In this afternoon session HN53, a former Detective Inspector who supervised SDS undercover officers for around seven years, gives evidence remotely with voice modulation. The Chairman first presses him on the flimsy basis for a covert billing request targeting a woman known as Rosa, before Counsel to the Inquiry conducts a lengthy, often uncomfortable examination of his years-long investigation into UCO James Thompson's fabricated 'Operation Lime' plot, his own missed evidence of Thompson's undisclosed relationships, and the eventual 'slapped wrist' outcome. The session closes with evidence of other officers' undisclosed relationships, a fabricated rent book, an undercover officer briefing the Met's civil defence lawyers, and the impact of SDS secrecy policy on officers' partners, including a stark letter describing officers boasting of affairs and children born of them.
00:18:27 It's done. Good afternoon everybody. Uh, this afternoon's proceedings are being transmitted on the live link but by voice only and with voice modulation and only after 15 minutes have elapsed.
00:18:40 only after 15 minutes have elapsed. Those with uh mobile telephones uh in the area behind the uh full hearing room uh may report what they hear in the hearing room but only after 15 minutes
00:18:53 hearing room but only after 15 minutes of elapse since the event that they're reporting they may not be used for recording. Sir before moving to the next topic I understand sir you have um some uh points that you wish to raise.
00:19:05 points that you wish to raise. Yes I do.
00:19:08 Uh could we have up please the document that was on the screen uh before we rose?
00:19:19 before we rose? Thank you.
00:19:23 You were asked about this document um by Mr. Ramble before the lunch and adjournment. Yes.
00:19:29 Yes. And you have um given your answers uh about it.
00:19:44 You told me that the document reflected how Rosa was perceived at the time. Yes.
00:19:55 Yes. Perceived by whom? Well, I'm by me, I I suspect.
00:20:06 I do apologize. It's my own fault I didn't have the hearing device on. Would you repeat your answer? Sorry. Um, you ask who who is it perceived by? Yes. I suspect it will be me
00:20:17 suspect it will be me as as the author of the document.
00:20:33 and the basis for the perception.
00:20:40 I'm sorry because I I wrote the document. I'm not quite with you, sir. What was the basis for your perception
00:20:51 What was the basis for your perception that I that I Yeah.
00:20:55 Yeah. that I've written the document? I'm sorry. I I I I didn't quite understand. Yes. You you told me in Yeah.
00:21:01 Yeah. before the lunchon adjournment that the document reflected how Rosa was perceived at the time. Yes.
00:21:11 Yes. And I asked you by whom it was perceived and you said by you? Yes.
00:21:17 Yes. On what basis did you have that perception?
00:21:23 I I'm I presume it's on the basis of what I was told about the background of the individual um which formed the basis of what I wrote.
00:21:37 Told by whom? Well, it it it would have been um and I'm um I'm afraid I'm I'm guessing here because I don't know. It would be on the
00:21:48 because I don't know. It would be on the basis of um [clears throat] information available within the unit from officers who would
00:21:57 who would have knowledge of Rosa andor uh the C squad uh records and assessment uh the the deaths that would be relevant for
00:22:08 the deaths that would be relevant for that uh based on that their information.
00:22:16 So do I understand your answer to be that to achieve the perception that you had uh you would have uh obtained information from either or both of
00:22:29 information from either or both of officers within the SDS with knowledge of Rosa or officers on the C squad desk? Yes, I would I would have have put together an an a collective assessment
00:22:42 together an an a collective assessment view of what the [clears throat] um the background was to the the situation was
00:22:50 which uh officers within the SDS would have assisted you? Um
00:23:02 well I would imagine what it would be um
00:23:11 Jim Boiling obviously um
00:23:30 That would include the cover sergeants.
00:23:37 Um,
00:23:40 I'm sorry, I'm struggling with names here.
00:23:51 I'm sorry. At this distance in time, I'm I'm I'm not sure who that would have been.
00:24:07 You were not in contact with Jim Boiling, as I understand it, when the telephone calls were received in the office.
00:24:14 office. I I don't recall being in conversation with him, but others may have been. Others being I'm sorry. Uh, others in the off the of the office staff,
00:24:25 the office staff, the sergeants, the sergeants or um the [clears throat] DCI.
00:24:49 What inquiries uh would you have made at C Squad?
00:24:57 I would have asked for an assessment from them of the individual and the individuals with whom they associated
00:25:09 individuals with whom they associated to um establish what was known. Did you do so? I'm assuming I did, but I I
00:25:21 I'm assuming I did, but I I 25 years on I'm I I don't remember the exact circumstances of what happened in this case, but there would have been contact. I I
00:25:33 but there would have been contact. I I would have made contact or one of the DS's would have made contact with the desk to establish what was known.
00:26:03 May uh we look please at the material which was uh available uh about Rosa based on the uh reporting of HN14
00:26:19 Rosa based on the uh reporting of HN14 boiling.
00:26:20 boiling. Could we put up please the three documents in which she appears? First, MPS O002786.
00:26:43 If you uh would like to take time to read rapidly through that document, please do. Yes.
00:26:50 Yes. These are the plans for Mayday 2000.
00:27:02 And you will note that there is an indoor event uh comprising if successful a variety of stalls, workshops, displays, lectures, discussion groups etc. Uh carry on down the document
00:27:15 etc. Uh carry on down the document please.
00:27:33 Yes,
00:27:38 we can see there that uh three individuals uh of whom the third is Rosa are all involved in organizing and networking this event. That's the indoor event.
00:27:51 this event. That's the indoor event. Yes.
00:27:53 Yes. Could
00:27:58 we now put up please um MPS O 03334.
00:28:13 This is a collective report uh on the Mayday event 2000.
00:28:24 I I need not I think trouble you w with its detail. You may or may not be. Were you familiar with what happened on Mayday 2000? Was it and I was at the time? So, but
00:28:37 Was it and I was at the time? So, but it was a so-called guerilla gardening event in which um HN3 was uh detained for being in a van with um manure. Okay. Um carry on down please.
00:28:51 Um carry on down please. to the next page.
00:28:56 And to the next page
00:29:03 and there we will see uh beginning a long list of names uh in which Rosa appears towards the bottom with a pager number and her work the identity of the
00:29:17 number and her work the identity of the employer for whom she works. Um uh if you want to be reassured, we can see the rest of the document, but all it does is to list a whole lot of people with similar sorts of details.
00:29:29 similar sorts of details. The next document is O MPS O003503.
00:29:42 Uh this is um a description of an Earthirst summer gathering which took place in Wales on the 7th to the 11th of June uh
00:29:54 June uh 2000.
00:29:55 2000. Uh, and if you carry on over to the next page, please.
00:30:07 We will see somewhere that uh, Rosa appears as one of those attending it. Maybe it's on the next page.
00:30:20 So, the bottom right hand side, page two.
00:30:24 two. Oh, yes. Yes. Yes, thank you very much. I'm very grateful. Um,
00:30:31 Um, apart from uh her appearance uh in the uh resume of Jim's withdrawal document which we looked at which we can see again if you want to but apart from that
00:30:43 again if you want to but apart from that those are the only mentions that uh I have found in the uh SDS documentation uh referring to Rosa.
00:30:54 uh referring to Rosa. I have not found any document in which she has an RF number
00:31:00 uh nor anything which indicates uh anything beyond that that she attended various well-attended events and helped organize an indoor event on Mayday 2000.
00:31:15 Uh, I simply do not understand how it is possible that on the basis of the information that was available to you, you could have concluded that Rosa posed
00:31:27 you could have concluded that Rosa posed any sort of threat of criminal damage or threat to public order.
00:31:36 I mean I I find it hard to explain as well and I don't um all I can say is that the the information came from somewhere. It didn't come out of my
00:31:47 somewhere. It didn't come out of my head. Um
00:31:51 head. Um I'm I'm confident well I know 25 years ago I could have explained it dot and comma where everything came from but at this distance in time I am I don't understand
00:32:05 what the process was um to to to get to that document. I'm sorry I didn't explain that very well. Um I I don't understand where where that
00:32:18 Um I I don't understand where where that specifically came from other than the the conduits [clears throat] that I um mentioned earlier.
00:32:27 earlier. You said that one of the um likely sources of information uh was your DCI HN58. Well, only in the sense that the DCI and
00:32:40 Well, only in the sense that the DCI and the other DS's would would have had knowledge of operational uh aspects that I might not have. Yeah.
00:32:48 Yeah. Rather than him specifically having that information. Did you listen to or have you uh read the evidence of uh DCI HN58 about Rosa?
00:33:02 the evidence of uh DCI HN58 about Rosa? No, I haven't. Uh he admitted that on the basis of uh what he then knew in uh
00:33:17 at this time in 2000 uh that uh Rosa had had a sexual relationship with Boiling.
00:33:30 Well, that is not something that he shared with me. at the time or since
00:33:38 or since it may be it is the first time that he has admitted it. Um but it is to his credit that he has done so and he has done so.
00:33:46 done so. Um
00:33:48 Um the sergeants uh Sergeant War in particular was in no doubt that um the telephone messages from Rosa
00:33:58 from Rosa uh disclosed that uh there had been a sexual relationship between her and Boiling.
00:34:06 Boiling. Uh I [clears throat] am therefore at a loss to understand uh how you can now assert uh truthfully
00:34:17 uh truthfully uh that you obtained the information necessary to permit you to fill in the application for billing records in the way that you did.
00:34:29 way that you did. I
00:34:29 I I'm trying to explain it truthfully. Um
00:34:37 this this is an event that really is not um
00:34:44 um lodged in my memory. And [clears throat] um the
00:34:51 um the what is the case is that I had no knowledge that there was a relationship physical relationship between um
00:35:02 physical relationship between um Rosa and uh Jim Boing and that any action I took at the time would have been driven by
00:35:13 been driven by uh an assessment that there was a risk to Jim Boing and to the operation. Um, I can understand that it may have been driven by a belief that there was a
00:35:25 been driven by a belief that there was a risk to the operation.
00:35:30 If that was all that there was and there was no factual basis for it available to you at the time, then I think it must follow that when you filled in the
00:35:41 follow that when you filled in the request form uh you were doing so uh without a proper uh factual foundation. Well, but that's that's not the way that
00:35:54 Well, but that's that's not the way that I I work. It's um I I I I can't explain now how that information [clears throat] got to me, but other than the route that
00:36:05 got to me, but other than the route that I've suggested, I don't understand that either. But forgive me. Um it has I think been established uh certainly to my satisfaction that there
00:36:16 certainly to my satisfaction that there was no
00:36:19 was no proper basis for the billing request. Rosa was not a threat to anybody. to do anything, let alone cause serious criminal damage or public disorder.
00:36:33 My understanding at the time and since then has been that there was a potential threat to the individual and to the integrity of the unit as well and hence
00:36:45 integrity of the unit as well and hence the potential threat and harm to other UCOs. Give me if I've got time. If the basis for making the billing request in the terms
00:36:56 making the billing request in the terms that you did was to avoid exposure of the SDS unit and thereby put it and its
00:37:07 the SDS unit and thereby put it and its undercover officers at risk, then that is a basis that I could understand. But is that your explanation for what you did?
00:37:17 did? Well, there is an element of that, but that is part and parcel of the overall assessment of the risk to individuals [clears throat] within an individual and individuals
00:37:29 within an individual and individuals with the unit and that the integrity of the unit is tied up in that.
00:37:37 Let me put it in blunt terms. Uh, you made a billing request
00:37:49 billing request that was based only on your wish to preserve the integrity of the SDS and so the safety of its officers
00:38:01 the safety of its officers and for no other reason.
00:38:06 Well, I I I I don't believe that was the case.
00:38:09 case. Very well. I think we've taken that as far as it can be taken. Thank you. So, may we turn to another UCO, James Thompson. Could we please
00:38:23 UCO, James Thompson. Could we please bring up MPS 052680?
00:38:29 So, at your tab B1
00:38:42 This is an application for participation of a covert human intelligence source relating to James Thompson. And it arises out of
00:38:56 James Thompson. And it arises out of circumstances which uh were covered by the name Operation Lime. Operation Lime. Is that something that you have a good memory of
00:39:08 something that you have a good memory of now?
00:39:09 now? A a pretty good memory. Yes.
00:39:14 If we remind ourselves, this is an operation that centered on a purported plot by a small group of uh activists
00:39:28 plot by a small group of uh activists that we are calling L1, L2, and L3 to purchase a firearm, ammunition, and black powder in France with a view to
00:39:40 black powder in France with a view to returning to this country to carry out a revenge attack against a hunt supporter L5 following an incident on the 1st of September 2000 in which L4 had been run
00:39:55 September 2000 in which L4 had been run over. I I've simplified it, but does that um jock your memory in relation to what Operation Lime was about? Yes, [clears throat] it was. I is it right that operation lime in your
00:40:06 right that operation lime in your position as DI in the SCS at the time um took up not an inconsiderable amount of your time and effort? The the aftermath did I wasn't involved
00:40:18 The the aftermath did I wasn't involved in the actual operation itself you
00:40:22 you when it when it when it when it um went into its final stages. So if we look at the document on screen, we have you as the uh controller
00:40:33 the uh controller uh issuing the authorization um here
00:40:39 um here and if we please turn to the second page
00:40:48 uh referring to uh
00:40:53 uh L2
00:40:54 L2 um having been arrested. did and although charged with a conspiracy to commit arson, the case was withdrawn. If we turn over the page,
00:41:07 a description of the uh background as I've described in in detail in some detail as to what precipitated operation
00:41:21 detail as to what precipitated operation lime. But again, given that you were the controller, you you would have been fully aware of the details as reflected in this application at the time. I would have been. Yes. And if we turn over the page please,
00:41:41 uh details of the plan of action at this stage
00:41:46 stage um referring to arrest um dangers being arrested in France, identification in subsequent court proceedings. Uh and so at the time this would have been um
00:41:59 at the time this would have been um something that you as a DI would have had to have kept a close eye on even if you yourself were not traveling uh to France. Is that right? Yes. So if we turn over the page please
00:42:17 reference to operational risk in the third paragraph of disclosure in subsequent court proceedings is a very real one. It's assessed that participation in the dry run only is the
00:42:29 participation in the dry run only is the best means to preserve operational security as well as drive the intelligence towards a prosecution. Clearly, it is possible that some suspicion could fall on James Thompson
00:42:41 suspicion could fall on James Thompson magenta triangle when he fails to participate in the actual procurement and others are arrested. Although the operational risk will be minimized by use of an effective and credible
00:42:52 use of an effective and credible strategy for dealing with his absence. Do do you remember at this time there being uh excitement in the SDS office that as a result of intelligence
00:43:05 that as a result of intelligence provided by James Thompson, the uh SDS were engaged in thwarting what it was potentially a murder plot.
00:43:18 what it was potentially a murder plot. Well, it was it um it it would have represented a significant step up in activity by um the [clears throat] activists and and the the fact that SDS
00:43:30 activists and and the the fact that SDS were at the heart of um trying to foil it would would have been um a big thing as well. Uh the reference being to a dry
00:43:42 as well. Uh the reference being to a dry run to France that took place on the 9th of November. I wonder if we could now turn to MPS30
00:43:53 turn to MPS30 9484.
00:43:55 9484. So which is behind your tab B139. This is Noel War's file note dated the 13th of November and it refers
00:44:06 dated the 13th of November and it refers to a meeting between him, James Thompson,
00:44:10 Thompson, uh Bernie Greeny. But the meeting took place at James Thompson's home address on the 10th of November. So when he returned from the dry run to
00:44:23 So when he returned from the dry run to France, um we have heard evidence that this was essentially what's described as as a booze cruise uh to uh France. Uh it
00:44:34 as a booze cruise uh to uh France. Uh it wasn't a dry run at all. But at this particular stage, you've already alluded to a significant uptick in the seriousness on those that James Thompson
00:44:46 seriousness on those that James Thompson was reporting on. Can you assist as to why a meeting took place at his home?
00:44:55 Um, well, I think it it was not uncommon to um have meetings at um home addresses, but it would generally have been the the
00:45:07 it would generally have been the the sergeant's um address. Um it may well have been
00:45:12 have been um the fact that uh magenta trial had just returned from an exhausting day that it was felt that um Bernie Greeny and I I presume is the
00:45:25 um Bernie Greeny and I I presume is the DCI would have gone gone to him rather than the other way round.
00:45:34 in relation to what is suggested is that there is a further uh wrecky to uh France and reference to uh going to uh
00:45:47 France and reference to uh going to uh Marseilles looking um at at restaurants there again what to what extent you're not referred to specifically in this note but to what extent did you have
00:45:58 note but to what extent did you have involvement in the detail of how the operation would take face. Um, from from this distance, I I I don't
00:46:09 Um, from from this distance, I I I don't remember how how much detail I had at the time and and if I was around in the office or not. Um um so so no I I I I couldn't be specific
00:46:23 um so so no I I I I couldn't be specific on that but I would be certainly um need to be aware either then or subsequently that that was going on. If we take that down please and move to
00:46:36 If we take that down please and move to MPS0527650
00:46:39 please. So this is not in uh your bundle.
00:46:56 uh this is a a document that is signed off by you. Yes. Uh we can see there just to
00:47:07 Yes. Uh we can see there just to read it in the context of the Marseilles operation the importance of Magenta Triangle's participation in the trip to Istanbul with L4 should not be
00:47:18 Istanbul with L4 should not be understated. In the first instance there is the probable intelligence dividend to be gained from L4 about the longerterm intentions of L1 2 or three. More
00:47:31 intentions of L1 2 or three. More particularly, however, the cementing of the relationship between Magenta Triangle and the most high-profile animal rights martyr will greatly enhance his credibility and standing
00:47:42 enhance his credibility and standing amongst those who are driving the uh procurement. Magenta Triangle is due to travel to Istanbul with L4 on Monday the 20th of November, returning the following
00:47:53 November, returning the following Monday. The pair will be staying in the suburbs of the city with friends of the latter for the duration of the trip. I will be providing backup and intend to travel to Istanbul on Friday the 24th of
00:48:06 travel to Istanbul on Friday the 24th of November returning on Tuesday the 28th. So in relation to this particular trip, do you recall it? Yes.
00:48:17 Yes. And
00:48:19 And why were you traveling on that uh trip as opposed to, for example, uh one of James Thompson's
00:48:30 James Thompson's uh DS's, one of his uh cover officers? Wh why in particular? Was that because of the importance at the time that was attached to this part of HN16's
00:48:42 attached to this part of HN16's deployment? Um I
00:48:46 Um I to be honest I don't know it's it's sometimes the case that um with the travel it it depends on the availability of others in the office. It wasn't it would ideally uh it would be the cover
00:48:59 would ideally uh it would be the cover um sergeant to do it but but not necessarily the case in in every event. Um so I I I don't know why it was me in particular rather than um one of them.
00:49:13 particular rather than um one of them. In relation to trips taken by UCOs uh abroad uh we have heard descriptions by those acting in the position of cover officer that they try to at least have
00:49:27 officer that they try to at least have one sighting uh of the um officer. Uh can you remember if you had any sighting of James Thompson on this particular trip?
00:49:38 trip? That is true. I didn't know. Is that because the the main function in practice of SDS cover officers was to
00:49:50 in practice of SDS cover officers was to be in the vicinity on standby should assistance be required as opposed to uh keeping an eye on their UCO who who was abroad. It
00:50:02 abroad. It it was very much a reactive [clears throat] role deliberately. And the weakness with that uh would you agree is that in relation to any trip
00:50:14 agree is that in relation to any trip taken abroad uh by an undercover officer even with the existence of cover officers sometimes more than one is that
00:50:26 officers sometimes more than one is that uh they could essentially um act uh without uh being seen. In other words, um they weren't uh supervised uh visually in any way.
00:50:37 visually in any way. Yes. Yes, that is that is that is true. But but short of of course of of 24hour being with [clears throat] them and um but it it is undoubtedly a potential risk. We can see at the bottom of that
00:50:50 risk. We can see at the bottom of that we're looking at. If you agree, I'd be grateful if you would sign the attached memorandum for DS Greeny, DS War, and Magenta Triangle to travel to Marseilles from the 14th to the 16th of November.
00:51:02 from the 14th to the 16th of November. Uh, and for Magenta Triangle and myself to travel to Istanbul from the 20th to the 27th and 24th, 28th of November, respectively. As far as this further trip to
00:51:15 As far as this further trip to Marseilles, so this is after the dry run on the 9th of November, but a further trip not with you uh but with DS Greeny and DS war. Are you able to assist with
00:51:29 and DS war. Are you able to assist with um the purpose and the nature of that particular uh trip? I'm sorry, I I don't know what that that was specifically for.
00:51:40 was specifically for. Sorry, I can't remember.
00:51:44 I wonder if we could please turn to uh if we take that document down and turn to MPS305257.
00:51:53 So it's your B157.
00:52:06 I just want to ask you about the events as they are recorded here for um the operational uh plan and and what happened.
00:52:17 happened. This does not name you, but were you uh supervising or monitoring uh matters from England at the time of Operation Lime?
00:52:29 Lime? Um
00:52:32 Um I'm I'm not sure I I was because uh HN58 was traveling with them. So he would have um supervised um events.
00:52:48 Were you in uh constant contact then uh with your DCI? I would be. [laughter] You would not have been.
00:52:59 You would not have been. No, no, no. I was going to say I would have been and [clears throat] and and andor with the um the sergeants. If we just go through the chronology here. So, Saturday the 6th of January,
00:53:11 here. So, Saturday the 6th of January, Diaz's War and Greeny traveled to Marseilles and rented jeets in the Avenue area. Monday the 8th of January 2001,
00:53:22 2001, Magenta Triangle and L3 traveled via Dover to Calala and drove towards Bordeaux.
00:53:30 Bordeaux. The following day, DCI HN58 traveled to Bordeaux, arriving at 4:30 p.m. During the course of this journey, MT had
00:53:41 the course of this journey, MT had contacted DS Greeny and indicated that he was okay, but due to security was unable to say where he was located.
00:53:52 unable to say where he was located. Do you recall that the plan was uh first to travel to Bordeaux and then to Marseilles for the uh handover or collection of the gun? Does do you
00:54:05 collection of the gun? Does do you recall that?
00:54:09 Yes, I think I do. Yes. And in relation to what is recorded here, that during the course of the journey, James Thompson had contacted DS Greeny and indicated he was okay, but
00:54:22 DS Greeny and indicated he was okay, but due to security was unable to say where he was located. Was that something that was discussed between you? And by between you, I mean HN58 or DS Greeny or or even DS war that
00:54:40 HN58 or DS Greeny or or even DS war that there had been contact with James Thompson, but he was saying that he couldn't say where he was. I mean, I I I don't recall having um
00:54:51 I mean, I I I don't recall having um either 58 or the DS's contacting me to to to say that there was a this a potential hiccup. Um but
00:55:02 potential hiccup. Um but and I doubt whether there would necessarily be a reason for them to do that, bearing in mind 58 was present. Um, it then goes on to say, "A text message was received from MT at 5:07
00:55:14 message was received from MT at 5:07 p.m. indicating where the vehicle was parked up and that it was loaded in Marseilles. The vehicle was located in Marseilles and at 5:30 p.m. HN58
00:55:25 Marseilles and at 5:30 p.m. HN58 traveled to Marseilles, arriving at 11:50 p.m. Uh, and then arrangements were implemented to deal with the vehicle. Again, do you recall at the
00:55:37 vehicle. Again, do you recall at the time uh that the fact that James Thompson had traveled directly to Marseilles, but also that
00:55:48 directly to Marseilles, but also that the handover had taken place without the cover officers even being in the vicinity as something that caused concern?
00:55:58 concern? Well, well, that that I I I was aware of, but whether it was as it happened or subsequently, I I I I couldn't say at this distance, but I was certainly aware
00:56:09 this distance, but I was certainly aware at some point that that was the case. [clears throat]
00:56:14 Do you remember at this point um any uh concerns being discussed between you and any of your colleagues uh about the
00:56:27 any of your colleagues uh about the truthfulness, the veracity o of this particular trip? No, no, there was no I I didn't pick up any any hints at all that there was any any particular issue other than a little
00:56:39 any particular issue other than a little hiccup uh in in the preceding paragraph. Um
00:56:45 Um no, none at all.
00:56:52 You have and we will turn to it. you subsequently carried out uh an investigation and your conclusion uh was that this trip or the basis of the trip
00:57:05 that this trip or the basis of the trip uh was a fiction? Yes.
00:57:12 in relation to why uh it wasn't uh suspected
00:57:18 suspected closer to the time. Was there any aspect of the focus being on uh the hope of uh securing either a conviction or to uh
00:57:33 securing either a conviction or to uh to the SDS uh being able to show that they had essentially saved somebody's life by uh interrupting a a plot uh to
00:57:44 life by uh interrupting a a plot uh to shoot someone? Do you think looking back on it, it was the attention was on winning uh for the SDS in terms of um
00:57:56 winning uh for the SDS in terms of um concrete example of intelligence uh saving lives as opposed to questioning or querying the veracity of this operation then?
00:58:10 the veracity of this operation then? No, I think that the given the circumstances at the time and with all the information that we had at that point, um I think we we would have been
00:58:24 point, um I think we we would have been um and we were um very pleased to have carried out a an effective disruptive operation. And I say this, this is
00:58:35 operation. And I say this, this is before any kind of of assessment of subsequent uh information. But I think at the stage that the [clears throat] the um everything is returned to the UK,
00:58:46 the um everything is returned to the UK, I think we would have felt that this was a
00:58:50 a a successful disruption operation by the unit.
00:58:55 unit. And again, in terms of this particular trip, were you aware that none of your colleagues um had sight of James Thompson during the entirety of this
00:59:07 Thompson during the entirety of this particular trip? So, they never saw him. Uh I I may have been I may well have been. Yes. I mean, that that's that's clearly a significant [clears throat] factor. I would imagine that 58 or the
00:59:19 factor. I would imagine that 58 or the 2DS's, one of those would have shared that information with me.
00:59:25 So to be clear, after the conclusion of this particular trip, you yourself, your evidence is that you had no concerns in relation to James Thompson. Uh the
00:59:37 relation to James Thompson. Uh the opposite was was the case. Um [snorts] would you agree with that? I I I think I probably would at that point.
00:59:49 point. If we take that document down, could we please uh have up MPS0719
00:59:56 800 which is a document sir your tab 170. So this is an annual performance review um of James Thompson
01:00:07 review um of James Thompson and we can it recovers the period July 2000 to July
01:00:18 it recovers the period July 2000 to July 2001.
01:00:19 2001. So would cover uh the period including the few months after operation lime.
01:00:29 If we turn please to the uh end of this document please. I wonder if we can just go to the end.
01:00:42 We can see this the certificate by the endorsing officer. I confirm that the annual performance review of DS Thompson uh and the accompanying development plan for the fourthcoming year completed by
01:00:53 for the fourthcoming year completed by DI HN53 uh have been properly completed in accordance with the codes of practice. Could you just help us with your your input in relation to this
01:01:04 your your input in relation to this annual performance review of Mr. Thompson?
01:01:10 Thompson? um
01:01:12 um in the in the sense that the the I completed a development plan. Yes. I wonder if we can just go back a page as well. But thank you.
01:01:25 Oh, sorry.
01:01:31 And if we can just go back uh through this um pages four and five we can see sorry if we can just go to page six. Thank you.
01:01:43 page six. Thank you. Can you see a signed appraiser HN53 detective inspector in the top right 12th of July 2001? Yes.
01:01:52 Yes. And was this a a routine document that you completed for all of the UCOs? Yes. Yes, it will. If we go to page two, box one,
01:02:03 If we go to page two, box one, which relates to professional standards,
01:02:09 beginning uh throughout the period under review, DS Thompson has been engaged on specialist operational duties on S squad within MPSB, operating in an environment
01:02:20 within MPSB, operating in an environment where initiative and sound judgment are at a premium and where there can at most times be no possibility of direct direct supervision. It is of crucial importance
01:02:31 supervision. It is of crucial importance that professional standards are of the highest order. DS Thompson has maintained those standards throughout the past year as evidenced by the following example. Over the course of
01:02:44 following example. Over the course of the last 12 months, DS Thompson has played an absolutely key role in operation mangle. This has been a complex and demanding operation which at times carried with it considerable
01:02:55 times carried with it considerable physical risk to the officer. I was pausing there. Um, Operation Mangle, um, that's a shortening of, uh, his code name, uh, Magenta Triangle, and what's being referred to here is is Operation
01:03:07 being referred to here is is Operation Lime, isn't it? Uh, yes. Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Yes. Um he consistently uh displayed loyalty, integrity and sound judgment in a
01:03:18 integrity and sound judgment in a hostile and demanding environment and a situation in which these qualities were frequently exposed to potential compromise at all times during the operation. His high standards and professionalism uh were com complemented
01:03:30 professionalism uh were com complemented by a calm temperament and an ability to function effectively under extreme uh pressure. And so in terms of the grading of HN16 at this particular point um he
01:03:44 of HN16 at this particular point um he is provided with uh grade one so that the top uh grading for his work. Okay. [snorts] Um again by this time so uh
01:03:56 [snorts] Um again by this time so uh July uh 2001
01:04:01 uh we know that uh he had begun a friendship with person that we're referring to as Wendy in 1997 when she was then aged uh 17 that he had um begun
01:04:14 was then aged uh 17 that he had um begun a relationship with Sara uh from 1998 to 1999
01:04:19 1999 and that in this same year uh was um in a relationship with Ellie then aged uh 21. And so in terms of again the
01:04:32 21. And so in terms of again the question of the extent uh to which uh managers and the STS uh were supervising uh the UCOs uh do you accept in the knowledge of those uh relationships
01:04:46 knowledge of those uh relationships um that the uh uh managers were were not realizing uh what the UCOs who were under their charge uh were doing.
01:04:58 under their charge uh were doing. Yes. I mean the the my [clears throat] assessment that about professional standards was clearly wrong in that case with the benefit of hindsight.
01:05:10 What could you have done or what should you have done different looking back uh now uh to avoid a situation where you uh describe uh an individual who
01:05:22 describe uh an individual who misconducted himself um giving him grade one for professional standards? Looking back, what practical steps could you have taken to avoid uh being misinformed in this way?
01:05:44 the [clears throat] um
01:05:48 I I suppose the answer would have been a more intrusive approach to uh how the officers were conducting their operation. But
01:06:01 their operation. But whether that would have been thwarted by the officers themselves, I don't know. Um and um
01:06:11 yeah, sorry. You um have described a trip that you conducted with James Thompson to Indonesia relating to Operation Lime.
01:06:25 Indonesia relating to Operation Lime. Yes. Do you also recall that in 2001 that there was also another planned trip by James Thompson to visit L4
01:06:41 in in Ind in in Indonesia? Um
01:06:50 I mean I I don't recall it. It's probably the case. I perhaps a document that will help jog your memory and we'll go into the detail of it in due course but could we turn up MPS 0719
01:07:04 but could we turn up MPS 0719 722
01:07:06 722 sir this is at your tab B255 so this is a document setting out your investigations of Mr. Thompson. It's
01:07:17 investigations of Mr. Thompson. It's dated the 5th of July, 2002. But if we turn to page three, please because you refer back to the Indonesia trip. Uh so you you set out here that
01:07:28 trip. Uh so you you set out here that matters began uh to come to a head in early September 2001. Uh DS Thompson sought authorization to visit L4 in Indonesia. uh his operational grounds
01:07:40 Indonesia. uh his operational grounds for doing so were based on a need to brief L4 on legal issues around the L5 trial. His request was initially authorized, but events soon overtook
01:07:52 authorized, but events soon overtook that decision with the attack on the 11th of September. Well, pausing there, does that um help you in recalling this
01:08:04 does that um help you in recalling this period of time that the plan was for James Thompson to embark on another trip to Indonesia and Eegis of Operation Lime, but everything changed with
01:08:16 Lime, but everything changed with September 11th and uh once that took place um the decision uh was changed. Do you remember that? Now, I'm I'm sorry. In your previous
01:08:28 I'm I'm sorry. In your previous question, I misunderstood that that that you were referring to this trip to Indonesia, which I do recall. Yes. Uh in this notice, it quickly became apparent both from
01:08:40 it quickly became apparent both from media sources as well as the foreign and commonwealth office that there were too many risks attached to such a visit, particularly in view of the anti-American and British fervor being
01:08:51 anti-American and British fervor being fermented in Indonesia. DS Thompson was therefore instructed not to travel to the Far East. He was patently dismissive of the decision and its rationale but
01:09:03 of the decision and its rationale but advised the office that he would travel to France on annual leave instead. And we see the dates 26th of September to the 5th of October. Now, do you recall
01:09:14 the 5th of October. Now, do you recall that um DS Thompson at the time uh said, "Well, very very disappointing not going to Indonesia, but going on holiday instead to can."
01:09:25 instead to can." Yes.
01:09:26 Yes. Uh
01:09:26 Uh yeah.
01:09:30 When uh DCI Dell gave evidence to this inquiry,
01:09:37 inquiry, uh he expressed the view uh that he thought or certainly had an inkling that James Thompson was going to go to
01:09:48 James Thompson was going to go to Indonesia anyway. Now, do you remember any conversation you had with DCIDell where he may have said to you words to the effect, "I bet he goes anyway," or,
01:10:00 the effect, "I bet he goes anyway," or, "I'm concerned about James Thompson." Do you remember any concerns of that nature being expressed by DCelle? I I think I think he almost certainly did.
01:10:12 I think I think he almost certainly did. We we were in in um constant communication about this obviously between uh on this particular issue. Um uh because it was such a live one um after the attacks. So it it it is
01:10:24 after the attacks. So it it it is [clears throat] highly probable that he did say that. Yes. And I would have taken the same view. What had changed between the 12th of July 2001
01:10:36 July 2001 when you gave James Thompson uh grade one for professional standards describing of them of being of the
01:10:47 describing of them of being of the highest order. uh to uh doubting whether he would obey what was essentially a direct order not to go to Indonesia. What what changed in
01:10:58 to go to Indonesia. What what changed in that period of time? I I'm I'm I'm really not sure what what caused the doubt at that point.
01:11:18 In your discussions with uh DCI Dell about James Thompson, did the possibility at least of James Thompson
01:11:30 possibility at least of James Thompson having been involved in sexual relationships uh arise? No.
01:11:42 And did you think yourself that he may disobey the order and go to uh Indonesia? I I I I think I entertain that possibility. Yes.
01:11:59 Did you have any discussion with James Thompson given your concerns uh that by this stage he might disobey a direct order not to travel uh to that
01:12:10 order not to travel uh to that particular country? No, I didn't.
01:12:18 Could we please uh turn to uh MPS0719651
01:12:26 which is sir at your tab B190.
01:12:36 [snorts]
01:12:45 And I wonder if we can just show um both pages of this document please. So this is um your [snorts] DCI's uh
01:12:57 So this is um your [snorts] DCI's uh file note. Uh but can you see at the penultimate paragraph on the first page which states DIHN53 inquiries established that on the 5th of
01:13:09 inquiries established that on the 5th of October uh James Straven Thompson's covert identity used his credit card in Singapore to settle a hotel bill and to buy an item from an electrical goods
01:13:22 buy an item from an electrical goods shop. DS Thompson demonstrated the capabilities of a new laptop computer to fellow field officers at South and at West during the week beginning the 8th
01:13:33 West during the week beginning the 8th of October. Inquiries re the use of six other credit cards uh were not instigated. Just pausing there. Um,
01:13:47 Just pausing there. Um, was was that the first time that you considered that [snorts] you had um evidence against Mr. Thompson, i.e. that
01:13:58 evidence against Mr. Thompson, i.e. that he had misconducted himself, the fact that uh receipts, credit card receipts, showed that he'd been to Singapore and so proving that he had disobeyed DCI
01:14:10 so proving that he had disobeyed DCI Dell's order. Yes, it will.
01:14:21 at about this time [clears throat] um when DCIDell was asked about when he provided the warning that you referred
01:14:32 provided the warning that you referred to this morning to the UCOs in the office that uh they must not engage in sexual relationships. in their cover
01:14:44 sexual relationships. in their cover identity and the grave way in which that would be treated by the SDS. Do you have a clear recollection of when
01:14:56 Do you have a clear recollection of when he did that? Not in terms of timing, but the actual event itself. Can can you remember uh him standing up in a meeting and being very clear in terms of that warning? I I could me not standing but
01:15:11 warning? I I could me not standing but um but the I can remember him um articulating in no uncertain terms what the consequences would be [clears throat] in the event of a UCO engaging in a
01:15:23 in the event of a UCO engaging in a physical relationship during the course of the operation. Were you in that meeting with him when he gave that warning? Yeah. [snorts]
01:15:34 Yeah. [snorts] Did DCIDell tell you in advance, word to the effect, I'm going to lay down the law and be very clear with these UCOs in the meeting today. I'm going to tell
01:15:45 the meeting today. I'm going to tell them that uh it was strictly prohibited to engage in sexual relationships in a cover identity. Did he tell you that in advance?
01:15:54 advance? I think he must have done otherwise it would have caused a a ball from the blue. I would imagine that he would have discussed that and or told me in advance of that case.
01:16:06 of that case. Did he tell you or did you discuss why he
01:16:11 he was going to give them this striking warning in in this meeting? Did he explain to you why he was doing that? He he he may have done. I I don't recall
01:16:23 He he he may have done. I I don't recall the detail um or or what it was specifically related to. I'm fairly sure that it wasn't related to Magenta Triangle. I'm fairly sure, but
01:16:37 Magenta Triangle. I'm fairly sure, but I'm
01:16:38 I'm other than that I can't be I don't think I could be precise.
01:16:48 When uh DCI Dell gave evidence, he indicated that he did have concerns about
01:17:03 he did have concerns about James Thompson's lifestyle and that that might have included sexual relationships and that was the basis for the warning. But would you not
01:17:16 basis for the warning. But would you not have discussed with DCIDL precisely the basis for giving such a warning? Did you uh discuss sexual relationships of UCOs
01:17:29 uh discuss sexual relationships of UCOs with DCIDL before he said what he said? I'm I may well have done. My only uh clear memory of that is that it I don't
01:17:40 clear memory of that is that it I don't think it related to James Thompson, but [clears throat] but we would certainly have discussed why he was uh why he would have
01:17:51 would have um later point. [snorts]
01:17:57 Did you consider that it may have related to Rosa and James Thompson and sorry, Jim Boiling?
01:18:08 Boiling? No, because I I I didn't believe that that that there had been a relationship between the two of them.
01:18:22 in relation to the timing of this particular meeting. Um
01:18:30 Um it was um after James Thompson returned uh from uh Singapore
01:18:39 and so it's when he got back from that particular trip in the meeting that my bill was yes
01:18:47 yes I I I don't remember when that meeting was
01:18:51 was whether it was before or after
01:18:55 but it it the I'm sorry the reason I I was more specific that it it didn't relate to Magenta Triangle is because of the focus I had on that investigation that that would have been
01:19:06 that that would have been [clears throat] a very relevant part for me that he was in a relationship but that wasn't the case. So [clears throat and snorts] Mike Dell's meeting I don't know when that was whether it
01:19:18 I don't know when that was whether it was before after or or sometime later but if if not James Thompson then then who? Well, that's that's again I don't know I don't remember what it was about,
01:19:32 know I don't remember what it was about, but it I I see it in isolation compared to being related to um James Thompson. So from your
01:19:45 So from your are you clear in in recalling this that it wasn't James Thompson or someone else or sorry I'm clear that had it been related to my memory sorry my memory of
01:19:57 related to my memory sorry my memory of this meeting is that um had it been related to James Thompson magenta triangle I would have be I would have recalled that I would have documented
01:20:08 recalled that I would have documented that it's [clears throat] possible that The meeting that Mike Dell uh when he [clears throat] he uh addressed the the um the unit was
01:20:19 uh addressed the the um the unit was during the course of the time when I was drawing up the codes of conduct and it may have been related to that rather than an individual but I am clear that it did not relate to James Thompson
01:20:37 and again do doing the best that that you can. We know that James Thompson returned
01:20:44 returned uh at the beginning of October 2001 and DC Idel's um evidence at one point was late October November 2001.
01:20:56 late October November 2001. Does that assist you in in the time frame of this particular warning that he gave?
01:21:03 gave? No, it doesn't. I I I honestly don't know when this uh um meeting took place. It stands out to me because
01:21:14 me because Mike has a very direct way of speaking to individuals and it struck me as a very useful meeting but it was in isolation as far as I remember. Do you recall the reaction of the UCOs
01:21:26 Do you recall the reaction of the UCOs in the meeting to what DCIDel said to them?
01:21:31 them? I don't think there was any reaction to it.
01:21:36 The words that DCIL used to describe this warning was a oneshot shock. And so in terms of of that description
01:21:48 And so in terms of of that description to essentially shock the officers into appreciating how unacceptable such conduct would be. that that that that would that would be about
01:22:00 that that that would that would be about right because he uh he has a very uh good and direct approach and that would have sent the right message or hopefully that would have sent the right message.
01:22:11 that would have sent the right message. Did any officer come up to you any other undercover officer come up to you after the meeting to ask you what that was all about in words the effect? Well, why has
01:22:24 about in words the effect? Well, why has um Mike Dell suddenly told told us this? Where where is this coming from? Did Did you have or do you recall having any type of conversation like that with the UCOs? I
01:22:35 UCOs? I I don't I'm afraid no.
01:22:45 DCidell indicated that very shortly after this that uh Carlos Saraki um approached him and said that he'd had a
01:22:56 approached him and said that he'd had a had had a historical uh relationship. Do you remember any discussion about that with DCI Dell?
01:23:08 about that with DCI Dell? No, I do not. Would you be surprised that he wouldn't mention that to you? No. Wouldn't
01:23:20 No. Wouldn't it be something that would be uh ripe for discussion between a DI and his DCI that after giving a uh shock
01:23:33 his DCI that after giving a uh shock warning to the UCOs's uh that lo and behold one of them uh Carlos Saraki comes up to him and confesses to a relationship.
01:23:45 relationship. Well, there there are clearly some uh some matters that the DCI will not discuss with junior officers and and it's possible that that
01:23:57 officers and and it's possible that that may have been one. I think with the the benefit of what we know now, then that may have been an appropriate thing to to um to share.
01:24:08 um to share. But he didn't. I I'd like to ask you about a relatively early stage in your investigation of James Thompson because it's right, isn't it, that out of all of
01:24:20 it's right, isn't it, that out of all of the officers in the SDS, you were the one that carried out an investigation of James Thompson after it was first
01:24:31 of James Thompson after it was first revealed that he had been lying about traveling to Istanbul. It was you. Yeah, as far as I could take it, yes. And there's one aspect at the start I'd like to ask you about your investigation. I wonder if we can take
01:24:42 investigation. I wonder if we can take this document down please and turn to MPS 0719651.
01:24:53 So this is the 14th of November 200 and one. And so assuming that this is around the time or after um DCIL has given his
01:25:08 the time or after um DCIL has given his uh warning in relation to sexual relationships. Uh can you see towards the bottom of the page um penultimate paragraph DI HN53
01:25:19 page um penultimate paragraph DI HN53 inquiries established that on the 5th of October James Straven Thompson's cover identity use his credit card in Singapore to settle a hotel bill. is in relation to the hotel bill.
01:25:32 relation to the hotel bill. Can you remember carrying out or considering carrying out uh checks uh with the hotel itself? No, I didn't. the the [clears throat]
01:25:44 No, I didn't. the the [clears throat] evidence came from the credit card itself.
01:25:49 itself. Because
01:25:51 Because before this and around this time you have the clear uh warning from DCIDele in that unique meeting in relation to uh
01:26:04 in that unique meeting in relation to uh sexual relationships. Uh this is uh less than uh a ye this is the year following Rosa contacting uh the office and here
01:26:17 Rosa contacting uh the office and here you have
01:26:19 you have James Thompson having stayed in a hotel uh abroad. Did did you not think that it would have been um a a a good use of
01:26:33 it would have been um a a a good use of your time in making inquiries with that hotel because it may have revealed uh that he was staying with uh someone else and who that other person was as opposed to simply looking at the
01:26:44 as opposed to simply looking at the credit card. So the the credit card proves the lie. Yes. um but in terms of inquiring with the hotel um could have revealed um who
01:26:57 the hotel um could have revealed um who he was staying with. So he had lied uh to your DCI and you about traveling to Indonesia at this time. He'd gone to stay in a luxury hotel in Singapore. Um
01:27:12 stay in a luxury hotel in Singapore. Um it would have been straightforward for you to have found out um who he had stayed with. Well, I I think the the answer to that is that it was a very passive operation
01:27:23 is that it was a very passive operation to discover what was on the credit card bill because we had control of that. But to make inquiries of a hotel in Singapore remotely from a covert unit
01:27:34 Singapore remotely from a covert unit would be extremely difficult to do and and not worth the the uh time and effort at that stage.
01:27:48 Uh at this stage of your investigation, uh is your evidence that you had no hint or suspicion in your mind that James
01:27:59 or suspicion in your mind that James Thompson had engaged in inappropriate relationships? Yes, that was my clear impression.
01:28:08 I'd like to take that document down, please. And could we move to MPS 071972?
01:28:17 Sir, this is at your tab B255
01:28:22 HN53. You produced a number of documents evidencing your investigation into James Thompson. Did it take at this
01:28:34 into James Thompson. Did it take at this point up a significant amount of your time?
01:28:37 time? A very significant time. Yes. Could you assist with the contrast between the steps taken in relation to James Thompson
01:28:50 James Thompson and the investigations that you conducted compared with those that were conducted in relation to Jim Boiling when Rosa called the the office?
01:29:01 Boiling when Rosa called the the office? Why go to uh great lengths in terms of your time investigating James Thompson but not Jim Boiling?
01:29:12 Boiling? I think the answer is that there was clear evidence emerging of criminal activity which wasn't the the case with Jim Boing
01:29:28 in terms of the the matters that you identified. I if we turn over the page please. So this is your overview and and the summary of your inquiry. So we're now at 5th of July 200 and two
01:29:47 and we can see that at paragraph 2.4 you comment on operation lime. So by this stage, Operation Lime should of course
01:29:58 stage, Operation Lime should of course have been the pinnacle of DS Thompson's SDS operation. There are however sufficient doubts about all aspects of this apparent attempted procurement to suggest that it may have been an
01:30:10 suggest that it may have been an exercise on his part to enhance and extend uh his tour of duty. in terms of the the reasons um why you uh cast doubt
01:30:24 the the reasons um why you uh cast doubt on operation lime as you do. Um is it right that one of your concerns was that in fact apart from uh his word for it uh
01:30:39 in fact apart from uh his word for it uh there was no independent corroboration of a conspiracy. Yes, that that worried me considerably.
01:30:52 Were you also uh made aware of a uh a file note which indicated that uh
01:31:03 file note which indicated that uh another uh undercover officer uh who we will not name um uh cast doubt uh on uh uh the truth of what James Thompson had
01:31:16 uh the truth of what James Thompson had to say in relation to operation lime. Yes, I'm aware of that. Um, we we'll come back to your investigation document. I want to ask if you read this other document at the time. Could we
01:31:27 other document at the time. Could we please interpose? It's MPS07 91717.
01:31:33 91717. So this is at your tab B241.
01:32:04 Page 41. P2
01:32:14 [snorts]
01:32:37 097
01:32:48 07 1 N 717 Seven.
01:32:56 Thank you. Thank you. So 15th of April, 2002.
01:33:03 2002. So about 3 months before the file note that we were looking at before. So this is Michael Dell's file note but at the last line says for you uh to see that on Thursday the 11th
01:33:14 you uh to see that on Thursday the 11th at west um discussed with me their position re the MT affair in terms of their overriding loyalty to the unit. Now we've redacted the name uh here and
01:33:27 Now we've redacted the name uh here and I'm do not mention the name of that UCO but it goes on to say to the unit and their friendship with MT they were keen to establish that they were not taking
01:33:38 to establish that they were not taking sides against the office and offered that they were aware that they properly were not in possession of all the facts. They moved on from this to raise the circumstances of operation lime seeking
01:33:50 circumstances of operation lime seeking my assessment of its outcome. They appeared troubled by lime and said that they believed that I thought that it was a load of rubbish. I told them that I had strong reservations about the
01:34:01 had strong reservations about the account of events and circumstances offered by MT but felt unable to come to a conclusion founded on facts. Um, and then the UCO then said that MT had told
01:34:14 then the UCO then said that MT had told them that when MT was on protection duties, a principal had given him a handgun as a token of gratitude. MT had apparently sought permission to keep it
01:34:26 apparently sought permission to keep it as a gratuitity, but had been refused, possibly because of the timing of the request around the time of the Dumblain shootings in March 1996. MT did not return the gun, but took it
01:34:40 MT did not return the gun, but took it to France and stored it in a deposit box. This officer was anxious that MT not be made aware that they had supplied this information.
01:34:51 this information. And so when you read uh that uh document uh that again must have been something that that stood out in your mind at the time.
01:35:00 time. Yes, absolutely.
01:35:04 And so if we return to uh your um investigation document 071972 uh please
01:35:21 as a summary you refer in this report to the quality and quantity of his reporting the unauthorized travel to Indonesia and Singapore for removing
01:35:33 Indonesia and Singapore for removing pages from his passport.
01:35:37 Uh creating a a second false identity in the name of Kevin Crossland. Uh the possibility of undeclared
01:35:48 the possibility of undeclared uh income and then a high volume of calls to Sara, Ellie, and Wendy. Uh, and I wonder if we can just move forward in
01:35:59 I wonder if we can just move forward in this uh, document. If we can just go page by page, please. If we have pages two and three up.
01:36:09 So, you set out or all of this in detail and pages four and five, please.
01:36:18 Um, here you set out the uh, cash flow inquiries that uh, took place. Um pages six and seven please.
01:36:29 six and seven please. The reference to the use of uh detective uh agencies. If we turn over the pages to 8 and nine please.
01:36:40 please. Now at this part of your investigation file note, you addressed the topic of uh telephone uh billing and
01:36:52 the topic of uh telephone uh billing and you have set out uh there in that uh schedule. um the uh calls that um were made uh by uh James Thompson in
01:37:07 made uh by uh James Thompson in in relation to his uh personal phone. Is that right? Yes.
01:37:13 Yes. If you turn over the page, please.
01:37:22 And so in terms of the billing that was um obtained uh in relation to James Thompson um we can see there that from the obtaining of
01:37:34 can see there that from the obtaining of the billing information that as you have set out uh in the uh chart towards the right both of them uh what stands out is
01:37:46 right both of them uh what stands out is a large uh volume of uh calls uh to uh women including uh uh Ellie and Sara that we know he had a sexual
01:37:58 that we know he had a sexual relationship, also Wendy who had a close friendship with.
01:38:04 with. And so would you agree that from just checking his billing um it revealed a clear picture that he uh was in um some form of relationship uh with these
01:38:16 form of relationship uh with these women?
01:38:17 women? No, not not on the on the face of it at that stage. Not necessarily. They were women, but equally the third and the fourth um
01:38:31 the the I did not draw the assumption that simply because there were more calls to women than men in terms of his pilling
01:38:43 pilling may have reflected the fact that his activist um associates were female rather than male.
01:38:54 If we look at L3 and L4, key individuals in relation to Operation Lime, described in this document as James Thompson's
01:39:06 in this document as James Thompson's primary associate, 64 calls, 53 calls. But that's nothing in comparison to 301 calls to Ellie, the
01:39:17 in comparison to 301 calls to Ellie, the 94 to Wendy, and even the calls to Sara 48 are similar to the call volume with his primary associate.
01:39:28 his primary associate. I think I'd probably use the terms primary associate to denote [clears throat] who the particular um primary targets uh for him were. that
01:39:40 primary targets uh for him were. that that doesn't necessarily mean that all most of the calls are necessarily going to go to them. [clears throat] I I on the face of that I didn't read it necessarily is establishing that there was a
01:39:52 establishing that there was a relationship. Um sorry to interrupt you but if we look at the top of that page we have the calls to
01:40:02 I can't actually see that I
01:40:07 I thank you. So, we've got the calls to the top of the at the top of the page. These are to James Thompson's uh partner at the time uh also his ex-wife, his children.
01:40:19 children. So, we can see perhaps uns unsurprisingly, he's calling his partner uh and his um his ex-wife and children there. So clearly shows a picture,
01:40:34 there. So clearly shows a picture, doesn't it, from this billing that here is um someone contacting their life partner as you would expect. Yes. Yes. But then if we just go back to the
01:40:45 Yes. But then if we just go back to the box at the bottom of the page,
01:40:50 a significant number of calls by comparison uh to females.
01:41:01 Yes.
01:41:04 You at this stage in your career, an extremely experienced uh officer, had spent your life, working
01:41:15 uh officer, had spent your life, working life in the police force, been an undercover officer, been a detective inspector supervising numerous undercover officers. Uh a and
01:41:27 undercover officers. Uh a and in terms of your analysis, are you saying that when you even presented these in your own investigation document uh did not have concerns or uh did not
01:41:42 uh did not have concerns or uh did not appreciate that what we were looking at here is a clear indication of relationships. Is it is it not obvious from the volume of calls?
01:41:53 of calls? I looking at it at the time without the benefit of hindsight, my and and and the the uh the element of
01:42:06 my and and and the the uh the element of what the phone call showed us was a uh a less significant part of the whole document and the evidence being put up in respect to criminality.
01:42:18 in respect to criminality. was
01:42:20 was my my thoughts at the time was that the volume of calls to uh females and less calls to primary associates
01:42:31 and less calls to primary associates indicated that James Thompson was operating with activists at the softer end of the scale rather than the harder
01:42:42 end of the scale rather than the harder the sharper end. And that would be a that that so in in reflection maybe my mistake was not to assume not to have written primary associate against L2 and L3 but that the the the the
01:42:56 L3 but that the the the the [clears throat] main cause were possibly reflective of the fact that he was at the the the softer end of um um of of activism.
01:43:07 um of of activism. Looking back on this now, is this not a blind spot for you given the evidence that you've given? I I if true that you have, for example, uh numerous uh emails
01:43:22 have, for example, uh numerous uh emails from Rosa uh describing a a relationship with Jim Boing. She calls the
01:43:32 calls the SDS office a and you or evidence was still no suspicion of a relationship there. And then here we have another example of
01:43:43 then here we have another example of significant contact between a male UCO and a number of females. Do you think looking back on this you had a a blind uh spot for spotting sexual
01:43:55 uh spot for spotting sexual relationships between UCOs's and those that they were spying on? Well, maybe that's true. [clears throat]
01:44:06 So, I've left the morning uh the afternoon break a little later. I wonder if now is a convenient. Yes, it would be. We'll
01:44:13 We'll we'll break for 15 minutes as usual.
01:44:38 It's okay. This is amazing. It's okay. There we go. This is
02:00:53 Yes,
02:00:57 HN53, we were looking at your file note dated the 5th of July, 2002, [snorts and clears throat] in which you set out in some detail the results of your investigation of James Thompson.
02:01:11 your investigation of James Thompson. This is MPS0719722.
02:01:15 Um before leaving that document and we were looking at some of the results [snorts] of the billing analysis uh just before the break. Uh could we turn to page 12 please?
02:01:28 Uh this is uh one of the sections in this document in which you suggest summary of uh further investigative work
02:01:41 summary of uh further investigative work that could be conducted. So your heading is 4.3 summary of action required and you pose the question what has been DS Thompson's relationship with Ellie Wendy
02:01:55 Thompson's relationship with Ellie Wendy and Sara? What has been the degree to which he has frequented their two certain addresses? Uh who is Lucy and what is his uh relationship uh with her?
02:02:11 Is this the point though where your investigations in relation to James Thompson's relationship uh with uh
02:02:23 James Thompson's relationship uh with uh Ellie Wendy at Sara and also Lucy end is it right that you didn't pursue this aspect and we've seen the the number of
02:02:35 aspect and we've seen the the number of points of misconduct raised in your investigation but is this an area that was not pursued by you. The the the I think my objective in in
02:02:47 The the the I think my objective in in the way I've written it is for these um questions to be considered upwards up the chain of management uh and to be dealt with
02:02:58 dealt with uh by either by them or delegated back downward. So the intention was recommendations on action that perhaps needed to be done.
02:03:10 Would it be fair to say that there was no appetite at all uh for any further investigative work to be conducted in relation to who James Thompson may have
02:03:23 relation to who James Thompson may have had relationships with? No appetite for investigation in relation to his contact with Ellie, Wendy, and Sara. No, I think my my the whole thrust of my
02:03:36 No, I think my my the whole thrust of my paper was that there was an appetite for uh fully investigating what had happened, but it needed to progress upwards uh for that to be achieved
02:03:47 upwards uh for that to be achieved because this was a fairly unusual situation for the unit. So there was not a case there was no appetite for that particular aspect. There was an appetite for all of it to be progressed.
02:03:58 for all of it to be progressed. [clears throat] Are you saying essentially it wasn't your DI, it wasn't your call the extent to which this was this aspect was investigated further? That that's that's accurate. It's not it
02:04:10 that's that's accurate. It's not it wasn't my call. Uh at the end of the day,
02:04:13 day, before leaving this document, we can see the next uh paragraph uh numbering relates to 5.1 Kevin Crossland identity. And so here you set out that DS Thompson
02:04:27 And so here you set out that DS Thompson has yet to offer an honest and transparent account of either the rationale or the development of the Crossland identity. If, as seems most likely, the use of the two detective
02:04:39 likely, the use of the two detective agencies on the 18th and 20th of January 2001 related to background research on Crossland. It raises the possibility that the birth certificate was purchased
02:04:50 that the birth certificate was purchased during the course of his trip to Marseilles which ended on the 15th of January 2001.
02:04:59 In relation to your investigation of uh James Thompson, would you accept that what you had
02:05:10 would you accept that what you had established
02:05:13 were a series of criminal uh offenses in relation to the unauthorized use of Kevin Crossland's identity. for example,
02:05:24 Kevin Crossland's identity. for example, the obtaining of passports in his name, uh, putting his name on the electoral role.
02:05:30 role. Yes. And I think they were I'd summarize those I think probably the same document at some point and leaving aside uh, Operation Lime. Um
02:05:43 and leaving aside uh, Operation Lime. Um that in itself uh any member of the uh public who had um obtained uh a passport in the force name as uh you were able to
02:05:56 in the force name as uh you were able to establish that James Thompson did u uh would be prosecuted. Yes. Yeah. Yes. Yes.
02:06:07 Yeah. Yes. Yes. Could we please um take down that document? But I want to ask you about uh another document which is MPS0719695.
02:06:17 So this is at your tab B243.
02:06:26 So this is uh another of your uh file notes. You can see um your signature at the bottom and this is dated the 17th of uh April of
02:06:40 this is dated the 17th of uh April of 2002
02:06:41 2002 uh where you set out that you had a useful meeting uh with DI and the name's been redacted of NCS uh specifically in relation to the
02:06:52 uh specifically in relation to the probability of the Crossland identity impacting in the future on Operation uh Wisdom. Uh can you just summarize in a
02:07:03 Wisdom. Uh can you just summarize in a nutshell what operation wisdom was please?
02:07:06 please? From memory this is this is operation wisdom was a a if you like a a a crossgovernment um exercise to tie together births certificates, death
02:07:18 together births certificates, death certificates, marriage certificates. there was a kind of joined up nature rather in the same way as MOTS and driving uh insurance and so on has been joined up that it it it makes
02:07:29 joined up that it it it makes [clears throat] the um picking up of fraud uh that much easier. I think that would probably sum up what the operation was.
02:07:39 was. And in terms not not an SDS operate, but a sort of governmentwide one. And again, in terms of the use of um false identification uh documents um
02:07:51 false identification uh documents um particularly uh passports uh severe penalties uh for such use. Yes, I believe. And here the note that you provided states, although MT was apparently in
02:08:04 states, although MT was apparently in the early stages of creating this identity, the joined up nature of this operation means that inevitably a link will be made between the premature demise of Crossland and the issue of a
02:08:15 demise of Crossland and the issue of a current driving license. For reasons of both integrity and operational security, it was crucial that Redacted be briefed by us about the circumstances
02:08:26 by us about the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the Crossland identity before investigations begin to spill over into current field uh operations. And ultimately, we can see by towards
02:08:39 And ultimately, we can see by towards the bottom of the page, undertakings were also given to make inquiries as to whether or not any passport was ever applied for in the name of Crossland. Um, and then this officer who you had a meeting with, this other DI um
02:08:51 meeting with, this other DI um understood the highly sensitive nature of the Crossland scenario and undertook to keep me apprised of any developments. And so what is happening here is that
02:09:02 And so what is happening here is that you are putting a block on a criminal inter in investigation into James Thompson.
02:09:14 I'm not I'm not with you on that. you met the purpose of meeting uh with the DI in the NCS uh was uh to put him
02:09:28 the DI in the NCS uh was uh to put him on notice that uh if he were to come across uh someone else who uh was uh using or creating false identity documents, don't take any action against
02:09:40 documents, don't take any action against him. He's one of ours. Um very sensitive. Take just make sure that doesn't go any further. I've maybe oversimplified it, but that was the purpose of the meeting, wasn't it? To make sure that uh Operation Wisdom
02:09:54 make sure that uh Operation Wisdom didn't sweep up James Thompson. Well, I think it was because this was in the um
02:10:03 the um uh the the [clears throat] early stages of his um the acquisition. It was um it was it was not to prevent any kind of prosecution. It was to ensure
02:10:15 of prosecution. It was to ensure um that that it didn't um to explain the circumstances surrounding it.
02:10:27 Um again, I I would have to go back to um well the the the time itself to to um to try and explain that. Well, we we looked
02:10:40 try and explain that. Well, we we looked at before the break at DC Idel's file note copy to you dated the 15th of April 2002. So two days before
02:10:51 2002. So two days before this meeting. Yes.
02:10:54 Yes. uh another undercover officer um referring uh to the fact that James Thompson had been gifted a gun and kept
02:11:07 Thompson had been gifted a gun and kept it and probably kept it in France. So two days before that uh again in terms of
02:11:15 of uh
02:11:17 uh unauthorized use of a firearm in a foreign jurisdiction any member of the public engaged in that uh would be facing severe penalty. Yes.
02:11:33 uh would be facing severe penalty. Yes. Yes. And so two days after that striking evidence, you are meeting with a DI in NCS
02:11:42 NCS uh uh and uh discussing with them uh the probability of uh this same officer impacting on operation
02:11:55 this same officer impacting on operation wisdom.
02:11:57 wisdom. Can you accept that what what in fact happened was instead of James Thompson being uh prosecuted or referred to uh for disciplinary uh
02:12:11 referred to uh for disciplinary uh action.
02:12:13 action. The actions of the SDS were to focus on protecting the SDS itself rather than the option of
02:12:24 the SDS itself rather than the option of taking matters seriously against James Thompson.
02:12:28 Thompson. I think what what what I'm saying is that I briefed the the DI from the NCS on the background of the circumstances established that that explained why the the [clears throat]
02:12:40 the [clears throat] uh what the consequences of that would be in terms of it being discovered in operation wisdom uh establishing that it didn't appear on the list of arrests in the next four to five weeks and then the
02:12:51 the next four to five weeks and then the further list but allowing for the possibility because I briefed him or um that the that were that to happen then the um that inquiry could be joined
02:13:07 then the um that inquiry could be joined up with any proposed inquiries that I was doing that I was recommending. So I didn't see that this is this is not a an attempt to stifle um uh the existence of
02:13:19 attempt to stifle um uh the existence of of the identity. It's ensuring that the [clears throat] that a um a sensitive point if you like point of uh contact within the operation wisdom
02:13:30 uh contact within the operation wisdom operation was aware of it and if it did happen to transpire then that could be um dealt with uh in the context of anything that was being progressed as far as James Thompson was concerned in
02:13:41 far as James Thompson was concerned in the future. But that's that's the way I I read the way I've written that. not not an attempt to to uh stifle the whole thing. A
02:13:52 thing. A and to be fair to you, HN53 at this time, by this stage, and given your investigations, what what did you want? What did you expect to happen to James
02:14:05 What did you expect to happen to James Thompson at this point, given that you presented uh the evidence that you had done to your superior officers? Well, I I had the view and I'm fairly
02:14:17 Well, I I had the view and I'm fairly sure I know that Mike felt had the same view that this was a matter that should be dealt with by the [clears throat] uh DPS department of professional standards whose expertise was in this
02:14:28 standards whose expertise was in this specific area. Now, that would be a significant departure from anything that has happened before on the unit. But we felt that the circumstances warranted that and that's why I presented the
02:14:39 that and that's why I presented the evidence in the way I did to go up the chain.
02:14:43 chain. Well, come on. Could we please take this document down and bring up MPS 07 treble 2 89. So this is a document at your tab B274.
02:15:02 So perhaps in fact if we turn to page 12 of this please because we can see um that this is a document authored by
02:15:13 that this is a document authored by Colin Lat. So we can see his his signature uh there. So we know who the author of this document is. And if we then go back a couple of pages to page
02:15:24 then go back a couple of pages to page 10 please. And we can see that this is following your we went through to some extent your investigation document of 5th of July.
02:15:36 investigation document of 5th of July. So, we're now [clears throat] a few months after that, and we can see on page 10, paragraph uh three. It says, "With detective superintendent McLolin,
02:15:48 "With detective superintendent McLolin, um I so this is um Colin Black. Um I spoke to DS Thompson on the 18th of September, 2002, and put all the suspicions to him. Intelligence product.
02:16:00 suspicions to him. Intelligence product. The officer was unable to argue with the bold figures which showed a poor return of work for an extended period. He pointed to some informal intelligence provision uh to his office as mitigation
02:16:11 provision uh to his office as mitigation and to certain operational uh successes. Uh in my view the officer has performed poorly in one of his principal functions to provide intelligence for this branch and others about the groups and persons
02:16:23 and others about the groups and persons he was targeting. I made it perfectly clear to the officer that is low that this low level of work was simply unacceptable. And then if on the same page I wonder if we can turn to paragraph six beginning B operational
02:16:35 paragraph six beginning B operational security.
02:16:38 security. So B operational security again the officer could not argue with the results of DI HN53's research namely that he had compromised his own security
02:16:50 that he had compromised his own security by mixing his telephone and credit card use. And then it's this and had carried on relationships with some of his targets in dangerous
02:17:01 with some of his targets in dangerous proximity to his own family house. In my view, the security standards of DS Thompson fall far below those expected from an SDS officer. His actions have
02:17:12 from an SDS officer. His actions have risk compromise not only of his own operation but also those of his colleagues. I made it clear to him that his professional standards were unacceptably poor. this um document
02:17:23 unacceptably poor. this um document authored by Colin Black. Would you have seen uh this which is essentially the results
02:17:31 results of uh his meeting himself with James Thompson?
02:17:37 Thompson? I I I would have to say unless my initials on it has been meditated to me. I I would say u possibly I would have had sight of it
02:17:48 u possibly I would have had sight of it or being briefed about it by um Mike Tel probably
02:17:56 probably I don't I can't say for sure I don't believe your your initials do feature and I wonder if we can just look at the last two pages of the document just to we can see who is copied in and
02:18:08 just to we can see who is copied in and who comments on this So we can we can see uh there that um it is not as other documents we cannot see
02:18:19 is not as other documents we cannot see your name there in relation to the copy list or you commenting on it. Yeah. So it's it's gone to um but in terms of what is referred to there because and it's not under a bold
02:18:34 there because and it's not under a bold heading about relationships. uh it's in fact in relation to uh using uh telephone and credit cards and carrying on and it says carried on relationships with some of his targets.
02:18:47 relationships with some of his targets. So if we just go back to sorry we're looking at paragraph six on page 10 because in this aspect of uh Colin Black's note he refers to you but he refers to you in
02:19:00 he refers to you but he refers to you in the sense of you can't argue with the results of your research and we've seen your your research in that investigation document where uh you refer to the use
02:19:14 document where uh you refer to the use of his uh uh phone to call uh activists and female activists and your wording uh in paragraph 4.3 about uh further
02:19:26 in paragraph 4.3 about uh further investigation that could be carried out in relation to the relationship with Ellie, Wendy, and Sara. And so would it be fair to say that what Colin Black is working on is what you have what you
02:19:40 working on is what you have what you have produced because you were the best uh person at the time in terms of investigating Thompson. You were the one doing the investigation rather than anyone else, weren't you? Uh, yes,
02:19:52 Uh, yes, it was. It was primarily me. Yes. Now, in terms of that reading that he'd carried on relationships with some of his targets in dangerous proximity to his own family house, it doesn't say
02:20:04 his own family house, it doesn't say sexual relationships, but would you agree that on sort of reading that um it is consistent with uh sexual relationships as someone who'd
02:20:17 uh sexual relationships as someone who'd carried on relationships with some of his targets? Well, it is on that reading. Yes. But equally it it it can read as relationships with targets with with with um non physical relationships with
02:20:30 with um non physical relationships with targets. So
02:20:35 I think Colin Black would be the best judge to to explain what that what he meant there. When
02:20:44 When James Thompson gave uh evidence to this inquiry, um he
02:20:53 he described a uh conversation that he had with detective chief superintendent uh Black about inappropriate relationships. I'll just read what you
02:21:04 relationships. I'll just read what you said, what he said. This is James Thompson said as I recall it. He referring to Colin Black said, "Did you have a sexual relationship with those
02:21:15 have a sexual relationship with those two?" And I said, "Yes." And then it was clarified, "Well, when you say those two, can we?" And James Thompson said, "Sorry, Ellie and Sara. Any other women or just those two?" "No, just those
02:21:27 or just those two?" "No, just those two." And when you said yes, what was the response? He said, "I can't remember." Were you asked for any details? No. I think it was clear he referring to Colin Black knew about
02:21:38 referring to Colin Black knew about those relationships
02:21:44 and again in terms of what we have here is that on the face of it there is um a note by uh Colin Black
02:21:56 it there is um a note by uh Colin Black of the investigations that you carried out uh with his uh comment that well the show carried carried on relationships with some of his targets and we know
02:22:08 with some of his targets and we know from well from James Thompson's evidence he confirmed that with Colin Black. Were you one of the few who didn't know about the relationships though because it seems that others in the SDS were
02:22:21 it seems that others in the SDS were aware that they realized certainly by this stage that James Thompson had been in a relationship or multiple relationships.
02:22:33 relationships. Do you know why you weren't aware, particularly given uh it was you who carried out the investigations?
02:22:44 I I I I don't think I can explain that. It's it's um it it it was my view that um I mean I I I don't recall any conversation
02:22:58 mean I I I don't recall any conversation with um Colin Black or Mike Dell which confirmed that.
02:23:09 Could we please turn to uh page uh 11? We're already on page 11. We can see at towards the bottom. Can you see this is reaching Colin Black's
02:23:22 see this is reaching Colin Black's reaching his conclusion what what he did to James Thompson in response to all of your investigation. You can see he says at the bottom of page 11, I have explained to DS Thompson that his
02:23:34 explained to DS Thompson that his operation is to stop forth with that his vetting status will be reduced and reviewed and that for now he will work under close supervision of a squad. I
02:23:45 under close supervision of a squad. I have told him that he has come very close to central discipline and criminal investigations and that if it were not for the secret nature of the operation and the need to protect his
02:23:57 operation and the need to protect his colleagues, he would be long gone. DS Thompson understands the errors of his ways. He continues to give almost credible explanations for his motivation
02:24:09 credible explanations for his motivation and thought processes, but I have left him in no doubt as to how far below the acceptable standards his activities have fallen. And so would you agree that a
02:24:22 fallen. And so would you agree that a slapped wrist to James Thompson uh on the basis that above everything else the uh secret nature of the SDS must be
02:24:35 uh secret nature of the SDS must be maintained that that was the ultimate uh decision is that would you agree with that a slapped wrist? Well I would regard it perhaps as a slap wrist.
02:24:44 wrist. Because uh any member of the public, any ordinary member of the public um who uh had engaged in activities uh uh ranging
02:24:56 had engaged in activities uh uh ranging from uh handling of firearms, ammunition, uh gunpowder and creating uh false identities um would have been
02:25:08 false identities um would have been dealt with more severely than having their vetting status reduced from developed vetting to security clearance. Absolutely. Yes. What was your reaction when you
02:25:20 What was your reaction when you discovered Sorry, I interrupted. No, sorry. It's I was just asking what your reaction was. You you carried out um uh the investigation and and the
02:25:32 um uh the investigation and and the ultimate conclusion of the investigation uh was very limited. What was your personal reaction, your your feeling at the time, please? Personally, I was very very disappointed. But equally, I respected Colin Black's decision. He is
02:25:45 respected Colin Black's decision. He is the the man in overall charge. Uh he has many other issues to consider. Uh and that was his right and I have huge respect uh for Collins as as a a leader.
02:26:00 respect uh for Collins as as a a leader. But it ultimately it was his decision, however [clears throat] disappointing I might find it. Did you to what extent did you express any disagreement with this decision that
02:26:11 any disagreement with this decision that was made?
02:26:14 was made? I
02:26:16 I I'm afraid I don't remember that. I would have certainly had a discussion with um with Mike Dell about it. Um but beyond that I I don't
02:26:29 about it. Um but beyond that I I don't know.
02:26:31 know. I I did I'm sorry I did I for instance I didn't make formal representations to Colin Black because that wasn't my my role to do that.
02:26:44 Are you saying that looking back from this perspective of time that you consider that the decision that Colin Black took was the correct decision?
02:26:57 I he would have [clears throat] to speak for himself on that. I I I was extremely disappointed. I thought it was um a decision that didn't explore
02:27:08 it was um a decision that didn't explore all of the avenues that should have been explored. Um so in that sense, if that's saying it was the wrong decision, um that's it. But I I I think it's more
02:27:19 um that's it. But I I I think it's more shaded than that. Are you aware of the evidence given to this inquiry by uh Ellie and Wendy? No,
02:27:31 this inquiry by uh Ellie and Wendy? No, I'm not.
02:27:32 I'm not. So Ellie and Wendy gave evidence to this inquiry that long after James Thompson's deployment in the SDS ended, he
02:27:43 deployment in the SDS ended, he continued his uh relationship with uh Ellie, his friendship with Wendy for a number of years essentially until uh
02:27:55 number of years essentially until uh this inquiry was established. One of the uh matters that uh they uh have raised um is that if appropriate
02:28:06 have raised um is that if appropriate action had been taken against James Thompson at the time, it would have prevented uh him uh from uh perpetuating those two relationships.
02:28:21 Yes, I think you can say that's probably true
02:28:25 true in relation to elements of those relationships. They describe for example how James Thompson uh asked about where they were living,
02:28:38 uh asked about where they were living, where other activists were living again long time after uh his deployment uh had ended. And they also provide uh
02:28:49 ended. And they also provide uh impactive evidence uh as to how uh their lives, their ability to trust other people uh particularly other men uh were
02:29:00 people uh particularly other men uh were shattered by uh the actions of James uh Thompson and pursuing their relationship uh with him uh for so long. So again, a a missed opportunity uh to prevent
02:29:12 a missed opportunity uh to prevent further harm by this officer. Yes, that's probably true. Yes. And done in the name of protecting uh the SDS.
02:29:24 uh the SDS. Don't
02:29:24 Don't Well, I can't I can't say that. That would be for Colin Black to say that. All right.
02:29:32 Moving on from James Thompson. And again in terms of uh no uh identifying dates but in relation to HN91
02:29:44 but in relation to HN91 uh we know that he had a sexual relationship under cover that he disclosed his true identity uh to her and in fact remains uh with her. This is
02:29:59 and in fact remains uh with her. This is another relationship uh that that you missed. Yes. Yes, he was an he was an officer under my overall command and I didn't know
02:30:10 my overall command and I didn't know that
02:30:12 that HN60
02:30:14 HN60 Helen Steel has recently provided evidence that HN60 had a dete deceptive sexual relationship with a woman who was not an activist who
02:30:27 with a woman who was not an activist who he met through a horicultural course he attended as part of his undercover role again another UCO under your
02:30:38 role again another UCO under your command.
02:30:40 command. Are you is your evidence the same that you were oblivious to his relationship? Yes.
02:30:48 Yes. May I turn now to DC Carlo Saraki uh in relation to this officer? So he was recruited in January 2000. uh he
02:31:01 was recruited in January 2000. uh he deployed in May of that year and his SDS um Lucio tenure ended in December 2006. During the period of his deployments he
02:31:13 During the period of his deployments he had a relationship with a person we were calling Lindsay from May 2001 to April 2002
02:31:20 2002 and those and that relationship included for example holidays abroad including a trip to Venice in December 2001. Again, is your evidence the same that you
02:31:31 is your evidence the same that you oblivious to that relationship? Yes, it is. He also had a relationship with Donna McClean from September 2002 to November 2004. Again, it included holidays
02:31:44 2004. Again, it included holidays abroad. There was a trip to Bologna, for example, in February 2003. He cohabited with Donna Mlan from late 2002 to May 2004.
02:31:56 2002 to May 2004. Um he also uh had a relationship with a person who is his current partner. That relationship beginning in 2005.
02:32:08 relationship beginning in 2005. Again is your answer the same that you were oblivious to these relationships as well?
02:32:15 well? Yes.
02:32:19 I want to ask you about a specific document. It is at MPS0527068.
02:32:26 So this is at your tab B 298.
02:32:36 This is a uh rent book as we can see. Is this a document that you have seen recently?
02:32:47 recently? not asking any discussion that you had with your representatives, but is this something that has been brought to your attention recently or Yes.
02:32:54 Yes. Okay. All right. And so we can see that this is the rent book for we can see Carlo Ner so Karly Saraki's cover name uh and we can see the details uh provided there just in broad terms
02:33:06 provided there just in broad terms looking at at that document c could you just help us with where that came from? Would you be able to assist with the provenence of this?
02:33:17 the provenence of this? I I would assume it was a photocopy of um the rent book supplied by um uh Carlos
02:33:29 Carlos but for for the the um for the benefit of the um office records. So if we just go through this document please I wonder if we can just turn over
02:33:41 please I wonder if we can just turn over to we can see the rent collection there D. McClean so Donna reference to Donna McClean I wonder if we can just expand that a little. So we have the address uh
02:33:53 that a little. So we have the address uh there
02:33:57 and again if we turn over the page please and again and again. Now here we have the specific amounts there. So you can see the various uh
02:34:11 there. So you can see the various uh rent days 685 pounds and we can see the uh initials there
02:34:19 there um
02:34:21 um purporting to be uh Donna Mlan's uh signature um but it is not her actual signature
02:34:32 but it is not her actual signature because uh this uh document uh is is a fiction.
02:34:39 fiction. Now I want to ask you in terms of uh documents like this, what was the purpose of them being provided to the SDS office? What was the
02:34:52 provided to the SDS office? What was the reason for that? I think the the um the purpose would be to demonstrate evidence that the officer was living where they claimed to be
02:35:03 was living where they claimed to be living and where they claimed rent for.
02:35:13 And what you were you had um we looked at your responsibilities at the beginning of the day, but you had um some responsibility for financial management. Is that right?
02:35:24 management. Is that right? Yes.
02:35:26 Yes. in relation to uh this particular uh
02:35:33 uh book. Um [clears throat] when DCIL gave evidence um he he said that the purpose of this document might be to keep the
02:35:45 of this document might be to keep the books square for the auditors. So in in other words that al although
02:35:56 that al although this document is a fiction that Donna McClean was not paid £685 a month rent those it's not her signature there it's
02:36:08 those it's not her signature there it's a it's a false document but the reason that there is this false rent book DCI Dale mentioned that it might be to keep the book the books square for the
02:36:21 keep the book the books square for the auditors.
02:36:23 auditors. What's your reaction to that? Does that sound about right? Does that ring any bells in terms of well we've got to claim you know from central funds all of this money uh back. We need to sort of
02:36:34 this money uh back. We need to sort of have some sort of audit and so we'll just we'll just create this um document so it looks like a rent book and provide it to the auditors and they've they've seen something and they can they can sign it off.
02:36:45 sign it off. Well, I I I I would wonder about that because auditors coming in wouldn't necessarily have access to documents
02:36:56 necessarily have access to documents that showed the specific officers details [clears throat]
02:37:01 and I'm not quite clear from your question whom fabricated this. I I wonder if we can just turn up um
02:37:12 I I wonder if we can just turn up um it's part of the transcript of Carlos Saraki's evidence that he gave to this inquiry on the 3rd of March this year. It takes a few seconds for the transcripts to come up. This one is UCPI
02:37:24 transcripts to come up. This one is UCPI 40129,
02:37:25 40129, please.
02:37:46 So if we go to page 99 please.
02:37:55 So it's at uh 140652.
02:38:00 So maybe if we just expand the bottom half of the Yes, thank you. Um so question, these are questions that are put to Carlos Saraki. Where did the
02:38:11 are put to Carlos Saraki. Where did the document, where did this booklet come from? It was the rent book that we were just looking at. Uh this is what he said. It was either given to me by the back office because obviously we did
02:38:22 back office because obviously we did have administrative staff that would go out and get things.
02:38:30 Does does that ring true that the back office would would provide a document such as as that a rent book? No, it doesn't. Well, the rent book will come from the accommodation that's being
02:38:44 come from the accommodation that's being rented.
02:38:46 rented. Uh he goes on so he goes on I can recall when we talked about this and I obviously went to it would have been one of the inspectors about the rent that they said
02:38:59 inspectors about the rent that they said we can give you cash to pay but we do need some kind of evidence that if you fill it out you get it initialed etc. So I I don't know that's what I did as far
02:39:11 I I don't know that's what I did as far as I can remember. I would fill out the bits. Yes, I I can't cast more light on it than that. And so
02:39:22 And so a false uh document to keep the inspector's uh uh content. It would have been one of the inspectors about the rent. Again,
02:39:34 the inspectors about the rent. Again, can you just help us with your reaction to that evidence when he says, "I can recall when we talked about this. It would have been one of the inspectors about the rent that they said we can give you the cash to pay. Uh but we do
02:39:46 give you the cash to pay. Uh but we do need some kind of evidence that if you fill out you get it initial. So this is it needed to secure payment. Well, I I read this that the advice to
02:39:58 Well, I I read this that the advice to to to to him was that you needed some kind of evidence that the payment you had made to the landlord had been made. and and the um
02:40:11 and and the um the rent book would then be signed by the the landlord. That's a fairly straightforward exercise if you are completely honest, which I believed um
02:40:23 completely honest, which I believed um he was
02:40:29 looking at what Carlos Sarakia said in light of what DCI mentioned about auditors. Could you just help us with who who were the auditors of who outside
02:40:41 who who were the auditors of who outside the SDS would have had to have looked at items such as this rent book? Could you just help us with that, please? Well, that that's where I'm I'm I'm I'm slightly baffled because when when we
02:40:53 slightly baffled because when when we have called in and we we called in auditors to look at the books for the unit, the um I I would I would from memory [clears throat] um documents
02:41:06 from memory [clears throat] um documents that contain the name of the individual officer wouldn't they wouldn't be able to access. Um but the um that that audit was a
02:41:18 Um but the um that that audit was a um
02:41:20 um not a one-off, but but it it wasn't a frequent
02:41:24 frequent um
02:41:26 um occasion,
02:41:27 occasion, but it's it it it clearly [clears throat] reads to me that there needs to be evidence from the landlord that's being paid that there's um that
02:41:38 that's being paid that there's um that that's the the um [clears throat] the rent.
02:41:43 rent. Were there any circumstances that you can recall uh where uh false documents were provided to auditors?
02:41:55 were provided to auditors? No, there weren't.
02:42:01 I'd like to move to um another topic relating to this undercover officer Carlo um Saraki and uh what we've called the Lois Austin uh case uh and in terms
02:42:17 the Lois Austin uh case uh and in terms of that uh civil case do you recall um Lois Austin's civil action following the police treatment of protesters
02:42:28 police treatment of protesters during the Mayday anti- capitalist protests. So, this would have been Mayday in 2001.
02:42:37 I read a document um fairly recently. [clears throat] Um but I'm I'm I don't my memory of that incident is is is not there.
02:42:51 In DC Saraki's statement, he refers to being asked, his words were being asked by the DCI, who at the time
02:43:03 being asked by the DCI, who at the time was Michael Dell and or DI. So you would have been the DI at the time. I think Dell was the DCI at the time to speak to the council for the MPS as anything I
02:43:14 the council for the MPS as anything I could provide informationwise would be of use.
02:43:21 of use. What do you recall of uh Carlos Saraki being asked to speak to council uh for the Metropolitan Police? I I don't recall that.
02:43:34 I I don't recall that. Could
02:43:37 Could we turn up please MPS0526804?
02:43:53 So a lot of these are being clubbed together. They are a series of authorizations for Carlos Saraki's uh deployment. If we turn uh for example to
02:44:05 deployment. If we turn uh for example to page 48, please. So again, we've we've looked at similar forms as they're set out here. On page 48, c can you see that uh your name is
02:44:18 48, c can you see that uh your name is provided there and you're the the DI who's the applicant and you can see this is dated the 27th of May 2005. Yes.
02:44:27 Yes. So we're we're in the towards the end of this document. This is box 10 above it. But if we just go back a few pages please to page 41.
02:44:39 And if we look at the penultimate bullet point. So this is Carlos Saraki whose code name was Craggy
02:44:50 Carlos Saraki whose code name was Craggy Island. So we've got UCO craggy island provided a personal background briefing to MPS Defense Council in the Mayday
02:45:02 to MPS Defense Council in the Mayday 2001 civil action by members of the Socialist Party. Now you can see the heading summary of reporting and above that it says well this is the
02:45:13 that it says well this is the intelligence case renew authority for Carlos Saraki to be an undercover officer uh since the last update of uh his conduct and use the following
02:45:24 his conduct and use the following intelligence has been gathered. It's produced 28 intelligence reports providing details of the following activities. So essentially this is providing justification for renewing his authority and you are the applicant in
02:45:37 authority and you are the applicant in this authorization and there's clearly a reference to uh him providing a personal background briefing
02:45:46 briefing to MPS defense council is looking at that there does that jog your memory of of this
02:45:52 of this it it doesn't about the incident but but equally um that information would have come to me from someone else presuming M feed [clears throat] being party to that so that it could contribute to the
02:46:04 so that it could contribute to the intelligence case.
02:46:10 Is that not uh shocking to read that uh an undercover officer in the SDS uh instead of uh assisting with uh
02:46:23 uh instead of uh assisting with uh intelligence uh on public disorder is instead in a civil case briefing the Metropolitan Police's Council. Was that
02:46:35 Metropolitan Police's Council. Was that not shocking when you read it? Well, I without knowing the full background of it, um it it it the purpose of it may have been to give [clears throat] background advice relevant to that civil
02:46:48 background advice relevant to that civil action
02:46:58 very far from the uh purpose of the uh SDS, isn't it? Well, it's not a primary function, but the there is a um an enormous well of
02:47:12 the there is a um an enormous well of um information that is is [clears throat] um
02:47:17 um is it exists as far as the SDS are concerned and and that this this strikes me as without again as I say knowing the
02:47:28 me as without again as I say knowing the full background to it that that it it would have been that background information that would have been useful to be heard um in that case, but I'm
02:47:40 to be heard um in that case, but I'm guessing
02:47:42 guessing at at um at that.
02:47:49 Were you at that background briefing? I don't think so. I have no memory of it at all. So, um the answer would probably be no.
02:48:02 If we just turn further in these um this batch of documents please to page 49.
02:48:30 So this is the customer squad comments. UCO Kraggy Island's reporting has been vital in allowing special branch to
02:48:41 vital in allowing special branch to support CO11 and Ber in policing the potential anti-fascist protests against extreme right-wing groups, especially the British National Party. Particular
02:48:52 the British National Party. Particular examples were UCO's assistance in relation to the recent general election campaign and the National Front St. Georgia's Day demonstration in April when tactical intelligence was provided
02:49:03 when tactical intelligence was provided which allowed the MPS to disrupt potentially violent confrontation between extreme right-wing and anti-fascist uh activists. Now, in terms of that feedback, these are this is feedback
02:49:15 feedback, these are this is feedback from those who the SDS provides intelligence to. Yes. Yeah. And in relation to what is set out there relates to uh the SDS intelligence
02:49:29 there relates to uh the SDS intelligence on what you would expect uh public demonstrations. Yes. But but then it ends here. Currently UCO Kraggy Island is also assisting with the growing hardleft support for opposition
02:49:41 growing hardleft support for opposition to the forthcoming G8 conference at a strategic as well as a tactical level. You see Kraggy Island's intelligence and assessment for MPS council in relation
02:49:52 assessment for MPS council in relation to the recent Mayday action was of significant value. So again we have a repetition of a reference uh to uh this. The assistance given to a council in a
02:50:06 The assistance given to a council in a civil case
02:50:11 in relation to uh a criminal uh case. Uh you can see perhaps uh that uh it may be that intelligence of what happened may
02:50:24 that intelligence of what happened may be of relevance to a criminal trial but in relation to a civil action again. Why are you uh unsurprised about seeing uh
02:50:38 are you uh unsurprised about seeing uh an undercover officer briefing talking to a a council in a civil action? Well, again, without the benefit of of know of knowing how how this meeting
02:50:51 know of knowing how how this meeting happened, it would be that [clears throat] that um Kra Carlo Saraki had a considerable amount of background information in relation to the action
02:51:04 information in relation to the action which I can see, you know, could be a significant and relevant value. um if NPS council is looking at the action
02:51:15 if NPS council is looking at the action without the benefits of uh that kind of expert knowledge that there may be something lacking in their overall assessment. I I don't know but that that's the way it strikes me.
02:51:29 but that that's the way it strikes me. Is it or was it not uh an unfair uh way of seeking a litigation advantage in a civil uh case uh that no
02:51:43 advantage in a civil uh case uh that no undercover officer uh had any uh proper uh
02:51:48 uh influence on that it's completely inappropriate for an undercover police officer to brief uh the Met Council in a civil
02:51:59 civil I I don't see it as inappropriate. No, notwithstanding whatever the circumstances were. If we turn to page 56 in this document.
02:52:16 So here we have
02:52:20 fifth bullet point down. UCO Kraky Islands has been in a position to provide background briefing to both Metropolitan Police Legal Advisers and SO2 Senior Management in the current
02:52:33 SO2 Senior Management in the current Mayday 2001 civil case where individual activists uh with support from the SP organization are suing uh the police.
02:52:46 organization are suing uh the police. uh so in relation to what is described there so it seems to indicate uh multiple briefings so briefing both to the uh legal advisers and so 12
02:52:59 to the uh legal advisers and so 12 senior management uh here so that's in if the reference to the legal advisers is the council team but it also refers to S so2 senior management do you recall
02:53:11 to S so2 senior management do you recall that or any additional meetings or any additional briefings that Carlos Saraki was engaged in. No, as I said, I this this this chain of
02:53:23 No, as I said, I this this this chain of events I I don't particularly remember at all.
02:53:32 Was it not unique for one of your UCOs to
02:53:38 to uh be involved in speaking to council in a in a civil case? Wasn't it exceptional? It was certainly unusual,
02:53:50 but but beyond that, I I can I don't know. And is there any reason that you can think of why you you cannot remember more detail in relation to this?
02:54:02 more detail in relation to this? Well, it
02:54:05 Well, it it it
02:54:07 it it how to explain it. It is not an event or a sequence of events that I have any reme memory of. What's the pleasing purpose though of
02:54:19 What's the pleasing purpose though of the UCO's
02:54:21 the UCO's uh time to be used in such a way of assisting in a a case in which the meta being sued? What's the pleasing purpose behind that? Well, I'd be guessing that the um the
02:54:36 Well, I'd be guessing that the um the benefits of drawing on the [clears throat] Craggy Islands knowledge would inform the legal advisers and the senior management about the civil case
02:54:48 senior management about the civil case about what what what the what the circumstances were in relation to uh to the action. But again, I I don't know what the the detail was.
02:55:01 what the the detail was. Did Did you not ask? Well, no, because I I don't remember. It's a sequence of events. I'm sorry. All right. I'm going to move to a separate um uh topic. I wonder if we can
02:55:13 separate um uh topic. I wonder if we can um take that document down, please.
02:55:20 One of the things that you stated in your statement, we didn't turn it up, but let me just read it back to you. It is paragraph 112 in your statement at
02:55:31 is paragraph 112 in your statement at page 41 you said this as a manager and without simplifying matters unduly I viewed spouses and children as an
02:55:43 I viewed spouses and children as an extension of the UCOs their welfare was important to my officers and therefore it was important uh to me
02:55:54 uh to me and you go on to say that SDS welfare provision did not extend end uh to the officer's families directly. However, um that would have extended our responsibility too far. Uh the welfare
02:56:07 responsibility too far. Uh the welfare provision in the SCS was greater than in the MPSB and the wider MPS at that time. When you say that you viewed the spouses and children as an extension of the UCOs
02:56:18 and children as an extension of the UCOs and that your welfare, their welfare was important uh to you, but in what way uh did you uh express uh
02:56:30 but in what way uh did you uh express uh a recognition of the importance of their welfare I in anything that you did as a DI in the SDS? Uh how did you pay any attention to the welfare of the spouses?
02:56:43 attention to the welfare of the spouses? Well, I think we took the um the uh for instance, the issue of meeting the spouses or partners at the beginning of an operation
02:56:54 an operation was a a very important element in starting the process of of saying to the the family that you are the important bedrock for the [clears throat] UCO at home and that
02:57:07 [clears throat] UCO at home and that these are the faces that that um you know
02:57:12 know your partner is is working for and that we are available in um to support him and you as far as we can. There were exceptions. We'll look at
02:57:24 There were exceptions. We'll look at HN77 in due course, but the policy and you've described some reasons just then was for the SDS to recruit married
02:57:35 was for the SDS to recruit married officers. That's right, isn't it? Well, I think the preference was for settled I mean not necessarily married but for settled partnerships would be the preference. I wonder if we could please just turn up
02:57:47 I wonder if we could please just turn up your statement please if we can just bring up HN53's statement because I just want to ask you something that you set out at page 34 please.
02:58:00 The URN is MPS0749593.
02:58:20 And so if we can turn to paragraph 92 on page uh 34 please.
02:58:35 And so you set out here the SCS did try to recruit officers who were in stable relationships to be UCOs. The demands of the UCO's role should not be underestimated, and there were some groups that advocated for causes that attracted understandable sympathy at the
02:58:47 attracted understandable sympathy at the time. For that reason, it was desirable for a UCO to spend the minimum amount of time with their activists or at their accommodation that was nevertheless commensurate with their stage of deployment and the general level of
02:58:59 deployment and the general level of activity of that group. And then this, a partner and often children provided an additional motivation to draw them back to their real lives. As I recall, very
02:59:10 to their real lives. As I recall, very little consideration, if any, was given to the concept of a real life relationship acting as a deterrent to UCOs's engaging in sexual relationships in their uh cover identity. And so this
02:59:24 in their uh cover identity. And so this uh reference uh to um
02:59:29 partners uh real life uh partners um acting as a pull back to uh uh reality.
02:59:42 uh uh reality. Was that ever communicated to the spouses or the or the partners themselves that that they were expected to be an anchor for the UCOs?
02:59:56 to be an anchor for the UCOs? Well, I don't think it was it was spelt out. Um
03:00:02 out. Um but but it it it
03:00:06 well in in fact in many respects I think it it may have been I try to recall meetings that I had um with with spouses during my time and um what we would have
03:00:17 during my time and um what we would have we we would have articulated maybe not those exact words but the the we would have emphasized how difficult the operation was and that there was a need
03:00:28 operation was and that there was a need to have a a a stable um home where which would be [clears throat] the main attraction for people to come back to so that it it the other life didn't didn't
03:00:41 that it it the other life didn't didn't [clears throat] um dominate. What would you say? Sorry, I interrupted you. Please say so that was probably that that would be articulated in different ways to to um to the uh
03:00:54 different ways to to um to the uh department. What would you say if someone were to suggest that a policy of recruiting married or officers in stable
03:01:05 married or officers in stable relationships was unfair on the uh spouses given the risk of UCOs's uh having inappropriate relationships
03:01:16 having inappropriate relationships during their deployment because of course um it would have an effect on their spouses. here here was for example going back to
03:01:27 here here was for example going back to evidence this morning all the scenarios about sexual relationships we've been through a number of officers who did have inappropriate relationships so given all of that risk there is having a
03:01:38 given all of that risk there is having a policy of recruiting married officers uh inevitably going to cause harm to the to those spouses
03:01:50 I I I'm not sure I agree with that at all and
03:01:54 all and it was really um a preference for that. But I think at the end of the day, it's the the spout, sorry, the UCO. It's in
03:02:05 the the spout, sorry, the UCO. It's in the gift of the UCO to ensure that the that that situation doesn't arise, but the and and and so it's the partner [clears throat] and the spouse and the children and the family home that is the
03:02:17 children and the family home that is the driver to [clears throat] um to keep them on that path. You mentioned home visits. We've heard from a number of undercover officers who've given evidence of their
03:02:29 who've given evidence of their recollection of the home visits that was conducted at the beginning of their deployments. And I just want to ask you about some of them. So Rob Hastings uh recalled that when your
03:02:41 Rob Hastings uh recalled that when your DCI Michael Dell and you attended his home to speak to uh him and his uh spouse when he was recruited. He said
03:02:54 spouse when he was recruited. He said that he was told that he should not get into se a sexual relationship because if he did then he would be removed from the unit. So he says that when you and
03:03:06 unit. So he says that when you and Michael Dell went to uh speak to him and his wife uh that he was told that he shouldn't get into a sexual relationship because if he did then he would be
03:03:18 because if he did then he would be removed from the unit. Do you remember that? Well, I I read it. Yes. Yes, I do. Well, I I remember it because I've read the document, but um but that may may have
03:03:31 document, but um but that may may have been something that um was said in other situations, but um um yes, that's true.
03:03:42 So, at at at this stage, um there was a recognition of a risk of the UCOs having sexual
03:03:53 of a risk of the UCOs having sexual relationships. Well, this this again [clears throat] follows um Mike Dell's the meeting that we talked about earlier where Mike Dell spoke to the meeting and um
03:04:07 spoke to the meeting and um and it's relevant to that that kind of approach to to explain to people that if they indulge in sexual relationships, they will be removed from the unit.
03:04:19 they will be removed from the unit. It's quite a striking thing to Was this one of the first meetings that you and DCI Dell would have had with Robert Hastings then then wife?
03:04:31 Hastings then then wife? Uh yes. I I I don't know if there was more than one occasion. So, it's a striking thing to say that uh in that meeting that uh he he would be
03:04:44 in that meeting that uh he he would be removed from the unit if he had sex with um those that he was spying spying on and so wouldn't be said unless there was
03:04:55 and so wouldn't be said unless there was a reason for saying so at that time was that because at that by that time at least by the time you are meeting with HN18's partner By that time you were
03:05:06 HN18's partner By that time you were fully aware of the problem of sexual relationships by that point. No, no, no, no. Um um I I think this is
03:05:19 No, no, no, no. Um um I I think this is Mike um articulating what he had said in that previous meeting as a a general policy issue that that um it it was and
03:05:30 policy issue that that um it it was and where it came from. I don't know whether it ultimately came from James Thompson's case. I don't know. But it's it [clears throat] it it it was stating the case in a bold way that would ensure
03:05:41 case in a bold way that would ensure that that that it it the message was listened to.
03:05:56 Carlos Saraki when he gave uh evidence he remembered again that you and HN58 uh were the two who attended his home to speak to him uh and his then wife and
03:06:08 speak to him uh and his then wife and the way in which he describes it is he said that the information that they were provided uh with um was as far as he was concerned adequate
03:06:19 was as far as he was concerned adequate but he thought that his ex-wife would say uh the opposite. So, in terms of his description, would you agree that
03:06:31 you agree that in relation to that part of his evidence that his ex-wife would probably say the off at the opposite that what was said at these meetings was inappropriate? Would you would you agree with that that
03:06:43 Would you would you agree with that that looking back on uh the communications with the spouses that it was uh not adequate?
03:06:52 adequate? Well, the the degree to which it's adequate um I I don't know. It depends on how the message is is is taken. But the the
03:07:03 the the um
03:07:05 um the principle I think is is a very sound one and a very inclusive and uh empathetic one. Um, and I think it's an approach that I'm not aware exists in
03:07:18 an approach that I'm not aware exists in anywhere else in certain in the police. Um,
03:07:23 Um, I think it it was a a valuable exercise. How the message is received will vary from individual to individual and that really comes down to how effective the
03:07:37 really comes down to how effective the um
03:07:39 um the the meeting is conducted. Um Mark Jenner describes um the meeting that again he had with you and DCI Dell. He says I very clearly remember that
03:07:50 He says I very clearly remember that they had said that if you engage in a sexual relationship whilst as an undercover officer uh then you would be removed from the units. I cannot recall which specific officer i.e. or DC ID said that, but it was most
03:08:02 or DC ID said that, but it was most certainly stated to myself and my partner. And he describes, for example, um that his partner was left beused um by what was said. But again, in terms
03:08:15 um by what was said. But again, in terms of what you said to uh uh Mark Jenner, either you or DCL, do you recall that?
03:08:25 I'm sorry. I'm not sure I recall meeting Mark Jenner and his partner. Um,
03:08:34 another visit conducted by you, HN 118. Do you recall um meeting HN 118 whose
03:08:45 Do you recall um meeting HN 118 whose cover name Simon Wellings, this is Groundhog Day, Ringra? So he recalls a visit that you conducted at his home with his wife. Do you remember that?
03:08:57 with his wife. Do you remember that? I remember doing that. Yes. So, one of the points that 118 made in uh his evidence uh was
03:09:09 uh his evidence uh was that uh there was no ongoing contact between
03:09:13 between uh his managers um and his wife while he was deployed. So he described, for example, if he was abroad, that he would receive a call
03:09:26 abroad, that he would receive a call from the cover officer to say that, for example, he'd been spotted or or he was safe, but that there was no ongoing contact um with the
03:09:37 there was no ongoing contact um with the uh spouses and again that's reflected in the evidence of uh other undercover officers. So although you stated that um in your statement you viewed the uh
03:09:48 in your statement you viewed the uh spouses as an extension of the UCOs's apart from this 45minut initial meeting would you accept that in fact there was no real uh contact with them?
03:09:59 no real uh contact with them? I I I I for the other impression I I took it that the the cover [clears throat] sergeants with their individual areas responsibility would
03:10:10 individual areas responsibility would have
03:10:12 have not obviously not day-to-day contact but there would be contact on a regular basis which could include conversations with with the spouse and that that ongoing um relationship
03:10:26 ongoing um relationship knowing that the uh the sergeant was at the end of the phone would would um be a degree of support from him, but but anything more intrusive than that would be [clears throat]
03:10:38 would be [clears throat] possibly not what the spouse would want. One very short topic before we break for the day. Christmas functions. Before we do, can somebody replace the
03:10:49 Before we do, can somebody replace the battery in my contraption? It is means I can't hear what is being said.
03:11:00 Oh, thank you. That's very kind.
03:11:06 Thank you. Okay. In terms of contact uh with UCO partners, um do you remember that for a period there were uh Christmas uh
03:11:19 period there were uh Christmas uh functions sometimes going uh overnight where uh the SCS did invite in uh for a Christmas uh function of partners. Is that something that you recall?
03:11:32 that something that you recall? I don't not in my time as as a manager
03:11:39 do you have any uh recollection of any discussion about such functions and why they came to an end or
03:11:52 they came to an end or is it is it a question of you not remembering or remembering and they didn't happen or you weren't you did not attend
03:12:00 attend I I was aware that the uh that clearly I was aware that there used to be in the past Christmas functions but um when they stopped or or or why they stopped I
03:12:13 they stopped or or or why they stopped I don't know. Um I I have spoken to my wife about this specific issue because that we would have gone together and she doesn't recall it. Um, so I I
03:12:26 doesn't recall it. Um, so I I as to why they were stopped, I don't know.
03:12:28 know. And just on that and and it will be the last document I refer you to today, HN53, could we please turn to MPS 0749763?
03:12:49 And I wonder if you can just have both uh pages, please.
03:12:55 So this is um a a letter that you can see from HN123's partner to assistant commissioner Vanesse dated the 8th of
03:13:06 commissioner Vanesse dated the 8th of August 2002. Dear Mr. Vaness, I have received your letter dated the 5th of August. Uh, interestingly, one of the Christmas parties that I was ordered by SDS
03:13:17 parties that I was ordered by SDS management to attend was held in a public place with members of the public overhearing what was being said. Um, I was disgusted by what I saw and heard, particularly while SDS managers stood
03:13:29 particularly while SDS managers stood around. For example, some people were laughing about Roger Pierce, who had been undercover in SDS sometime earlier, and it was said that he had boasted about certain things he had done while
03:13:40 about certain things he had done while undercover. Considering all I have heard about Mr. Pierce, I'm surprised that he chose to ruin my life two years ago. And then this. Over the years, undercover officers have boasted of, amongst other
03:13:51 officers have boasted of, amongst other more serious things, their extrammarital affairs while undercover, both heterosexual and homosexual, and of children born as a result of some affairs. Yet SDS line management insists
03:14:03 affairs. Yet SDS line management insists on SDS officers being in a stable heterosexual relationship in their nonundercover lives. They then seek to undermine the very relationship that they rely on. As you once described to
03:14:14 they rely on. As you once described to me, the SDS is indeed a cowboy outfit. I wonder if MPS and or the fathers of those children are paying for their upkeep. Perhaps not yet. I understand
03:14:25 upkeep. Perhaps not yet. I understand that Roger Pierce had to produce a statement. You recall the obstacles that the SDS line management put up against my efforts to ensure that my partner did not have to complete a form for incapacity benefit. uh please be assured
03:14:37 incapacity benefit. uh please be assured that both you and your staff's well-being remained at the forefront of my mind. And so here we have um an account by HM123's partner giving an insight into uh the uh
03:14:53 partner giving an insight into uh the uh tone o of at least one Christmas function. Does that sort of atmosphere um reflect the atmosphere
03:15:05 the atmosphere in the SDS in terms of boasting about relationships? No, it does not at all. No.
03:15:16 uh when you were uh in the SDS as a uh manager for seven years, um did you um ever hear uh any UCO or manager brag
03:15:28 ever hear uh any UCO or manager brag about having a sexual relationship with a person they were spying on? No, I did not. So, I don't know if that is a convenient moment to break.
03:15:39 moment to break. Yes.
03:15:43 Will you be back at 10 on Monday to complete your open evidence? Yes, sir.
03:15:49 Yes, sir. Thank you. Uh we'll adjourn until Monday at 10:00.