?
00:57:44 not been a former UCO? On reflection, yes, I think it probably would have been. And why do you hold that view? because you have somebody coming in who has um
00:57:55 you have somebody coming in who has um fresh ideas but also doesn't hasn't been uh if you like imbued with
00:58:04 undercover work um the nature of it I think it's a good to have somebody coming in with a with a with a fresh ideas and new head and looks at things in a different way I think as an as a
00:58:17 in a different way I think as an as a former UCO officer So you always look at it in the way that you experienced it where somebody coming in will look at it in a different way.
00:58:29 We've heard a lot of evidence at the inquiry about the impact to both women who were sexually deceived and the partners of undercover police
00:58:40 and the partners of undercover police officers.
00:58:42 officers. And a theme of the evidence appears to be a a failure to address minds to the women, whether they be wives or whether
00:58:55 women, whether they be wives or whether they be deceived women.
00:58:59 What are your reflections as to what steps
00:59:04 steps could be taken to prevent that sort of blind spot occurring in the future?
00:59:16 I think probably a to do with the the wives and partners of of uh undercover officers. I think
00:59:27 of uh undercover officers. I think probably a a greater dialogue between the
00:59:32 the the office, the managers and the couples involved. Um, and I think a a great understanding of how um
00:59:44 understanding of how um being involved in a in a in a sexual relationship as an undercover officer, how that affects um the person that you're having the affair with because
00:59:55 you're having the affair with because eventually you will you will no longer be an undercover officer. Because not to put too fine a point on it, it appears there was a cultural
01:00:07 it, it appears there was a cultural problem with sexism in the form of completely failing to see the perspective of the women and
01:00:19 the perspective of the women and ignoring their welfare. How do you change that sort of culture?
01:00:32 um
01:00:37 by education I suppose
01:00:42 and continual reinforcement. Yes,
01:00:48 Yes, similar points might be made on the question of race and seeing it for example from the perspective of those
01:01:01 perspective of those families campaigning for justice who were black or Asian. Again, it might be said that there was something of a blind spot
01:01:11 spot and racist
01:01:16 attitudes causing them to be overlooked. How do you change that sort of cultural problem?
01:01:28 Well, not dissimilar to my previous answer, by education and by reinforcement. And as a longserving police officer,
01:01:41 police officer, what sort of education do you think would be most effective?
01:01:48 Well, I think a sort of racial racial awareness
01:01:52 awareness um
01:01:55 um courses.
01:01:59 We have interrupted your retirement to question you for the best part of three days now.
01:02:09 days now. What further reflections do you have that might assist the chairman uh to make recommendations to improve undercover policing in the future?
01:02:29 I think a more structured um environment in which uh officers are employed in that field. Um courses is
01:02:40 employed in that field. Um courses is better training, better support.
01:02:50 So those are all my questions. I've had some rule rule 10 in already which I'm grateful for but might I invite you to rise so I can consider any further
01:03:02 rise so I can consider any further questions that have come in uh and then to put them at 3:00 please. Certainly. Um if you're ready to do so at 3, we
01:03:13 Um if you're ready to do so at 3, we will resume then. But um we are not fortunately under considerable pressure of time. Thank you, sir.
01:33:03 Yes. Thank you, sir. HM58. I want to go now to a transcript of Detective Constable Saraki's evidence to this inquiry. Could we have
01:33:16 evidence to this inquiry. Could we have up the transcript please from the 2nd of March of this year starting at page 15 line
01:33:26 line 18
01:33:28 18 HM58 if you start reading at line 18 do ask when you're ready for the page to be turned but I'm going to ask you to read through from here to par to page 17 line
01:33:42 through from here to par to page 17 line Five.
01:34:46 Yeah.
01:35:00 How much of that evidence do you agree?
01:35:06 I mean, I don't recall having any of that conversation at all. So, basically, most of it. [snorts]
01:35:16 [snorts] When you say you don't recall, how much of it is content that you would have communicated
01:35:27 have communicated to DC Saraki if he'd raised the issue with you?
01:35:38 If he'd raised the issue with me, how much would I have how much of that would you have said to him?
01:35:48 Not very much as far as the transcript is concerned. Would you have told him? Would you have given him to understand first of all that sexual relationships had happened
01:35:59 that sexual relationships had happened on the unit in the past? I don't think so. I wasn't aware that they had. [clears throat] Would you have given him to understand that if he was thinking of doing that
01:36:11 that if he was thinking of doing that himself, he should discuss it with you? Absolutely. Yes. And did you give him to understand that there was no absolute prohibition?
01:36:25 there was no absolute prohibition? It wasn't a absolute prohibition. Yes. I didn't agree with this at all.
01:36:35 Is DC Saraki lying here or is this a conversation which is being remembered possibly not entirely accurately?
01:36:53 I think probably a conversation that maybe is not being recorded entirely accurately.
01:37:02 So, some conversation about sexual relationships. We know that Mr. Saraki had three deceitful sexual relationships undercover. Can we take it that whatever conversation did pass between you was
01:37:15 conversation did pass between you was insufficient to stop him? I I mean I I can't recall having a conversation with Mr. Saraki about uh
01:37:27 conversation with Mr. Saraki about uh sexual relationships whilst undercover. I I I mean I I think I refute this entirely.
01:37:33 entirely. And are you sure that you didn't tell him that there had been sexual relationships in the past given [snorts] first
01:37:43 first Helen Steel's pursuit of John Dyn after he exfiltrated and what was what became known about DC
01:37:54 and what was what became known about DC boiling?
01:37:57 No, because I don't think he asked me those questions. I don't think I don't think I had that conversation with him.
01:38:06 Could we have Could you take that down now, please, and have MPS 303191?
01:38:21 This is a report dated the 31st of March 2000
01:38:26 2000 from HN81. Uh, and it is the first report about Lee Lawrence, who I asked you some questions
01:38:37 Lawrence, who I asked you some questions about yesterday. Uh there he's referred to as Lee Gross, the son of Cherry Gross. Uh
01:38:47 Gross. Uh whose shooting in 1985 was the catalyst for serious disorder, wasn't it? Yes.
01:38:58 [snorts] The three reports we went through yesterday relating to Mr. Lee Lawrence, you will remember where about the litigation he'd been involved in, in
01:39:09 litigation he'd been involved in, in particular the failed prosecution of him for racially aggravated assault.
01:39:17 assault. Given the lack of a public order dimension to that reporting about the litigation and given who
01:39:28 and given who Mr. Lawrence was. Could you help us with the importance of the fact that he was linked to Cherry Gross was when it came
01:39:41 linked to Cherry Gross was when it came to SDS reporting on him?
01:39:55 No, I can't. Aart No, I can't. Um, apart from me trying to contacting the MFJ,
01:40:07 contacting MFJ as the son of a woman shot by police in an incident which caused such outrage
01:40:19 an incident which caused such outrage that it provoked serious public disorder?
01:40:23 disorder? Yeah. Was there a concern that there might be a resurgence of that anger?
01:40:32 I suppose that might have been one of the concerns. Yes. All the concern. [clears throat] Was Mr. Lawrence's identity is Cherry Gross's son ever discussed with HN81?
01:40:49 I don't think so. No. can't recall. [sighs]
01:40:56 [sighs] Can we take that down now, please? I took you to a report earlier um in which Mr. Mansfield was listed as a speaker at a meeting of
01:41:07 was listed as a speaker at a meeting of possibly two police consultative committee meetings in North London. Were there any rules about reporting on members of the legal profession?
01:41:23 Not particularly. No. Did you ever hear Mr. Mansfield being referred to as the devil incarnate?
01:41:36 No. Did you ever hear uh Mr. Mansfield being referred to in terms which suggested he
01:41:47 referred to in terms which suggested he was
01:41:48 was a threat to or an enemy of the Metropolitan Police Service? No.
01:41:56 No. Did you ever hear him referred to in terms which suggested he was subversive? No.
01:42:05 No. Did you ever see the registry file that was kept on him?
01:42:16 [snorts] Could we have up please MPS301643?
01:42:26 This is one of HN81's reports. This is the 21st of December 1998.
01:42:37 Give you a moment to look at that. What I'm interested in is what it is saying about Mr. Suresh Grover.
01:43:13 [snorts]
01:43:48 The source code for this intelligence report is B2. What does that mean?
01:43:58 I I can't remember. In broad terms, does it mean it's essentially good, reliable intelligence?
01:44:10 It could be. Mr. Grover takes issue with the truth of some of what is recorded here,
01:44:22 some of what is recorded here, which is a useful example of a problem for those gathering intelligence. How do you know
01:44:31 you know whether what you are gathering is true?
01:44:42 Um,
01:44:47 but I don't think you always do know whether it's true. Does that mean that you can get essentially untested assertions about people, gossip or speculation or opinion
01:45:02 people, gossip or speculation or opinion which is reported in ways which elevate it to
01:45:08 it to author authoritative fact could do. Yes. And that is potentially very problematic, isn't it? Yes. Especially if you are the subject
01:45:22 Yes. Especially if you are the subject of reporting which is not true. Yes.
01:45:29 Thank you. Could we take that down? Uh
01:45:34 I think it's not controversial but just to check there was no formal whistleblowing policy within the SDS was there?
01:45:44 there? No. Not to my knowledge. No. What was the root if someone of complaint? If someone thought there was
01:45:56 complaint? If someone thought there was serious wrongdoing going on,
01:46:02 they would probably report it to their manager.
01:46:07 manager. [snorts]
01:46:08 [snorts] It's a very difficult thing, isn't it, to blow the whistle on wrongdoing? Yes. Particularly in a tightlyknit
01:46:19 Yes. Particularly in a tightlyknit unit which values loyalty. Yes.
01:46:23 Yes. And is secretive? Yes.
01:46:26 Yes. Would it have been a good idea for there to have been a clearly established well set out avenue to blow the whistle.
01:46:38 avenue to blow the whistle. Yes.
01:46:39 Yes. which might have provided for someone for example to skip their immediate manager if their immediate manager was the problem. Yes.
01:46:52 Yes. Finally, can you help us with whether you have spoken to any other former SDS officers or managers before providing your witness statements to the inquiry?
01:47:06 your witness statements to the inquiry? No.
01:47:09 No. Sir, those are all my questions. Thank you. Is there any re-examination?
01:47:16 Um, thank you for giving evidence over 3 days. I'm afraid your task is not completed because as you know, you have to return to one of our closed sessions,
01:47:27 to return to one of our closed sessions, but that should be shorter. Thank you, sir.
01:47:34 We will um uh resume at 10:00 on Thursday.