HN53, a former SDS undercover officer in the 1980s who served as Detective Inspector managing the unit from October 1998 to September 2005, gives voice-modulated evidence about recruitment, the tradecraft manual's guidance on sexual relationships, and a string of undisclosed relationships conducted by UCOs under his command - Mark Jenner, Jim Boiling, HN26 and others. Much of the session focuses on the activist 'Rosa', who repeatedly contacted the SDS office searching for Jim Boiling in 2000, and on an SDS billing application that misrepresented her as a threat of criminal damage and public disorder.
00:28:38 Good morning everybody. Uh today's evidence will be uh broadcast over the live link but only by voice and with voice modulation uh and after a 15minute
00:28:52 voice modulation uh and after a 15minute gap. Those with mobile telephones in the uh part of the hearing room which is uh uh behind the screens may use them to
00:29:03 uh behind the screens may use them to report what they hear in the hearing room but only after a 15-minute delay uh has occurred since the event that they're reporting. They may not be used for recording. Yes.
00:29:23 So, we're going to swear the uh witness now.
00:29:27 now. Good morning. Good morning. Can you hear me? Okay.
00:29:41 Can you hear me? Okay.
00:29:48 I think HN53, you can hear us, but we can't hear you. muted Z to unmute his Zoom. HM53, please could you unmute on your
00:29:59 HM53, please could you unmute on your Zoom. Thank you. [clears throat] We can hear you now loud and clear. Thanks.
00:30:04 Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Um, could you please hold the Bible in your right hand and repeat after me? I swear by Almighty God I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give
00:30:16 that the evidence I shall give that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth shall be the truth. The whole truth. The whole truth. And nothing but the truth. And nothing but the truth. Thank you.
00:30:28 You have been granted anonymity. So I will refer to you by the nominal. You've been given HN53. HN53. You already provided a witness statement to the inquiry uh in relation
00:30:41 statement to the inquiry uh in relation to your undercover uh deployment. But in terms of your management in the SDS, you also provided three statements. Yes, that is. Yes. Um, those are dated the 31st of July 2024,
00:30:55 those are dated the 31st of July 2024, the 28th of October 2024, and the 13th of February this year. Yes.
00:31:02 Yes. Um, are the contents of each of those three statements uh, correct? Yes.
00:31:10 Yes. You were an SDS undercover police officer in the 1980s. Yes, I was. And after your deployment had come to an end, you
00:31:23 your deployment had come to an end, you were later approached by Bob Lambert. Is that is that right? Yes, I was. Yes. C could you help us with the circumstances
00:31:34 could you help us with the circumstances in which he approached you for the first time in relation to becoming a manager in the SDS? I I I don't recall how he contacted me
00:31:46 I I I don't recall how he contacted me in the first place, whether by phone or a chance meeting, but we uh met at a uh in either Green Park or St. James's Park. I think it was Green Park. Uh St.
00:31:57 Park. I think it was Green Park. Uh St. James's Park, I think it pardon. Um and basically Bob explained that he was uh moving on from his role as the DI in on
00:32:09 moving on from his role as the DI in on the unit. uh and that I was uh being considered for the post and was I interested at that stage. How would you describe
00:32:20 at that stage. How would you describe your relationship with Bob Lambert? Is he a friend, a colleague? What would your description be at that point when he approached you? At that point, I would I would put that
00:32:32 At that point, I would I would put that both as a friend and a colleague.
00:32:38 In your statement, you refer to your experience as a UCO and the way in which you describe it is that that was just one part of your selection as a manager and what you've just described it sounds
00:32:51 and what you've just described it sounds like a relatively informal approach by Bob Lambert. Was there anything more to the selection exercise? Um I I I don't recall that there was or
00:33:04 Um I I I don't recall that there was or there was there was certainly no formal interview or other um process to go through. Um I I uh
00:33:15 uh I I I don't think that there was any other um as I said no other formal process for it.
00:33:26 process for it. Looking back on it now, does it seem to you that it was overly informal a process? In other words, Bob Lambert, who you described as a friend,
00:33:37 who you described as a friend, contacting you, asking you whether you want to be put forward to the post of DI in the SDS, you indicated yes, you would be interested, and then you end up
00:33:48 be interested, and then you end up replacing him. Looking back on that now, do you think it was overfully informal? It it it is informal and it reflected the perhaps the the um the way that um
00:34:00 the perhaps the the um the way that um recruitment was carried out uh for that particular post. uh and this is really I think a consequence of the the
00:34:11 the family um nature of special branch that uh most people knew everyone else and reputations were tried and tested and
00:34:22 reputations were tried and tested and known about within the branch and I perhaps got the sense that when Bob approached me for this he was doing it on behalf of the management uh within
00:34:34 on behalf of the management uh within the STS and I included the senior management um of that. Um so in that sense it was edging between the informal and the formal. It was Bob's
00:34:46 and the formal. It was Bob's relationship with me having worked with him before um was the simply the mechanism for that approach. So no no point in having a series of formal interviews with you because you
00:34:58 formal interviews with you because you were a known quantity. Is that I think that's what I'm trying to say. Yes. To what extent does that also apply to UCO recruitment? How would you distinguish? You described an informal
00:35:11 distinguish? You described an informal approach to your posting as a as a DI, but how did that compare to the recruitment of UCOs? Well, I think there is um um a certain
00:35:23 Well, I think there is um um a certain amount of that in the selection of UCOs. Um the I think the the difference is that at the um DI level and perhaps the office DS level you're talking about
00:35:36 office DS level you're talking about individuals who have been much longer within the branch and are whose whose u experience knowledge and way of working is better known about whereas the UCOs
00:35:49 is better known about whereas the UCOs would be recruited from a pool of newer officers to special branch all of whom would have experience of some sort and reputation but it would be part of the
00:36:00 reputation but it would be part of the process as far as UCOs were concerned and then there would be [clears throat] a more defined process to to select them.
00:36:11 them. You
00:36:13 You occupied the rank of DI in the SDS from October 1998 to September 2005. a period of nearly just under seven years
00:36:24 of nearly just under seven years taking over from Bob Lambert when you first started and took over from him. To what extent, if any, was there a handover by Bob Lambert to you? So you
00:36:35 handover by Bob Lambert to you? So you you began in post 19th of October 1998. You're now a DI in the SDS taking over from Bob Lambert. But how did he help
00:36:47 from Bob Lambert. But how did he help prepare you for that role? Did he for example talk about the individual officers that you would be overseeing? Could you describe for us any handover
00:36:58 Could you describe for us any handover process?
00:36:59 process? The the only [clears throat] um if you like handover um that took place was a a visit to one of the flats to meet the
00:37:10 visit to one of the flats to meet the team. Um I I I'm assuming from memory before um I actually joined um and during the course of that at the meeting
00:37:22 during the course of that at the meeting um Bob and other manage management officers would have run through uh the individual operations of uh individuals who would themselves have also explained
00:37:34 who would themselves have also explained it. But in the sense of uh any handover from Bob Lambert the apart from the initial recruiting recruitment meeting and any dialogue that took place at the
00:37:46 and any dialogue that took place at the meeting um that was that was it as far as Orlando was concerned. And so at this meeting were the UCOs there?
00:37:55 there? Yes it was. Yes, it it was a one of the bi-weekly meetings um that I went along to and was introduced um and they introduced themselves to me.
00:38:07 introduced themselves to me. [clears throat] And just so we get an idea, one of the twice weekly meetings is the one that you attended as your introductory meeting. Are we talking about a 45 minute 1-hour meeting? Was it much
00:38:18 minute 1-hour meeting? Was it much longer than that from memory? I'm I'm I'm guessing the meeting would have lasted about an hour, 3/4 an hour, an hour and but I don't remember whether we
00:38:29 hour and but I don't remember whether we then went into clubs or clusters or or whatever but it would have been bear in mind I wouldn't have had transport to the meeting other than courtesy of the
00:38:40 the meeting other than courtesy of the office. Uh I would have been there for the duration of the meeting. Now, as I indicated, you had been a DI in the SDS for some seven years. And so during that time, a number of UCOs came through the
00:38:52 time, a number of UCOs came through the SDS.
00:38:53 SDS. Yes.
00:38:54 Yes. But I just want to go through and of course we will descend into the detail of their deployments in due course. But particularly looking at that early meeting, uh was HN26,
00:39:05 meeting, uh was HN26, so cover name Christine Green, was she one of those that was there at that initial meeting? Well, she was certainly serving at that time. I'm assuming that everyone was at that meeting, but I I
00:39:17 everyone was at that meeting, but I I don't remember if it was a full house or not, but she was certainly there at that time.
00:39:21 time. And in terms of the description of these officers deployments, was it
00:39:27 was it general areas where they were deployed or was there any aspect of this early meeting
00:39:36 meeting where problems were expressed? So for example, this officer's had this difficulty, this has arisen in this deployment. Anything of that nature or or was it all
00:39:47 Anything of that nature or or was it all quite positive? Uh this this officer is involved in this area, doing good work here, doing good work there just a sort of general what's your recollection of the nature of your interaction with
00:39:59 the nature of your interaction with UCOs?
00:40:00 UCOs? I don't remember any particular um issues major or otherwise being discussed [clears throat] there but my memory is that it was all really a
00:40:11 memory is that it was all really a positive presentation a broad brush presentation from each of them. presentation is probably too strong a word but just an account of what they
00:40:22 word but just an account of what they were doing and just in terms of this particular point in time uh Mark Jenner was he he would have been at that meeting in relation to him is
00:40:34 at that meeting in relation to him is your answer the same that you don't recall any specifics it was just a general [clears throat] introduction it was a general introduction to all of them yes
00:40:42 them yes again Jim Boiling he would have been there at at the time. Any particular recollection of him back then in in that first meeting? No, not from that one.
00:40:54 No, not from that one. Uh HN81, so cover name David Hagen again. Anything particular that you recall at that stage? No.
00:41:05 No. James Thompson? Yes, he was there. Do you
00:41:09 Do you Sorry, he would have been there. Yes. And the reason you're saying that is it because the meeting was a long time ago. You don't have a particular because I don't remember whether it was 100% or not. All right. Um HN60 who had cover name uh
00:41:24 All right. Um HN60 who had cover name uh Dave Evans. Do you uh recall him at all at that time doing that? Okay.
00:41:33 Okay. Hn3 cover name Jason Bishop
00:41:38 again. Yes. I think he had started by then. Yes.
00:41:42 Yes. Now, in terms of other officers that were in the SDS after this meeting uh began, is is it correct that the other deployments that took place during your tenure
00:41:54 that took place during your tenure included Carlos Saraki? Yes.
00:41:58 Yes. HN 77 cover name uh Jackie Anderson. Yes.
00:42:04 Yes. Uh HN118 Simon Wellings. Yes. towards the end of your time in the SDS. Uh, Robert Hastings. Yes.
00:42:15 Yes. Again, towards the end, HN66.
00:42:23 Yes. And I don't want you to give any dates, but another officer, HN 91, which I think should be on your list. Yes.
00:42:32 Yes. All right. I wonder if we could please um turn uh up a document in the bundle. So it's at your tab B63. It's MPS 0527313
00:42:46 your tab B63. It's MPS 0527313 HN53. Do you have a screen uh to hand? Can you see the document? It should say cover sheet on the the page there. Is that right? Yes, I've got that. Yes.
00:42:57 Yes, I've got that. Yes. I wonder if we can turn to page three in that document, please. Now this is part of a branch note which related to a
00:43:08 part of a branch note which related to a visit um to the uh SDS uh by HMIC in January 1999. And so this would have been prepared for that visit.
00:43:21 would have been prepared for that visit. But we can see there there's a there's a helpful chart setting out the uh structure of the uh SDS at that uh
00:43:32 structure of the uh SDS at that uh level. And so uh is it correct um that u at this stage your DCI was HN 58?
00:43:44 at this stage your DCI was HN 58? Yes, he was. Uh he was your DCI, wasn't he? up to about the middle of 2001 and then uh DCI Michael Dell took over from him in that
00:43:56 Michael Dell took over from him in that position.
00:43:57 position. Yes, that's right. Yes. Now, we can see there the DS's below you. So, we've got uh DS null War,
00:44:08 you. So, we've got uh DS null War, Steven Tiddy, and Bernard Greeny. So those are the three DS's that were under your command when you first joined as DI
00:44:19 your command when you first joined as DI uh in 1998. Yes. Yes. Yes.
00:44:22 Yes. Yes. And then as time went on other DS's replaced them and so the other DS's included HN9, HN30
00:44:33 HN30 also Ron Gilbertson and to again towards the end Steven Beiels. Yes.
00:44:41 Yes. It's not on that chart, but if we went up the ranks in terms of the commanders, head of special branch, was it when you joined Barry Moss was commander?
00:44:54 joined Barry Moss was commander? Uh Barry Moss would have been commander. Yes.
00:44:56 Yes. And then he was replaced by Roger Pierce from 1999 to 2003. Yes. And then from 2003, the last year, two years of your role as DI, Janet
00:45:09 two years of your role as DI, Janet Williams took over from him. Does does that accord with your recollection? I think there was Colin Black in the middle somewhere as commander,
00:45:23 but I can't remember which order. If we turn to page 11 in the document that we have here,
00:45:36 I wonder if we can just go up towards the top of the page. So again, this is still part of the same documents. And we can see here there's a summary on
00:45:48 And we can see here there's a summary on a page of your role as detective, inspector in the uh SDS. So we can see as we've seen from the previous chart
00:45:59 as we've seen from the previous chart that you reported to the DCI who at the time was HN58.
00:46:06 Yes. And we can see your responsibilities. So line management of SDS field and office staff assisting in the formulation of targeting strategy for SDS operations
00:46:18 targeting strategy for SDS operations on an operational level. implementing the agreed SDS targeting strategy by overseeing the intelligence management carried out by the three office DS's.
00:46:30 carried out by the three office DS's. And so these bullet points are are they accurate?
00:46:35 accurate? Yes, I think so. And so just to conclude what's set out here, deputizing for HN58 in all areas of his responsibility, so
00:46:48 in all areas of his responsibility, so helping him maintaining the security of the SDS operation, liaison with other police departments, recruitment, uh welfare, but also financial
00:47:00 uh welfare, but also financial supervision of SDS funds. So in terms of a job description if you like would you agree that that is an accurate description of it?
00:47:11 description of it? I think that's a certainly in the early stages of my deployment there that would that would be an accurate reflection. Um it it changed to some extent but by or
00:47:23 it it changed to some extent but by or it it really developed um so that more of the the lower bullet points became a primary um responsibility but the other
00:47:38 primary um responsibility but the other um the first three bullet points did did still remain there. Um so it was it was more emphasis um much more emphasis on the the final bullet point the fourth bullet point um for a range of uh
00:47:53 bullet point um for a range of uh because of a range of circumstances.
00:47:57 So are you saying that in although your role was DI that as your time progressed in that role, you took on more and more
00:48:09 in that role, you took on more and more of the DCI responsibilities? Would would that be fair? Is that what you're saying about the change of emphasis? Not not not really the not not really the DCI responsibilities. I think the
00:48:20 the DCI responsibilities. I think the first um uh page that you put up had um operational manager as uh the DI's role. I think that was how I started um under
00:48:38 excuse me HM58.
00:48:43 HM58. Um that changed fairly quickly [clears throat] to um dealing with the uh the the four sorry the five elements
00:48:54 uh the the four sorry the five elements of the fourth bullet point which um from uh almost the time that I started began to be [clears throat] consume much more of um
00:49:06 of um our time and and needed much more of a focus if you like. or just to be clear, where was where did your focus um go to as a as a a specific bullet point or a
00:49:18 as a as a a specific bullet point or a specific um area? Could you just be clear about about that? the I'm really talking about the um the elements of of uh welfare provision for
00:49:30 elements of of uh welfare provision for the unit uh financial uh management um of the unit and then the um
00:49:41 I'm sorry I just need to answer
00:49:54 um and the in in operation muscat and the fallout from uh the TV documentary. Okay. But those those elements became
00:50:05 Okay. But those those elements became which were um over overall the responsibility of the DCI but some of that had been the responsibility of the princes the DS's and or the DI but they
00:50:17 princes the DS's and or the DI but they they consume more time because you had been a UCO in the SDS in the 1980s and so you come back in from
00:50:28 the 1980s and so you come back in from 1998 into the SDS. Could you just help us with your of course you're now a manager, not an undercover officer, but could you help us with the impression that you received as to what had changed
00:50:43 that you received as to what had changed or whether anything really had changed in that intervening period? So from the 1980s when you were deployed to when you were a manager, what were the sort of
00:50:54 were a manager, what were the sort of changes that you noted either in culture, procedure, anything that impacted on you when you first rejoined the SDS?
00:51:02 the SDS? If I if I went back to that that first meeting just before I joined to meet the team, I I came away with the impression almost that the only thing that had
00:51:14 almost that the only thing that had changed in many respects was the personalities of individuals. But when I joined, I I felt it was a [clears throat] much more um
00:51:27 [clears throat] much more um I'm not sure whether um
00:51:32 um a much more professional and polished outfit, which was a result, that's not to criticize what had happened before in terms of how the unit was run, but it [clears throat] I think it was it was
00:51:44 [clears throat] I think it was it was seemed to me a product of uh positive development um of ways of carrying out the work. Um and uh
00:51:56 ways of carrying out the work. Um and uh what hadn't changed for me was the um high ability of the officers deployed.
00:52:08 Now you you said the personalities had changed.
00:52:14 changed. Obviously, they're different UCOs to your uh counterparts and colleagues when you were in the SDS in the 1980s, but were was the nature of their
00:52:25 were was the nature of their personalities different? Were they more outgoing? Were they how was there any real sort of change in their in their manner? You've referred to professionalism, but there's any change?
00:52:37 professionalism, but there's any change? No, I think it's it's rather like um anything in life that that there was a group of individuals and there would be quiet individuals, there would be extrovert, introvert,
00:52:49 extrovert, introvert, um some outgoing, some not outgoing, but um all um marked by um a high degree of ability and for me
00:53:03 a high degree of ability and for me integrity [clears throat] and ability to to go out and do the job on her own.
00:53:14 In what way was it more or did it strike you as being more professional and more polished? Could you just give us an example
00:53:25 us an example of that? Why? Of course, sort of as time goes by with the technology and the introduction of more of computers, but what was it that struck you as much more professional and
00:53:37 you as much more professional and polished?
00:53:40 polished? Well, I think the um I I suppose you would say that the
00:53:49 quality of information [clears throat] seemed to be um
00:53:57 um of a high high standard. I mean that it's all relative. Um and I think but I think the the the management of the product of that information
00:54:09 product of that information um struck me although I wasn't involved in the
00:54:14 in the intelligence management when I was at UCO but it struck me that this that things had improved so that the information that flowed through from the
00:54:25 information that flowed through from the individual officers um was
00:54:31 was had a higher degree of integrity and value. I think um
00:54:38 um was your initial view that these officers had a high degree of integrity? Uh
00:54:47 Uh would you agree that that was shown to be misplaced to that impression that well here here are officers with a high degree of ability and integrity that that impression was incorrect with the
00:55:00 that impression was incorrect with the benefit of hindsight. Would you accept that?
00:55:02 that? With the benefit of hindsight there are instances where that was not true.
00:55:17 Again, we will go into individual deployments, but is that not understating the position to say that well, there were instances where officers did not act with integrity?
00:55:31 officers did not act with integrity? Was it not widespread amongst the UCOs this lack of integrity? Well, I I certainly didn't think so at the time,
00:55:43 the time, but knowing what you know now, would you accept that this is not just a few instances, but it it was widespread the
00:55:54 instances, but it it was widespread the questionable integrity of the UCOs that were ultimately under your command. I I I wouldn't say widespread because I I I believe that the majority of
00:56:07 I I believe that the majority of officers who went through did have high standards of integrity.
00:56:14 Just referring to a few examples at this stage and the officers the list that we went through um earlier. Uh HN26 Christine Green uh had an inappropriate
00:56:28 Christine Green uh had an inappropriate relationship during her undercover deployment and ended up leaving not just the SDS but the police
00:56:39 the police I believe. Yes. Uh, HN15, inappropriate relationships. Mark Jenner, yes.
00:56:47 yes. Jim Boiling, inappropriate relationships. Yes.
00:56:52 Yes. James Thompson, amongst other things, inappropriate relationships. Yes.
00:56:58 Yes. Suggestion now that HN60 Dave Evans also had an inappropriate relationship.
00:57:07 Yes. Uh, Carlos Saraki, inappropriate relationships. Yes.
00:57:15 Yes. Uh, HN91,
00:57:18 Uh, HN91, inappropriate relationship.
00:57:23 Yes. So, just a a quick counter through those officers again in terms of the suggestion that there were instances of lack of integrity. If someone were to
00:57:35 lack of integrity. If someone were to say it was widespread, this is not a case of a couple of or a few bad apples. It was widespread in the UCOs, would you not accept that?
00:57:49 Well, I have um numerically yes, that's the way it looks. Yes. One of the things that you mentioned in your statement is that that had changed
00:58:03 your statement is that that had changed when you rejoined as a DI was that the DS's were directly responsible for various groups of the UCOs. Do you recall uh saying that in your
00:58:15 Do you recall uh saying that in your statement I could I can refer you say uh frequent direct contact between the UCO and their DS handler or cover officer. This was an improvement over my time as a UCO uh because HDS was directly
00:58:28 a UCO uh because HDS was directly responsible for a small number of UCOs which allowed them to get to know them better as individuals thereby making it more likely that changes in behavior or attitude would be noticed and addressed.
00:58:40 attitude would be noticed and addressed. So is that one of the differences that you recall? Yes. Yes, it is. That that would be quite [clears throat] a change from before. Was there a problem with that in relation to
00:58:54 there a problem with that in relation to overseeing the UCOs that because the DS's as you've described it, they were there as cover officers or handlers
00:59:05 there as cover officers or handlers that you relied on them a lot more than perhaps you otherwise would do in relation to the way in which these officers were conducting their deployments.
00:59:18 conducting their deployments. Did you defer to the use uh the the DS's? So, for example, not too concerned about the way in which this these deployments are running, how whether they're being run uh professionally
00:59:29 they're being run uh professionally because I can rely on for example uh DS Bernie Greeny and I know that he's overseeing officers and so if there was anything um he he has the his ear to the ground. Was there was that part of the
00:59:42 ground. Was there was that part of the problem that there was over reliance on the DS's to monitor the UCOs? No, I think that that's that's um simply delegation of responsibility.
00:59:54 delegation of responsibility. Um and uh division the the division of efforts on that meant that fewer officers were sorry
01:00:09 fewer officers had a single uh point of contact rather than all of the team having the point of contact with just the DI.
01:00:21 and and I I'm not sure um whether the that direct oversight um
01:00:31 um has had changed significantly um from my time to the time that I joined. Um it it it [clears throat] became it was more refined I think uh
01:00:43 became it was more refined I think uh when I joined. forum. Going back to the document that we have up on screen, can you see three bullet points from the bottom of the page that
01:00:54 points from the bottom of the page that reference to uh one of your responsibilities uh for uh recruitment? Yes.
01:00:59 Yes. Now I'm going to ask could we take this document down because I want to ask you about another document which is sir your tab B81. It is MPS073191
01:01:12 please. So what we're going to bring up on screen this is we can see file note it's headed recruitment we've dated this document uh the 28th of May 1999
01:01:26 document uh the 28th of May 1999 it relates uh to uh interviews that were conducted
01:01:33 conducted with uh potential uh recruits and I wonder if we please turn to page six in this document.
01:01:44 So we can see there this is one of the interview days uh SDS selection interviews Friday the 28th of May 1999 and we can see there 9:30 in the morning
01:01:56 and we can see there 9:30 in the morning Carlos Saraki and then 11:30 uh later in the morning HN77 at this point they were candidates and below that we can see your DCI 58
01:02:08 and below that we can see your DCI 58 yourself HN50 53 but also one of the DS's null war were on the interview uh panel.
01:02:15 panel. Yes, that's right. And we'll go through does this look familiar to you this this document? It it [clears throat] does. Yes. And
01:02:27 And do you recall at this stage of recruitment that the candidates were presented with a number of scenarios
01:02:38 presented with a number of scenarios and part of your role was to see how the candidate responded to various scenarios. It was yes.
01:02:49 It was yes. the scenarios that were and there are a number of them. Were they scenarios that presented
01:02:57 presented things that could happen uh during their deployment? For example, an officer being asked to drink, drive, or to take drugs that practically things that could
01:03:08 drugs that practically things that could arise and probably would arise at some point during their deployment. Yes, there were hypothetical situations that were designed to test what the the applicants reaction would be.
01:03:20 applicants reaction would be. Did you have any input into the questions? Did the DS draft them? Can you can you remember who was responsible for creating these types of documents? I
01:03:32 for creating these types of documents? I I probably contributed to it and I I suspect that it would have been done on you know as a joint exercise at the office
01:03:42 office so that there was a wider range as wide a range of um possibilities situations which I suspect it was a joint effort. We're on page six at the moment. So I'm
01:03:54 We're on page six at the moment. So I'm going to ask if we could please skip forward just have we'll have a quick look at the next page so we just have an idea of the scenarios there. We can see
01:04:05 idea of the scenarios there. We can see this is scenario that is presented by your DCI HN 58. In fact I'm I'm going to fast forward through these. I wonder if you could just go to the next page
01:04:16 you could just go to the next page as it's setting out various instances of what might happen. If you look at number four,
01:04:24 so here both before and during the journey, you become increasingly aware that Baz's interest is rather more romantic than strictly political. And as you pull up
01:04:37 strictly political. And as you pull up outside his her house, he she invites you in to spend the night. Uh how would you react? Now, it's quite a striking
01:04:48 you react? Now, it's quite a striking example. Do you remember if you had any input into this particular question? Appreciate it's a long time ago HN53, but does that ring any bells? I I would say probably yes, I I would
01:05:00 I I would say probably yes, I I would have contributed to that.
01:05:06 What was the reason that you asked the candidates and and on this particular day
01:05:14 day asking Carlos Saraki who we know went on to have inappropriate relationships but also HN7
01:05:22 also HN7 questioned in a similar manner on this day. Why did you or HN58 ask them uh this question about how they would
01:05:35 uh this question about how they would react to
01:05:39 someone an activist inviting the UCO in to spend the night? What was the purpose of asking that question? Well, rather like um some of the other questions, um we wanted to um establish
01:05:54 questions, um we wanted to um establish how well the individual would be able to [clears throat] extricate themselves from that situation uh as cleanly as possible.
01:06:06 possible. Would you agree with this that th this question
01:06:10 question shows that sexual encounters with activists was a real practical um issue for UCO deployments?
01:06:23 um issue for UCO deployments? I think I would respond to that to say that it was considered at the time a possibility along with other possibilities, you know, in the context
01:06:35 possibilities, you know, in the context of drugs or or other uh issues like that.
01:06:42 that. Now, [clears throat] we don't have on this document. We've just got the the typed document from the SDS hard drive. We don't have you can see it says comments so we don't have handwritten
01:06:54 comments so we don't have handwritten notes underneath it but do you have any recollection um of either Carlos Saraki or indeed HN77 how they approached this particular
01:07:05 how they approached this particular section
01:07:07 section of the scenario test? Um I'm sorry I I don't specifically but um my uh assessment now would be that the based
01:07:19 assessment now would be that the based on the fact that they were accepted into the unit I I would um suggest that the answers from both of them including Carlo
01:07:29 Carlo were that they [clears throat] provided a realistic and um objective answer to that um
01:07:41 answer to that um in the sense of extricating themselves and and not um progressing the romantic side anymore.
01:07:52 anymore. If I can put it this way, was there a was there a right answer? Was there a wrong answer to this question? Well, there is a wrong answer and that would be to continue the physical side, the
01:08:05 be to continue the physical side, the the um the romantic side, that would be the wrong answer. So, if a if a candidate said um I would have had um sex with the activist in
01:08:17 have had um sex with the activist in order to maintain cover, um if they were to say that in interview at this stage, what would be the consequence of that? Well, the the process wouldn't have
01:08:29 Well, the the process wouldn't have continued. As far as I'm speaking for myself, the interview would not have continued and the application wouldn't have continued. Why? Why not? Because it's not appropriate.
01:08:44 But why is it not appropriate in your mind?
01:08:48 mind? Well, it it's not um it would not be professional. It would be [clears throat] um compromising uh the individual security. Um
01:09:01 security. Um it would [clears throat] um
01:09:05 um not be consistent with the trust that is placed in the officer as a UCO.
01:09:15 Did did you ever explicitly say that to the UCOs that were under your command? Um I I'm fairly sure I did. I'm I
01:09:27 Um I I'm fairly sure I did. I'm I understand that I did to [clears throat] um one of the um officers. Uh and I'm certainly aware that um uh I I recall a meeting that Mike Dell had with the team
01:09:41 meeting that Mike Dell had with the team where he specifically um
01:09:47 specifically said that any relationship um within the unit or sorry within Yes. within the units or outside would result
01:09:59 within the units or outside would result in the individual um leaving the unit immediately. Now we will come back to that particular meeting
01:10:10 meeting where Mike Dell said what you have said that he said and we will we will go into that in some detail but at this point do you remember when
01:10:21 you remember when Mike Dell said that to the UCOs when when you were present? Do do you have
01:10:30 I'm sorry I don't know when that was but don't worry we will return to it and I wonder I might be able to assist you by looking at other documents around that time but just going back to what you've
01:10:41 time but just going back to what you've just said is that there was this meeting where Mike Dell was clear about the position but you say that you recall that you mentioned this to another
01:10:53 that you mentioned this to another officer as well. Was that outside of that meeting where DCIL was um was very clear the position? This was a separate this is a a document that I've seen and I'm sorry I can't
01:11:04 that I've seen and I'm sorry I can't remember which officer it it was from. Um but the comment from the officer was that I had raised that I had made that explicit.
01:11:14 explicit. All right. Um [snorts] but I don't I don't recall specific occasions when I've made that that point. Okay.
01:11:26 Knowing what you know now, would you agree that the fact that UCO should not have any form of sexual relationship with um
01:11:39 form of sexual relationship with um those that they are spying on should have been made clear not just them being told but in documentation when they joined
01:11:51 joined with the benefit of hindsight. Yes. Could we take that document down and go to MPS073163?
01:12:01 Sir, this is your tab B155. HN53. This is another set of selection interviews. We're moving forward in time. We were looking at 1999. So, we're
01:12:13 time. We were looking at 1999. So, we're now 2001.
01:12:15 now 2001. We can see there that one of the applicants on the 30th of January 2001 was HN118 and we can just
01:12:26 January 2001 was HN118 and we can just see in the terms of the panel there was HN58U
01:12:30 HN58U HM53 and also Steve Titty. Yes. And so it's a slightly different uh format. But again, does this uh look familiar to you in terms of the layout
01:12:42 familiar to you in terms of the layout of the uh interview uh script? And again, we don't have the details, but the comments there's space to put comments underneath. Yeah. Yes, it looks like it. Again, if we turn forward here to page
01:12:56 Again, if we turn forward here to page three, [snorts] please. So, we can see uh sex and drugs and rock and roll. Um and you can just make out says skills, moral and ethical
01:13:07 says skills, moral and ethical boundaries, creativity, use of legend, awareness, moral dilemas, levels of commitment, different values in society. Now we can see the the numbers 1 to five
01:13:20 Now we can see the the numbers 1 to five next to uh that. Do you remember sort of ticking those as as you went through these questions in terms of the way in which they were answered? I do, but I
01:13:31 which they were answered? I do, but I don't recall whether five was the highest or the optimum or one was the optimum. But but yes, that that would make sense. Uh we can see that you're at a social
01:13:44 Uh we can see that you're at a social event with your weareries, had a couple of drinks, one of the leading lights in the organization asks you to drive them home. What do you do? So this is a test in relation to drink driving. Uh, and I
01:13:56 in relation to drink driving. Uh, and I is it correct that if the answer that was given was, well, even though I've had too much to drink, I don't want to break cover, I would still drive. Would that be, if I can describe it as a deal breaker or what was the attitude of the
01:14:09 breaker or what was the attitude of the SDS or or the interview panel to that question?
01:14:14 question? Well, if if the answer was that I would get um straight in the car and drive when I was drunk, then that would certainly be a marker. um a negative
01:14:25 certainly be a marker. um a negative marker in terms of how we would assess the uh the candidate um and uh and uh and then consideration of the
01:14:38 and uh and then consideration of the answers on the the the ensuing question. Well, let's go to those ensuing question so we can see the next one. As you are over the limit, the same weary offers to share a cab home with you. When you get to your place, they do a bunk from the
01:14:50 to your place, they do a bunk from the cab. What do you do? So this is uh testing this uh committing a criminal offense. And again in relation to the answer to this, would
01:15:01 in relation to the answer to this, would there be a wrong answer? So for example, if the undercover officer said, uh I wouldn't want to break cover, so I would just run away from the cab as well. Would that would that be depending on
01:15:13 Would that would that be depending on the way in which they answered it, it wouldn't be necessarily a deal breaker as a question? There would be it it it it would depend on how the individual [clears throat] answers the question.
01:15:26 [clears throat] answers the question. Next part of the scenario. When the cab has finally gone, the weary invites herself in for coffee and then offers you a joint so that you can both relax. What do you do? And again in terms of I
01:15:39 What do you do? And again in terms of I if for example the the candidates indicated well if it was um uh cannabis I would have uh joined in order not to break cover but nothing in relation to
01:15:51 break cover but nothing in relation to hard drugs that that's the sort of answers that you would be looking for. Is that right? Yes it would. The whole thing is meant to be an exercise in in the judgment of the
01:16:04 exercise in in the judgment of the individuals in terms of of trying to extricate themselves from situations that they uh shouldn't be in. The scenario continues over the page
01:16:16 The scenario continues over the page please.
01:16:18 please. So the top question when you have both had coffee it becomes obvious that she has no intention of leaving before the morning. what do you do? So, this is
01:16:31 morning. what do you do? So, this is another uh question about what the UCA would do when faced uh with um the possibility of having sex with an
01:16:44 um the possibility of having sex with an activist. Is that right? Yes. And and and all of those questions are a refinement of the previous question that um um you you asked me about just now. So,
01:16:56 about just now. So, a a repeat question in the interviews is the officer's reaction to the possibility of having sex. It's a common question.
01:17:07 question. Yes.
01:17:09 Yes. Can you recall whether it featured, as far as you're aware, in all the interviews that you conducted, the question about the sexual relationship or the the uh the question about us uh
01:17:23 or the the uh the question about us uh having sex with an activist, whether that scenario appeared in every one of the interviews as a question. I'm not aware that this format changed.
01:17:37 I'm not aware that this format changed. Um so I would guess that um the the broad question would have been asked of all of the candidates from this or the time of the previous um document you
01:17:50 time of the previous um document you showed.
01:17:51 showed. Now the these for example this document we have HN118. He's one of the individuals uh who uh is being interviewed on this day. Um he was a
01:18:03 interviewed on this day. Um he was a cover named Simon Welling. So he's being interviewed on this day. there's another officer or or another candidate that is being interviewed who doesn't who's not s not not successful and that their name is redacted out.
01:18:15 is redacted out. Can you recall whether officers or candidates gave answers to the effect that they would have sex with an activist and that that was the reason
01:18:27 activist and that that was the reason why their recruitment went no further? Does that ring any bells for example of discussion afterwards? Well, this candidates indicated they were going to have they would be happy to have sex
01:18:38 have they would be happy to have sex with an activist. That candidate has to it goes to the bottom of the pile that they have to be rejected. Does that ring any bells? Any discussion about such an answer from unsuccessful candidates?
01:18:53 I don't I don't recall that as being a specific reason for um rejecting a candidate in my time.
01:19:07 I'd like to ask you about um another document. I wonder if you can just take this down. It is MPS and it's 409. So, this is not in your bundle. HN53.
01:19:20 So, this is not in your bundle. HN53. What what I'm going to show you, it's a batch of further selection documents, but I just want to ask you about a particular page. It's at page 10.
01:19:36 So this just to orientate you in time. So this would have been at a time that your DCI would have been HN58
01:19:47 HN58 and the reference there is uh introduction to the session and then this no right or wrong answers to various scenarios set uh we are looking
01:19:59 various scenarios set uh we are looking at a number of skills self discipline self motivation the list goes on does that jog your memory is this the sort of thing that your DCI would have
01:20:11 sort of thing that your DCI would have said to candidates at the beginning that well look there are no right or wrong answers to these questions. We just want to see uh how you react and how you reason your reactions to it. There was no right or wrong answers.
01:20:24 There was no right or wrong answers. Well, much of that I think is reflected in the in the questions [clears throat] in that last document you showed me without being explicit about no right or wrong answers. But that that um yes, I I
01:20:36 wrong answers. But that that um yes, I I would recognize that. So applying that to the questions about for example an activist invites you in to spend the
01:20:49 an activist invites you in to spend the night. Your earlier evidence was that well that if an officer agreed to have sex with an activist that that would be the end of it. Would you not um agree that this
01:21:02 Would you not um agree that this suggests that well actually it wouldn't necessarily be the end of it because there are no right or wrong answers. So it may be that you have a candidate who says, "Well, yes, I I would have engaged in sex with the activist and not be
01:21:14 in sex with the activist and not be rejected because there are no right or wrong answers."
01:21:19 Well, well, I think that um what what this document lacks is is um the explicit that if for instance the candidate was asked about drugs and he
01:21:30 candidate was asked about drugs and he said, well, if I was in that situation, yes, I would take heroin or crack cocaine. And similarly, I would have if the the the board's statement was I
01:21:41 the the the board's statement was I would have sex with the um with the individual to progress my operation, then that would be a wrong answer in my in as far as I'm concerned. Um but that
01:21:55 in as far as I'm concerned. Um but that um
01:21:56 um that was not made explicit in these documents and that may be a um a reflection of what the climate was at the time. Um but I think it was um I
01:22:09 the time. Um but I think it was um I would hope that my colleagues as well I'm sure they would agree with that that um that response that uh that those kind of um
01:22:20 of um specific responses to those situations would demand that the candidate wasn't accepted.
01:22:30 accepted. What do you mean by reflective of the climate at the time? What were you referring to there? Well, I think um the
01:22:41 Well, I think um the there is probably there is probably more well, there's certainly more um awareness, consciousness of um
01:22:53 awareness, consciousness of um relationships now than there was at the time.
01:22:59 When you say there's more awareness of relationships, do you mean more awareness of UCOs? Well, I mean generally in the public.
01:23:11 Well, in all of these interviews there there are questions about relationships, aren't there, in the sense of comes to the end of the night activist
01:23:22 comes to the end of the night activist uh suggests sex that that's covered uh clearly. Are are you suggesting that the attitude towards sexual relationships
01:23:36 attitude towards sexual relationships was was different at this time that perhaps at that time are you saying that it was wasn't considered in the same way as it as it is uh today? No,
01:23:47 same way as it as it is uh today? No, I'm not because um I think I I certainly speak for myself and I think I would speak for
01:23:55 speak for HM58 and Mike Dell and the management that the physical relationships by UCOs would be unacceptable.
01:24:07 And just to press you on on your reference to the climate at the time, was that about the extent to which such relationships were were talked about?
01:24:18 relationships were were talked about? No, I think it's more um when I said just now the document that you you showed me that talked about no right or wrong answers, the climax at the time would not have been to put brackets um
01:24:32 would not have been to put brackets um taking heroin or an answer that I would take heroin or I would sleep with um an individual um are off limits.
01:24:44 individual um are off limits. I think the climate now would be to [clears throat] articulate that. But in 1998, 999, 2000, that would not have been the climate where that kind of um
01:24:59 been the climate where that kind of um specific would have been articulated on paper. And that's not that's not to um because it was um condoned. It's simply it was the climate
01:25:11 condoned. It's simply it was the climate at the time.
01:25:17 So is your evidence that at the time that that we're concerned with that there
01:25:23 there would not have been any form of discussion about relationships being offlimits that at the time that that's not something that
01:25:34 the time that that's not something that would have entered people's consciousness about that direct issue whether it's off limits or not. just wasn't wasn't thought through or wasn't
01:25:45 wasn't wasn't thought through or wasn't addressed at the time. In what in what way was it off the fact that it's off limits now differ from then? Just just to be clear. It was off limits then but not um I use
01:25:58 It was off limits then but not um I use the example not articulated for instance in that that [clears throat] document. Okay. when I drew up um the um um codes of conduct um subsequently
01:26:13 um codes of conduct um subsequently um
01:26:16 that is an area that that would have been made um specific I think. Could we take that document down? I wonder if we could please now turn to MPS3195.
01:26:30 So this is at your tab B334. Now we're moving in time HN53. So to towards coming towards the end of your
01:26:42 towards coming towards the end of your time as a DI, it is uh the induction training program for uh HN uh 18 uh Robert Hastings.
01:26:55 uh Robert Hastings. Now
01:26:57 Now I just want to ask you in relation uh to this because this is moving on from the stage
01:27:05 stage where candidates are interviewed. This is where they have been successful. So we can see here this is setting out the early days for a new recruit in the SDS.
01:27:21 early days for a new recruit in the SDS. Is that right? Yes. So we can see well week one join the SDS and then it says introduction and initial briefing. So MD so by this
01:27:35 and initial briefing. So MD so by this stage your DCI is Mike Dell but also you're there for the introduction and initial briefing. Could you help us with that? What was the nature of that initial briefing? So the candidates's
01:27:48 initial briefing? So the candidates's been successful. thought it's their first day on the SDS and you and your DCI provide them with a an initial briefing. What was the nature of
01:27:59 initial briefing. What was the nature of that please? Well, I think that would be um um
01:28:07 um the [clears throat] an introduction to how or that the h how the the the unit worked effectively in terms of meetings and and briefings. Um
01:28:23 where where meetings would take place. Um um
01:28:28 Um um clearly the um officer would uh would would meet um the other UCOs at the field meeting but there may have been an introduction [clears throat] uh just in very general terms to who um he would be
01:28:43 very general terms to who um he would be uh meeting uh he would be told about the uh line of command to for instance which DS would
01:28:54 command to for instance which DS would um be [clears throat] uh overseeing his work that that kind of thing. Monday the introduction Tuesday
01:29:05 Tuesday there's a strategy meeting. Uh again you are HN53 referred to in the brackets after that. Could you help us with the nature of
01:29:17 Could you help us with the nature of that meeting and how it differed from the initial briefing that you've just been describing please? Well, I'm I'm taking it that that would be a meeting with um
01:29:29 be a meeting with um with the
01:29:32 with the uh officer um Rob Hastings to discuss in more specific detail [clears throat] what the uh nature of his operation would be.
01:29:48 Below that we can see commence study of the trade craft manual. Yes. Now, given what we know about the tradecraftraft manual, u
01:30:04 would you agree that this was a significant mistake by
01:30:14 by you and your fellow managers that on the second day of joining the SDS, the new UCO recruit
01:30:26 the new UCO recruit is instructed to begin studying the tradecraftraft manual. Well, it's the [clears throat] the
01:30:37 Well, it's the [clears throat] the tradecraftraft manual I I never seen as um anything more than a collection of uh helpful advice from previous officers. I didn't see it as a policy document. Um
01:30:50 didn't see it as a policy document. Um so in that sense I suppose that the the wording there is um is is is
01:30:59 not is [clears throat] wrong really
01:31:04 could we take that document down and could we turn to the tradecraft manual that's your tab B10 it is MPS0527597
01:31:15 seven.
01:31:23 So in terms of the second day on the SDS being told to study this manual, but if we look at the the front page of it,
01:31:34 we look at the the front page of it, it's it does look uh quite official, doesn't it? So you've got a UCO new recruit being told right day to begin studying the tradecraft manual. Uh and
01:31:47 studying the tradecraft manual. Uh and the first page they would have seen would have been this special demonstration squad that they just joined. Uh and we can see that the manual there. It's it's not it's not
01:32:00 manual there. It's it's not it's not like a a scrapbook. If we turn over the page, we can see it's for example uh indexed
01:32:07 indexed and a lot of work has been put in uh to for example the table of contents.
01:32:17 So again, would they not have been told to study this? Um
01:32:27 Um I'm sorry, could you repeat? Would the UCOs on the second day that they joined the SDS be told to study the document that we have up on screen? Yes. Well, there
01:32:39 Yes. Well, there um within the document there are some very helpful tips and advice on uh how um how an individual might go [clears throat] around about the
01:32:50 [clears throat] around about the operation. Um but not all of it should have been written in the way it's written. So in that sense uh it was perhaps wrong to uh direct the officer
01:33:02 perhaps wrong to uh direct the officer towards the document without um editing the [clears throat] document properly.
01:33:12 Why wasn't the documents edited uh properly or why why did it persist? because the example that we're looking at is
01:33:23 looking at is December uh 2003. So this is uh this document has been in the SDS for many many years uh after uh Ripper comes
01:33:36 many many years uh after uh Ripper comes into force. Why after all those years was it still being provided to the to the new recruits?
01:33:47 How had it slipped through the the net? I
01:33:51 I I I don't really know the answer to that. It it's [clears throat] it's uh it's a document that that sat in the cupboard. Um and I think it was um some
01:34:03 cupboard. Um and I think it was um some of it was useful and I think it was probably retained for that reason. If we turn to page five please
01:34:16 at the top uh towards the top of the page. Thank you. So introduction and then this 1.1 this manual of tradecraft for the special demonstration squad is designed
01:34:27 special demonstration squad is designed both for new members of the squad and also as a guide to best practice for members of the squad during their posting. [snorts]
01:34:38 posting. [snorts] your description of this as being something that was stuck in the the cupboard. Is that not understating the position given that
01:34:50 understating the position given that firstly it's referred to on day two as a document that should be studied but also on reading the document itself. it puts itself forward uh not as
01:35:03 itself. it puts itself forward uh not as anecdotes um but as a best practice guide.
01:35:08 guide. Do you think looking back on that that that was uh a a significant uh mistake to make?
01:35:21 to make? Well, in the first instance, I I always regarded this document as a subjective um or this document and the contents of the um the so-called manual as a
01:35:34 the um the so-called manual as a subjective [clears throat] um and fairly informal um guide for officers on a number of issues. what I think um the phrasiology
01:35:47 issues. what I think um the phrasiology on the um [clears throat] introduction for the new officers um guide should have said is that that the
01:35:58 the tradecraftraft manual should be [clears throat] read with with um some qualification. And in terms of qualification, if we turn to uh pages 27 to 28 uh please. So
01:36:11 turn to uh pages 27 to 28 uh please. So we're looking at paragraph 5.6. 6.3 um under well we can if we just keep it what we have up on screen there the sexual leaison's section is there
01:36:23 sexual leaison's section is there something that you read
01:36:27 the obviously you've been referred to it a number of uh times by the um inquiry in rule nine questions but at the time would you have read that section so
01:36:39 would you have read that section so we're on we're into the document quite some way We're already on page 27, but the reference to sexual liaison, is that something you would have read at the time in your position as DI?
01:36:52 time in your position as DI? I probably would have read the document at some point, but I don't um recall the whole document um uh in [clears throat] particular. Um
01:37:05 particular. Um so just to go through if we just go through this section. So 5.6.1 6.1 The thorny issue of romantic entanglements during a tour is the cause of much soulsearching and concern. In the past,
01:37:18 soulsearching and concern. In the past, emotional ties to the opposite um to the opposition have happened and caused all sorts of difficulties, including divorce, deception, and disciplinary charges. While it is not my place to
01:37:30 charges. While it is not my place to moralize, one should try to avoid the opposite sex for as long as possible. Now on reading that did you do you have any recollection of being curious as to
01:37:44 any recollection of being curious as to what are the divorces and the disciplinary charges? What what's what's that about? Did you do you remember being curious as to what these were referring to? Well, as I said earlier, I don't have a
01:37:56 Well, as I said earlier, I don't have a great recollection of reading this document in detail. Um, and it's something that I should have done um, when I was drawing out codes of conduct, but I don't specifically recall any of
01:38:09 but I don't specifically recall any of this um, passage. Uh, would you agree that it is uh, wrong advice to give a new recruit into
01:38:23 wrong advice to give a new recruit into the uh, SDS? Yes, it is because it uh suggests uh firstly that uh there's almost an inevitability of
01:38:35 uh there's almost an inevitability of relationships uh with uh activists, doesn't it? I'm sorry, could you repeat that? Do you agree that it indicates that having a
01:38:47 agree that it indicates that having a relationship with an activist uh is something that has happened before in the SDS?
01:38:56 the SDS? I'm sorry. Yes. Yes, it does. Yes. And instead of saying if you engage in sexual relationships of any kind with
01:39:07 sexual relationships of any kind with activists uh you will uh be disciplined. Instead of saying that it says not my place to moralize try to avoid try to avoid it for as long as possible.
01:39:20 avoid it for as long as possible. Yes.
01:39:24 Again reading reading that it does it not give to some extent a a green light to such relationships if the advice is
01:39:35 to such relationships if the advice is or try and avoid it for as long as possible.
01:39:39 possible. Yes, I I'd agree with that. Yes. Thank you. If we turn to the next paragraph,
01:39:48 uh the free love attitudes of the 60s and 70s have largely disappeared in the minds of the extremists following herpes, hepatitis, and AIDS. However, if you are doing your job properly, men and
01:40:00 you are doing your job properly, men and women in the field will experience occasional approaches from males and females, straight and gay. And so again in terms of the description of well look if you're doing your job properly you
01:40:12 if you're doing your job properly you will be approached indicating that there is some inevitability if an officer is doing his job properly that there would be such approaches that yeah [snorts]
01:40:25 approaches that yeah [snorts] uh avoiding the straight gay problem is relatively simple but one should never use the excuse of homosexuality to avoid a heterosexual partner. Not only would your behavior be wholly inconsistent, but you may well find the closet and out
01:40:37 but you may well find the closet and out homosexuals making a beline for you. In a similar vein, don't use the excuse of being HIV positive as a reason for avoiding sexual contact. You simply cannot maintain the attitude of a person with HIV unless you know someone with
01:40:49 with HIV unless you know someone with the condition and you may still face uh propositioning from weariesies uh who are genuinely uh afflicted. So in terms of the advice that is given to
01:41:00 of the advice that is given to undercover officers about how they should uh approach the topic of sexual relationships instead of being clearly spelt out from the beginning uh it is
01:41:13 spelt out from the beginning uh it is communicated to them uh as we can see in paragraph 5.6.2 isn't it? It was never properly addressed by any
01:41:24 It was never properly addressed by any of the managers at the start of any UCO deployment in the SDS, their approach to sexual relationships. Well, this this I mean this this particular paragraph is is a more
01:41:36 particular paragraph is is a more helpful um explanation of what the likely dangers are. If we turn to the next paragraph 5.6.3, 6.3.
01:41:45 6.3. Um, while you may try to avoid any sexual encounter, there may come a time when your lack of interest may become suspicious. In these circumstances, you can either try to introduce an
01:41:56 can either try to introduce an appropriate male or female from your own relations or friends to meet the weareries on a few occasions or ask the office if they can find an ex SDS
01:42:08 office if they can find an ex SDS operative to fill such a role. Uh, just pausing there. Uh what is your reaction to reading in this document provided to
01:42:20 to reading in this document provided to recruits from day two uh that uh there were circumstances in which if in order to avoid a sexual encounter they might want to introduce uh someone from their
01:42:32 want to introduce uh someone from their relations or friends. What's your reaction to reading that?
01:42:38 Well, that um that strikes me as something that is is uh um unstructured and too informal a
01:42:49 is uh um unstructured and too informal a process. In his evidence to the inquiry, um, DS Bernie Greeny described that advice as madness
01:42:59 in the sense of introducing a friend of yours to meet um, activists. Yes.
01:43:08 Yes. And would you not agree that that would be reckless reckless advice? Yes, I would.
01:43:16 Does that suggest that you hadn't read this particular uh paragraph if if you agree that it is reckless advice?
01:43:28 In other words, if you had have read it, would you not have done something about this particular section of the tradecraft manual at least? Yes, I would.
01:43:39 Yes, I would. and doing the best that you can. Does that suggest it is more likely that you didn't read it? Yes, it does. Okay. It goes on. Both options are
01:43:51 Okay. It goes on. Both options are fraught with difficulty and you must make your own mind up about how to proceed.
01:43:57 proceed. Uh if you have no other option but to become involved with a weary, you should try to have fleeting disastrous relationships uh with individuals who are not important to your source of
01:44:09 are not important to your source of information. One cannot be involved with the weary in a relationship for any period of time without risking uh serious uh consequences. And what is your attitude now to reading
01:44:23 And what is your attitude now to reading that last section of this paragraph? Well, it's completely wrong and completely [clears throat] inappropriate.
01:44:34 Completely wrong and inappropriate because uh it was um firstly not prohibiting uh relationships with activists.
01:44:47 activists. Yes,
01:44:49 Yes, it
01:44:51 it because it doesn't prohibit it and given its wording, it in fact encourages uh sexual liaison. Well, I was going to say it encourages it more than anything else. Yes,
01:45:08 it uh led to uh it's meant that no consideration uh was given uh at all when the officers were provided guidance
01:45:21 when the officers were provided guidance uh with the uh activists uh who they had sex with. There was not any thought given uh to them. We can't see any reference to any consideration
01:45:33 see any reference to any consideration being given to them. No.
01:45:38 No. In addition, it uh also um would impact on the undercover officers uh own family
01:45:49 on the undercover officers uh own family essentially also encouraging a betrayal of their wives and partners. Yes, it would.
01:46:02 We know of course that a significant number of the UCOs who engaged in uh sexual uh activity with activists were
01:46:17 sexual uh activity with activists were male
01:46:19 male and that those that they slept with were female.
01:46:25 female. Yes.
01:46:27 Yes. Would you uh agree that
01:46:33 what is being encouraged here because of the disproportionate effect on women is misogynistic. It is sexist.
01:46:48 Um yes.
01:46:52 yes. If someone were to say this that this advice because it is in a guidance document, a manual that is
01:47:03 a guidance document, a manual that is provided to undercover officers who are told to study it from the second day. If someone were to say uh that that shows that there was institutional
01:47:18 that there was institutional sexism, institutional misogyny in the SDS because you only have to have a look at the guidance document that their new recruits were shown.
01:47:31 their new recruits were shown. What would your reaction be to that?
01:47:37 Um, I'm not sure how how I can answer that. Um,
01:47:46 in the way the questions been asked, that's probably the case.
01:47:54 In the opening to this inquiry in relation to this tranch, it was stated on behalf of the MPS that a significant number of UCOs engaged in
01:48:08 a significant number of UCOs engaged in serious sexual misconduct and there was a continuing failure by the SDS's managers to prevent that misconduct from occurring. The MPS again apologizes to
01:48:20 occurring. The MPS again apologizes to the individuals affected and to the public for these failings and for the wider culture of misogyny and sexism that allowed them to happen. In relation to that apology, would you agree with
01:48:33 to that apology, would you agree with that or is there any aspect of it that you would disagree with?
01:48:44 No. And just
01:48:49 And just to um
01:48:53 to um add what was uh set out that it was said on behalf of the commissioner that sexual relationships and the poor management that facilitated them were
01:49:04 management that facilitated them were unacceptable by the standards of any time and amounted to serious failings. uh each such relationship would constitute discreditable conduct and should have been the subject of proper
01:49:16 should have been the subject of proper disciplinary processes. Would you agree with that uh description in particular the reference to the poor
01:49:27 in particular the reference to the poor management that facilitated these relationships? Would you agree with that or
01:49:33 or or not?
01:49:37 I'm not I'm not sure that I I I do um the I think everything was um done to discourage
01:49:48 discourage physical relationships. I accept that the existence of that paragraph within the tradecraftraft manual um was not helpful in the slightest and in
01:50:01 was not helpful in the slightest and in fact seems to encourage uh that behavior. But at the end of the day, I think this is um uh deception practiced by a number of
01:50:13 deception practiced by a number of officers that was concealed from um the management. Um there is a limit to the intrusion that
01:50:25 there is a limit to the intrusion that management can have over officers away from uh uh supervision. um when they're engaged on the operation. Um and um
01:50:42 I think that um the [clears throat] um
01:50:50 comments such as uh Mike Dell's in the meeting um of officers demonstrated the position of um
01:51:01 position of um uh the SDS [clears throat] management team um and Um uh I think in terms of awareness of these relationships [clears throat]
01:51:12 relationships [clears throat] uh and coupled with the sense that the tradecraftraft manual seems to be encouraging that behavior is the absence of any uh effort by the individuals who engaged in those uh relationships to
01:51:25 engaged in those uh relationships to seek advice from the office on how they might extricate themselves from the situation they had put into. Um uh so
01:51:35 uh so um the the [clears throat] the I think what I'm trying to say the nature of the operation is one that relies on trust and integrity by the officers uh once
01:51:46 and integrity by the officers uh once they're engaged on the operation [clears throat] and that trust and integrity has to operate both ways. Um so that when uh a situation like a physical relationship happens then uh
01:52:00 physical relationship happens then uh that would that should uh be [clears throat] um
01:52:06 uh a massive full discussion with the [clears throat] um with the office to um try and discover how they can extrapate themselves from that situation. So I
01:52:18 themselves from that situation. So I think the [clears throat] um
01:52:21 um the uh deception practiced by the officers to conceal that meant that there was little chance of the SDS management being aware of the situation
01:52:33 management being aware of the situation at the time and being able to deal with it and address it.
01:52:39 Was there a problem with the culture in the SDS? And by that I want to refer to what you said earlier because you said when you joined and you
01:52:52 when you joined and you pointed out in particular there was a high degree of ability and integrity amongst the UCOs and then we see that uh as their each of their deployments uh progress uh many of
01:53:05 their deployments uh progress uh many of them engage in what you have described as deception. And so what has changed with these individuals?
01:53:16 what has changed with these individuals? Is it because they looking back on it that these were officers that never had any integrity or was the problem really in fact the culture of the SDS that perhaps at the beginning these officers
01:53:28 perhaps at the beginning these officers did have high degree of ability high degree of integrity but from their first time in the SDS that that integrity
01:53:39 time in the SDS that that integrity evaporates because of the culture of the SDS. Isn't there a problem in the SDS itself?
01:53:46 itself? Well, clearly [clears throat] there there is a a reason why the volume of um these [clears throat] relationships happened. Um but but what the reason is,
01:53:59 happened. Um but but what the reason is, I don't know.
01:54:03 is part of the reason that despite your evidence a few minutes ago that everything was done to prevent sexual relationships,
01:54:14 sexual relationships, in fact from the start the all the indication is that they are acceptable and they're never told
01:54:25 acceptable and they're never told certainly at the beginning they're never told not to do it. So isn't isn't the blame
01:54:30 blame at least to some extent with the management of these UCOs, many of whom were were quite young when they joined as UCOs.
01:54:40 as UCOs. Well, I think the the when when the officer joins um the unit, it it is [clears throat] clear to him that for
01:54:51 [clears throat] clear to him that for instance the stable relationship um that the fact that the individuals in a stable relationship is very important. All of the officers are um uh
01:55:03 All of the officers are um uh intelligent, relatively experienced police officers who've been through a range of selection processes. They are all positively or direct vetted u and
01:55:15 all positively or direct vetted u and any change of circumstances has to be subject to reporting to the vetting. So that all of that says to the individual that um the relationships
01:55:28 individual that um the relationships outside of their own relationship would be inappropriate. And equally [clears throat] if it was the case that uh they believed relationships were an acceptable part of
01:55:41 relationships were an acceptable part of the process as the that [clears throat] paragraph in the tradecraftraft manual suggests. then they would have quite freely
01:55:51 freely spoken to SDS management to discuss how to manage that situation or to educate themselves. That didn't happen. What one of the things that you set out
01:56:03 What one of the things that you set out in your statement is you said that new UCOs were trained and guide guided largely by those already deployed. Yes.
01:56:12 Yes. So essentially learning from their peers.
01:56:16 peers. Yes. Is that not problematic in the SDS gi given who each of these UCO's peers were?
01:56:27 of these UCO's peers were? Well, this is a um there is no alternative mechanism for um um
01:56:39 um for training UCIOs [clears throat] on a unit such as the SDS because they can't uh the individual can't go outside the unit for reasons of of um you know the
01:56:50 unit for reasons of of um you know the covert nature of of the unit. So the advice [clears throat] and guidance will inevitably come from peers. Well, not great to have James Thompson
01:57:01 Well, not great to have James Thompson instructing new recruits on tradecraft. No, but that's with with hindsight. Yes, I agree with them. Or Carlos Saraki, Jim Boiling,
01:57:12 Or Carlos Saraki, Jim Boiling, Rob Hastings giving advice to new recruits about sexual relationships. again had we known about those situations that that would not have been
01:57:23 situations that that would not have been the case.
01:57:24 the case. So I don't know whether now is a convenient time for a midm morning break.
01:57:28 break. Certainly um we break for 15 minutes in the middle of each session to permit the transcribers to have a rest and also yourself. We'll break for 15 minutes.
02:13:39 Mr. Ramble, agent 53, we covered this morning the fact that you had been an undercover officer in the 1980s and one of the
02:13:51 officer in the 1980s and one of the longest serving DIs in the SDS coming up to seven years. uh you were a detective inspector
02:14:01 inspector in relation to your working life and your experience. Would you agree that compared to uh most
02:14:12 Would you agree that compared to uh most lay people that you would uh pay particular attention to detail, people's mannerisms, what they're saying, non-verbal communications than perhaps the rest of us.
02:14:25 the rest of us. Yes, that's that's fair to say I think. And in terms of your uh your rank, you took part in detective examinations.
02:14:36 took part in detective examinations. This was your working life as a detective. Yes. Yes, it was. And looking back on everything we know now about the UCOs that were under your command again, can
02:14:47 that were under your command again, can you help with how you how you missed all of those uh relationships? How you didn't pick up on it?
02:14:58 didn't pick up on it? Well,
02:15:00 Well, frankly, I still don't understand how I and colleagues did not pick up on them and I I don't know what the reason is for that.
02:15:11 for that. Just want to use as an example Mark Jenner. So, he was recruited in September 1994, deployed February 1995.
02:15:23 September 1994, deployed February 1995. He was deployed up until April 2000. Uh we know that he had a relationship, the person we're calling Allison, from about spring to uh the summer of 1995 all the
02:15:35 spring to uh the summer of 1995 all the way until the spring of 2000 at cohabiting with her from February 1996. So not a short relationship, but a long
02:15:48 So not a short relationship, but a long relationship. He was living with her. again. How could you and your fellow managers have missed that? Well, it was not the um um practice of
02:16:03 Well, it was not the um um practice of the the the unit to visit officers at their covert addresses. So if the officer chose to cohabit with uh um
02:16:15 officer chose to cohabit with uh um either an activist or or non-activist then um
02:16:21 then um it and and chose to conceal that fact from the office. Uh it's very difficult to know how one would detect that that was the case. We
02:16:31 We we will come on to your investigation into James Thompson. in due course. But would you agree that
02:16:43 in due course. But would you agree that you pretty quickly managed to work out uh that uh he was misconducting himself from your investigations
02:16:54 from your investigations in in general? Yes. One example is phone billing. Look at the phone billing and there are numerous calls to uh numerous women. Yes.
02:17:06 Yes. And so in terms of the suggestion that it is not possible to keep close tabs on uh undercover officers
02:17:19 uh undercover officers isn't the reality that uh you as a manager and your fellow managers could quite easily have kept tabs on the UCOs. I'm sorry. Are you suggesting we should
02:17:31 I'm sorry. Are you suggesting we should have done phone billing? is or is it specific to you have spent your uh life uh spying as
02:17:42 you have spent your uh life uh spying as an undercover officer managing undercover officers who spy on people? Is your evidence really that you could not have uh carried out some basic
02:17:54 not have uh carried out some basic checks on undercover officers that were under your supervision, but some of them for many many years? Is there evidence really nothing could be done to keep tabs on them?
02:18:06 tabs on them? That would not have been an appropriate use of that that those resources.
02:18:18 Would it not have been the best use of those resources given the harm that has been caused?
02:18:33 I I would tend to I would say that that um had had we resorted to that sort of intrusion into officers UCO's
02:18:48 intrusion into officers UCO's um operating practices. uh it that would have been extremely damaging to the confidence of those officers who were not engaged in uh for instance um
02:19:01 not engaged in uh for instance um unauthorized relationships. [clears throat] You have seen in this inquiry but also as your time as a DI and also as a UCO countless reports
02:19:13 and also as a UCO countless reports about the minuti of people's relationships in various groups going into excruciating detail about who was breaking up with who, who was sleeping
02:19:24 breaking up with who, who was sleeping with who, where people were living, lot of personal information. And so again, if that was done as on an industrial scale,
02:19:37 industrial scale, shouldn't at least some of those detective skills have been deployed in relation to the officers under you as a as a basic step in supervising them?
02:19:48 as a basic step in supervising them? No, not not unless there was a reason at the time to do that. Um and the situation now is with the benefit of hindsight we're aware of that but the I
02:19:59 hindsight we're aware of that but the I think one needs to have a starting point to initiate something as intrusive as um monitoring of telephones uh etc.
02:20:14 It's not just with hindsight though is it? Because we looked at earlier the tradecraftraft manual itself that talked about divorces, disciplinary action
02:20:25 about divorces, disciplinary action taken against people in sexual relationships, the interviews address sexual relationships. So this is this is not something that is now brought to
02:20:36 not something that is now brought to your attention. It was always an issue, wasn't it? No, I don't believe it was.
02:20:47 It was a hands-off approach to management. No.
02:21:02 Why couldn't um the uh managers have um conversations with officers in relation
02:21:15 conversations with officers in relation to their personal lives, probing them as to well, how's it going at home? what what what they're up to in sort of knowing getting to know their officers given your description of this as being
02:21:26 given your description of this as being a family and given that you were a DI for nearly seven years. Why wasn't there that sort of intrusive more intrusive questioning about how
02:21:38 more intrusive questioning about how they were getting on the nature of their own home lives? Those sort of conversations happened all the time either between the um all between the field officers and the management at all
02:21:51 field officers and the management at all levels. So that was a um that kind of question question that kind of dialogue was present whenever um
02:22:02 was present whenever um um there were meetings between between field and [snorts] office. Going back to Mark Jenner, I wonder if we could just call up on screen please. NPS trebo 9531. So this is at your tab
02:22:14 NPS trebo 9531. So this is at your tab B162.
02:22:16 B162. The document that we are about to go through is dated the 9th of April 2001. I just want to orientate this in time
02:22:27 I just want to orientate this in time with
02:22:29 with what was going on in the SDS office a few months earlier and we will come to it in due course. But Rosa called the SDS office on the 12th of
02:22:41 called the SDS office on the 12th of December 2000. So this is a file note that we have dated the 9th of April 2001. So 4 months after Rosa calls the
02:22:53 2001. So 4 months after Rosa calls the SDS officer. File note touchy subject. Uh Bob Lambert contacted the office on Friday the 28th of May to say uh that uh Terry had
02:23:06 of May to say uh that uh Terry had contacted him to say that he had a phone call from a female calling herself Allison who was inquiring where TS touchy subject HN15 could be. Uh she
02:23:17 touchy subject HN15 could be. Uh she made reference to TS's white van and that he had bought it off Terry. She also spoke to touchy subject coming from Burkenhead and referred to his father's illness. Does this note um jog your
02:23:30 illness. Does this note um jog your memory of the issue of Allison calling the office ring any bells? Do you remember that happening? Um some very vague bells. Yes.
02:23:43 Um some very vague bells. Yes. Given that Rosa had called the office a few months uh earlier, did were you not um concerned about a female activist uh
02:23:55 um concerned about a female activist uh calling to try and uh locate Mark Jenner?
02:24:04 Well, if anything, I I would be equally concerned with a male activist calling in the same circumstances. No difference
02:24:17 No difference in in terms of of no potentially no difference. There is a difference though, isn't there?
02:24:25 there? Well, we know that with hindsight, I think. Yes. If we take that document down, could we please move to MPS0749473, which is tab B39. Sir, this is one of
02:24:39 which is tab B39. Sir, this is one of your file notes. It is dated the 16th of July,
02:24:44 July, 2001.
02:24:49 I wonder if you can turn to page three, please. In this
02:24:59 So this is one of the file notes that uh we can see HM53 at the bottom. So this is a document that uh you yourself would have uh typed up. Is that right?
02:25:10 have uh typed up. Is that right? Yes, it looks to me. Yes.
02:25:16 So it begins on the 25th of June 2001. Terry Touchy Subject's former employer received a phone call from Privacy who asked if the former knew how to get hold
02:25:28 asked if the former knew how to get hold of Touchy Subject. He gave no explanation as to why he wanted to get in touch. Although the conversation seemed fairly relaxed, Terry made it clear that TS no longer worked for him
02:25:39 clear that TS no longer worked for him and that he hadn't heard from him for some while. Now if we just go down towards the bottom of the page, can you see the uh penultimate paragraph beginning TS is relatively relaxed. So
02:25:52 beginning TS is relatively relaxed. So TS Mark Jenner relatively relaxed about the inquiry and thinks that it might emanate from Allison and then says this who occupied a room in his former douff.
02:26:07 a room in his former douff. Now,
02:26:09 Now, would that not have piqu your interest to know that the female activist con trying to contact uh Mark Jenner had
02:26:20 trying to contact uh Mark Jenner had occupied a room in his former duff?
02:26:26 Well, I mean, looking at this, I I would this suggests that she [clears throat] occupied a um a room in a block. I I don't know. I I don't know the
02:26:38 don't know. I I don't know the circumstances of the [clears throat] the duff where he was living that it was another room.
02:26:45 Now, it goes on to say she is the girlfriend of Mar Mark Metaf, co-weary of touchy subjects. And ju just pausing there just to be fair to you, HM53, when
02:27:00 there just to be fair to you, HM53, when uh Mark Jenner gave his evidence um to the inquiry um he accepted that he um referred to Allison as Mark Metaf's
02:27:12 referred to Allison as Mark Metaf's girlfriend to essentially to try and put you off the off the scent. Uh, but it describes as set out here a conversation that you had had with Mark Jenner about
02:27:25 that you had had with Mark Jenner about Allison trying to contact him. Yes.
02:27:31 I'm sorry, I don't understand that. So we can see here there's a description of uh Allison uh trying to contact Mark Jenner and the the words that you say is
02:27:43 Jenner and the the words that you say is she is the girlfriend of Mark Metaf and Mark Jenner said in evidence well that's what he that's what he told you to essentially to put you off the sense because he was in a relationship with
02:27:55 because he was in a relationship with her. But my question is this. In in your conversation with Mark Jenner, were you not suspicious? Did you not uh press him in relation to who what his true
02:28:08 in relation to who what his true relationship was with Allison? I don't recall that conversation at the moment.
02:28:13 moment. Just to finish it. So she is the girlfriend of Mark Metaf and her mother who is described as very well off was closely involved at the Colinroach Center. Allison thinks TS might be sufficiently concerned about his welfare
02:28:24 sufficiently concerned about his welfare and sufficiently funded to generate some kind of inquiry into his whereabouts and well-being. So is your evidence that Allison tried to contact uh Mark Jenner
02:28:35 Allison tried to contact uh Mark Jenner uh did not in your mind raise uh any uh suspicions that anything untoward had happened?
02:28:42 happened? Well, on the face of what I'm reading there um um the the note that I wrote that that would be the case. Yes. But I don't I don't now have a memory of
02:28:54 But I don't I don't now have a memory of what
02:28:56 what that conversation was about or that engagement was about again in given the timing of it though because it is
02:29:07 because it is 6 7 months after Rosa phoned the office trying to uh find uh Jim Boiling. And so this is this is not an isolated
02:29:19 not an isolated incident, is it? It is a a theme of female activists trying to contact male UCOs, isn't it? Well, on the face of that, that sounds
02:29:30 Well, on the face of that, that sounds like I can't remember the circumstances or where I was when that first phone call happened. Could we take that document down and bring up MPS 309432?
02:29:51 So this is a document that was produced by one of the DS's Steve Titty. It's dated the 10th of October
02:30:03 dated the 10th of October 2000. And I just want to ask you about uh again is this a document that that you have seen recently? Have you had a chance to look at this recently?
02:30:14 chance to look at this recently? This is
02:30:16 This is it's it's operation or legends document. Perhaps if we look at some of the detail, but please if you need time to consider it, please say could we turn to
02:30:27 consider it, please say could we turn to the last paragraph on the first page which spills over onto the next page, paragraph five. So here Steve Tiddy states partnerships
02:30:40 So here Steve Tiddy states partnerships in the left-wing field are by and large confined to the parties that they are members of. For example, there are large number of co-habiting partners
02:30:51 number of co-habiting partners relationships within the SWP and SP and anyone who enjoys single status over a certain period may invite unwanted suspicion.
02:31:03 suspicion. So we can the the message here from uh Steve Diddy is that in the left-wing uh field large number of people cohabit
02:31:14 field large number of people cohabit have relationships with those that are in the same uh group uh and any one who is single in that group that would invite unwanted suspicion.
02:31:26 invite unwanted suspicion. Okay. Then he then he states this in the note. The most difficult of this type of inquiry is generally instigated from an attached female who may be taking
02:31:37 attached female who may be taking soundings on behalf of one of her friends. The female antenna is a difficult creature to subdue and whereas as a rule they employed monogy, they do possess the ability to unearth doubts
02:31:48 possess the ability to unearth doubts about perceived relationships. And then this there have been recent operations eg touchy subject. So Mark Jenner and
02:32:01 eg touchy subject. So Mark Jenner and Psycho Dream Jim Boiling where due to the lifestyle employed by the operatives their bonafidees were considered unimpeachable.
02:32:13 unimpeachable. This is patently not the case in every operation and consideration should now be given to providing additional operational support to field officers.
02:32:25 operational support to field officers. So in terms of that paragraph uh just going through that now does that uh ring any bells in terms of a document that you remember reading at the time or or more recently
02:32:37 reading at the time or or more recently when it was provided um to you by the inquiry.
02:32:41 inquiry. It it well it was the latter um I don't recall it um originally. [snorts] You you are it's one of those but I may have been I may have been aware of it at the time but I I have no
02:32:53 aware of it at the time but I I have no recollection of that. We we can see at the end of the document you all noted as being copied into it. Uh,
02:33:04 does that not make it clear that what Steve Titty is referring to um is that Mark Jenner and Jim Boilings um that
02:33:18 Mark Jenner and Jim Boilings um that their bonafideis was considered unimpeachable because they were in relationships with the people they were spying on. That's why they were considered
02:33:30 That's why they were considered unimpeachable. Well, no. When I when I read that, I read it the touchy subject of psycho dream had established their what their uh relationship circumstances. Sorry,
02:33:42 uh relationship circumstances. Sorry, not relationship certain lifestyle circumstances were and that those bonafideers were considered unimpeachable. I didn't read that necessarily that it was because they
02:33:53 necessarily that it was because they were in um a relationship themselves.
02:34:00 But the the top part of this paragraph is is not talking about relationships in the sense of friendships. It talks about second line number of cohabiting
02:34:11 second line number of cohabiting partners relationships within the SWP and and SP and then countering that with being single. So do you see in the second sentence it's talking about
02:34:24 second sentence it's talking about relationships in the context of sexual relationships partners and then the opposite of that being someone of single status. So it's about um it's about
02:34:35 status. So it's about um it's about sexual relationships isn't it? Well it's it's about perception of what the relationship is with individuals. I the way I read it from uh Steve Tilly
02:34:47 the way I read it from uh Steve Tilly was that that that's what he was talking about and that touchy subject and psycho dream had a um a rock solid explanation as to what their relationships were um
02:34:59 as to what their relationships were um that was considered unimpeachable. I didn't read it that he was saying that these two were in a relationship like the beginning of the paragraph. Well, when uh Steve Teddy was asked
02:35:12 Well, when uh Steve Teddy was asked about this note and the knowledge o of the uh other uh managers and and and your and your other managers knowledge of these relationships,
02:35:25 of these relationships, uh he he said that well as a result of this report he he would have said yes that that you and other managers would have been aware of the relationships. Well, the that that's Steve Titt's
02:35:38 Well, the that that's Steve Titt's opinion. My recollection is that I was not aware, for instance, of touchy subject or psycho dream having a um being in relationships
02:35:54 again. Did did that not peique your interest to to ask about what to ask Steve Tiddi about this particular note? Because it's it's an
02:36:05 particular note? Because it's it's an unusual note, isn't it? This office note. It's not a it's not a a common uh sort of document that certainly Steve Titty produced and then suddenly he provides this operational legends uh
02:36:17 provides this operational legends uh note um that touches on in paragraph five relationships. Did did you not have a discussion about him about this note and and I read it and and would have
02:36:29 and and I read it and and would have said to him but I thought it was a very very useful note and in particular the what piqued my interest and what we would be helpful to develop was the final sentence
02:36:40 final sentence i.e. Um I'm sorry it's just gross the screen uh in terms of of the office taking uh steps to provide that kind of you're quite right. This is it is
02:36:51 you're quite right. This is it is offscreen. I wonder if you could just go to I think paragraph six.
02:36:59 So it is in fact the second sentence. This is merely the first step in provoking a discussion into the feasibility of introducing girlfriend boyfriend into the equation
02:37:12 girlfriend boyfriend into the equation on an occasional basis. So again going to press you in relation to the reference to girlfriend boyfriend there because your evidence was your
02:37:24 there because your evidence was your reading of this note particularly in paragraph five. But this this is just about um his is relationship nonsexual relationship with others in the group well established in the group.
02:37:37 the group well established in the group. But it's clear isn't it that this note um is focused on sexual relationships hence
02:37:45 hence girlfriend and boyfriend being referred to.
02:37:50 to. Well, it's I think it's it's it's looking at the um provision of a [clears throat] deception about the relationship that the individual UCO is
02:38:01 relationship that the individual UCO is in um to try and obiate the situation that Steve Tilly describes um in in the beginning of paragraph 5. So I
02:38:13 in in the beginning of paragraph 5. So I think it's a as I said to him I thought it was a very very useful note that really dwells on um providing um an answer to the problem identified in
02:38:25 answer to the problem identified in paragraph 5.
02:38:30 And the problem in paragraph five is suspicions of single undercover officers or undercover officers uh being being single in their
02:38:41 officers uh being being single in their activist group and attracting suspicion that that problem. Yes. without without the proposal that's at the end of paragraph 6, the individual at UCO within those uh
02:38:52 individual at UCO within those uh organizations would attract some unwanted suspicion as Steve Tilly rightly says that the provision of the girlfriend boyfriend into the equation would
02:39:03 would hopefully obiate that perception.
02:39:12 Another officer. I wonder if you can take that down, please. Another officer uh that also engaged uh in a sexual relationship in her
02:39:26 uh in a sexual relationship in her undercover identity was a HN26 and um an ALF activist at the time, Thomas Frampton. So, another uh
02:39:37 Thomas Frampton. So, another uh relationship that um your evidence is that you were unaware of? Yes, I was unaware of that.
02:39:49 She not only left the SDS, but she also left the police force at the end of her deployment. I believe that's true. Yes.
02:40:01 Did you ever um get to the bottom of why she not only left the SDS but left the police force? No, I didn't.
02:40:12 No, I didn't. again from your description um at the beginning of your evidence of these new recruits having a high degree of ability and integrity and then as they spend
02:40:24 and integrity and then as they spend time in the SDS um uh problems arise uh don't they with these deployments under your command? Well, that that would be the reading of
02:40:35 Well, that that would be the reading of the circumstances. And one of the reasons um is because they were engaging in sexual uh relationships.
02:40:46 relationships. Yes.
02:40:49 Yes. Jim Boiling, as you are at least now aware, had engaged in three relationships in his
02:41:00 engaged in three relationships in his undercover identity during his deployment. So we are calling them Monica. The relationship just to orientate you in
02:41:11 relationship just to orientate you in time. So relationship with Monica was April to October 1997. So before you joined as DI but he also had a relationship with Ruth from November 97
02:41:22 relationship with Ruth from November 97 to July 1999. So moving into your tenure and then the relationship with Rosa beginning 23rd of November 1999.
02:41:34 beginning 23rd of November 1999. and the relationship uh continuing there. So again, what what is your explanation for another uh undercover officer having multiple relationships
02:41:47 officer having multiple relationships um that you were unaware of um as you claim during your tenure? How do you explain that in all of those years of his deployments that this never uh came
02:42:00 his deployments that this never uh came to your attention? Well, I think it's the the the only way I can answer that is that it's the degree of deception practiced by the individual to conceal his relationship
02:42:12 individual to conceal his relationship from uh the office staff.
02:42:22 In relation to what you have just said about concealing relationships from the office staff, I wonder if we can bring up on screen. It is a transcript or part of a transcript of DS John Webb's
02:42:37 of a transcript of DS John Webb's evidence to this inquiry on the 18th of June this year. It's UCPI 40147 and it's in page 204 in [clears throat] that document.
02:42:52 Now, um the HM53 DS John Webb left the SDS in 1997. So this was before uh you began there as as a DI. But I
02:43:03 uh you began there as as a DI. But I just want to ask you uh about something that he said in evidence in relation to these transcripts. Sometimes it takes a little longer for us to bring them up on screen.
02:43:15 So if we can go to page 204 please.
02:43:20 Can you see in the left hand column we have the counter time. I wonder if we can if we have a look at from 1736 and 51 seconds down to 1737 and 27
02:43:34 and 51 seconds down to 1737 and 27 seconds.
02:43:36 seconds. Yeah.
02:43:37 Yeah. So this is a part of his evidence uh when he said that it was known by management in 1998
02:43:50 management in 1998 that Jim Boing had had a sexual relationship as a UCO. And so you can see the question, well, can you help place the date of the conversation? And and he says, "It must have been in
02:44:01 And and he says, "It must have been in 1998." 1998. Yes. Do you remember beginning, middle, end? No. And then he says, "Hn1 was in the back of my car. We were driving along." And he said, "Have
02:44:12 were driving along." And he said, "Have you heard whatever?" And just told me. And this is a reference to it telling him about Jim Boing having a relationship. uh when you were referring to the SDS hierarchy knowing you were referring to
02:44:24 hierarchy knowing you were referring to what the detective inspector and the detective chief inspector in the SDS and then he says it was an assumption because who it was who was telling me had also long departed uh the SDS and so
02:44:38 had also long departed uh the SDS and so um John Webb was saying that he believed that it was uh known about HN14 because after he left the SDS he's meeting up
02:44:49 after he left the SDS he's meeting up with HN1
02:44:52 with HN1 um and HN1 tells him, "Have you heard about it?" And he tells him. So it was something that was uh discussed in what you have described as the family uh the
02:45:03 you have described as the family uh the small world of special branch.
02:45:08 I'm sorry. What is what what's the question?
02:45:11 question? Was there not discussion? Okay. about relationships during your time um as a DI. Wasn't HN14 Jim Boing's relationship uh referred to in office
02:45:23 relationship uh referred to in office meetings or in discussions in all the time?
02:45:26 time? No, categorically not. Not with me. Could we take that document down and bring up MPS 0748 100? So this is at your tab 35.
02:45:44 This is a selection HN53 of documents that were recovered from what's described as Jim Boing's covert file. So it's sort of a personnel file
02:45:56 file. So it's sort of a personnel file that was recovered from the uh SDS office. Now, do you remember these sort of files that the officers uh had uh that sometimes
02:46:08 that sometimes uh con contained documents such as their legend with their photograph and particular incidents that may have arisen during their deployment? Do you remember the officers the UCOs having
02:46:19 remember the officers the UCOs having these sorts of files? This one being called a covert file? um not not specifically, but it's it's possible because the soon after I arrived, we we um went into the computer
02:46:33 arrived, we we um went into the computer age. Um but there would have been it would make sense that there was a um sort of folder for individuals office officers where there were documents of
02:46:44 officers where there were documents of of relevance within the unit. Could we turn to page two? So, this is a note from Rosa.
02:46:57 So, this is a note from Rosa. Does that uh document look familiar uh to you?
02:47:01 to you? No, I've never seen that before. Uh begins uh Rosa, the phone numbers given. Privacy from upstairs will remember me. uh and
02:47:13 from upstairs will remember me. uh and the neighbors at number 39 need to contact his family to know if they've heard anything. And if you turn over the page please,
02:47:25 page please, we can see there's a file note and at the bottom BG. So this is Bernie Greeny's file note. Okay. And so he's referring to that note that we just had
02:47:36 referring to that note that we just had on on screen on uh page two. And the antipenultimate paragraph says before leaving the flat roa wrote out a
02:47:47 before leaving the flat roa wrote out a short note attached which she had asked the decorator to pass on to the landlord. Basically the note is asking him to contact her with any information
02:47:59 him to contact her with any information he may receive about PD. So, psycho dream Jim Boiling in the future. He's not anticipating hearing from her again, but if she does ascertain his phone number, then he will deal with her
02:48:10 number, then he will deal with her accordingly. Nothing further has been heard from Rosa since this visit. PD is aware of this development, but is not unduly concerned. He is confident that he has left no trail for her or anyone
02:48:23 he has left no trail for her or anyone else to pursue. HN53 will further discuss the matter with PD when they meet on Thursday the 9th of November. Now, if we zoom out of
02:48:35 9th of November. Now, if we zoom out of that, we can see at the bottom you're on the original the the copy 2 list HM58 HN53. So, you you would have um been shown this document at the time. Yes.
02:48:47 shown this document at the time. Yes. Yes. And further to that, there's a reference to you uh will further discuss the matter with Jim Boiling when they meet on the 9th of of November. Again,
02:49:01 meet on the 9th of of November. Again, do you recall that meeting actually taking place? So, Rosa trying to get hold of Jim Boiling. Jim Boiling, not unduly concerned about
02:49:12 Jim Boiling, not unduly concerned about it, but you are the one marked here to meet him to discuss it. Does that ring any bells? Without sight size of a note of of that,
02:49:25 Without sight size of a note of of that, it doesn't ring any bells.
02:49:30 And and had there been a meeting, I would have completed a note of the meeting.
02:49:37 meeting. Could we please turn to page 10 in this document?
02:49:42 document? So page 10, this is your DCI HN58's file note. So this is the 18th of December 2000.
02:49:53 And we can see it begins on Monday the 17th of December at 10:20 a.m. I received a phone call from JB Jim Boiling who asked that I r him back in
02:50:04 Boiling who asked that I r him back in about 30 minutes. Uh, I spoke to him again at 10:50 a.m. He said that about a week ago, he had emailed Rosa to see how things were going. He had received a
02:50:15 things were going. He had received a long reply within the last two days from Rosa, who went through a long list of checks that she had done to disprove his identity. She had been to St. Catherine's house and had reported Jim
02:50:27 Catherine's house and had reported Jim Boiling missing in Turkey. She had checked on visas, had even made inquiries at the British consulate in Istanbul. She said that her close friend Helen Steele had recounted a similar
02:50:38 Helen Steele had recounted a similar experience to her. No doubt the JD reference to John Dyne scenario. Now uh just pausing there by this date
02:50:52 just pausing there by this date September uh December 17th 18th uh things were uh moving uh on as far as Rosa is concerned
02:51:03 uh on as far as Rosa is concerned because not only uh is she uh emailing but she is going to if we just look at that first paragraph extraordinary lengths to try to find him isn't
02:51:16 lengths to try to find him isn't It it seems so. And the obvious reason that a female activist is going to great length to try
02:51:27 activist is going to great length to try to find a male UCO is because they've been in a relationship together. Well, not necessarily.
02:51:38 We will come on to it in more detail in due course, but you accept now that Helen Steel and John Dyn had a sexual relationship. Yes.
02:51:49 Yes. And so could you help with the reference here to the JD scenario at the end of this sentence? She said that her close friend Helen Steel had recounted a
02:52:00 friend Helen Steel had recounted a similar experience to her. No doubt the John Dyn scenario.
02:52:08 Well, the similar scenario is I I presume a reference to um Helen Steel's attempts to um locate John
02:52:19 attempts to um locate John Dynam
02:52:23 the interpretation at the time of whether that is because this is a committed activist of whatever gender trying to um
02:52:34 trying to um uh locate a missing fellow activist or an individual in a relationship. The scenario referred to is the [clears throat] um
02:52:44 um for one of a better word pursuit of um John Gins by Alan Steel that was current at the time. The way in which you just described as committed action by an activist of
02:52:57 committed action by an activist of whatever gender that gives the impression that it made no difference whatsoever uh to you when considering this at the time that the person trying
02:53:08 this at the time that the person trying to contact Jim Boiling uh was female. Did that did that really not make any difference? Well, I um I I have very very unclear memory of
02:53:21 um I I have very very unclear memory of this whole incident as far as Rosary is concerned. So what um judgments I was making at the time, I I don't know. But my uh as far as I recall, I had no
02:53:34 my uh as far as I recall, I had no reason to believe that this was a result of a relationship as opposed to an activist trying to identify a possible
02:53:45 activist trying to identify a possible um UCO.
02:53:49 When you say you had no reason to believe that, wonder if we can turn to page 13, please. because on page 13 we have a a a reference
02:54:02 uh to a resume of email from Rosa. Now this document it long time ago we don't have any initials at the bottom of it. Is
02:54:15 any initials at the bottom of it. Is there something that you typed up? Can you help us with that? that doesn't or my immediate reaction is that that doesn't look like my um style of writing
02:54:26 doesn't look like my um style of writing at all.
02:54:29 at all. So
02:54:30 So [clears throat] it's it's a it summarizes email, but we can see that the description is just received Boiling's postcard from Malawi complains that she
02:54:41 postcard from Malawi complains that she hadn't heard from JB for one and a half months. He was traveling into Syria, a zone flaring into war. She had discovered that JB had not left Istanbul, had not applied for a Syrian
02:54:52 Istanbul, had not applied for a Syrian in visa. She had evidently contacted the British embassy in Istanbul. So again, we have the description of the steps that she is taking to find him. Yes.
02:55:03 that she is taking to find him. Yes. And then if you look at the penultimate line, she started seeing someone but seems to accept that life moves on. So in terms of your evidence that well
02:55:15 in terms of your evidence that well don't have a clear recollection of this but from the documents that you would have read if not drafted yourself at the time. Well that's a clear reference to a relationship isn't it? You started
02:55:27 relationship isn't it? You started seeing someone except that life moves on. It's clear reference to a relationship. Well in the first instance it's not a document that I've written. [clears throat] I do not recall seeing that document
02:55:39 I do not recall seeing that document before I was shown it. Um so so it's difficult to make a judgment on that.
02:55:50 If we turn to page 14 please.
02:55:59 So this is again JB's assessment of Rosa emails and the visit to the Duff address. again just in terms of like the format of it is is that can you help us with who may have drafted that?
02:56:12 with who may have drafted that? Well, it's not mine. Um, in terms of who could have drafted it, um,
02:56:23 sorry, is this before Mike Dell's time? No, it doesn't look like Mike Del I I I don't know. Um, it's it's certainly not mine.
02:56:35 mine. in relation to what these documents are showing is that they relate to uh someone trying to
02:56:48 uh someone trying to locate and identify one of your undercover officers. So, one of the one of the most serious types of issues that you would have dealt with as as a DI in the SDS. Yes.
02:56:59 dealt with as as a DI in the SDS. Yes. Yes. So if there's any hints that an officer is to be compromised, this must have taken top priority. Uh not necessarily at the time because
02:57:10 Uh not necessarily at the time because uh um I one of my um other uh functions was dealing with um operation muscat and the amb um litigation. I'm not sure
02:57:25 the amb um litigation. I'm not sure what the dates were when I was away from the office, but the um the work involved in those office would have would have [clears throat] impacted on my contribution to this um this kind of
02:57:38 contribution to this um this kind of incident and and what if I may I just like to say that there there are considerable areas where I
02:57:49 there are considerable areas where I cannot remember the the specifics of incident which I know I should remember and I'm not quite sure why that is but uh but incidents this incident um for
02:58:03 uh but incidents this incident um for instance I have some recollection of but not the specifics because we have the the documents I'm going to if we look at can you see the the bullet points at the bottom if you type up one two three and then it's um
02:58:16 type up one two three and then it's um just below the fourth bullet point um yeah up.
02:58:23 yeah up. Can you see where it says Rosa talks of finding a new boyfriend? Oh, yes. Yes. Now, your evidence was that you don't have a clear recollection of reading
02:58:34 have a clear recollection of reading this. Uh, but would you agree uh that uh anyone who read that it must have been crystal clear that Rosa had been in a
02:58:46 crystal clear that Rosa had been in a boyfriend girlfriend relationship with Jim Boiling?
02:58:52 Well,
02:58:56 I don't necessarily read it in that way.
02:59:01 I'm going to ask if we could please turn to page 15.
02:59:11 So, we have an email to
02:59:17 to Jim Boiling at his Jim X van Hotmail address. The date of it, 13th of December, 2000. So, this is Rosa emailing uh Jim Boiling
02:59:29 So, this is Rosa emailing uh Jim Boiling to say this. Dear Jim, uh I just received your postcard from Illoi. don't know if this will uh ever uh reach you. I guess you don't know that the Turkish authorities had commenced an official
02:59:41 authorities had commenced an official search for you on request of the British consulate as you had appeared not to have left Istanbul or applied for Syrian visa.
02:59:50 visa. It was one and a half months I heard nothing as you were supposedly walking into a zone flaring into war. You hurt the person who loved you, making sure they had no contact with
03:00:02 making sure they had no contact with anyone who may have been able to tell them if they were okay. I knew your funeral could have passed and I'd never know. I'm sorry to be sending this message across the continents, but the circumstances have been such crawling my
03:00:15 circumstances have been such crawling my way out of a black hole. Now clearly she had been in a relationship with Jim Boiling having read that.
03:00:26 read that. Oh yes, I agree. Yes.
03:00:38 If you had not would if what in what circumstances would this email not have been brought to your attention? Well, it it
03:00:49 Well, it it in the first instance it it um because I was not at the office, I was away out of the country working. Um and equally it may be that it was
03:01:01 Um and equally it may be that it was dealt with by the DCI and the DS. Um, but
03:01:08 but that's all that's all I can say in terms of explanation.
03:01:15 Just on this particular page in this email, I wonder if we can just zoom out. I'd like to ask you about something that is six lines up from the end of this page.
03:01:27 page. It's a sentence that begins the old activist scene.
03:01:32 [snorts]
03:01:35 You can see there it's about halfway down this. Thank you. So the old activist scene. So this is Rosa in her at the end towards the end of the email. The old activist scene. We were both
03:01:46 The old activist scene. We were both disillusioned with that before you left. Surprised you thought I'd still be uh there. Uh so again in terms of interpretation o of that uh a reference
03:01:59 interpretation o of that uh a reference to uh Rosa having been disillusioned and left the old activist scene there. Yes.
03:02:08 Yes. Yes.
03:02:08 Yes. Okay.
03:02:12 I wonder if we can turn over to page 16, please.
03:02:20 and it's the top line of page 16. So, in this email, after much persuasion from my sister, I've started seeing someone two weeks ago. Uh, it's early
03:02:33 someone two weeks ago. Uh, it's early days. I'm heavily scarred. Uh, but life moves on. Um, whoever
03:02:43 whoever read uh at this again would have been in no doubt that there had been a deep relationship between Jim Boiling and Rosa.
03:02:57 Yes, that would be the reading of it. Yes.
03:02:59 Yes. And and and no thought at all was given to Rosa herself. Presumably
03:03:12 not. I don't know. We have a series of emails, desperate attempts to try and find Jim Boing going to great lengths uh and someone who is
03:03:25 to great lengths uh and someone who is clearly suffering. But the thought of uh doing anything that would assist Rose's welfare never entered
03:03:37 assist Rose's welfare never entered anyone's mind in the SDS, did it? I I don't know.
03:03:45 Could we turn to page 17, please?
03:03:55 So again, a resume of Jim's withdrawal referring to Jim Boing's with withdrawal. Again, in terms of these bullet points here,
03:04:08 is your evidence that you have no recollection of this point of this period
03:04:14 period of Jim Boiling's deployment, his withdrawal? [clears throat] Um, again, it's not my document. Um, and no, I don't have a clear memory of
03:04:26 and no, I don't have a clear memory of it.
03:04:34 Are are you accepting it's it's possible that you read these documents? Probable. What could you just help us with with that?
03:04:42 that? Well, it it is possible,
03:04:47 but it's equally possible. I could have read it at a later stage, but um rather than at the time of of uh of writing, but it's it's possible that
03:05:02 nothing in there um rings a bell with me.
03:05:11 It's about seven bullet points up from the bottom. Can you see it says Rosa talks of finding a new boyfriend, possibly going to to live in privacy and then hooray. Great.
03:05:24 Great. Yes.
03:05:25 Yes. So again, someone expressing relief that oh, she's she's found a new boyfriend and hooray. again. Do you don't recall any
03:05:37 again. Do you don't recall any discussion about this aspect? No, we don't. Could we turn to page 19, please?
03:05:52 Wonder if you could just turn over the page, please.
03:05:58 Document headed Rosa contact with the office.
03:06:03 office. Okay.
03:06:22 Uh yes. Yes. The document is 0748100 and we uh we're moving to page 19.
03:06:41 Wonder if we can expand that.
03:06:46 an activist contacting the SDS office uh must have been extremely dramatic when you first heard of this. Yes,
03:07:00 when you first heard of this. Yes, I would I would imagine so. Yes.
03:07:05 Can you recall of any other occasion when an activist called up the duty phone
03:07:16 phone or the office phone? No. No.
03:07:19 No. No. Does this event not stand out in your memory? I.e. the time that an activist repeatedly called the SDS office phone.
03:07:32 what it should do but it doesn't I'm afraid
03:07:36 afraid [snorts]
03:07:40 Rosa contact with the office on Tuesday the 12th of December so 12th of December 2000 four calls were received in the office from Rosa the following is a synopsis of the calls 11:42 a.m. Duty
03:07:54 synopsis of the calls 11:42 a.m. Duty phone. Rosa asked for Jim. NW. So null war answered and said he didn't know him. 11:50 a.m. duty phone. Rosa asked for Matt, a friend of Jim's. Null War
03:08:08 for Matt, a friend of Jim's. Null War denied all knowledge of Jim. And then this Rosa in a distressed state described Jim as 5 foot nine. She knew him as Jyn Sutton. Um
03:08:21 him as Jyn Sutton. Um no wart evidence. was it was clear that this was um a reference to um a former uh relationship, a girlfriend. Do you accept
03:08:33 accept that by this point anyone who had had any dealings with this issue of Rosa trying to track down Jim Boiling, if there is any doubt beforehand
03:08:46 there is any doubt beforehand that looking at this document and what it represented that this is clearly someone who had been in a relationship with one of your UCOs, Jim Boiling.
03:08:59 with one of your UCOs, Jim Boiling. Well, it sounds like it. Yes. 11:55 a.m. Office phone Rosa asked for Jim
03:09:07 Jim BG. So Bernie Greeny. So this is a change in the person who answers the phone because it's to the office phone. Bernie Greeny answered and denied
03:09:18 Bernie Greeny answered and denied knowledge of him and said it was a private number and he couldn't help. Then 12:25 p.m. another call to the duty phone. So this is an old war again. Rosa
03:09:29 phone. So this is an old war again. Rosa says, "If you see Jim, tell him I'm leaving him and it's all over.
03:09:40 You must have been aware of these calls."
03:09:46 calls." Well, I I looking at them, yes, I should should have been, but I I don't recall them in I don't recall the situation where the duty phone and the office phone was phoned. Could we
03:09:59 phone was phoned. Could we but I I accept I do accept that I should have known about that but I don't remember it. Could we turn to page 20 please?
03:10:18 This is a file note dated the 12th of December 2000.
03:10:25 So this is the same day that those calls came through. So the calls the first call was 11:42 in the morning and the fourth call was 5 to
03:10:38 the morning and the fourth call was 5 to 1 in the afternoon and on the same day you provide this file note. Yes. Yes. Now, you indicated at this time you might have been abroad, but looking at
03:10:50 might have been abroad, but looking at that file note, um, does that help you with where you would have been on the 12th of December, 2000? No, no, I I absolutely I accept that I' I've written that.
03:11:03 I've written that. So, your file notes, Rosa Close of Psycho Dream, has obtained the phone numbers of the duty phone in the SDS office. Yesterday she rang the duty phone three times in the office once,
03:11:15 phone three times in the office once, although all the office phones were out of order for much of the morning trying to trace Jim Sutton. Null War took all three mobile calls and it would seem sensible for him to retain the duty phone for the time being. Bernie Greeny
03:11:27 phone for the time being. Bernie Greeny took the single call into and told Rosa the office that it was a private number and like null war denied knowing Jim Sutton. Although the calls may now be at
03:11:38 Sutton. Although the calls may now be at an end, it is possible that Rosa could obtain the office subscriber details and less probably the duty phone. If she does, she may either ring again or make a personal appearance. In either case,
03:11:49 a personal appearance. In either case, we should be consistent in our response to her inquiries. Happy to acknowledge that we're a counseling firm used to taking local business um but have developed an adequate client base. Had a
03:12:00 developed an adequate client base. Had a number of small building repairs, cannot give our client information. We do not know a Jim Sutton. either as an employee or builder. Duty phone is null war's personal mobile. All of the emphasis
03:12:14 personal mobile. All of the emphasis here is protecting the SDS office, isn't it?
03:12:19 it? Yes, it is. Absolutely. There is again no hint of any concern for the welfare of Rosa. the the situation seeing that that that
03:12:33 the the situation seeing that that that report. Now the a situation like that means that we have to assess where we are in terms of the the physical threat that that those calls made. And we can
03:12:45 that that those calls made. And we can either go down the road the the road of assuming the worst or we can go down the road of hoping for the best. And hoping for the best will be negligent in many respects if we um uh expose ourselves to
03:12:57 respects if we um uh expose ourselves to risk. We have to treat that situation as being a [clears throat] potential threat to both Jim Sum and the office and the
03:13:08 to both Jim Sum and the office and the office operation in the first instance. That's why we would have uh take that course of action. You must have known
03:13:18 during the time that you drafted this note that Rosa must have been in a relationship with Jim Boing. You must have known that. I do not recall that at all. I do not recall anyone telling me that
03:13:30 I do not recall anyone telling me that or being aware of that. There there's a difference, isn't there, for someone specifically telling you Jim Boing has been in a relationship with
03:13:41 Boing has been in a relationship with Rosa. There's a difference between that and the evidence that we've just been going through, the emails that make it crystal clear that a relationship um had
03:13:52 crystal clear that a relationship um had been existing. If I'd been armed with all of that information then beforehand then you could make that judgment I think. But um without that it's hindsight that's
03:14:05 without that it's hindsight that's telling us that at the same day. So it must have been hours or even minutes after Rosa says tell Jim I'm leaving him
03:14:18 tell Jim I'm leaving him that that is recorded. You must have known about those calls. You You must have known about all the lengths that she went through to try to find him.
03:14:32 went through to try to find him. [snorts]
03:14:34 [snorts] Well,
03:14:37 Well, the answer is no. I No, I don't.
03:14:46 So, at what stage did you find out that Jim Boiling had been in a relationship with with Rosie? Is your suggestion when
03:14:57 with with Rosie? Is your suggestion when it came out in the press or in the inquiry? I learned about that after I'd retired and through either through uh the press or the operation that or
03:15:08 the press or the operation that or operation home or but it was it was in the [clears throat] two 2010s after I retired I I discovered that
03:15:20 retired I I discovered that but why didn't you try to contact Jim Boiling and have it out with him in the sense of telling him to tell you if you didn't
03:15:32 telling him to tell you if you didn't already know. Explain yourself. Why is Rosa trying to contact you? It's clear that you've been in a relationship. We need to know what has been going on.
03:15:43 need to know what has been going on. There's no hint of contacting Jim Boing. Why? Why is that? Why not? If you didn't know, why not try to get to the bottom of it?
03:15:53 of it? Well, I don't know if
03:15:57 I don't recall doing that, but I don't know whether that is because it was done by the DCI [clears throat] or the DS's. I don't know what action followed that
03:16:08 I don't know what action followed that situation.
03:16:12 I'm sorry. I don't remember. That's that's what I meant to say. I don't remember what happened after that report, which I recognize is mine. I don't remember what happened after that
03:16:27 in terms of the tenure of your evidence is that well you weren't aware that any any of this was uh going on in the SDS
03:16:38 any of this was uh going on in the SDS but here we have the documents that that make it that make it clear that it it was going on but even presented with these documents nothing's nothing's done about it in
03:16:51 nothing's nothing's done about it in terms of reprimanding HN14 Jim Boiling or even questioning him him about it. So when you're presented with it, nothing's done.
03:17:01 done. I I just I I have said that I wasn't aware that there had been a relationship physical relationship between Jim Boing and
03:17:12 and Rosa
03:17:13 Rosa until [clears throat] many many years later. At the time, my reading of the situation was that this was an activist who was trying to identify
03:17:25 identify uh Jim Sutton uh and potentially damage the unit. So, my concern with was with the safety of um officers and the unit.
03:17:39 Any concern about Jim Boiling? Well, absolutely. Of course, that that that would be at the heart of it. I wonder if we can um take this document
03:17:50 I wonder if we can um take this document down and just bring up Jim Boiling's witness statement. It's UCPI 36294.
03:17:58 I wonder if we could turn please in that document to page 197
03:18:08 in particular paragraph 497.
03:18:13 So this is Jim Boing's statement of the inquiry
03:18:18 inquiry where he states this. Uh neither I or my family were offered any advice or ongoing support by the SDS or the Metropolitan Police Service following my withdrawal. I specifically expected to
03:18:30 withdrawal. I specifically expected to be offered some sort of counseling shortly after I finished my deployment. Uh but no offer was made after my deployment had ceased. When I became that ro aware that Rosa was on the verge
03:18:41 that ro aware that Rosa was on the verge of finding me in November 2001, I phoned DS Greeny and informed him of the full circumstances and asked for advice. I remember this was at a weekend. He said
03:18:54 remember this was at a weekend. He said he would come to speak to me at the E Squad office at 10:00 a.m. Monday morning. Nobody came and there was no communication. Although I was made aware through ex-colagues that officers had
03:19:05 through ex-colagues that officers had taken action in relocating themselves as a result. A few days later I was contacted by DI HN53 and he told me not to contact the office
03:19:19 and he told me not to contact the office again. He did not give me any alternative way of contacting the office or SDS. I was dumbfounded. So instead of you contacting
03:19:35 So instead of you contacting Jim Boiling, he calls DS Greeny. They arrange to meet. DS Greeny doesn't turn up. He then phones the SDS office,
03:19:49 turn up. He then phones the SDS office, gets through to you, and your assistance to him was to tell him not to contact the office again, leaving him dumbfounded. How do you
03:20:01 leaving him dumbfounded. How do you account for uh treating HN14 like that at this stage?
03:20:08 stage? Well, that that in the first instance, that doesn't sound like me in any respect whatsoever. I would never tell a former SDS officer not to contact the office again in the way that is being
03:20:21 office again in the way that is being suggested in the statement where it says I did not give him any alternative way of contacting the office or SDS. I'm I'm just looking at the preceding sentence which talks about the
03:20:34 preceding sentence which talks about the officers had taken action in relocating themselves as a result. Whether that means that the office was relocated and there was no means of communication, but [clears throat] it is not my nature
03:20:46 but [clears throat] it is not my nature in any respect to um
03:20:51 say to a former SDS officer who had been whether he's just left or not, not to contact the office again in in a a negative way. That's just not the way I
03:21:03 negative way. That's just not the way I operate. HN53. Just to be as fair to you as as possible, I when he was giving evidence,
03:21:11 evidence, I just want to just read to you what Jim Boing said about this particular call, which adds a little bit more detail. It so he just says this. He says the phone call was very tur. It was just don't
03:21:24 call was very tur. It was just don't contact us again. In fact, he said referring to you what you said, don't call the office. And I remember saying I didn't call the office. this I called HN52 and he referring to you and he just
03:21:37 HN52 and he referring to you and he just said don't contact us again but then he said it's not just you we are telling all former officers not to contact us again so again he provides a bit more detail to that call so you saying ters
03:21:51 detail to that call so you saying ters well don't contact us again but also saying well telling all former UCOs not to contact us again [snorts] well I think I mean it sounds to me like he's he's
03:22:01 he's he's taken the on a wrong end of the stick and that this is a message we're trying to put out to um to other to former UCOs. I mean again I don't recall doing
03:22:14 UCOs. I mean again I don't recall doing this but but it is as I said it's not my nature to be rude or inmperate with people. Um,
03:22:25 people. Um, but it it's it's how the other person interprets the call. Is is the reason that you were to use Jim Boiling's word tur is the reason that you were tur uh and didn't want to
03:22:36 that you were tur uh and didn't want to uh him to call back was because he was the person that started all of this that he was the person that misconducted himself by having a relationship with Rosa. So he brought all of this problem
03:22:50 Rosa. So he brought all of this problem on to the SDS. He had a a relationship with Rosa and now Rosa has tracked down the uh SDS office and so when he calls he's the last person you want to speak
03:23:02 he's the last person you want to speak to because it was his fault. Is that was that the thought process about HN14? The reason you were out of character tur with him is because it was his fault in your mind. Well, no, because I didn't believe that
03:23:13 Well, no, because I didn't believe that he had been in a physical relationship with the individual. So I'm simply talking to him as a former UCO who was left sorry for he's left the unit and
03:23:27 left sorry for he's left the unit and communicating with him at the same time as others because of the potential um risk to the office. So looking again at that paragraph that
03:23:38 So looking again at that paragraph that we had that you have on the screen, nobody came and there was no communication although I was made aware through ex colleagues that officers had taken action in relocating themselves as
03:23:49 taken action in relocating themselves as a result
03:23:51 a result as a result of Ros's calls to the SDS office. Did the SDS office move locations? Well, as I said earlier, um I presume
03:24:02 Well, as I said earlier, um I presume they must have done at that point and and I could see that there would be valid reasons for doing that. The way in which you're describing it though is as if it was presented to you
03:24:15 though is as if it was presented to you for the first time. Do you really have no recollection of the the office moving as a result of uh someone [clears throat] finding the numbers out?
03:24:27 [clears throat] finding the numbers out? Would that not have stood out as a a really significant event in your entire tenure as DI that you had to move offices uh because it had been compromised? What it should do, but again I'm I'm not
03:24:39 What it should do, but again I'm I'm not clear from what what um is said on the statement there whether this is office or premises or is this one of the uh
03:24:50 or premises or is this one of the uh flats? I I I I just don't recall. I'm sorry. [snorts]
03:24:55 [snorts] Is there any reason that you can um help us with as to why you can't recall uh these events which I'm going to suggest are significant events? Why do you think
03:25:06 are significant events? Why do you think you can't recall them? Well, I I I I really don't know. There were a number of major um events in my time on the unit [clears throat] that I
03:25:18 time on the unit [clears throat] that I do have recollection of, but and they provide they they form the focus of of a lot of my work. Um but other events which should stand out don't.
03:25:29 which should stand out don't. Before we break for lunch, there's just one more document I'd like to ask you about. Could we please um turn to uh MPS 304871?
03:25:41 304871? So this is a document behind your tab B144.
03:25:48 Now, do you remember when we were going through some of the emails uh that one of the emails Rosa said were to the effect that she was disillusioned with the activist scene? Uh surprised that
03:26:02 the activist scene? Uh surprised that you'd think she was still there. Um, in terms of Rosa uh herself, um, would you, if you have no
03:26:14 um, would you, if you have no recollection, would you accept that, uh, you would have asked questions or caused to be asked questions? Who is this Rosa? What's, who is she? And be provided with as much information as possible about
03:26:25 as much information as possible about her. Yes.
03:26:34 Jim Boiling has described Rosa at that time as f poss as follows. He says in his statement and we didn't turn it up but the references paragraph
03:26:46 turn it up but the references paragraph 263 in his statement he says this. I would not describe Roser as particularly active within RTS reclaim the streets. I do not think she had any previous involvement in RTS prior to meeting me.
03:26:57 involvement in RTS prior to meeting me. After meeting me, she did attend meetings and events. I would not describe Razer as an RTS activist. She attended meetings and some events and assisted in some organized committees,
03:27:09 assisted in some organized committees, but at a reasonably low level. So the description of Rosa is uh not um particularly active in reclaimed the
03:27:20 particularly active in reclaimed the streets that Jim Boing infiltrated didn't have any previous involvement with them and anything that she did have involvement in was at a low level and so
03:27:31 involvement in was at a low level and so do you recall finding out from discussions that you must have had that um Rosa was no threat at
03:27:41 at uh to uh Jim Boiling. Well, um
03:27:48 Well, um it's difficult to quantify a threat when you don't know what the um what the potential threat is.
03:27:59 The document that we have on screen is an application for Rose's billing and the applicant officer is you. Can you
03:28:10 the applicant officer is you. Can you see that at the top? No, it's gone off the screen. Sorry. I I accept that. I accept that. I wonder if we can just check um why that might be the case because we have the document on our screen.
03:28:24 the document on our screen. That's it's back. Yes. Thank you. So that sort of document does that look familiar in terms of the structure applying for Yes.
03:28:33 Yes. billing information? So we can see that you're the applying officer. Again, similar question. Do you remember um making this application or does this bring back um any recollection of this
03:28:47 bring back um any recollection of this particular period of time? Well, it reminds me that I did put in that clearly put in that application. Yes.
03:28:54 Yes. All right. Well, if we turn over the page, please, we can see at the top, this request for billing information is the only means of securing a specific piece of intelligence, which is crucial
03:29:06 piece of intelligence, which is crucial to preventing the offenses listed above. I'm sorry to do this. I wonder can we just go back a page so we can see what the offenses listed um above are? We can
03:29:17 the offenses listed um above are? We can see it's in the bottom box, criminal damage, threats to public order. Okay. So, this request for billing information is the only means of securing a specific piece of intelligence which is crucial to preventing the offenses listed um
03:29:29 to preventing the offenses listed um above
03:29:31 above that. That was not correct, was it? Well, yes, it was. What hint was there that Rosa was going to commit criminal damage?
03:29:47 Well, it's that the the um the application was based on the fact that she that there was a possibility that um she would um
03:30:00 she would um uh
03:30:03 pose a threat to the individual. That's not criminal damage, is it? Well, potentially it is criminal damage. threat harm to an individual. That's
03:30:15 threat harm to an individual. That's assault, isn't it?
03:30:19 Yes. It doesn't say assault. It says criminal damage.
03:30:23 damage. Yes.
03:30:24 Yes. So, why why does it say criminal damage in nature of the inquiry? Why? Why is that?
03:30:29 that? Well, I can't explain that. I don't know. Threats to public order. What What threat to public order is Rosa at this point?
03:30:42 I think the point the point is is answered in the investigation um section um in the sense that um she um was believed to have made contact with a
03:30:53 believed to have made contact with a number of violence prone activists around the country and the information sought would enable us to frustrate plans for public disorder and prevent serious criminal damage. So so that that would be the [clears throat]
03:31:04 would be the [clears throat] um the rationale.
03:31:08 It's a it's an application uh based on a lie, isn't it? There's no suggestion at the time that the concern that you and your colleagues had was
03:31:20 that you and your colleagues had was that Rosa was going to commit criminal damage, provide a threat to public order.
03:31:26 order. We didn't know what the nature of the threat was,
03:31:32 but anyone looking at the emails that she sent to Jim Boing would have known that this was just someone trying to find someone who disappeared.
03:31:45 find someone who disappeared. This is not not an individual that is threatening any violence, not someone who's threatening to damage anything and let alone someone who's suggesting, well,
03:31:56 alone someone who's suggesting, well, let's have a demonstration and see how many people we can uh bring to the streets of London. None of that at all. So, it's it's a it's an application
03:32:07 So, it's it's a it's an application based on a lie. Well, I I would disagree. If we look at the investigation section of the form, the target who is now the sole occupant of address is an active
03:32:19 sole occupant of address is an active supporter of a number of anarchist organizations.
03:32:25 But again, what we've just established is that she's not a a supporter of a number of anarchist organizations, is she?
03:32:33 she? Well, I've um I would have [clears throat] composed that on the basis of presumably what Jim Sutton had said or uh but more importantly what the
03:32:46 said or uh but more importantly what the assessment uh within uh special branch was about the individual. But you said you didn't have any discussion with Jim Boing and when he tries to call you um you tell him don't call the office again. So it couldn't
03:32:58 call the office again. So it couldn't have been from him. Well, I'm in in this is in the in the sense of the office talking to um Jim B. I I don't know what um I can't remember
03:33:10 I I don't know what um I can't remember specifically what conversations we had, but but clearly that would reflect his views as well as the assessment from um the main um branch.
03:33:22 the main um branch. She had recently joined a small cell within the RTS. Now that word cell, it's commonly used in relation to extremist
03:33:33 commonly used in relation to extremist groups. A classic example of a cell is almost like in a terrorist organization. There's a a terrorist cell. It has a specific uh meaning, doesn't it? When you use the word someone's in a cell, I
03:33:47 you use the word someone's in a cell, I it is ex what you're what you're setting out here is an exaggeration uh to obtain her billing data, isn't it? that that's the reason that you refer to her being joining a small cell.
03:34:01 her being joining a small cell. Well, I I I don't agree with that. No, I think it's it's reflecting how um she was perceived at the time and
03:34:12 um she was perceived at the time and what the the nature of the threat was perceived to be. in the emails, disillusioned, left the scene. Jim Boiling's description of her wasn't even in RTS until he came along. And even
03:34:25 in RTS until he came along. And even then, she was at in it at a low level. It is the opposite of the truth, isn't it, what you've set out in this application form? No, I don't think it is.
03:34:38 No, I don't think it is. She has recently joined a small cell within the RTS and is believed to have made contact with a number of violence activists around the country. Where where did that come from?
03:34:49 where did that come from? Well, that there must be a basis for that, but
03:34:53 that, but without access to to what that basis was, I I can't answer that. Who are the candidates for providing you with that information? Well, it would be um um the cease squad.
03:35:09 Well, it would be um um the cease squad. The information sort will enable police to frustrate plans for public disorder and prevent serious criminal damage.
03:35:20 and prevent serious criminal damage. How does obtaining Rose's billing data enable the police to frustrate plans for public order and prevent serious criminal damage?
03:35:32 Well, uh it it would enable us to um get to the bottom of what the threat was. That was the intention.
03:35:48 So I don't know if now is convenient time to break. Certainly. We'll [clears throat] resume at 10 2.