Former Special Demonstration Squad Detective Inspector HN53 continues giving evidence remotely, via a voice-modulated audio link, having previously testified the preceding Thursday. Counsel to the Inquiry presses him on the SDS's handling of DS James Thompson's (HN16) misconduct, the recruitment of HN77 despite a damning psychological assessment, disruption tactics used against groups including Reclaim the Streets' Mayday campaign, and repeated reporting on the Stephen Lawrence, Cherry Groce and other black justice campaigns despite his denial that institutional racism existed within the SDS. The session closes with the Chairman himself putting to HN53 that years of surveillance on peaceful justice campaigns rarely, if ever, produced evidence of public disorder.
00:35:44 The session uh will be uh transmitted over the live link but by voice only. Uh those with um uh mobile telephones in
00:35:55 those with um uh mobile telephones in the part of the hearing room at the back uh may use them to report what they hear in the hearing room, but only after 15 minutes have elapsed, they may not be used for recording. Yes,
00:36:09 sir. This has nothing to do with HN53's evidence, but may I take this uh opportunity to address the matter that arose when Melena friend Miss Wyatt was
00:36:20 arose when Melena friend Miss Wyatt was questioning uh Ron Gilbertson HN49. uh he was uh asked questions about his leaving party and one of the questions was well who was present at that leaving
00:36:33 was well who was present at that leaving party and he wrote uh names or uh HN reference numbers down on a piece of paper and I just wanted to put onto the record the numbers he wrote down on the
00:36:44 record the numbers he wrote down on the piece of paper were HN72 uh HN 104 and he also wrote HN18 so Rob Hastings question mark.
00:36:57 Hastings question mark. May I also take this uh opportunity um HN53 to correct something uh that I uh suggested to you uh when you were giving
00:37:08 suggested to you uh when you were giving your evidence last Thursday. I was asking you a series of questions about uh visits to the spouses or partners of uh UCOs and I suggested that you and
00:37:21 uh UCOs and I suggested that you and Mike Dell met Mark Jenner and S and that she was left beused uh by uh the interaction. However, S and Mark Jenner
00:37:32 interaction. However, S and Mark Jenner were not visited by you. They were visited by Bob Lambert and possibly Keith Edmonson uh before uh Mr. Jenner deployed and the reference to the
00:37:43 deployed and the reference to the partner who was beused was in fact uh Robert Hastings HN18's then partner. Thank you. [clears throat]
00:37:54 Before moving on, um may I just clarify a few things from the evidence that you gave in relation to um HN 16? And I wonder if we could uh have up on screen please MPS0719696.
00:38:09 So this is a document at your tab B213.
00:38:17 So this is uh a file note uh dated the 11th of March uh 2002.
00:38:26 uh 2002. Now, your evidence last Thursday uh was that you did not have suspicions um about the operation lime marles uh trip during that operation or
00:38:38 trip during that operation or immediately afterwards? Is that is that right? That at the time that the uh supposed handover of the gun took place when that operation um was at its peak
00:38:51 when that operation um was at its peak that at that particular moment of time you didn't have uh suspicions about that aspect of the operation. In fact, the reverse it was thought that possibly this this could be um a big success for
00:39:03 this this could be um a big success for the SDS.
00:39:05 the SDS. I think from from memory that that was the case. Yes. I just want to clarify something in a in this note because it's it's dated the 11th of March 2002
00:39:16 it's dated the 11th of March 2002 because at the beginning as you can see HN53 it says uh as Magenta Triangle's intricate field operation unravels uh I feel it is important that the record is
00:39:29 feel it is important that the record is set straight in terms of my personal assessment of the veracity of the Marseilles trip in January 2001. Uh the points set out below were voiced by me
00:39:40 points set out below were voiced by me consistently both during and after the operation in our discussions both as a management team and with Colin Black. And if we just zoom out um of this um
00:39:53 And if we just zoom out um of this um you can see um the note um goes uh on to explain uh reservations about the trip. But just looking at that that note, does does that change your view in terms of
00:40:08 does that change your view in terms of the timing of your suspicions about James Thompson and and Operation Lime? I'm to be honest I'm not quite sure where when I when I've used the phrase
00:40:21 where when I when I've used the phrase during and [clears throat] after the operation whether I mean operation lime or the operation to investigate the background of James Thompson subsequently. I'm not quite
00:40:32 subsequently. I'm not quite I'm not quite clear. I'm trying to um remember if I had particular doubts why it was happening and I I'm I'm still not not at all sure that I did.
00:40:45 not at all sure that I did. Just in terms of who the concerns were voiced to. Could you just assist with with that? Um obviously you have indicated you voiced your concerns
00:40:58 indicated you voiced your concerns broadly about James Thompson. We've seen the investigation notes that you provided. Who else uh senior within the SDS did you voice those concerns? I felt it was very important that
00:41:10 I felt it was very important that because of the nature of what what was being suggested or what I believed [clears throat] that it would it should really be restricted to to myself and within Yes. Yes. myself and um Mike and
00:41:24 within Yes. Yes. myself and um Mike and and of course upwards with with um Colin Black.
00:41:29 Black. Colin Black. But what about Roger Pierce?
00:41:36 I wonder maybe to assist you w with that if we take this document down. We'll bring up another document which may may assist. It's MPS 0035259.
00:41:47 assist. It's MPS 0035259. So this is a document at your tab B354. This is a a file noted you can see top right 7th of June 2004. Uh but if you look if we turn to page
00:42:00 Uh but if you look if we turn to page three and it's uh paragraph 1.2 two. Uh it says here uh it should be stated at the outset that commander Pierce uh and
00:42:12 the outset that commander Pierce uh and subsequently acting commander Colin Black were fully brief briefed at every stage of events and personally authorized all measures uh taken to deal with DS Thompson. Now, I
00:42:26 with DS Thompson. Now, I we will be hearing evidence tomorrow from Colin Black and and Roger Pierce uh on Wednesday this week and I just want to give you an opportunity just taking that into account um to consider
00:42:38 that into account um to consider something that Roger Pierce has said in his um statement because he said that he didn't he doesn't agree that he received briefings at every stage of events as
00:42:50 briefings at every stage of events as set out here and he has said that to the best of his recollection, the normal course of events would be for Commander uh Colin Black to be fully briefed at
00:43:01 uh Colin Black to be fully briefed at every stage of event events. And he says that his knowledge of James Thompson's misconduct or concerns about them uh did not come to his attention uh he says
00:43:13 not come to his attention uh he says until at the beginning of 2003. Um c could you just assist w with that? the reference to both Roger Pierce and Colin Black being fully briefed at every
00:43:25 Colin Black being fully briefed at every stage of events, but with a particular focus on Roger Pierce, is is it possible that he is correct that he didn't receive briefings at every stage of events? Well, I think what I'm I'm
00:43:37 events? Well, I think what I'm I'm perhaps reflecting in that paragraph is that
00:43:42 that um when um I submitted briefing notes uh to to to brief upwards, they would have been done by minute and the minuteing
00:43:53 been done by minute and the minuteing would have been once Colin Black was the acting commander would be to him. [clears throat] But I'm assuming that but prior to that that it would have been to Colin Black with the assumption that [clears throat]
00:44:05 with the assumption that [clears throat] it it or it would have been to to Commander Pierce through Colin Black that that the briefing [clears throat] um was upwards at the senior management level. Um I once once I um submit a
00:44:21 level. Um I once once I um submit a briefing note or report on a on a minute upwards, I then have no control over whether that is delivered or read. And the only indication to me that um
00:44:34 the only indication to me that um it had been read would be [clears throat] uh if if the the minute sheet was initial by the recipient and that wasn't necessarily always the case. Um but I I
00:44:45 necessarily always the case. Um but I I would from my perspective I would assume that if I had minuteed it upwards to a particular senior officer that it would have been seen by the senior officer and
00:44:57 have been seen by the senior officer and read.
00:44:58 read. And so in terms of your clarification of the briefing of Commander Pierce, that was done by you through your production of the various minutes and investigative
00:45:10 of the various minutes and investigative notes that you expected would have been passed further up the chain. Yes, it would. But but over and above that, there was regular um um one-to-one
00:45:21 that, there was regular um um one-to-one engagement. Um I I would have uh seen Roger Pierce on a regular basis um whenever I was um at at the yard. Um and some of the briefings could have
00:45:34 Um and some of the briefings could have been verbal. I I I'm I'm not sure, but the the formal briefing that I'm referring to there would have been via the briefing notes that you've highlighted. And just just to close this topic, I
00:45:45 And just just to close this topic, I wonder if we could turn to MPS 072 89. This is a document sir at your tab B274.
00:46:00 So if we turn to the So this series of document documents and I wonder if we could turn to page 12
00:46:12 and we we can see there uh commander special branch. So, Roger Pierce, he his signature or signature initials have been redacted out there. Uh, but he he's
00:46:25 been redacted out there. Uh, but he he's signed off um having read uh this uh on the 6th of January 2003 and and says, well, this is the first time that he became aware of problems with James
00:46:37 became aware of problems with James Thompson's deployment. Is that quite possible that this was the first time or or not because of the reference that you made just now to um regular meetings
00:46:49 made just now to um regular meetings with him?
00:46:51 with him? No, I I don't think so. I this was um when when when this first arose and I'm assuming that that was when Roger Pierce was uh the commander, it was um off the
00:47:07 was uh the commander, it was um off the if you the words off the scale in terms of what should could and should be managed within the SDS and this would have been [clears throat] um done with the the uh you know
00:47:20 um done with the the uh you know complete transparency upwards
00:47:25 because because of the the potential consequences for both uh for for the individual for James Thompson and and for the unit itself. If we take that document down
00:47:37 If we take that document down one last document on James Thompson before we do move on, could we please have up on screen and sir this is not in the bundle. It is MPS071970
00:47:53 HN53. This is we'll see in due course it is not one of your notes. This is uh DCI Dell's note dated the 22nd of March
00:48:05 Dell's note dated the 22nd of March 2002.
00:48:07 2002. And I wonder if we can turn to the second page and
00:48:13 and But again, this is this will be familiar to you because you can see for example, this is at the bottom of this page. Those are the disciplinary options available for dealing with James
00:48:25 options available for dealing with James Thompson.
00:48:28 Yes. So formal discipline, arrest and charge, informal discipline. Yes. And if we turn over the page please that well we we know that the preferred option and the
00:48:41 know that the preferred option and the option that was taken was the was the informal uh discipline uh approach and we can see the the benefits that are set out there in those four bullet points.
00:48:52 out there in those four bullet points. security, secure the safety of MMT, so Magenta Triangle HN16, maintain the integrity of the SDS operation, secure the safety of all SDS uh officers, past
00:49:05 the safety of all SDS uh officers, past and present, uh and the wider public interest of preserving the ability to provide high-grade intelligence. What I'd like to ask you is about the the disadvantages of the route that was
00:49:18 disadvantages of the route that was selected and we can see neglect of duty, impropriety, lack of supervision, prejudice to morale, vulnerability to embar to embarrassment of the NPS, but is this bullet point here? Can you
00:49:30 is this bullet point here? Can you assist with this failure to comply with RIPER?
00:49:33 RIPER? It's a long time ago. appreciate HN53, but
00:49:37 but can you remember any discussions about the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act relating to taking a disciplinary
00:49:48 Act relating to taking a disciplinary route with uh James Thompson? That was essentially the informal option. Does that jog your memory of what that might be a reference to?
00:50:04 I'm not quite sure in in relation to so
00:50:12 so which was the preferred option it was the it was the the it was the informal discipline. So in instead of uh instituting uh formal disciplinary uh proceedings or uh even
00:50:25 disciplinary uh proceedings or uh even criminal proceedings uh that the the informal approach uh was used and essentially as you'll recall uh James Thompson's uh he his deployment was
00:50:37 Thompson's uh he his deployment was it was ended but uh his security vetting status was reduced from developed vetting to uh security check and so it was it was uh described as a slap on the
00:50:49 was it was uh described as a slap on the wrist as opposed to for example uh being arrested and prosecuted for multiple offenses.
00:50:57 offenses. If I to assist you with the context of this and I said that it was DC Idel's note his indication in his evidence was that part of the difficulty with Ripper
00:51:09 that part of the difficulty with Ripper uh was that for example when you are bringing a deployment to an end in other words when a deployment is no longer uh necessary or proportionate of course
00:51:20 necessary or proportionate of course there's a there's a sometimes quite extended period of extraction and I think he expressed Maybe there was some some concern in relation to that, but I if you cannot assist with the reference
00:51:33 if you cannot assist with the reference to failure to comply with Ripper, I mean, I I could understand um
00:51:41 um Mike's interpretation of that, but I I can't um I can't at the moment think of a specific ripper related
00:51:53 a specific ripper related barrier to to what was being proposed. Could we please take that document down? One of the points that you made towards the beginning of your evidence last
00:52:04 the beginning of your evidence last Thursday was that in relation to recruitment that the new UCOs that you saw that you met that you considered that they had a high degree of integrity
00:52:17 that they had a high degree of integrity uh is the way that you described them. I just want to ask about that the recruitment of HN77 who had um cover name uh Jacqueline or Jackie Anderson.
00:52:29 Jackie Anderson. Now is it right that certainly during your tenure as DI she was the only single UCO uh I UCO was not in uh a
00:52:41 single UCO uh I UCO was not in uh a relationship that was in fact recruited uh by the SDS. Yes, I think that's true. Did did that show that at least in that
00:52:53 Did did that show that at least in that aspect of her deployment that that in fact
00:52:59 fact it wasn't necessary for an undercover officer to be married or in a a long-term relationship? That that actually when it came to it that wasn't a necessary factor after all.
00:53:11 a necessary factor after all. Well, I think it it it I think there have been single officers in the past And I think it's the um the the the
00:53:23 And I think it's the um the the the married or the the the very very long-term relationship was the absolute preferred option. But it it I I don't
00:53:34 preferred option. But it it I I don't think it was ever exclusive of u an individual who was single uh where we could be confident about the integrity
00:53:45 could be confident about the integrity of that individual. Could
00:53:50 we please have up on screen uh MPS072326?
00:53:55 So this is a document at your tab B74. This relates uh to um psychological assessments that were carried out in
00:54:06 assessments that were carried out in relation to well two UCOs we can see here begins with Carlos Saraki uh uh who was uh we can see recommended
00:54:17 was uh we can see recommended in the this is Dr. Giblings's assessment. So we can see Carlos Saraki is a review and and he is recommended by her
00:54:27 her in relation to her role in recruitment. But could we turn to page three please?
00:54:35 It it is I I just want to test with you what you said about the high degree of integrity of of the new recruits or the UCOs
00:54:44 UCOs that you described because you would have you would have seen or would have been a made aware of Dr. Giblings's assessment of HN77. Yes.
00:54:57 Giblings's assessment of HN77. Yes. Yes, we would. And so yes, we were. Yes. So we can see here um HN77 showed uh that she had given the role considerable thought and had considered the potential impact on her personally and professionally. She
00:55:10 her personally and professionally. She was willing to be honest about the positive and negative aspects o of the role. Uh do you recall what what that was a reference to or do you remember
00:55:21 was a reference to or do you remember discussing with HN77 afterwards what was meant by that the negative aspects of the role? Does that ring any bells with you? Well, well, I think um I think this
00:55:33 you? Well, well, I think um I think this may have been um with with the
00:55:40 if you like the presentation of what the um the difficulties with the job were in terms of of um
00:55:51 terms of of um living uh within a group of people that you may not want to live with. um um
00:56:00 um um and a a completely different lifestyle. Um c can I um another candidate um that uh who who I um
00:56:12 uh who who I um um spoke to who and who I recommended for the unit um had at the end of of talking to her in a
00:56:23 had at the end of of talking to her in a similar way um uh said that she could not consider the possibility of the the if you like the living in a sort of
00:56:34 if you like the living in a sort of dirty environment or or that kind of thing and and never progressed in. And I think it's that kind of detail that perhaps we spoke about and um so I think
00:56:46 perhaps we spoke about and um so I think that HN77 is was um talking about the those as negative aspects and maybe the the rewarding nature of of of the the
00:56:58 the rewarding nature of of of the the work itself um as a positive aspect. But that that would be my um interpretation of that.
00:57:05 of that. And just returning to the document, just reading on from that [clears throat] last sentence, it goes on to say the test results showed that she is more introvert than extrovert and that she
00:57:16 introvert than extrovert and that she prefers to be in small rather than large groups of people. She's a very independent person, happy to be in her own company. The tests also showed that she tends to be critical of others and judgmental, and she said that she
00:57:27 judgmental, and she said that she doesn't suffer fools gladly. test results showed some indication of unresolved tensions. Uh she indicated that she has conscious strategies to cope with stress or pressure that are
00:57:38 cope with stress or pressure that are very effective for her. The discussion showed that she is aware of stress and is willing to acknowledge it in herself. She seems to have strategies to cope and her honest and frank answers suggested that she has support available if
00:57:50 that she has support available if necessary. with effective strategies that she now uses and with good support networks available, it is unlikely that the levels of stress uh shown in the tests will be uh dysfunctional. So in
00:58:03 tests will be uh dysfunctional. So in terms of this detailed assessment by Dr. Gibling and and so far so good. Yes.
00:58:10 Yes. And then this in discussing self-discipline HN77 showed low moral ethical standards. She said that it is necessary to be
00:58:21 She said that it is necessary to be flexible in an undercover situation and that credibility and safety come first. As a result, she said that she would do almost anything if it would enhance her
00:58:32 almost anything if it would enhance her credibility. She would go against her own principles if necessary. She said that she would have no bottomline rules, those things that she would not do under
00:58:43 those things that she would not do under any circumstances. The discussion showed that she does not have a high level of discipline that will help to keep her focused on who she is and why she is
00:58:54 focused on who she is and why she is there. Her answers showed that her low personal standards may cause her to be too flexible in an undercover situation without concern for the consequences for
00:59:08 without concern for the consequences for her or the organization. and then bold type not uh recommended. Uh why did you go against Dr. Giblings's
00:59:22 why did you go against Dr. Giblings's analysis?
00:59:24 analysis? Why did you recruit HN77 despite Dr. Gibling putting in bold and explaining why not recommended?
00:59:36 explaining why not recommended? Um could you [clears throat] remind me who was the DCI at this point if it's possible? Uh whether it was Mike Dell or
00:59:49 Uh whether it was Mike Dell or um HM
00:59:52 um HM 58.
00:59:53 58. Yes, we will just identify the date of that.
00:59:56 that. I place who it was.
01:00:05 Whilst we are um clarifying that wonder if we can take this document down and move to another document on this topic. It's MPS0738068.
01:00:17 It's to your tab B415. So this is a document um
01:00:26 relating to you can see it's 2014 and the reason it's so late is because it's it's a note from a hearn operation Hearn interview with Dr. uh Felicity Gibling.
01:00:38 interview with Dr. uh Felicity Gibling. So this is uh she's being asked about it years after the uh event. Um but if we go to the second page please in this just in terms of what she has set out.
01:00:51 just in terms of what she has set out. So again, this is in 2014 is what she says.
01:01:06 And sorry if it's the second page.
01:01:25 So can you see where she um says HN77? So sorry, it's towards the left of of our screen. So halfway down that page, Dr. Gibling highlighted that one of the
01:01:36 Dr. Gibling highlighted that one of the SDS candidates, HN77, had performed very badly in the interview and psychometric tests with her. Dr. Gibling does not have the original papers for 77's test, so unable to compare them to the
01:01:48 so unable to compare them to the interview notes that she's has, but do Dr. Gibbling felt that 77 was extremely high risk to the organization and to herself. She showed low ethical and
01:02:00 herself. She showed low ethical and moral standards. She stated during the interview that she was prepared to do a bank robbery if she wasn't found out. Now just just pausing there. This the
01:02:12 Now just just pausing there. This the recruitment of 77 was April 1999. So DCI would have been HN58 if that assists you with the with the time frame. So this is spring of 1999. So your DCI at
01:02:25 this is spring of 1999. So your DCI at the time HN58. But but it but again quite strong reasoned uh views that were given to uh you through the earlier
01:02:39 given to uh you through the earlier document that we are looking at that ended with not recommended. I wonder if you can just help us with uh with why nevertheless uh HN77
01:02:50 nevertheless uh HN77 was recruited. Um this this would have been this was the subject of a very uh detailed discussion between me and uh HM 58 the
01:03:01 discussion between me and uh HM 58 the DCI [clears throat] um because of what was what was being said. We we um always took the view that the psychometric testing was not the
01:03:14 the psychometric testing was not the most reliable um test of an individual and uh uh
01:03:21 and uh uh rather like um an MOT test. It tests the individual on that particular day. So that any um how the individual is feeling will impact on how he or she
01:03:35 feeling will impact on how he or she answers the questions and and I think in in the aftermath of of the the report from Dr. Gibling we um will have had a
01:03:49 from Dr. Gibling we um will have had a um a lengthy discussion with HN77 um to to tease out what was being said. Um, and I note that um, uh, both Carlos
01:04:01 Um, and I note that um, uh, both Carlos Seri and
01:04:04 Seri and um, Rob Hastings both had recommended psychometric reports and and um, so I I think that the the weight that is put on
01:04:17 think that the the weight that is put on psychometric testing in at the time we were doing it um, I think you said 1999 um,
01:04:26 um, We took the view and we also sought the views of our psychiatrist I think as well to on on that um that that it was not necessarily a a a [clears throat]
01:04:40 not necessarily a a a [clears throat] um a reliable and definitive um test and that there was room for uh objective judgment and decision to be made on
01:04:52 judgment and decision to be made on that. and we took the decision that that we ought to recruit her. HM53, one can understand and you've articulated that it's not just down to
01:05:03 articulated that it's not just down to Dr. Gibling uh who is accepted and who is rejected. But what if someone were to make this point to you that it would you'd be hardpressed to find a worse uh
01:05:16 hardpressed to find a worse uh psychometric assessment than the one that Dr. Gibling provided for HN77. Well, I have seen a worse one. I'm not sure whether it's part of the bundle,
01:05:27 sure whether it's part of the bundle, but on an individual who was not accepted into the unit, but high risk, low moral standards, prepared to do a bank robbery if she wasn't found out. Nevertheless,
01:05:40 out. Nevertheless, uh it
01:05:43 uh it was it was it looking back now wrong with the benefit of time and just looking at this objectively? Was someone who you were going to put
01:05:55 Was someone who you were going to put out uh into the world as an undercover officer described as has been described as having low ethical standards. Looking back on it now, was that the wrong call?
01:06:07 back on it now, was that the wrong call? No, I don't think so. I think um we we we made the judgment based on all the surrounding circumstances that that she did have the qualities to
01:06:19 that that she did have the qualities to to do the job. Um so I think we we we we did make a a call that was [snorts] was correct.
01:06:29 correct. Could we please take that down? I'd like to ask you about something in your witness statement. I wonder if we could go please to HN53's witness statement uh page. In fact, it's pages 131 and 132.
01:06:46 It's paragraph uh 360.
01:06:55 You are in for the statement.
01:07:01 Yes. Thank you. No, not
01:07:07 it's the second. Yes, thank you. Could we please turn to page 131? And I wonder if we can just expand
01:07:18 And I wonder if we can just expand paragraph 360. So, this is part of your statement that you address this officer. I have considered the notes recording a series of meetings with HN77 around her
01:07:30 series of meetings with HN77 around her withdrawal from the field and retirement from the MPS. My recollection is that notwithstanding one or two significant successes, her intelligence output was not as significant as it could have
01:07:42 not as significant as it could have been. Mike Dell and I had our experience with James Thompson still fresh in our minds and there was perhaps a concern that HN77
01:07:51 that HN77 might go the same way. Could you explain why you thought at the end of her
01:08:02 why you thought at the end of her deployment that she might go the same way as James Thompson who as we uh know raised numerous um points of misconduct.
01:08:14 raised numerous um points of misconduct. Why did you think that about HN77?
01:08:20 Um,
01:08:26 I'm I'm I'm not sure. I think it it it was a a reflection of of the um the the the feeling with James Thompson that he
01:08:40 the feeling with James Thompson that he seemed to be move seemed to have moved his operation into the the [clears throat] if you like the softer area of activity and as a consequence of that and
01:08:54 and as a consequence of that and with the the uh sanction if you like, of of finishing his operation that he was then um willing to
01:09:07 then um willing to create a situation which would um perhaps argue for his retention. And I think I'm probably reflecting
01:09:19 I think I'm probably reflecting because it was such a recent event that that the the um absence of activity might cause her to go down a a similar
01:09:31 might cause her to go down a a similar path. I didn't mean exactly similar but but to some extent uh the same kind of direction to try and um perhaps create
01:09:42 direction to try and um perhaps create something that wasn't there. Well, your reference to James Thompson's softer area of activity,
01:09:51 you out of um anyone would know what James uh Thompson was involved in because you investigated him. um uh
01:10:02 because you investigated him. um uh multiple relationships, the uh mishandling and lying about firearm, gunpowder, and bullets, using false
01:10:14 gunpowder, and bullets, using false identities, uh including Kevin Crossland, and registering his name in the voters register, uh possible financial uh misconduct, obeying direct
01:10:25 financial uh misconduct, obeying direct orders not to travel to Indonesia in the wake of the September 11 attacks, And so again, given uh all your
01:10:36 And so again, given uh all your knowledge and given that your words that it was still fresh in your minds again, why put her in the same or even the same ballpark as James Thompson? What was the reason? Because you had serious concerns
01:10:48 reason? Because you had serious concerns about HN77 and that um Dr. Gibling was uh correct and that this was an inappropriate deployment. HN77 was not the right
01:11:01 deployment. HN77 was not the right person to be an SDSU. I'm I'm I am obviously fully aware of all of that background of James Thompson, but I didn't mean that. What I meant was that in the in the early
01:11:14 meant was that in the in the early stages of James Thompson's um SDS operation, he was at the forefront of of uh some very violent and active animal
01:11:25 uh some very violent and active animal rights activity. But
01:11:29 But that was followed by a period where he appeared to me uh on paper particularly to [clears throat] be in a very very quiet period and moving to
01:11:43 quiet period and moving to um if you [clears throat] like target um the very soft end of of that sort of activity. That's what I'm referring to there. I'm I'm not suggesting there that
01:11:55 there. I'm I'm not suggesting there that that um HN77 would would would create the kind of situation that he was talking about. I meant that she may try and facilitate um a something that would
01:12:10 and facilitate um a something that would retain her um on the unit to to lie to stay on the unit. Well, well, that that clearly is the is
01:12:21 Well, well, that that clearly is the is the uh interpretation. Yes. Could we take that down and um bring up on screen MPS072153?
01:12:30 So, this is document at your tab B3 370. So this is a a series of notes relating to uh you can see this one here dated
01:12:42 to uh you can see this one here dated the 6th of July 2004 relating to HN77's uh early withdrawal from the field. And just to to get an idea o of where things
01:12:54 just to to get an idea o of where things had reached by this point, if we turn to page two, uh, paragraph three.
01:13:10 Sorry, I wonder if we can just scan out and just have the just the page as it as it is without uh focusing in on anything.
01:13:24 I wonder could we also have the next page please? Thank you.
01:13:35 So we can see here um RG is that Ron Gilbertson. We can see that these are on the left there's a date 13th of July and then the one on the right is 16th of
01:13:46 then the one on the right is 16th of July. So these are a series of meetings with FP fever pitch which was HN77's code name. But if we look at the penultimate paragraph on the page to our
01:13:58 penultimate paragraph on the page to our left at about 310 p.m. I again telephone fever pitch I informed her that DCIL would not support the idea of an arbitrator. She told me that at the meeting on the 1st of July she felt
01:14:10 meeting on the 1st of July she felt bullied as she was alone and outnumbered namely DCI Dell DS Gilbertson and fever pitch. I stated that was no intention to make her feel bullied or oppressed in
01:14:21 make her feel bullied or oppressed in any way and that perhaps another person not acting as an arbiter could be with her in a future meeting. I suggested that a sensible person present sitting with her would allay any sense she might
01:14:35 with her would allay any sense she might feel of oppression. uh restating that it is not our intention that she should feel that way at all. I advised her to think about it and fever pitch seemed in favor of the idea and then this indicating DI Bob Lambert may be a
01:14:48 indicating DI Bob Lambert may be a suitable choice. I said I would communicate this to DCIDell. Does that um do you remember that where this is the um early termination of HN77's
01:14:59 the um early termination of HN77's deployment that relations deteriorate with HN77
01:15:04 with HN77 references by her to bullying by DCI Dell and her asking for an arbiter um being Bob Lambert to be in the meetings. Do do you recall this? Well, I I think I
01:15:16 Do do you recall this? Well, I I think I was aware that that obviously that that there were she she had significant issues that the the meeting itself obviously I've refreshed my memory from reading that but the the suggestion that
01:15:28 reading that but the the suggestion that Bob Lambert might be a useful arbit arbitrator. Um, at the time he could have been seen as a a semi
01:15:40 he could have been seen as a a semi um in semi-independent um voice who had the knowledge um to be able to assist that that
01:15:51 um to be able to assist that that process.
01:15:53 process. We know he wasn't actually um chosen. He wasn't that that wasn't allowed in the end. But if we turn to page six, please. Or maybe if we have pages six and seven up on screen if
01:16:05 pages six and seven up on screen if that's possible.
01:16:19 [clears throat] Um so if we look at the events of the 25th of October um or so the entry of the 25th of October describing as follows on the 15th of October 04 approximately 4 p.m.
01:16:31 October 04 approximately 4 p.m. Following my calls to fever pitch, I received the following text on the duty telephone um with scumbags. Um okay, just pausing there. That that is a
01:16:43 just pausing there. That that is a reference to a a text message from HN77 and the meaning of that is that she is with those uh who she had been tasked to
01:16:54 with those uh who she had been tasked to spy upon uh activists. Yes, I would assume so. that tone was that unique to HN77.
01:17:05 that tone was that unique to HN77. So when calling into the office discussing in the uh twice weekly meetings
01:17:13 meetings quite normal for um uh UCOs or was it unique to HN77 to describe the activists as scumbags? It's not a um a phrase that was was in
01:17:26 It's not a um a phrase that was was in in in [clears throat] common use by use areas at all. Um clearly um the the phrase weary [clears throat] would have been used but but not that and and that that um
01:17:40 but not that and and that that um no not not at all usual.
01:17:45 Could we uh please turn to page uh 11
01:17:55 and this is um the penultimate bullet point and this is a 25th of November 2004.
01:18:04 2004. She has now switched off her mobile phone and given it to her her relative for safekeeping. And then this and it she said that she had quote told the scumbags that I'm anti-Mobile now and
01:18:16 scumbags that I'm anti-Mobile now and would simply use telephone boxes uh for contact with weareries. Just remembering back to 77's deployment. Is this the the word scumbags? Is is this a common um
01:18:30 word scumbags? Is is this a common um description that she would use during her deployment? Not no not not to my knowledge.
01:18:40 But again, completely inappropriate language to use in in this or or any context given her role as an undercover special branch officer.
01:18:51 special branch officer. Yes, completely inappropriate.
01:18:56 Do you recall that there was to some extent an attempt by HN77 uh to uh extend her deployment so that
01:19:10 uh to uh extend her deployment so that she could finish a massage course? Yes, I do. And if we turn to page nine,
01:19:26 we can see this is address says that she will continue her withdrawal plan after finishing on the unit. Uh in summary, she said that this involves attendance at a sports massage course at Regent's
01:19:39 at a sports massage course at Regent's College, which would run until May 2005 and for which she had paid £2,000 upfront for the course. I said that if this was a genuine course as a key part
01:19:50 this was a genuine course as a key part of her withdrawal, uh we as an office should be paying for it. I asked if she was doing the course in her own or her Duff name. she said the latter but didn't seem too bothered about
01:20:03 didn't seem too bothered about reclaiming the money which of course would entail the production of a receipt and then this NB the Regent's College internet site does not seem to include a
01:20:14 internet site does not seem to include a course in any way related to sports massage or therapy again on the face of it an indication of dishonesty by 77
01:20:25 it an indication of dishonesty by 77 isn't it? Yes, that was the that's the inference of what what's written there. Yes,
01:20:32 Yes, it's it's not the same uh as the hotel receipt uh and the laptop relating to James Thompson. But it is a moment,
01:20:45 James Thompson. But it is a moment, isn't it, where it must have been realized here is a UCO even at the end of the deployment who's being dishonest with her managers.
01:20:57 with her managers. Well, it's it it certainly has the potential for that. Yes. A
01:21:02 A and in terms of saying it certainly has the potential for that, are you are you again un understating uh the position here? someone um talking about a genuine
01:21:13 here? someone um talking about a genuine course cost £2,000. You and I mean you, the management team, said, "Well, did you do it in your douff name or your real name?" She says, "Well, I did it in my cover name." And said, "Well, if it's £2,000, you did it
01:21:25 said, "Well, if it's £2,000, you did it in your cover name. We'll pay for it." And of course, she doesn't because there's no Yeah, she has to produce a receipt and she can't produce a receipt because it doesn't exist. um someone took the effort to check the regent's
01:21:37 took the effort to check the regent's college internet site and there was no such course. So again this sort of dishonesty or indication of dishonesty mirroring in fact Dr. Gibling's analysis
01:21:50 mirroring in fact Dr. Gibling's analysis at the at the right at the beginning. Yes.
01:21:54 Yes. Um well well yes it seems to that the the note there the NB note um sorry this is a document or this this is a section I've written
01:22:05 I've written no it is so if we if we come out of this um do
01:22:09 um do I didn't see that document so this is there's a series of notes if we if we turn over the pages we may see
01:22:18 may see um signed off there's reference to Ron Gilbertson in these notes But if we continue along, it is not signed off, but it's
01:22:29 along, it is not signed off, but it's it's clearly um an SDS internal document um relating to the conclusion of HN77's deployment. Now, your time as a DI ended
01:22:41 deployment. Now, your time as a DI ended in September 2005. Yes. Uh yes.
01:22:46 Uh yes. And so we are dealing with the end of 2004. So this is within your within your tenure.
01:22:52 tenure. A and clearly a the termination of HN77's deployment certainly something that's that that you would have been aware of. Yes. Yes. Of of course. Yes. Yes. I I was
01:23:03 Yes. Of of course. Yes. Yes. I I was certainly going to to to to make the point that from from the reading of that NB [clears throat] note. I don't know what whether that was pursued as to whether there was or was not a course at
01:23:16 whether there was or was not a course at at the um at the the college. I think it was Regents Park. Was there were you aware of ever of any suggestion that HN77 may have been involved in a
01:23:28 HN77 may have been involved in a relationship with an activist? No, I was not. We have
01:23:36 We have um heard evidence and the reference is a statement that was produced on behalf of Reclaim the Streets and the paragraph
01:23:47 Reclaim the Streets and the paragraph reference is 17.22 22 that HN77 was known as massage Jackie and that she would often give massages
01:23:59 would often give massages uh to activists and we heard for example from Emily uh Apple the the the reaction to that very idea were you aware o of
01:24:10 to that very idea were you aware o of that that the the nickname for this officer amongst those that she spied on massage Jackie or or or anything of that nature? No, I was not. And again, I if if we asking you the
01:24:24 And again, I if if we asking you the same question, but having just looked at uh these documents here, um would you um accept the possibility that you and your fellow managers may have got it wrong in
01:24:36 fellow managers may have got it wrong in recruiting HN77?
01:24:40 Oh, yes. Yes, I do. and and and I would stress that that the whole process it really is is much more of an art than a science and and I think sometimes we will get things wrong.
01:24:58 Given the uh officers though that were uh deployed uh during your tenure, would you at least agree w with this that if
01:25:10 you at least agree w with this that if we look at HN um Jim Boiling, James Thompson, HN26, uh Rob Hastings HN18
01:25:21 uh Rob Hastings HN18 that it was in fact the majority of the time the
01:25:29 time the individuals that were selected to be UCOs
01:25:33 UCOs were were the were the wrong people. Well, I think with the benefit of hindsight, I think we can we can uh I can agree with that. I think from a personal perspective
01:25:45 personal perspective um I
01:25:47 um I and I I've given this you know a great deal of thought as you will understand that I my go-to default is to look at an
01:25:58 that I my go-to default is to look at an individual and um see the good side of that individual and to put trust in that individual. Now the the the the SD the the the broad SDS
01:26:09 the the the the SD the the the broad SDS operation relies entirely or or to a very great extent on the integrity of that individual and trust being placed in him or her to to go out relatively
01:26:23 in him or her to to go out relatively unsupervised and do the job to to the the the best degree. Now I I it I if if if that's the case then I perhaps I'm
01:26:35 if that's the case then I perhaps I'm too trusting of individuals but equally my view was that the engaging in a physical relationship with either um a
01:26:47 physical relationship with either um a fellow activist or a third party is something that the individual officer bearing in mind all the issues of during the selection and the vet and so on and
01:26:59 the selection and the vet and so on and so forth
01:27:01 so forth was that that it was completely obvious that this was a red line that couldn't be crossed. And I think I probably may have put too much faith in in that uh
01:27:13 have put too much faith in in that uh assumption. And equally [clears throat] having um performed the that particular role in the past, I found it difficult
01:27:24 role in the past, I found it difficult to understand how an individual would bring that kind of pressure on themselves and indeed have the time to um engage in that uh additional pressure
01:27:40 um engage in that uh additional pressure a significant the what if you've described it's a significant blind spot as a manager
01:27:48 I would I would perhaps I would have to agree bearing in mind what has happened on that in that particular respect I want to move to a different topic and
01:27:59 I want to move to a different topic and that is relating to disruption tactics um to what extent did the SDSC seek to disrupt the groups upon which it spied. To what extent was
01:28:11 upon which it spied. To what extent was that part of the SDS's tactics, its aims to disrupt groups? Well, I don't think that is that was one of the objectives of the STS uh as
01:28:25 of the objectives of the STS uh as opposed to um reporting what was [snorts] uh what was happening. That was that was the entire objective. But I think the the um
01:28:41 disruption of an organization's um uh ability to exist for example was not on not something that was uh um an
01:28:52 not something that was uh um an objective. Could we please have up on screen MPS1400?
01:28:58 So this document is at your tab B248.
01:29:06 HN53, what we're going to bring up on screen is um one of your annual reviews. Uh again, does this that the format of this performance review does that look
01:29:18 this performance review does that look familiar?
01:29:20 familiar? And we we can see for example the period of the report May 2001 to May 2002. Has your
01:29:28 Has your not I'm sorry. Yes. Yes, it has. We've we've redacted the the length of the service etc. there but you you can see this relates to you. I just want to ask you just about one part of this and it's
01:29:40 you just about one part of this and it's towards the end. Could we please turn to page four? Sorry, it's one of those that spills over to page five. So if we have pages four and five on screen it's box number nine. We can see the bottom of page
01:29:53 nine. We can see the bottom of page four. So it says strategic planning and in relation to the grading you're receiving top grades for these sections. So strategic planning
01:30:04 So strategic planning uh noting the dynamic example of David Brent but the reference there to Ricky Javez's character in the comedy drama The Office.
01:30:15 The Office. Yes. Noting the dynamic example of David Brent, but rejecting the flannel of those in the service who have elevated business studies to the intellectual equivalent of metal work. HN53
01:30:28 equivalent of metal work. HN53 plans to achieve that most straightforward of objectives, making the streets safer, an aim born not out of any vision or melodramatic
01:30:39 not out of any vision or melodramatic mission, but of a recognition shared with three-year-olds. That that is what police do. He does this by planning to impair the effectiveness of extremist political groups directly or in support
01:30:51 political groups directly or in support of uniformed colleagues. Uh each element of the plan works towards the ultimate collapse of the group, the frustration of street activity, uh the disruption of
01:31:02 of street activity, uh the disruption of funding schemes, the impairment of the effectiveness of individuals, the dismantling of international connections and assistance given to those prosecuting extremists in the court. and
01:31:13 prosecuting extremists in the court. and commonly based on practical policing. This sort of strategic planning is closely linked to operational planning and is subject to the same continuous review and control. The demands of 53
01:31:24 review and control. The demands of 53 skills, experience, creativity and innovation are similarly pressing. Can I just ask in terms of groups such as Globalize Resistance, um ISM, the
01:31:36 Globalize Resistance, um ISM, the international solidarity movement, uh reclaim the streets, the SAM, DSI, those organizing Mayday, uh demonstrations,
01:31:48 uh demonstrations, interaction with the forward intelligence teams. Was that was there not an an element of disrupting any of of those groups? So, so for example, reclaimed the streets or anyone involved
01:32:01 reclaimed the streets or anyone involved in Mayday uh demonstration, was there was there some degree of um disruption? Um I I don't think so clearly that what
01:32:14 Um I I don't think so clearly that what what um Mike was writing there was um like if you like lighthearted, but um it it was never meant to be taken
01:32:25 it was never meant to be taken specifically. I don't think um but I I I
01:32:34 suppose to some extent that if you talk about intelligence preempting activity by a group um then that could be I suppose termed as
01:32:46 then that could be I suppose termed as disruption. But I would see disruption more as if if if I could could just use the example again of of operation lime. I think that kind of use of um
01:32:59 I think that kind of use of um intelligence to disrupt something that is what dis I see as disruption. I don't see it as the the [clears throat] disruption or of a particular organization.
01:33:11 of a particular organization. [clears throat] Could we take that document down and bring up MPS36265?
01:33:16 Do you remember in HN118's uh deployment that uh he was uh involved in a desk meeting where he is talking to C squad
01:33:28 meeting where he is talking to C squad officers trying to identify various individuals and he accidentally calls one of the activists and he doesn't know he's called the activist and part of that conversation is recorded on the voicemail. He's later uh he he is asked
01:33:43 voicemail. He's later uh he he is asked about that by Guy Taylor and others in the group and operation diance was the operation to uh ensure that HN118 was
01:33:55 operation to uh ensure that HN118 was safe effectively and and to address that. Do you remember that? Yes. Yes, I do recall that. There's one particular file note. It is DCIL's file note. It is it's this one that we've got on screen. I just want to ask you about a couple of points in
01:34:08 ask you about a couple of points in here. If we go to page three, on page three we can see consideration second bullet point consider with C squad whether we should
01:34:20 consider with C squad whether we should leave GR intact or through RW. So this is ring so 118 mount a destructive operation. Now just to be fair to you um
01:34:31 operation. Now just to be fair to you um HN53 when Michael Dell was asked about this he indicated words to the effect that well they weren't in a position to provide a destructive operation but again given the context of the document
01:34:43 again given the context of the document we looked at just now one of your annual performance reviews was this not in the SDS's arsenal that the ability to uh be disruptive or indeed destructive of an
01:34:55 disruptive or indeed destructive of an operation wasn't it at least considered here that globalized resistance at least consider mounting a destructive operation. Well, I I I don't recall that as a
01:35:08 Well, I I I don't recall that as a particular intention or or or possibility at the time, but but no, I I I still wouldn't consider it um
01:35:20 no, I I I still wouldn't consider it um as as part of the arsenal of the SDS. Could we take that document down and bring up MPS treble 3126? So this is your tab B107.
01:35:31 So this is your tab B107. Uh this is just provide you with context HN53. This is null war's office note of the 17th of March 2000. But I just want to ask you about the toward the top
01:35:45 to ask you about the toward the top paragraphs of this note. So if we just let's let's begin with yes the one that's been highlighted. So you can see on the 17th of March, myself and HN53 had a meeting with PD, so PsychoDream
01:35:59 had a meeting with PD, so PsychoDream and Red Herring uh to discuss potential disruption tactics for the RTS Mayday Extravaganza. It was officially announced at the RTS public meeting last Tuesday uh that the venue is now
01:36:10 Tuesday uh that the venue is now Parliament Square. This was useful as we had told Sea Squad on Monday morning and they had two gold on Monday afternoon. The details of the gorilla gardening
01:36:21 The details of the gorilla gardening activity at the MOD are known to C squad but have not been further disseminated and indeed were not mentioned at the RTS uh meeting. Uh and then it goes on, we
01:36:32 uh meeting. Uh and then it goes on, we discussed with PD and RH the possibility of preventing the RTS leaflets advertising the event hitting the streets. Uh PD explained that RTS's 30,000 order was currently at Calvert's
01:36:44 30,000 order was currently at Calvert's printers and that prior to collection they were to go to another venue for folding and further artwork. This location is not presently known, although PD revealed that he had been instructed to pick up the leaflets next
01:36:56 instructed to pick up the leaflets next Monday, Tuesday from these undisclosed premises in addition to the RTS print run of 30,000 leaflets. The Mayday committee is having 100,000 stickers uh produced advertising Parliament Square
01:37:08 produced advertising Parliament Square as the venue. It was therefore felt that uh due to PD's close involvement in the distribution plus the unknown location of so many other stickers, a preemptive strike against the printers was not a
01:37:19 strike against the printers was not a viable option. So, so here we have, don't we, an office note recording a discussion about potential disruption tactics relating to Mayday. And it seems
01:37:30 tactics relating to Mayday. And it seems from this note that the uh interference with the print run of the leaflets and the stickers, it appears that the only reason that that uh was not pursued is
01:37:42 reason that that uh was not pursued is because uh it might uh reveal some involvement of HN14 Jim Boiling because he he was too close to it. But but there's an element of disruption here, is there not? Or consideration of it.
01:37:55 is there not? Or consideration of it. It it it [clears throat] does seem so. Yes. If we look um if we zoom out of that and I wonder if you can just go to the paragraph beginning plan B uh plan B was to assemble. So plan B was to assemble a list of key Mayday personnel
01:38:07 assemble a list of key Mayday personnel mixed with other leading RTS activists who are not directly involved in this action for executive action by CO1 city FIB etc. After much discussion of the
01:38:18 FIB etc. After much discussion of the merits or otherwise of many people a list of 10 people was drawn up and has now been submitted to Seot. It comprises Privacy John Jordan and Jim Sutton who
01:38:29 Privacy John Jordan and Jim Sutton who are deemed to be three key organizers of the action along with Andy Mike and there's a lot of other names that are redactive for privacy reading reasons who are leading RTS lights not directly
01:38:41 who are leading RTS lights not directly involved in Mayday. The ideal scenario would be for PD to pick up the leaflets on Monday, Tuesday, deliver 3,000 the Tuesday night meeting, 15,000 to the RTO
01:38:52 Tuesday night meeting, 15,000 to the RTO office, and the other 12 to key activists, including himself. The leaflets would therefore enter the public domain on Tuesday evening and on either Wednesday or Thursday morning. The home addresses of the above 10
01:39:03 The home addresses of the above 10 activists plus RTS officers be visited by police with a view to the seizure of literature promoting uh unlawful assembly.
01:39:14 assembly. So this uh the the creation of a a list uh and of 10 activists with a view to uh
01:39:25 uh and of 10 activists with a view to uh uh them being then uh visited by the police and and presumably the unlawful assembly relating to the leaflets. Could you just assist us with what this uh
01:39:38 you just assist us with what this uh plan was uh in relation to drawing up a list of activists, allowing an undercover officer to carry out deliveries of leaflets and then it
01:39:49 deliveries of leaflets and then it appears on the face of it uh to use those very same leaflets um as as evidence against them on the basis of an unlawful assembly. Could you help us
01:40:01 unlawful assembly. Could you help us with what that plan B was?
01:40:06 Well, I'm reading that the the the the list of key organizers of the um of of the um or those key organizers
01:40:17 of of the um or those key organizers would have been um was clearly um [clears throat] something which um Jim Psycho Dream was was um but was the
01:40:28 Psycho Dream was was um but was the purpose of his his operation. And I think the ultimate um um objective there is to um uh if you might prevent
01:40:40 is to um uh if you might prevent um public disorder, stroke an unlawful assembly. Um and and and this looks like a a mechanism for trying to use the STS
01:40:51 a a mechanism for trying to use the STS intelligence to to achieve that um overall policing objective of preserving uh preventing public disorder. Isn't the
01:41:02 uh preventing public disorder. Isn't the difficulty with that is that you have a major organizer of RTS being undercover officer Jim Boiling and he picks up leaflets, delivers the leaflets to
01:41:15 leaflets, delivers the leaflets to individuals, and then those individuals are then visited by the police who then words the effect, well, what what are you doing with all of these leaflets? Is it not if someone were to say to you
01:41:26 it not if someone were to say to you that this is an example of the abuse of state power to prevent the expression of dissenting voices with little to no attempt to provide justification that
01:41:37 attempt to provide justification that this is um not public order pleasing. This is preventing members of the public um expressing legally dissenting voices
01:41:48 um expressing legally dissenting voices with no proper justification. What would you say to that? I think I would say that I would accept that as as as an argument from one side, but equally the the argument from the
01:41:59 but equally the the argument from the other side is as I said that this is um trying to use um an intelligence asset to prevent public disorder. So I think
01:42:10 to prevent public disorder. So I think there's arguments on both sides but but maybe nothing in between. Could we take that document down and move to MPS Trebau 7389? So this is at your tab
01:42:23 Trebau 7389? So this is at your tab B193.
01:42:25 B193. So this is relating to going back again to James Thompson, but this relates to a particular incident relating to
01:42:40 someone he befriended that we are calling Wendy. uh and it relates to a house move and it's just in I would want to ask you about disruption in relation to this and
01:42:51 about disruption in relation to this and we're just going to bring um MPS treb9 up on
01:43:13 93.
01:43:18 It's a document. Um sir, your tab B193 that says
01:43:31 7389. Yes. 7389.
01:43:50 I don't think it's coming up. Okay, we're having difficulties in bringing it up on screen, but if I were just to read to you, so this is um relating to uh Jim Boing's deployment, a document
01:44:02 uh Jim Boing's deployment, a document that refers to Wendy, and it says this, recently moved into an address which has uh which she has bought following the death of her mother, attempts to disrupt
01:44:13 death of her mother, attempts to disrupt this purchase having failed. it is impossible to predict how long she might remain there. There's a reference uh in a file note to uh some attempts to
01:44:25 a file note to uh some attempts to disrupt the house purchase by uh Wendy and the context of this is that um after the death of her mother, she was buying a property and some concern expressed
01:44:39 a property and some concern expressed that the property that she was purchasing was perhaps too near um HN16's own family. But there was a reference to attempts to disrupt this purchase. We we've asked a number of
01:44:51 purchase. We we've asked a number of people in relation to what what this related to. Does this does this ring any bells with you? Any attempts to disrupt a property purchase
01:45:03 attempts to disrupt a property purchase by um the person that we're calling Wendy?
01:45:07 Wendy? I'm I'm I've I've read the document. Um sorry, I thought you were you mentioned Psycho Dream earlier. Sorry. No. Um it's in relation to James Thompson HN16.
01:45:18 Thompson HN16. Um but but I do recall it from reading that um note, but I'm circumstances I'm I'm struggling with. And of course you you'll appreciate from Wendy's uh point
01:45:31 you'll appreciate from Wendy's uh point of view um that um here is an SDS file notes um referring to attempts to disrupt a property purchase at a
01:45:42 disrupt a property purchase at a particularly um difficult time in her uh life just after her mother died. You can understand the reason why she would want to know um what that might be a
01:45:53 to know um what that might be a reference to. Yes. I'm I'm I'm I'm not sure. Could we please take that uh could we move to another uh topic and this I want
01:46:05 move to another uh topic and this I want to ask you about the justification for some of the targeting decisions. Could we uh bring up on screen MPS 0526804 this is a document sir at your tab B179.
01:46:21 So what we're going to have up on screen are a series of um authorities for Carlo Saraki's uh deployment. And what I want to ask you
01:46:34 deployment. And what I want to ask you about in particular is on if we look at for example page nine paragraph three. So we can see this is under the heading operational objectives strategy and here
01:46:47 operational objectives strategy and here it says
01:46:49 it says UCO KGY island's position within the organization will also afford an opportunity to gauge and assess any attempt to subvert or hijack the naent
01:47:00 attempt to subvert or hijack the naent campaign for justice for Jean Charles dezzes the Brazilian man shot dead at Stockwell on the 22nd of July uh 20
01:47:13 Stockwell on the 22nd of July uh 20 five. Um, I'm going to ask you this. What was the pleasing purpose um of uh assessing attempts to uh hijack uh a
01:47:29 uh assessing attempts to uh hijack uh a justice campaign such as that for Jean Charles to to Menzes? What what was what was the policing purpose for that? Well, I think the this is a reflection of the
01:47:42 I think the this is a reflection of the um the the the [clears throat] um tendency for uh the hard left in particular to use campaigns for justice
01:47:53 particular to use campaigns for justice um to to develop their own organizations. So that it's the the um uh the the the task there for Craggy
01:48:04 uh the the the task there for Craggy Island in [clears throat] within his organization was to use that position to see if there was any evidence of that um of that um uh if you like entryism.
01:48:19 of that um uh if you like entryism. Did these groups need help from the police in relation to their interaction with left-wing groups though? Did do they really need the SDS's
01:48:31 Did do they really need the SDS's assistance in relation to um being approached by left-wing groups? Sorry, I I don't mean um being
01:48:42 Sorry, I I don't mean um being approached by leftwing groups. I I'm I I'm I mean the tendency of the hard left to use the [clears throat] um the groups for their own end so that um that um the [clears throat]
01:48:55 um that um the [clears throat] um
01:48:57 um the
01:49:00 the so effectively entryism into the justice campaigns for the purpose of um furthering their own interests. uh and then individuals within
01:49:14 then individuals within uh within that entism who [clears throat] would be um you use that position uh to create public disorder. So I think that that's that that's um
01:49:25 So I think that that's that that's um why um the tasking was there to see if there was any evidence of that possibility. [snorts] There's no no suggestion ever of the uh
01:49:36 There's no no suggestion ever of the uh campaign for Jean Charles de Mzes of causing any public disorder that the family campaign. Well, that but but
01:49:48 Well, that but but what I'm what I was trying to say is that that the history of this happening in justice campaigns means that I think there is a um a duty on on the SDS in
01:50:00 there is a um a duty on on the SDS in particular because that's its field of operations to assess whether that is that is a possibility and if if that is a possibility then um
01:50:12 a possibility then um a further strategy would need to be developed. [clears throat] But c can you appreciate from the family's perspective? So for example, if
01:50:23 family's perspective? So for example, if we consider that Jean Charles dezzes family campaign group, c can you appreciate from their perspective that Jean Charles dezzes is shot dead by
01:50:36 Jean Charles dezzes is shot dead by police. um they um conduct a dignified family campaign and then the SDS choose to spy so as to present possible prevent
01:50:50 to spy so as to present possible prevent possible entreism. Can you see that from their perspective that what is created as a minimum is report after report on the family group
01:51:03 report after report on the family group and meetings and so what results in that is is a series of intelligence reports on special branch files that are disseminated. So it doesn't help the group at all does it? I I can see that
01:51:15 group at all does it? I I can see that from that um perspective and if it was to put bluntly that in from from that group's perspective that um that they the last people that they
01:51:28 um that they the last people that they need help with in relation to again interaction with the group is the police on on the basis of well it's going to stop people and left-wing groups
01:51:39 stop people and left-wing groups carrying out entreism joining the group for their own means that that Again, this is um not an area that the SDS should ever have gotten involved in.
01:51:53 should ever have gotten involved in. I I do agree with that. But equally, I think that the last thing that the um perfectly totally legitimate um members of justice campaign would want um is the
01:52:07 of justice campaign would want um is the um uh or other organizations seeking to use uh use their organization for their own ends. Um and and I I think the um
01:52:20 own ends. Um and and I I think the um any any um public or any if you like public order related organizations potentially have the ability to move to
01:52:34 potentially have the ability to move to public disorder depending on what elements are present. And I think the the SDS um was in a position to uh establish and assess whether that was
01:52:45 establish and assess whether that was the case or not. But for example, you have campaigns like the Lawrence family campaign who are, as you know, perfectly capable of running their own campaign.
01:52:58 capable of running their own campaign. That they do not need the police's help in preventing uh groups uh entering entering the campaign. that this is not
01:53:10 entering the campaign. that this is not um
01:53:11 um these are not a series of groups these justice campaigns that need police assistance let alone the SDS um assistance to prevent entreism
01:53:22 assistance to prevent entreism there was misguided targeting of all of these justice groups to prevent entryism the so-called hard-left groups in infiltrating them with with hindsight
01:53:33 infiltrating them with with hindsight would you accept now that the SDS should never have gone anywhere near any of these family groups
01:53:42 Yes, I think that's a very hard question to to answer. I I I do accept that what you've described is a is a very valid view.
01:53:54 other deployments that we've considered for so for example Rob Hastings HN18 so he began
01:54:02 he began by infiltrating the ISM and and the whole purpose of entering the international solidarity movement was well this would be a first organization uh for him to make contacts with and
01:54:13 uh for him to make contacts with and then he would it would essentially to be used as a stepping stone stone but these officers end up staying in these groups and so for years uh he ends up spying on on the ISM and do do you agree again
01:54:25 on the ISM and do do you agree again that
01:54:27 that mistakes were made in relation to the groups that these officers were targeting? Well, I think the the the the um
01:54:36 um the presence of an SDS officer in a particular organization is is is quite a dynamic one and it it is under constant review by the customer
01:54:48 is under constant review by the customer whether it C it would be C squad to um uh to to see whether the product from that officer was sufficient
01:54:59 product from that officer was sufficient for um it it it to continue or or not. Um so I think there are circumstances going to arise when an when an officer is deployed and it may it may be a
01:55:12 is deployed and it may it may be a situation that you've as you've described there which was only meant to be a stepping stone but it may be that that stepping stone proves to be of more relevance in terms of what the customer
01:55:24 relevance in terms of what the customer wants. But [snorts] did did anyone did you or uh any of your fellow managers step back and consider that with all of the deployments that we've been talking
01:55:36 the deployments that we've been talking about uh today and last week actually stepping back from it looking at it from a at a strategic level that really none of these groups groups like reclaim the
01:55:47 of these groups groups like reclaim the street movement for justice international solidarity movement disarm DSEI All of those groups, regardless of
01:55:58 DSEI All of those groups, regardless of how they're described, didn't justify deployments by undercover officers for for several years. That in fact there
01:56:09 for several years. That in fact there there were plenty of other ways um to uh obtain intelligence about these groups and that really from a strategic level uh someone should have stood back and to
01:56:21 uh someone should have stood back and to take the decision. Well, none of these groups at all justified the extreme lengths of putting an undercover officer in there for many
01:56:32 undercover officer in there for many many years. Did did that thought ever occur to you or your managers?
01:56:39 No, not not that specific thought. Um as I said the that the the the targeting of organization was a subject of constant um review between ourselves and the
01:56:51 um review between ourselves and the customer. Um and that the the long-term nature of the the operation was a reflection of the fact that the the optimum
01:57:01 optimum um value to be put on intelligence comes from a trusted individual. um I am um a police officer acting as an
01:57:13 um I am um a police officer acting as an undercover officer as opposed to a if you like a member of the public who is a source of information or any of the technical measures that that could be
01:57:24 technical measures that that could be applied [clears throat] in in terms of gaining intelligence on on specific organizations all of which need to be corroborated and qualified by other means. So I think the once you
01:57:37 other means. So I think the once you embarked as as special branch did with the the the strategy of a long-term undercover officer then that that is the the the nature of the release they are
01:57:49 the the nature of the release they are they are there for a long time. Let's use a different example. So HN uh 118 when he was giving his evidence and he he described his deployment in two
01:58:01 he he described his deployment in two halves. So Glo he begins with globalized resistance. There's the voicemail message and operation diance but he manages to pivot and for the rest of his deployment he spends a number of years
01:58:13 deployment he spends a number of years uh spying on the descent network. Good.
01:58:18 Good. Okay. [snorts] And we heard from various witnesses who seemed to say the same thing is well well who is who is 118 because I was at these various descent network uh meetings and never saw him
01:58:31 network uh meetings and never saw him and what he was doing and we had particularly towards the end of his deployments some of the his sort of work logs or he set out what he did during the day. One of the things that he said because he did a lot of his work on the
01:58:43 because he did a lot of his work on the computer and he was looking at various uh chat groups is that he explored whether there was someone uh a desk
01:58:55 whether there was someone uh a desk officer with a PC that could carry out the same work. So the way he described uh the latter part of his deployment was that perhaps it's something that could have been done um other than an an
01:59:07 have been done um other than an an undercover officer. I I I'm going to ask that this be brought up on screen so that we can just look at precisely what he said. But I'd like you to consider
01:59:18 he said. But I'd like you to consider that as an example that in fact HN118's certainly the latter part of his deployment that he didn't need an undercover officer. You could have had an officer um w with a with a computer.
01:59:29 an officer um w with a with a computer. And if we could bring up it as a transcript, it's UCPI 40115. So, this is 118's evidence, his oral
01:59:40 So, this is 118's evidence, his oral evidence on the 17th of March this year. And we'll just bring that up on screen. And when we do, if we could go to pages 35 and 36.
01:59:57 So, if we have a look at 10, 50, and 19 seconds. So if we go there from there to
02:00:07 yes okay sorry don't know if you can read that there but it's so he can see so
02:00:14 so so talking about a very different type of deployment going than going into globalized resistance so this is he's talking about the descent network so you say was different absolutely and I think
02:00:25 say was different absolutely and I think by necessity you couldn't you couldn't focus on one little group or geographical area and in fact I member having or requesting a meeting about the sort of deconliction side and also to
02:00:37 sort of deconliction side and also to try and explore whether it would be possible that some of this type of work could be conducted, you know, if there was such a thing back then by an online undercover officer who never showed
02:00:48 undercover officer who never showed their face, if that makes sense. whether it could be done by a department uh you know in a police building uh where they could just open source it and have good
02:01:01 could just open source it and have good access to the stuff that was flying around and sign up. I was aware that there were undercover officers working online in different types of crime and I was just hoping to explore whether that
02:01:12 was just hoping to explore whether that existed in this context as well. And so you even have your the UCOs and certainly 118 asking well has there been an
02:01:23 asking well has there been an exploration? Is it really necessary for me to go into the field when a lot of this could be done um by a computer? We we know another um officer um uh Rob
02:01:36 we know another um officer um uh Rob Hastings HN18 writing many many messages on various chats uh chat groups again is the are these not signals that really stepping
02:01:48 these not signals that really stepping back from it stepping back from it all that
02:01:52 that the these the SDS has reached a stage where these operations they're not justified they're not necessary and again when we look in the context of of
02:02:03 again when we look in the context of of Ripper that they're not RIPER compliance because none of this is necessary. Did did you ever have that thought that all of this was unnecessary in terms of the
02:02:14 of this was unnecessary in terms of the deployments that we've been looking at? Well, well, I think this is a a typically very intelligent um recommendation from uh 1118 and and I
02:02:25 recommendation from uh 1118 and and I think it's it's worth bearing in mind that the period if if you [clears throat] take my tenure that that that period encompasses the the real arrival of computerized and internet um
02:02:40 arrival of computerized and internet um um access and and equally perhaps even more importantly the um the advent of the mobile phone and the ubiquity of the mobile phone which I think everyone um
02:02:53 mobile phone which I think everyone um underestimated. So I think that that he makes a very very valid point that that that some of the um in that environment
02:03:04 that some of the um in that environment uh and certainly it would be true now that that there the the would be a particularly appropriate um alternative uh way of doing things.
02:03:18 You'll be aware, for example, of of undercover operations, for example, test purchase officers who who just in the field for extremely brief period of time, sometimes days or or individual transactions, but in terms of the UCO's
02:03:33 transactions, but in terms of the UCO's deployment, but particularly someone like 118 deployed for about seven years that did you forget how extreme a measure deploying these undercover
02:03:45 measure deploying these undercover officers were given that you had spent so much time as an officer undercover officer yourself and year after year after year dealing with these undercover deployments. G did you lose sight of how
02:03:59 deployments. G did you lose sight of how extreme in fact a measure it was putting uh an individual undercover for several years? Do you think that was forgotten? Do you mean personally on the office or
02:04:10 Do you mean personally on the office or both both personally and uh the office? Was it ever did you ever remind yourselves essentially of this is an extreme measure?
02:04:22 extreme measure? Well, I I I think we did. We I think we did. we we um we we kind of had a um a standard period and I think we talked
02:04:34 a standard period and I think we talked about four years but but I think where that extended itself and and there'd be all sorts of um valid reasons for doing that which would
02:04:45 that which would sometimes build on each other so that the it becomes like a wave uh that takes you in a particular direction and I think we were extremely conscious of the
02:04:56 think we were extremely conscious of the [clears throat] the additional pressure that imposed on on the individual. Um and and at the same time on the on the the value or the potential
02:05:09 on the on the the value or the potential value of
02:05:11 value of that extension was that um did that equate with the impact on [clears throat] the officer for instance. So I think that that was that that was uh very much in our minds.
02:05:23 that was uh very much in our minds. But but all of these officers and you would have seen them on a regular basis at the end of their deployments and we we've seen them give evidence. All of the officers to some extent some greater
02:05:34 the officers to some extent some greater than others are are psychologically damaged by by their time in the SDS. Yes. Well, I I would use the word psychologically impacted perhaps um not
02:05:47 psychologically impacted perhaps um not necessarily negatively. I don't think that's that's simply my view. But but certainly those they came into contact with were negatively damaged as as well. That that's that's the problem,
02:05:59 as well. That that's that's the problem, isn't it? With these long deployments, the officers themselves are are psychologically damaged to some extent. And the inevitable consequence of that
02:06:10 And the inevitable consequence of that is the people that they're in contact with, the relationships is causing real damage such that it was it wasn't worth it, was it? It wasn't worth these deployments that we've been considering.
02:06:21 considering. I would agree with the first part that that that there is always going to be a an impact psychologically on an individual who's done that particular job. But um sorry I lost my c could you
02:06:34 job. But um sorry I lost my c could you just
02:06:35 just well g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g gi g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g given that the the extreme So it's in the context it's an extreme um tool to use an SDS officer that that it wasn't worth it. It wasn't worth the
02:06:47 wasn't worth it. It wasn't worth the damage to the officers. Certainly wasn't worth the damage to the individuals they came in contact with. And in the context of the officers that we've considered, the groups that we're looking at, this
02:06:59 the groups that we're looking at, this was never justified. It was never necessary and certainly wasn't worth the harm that was caused. I'm sorry. I was going to say I do think it was worth it and I do accept that there have been some individuals whose
02:07:12 there have been some individuals whose uh where the psychological impact has been too much. But I think that is true of any job. I do think the broad objectives um that we were trying to achieve were
02:07:25 um that we were trying to achieve were worse the [clears throat] investment in in the um in the individuals who in the individuals who carried out the job but is that can I just press you on that? C
02:07:36 is that can I just press you on that? C can you really say to um for example um to uh to uh Rosa that um it it was it
02:07:48 to uh to uh Rosa that um it it was it was worth it to uh Maya to Lindsay Donna McClean all of those in category H who you have seen their statements the way
02:07:59 you have seen their statements the way in which they've give evidence describing lives shattered can you really say that well actually it was still justified. H how how can you
02:08:10 was still justified. H how how can you justify for example um Ellie and Sara and Wendy? What how can you justify James Thompson's deployment
02:08:21 you justify James Thompson's deployment that um in relation to all of the others that were affected? How can you say to them that it was justified? What was the justification that made it worth the harm that was caused? I I can't justify
02:08:33 harm that was caused? I I can't justify in any respect uh in respect of those those individuals. I I was really um talking in terms of the um the the whole
02:08:46 um the the whole if you like [clears throat] SDS from beginning to end, was that worth it? uh and and uh in the sense of uh
02:08:57 and and uh in the sense of uh it would be wrong to exclude um the individuals you've spoken about because that was completely wrong. But in just as a generality um and solely in terms of of how how the
02:09:11 um and solely in terms of of how how the officers conducted themselves and how the broad aims of the STS um were achieved.
02:09:18 achieved. That's where I was going with that. I didn't mean in any way to belittle the situation of those individuals you've referred to. So I don't know whether now is a convenient time for a midm morninging
02:09:29 convenient time for a midm morninging break.
02:09:30 break. Yes, it would. Uh we'll have a 15-minute break.
02:27:53 Yes. HN 53.
02:27:59 53. Did the uh SDS uh fall into the temptation of uh spying on those that were suing uh the Metropolitan Police
02:28:10 were suing uh the Metropolitan Police Service?
02:28:13 Service? No.
02:28:17 I don't think I can hear you. So, just I'm sorry. Check the connection there. Can you hear me?
02:28:22 me? I can. Yes. Did the SDS um not a fail to avoid the temptation of spying on and reporting on those uh who were suing the police.
02:28:37 those uh who were suing the police. I I I don't think she was attracted. No.
02:28:42 The temptation being that the undercover officers uh were privy to uh many many uh individuals who uh were suing the
02:28:55 uh individuals who uh were suing the police, had sued the police. Uh and so this
02:29:00 this quite often ended up in their reporting. uh it had no policing purpose, but it was it was interesting from the policing perspective because there was a
02:29:12 perspective because there was a litigation advantage to to having uh this information, but completely inappropriate for the police to be doing so.
02:29:19 so. I I think it it it it was inevit excuse me, inevitably coincidental. Um but but it it it nevertheless existed as as a
02:29:30 it it it nevertheless existed as as a piece of information. Let's look at an example, please. Could we have up on screen MPSO98?
02:29:38 So, this is a report at your tab B264. It's a report we'll see that's dated the 29th of August, 2002.
02:29:51 29th of August, 2002. Uh so again following on that theme of forgetting that the deployment of an undercover officer is an extreme tactic. If we look
02:30:04 officer is an extreme tactic. If we look at this report as an example, Frank Smith, leading member of no platform, has apparently been offered an outofc court settlement of £10,000 by the
02:30:15 court settlement of £10,000 by the Metropods and police over his attempt to sue the organization for unlawful arrest.
02:30:22 arrest. And then the source comment, Smith is believed to be very happy with the offer and is likely to accept. He is seen as a hero for his actions when arrested and for his subsequent acquitt. And now this
02:30:33 for his subsequent acquitt. And now this offer, much of the money will be kept to maintain Smith's lavish lifestyle, but he will also make a sizable donation to the Socialist Party uh and NP, so no platforms, coffers. And then the
02:30:45 platforms, coffers. And then the handler's comment, it will be remembered that Smith was arrested for taking part in an attack on a National Front demonstration at the Cocktava in Houston. But would you agree there's no
02:30:56 Houston. But would you agree there's no poling purpose to uh report that the uh individual Frank Smith has been offered by the police 10 £10,000? Well, there's
02:31:07 by the police 10 £10,000? Well, there's no policing purpose for an undercover officer uh to provide that information. Well, I can see there's no clear policing purpose. I I think that the the
02:31:18 policing purpose. I I think that the the relevance of of that uh that particular example uh is is to the um the fact that it is information that does relate to the organization that's
02:31:29 does relate to the organization that's being targeted by the individual and and that may have relevance um to um the customer to sea score. But the Met Police know how much they've offered in settlement, don't they?
02:31:41 offered in settlement, don't they? Yes, they do. Okay. Could I could I just see the the document again? Is that possible?
02:31:46 possible? It's it's up on our screen. So, it should be up on your screen. Just checking that. Just just the second bit. I think it's the final sentence on on on what what the disposal of that money would be. That's
02:31:58 disposal of that money would be. That's that's where I was intending. I appreciate that the the So, I'll I'll read that part of it. It says much of the money will be kept to maintain Smith's lavish lifestyle, but
02:32:09 maintain Smith's lavish lifestyle, but he will also make a sizable donation to the Socialist Party and no platforms coffers.
02:32:16 coffers. Well, that that's where the point I was trying to make was that that sentence would perhaps be relevant to um to to the customer in a broad um overview of
02:32:29 the customer in a broad um overview of the organization. Um um so I think that's that that would um that that's why that that particular report could be seen as relevant. If you were giving a a talk to your um
02:32:42 If you were giving a a talk to your um UCOs and you were explaining to them uh about uh the regulation of investigatory powers act how that required all reporting to be necessary and proportionate. Um
02:32:55 proportionate. Um this this would be an example of something that's not necessary and not proportionate. It's not RIPER compliant, is it, to talk about um or to report on
02:33:06 is it, to talk about um or to report on um the settlement offer. It's not ripper compliant, is it? Well, I I think I think it is necessary and proportionate in that it's a small piece of uh information or intelligence that
02:33:18 information or intelligence that contributes to the overall um uh strategy as far as the organization is concerned.
02:33:28 If you take the view that well every single small piece of information um could be useful then uh the bar of being necessary and proportionate
02:33:39 necessary and proportionate is extremely low, isn't it? I think that there is a difficulty in extracting or uh I'm sorry excluding uh information because it's very difficult
02:33:50 information because it's very difficult to know at what stage that information may become relevant. Uh it's a it's a a dynamic process.
02:33:59 Uh let's look at another example. I wonder if you can bring up on screen. It's MPSO4908.
02:34:07 So, this is not in uh your bundle. It's one of HN81's intelligence reports. And this one is dated the 19th of December, 2000. And we can see it's in relation to
02:34:19 2000. And we can see it's in relation to uh Dwayne Brooks. Uh Dwayne Brooks's civil case against the Metropolitan Police continues unabated. He has been offered £75,000 in settlement, but is most unhappy with this derisory sum. is
02:34:32 most unhappy with this derisory sum. is after a similar amount to that offered to the parents of Steven Lawrence, £300,000. However, there is the possibility that he will lose legal aid if he refuses the offer. If the barristister thinks that the offer is
02:34:44 barristister thinks that the offer is reasonable. Source comment. Brooks does not enjoy general black community support due to his lack of patronage for other similar causes. The Dwayne Brooks case is therefore unlikely to cause any future largescale public demonstration.
02:34:58 future largescale public demonstration. Now in terms of the uh the first paragraph of this uh report again um how is that compliant with the
02:35:10 again um how is that compliant with the regulation of investigatory powers act? In other words, how is that necessary and proportionate? How is it justified that this is the type of report that a long-term undercover officer is
02:35:21 long-term undercover officer is reporting on? Well, I think that this is the this this is the the um the difficulty with this type of reporting in in that
02:35:32 with this type of reporting in in that it's the the small detail that contributes to the whole picture but but excluding um for for the the um the [clears throat]
02:35:43 [clears throat] I suppose if you use the word tape recorder for the UCO who is reporting up that that the the any any um information potentially is relev relevant and it is
02:35:54 potentially is relev relevant and it is it's then for the the customer the C squad to to look at that and see whether there there is particular relevance but it is it is on the the the very um the
02:36:05 it is it is on the the the very um the low end of of of the scale on that but but again I would come back to to the um difficulty with the reporting officer in
02:36:16 difficulty with the reporting officer in in in in actually excluding and ignoring information that potentially in some way may have some relevance.
02:36:27 in some way may have some relevance. Did Squad ever get in touch with you and say, "Well, that this this reporting, it's not proportionate. It's not necessary." Was there ever any in all your years with um an example of Squad
02:36:41 your years with um an example of Squad um coming back to you and say, "Well, this this isn't proportionate or necessary. This isn't justified." I can't remember specific examples, but it wouldn't necessarily be the case that the they would come back to us as
02:36:53 the they would come back to us as opposed to um ignoring it if you like in in [clears throat] their assessment. It it wasn't our role to do the um the assessments, the final assessments of of
02:37:06 assessments, the final assessments of of organizations that were being tasked targeted.
02:37:09 targeted. But but that's that's the problem that nobody is doing that assessment. No, no one is is testing any. There's no filter for necessity, proportionality
02:37:20 for necessity, proportionality at all. No, no one no one is doing it. Well, I I find it difficult to comment on that because it is C squad that have that responsibility as opposed to the the SDS and and I I mean my belief is
02:37:32 the SDS and and I I mean my belief is that that would be [clears throat] uh would be happening. Wouldn't wouldn't c squad say, "Well, this is um a unit of officers that uh
02:37:43 this is um a unit of officers that uh undergo ripper training. Is that right? The SDS, you were responsible, weren't you, for the ripper training?" Absolutely. Yes. uh equally the the SDS
02:37:55 Absolutely. Yes. uh equally the the SDS was was it's a different format but but one of a number of sources of information uh that was at the disposal of of of special branch and and it it it
02:38:09 of of of special branch and and it it it I suppose it's really it's their role to it's the C squad role to um look at that information and decide what is necessary
02:38:20 information and decide what is necessary and what isn't necessary. But reporting it out gives that that um option.
02:38:28 option. But but is if someone were to say that is passing the buck in the sense of that as far as the SDS are concerned as well. We we reported any information is
02:38:39 We we reported any information is potentially relevant. We reported that up and it was for those um customers such as C squad um that they um they had the the better picture. they they could always come back to us and say it was
02:38:50 always come back to us and say it was justified when no doubt they would say well we were provided with all these reports uh we were told it was ripper compliance there is um DIHN53 who's
02:39:01 compliance there is um DIHN53 who's giving them rier training we relied on them so everyone is suggesting is that someone else's responsibility um isn't the SDS in a unique position having spied on groups since 1968 to
02:39:15 having spied on groups since 1968 to have an idea of what is um necessary and proportionate. Is the SDS itself not um able to determine what is perhaps obvious if we look at this report as an
02:39:26 obvious if we look at this report as an example that the finer details of a financial settlement um is um completely unnecessary, completely disproportionate, and not to rely on C
02:39:38 disproportionate, and not to rely on C squad uh to mark the SDS's homework. Well, I think that's that's that's a very fair comment. Um I I would just go
02:39:49 very fair comment. Um I I would just go back to the the principle that the the the um any information can be relevant. But I do do accept what you're saying.
02:40:00 But I do do accept what you're saying. I wonder if we can take that document down. I want to um ask you about um it's MPSO7249.
02:40:09 MPSO7249. So this is at your tab B178 please. So this is and and we've seen a series of these the um the ripper
02:40:21 of these the um the ripper authorizations and we can see the way in which it's set set out in standard form and and everyone has their particular role. So we can see that the handlers there and and you're one of the uh controllers HN58
02:40:33 controllers HN58 the the other and and the authorizing officer up to commander level. So for example in this instance uh commander uh uh Roger Pierce and
02:40:45 uh Roger Pierce and I wonder if we could have a look over the page please.
02:40:53 Now this is setting out the justification
02:40:58 here and so it follows on from what we were just discussing. So grounds for the authorization for the prevention of public disorder within the MPS for the prevention and detection of crime and
02:41:09 prevention and detection of crime and then this namely racially motivated crime in the burough of Lambbeath and elsewhere in the MPS. And then in the section below that, the objectives and purposes of use of the
02:41:20 objectives and purposes of use of the cheers, it says to obtain information relating to threats to public order and racially motivated crime from extreme left-wing activists in the burough of
02:41:33 left-wing activists in the burough of Lambbeath and elsewhere in the MPS in support of local and MPS policing objectives. C could just help us with that. What what is the reference to
02:41:47 that. What what is the reference to racially motivated crime from extreme left-wing wing activists? What what does that relate to? What does that mean? Because for example, if you think of extreme left-wing groups, one for
02:41:59 extreme left-wing groups, one for example, youth against racism in Europe, um, traditionally the left-wing groups are against, uh, racism and, uh, race
02:42:10 are against, uh, racism and, uh, race crime, but here it's as one of the objectives is to obtain information relating to threats to public order and racially motivated crime from extreme left-wing activists.
02:42:22 left-wing activists. Does that make sense? No, it doesn't. Not greatly. I think it it it [clears throat] should have been better worded perhaps in terms of of racially motivated crime in relation to
02:42:35 racially motivated crime in relation to extreme leftwing activity in the B of Lambos, I think would have been a more valid um uh wording there. Is that part of the problem though with
02:42:47 Is that part of the problem though with the with the introduction of uh the regulation of investigatory powers act and was necessary to look at these you know the justification of these deployments but does it not turn into
02:43:01 deployments but does it not turn into a a lot of paperwork which doesn't actually change anything that that's happens on the ground so by that I mean you were a DI from October 1998 to
02:43:12 you were a DI from October 1998 to September 2005 And so so Ripper was introduced September 2000, so in the in the middle of of that period, but did it actually make any difference what's
02:43:23 actually make any difference what's whatsoever? Was was it not really being objective about it, looking about it now, wasn't it really a just a paper exercise that didn't change anything on the ground? Would you accept that?
02:43:34 the ground? Would you accept that? Well, I think that's that's possibly fair comment. I I on the unit I tried to introduce um the the the RIPER requirements in advance of the act and
02:43:46 requirements in advance of the act and and so it was a kind of developmental thing. But I think it it's it's it's probably fair comment that the the um the the nature of the way that SCS
02:43:57 the the nature of the way that SCS operated was didn't change um significantly. um as a result it was it was uh in that sense perhaps more more defined within
02:44:08 sense perhaps more more defined within the form. Um but I think yes I I I would probably gly agree with you now and again we can go to examples but again
02:44:19 again we can go to examples but again the temptation there all this paperwork was there a lot of for example copy pasting so you have for example justifications and reasons that was a copy pasted from year to year and
02:44:31 copy pasted from year to year and between deployments. Was there again to get through all the paperwork was again was there the danger that that happened that that really instead of
02:44:42 happened that that really instead of thinking about it the focus was just completing all of these forms and that the copy pasting of of information came into it.
02:44:52 into it. I think there is inevitably a degree of of of that. Um um I would accept that. Yes.
02:45:02 I want to ask you about uh racism in the police at this time and and so your again time as a DI began in October
02:45:14 your again time as a DI began in October 19
02:45:16 19 98.
02:45:18 98. So
02:45:20 So within a few months [snorts] of you beginning that particular role the McFersonen report was published. So the date of that um 24th of February 1999. So a very a very significant event um
02:45:33 So a very a very significant event um clearly in in the police. Yes. Yes. Yes.
02:45:36 Yes. Yes. Could you help us with your reaction to that? Of course uh we uh know the the finding of institutional racism that was made. But
02:45:49 institutional racism that was made. But could you just help us with at the time you're a DI in the SDS McFersonen reports February 1999 institutional racism from your perspective at the
02:46:01 racism from your perspective at the time? What was your reaction to that? Well,
02:46:07 Well, I think it was um
02:46:13 I suppose my my um immediate reaction was that that this was a very stark statement. Uh the the the reference to institutional racism and and I had never
02:46:25 institutional racism and and I had never felt that that was the case within or within my experience um within the police. But that having said that one could clearly accept that
02:46:37 said that one could clearly accept that there were major major failings um throughout the organization in respect of that that were identified. What was that that view that you held?
02:46:48 What was that that view that you held? Because were you looking at the description of institutional racism as for example explicit racist language as
02:46:59 for example explicit racist language as opposed to groups from different racial groups being treated uh worse than than others?
02:47:07 others? What was the what was the reason that you felt that McFersonen's that that finding wasn't correct? Why did you feel that?
02:47:16 that? Sorry. I I suppose it's it's semantics to some extent, but I I I just felt it was it was um a description of something in an organization that implied that
02:47:27 in an organization that implied that everything, sorry, not everything, everyone in the organization had those tendencies, racist tendencies. And I didn't believe necessarily that was the case. Um, and I
02:47:40 necessarily that was the case. Um, and I I uh hadn't experienced that within my career uh within the police that that would lead me to agree that this was
02:47:53 would lead me to agree that this was absolutely raging across the entire organization 100%. That's that's that's where I was coming from on that. Uh let let's look at a um a document
02:48:04 Uh let let's look at a um a document that may assist on this point. Could we turn to um MPS072486?
02:48:10 And is it's one of those long documents. I wonder if you can turn to pages 116 and 117 of this please.
02:48:22 So going back um to this is really right at the beginning of your time as as a DI because we can see the dates in the top
02:48:33 because we can see the dates in the top left 22nd of December 98. So um so this is from your DCI582 uh Colin Black and he says, "I understand you requested from DIHN53
02:48:45 understand you requested from DIHN53 a summary of the state of play of left-wing involvement in the Steven Lawrence inquiry. Uh the attached note has been compiled from a secret and reliable source which must be
02:48:56 reliable source which must be protected." And then if we go to the special branch note and we can see here there's reference to Surish Grover movement for justice the
02:49:08 Surish Grover movement for justice the Lawren's the Joy Gardner campaign the Ricky real campaign the Menson's the national civil rights movement so here there's a real focus on black justice
02:49:20 there's a real focus on black justice groups
02:49:22 groups and so in relation to that finding of instit institutional uh racism a and your description that well as far as you
02:49:33 your description that well as far as you were aware that there wasn't racism your word raging in the MPS but if if we again step back and we look at an example of that for example one of the
02:49:45 example of that for example one of the first special branch notes that you produced the focus is on black justice groups isn't it and so there is a clear racial dimension to
02:49:57 there is a clear racial dimension to this, isn't there?
02:50:06 Look, bearing in mind um the point at which I've I've written this it it seems to me that I have asked um the the
02:50:17 to me that I have asked um the the relevant UCO or I'm assuming it's um
02:50:26 um HN81
02:50:31 Yes, I'm sorry. As agent 81 um to to give an outline of of of um of the request that that um Colin Black had
02:50:42 request that that um Colin Black had asked for.
02:50:45 And and it's made even worse though, isn't it? Because this is you being asked for a summary of the state of play of left-wing involvement in the Steven Lawrence inquiries itself.
02:50:58 think I'm sorry. I think what I I would have done there is is to ask um that the 118 who was
02:51:11 is is to ask um that the 118 who was placed in a position to give that kind of view and and whether that that um the report is a compilation of of
02:51:22 report is a compilation of of that UCO's view and the C squad view. I am
02:51:27 am I'm not sure. Um but but then again in terms of this idea of stepping back if if anyone had stepped back suddenly there are countless reports naming Suresh Grover
02:51:41 countless reports naming Suresh Grover Movement for justice the Lawren's Joy Gardner campaign Ricky Real campaign Menson's campaign there's a huge quantity of special
02:51:53 there's a huge quantity of special branch undercover reports being disseminated on black justice groups And so in terms of institutional racism,
02:52:04 And so in terms of institutional racism, um, of course the focus on the Lawrence case, but can you see the perspective of those in black justice groups when they see time after time an undercover
02:52:18 see time after time an undercover special branch officers report naming naming them? I I can I can see that from from their perspective and but equally I can see the perspective of of um from
02:52:29 can see the perspective of of um from the SDS point of view um of the the the um leftwing activity across those groups
02:52:41 and again in terms of their perspective that
02:52:46 that they they didn't need uh any help they didn't need any protection from left-wing groups.
02:52:54 Well, that that that will be a perception. Yes.
02:53:01 In terms of training, I want to ask you about
02:53:05 about how
02:53:09 uh race as a feature of SDS officer training. Um how that was uh addressed and in that context. So I wonder if we can just take this document down, bring up a another document 07 MPS 0732845.
02:53:25 up a another document 07 MPS 0732845. So this is your tab B82.
02:53:29 So this is dated the 2nd of August 1999. So this is a few months after the publication of the McFersonen report.
02:53:43 the McFersonen report. Uh and we can see here it addresses the uh question of training and there's a reference on page two see
02:53:54 reference on page two see about a third of the way down the page these courses racial incidents awareness training community and race relations training uh the race to succeed video and it says uh the particular confusion has arisen between these three uh the
02:54:07 has arisen between these three uh the first is a one-day course that has been deemed mandatory and we are beginning a program this of courses over the next two months. The second is a two-day community-based course that will be coordinated by MTCU.
02:54:21 course that will be coordinated by MTCU. Uh special branch has undertaken a dry run of the third for so officers. It was not wellreceived and I've reported this back to the Lawrence team. We wait to see whether it becomes uh mandatory or
02:54:33 see whether it becomes uh mandatory or not for police and civil staff. Is it right that you attended the racial incident awareness training? I think it was known as Riat. Yes, I did. Did the undercover officers um attend
02:54:47 Did the undercover officers um attend this or any course relating to uh racial racial incident awareness or or or this subject?
02:54:57 subject? Um
02:54:59 Um not the during the currency of their um operation. Not the the one I attempt, the two-day one. Now, I wonder if we can go back to your
02:55:11 Now, I wonder if we can go back to your statement. This is HN53's second statement. If we can go to pages 14 to 15 in that statement because you you address the timing of when
02:55:24 you you address the timing of when officers
02:55:26 officers participated in such courses and I think broadly speaking you said well this this happened not during their deployment but but later. If we see at the bottom paragraph 39A. So
02:55:42 let let's just go let's just read a bit further back. So this inquiry has directed me to 58 comments uh dated 29th of June 1999 respect of community race relations and racial instant training.
02:55:54 relations and racial instant training. Uh while I have no recollection of any discussion about this um and then you set out general approach to MPS training for SDS officers, it is likely that mandatory training and the SDS approach to it were discussed in the office at
02:56:06 to it were discussed in the office at the time considering them. Now my reading of HN58's concern is a if UCOs encountered racist incidents while deployed, they had to respond
02:56:17 deployed, they had to respond consistently with their cover identity. any MPS training in uh dealing uh with incidents of this sort was unhelpful for as long as that UCO remained in the
02:56:29 as long as that UCO remained in the field in that it could cause them to out themselves inadvertently.
02:56:38 That that's not a good justification for SDS UCOs's uh not undertaking any uh race awareness training. I it's a
02:56:52 training. I it's a a ridiculous suggestion, isn't it, that it would out themselves inadvertently? Well, I would um uh without trivializing this, I would I would um compare this to
02:57:05 this, I would I would um compare this to for instance the MPS driving methods. Um, so that if an officer was using a police vehicle, there was a recognized method of of MPS driving which was to
02:57:19 method of of MPS driving which was to some extent unique to police drivers. Now, if they continued to use MPS driving methods while they were operating as a UCO, they would out themselves quite quickly. So, I think
02:57:31 themselves quite quickly. So, I think it's in it's it's it's written in in that context. What about all their other police training? But and weren't the these UCOs always told remember remember
02:57:43 these UCOs always told remember remember your police officers. We want to recruit officers with very stable home life so that they're they're grounded. Why was the race uh awareness training um not
02:57:56 the race uh awareness training um not provided to these officers in the wake of the findings of McFersonen's report? There was a um
02:58:08 um there are very significant difficulties in UCOs attending uh this kind of um uh if you like compulsory training in the company of other police officers and as
02:58:22 company of other police officers and as I understand it um the um any there was no alternative um method of delivering this training that was offered to uh the
02:58:36 this training that was offered to uh the SDS
02:58:37 SDS um simply for uh UCOs. So I think the the the next best um alternative was to
02:58:48 the the next best um alternative was to delay
02:58:49 delay um the implementation of that training uh to be done as soon as possible after the UCO had returned to normal policing and could therefore
02:59:00 and could therefore um
02:59:02 um relatively safely be in the company of other police officers who might otherwise recognize them as police as UCOs. Is there really no other method? If we look for example the race to
02:59:14 If we look for example the race to succeed video quite straightforward to bring in a video cassette into uh one of the meetings, wouldn't there? Very very straightforward. Well, yes, I agree.
02:59:25 Well, yes, I agree. Course materials very very straightforward to obtain course materials and then to provide them to the uh officers. I
02:59:32 I I I presume that would be the case. Um you attended these courses. very straightforward for you to provide a presentation to all the UCOs.
02:59:43 presentation to all the UCOs. I I'm not sure I would have the skills to deliver the training to the uh degree with which they were delivered.
02:59:54 So no, no one had the skills to deliver the the the training. Not not not as far as I was aware. No.
03:00:05 Not not not as far as I was aware. No. again. Is is that not a looking back on your time, is that not a a a theme of one of the problems that the SDS had was not just in relation to race but across
03:00:16 not just in relation to race but across the board as a lack of proper training. Um
03:00:23 Um I'm I'm not sure I I would agree with that. No.
03:00:27 that. No. What training did they receive? I'm sorry. Um the the screen is freezing all the time at the moment. Um Oh, I apologize. HM53, can you can you hear me?
03:00:38 hear me? I can hear you. Yes. What training did they receive though? Well,
03:00:46 Well, I I think it's it's true to say that the the the the weekly meetings um any training issues um or um that needed to be delivered were were carried out then.
03:00:59 be delivered were were carried out then. and and
03:01:00 and and equally on on visits to the the office if there was um material relevant to training that could be [clears throat] um shown to be officers that was done
03:01:15 not really training though is it in the way that most people would understand it being provided in any form of structured focused way I I don't recall um uh
03:01:27 I I don't recall um uh specific training Although I um from memory I think first aid training may have been delivered. First aid training. Yes, I believe so.
03:01:38 Yes, I believe so. I
03:01:39 I is that of course um everyone would agree the importance of first aid training. is the fact that that is the one training course or one structured
03:01:51 one training course or one structured area of training that you can recall a reflection of how um poor or absent proper training was in the SDS? I I don't believe so. No. Can can you
03:02:03 I I don't believe so. No. Can can you remember any other specific training courses or any particular training on a topic or subject over and above first
03:02:14 topic or subject over and above first aid?
03:02:16 aid? Not immediately. No. Can I ask you about specific or explicit um racism that you um uh encountered? Um, you were a UCO in the 1980s and your
03:02:30 Um, you were a UCO in the 1980s and your DI time was the late 90s into uh the mid 2000s. Um, was there as referred to like racist
03:02:41 was there as referred to like racist banter, racist jokes, racist slurs? Did you remember any of that in the MPS, the wider MPS or in the SDS itself?
03:02:54 wider MPS or in the SDS itself? Not not to any significant degree. know to what degree do you recall it? Well,
03:03:02 Well, I think in in the um the earlier period, there was perhaps less attention paid to to um phrasiology that that would not be
03:03:16 to um phrasiology that that would not be acceptable several years later and and would be even less acceptable now, I suspect.
03:03:23 suspect. Did that creep into the twice weekly meetings?
03:03:28 meetings? No. No, I don't. No, it didn't. But um to what extent and again you you differentiate the timings.
03:03:38 To what extent did that exist in communications in within the SDS itself as opposed to the wider NPS? Well, I
03:03:51 sorry. Do do you mean on in in in reports and so on and so forth? Reports or off-the- cuff remarks or jokes or banter or
03:04:05 in any sort of stereotypical way? What do you remember in the SDS in terms of the language that was used um about about people in different racial groups?
03:04:18 about people in different racial groups? I I I
03:04:20 I I I I don't remember any significant um use of language like that and in in many respects I think my experience
03:04:31 many respects I think my experience perhaps moving from the uniform branch into special branch and then into SDS was that that both of the the latter two
03:04:42 was that that both of the the latter two um was even um less casual. and careless use of phrasiology than
03:04:53 use of phrasiology than when I first joined the police. Anyone listening to what you've just said that you don't recall any significant use of that language of of course that they will want to know well what not significant use what what was
03:05:06 what not significant use what what was the use of of that language? Who who in the SDS was using this language even if you didn't hear it a significant amount of the time? Could you just help us with
03:05:17 of the time? Could you just help us with and you've already indicated that the given the impression that things were worse the further back in time you go but can you just help us please because you were there that the the culture
03:05:31 you were there that the the culture um even if um it did not happen every day. Could you just help us and paint a picture of what uh inappropriate use of language took place or who pro who was
03:05:42 language took place or who pro who was using this language at a UCO level at a manager level? Can you just provide us with a great greater degree of insight because you were there? Well,
03:05:53 Well, I'm not sure I can. This is this is I'm I'm talking in terms of of generality and um
03:06:05 my impression of the way that people uh individuals within the unit spoke um
03:06:17 was was was I think it's very difficult to come up with with phrases that that um but
03:06:30 I mean I'm really struggling because I I
03:06:36 look back at at the um 80s7s and 80s and uh compared to the '9s and further on and my sense is that um I I never um I
03:06:50 and my sense is that um I I never um I didn't come across individuals using um racist language to any degree with that that um but it
03:07:02 to any degree with that that um but it is it is very difficult to be specific and and and in terms of personalities or what or whatever that there is no individual who stands out who who may have used that because it was it was
03:07:15 have used that because it was it was never really on any kind of scale in terms of personalities or individuals HN86 now I think he had in your line manager in a previous uh special branch
03:07:29 manager in a previous uh special branch role. Did you ever witness anything that indicated that he might be he might be racist or did you hear any rumors in to that effect about uh HN86?
03:07:41 that effect about uh HN86? No, I didn't. He he always struck me as being very um correct and um No, I didn't. No.
03:07:52 didn't. No. Detective Chief Superintendent Bob Potter. Now, is it right that I think you knew him socially? Uh, yes, we I I I had met him a few
03:08:03 Uh, yes, we I I I had met him a few times socially. Yes, that's true. What was he like? And I I mean, what was he like in relation to the topic that we're we're examining? Any uh hints of of racism, of uh racist
03:08:18 Any uh hints of of racism, of uh racist language? uh could you help us with that please?
03:08:24 please? He he was also a line manager earlier on for a short time not not not within the SDS but but elsewhere um and and so I didn't know him very well but I I had a
03:08:36 didn't know him very well but I I had a a considerable respect for his abilities and I I never felt or I never heard anything from him which would be described [clears throat] as racist. Did
03:08:48 described [clears throat] as racist. Did you hear others talking about him in in that respect? So, for example, were you aware that he had that that some people used the nickname Potty Bob
03:09:01 some people used the nickname Potty Bob as as a as a as a nickname? Does that your reaction is you you you drawn back in surprise on the screen, but do I take it from that that you were not aware at any time that his nickname was Potty Bob
03:09:13 any time that his nickname was Potty Bob or that anyone used that nickname? I have not heard that one before. No. We have heard about an incident on the 21st of October 1993. So this is 5 years
03:09:27 21st of October 1993. So this is 5 years 5 years before you began as a DI. But can you help us with your recollection of any discussion about an incident that involved him um getting drunk and uh
03:09:41 involved him um getting drunk and uh acting in a racist way? And I um my only knowledge of that is anecdotally [clears throat] from Eric Docker who was a a good friend of of um
03:09:53 Docker who was a a good friend of of um of Bob Potter's. Uh and and so that the story I got was fairly incomplete, but I was aware from that in the first instance that there was a use of racist
03:10:04 instance that there was a use of racist language by him as I understand it. Um and and secondly that it was a it it proved to be a consequence of a serious medical condition
03:10:16 medical condition um that that that caused him to to behave as he did. That's but that's as I say secondhand the medical condition that that caused him to use racist language.
03:10:28 him to use racist language. Yes.
03:10:32 Could we um move to um a related topic and it's something that you said in your statement that UCOs were not targeted
03:10:44 statement that UCOs were not targeted against justice campaigns. Would it assist if I were to turn up that part of your statement because I want to ask you about
03:10:52 about if you would like. Yes. Could we please go to page 86? It's paragraph 226. We're just going to bring that up on screen.
03:11:17 Well, it refers to other paragraphs, but we can see you're reiterating comments elsewhere to the same effect, but that UCOs were not targeted targeted against justice
03:11:28 targeted targeted against justice campaigns. I just want to test that statement. Could could I begin by just asking you precisely what you meant by that? What what's what are you trying to get across there? UCOs were not targeted against
03:11:40 there? UCOs were not targeted against justice campaigns. I think what what what I was trying to say and and this is where it goes back to what I was saying earlier about the infiltration of justice campaigns or the perceived
03:11:51 justice campaigns or the perceived infiltration of justice campaigns that the the it's the the attention being paid to the justice campaigns was a reflection of what was um potentially or
03:12:03 reflection of what was um potentially or what was um elements that were um if you like associated with it or you trying to be associated with it. That that's that's where I'm rather than
03:12:16 that's that's where I'm rather than specifically that the um this is the target and and and that's it. Would you appreciate that perhaps
03:12:27 Would you appreciate that perhaps the the difference is so subtle because if in terms of from your understanding the way in which you've just articulated that the UCOs were not targeted against justice campaigns but when individuals
03:12:39 justice campaigns but when individuals in justice campaigns appear again and again and again in countless undercover reports it's effectively as if they were targeted isn't it?
03:12:51 targeted isn't it? It it it it gives that impression. Let's just look at a few examples. I wonder if we could put up on screen MPSO3191.
03:13:03 So this is in relation to I want to ask you about Lee Lawrence. And so just remind ourselves, Lee Lawrence successfully campaigned for
03:13:14 Lee Lawrence successfully campaigned for justice after his mother, Cherry Gross, was shot and paralyzed by police during a 1985 raid, which led to an inquest that found police failures contributed
03:13:26 that found police failures contributed to her later death and it prompted a formal apology from the police. So that's the context. Uh but if we look here uh movement for justice Lee Gross
03:13:37 here uh movement for justice Lee Gross Lee Lawrence an individual called Lee Gross has contacted Movement for justice. He is the son of Cherry Gross the woman whose shooting by police sparked the Brixton riots of the 80s. He is a DJ working at pirate radio stations
03:13:50 is a DJ working at pirate radio stations and the Imperial Gardens Club Camp Clamberwell. Apparently he interceded when a black youth was being chased by five white youths. Uh he slapped one of the white youths hard in the face and they all ran off, but he was late
03:14:02 they all ran off, but he was late arrested for ABH on the youth. The case has already been postponed once, but is due to be heard at Campberwell on the 19th of April. MFJ will now get involved and see great potential in the case on
03:14:13 and see great potential in the case on account of Lee being both Shere's son and a DJ on the black scene. They have persuaded Bindman solicitors to take the case. MFJ will attempt to find the black youth that ran away and will do their
03:14:24 youth that ran away and will do their utmost to turn this case into a racial incident. And so in terms of um targeting justice campaigns, this is reporting uh on uh
03:14:38 reporting uh on uh Jerry Gross's uh son. And so anyone looking at that report, if you were Lee Lawrence,
03:14:46 Lawrence, um, he'd be forgiven for thinking that in fact he had been targeted given that this report is about him. I think I would read that in more in the
03:14:57 I think I would read that in more in the context of of the the second paragraph that the the the um the movement for justice um or the potential public disorder that could
03:15:11 potential public disorder that could arise as a result of how the MFJ want to adopt the case. Um so I I would see the the the overall um [clears throat]
03:15:23 the the overall um [clears throat] um driving force for that piece of information being of some value is the potential public disorder that could could arise as a consequence of of that
03:15:35 could arise as a consequence of of that of that involvement. Take that down. And if we bring up on screen MPS treble 3507.
03:15:49 So paragraph one. So this is an a a report of the 12th of July 2000. The movement for justice was pleased with the turnout of around 30 people to
03:16:00 the turnout of around 30 people to support Lee Lawrence during his court case on Friday the 7th of July. It was particularly gratified that supporters included Dwayne Brooks as well as Delroy Lindo representing the Winston Silcot
03:16:11 Lindo representing the Winston Silcot campaign. So again, in terms of the the assertion that well uh we weren't uh targeting people in um justice
03:16:22 targeting people in um justice campaigns, it does look like it, doesn't it, from from reports like this? Well, it it is [clears throat] it is reporting on on on that incident. Yes. Could we take that down and bring up MPS
03:16:35 Could we take that down and bring up MPS treble 3758?
03:16:44 Uh the movement for justice was pleased with the turnout around 30 people to support Oh, sorry.
03:16:52 Yeah. So yes, movement for justice are very pleased at the events of the Lee Lawrence trial despite the judge giving a strong hint to the Crown Prosecution Service at the end of the first day's
03:17:03 Service at the end of the first day's trial that CPS decided to continue with the case. However, the witness again failed to hold to a coden store and eventually uh owned up that he had seen and heard almost nothing but had been
03:17:14 and heard almost nothing but had been briefed by the victim, the case was dismissed at the close of the prosecution uh evidence. So again, um if if you were uh Lee Lawrence and you were
03:17:25 if you were uh Lee Lawrence and you were told that uh UCOs were not targeted um against him or [snorts] just the justice campaign to which he was involved,
03:17:36 He could be forgiven for pointing to reports like this that suggest otherwise. Yes, that that that I could see that that would be his view. Yes.
03:17:47 that would be his view. Yes. I wonder if we can take that down and bring up MPS treble 412.
03:18:00 So this is about the free Winston Silkcott campaign. Just to remind ourselves, Mr. Silcott was wrongly convicted of murdering Keith Blakelock
03:18:12 convicted of murdering Keith Blakelock during the 1985 Broadwater Farm riot. But his conviction was quashed in 1991 after evidence showed that key police interview notes used against him were
03:18:23 interview notes used against him were unreliable and may have been fabricated. So conviction quashed in 1991. Uh in in terms of uh this uh report here
03:18:37 in in terms of uh this uh report here referring to uh campaign um it says on the evening of the 3rd of October 2000 a meeting took place to discuss the possibility of renewing the free Winston Silkcot campaign. The meeting which was
03:18:49 Silkcot campaign. The meeting which was arranged by Delroy Lindo and included representatives of the movement for justice and the haring solidarity group was not particularly successful that there was no clear decision as to how matters should be progressed. It was
03:19:01 matters should be progressed. It was felt that what was required in the first instance was a process of rebuilding people's awareness of the case through the use of posters, stickers and a stall and wood green. A banner would also be
03:19:12 and wood green. A banner would also be produced and supporters would march uh with it at the civil rights march next weekend. In this campaign, if this campaign is to get off the ground, Lindo will need to take steps to rebuild bridges uh with other organizations who
03:19:25 bridges uh with other organizations who are naturally unwilling to play second fiddle. The MFJ, for instance, intends to march next weekend under its own banner. So, in terms of this again, it's it's another uh justice campaign,
03:19:36 it's another uh justice campaign, doesn't it? that's um targeted this the free Winston Silkcott campaign. Just going back to what you set out in your statement that UCOs were not targeted against justice campaigns, but isn't
03:19:47 against justice campaigns, but isn't this a justice campaign? It's in the in the heading of the of the report. Well, [clears throat] again, this this this report really um
03:19:59 this report really um is an example of of information directly relevant to potential public order. issues. uh so in that sense um
03:20:13 so so I think it's it's to some extent a semantic argument that that the the organizations such as the Brie Winston
03:20:24 organizations such as the Brie Winston Silcot campaign and so on and so forth will will um inevitably feature in any um uh
03:20:34 um uh targeting of organizations that are
03:20:39 that are likely to be an issue in terms of public order. Is that is that if someone were to say that was that's stretching the justification because all all of these
03:20:51 justification because all all of these justice groups are reported on and the the justification for them is that well it's it's to protect them from themselves um infiltration by um left-wing groups and and also public
03:21:03 left-wing groups and and also public order. But but essentially it is reporting on the day-to-day uh actions of these justice campaigns and in relation to the majority of them they
03:21:14 relation to the majority of them they relate to a close family member who's been been killed and they're seeking justice for them and and they end up being reported on time and time again under the uh justification or the the
03:21:26 under the uh justification or the the sort justification of well there may be some public order. Well, I I would agree with that, but but the the issue [clears throat] in terms of of the uh how those organizations are
03:21:39 of of the uh how those organizations are looked at is is the issue of the potential for public disorder. That would be the purpose. If we just look at a couple of reports relating to uh Roger Sylvester campaign,
03:21:53 relating to uh Roger Sylvester campaign, Roger Sylvester died after being restrained by police in 1999. Could we please bring up MPS treble 1717?
03:22:08 So if we look at paragraph 2, it relates to Roger Sylvester March January 1999. Some 250 persons assembled at the outset of the march outside Sylvester's house.
03:22:20 of the march outside Sylvester's house. These people were predominantly young black youths of both genders. Uh those attending the march included uh Wayman Bennett and Privacy uh the brother of
03:22:31 Bennett and Privacy uh the brother of two sisters of Michael Benson, George Silkart and Neville Lawrence who adopted a low profile. Now there is reference to 250 people but again stepping back from
03:22:42 250 people but again stepping back from this did did anyone ever consider well all these reports these numerous reports uh they're they're in relation to black justice groups and the people being
03:22:53 justice groups and the people being reported on here you can see predominantly young black youths. So in terms of again your reaction, well um MPS is not raging uh institutional racism, but in fact these individuals
03:23:06 racism, but in fact these individuals that are that are spied on um they're not white people, are they? I think the issue there in respect of that reporting is that uh is is the
03:23:19 that reporting is that uh is is the question that there were 250 people at that uh that particular event that the last one you showed I can't remember the numbers but it was a handful of a very small number but at what point it
03:23:32 small number but at what point it [clears throat] if that if that 250 grows to 4,000 to 5,000 there is a significant public order um question the fact that um the
03:23:43 order um question the fact that um the the majority of individuals in for example that that one you just showed were black as a as a reflection of the particular uh group but across the board
03:23:54 particular uh group but across the board the that was not the case um that there was a focus on on u on on black people if we take that down and bring up MPS
03:24:06 if we take that down and bring up MPS 302765
03:24:13 So if we look at paragraph two of this report and there is again spe uh reference to to numbers but again if we look at the context approximately 45 persons attended the event that included
03:24:24 persons attended the event that included nine members from the Kurdish community uh two from the socialist workers party speakers on the platform were Alex Aadi doy Lindo Winston Silcott's mother
03:24:36 doy Lindo Winston Silcott's mother Stafford Scott representing the black community, Roger Sylvester's father, Dwayne Brooks, and the brother of an Irishman shot dead by police in Hackne back in the autumn. But looking at these
03:24:48 back in the autumn. But looking at these reports that there is a focus, is there not on on black justice groups? [clears throat]
03:24:58 I I would just say that that's that's a reflection of the makeup of the particular justice groups. Could we uh bring um take that document down and and
03:25:09 bring um take that document down and and return to your statement? I wonder if we can bring up page 80 of HN53's
03:25:16 of HN53's statement. Thank you. And it's paragraph 238.
03:25:20 238. I just want to ask you about something that you've set out here.
03:25:40 So, paragraph 238,
03:25:45 uh, [snorts] it does go over the page, but so it's begins, uh, when I took over as DI in the SDS, uh, I familiarized myself with all of the UCOs and their
03:25:56 myself with all of the UCOs and their target groups. Uh I was aware that HN81 had infiltrated MFJ and that it was interested in the McFersonen inquiry. I've considered uh a number of his reports. Now you said that there's a
03:26:08 reports. Now you said that there's a list of reports there but there two in particular um Trebo 1486 and Trebo 1707 that are in that list and then you say this but there is nothing in those reports that can reasonably be described
03:26:21 reports that can reasonably be described as collateral intrusion on the servant pool provided and in my view H&81 acted appropriately. So there was no reason to provide him with additional advice or feedback. Now I just want to look at those two of those reports. So if we
03:26:33 those two of those reports. So if we begin with MPS treble 1707. So if we take that down and bring up MPS treble 1707. So this is your tab B67.
03:26:45 1707. So this is your tab B67. And if we look at the first page, paragraph two. So the top nine lines of of that paragraph.
03:26:57 And so this is one of the reports that uh you said that there is nothing in this report that can reasonably be described as collateral uh intrusion. And it says this. To date, Neville
03:27:09 And it says this. To date, Neville Lawrence has been the leading catalyst concerning events relating to his son Steven. By adopting a reasonable stance and allowing all sides to publicly air their views both through the inquiry and
03:27:21 their views both through the inquiry and via many other public meetings, Lawrence has attracted many of the mainstream monitoring groups new sul uh etc. plus many other notable campaigns such as Joy Gardner, Ricky Real, Wayne and Brian
03:27:33 Gardner, Ricky Real, Wayne and Brian Douglas, no relation and Oscar Okoy to his banner. All of the groups or individuals are currently engaged in campaigning against what they perceive as victims of police racism or
03:27:45 as victims of police racism or injustice. Significantly, all of the abovementioned groups have distanced themselves from extremist organizations uh whose uh presence [clears throat] uh might lead to public order problems. And
03:27:59 might lead to public order problems. And so in terms of the the relevance the of that section, could you just help us with with your view as a as at the time as a DI in the SDS that
03:28:11 a as at the time as a DI in the SDS that the the relevance of that part of uh HNAT1's reporting? Well, I I think put put put that together and that that's um um um a a
03:28:26 together and that that's um um um a a piece of information assessment if you like that that um is probably helpful in terms of of um policing public order in
03:28:39 terms of of um policing public order in in the sense that the the the potentially large numbers um I mean the the organizations are listed
03:28:49 listed um the I think it's it's there is a a relevance to um policing public order in the fact that they've distanced themselves from the organizations who
03:29:01 themselves from the organizations who would seek to cause public disorder. So I think that's that that would be the way I I would read it and that that is potentially um
03:29:11 um um relevant information in policing. And so on that same theme, if we look at the if we go to the second page, the second paragraph on the second page,
03:29:25 paragraph on the second page, so when it begins, Neville Lawrence has been consistent in that he does not approve of riots or any form of public disorder and that is unlikely to change regardless of the inquiry's results. Is
03:29:38 regardless of the inquiry's results. Is your evidence that it's it's a negative that Dr. Neville Lawrence consistently uh shown uh to be uh acting with restraint and dignity and not doing
03:29:51 restraint and dignity and not doing anything uh that would support public disorder rather the the opposite. Yes.
03:29:58 Yes. Does that also though not signal that it's completely um unnecessary to report on Dr. Neville uh uh Lawrence uh who is consistently acting as a peacemaker.
03:30:12 consistently acting as a peacemaker. Well, I I no I don't I think that that that is um relevant to any any kind of assessment of the whole the totality of of um what was going on on that on that
03:30:25 of um what was going on on that on that issue.
03:30:26 issue. But the upshot of it isn't it that is that here you have um Dr. Neville Lawrence now regularly being reported on. So what what more could he have done
03:30:39 on. So what what more could he have done in the wake of what happened to his son and the investigation that followed that? What more could he have have done as a human being than act the way he did? Uh
03:30:51 did? Uh and yet the result is his name appears in countless SDS reports. I would agree that from from his perspective. Yes.
03:31:02 perspective. Yes. If you look um at
03:31:07 at the first paragraph on this page. So if we just go up to the paragraph above and we can see the sort of thing that slips into these reports. Now this is not the accuracy of the of this is
03:31:20 is not the accuracy of the of this is not accepted but for these purposes it doesn't matter because look what's reported. Lawrence has received the sum of £500,000 from the lottery. There's also been reported that he will allow his name to go forward in order to
03:31:32 his name to go forward in order to contest candidature for the appointment of mayor of London. Absolutely no pleasing purpose of that. Completely inappropriate reporting, isn't it?
03:31:43 inappropriate reporting, isn't it? Yes, I agree. And so when you have your the paragraph in the statement that we looked at a few minutes ago and you're referred specifically to these reports and to say that there is nothing
03:31:55 reports and to say that there is nothing in those reports that can reasonably be described as collateral intrusion. Well, this is a a perfect example of collateral intrusion, isn't it? I would accept that last one. Yes. Uh
03:32:07 I would accept that last one. Yes. Uh and
03:32:09 and would you agree that in fact uh collateral intrusion um understates the position because this is repeated reporting uh and recording of
03:32:21 reporting uh and recording of information. So rather than collateral intrusion, it is reporting, isn't it? That's that's a more accurate way of describing it. Well, it is reporting, but but but as I
03:32:32 Well, it is reporting, but but but as I would say with that exception that it it is potentially relevant. Could we take that down and bring up report MPS301486?
03:32:40 So your tab B55
03:32:51 and if we look at three lines from the bottom of the page
03:32:58 it's a separate report but again here we have not accepted for its accuracy but look what is included. It's believed that British Telecom has offered
03:33:12 British Telecom has offered Dr. Neville Lawrence £500,000 to help him set up his organization. Needless to say, there are any number of individuals within the monitoring groups
03:33:23 individuals within the monitoring groups who will do or say anything to get their hands on that sort of money. So
03:33:29 So again, in terms of the targeting of those in injustice groups and this issue of racism, if you
03:33:40 groups and this issue of racism, if you step back or if you had stepped back at the at the time, you would have seen uh countless uh reports on those involved
03:33:51 countless uh reports on those involved in black justice groups. countless reports that had no justification whatsoever, wouldn't you? I I can see that that argument, but but it it I would come back to the the the
03:34:03 it it I would come back to the the the the fact that this is that the SDS was not the repository for all of these reports. They were simply the channels through which the reports went
03:34:15 channels through which the reports went to SEO. So the kind of overview that you're describing would really really sits with
03:34:25 sits with sea squad and special branch that that held that information. How could British telecom offering Dr. Neville Lawrence money to help him
03:34:36 Dr. Neville Lawrence money to help him with his organization? How could that be of any use to C Squad? Well, the the the um in that particular case um the the
03:34:47 um in that particular case um the the injection of of half a million pounds into
03:34:52 into um uh
03:34:55 um uh an arena of public order has potential public order. Um has the potential for being relevant to
03:35:06 has the potential for being relevant to uh future public order. Um it it it is stretching it. I would I would agree with that. But but it it is nevertheless information that is
03:35:17 nevertheless information that is relevant
03:35:18 relevant to public order.
03:35:24 So I don't know if now is a convenient moment. May I also mention that there is a short private hearing after lunch and for most it will be a slightly longer lunch break.
03:35:35 lunch break. Yes, I'll deal with that in a moment. First, I would like to ask a question. [gasps]
03:35:40 [gasps] In relation to uh justice campaigns who were complaining about police conduct,
03:35:50 conduct, the police had a problem, didn't they?
03:35:56 Those who wish to stage lawful protests about other issues would cooperate with the police, would they not? Yes. Yes.
03:36:09 Yes. Yes. Police anti- police justice campaigns uh would not cooperate with the police for obvious reasons. That's true. Yes, sir.
03:36:25 [clears throat] Are you saying that the reason for the SDS reporting on these peaceful anti police campaigns was that
03:36:36 peaceful anti police campaigns was that it was the only method of getting information about events which they might stage which might cause public disorder or might
03:36:48 might cause public disorder or might not.
03:36:51 I I I I I think that that's that's very true that the the um not only the only way but perhaps the best way to firsthand understand the degree to which
03:37:05 firsthand understand the degree to which if any the organization would would like would would be likely to be a problem in terms of public order. However, experience showed that
03:37:18 However, experience showed that activities staged by these campaigns rarely if ever produced any disorder.
03:37:29 I think that's probably true. Yes. M uh surely there came a moment when uh you and those senior to you had to consider whether or not it was a proper
03:37:41 consider whether or not it was a proper policing purpose to continue to uh report on their activities. Yes, I think that that that's true and that that would um have been part of the
03:37:54 that that would um have been part of the review process with with with Casewell the customer to to establish whether their view was that the [clears throat] intelligence value was still appropriate
03:38:06 intelligence value was still appropriate and effective. When if at all did such a review occur? Well, the the reviews of of the organizations were an ongoing um
03:38:17 organizations were an ongoing um process. um I didn't necessarily mean day to day, but from week to week, the the engagement between C squad and the uh either [snorts] the [clears throat]
03:38:28 uh either [snorts] the [clears throat] um individual um DS's um uh or or the office more generally um or more formal sitdowns um to discuss um what the the
03:38:42 sitdowns um to discuss um what the the targeting strategy and requirement was. Are you able to tell me when in relation to any of the major black justice
03:38:53 to any of the major black justice campaigns such a review occurred? Not in not off hand in terms but but I would imagine that the well that the the um any meetings that were were of a form
03:39:07 um any meetings that were were of a form any kind of formal nature would have been documented. um and that that would um but as to as to when that you know specific dates would that happen. But as I say the the um
03:39:21 I say the the um the dialogue between the SDS and C squad was an ongoing one um on that particular issue. [clears throat] Okay,
03:39:33 that takes that issue as far as I can for the moment. Um, we will resume. Could we resume please? Um, at about 8 minutes past 2. That'll give us an hour
03:39:44 minutes past 2. That'll give us an hour for lunch. Um, you're able to do that, I hope.
03:39:49 hope. Yes.
03:39:50 Yes. Yes. Um
03:39:52 Yes. Um there will be a short private hearing private at the request of a non-state core participant uh to deal with a particular issue the end result of which
03:40:04 particular issue the end result of which will be made public in due course. But that means that the public uh transmission of what is occurring uh is unlikely to resume before 20 2.