HN53, a former Detective Inspector who managed SDS undercover officers from October 1998 to September 2005, gives evidence remotely via voice-modulated audio link on the final day of open SDS witness evidence. Counsel to the Inquiry questions him on the deception of Helen Steel by officer John Dines and the resulting Operation Muscat, the deliberate lack of retained SDS records, his defence of the SDS against the Crane review and criticism from colleague John Boucher, Jim Boiling's disorder-inciting conduct on J18, blacklisting, corporate influence on protest policing, and the 'officer A & B' litigation brought by Peter Francis. The hearing closes with HN53 revisiting evidence he gave the previous week about billing-record applications whose stated justification appears to have been overstated.
00:24:42 Please bring up on screen UCPI 39806. This is exhibit 36 of Helen Steel's third statement uh to the inquiry.
00:24:56 third statement uh to the inquiry. It's a letter uh John Dyne sent to Helen Steel on Friday the 17th of January 1992.
00:25:08 on Friday the 17th of January 1992. If we could please uh just turn to the next page in this document. So we
00:25:17 So we I'm going to ask if we because you're aware from looking at appendix one that many of these letters run to several pages. Yes.
00:25:28 pages. Yes. Yes. Yes.
00:25:28 Yes. Yes. And so we we are not able to go through each of them line by line because of the volume. But can we just look at page four of this please? And may maybe if we just have up on screen from page four.
00:25:44 I think we're on page three at the moment. Thank you.
00:25:53 Yes. So, we can just go back to page four, please. So, here um I can't take any more disappointments in life, my love. Um I'm leaving London. All I want to take with
00:26:05 leaving London. All I want to take with me is the love I have for you. I want to put it in a bottle and screw a lid on it tightly.
00:26:12 tightly. um put it in my inside pocket. This way I can never ever lose it. I can never be hurt again. You're the only person I have left. I can't um let you lose you
00:26:25 have left. I can't um let you lose you as well. But I've lost hope uh in life. I I'm just not meant to be lucky. I've decided finally, cowardly perhaps, not to risk my feelings for Helen. She has never let me down. And if we continue,
00:26:37 never let me down. And if we continue, please. Uh she has been so kind, so loving, so wonderful to me. Um love images I have of her are uh too
00:26:48 love images I have of her are uh too beautiful to spoil. If that happened, I don't know what I'd do really. I've struggled so many times. I can't struggle anymore. I know that by doing this, I'm hurting you, Hells. And that
00:26:59 this, I'm hurting you, Hells. And that makes me so sad. Uh so very sad. I don't want to hurt you, Helen. I just can't risk our love. I'm just meant to roam around hells. I've decided that's what I
00:27:10 around hells. I've decided that's what I have to come to terms with. I got paid off. I wouldn't wish that place on anyone. Continue, please.
00:27:23 Will you please remember, Helen, that I never lost my love for you. Um that I've never loved anyone else like I love you. That I never um love anyone else again
00:27:34 That I never um love anyone else again like I love you. uh I can live with that far easier than you might think. I'm just going to pause there because I would like to um take this document down just move to uh another uh letter which
00:27:48 just move to uh another uh letter which is Helen Steel's exhibit 44 which is UCPI 39814 and whilst that's being brought up HN53 in reading these
00:28:02 HN53 in reading these letters from John Dyn to accept that That explains uh why Helen Steel wanted to find him.
00:28:17 Helen Steel wanted to find him. Absolutely. Um um that that that is very very evident from from certainly from that letter and the other um comments that I've read. And if we just in this
00:28:29 that I've read. And if we just in this letter, not all of it, but if we go to the bottom of page two, please.
00:28:35 And we can see written over this one a period of days. So we can see it stops nearly midnight and then uh with the black ink, Monday, 30th
00:28:46 then uh with the black ink, Monday, 30th of March. I love you more than anyone. Um I've ever loved anyone, Helen. That's no exaggeration. It's honesty. Uh totally true. Sometimes I guess I make
00:28:58 totally true. Sometimes I guess I make little of how I feel. I say that perhaps I'm fine when I'm not. But I think you know that I don't know how really to start this. And it goes on. I've got a piece of cards and letters from you and
00:29:09 piece of cards and letters from you and I've gone to the pub. Um and then says, "Thanks for all of them, love. You make my efforts seem inadequate." And their kisses there. Again, if we just scroll
00:29:21 kisses there. Again, if we just scroll to the end of this uh document, please. Um this is we're p three pages in uh but we can see uh that it continues uh over a number of pages
00:29:38 and so long another example of a long letter uh professing love we can see there uh I love you I love you on page 10 could we
00:29:49 love you I love you on page 10 could we take that document down and there's just one more example I want to refer you to HN53 Helen Steel's exhibit 47.
00:29:59 Again, this is an 11page letter that John Dyne sent to Helen Steel on the 23rd of April, 1992. Could we please when we call up uh UCPI
00:30:11 Could we please when we call up uh UCPI 39817, go to page 7?
00:30:29 And we can see there's some wavy lines there. About three lines down. It's just that bit of paragraph. We can see it states this. Hell's I've never been in just a relationship uh with you. I've only ever been in love with you. Even
00:30:41 only ever been in love with you. Even before we got together, I thought you were someone special. I was uh right to I I can honestly say you're the closest friend I've ever had. You're far and away the person I've
00:30:52 You're far and away the person I've loved most and been closest to. You can take that document down please. So in terms of we have just looked at a snapshot of the letters uh and of of
00:31:03 snapshot of the letters uh and of of course you are aware now uh that uh they uh had a sexual relationship over extended period of time. Would you um
00:31:14 extended period of time. Would you um had you been privy to to a fraction of those letters or had an insight into their true relationship, what steps would you have taken HM53?
00:31:30 What had I been in place do you mean in relation to operation musc? Yes. So for for example in terms of the police officer the in you think is in New Zealand um who said it obvious to
00:31:44 New Zealand um who said it obvious to him that they had had a sexual relationship but if that realization or or or you you' had a hint of even a fraction of of any of this what steps would you have taken uh in relation to
00:31:56 would you have taken uh in relation to your interaction with uh HN 5 John Dyn? Well, that that assessment would have formed part of my um um if you like
00:32:07 formed part of my um um if you like presentation to senior management about how we should manage the operation. [clears throat] And and um there is no doubt that the the the
00:32:20 doubt that the the the all of that material uh
00:32:24 uh that you showed me there is is completely inappropriate. and and and so contrary to to to what a UCO should
00:32:35 so contrary to to to what a UCO should be um dealing with and it it would I have no doubt have had a a significant impact on how uh we managed
00:32:47 impact on how uh we managed to achieve the objectives of Muscat if if that's what we ultimately wanted to achieve.
00:32:56 achieve. If we uh have a look please now at MPS137
00:33:11 and so we have here the file notes or one of the file notes that you produce in relation to Helen Steel's arrival in New Zealand in December 2002.
00:33:22 arrival in New Zealand in December 2002. Yes.
00:33:23 Yes. Yes. Yes. Now again considering your role in the SDS could could you help us with the amount of time and effort that you had to uh
00:33:34 time and effort that you had to uh expend in relation to this operation operation muscat because of course uh my questions previously were in relation to management of SDS officers and and the
00:33:47 management of SDS officers and and the other DS's but could you just help us with to what extent operation muskcat was a distraction to you in terms of your your core duties in the SDS?
00:34:00 your your core duties in the SDS? Well, I think it was in the in [clears throat] the context of the um um engagement with um
00:34:11 engagement with um with Muscat um out of the country. Um it it it demanded a a considerable amount of of
00:34:24 demanded a a considerable amount of of effort to uh ensure that the um objectives of operation Muscat were were um was set in place and that was um
00:34:37 um was set in place and that was um difficult to do um remotely if you like. Um so as a result of that the the [clears throat] Musca in addition to
00:34:48 [clears throat] Musca in addition to other aspects of of my work such as the um uh A&B case and um the welfare development and um and other
00:35:00 development and um and other administrative issues including the financial that that that the work that had to go into um Operation Muscat um was considerable.
00:35:13 Operation Muscat um was considerable. If we look at the description of for example the the work undertaken at the beginning of this documents at two at 1,400
01:11:58 53. I was asking you about uh the work that you did in relation to the officer A and B litigation. Is it right that the response to that and the work that you
01:12:09 response to that and the work that you were involved in relating to it was was known as operation magma. Yes, it was. Yes. I wonder if we can bring up on screen MPS 0723181.
01:12:21 bring up on screen MPS 0723181. So this is a document at your tab B414.
01:12:29 It's an operation hear summary of notes that were taken at a meeting with you and we can see the date of that the 8th of November 2013.
01:12:41 of November 2013. There's an entry in this document at if we can turn to page three. I wonder if you can shed some light on. It's the top line of page three.
01:13:00 And it states that when I originally checked records for magma in 2000, very little uh held on PF, PF Peter Francis,
01:13:11 little uh held on PF, PF Peter Francis, could you just help us with what that was a reference to? Was it for example that there was very little reporting or it's it's a note of of an interview with
01:13:22 it's it's a note of of an interview with with you, so it's not verbatim what you said, but those words seem to be in inverted commas. Could you shed some light on what that referred to, please? Well, I think that that what I was doing
01:13:33 Well, I think that that what I was doing there on behalf of council was to try and identify all documents that related to um that individual. Um and I I think very little would would as you say be a
01:13:46 very little would would as you say be a combination of of um uh reporting and relevant material in relation to him. [clears throat]
01:13:58 [clears throat] that equally may at that stage have been true of of other UCOs who who were contemporaries of him at
01:14:09 who who were contemporaries of him at the time.
01:14:11 the time. We we can see a couple of lines further down. says, and it looks as though it's a direct quote from what you said to those in operation her until the advent of the computer systems, the SDS would
01:14:24 of the computer systems, the SDS would retain uh very little that would betray it. That's why it's difficult uh for you. Could you just help us with what you meant by that in the context of uh
01:14:35 you meant by that in the context of uh deleting or or or removing documentation? What were you referring to there? What do you mean? Well, it's it's simply a statement of fact that the the um once once a UCO had
01:14:49 fact that the the um once once a UCO had had gone, then there was no point in keeping material um that um in that sense and and um I think raw raw material if there was any
01:15:02 think raw raw material if there was any um
01:15:04 um that that was the subject of of reporting at the time. um um perhaps wouldn't have been retained. And equally the [clears throat] the issue um was one
01:15:18 the [clears throat] the issue um was one of of space to store material if there was
01:15:22 was um you know space was very limited um and and um a mushrooming collection of paper would been uh impossible to manage
01:15:33 paper would been uh impossible to manage and equally insecure. And what what happened to to that paperwork?
01:15:42 Well, this is before my time, but I would imagine it would be destroyed unless there was a reason specific reason for it to be kept within the main um uh
01:15:58 it to be kept within the main um uh yard. And so by your time beginning as DI October 1998, the SDS computer or computers were well in place by then.
01:16:09 in place by then. It was it was coming in I I recall when or not long after I was moving in whether we were um getting an updated system or but it was it was the early
01:16:20 system or but it was it was the early days of of um computerized records for the unit. Now, whilst we have this document on screen, we can see the next uh sentence relates to the crane review
01:16:31 uh sentence relates to the crane review and referring to crane review, our processes uh were safe and could you assist us with uh the crane review, what what it was and what your reaction to it was, please? Well, this was a review
01:16:44 was, please? Well, this was a review carried out, I believe, in about 2004, 2005, um on behalf of um
01:16:55 um on behalf of um Superintendent
01:16:59 Tony Fuller, I believe, um to examine um the workings, the global workings of the unit. Uh is it fair to say that you were
01:17:12 unit. Uh is it fair to say that you were uh critical of that uh review? I was. Um and uh when the uh review,
01:17:23 I was. Um and uh when the uh review, what a better word was published. um I um completed a document which which commented on it in detail. I think in short I felt that it was um
01:17:38 I think in short I felt that it was um it was not based on a um um a sufficiently long period of of scrutiny to come up with conclusions. It it did
01:17:49 to come up with conclusions. It it did and and a number of other practical um difficulties that I saw with the conclusions that were drawn by by the report.
01:17:58 report. If you if you could boil down what your your gripe was with that uh crane review that what did it get wrong um from your experience um as a DI in the SDS?
01:18:14 Um, well, I I I think the the the core thing for me probably was that it it it didn't understand
01:18:25 it it didn't understand what the unit was there for um and was proposing measures that were um um significantly
01:18:36 significantly were were um what's the word? um over elaborate in terms of of of numbers of people involved.
01:18:47 of people involved. What about the the the suggestion that you were critical of reviews such as the crane review because it was suggesting much needed change in the SDS and you
01:19:01 much needed change in the SDS and you were reluctant uh to to change that as a criticism. How would you respond to that, please? Well, I I I would I would say that that, you know, I I would need
01:19:12 say that that, you know, I I would need to look at at one would need to look at what my objections were to the various areas of the review and and I felt at the time that they were objective
01:19:25 the time that they were objective objections, if you like. This this inquiry um will be um hearing evidence from uh John Boucher in in due course. I just want to put something to
01:19:36 course. I just want to put something to you that he set out in his statement just to give you an opportunity to respond to it. I wonder if if we can bring up UCPI 39425. It's uh John Boucher's witness statement
01:19:48 It's uh John Boucher's witness statement of the 2nd of November 2025. And I wonder if we can turn to page 46. Um it's paragraph 220 of that statement.
01:20:00 Um it's paragraph 220 of that statement. Thank you.
01:20:27 at UCPI 39425 John Boucher's witness statement of the 2nd of November 2025.
01:20:43 No, not Perhaps we can deal with it another way. HN53, I'm just going to read to you something that he set out in his statement. I'm just going to ask you
01:20:54 statement. I'm just going to ask you to respond to it. So, he says this. Um, I have read the HN53 comments of the DS Crane report uh and would merely offer that the HN53 critique reflects the
01:21:07 that the HN53 critique reflects the challenge to change that was required within SO2. Uh, HN53 references his 27 years in special branch. That is of itself officers spending almost the
01:21:18 itself officers spending almost the entirety of a policing career in a single command. It is in my view a primary reason why special branch lost its way as regards complying with legislative and ethical requirements of
01:21:29 legislative and ethical requirements of modern covert policing. DIHN53 is very personally critical of the crane report and writes that the SDS prides itself on integrity, transparency and
01:21:41 itself on integrity, transparency and professionalism. I do not seek to criticize DIHN53, but I find each of his descriptors for the SDS as fundamentally wrong. Now, I know there's a number of points that are
01:21:53 know there's a number of points that are covered in that paragraph, but in terms of um to give you an opportunity to to respond to that, the suggestion that uh you were challenging uh uh change uh and
01:22:07 you were challenging uh uh change uh and looking at the SDS as a unit with integrity, transparency, and professionalism was fundamentally wrong. What would your reaction to that be, please?
01:22:18 reaction to that be, please? Well, I think at at at the time of writing those attributes I believed in um without the benefit of the hindsight on
01:22:30 without the benefit of the hindsight on some of those issues that we we have now. But and and equally I I would accept that um I think probably for the first time in my life part of that report I or I wrote in um
01:22:47 part of that report I or I wrote in um certainly I think from memory at the beginning of it but but it was it was um uh I thought um still objective
01:22:59 uh I thought um still objective um in in in expressing um um my disquire at the review. I was also trying to ensure that I remained um objective. Um
01:23:13 ensure that I remained um objective. Um but it and it it [clears throat] also came I think at a time when there was a significant um discomfort within special
01:23:24 significant um discomfort within special branch
01:23:25 branch with an impending um merger of two departments. I'm just going to pause you there because just on this very topic it might assist if we would just bring up
01:23:36 might assist if we would just bring up another document um before continuing. Please could we put up MPS 0723181
01:23:43 sir your tab B414.
01:23:59 So, MPS 0723181.
01:24:22 Could we turn to page four?
01:24:32 Now, can you see one, two, three, four, five
01:24:37 five paragraphs or sentences down? Can you see the amalgamation with SO13 affected everything? It destroyed continuity. And I think that's uh the point that you were just about to make. Is that correct?
01:24:48 correct? Just in summary. Yes. Yes. Well, in relation to that sentence, and we'll do with the paragraph next, the the why did the amalgamation with SO13
01:24:59 the why did the amalgamation with SO13 affect everything? I suppose for for all sorts of reasons, but not least I I I felt that the the
01:25:10 but not least I I I felt that the the merger would um would lose the um expertise
01:25:17 expertise uh in intelligence which the which special branch had developed over many many years. Um and and that would be to
01:25:28 many years. Um and and that would be to the detriment of in my view of of the um the resulting conjoined unit. Whether or not that transpired, I don't know. But I think
01:25:39 transpired, I don't know. But I think that was at the heart of of um uh what I was concerned about because I I think there is a um a clear
01:25:52 there is a um a clear um
01:25:54 um partnership, but the partnership I saw work well um with the separation of units rather than
01:26:05 with the separation of units rather than merging.
01:26:06 merging. And in my view um perhaps degrading to a certain extent the the quality of the work.
01:26:17 the the quality of the work. You state management style after I left was part of the reason for collapse of the units. And you go on it was the first time non-branch had run the units. I continually ask Frankie Flood and
01:26:28 I continually ask Frankie Flood and Julian McKini to read magma. They weren't interested. you you're critical of the man the managers that come after but but what was the nature of their management style
01:26:40 was the nature of their management style that you put down as the reason for the collapse of the unit? Well, that I think that's a um a perception that um that the
01:26:52 perception that um that the um
01:26:55 um the senior management management of the the the STS manage managers if you like
01:27:07 allowed the unit to to collapse.
01:27:14 And I I think that was um I think that was a consequence of um officers who hadn't understood
01:27:27 officers who hadn't understood um special branch work um taking it over.
01:27:36 if they were to say or if someone were to put this to to you that you uh and your your fellow managers that you were for one of a better word you're part of
01:27:48 for one of a better word you're part of the old guard and that when new people like Frankie Flood and Julia McKini when they're in post sort of the new brooms in the STS and they see what has been
01:27:59 in the STS and they see what has been happening for a long time that is wrong and that the reason uh that ultimately the SDS shut down was that it had it had lost
01:28:12 shut down was that it had it had lost its way and that um it had become dysfunctional in terms of what the UCOs were doing on a day-to-day basis and that in terms of you've described that
01:28:24 that in terms of you've described that the work that you put in to putting psychiatric assessments in place um and all the work that you did in in terms of welfare for example uh and your supervision
01:28:35 supervision as you say, the best that you could do. But in terms of the officers, the managers that came after you, what would you say to the criticism that um you
01:28:46 you say to the criticism that um you didn't see the wood for the trees of all the dysfunction and the SDS? And so when the new managers do come in, the unit is closed down because they see it with with clearer, fresher eyes.
01:29:03 I'm I'm not sure how to answer that. Um I don't
01:29:10 I don't An exam an an example may help. So for when HN18 uh was arrested and trying to get into the Excel uh building and he
01:29:23 get into the Excel uh building and he was uh charged. uh the view that was taken in relation to his uh arrest uh was that something had gone extremely wrong. The very fact that it had been
01:29:35 wrong. The very fact that it had been allowed and this is after your time very fact it reached a stage where he'd been charged uh something had gone dramatically wrong. Whereas if you look at the history of the SDS, we see number
01:29:47 at the history of the SDS, we see number of officers being arrested, being charged, some giving evidence, and the feedback from management tends to be, well, well done. He m he maintained his cover. And this is a good news story because it's going to help their legends
01:30:00 because it's going to help their legends e even more. So it's a it's that as an example for example the attitude to rests and and charge oversimplifying it but the old guard the looking at this as a good means of
01:30:13 looking at this as a good means of enhancing an officer's legend whereas um those newer managers uh looking at it in in horror that a court may be misled in any way. Well, I mean, I don't think
01:30:27 any way. Well, I mean, I don't think I've ever looked at the arrests of a UCO as a as a
01:30:34 as a as a what phrase you use as a a badge of honor or a a plus mark. It was it was quite the opposite. And but I think it was the the um management of that that
01:30:45 was the the um management of that that that was um to a greater or lesser extent in the past was um was manageable
01:30:57 was um was manageable and and and [clears throat] I'm I'm talking where where an arrest is inadvertent and unavoidable then um I think the there
01:31:09 unavoidable then um I think the there were that the um the senior management had the ability to ensure that that did not impact on on um
01:31:21 not impact on on um on the effectiveness of the unit. Perhaps if you use another example in your time, do you remember uh that in relation to J18? So June the 18th uh and
01:31:33 relation to J18? So June the 18th uh and the involvement of uh Jim Boiling uh in the uh protest in the city of London. Do you recall that? Yes. And we have heard uh evidence from
01:31:45 Yes. And we have heard uh evidence from Jim Boiling uh that one of the things that he he did was that he came up with the idea of uh purchasing and he
01:31:56 the idea of uh purchasing and he purchased uh four cars and essentially crashed them at various entrances to the city of London to impede the police. And he described uh getting a group of
01:32:08 he described uh getting a group of people together to drive the various cars. And there was some video footage even of one of the cars uh there. And so here you have an officer as who is very
01:32:20 here you have an officer as who is very high up in reclaimed the streets uh un undercover and he is the one organizing uh the
01:32:31 uh the the most disruptive aspects of of J18. So in terms of here's here's an officer acting as a national provocator. And again in terms of
01:32:43 And again in terms of the the old guard approach that well you know this this is this is a good thing because it means that no no one in RTS is going to suspect Jim Boiling because
01:32:55 is going to suspect Jim Boiling because of his heavy involvement in in it. But again in terms of fresher eyes again may look in horror that well here's an officer acting as an awan provocator. uh
01:33:07 officer acting as an awan provocator. uh his intelligence wasn't taken up by the City of London uh police. He's contributing to public disorder. He's not doing anything to prevent it.
01:33:18 Yes, I would accept that. HM53, we we are um we are we are pressed for time. And so what I'd like to do is just to um cover with you if I may just
01:33:29 just to um cover with you if I may just some discrete topics that might not necessarily be related. But I wonder if we can just in the next few minutes just cover as many of these points as possible. I wonder if you can just bring up on screen MPS4641.
01:34:02 Now uh you will immediately see that this is a document that is covered in uh redaction labels for LPP. uh and we can see the very title of this
01:34:14 uh and we can see the very title of this uh report in relation to London animal action uh is relating to legal advice. Was there any rule or instruction
01:34:26 Was there any rule or instruction um that was given to UCOs in relation to material that was or or maybe the subject of legal professional privilege?
01:34:42 I I don't remember specifically if there was
01:34:49 there any form that you can recall of a system of quarantine. So for example, if there is a document or or anything that uh looks as though well this is legal
01:35:01 uh looks as though well this is legal advice uh here um that there was any system of quarantining such such material and some sort of review mechanism that was anything like that in
01:35:13 mechanism that was anything like that in place.
01:35:17 I um I think I say within uh SCS um the answer would be no. Whe whether um within C squad uh and special branch
01:35:28 within C squad uh and special branch registry there was a um a system like that I I I I don't know but but I think I could say I I I don't recall a quarantining system within SDS
01:35:40 recall a quarantining system within SDS for LPP. [clears throat] Should there have been? Well, I think with the benefit of hindsight and and and what I've seen and and the the number of times it it comes
01:35:51 and the the number of times it it comes up, I think that would have been a useful
01:35:55 useful um uh holding place system. Now, the next uh topic I I would like just a a yes no answer to please. Um, in
01:36:09 just a a yes no answer to please. Um, in relation to Mark Jenner, um, you undertook a particular investigative step um, which must remain closed. And
01:36:22 step um, which must remain closed. And my question to you is, would you have done that, taken that step, if you had known um that Jenna had been uh uh
01:36:33 known um that Jenna had been uh uh lying, for example, in relation to relationship with Allison? I think rather as my question previously, I think that would be that would have qualified my
01:36:46 would have qualified my It's a yes, is it? It's a Yeah, I'm sorry. A yes, you answer. Thank you. Uh, blacklisting. Another topic I'd like to um ask you about, please.
01:36:56 please. Were you ever aware of uh the economic league? This is a private organization that compiled and distributed uh secret blacklists of workers. It considered
01:37:09 blacklists of workers. It considered politically subversive and particularly those associated with trade unions, left-wing politics or or or communism. Do you ever recall
01:37:20 Do you ever recall that organization, the economic league? I
01:37:23 I I was aware of it from public um public information, the consulting association. So again, another sort of secret organization that operated in the construction industry
01:37:34 operated in the construction industry and this is in the period between 1993 and 2009
01:37:40 and 2009 maintaining an illegal blacklist of construction uh workers. in many respects taking over uh from the economic league. Does that do you
01:37:52 economic league. Does that do you remember the consulting association? No, I don't that that name doesn't ring any bells with me at all. Were you aware of the role that SDS
01:38:03 Were you aware of the role that SDS reports might play in list X vetting? By that I mean the UK government accredititation for private companies. So these are for example private companies that mainly in the in the
01:38:16 companies that mainly in the in the defense or national national security sectors that you know if they needed to store um classified government information on their premises um that
01:38:27 information on their premises um that there would be a vetting on something called list X does that sound familiar? I I was aware as a listex um procedure generally but not
01:38:39 listex um procedure generally but not not that there was any um if you like channel or SDS um something between SDS and specifically
01:38:51 something between SDS and specifically in relation to lists now but because of a lot of these the blacklisting related to those involved in in left-wing politics the trade union movement and and those in in the left
01:39:05 movement and and those in in the left wing and and and also trade union movement we we've seen uh feature in SDS reports. Yes, I presume so. Yes. Yes.
01:39:16 I presume so. Yes. Yes. Was there not a danger that all of this reporting that the SDS was uh creating that it could end up
01:39:27 that it could end up in one of these blacklists i.e. that uh an employer uh would have access to a list as a result of that. Was there any
01:39:38 list as a result of that. Was there any danger of that? Was that something that you considered as a risk? No, I No, I didn't because I I relied to use the phrase again on the integrity of
01:39:49 use the phrase again on the integrity of special branch registry and recordkeeping.
01:39:55 And in terms of that integrity, what what safeguards were there as far as uh you're able to tell us, please?
01:40:06 us, please? Well, the the um material, the bulk of the material was secret and there were clear um guidelines for the retention of of that
01:40:18 guidelines for the retention of of that material within special. And are you referring to for example we've seen on a number of reports um that went for example to C squad that that was marked for no further dissemination is that
01:40:31 for no further dissemination is that no no that refers to who might be um able to see that report and in terms of sharing intelligence with with business to what extent do you
01:40:43 with with business to what extent do you recall that was allowed to happen? None. I don't have any direct knowledge of that.
01:40:50 of that. Could we please turn to MPS 0526805? So this is your tab B269. So this is a is a composite of a number of um authorizations uh for HN18's
01:41:04 of um authorizations uh for HN18's deployment. But I'd like to ask you about uh something that's set out on page 70, please.
01:41:15 So this is common wheel which is the code name for HN18.
01:41:21 UCO common wheel provides useful information on demonstrations, pickets and other events relating to left-wing activity, more especially concerning issues relating to stop the war, the Palestinian issue, and public order
01:41:33 Palestinian issue, and public order activity concerning the ISM. UCO's area of interest also relates to pleasing events directed at disrupting legitimate business activity. So again, in terms of
01:41:44 business activity. So again, in terms of that that that reference there, was there a concern uh was that a something that the SDS took into account that um
01:41:55 that the SDS took into account that um there may be disruption to legitimate business activities as part of public order policing? Well, that yes, that that's that that would be um an example of potential public disorder.
01:42:10 And so it goes on, you u common wheel provides information on groups who associate with or have contacts to groups in the Middle East whose activities are either unclear or are alleged um as being either subversive or
01:42:22 alleged um as being either subversive or terrorist groups. Usio's activity takes her or him into close contact with both foreign and UK nationals whose a main aims are overseas but who could intentionally or otherwise cause serious
01:42:33 intentionally or otherwise cause serious embarrassment to the UK government. Now in terms of the reference to the serious embarrassment to the UK uh government uh to to what extent was that a a concern
01:42:44 to to what extent was that a a concern i.e causing embarrassment as opposed to public order concerns? Would you consider there there's a difference there? Maybe being a bit a bit
01:42:56 there? Maybe being a bit a bit embarrassed if there are some activists, for example, at an arms fair or the like.
01:43:04 Um I I think that's a um a consequence of of what the activity was rather than
01:43:15 of of what the activity was rather than uh an objective. Could we take could we take that document down and move to MPS42159?
01:43:30 [cough]
01:43:34 Could we turn to page two, the last paragraph? Thank you. Can you see here? It says this injunction if granted will backfire on the company
01:43:46 if granted will backfire on the company and will increase the level of protests and harassment against them. Already members of the disarmed DSEI group are considering actions against EDO. Consideration should be given to the
01:43:58 Consideration should be given to the question of what advice to give should the Reed spearhead companies approach the desk as to whether they should follow EDO's lead. Now I in terms of that
01:44:12 Now I in terms of that did companies it suggests that companies approach the SDS or sorry the desk to seek advice on getting injunctions. So consideration should be given to the question of what what advice to give
01:44:24 question of what what advice to give should Reed or spearhead approach to the desk as to whether they should follow EDO's lead. I'm sure but that that really doesn't
01:44:37 I'm sure but that that really doesn't mean anything to me. I don't understand that how how they would do that if if the desk refers to Z squad
01:44:52 and and so your reaction is one of surprise to to read
01:45:04 in you've obviously uh seen many reports about um the anti- DSEI groups, for example, disarm DSI uh who carried out
01:45:16 example, disarm DSI uh who carried out uh uh protests, for example, at the at the Excel exhibition center in East London. Yes. Yes.
01:45:24 Yes. So in terms of those uh demonstrations, what would you say to uh the criticism that uh what the SDS was doing was uh uh
01:45:40 that uh what the SDS was doing was uh uh essentially um reducing people's ability to uh demonstrate legitimately against uh arms arms dealers.
01:45:54 uh arms arms dealers. Well, simply that that the the the the
01:45:59 thrust of the work was to provide intelligence on potential disorder.
01:46:14 If you had your time again as a DI in the SDS, if you we could send you back to October 1998, knowing what you know now, what steps would you uh take? Uh,
01:46:29 now, what steps would you uh take? Uh, and this is in terms of lessons that can be learned for the future, what significant steps would you have taken? What would you have done differently to uh prevent all the harm that we've heard about? What would you have done uh to
01:46:42 about? What would you have done uh to make um the SDS um an operation that did act with integrity and didn't unduly harm members of the public?
01:46:53 harm members of the public? Well, I um given that the um the the um time scales of of deployment remain the same. Um I think one of one of the clear
01:47:08 same. Um I think one of one of the clear messages certainly for me is that um perhaps there was more we could have done in terms of ensuring or trying to ensure that um physical relationships
01:47:22 ensure that um physical relationships with
01:47:23 with individuals by UCOs didn't happen as far as we could. Um I think reading that um quite um distressing document that Helen
01:47:37 quite um distressing document that Helen Steel had, I think that we could have done more possibly at the conclusion of operations to ensure that there was very intrusive management of
01:47:48 there was very intrusive management of of how that was done. Um
01:47:53 Um but given the um the way the unit operates
01:47:59 operates um I'm I'm not quite sure what else we could have done um
01:48:11 in in terms of of how the operation ran.
01:48:18 Sir, those are my questions, but may we break for 10 minutes um to see if there are any additional uh rule 10 questions that I have not covered. Yes, there are one or two questions I
01:48:29 Yes, there are one or two questions I have as well which uh I will ask after you've asked yours.
01:48:35 10 minutes.
02:48:40 Thank you.
02:48:46 Please could we call up MPS41307
02:48:54 HN53. This is a uh memorandum dated the 22nd of March 2005 uh relating to the officer and A and B
02:49:06 uh relating to the officer and A and B litigation. It says summary of development of current procedures for SDS uh welfare. Um could you just help us with what the purpose of this summary
02:49:18 us with what the purpose of this summary document was? It looks as though it's created by you. It's from you to the Department of Legal Services. Could you help us with why you created it? Well, I I I would assume that this was a
02:49:30 Well, I I I would assume that this was a document prepared at the request of of legal services to to summarize what what that um where we were on um that the development of of the counseling.
02:49:43 development of of the counseling. Were you tasked to put this together to def essentially to defend the A and B litigation? And again, just for context, it's the case settled in the following year, 2006, but was that the purpose as
02:49:56 year, 2006, but was that the purpose as you understood it, or were you just simply told, could you please provide a summary of the development of welfare procedures? Well, well, I think the the the um um the
02:50:07 the [clears throat] uh title of the of the the document says to me that this was uh specific to the AM case.
02:50:14 AM case. We know that uh HN43's claim was intimated in 2000. The proceedings were issued in 2002. If someone were to ask, well, why did it
02:50:25 someone were to ask, well, why did it take until 2005 uh to review uh thoroughly the welfare provisions of the STS? What would your response to that be, please? Well, the the um
02:50:37 Well, the the um I don't think this was a a review. This was a summary of of how the procedures had developed and the um counseling
02:50:49 had developed and the um counseling uh procedures um were were in place for a number of years. And what steps did you take as a result of the litigation specifically in relation to psychiatric
02:51:02 specifically in relation to psychiatric counseling? Yes.
02:51:03 Yes. You mean I don't think there were any anything any specific skeptic that this Um clearly there [clears throat] was um uh
02:51:14 uh uh the the facts of the the litigation um probably um [clears throat]
02:51:24 accelerated or um pushed pushed the um the development forward. But I think it was um it was a an area that we [clears throat]
02:51:35 [clears throat] were looking at that that um was was in progress.
02:51:39 progress. In his officer a statement, uh Peter Francis stated that he engaged in a number of sexual affairs and that the management knew he was behaving uh in
02:51:51 management knew he was behaving uh in this way and that they accepted that it was necessary in order for him to credibly continue. So he sets that out in his statement. a as a result of that.
02:52:02 in his statement. a as a result of that. Did you read that part of his statement or you've indicated earlier you read all of it? You would have been aware of that allegation that he made. Well, I'm I'm not sure when this excuse when the
02:52:13 not sure when this excuse when the statement was was was written or when I read it
02:52:21 in uh 2003 before you uh ended your uh role as DI in the SDS which came to an end in September 2005.
02:52:35 Um
02:52:39 well 2003 is is is after the development of the um the measures. Um um in specific terms I I believe I read it but
02:52:51 specific terms I I believe I read it but um as to when whether I read that subsequently um during the course of this uh this procedure
02:53:01 procedure um I I'm not sure. So So you're not not clear whether at the time that you're still a DI in the SDS not clear whether you did read it? I I'm I'm I'm not I'm I'm um I'm fairly
02:53:14 I'm I'm I'm not I'm I'm um I'm fairly sure I have read it, but um when I read it, I'm I'm I'm not clear on whether this is um first time reading a document
02:53:25 this is um first time reading a document um once this process is started. If you had read it um and that section that he refers to sexual relationships,
02:53:36 that he refers to sexual relationships, is it correct that certainly you uh did not take out um any steps to investigate those sexual relationships or or indeed any of your SDS colleagues?
02:53:48 any of your SDS colleagues? Not that I'm aware of. No. Do you remember at any point discussing uh HN43 and admissions about sexual relationships uh with Janet Williams?
02:54:01 Um not specifically. No, a different topic. Uh reporting on elected politicians. You set out in your witness statement that your recollection
02:54:14 witness statement that your recollection was that it was acceptable to record the presence of a member of parliament at an event, particularly if they addressed uh the attendees at at that event, and that
02:54:25 the attendees at at that event, and that it was also acceptable to record what they said. But you said that the difference was that there was no uh registry file open on them while they were in office. Is is that your
02:54:38 were in office. Is is that your evidence?
02:54:39 evidence? Yes, that would strong us up. Yes. You also said that you weren't aware that those limitations apply to local counselors. There's a difference. Are you able to help us with why there was a
02:54:52 you able to help us with why there was a difference in the way in which MPs were dealt with compared to local counselors? Well, I think this was was um u policy at a senior level within special branch
02:55:05 at a senior level within special branch that that spoke directly at um members of parliament rather than elected representatives at
02:55:15 at a lower level. Was this ever written down in a specific uh policy document or was it something that was discussed and passed down by word of mouth as opposed
02:55:28 passed down by word of mouth as opposed to this is the policy document of how to uh address reporting on members of the parliament? I would assume that it it was uh documented policy somewhere.
02:55:40 documented policy somewhere. I'm going to ask if we could please bring up on screen MPS 0748100.
03:24:20 and thinks it might emanate from Allison.
03:24:24 Allison. Yes.
03:24:28 And he offered an explanation about her being a girlfriend of um Medco. Yes.
03:24:33 Yes. And and having some uh concern about his welfare.
03:24:39 welfare. Yes.
03:24:40 Yes. So at that stage apart from the fact that the inquiry had been made uh that was the explanation you had and you also then
03:24:52 then obtained details of the person who had made the telephone call. Yes.
03:25:00 Yes. And um you um saw that that person, although this isn't shown on the document I've just shown you, but uh uh uh you uh saw that that person was a
03:25:13 uh you uh saw that that person was a private investigator who had previously been employed by Temp's Valley Police.
03:25:21 I understand. I accept that. Yes, sir. Yes. I mean, you can see the do the the the full document in due course, but uh if if I'm jogging your memory now, please say so and and that that may may
03:25:32 please say so and and that that may may make life easier for both of us. If you can't remember. Yeah, sorry. So, sorry I interrupted. I interrupted you. The the the last bit didn't ring bells with me, the private investigator.
03:25:46 Um, do you recall uh subsequent to receiving both of those bits of information uh making an application for billing records?
03:25:59 I don't but it's possible right um you will need to see the application in due course but it is in very similar terms to that which you made when dealing with um uh boiling.
03:26:13 made when dealing with um uh boiling. Yes.
03:26:14 Yes. uh namely that there were concerns about serious crimes in this case grievous bodily harm and this was the only method of of get getting to the bottom of it. I I paraphrase but words to that effect.
03:26:27 I paraphrase but words to that effect. Um,
03:26:34 of course you must see the the the the whole document, but uh it it begins to look like um one of the practices which you undertook which was to make uh on
03:26:47 you undertook which was to make uh on the basis of an application for billing information uh assertions about the underlying reason which were
03:26:59 the underlying reason which were somewhat overstated. I I this is an issue after we discussed uh the other documents last week. This is something that that
03:27:10 last week. This is something that that that I gave great thought to over the weekend. Um because I I answered the questions on the assumption that this is a document that I had authored rather
03:27:21 a document that I had authored rather than a document upon which I'd given authorization. [clears throat] Um
03:27:28 Um I'm I'm I'm still very concerned that I don't remember that the particular incident in any great detail. Um and and it's it's it's for the reasons that I'd assumed it's my document that I
03:27:39 assumed it's my document that I struggled with the answer which was I'm sure quite evident last week. But the the what what came back to me is that that the um the usual procedure in the office in this kind of case would be for
03:27:52 office in this kind of case would be for the relevant DS to prepare the application including the um intelligence case and then present that to the DCI or DI for signature and then
03:28:05 to the DCI or DI for signature and then um from memory counter signature from a superintendent. I think that was the case but I'm I'm not sure about that bit.
03:28:14 bit. Um, as a general rule, it wasn't um usual practice for the DI or the DCI to prepare these applications as opposed to
03:28:25 prepare these applications as opposed to uh sign them. Um, unless it was something that we were the two two of us were directly [clears throat] involved in.
03:28:34 in. Um, I in in the case of the document previously um and without having seen this one, it may be the same. I didn't have the the the detailed day-to-day
03:28:45 have the the the detailed day-to-day knowledge that the um the DS had. So it it it really seemed more probable to me having given it a great deal of thought that this is this may be what happened here. Um I again I'm talking about the
03:29:01 here. Um I again I'm talking about the previous document from last week. I'm I'm I I I can't really add any clarity to the provenence of the intelligence, but but it would on the basis [snorts] excluding the the the obvious
03:29:14 excluding the the the obvious [clears throat] errors that you highlighted on the offenses, but it it would have been um at the time sufficient to [clears throat] convince me that the threat was serious and warranted the measures being asked for.
03:29:27 warranted the measures being asked for. So your explanation uh is that neither of the two billing requests that I've asked you about um may have been formulated by you on
03:29:40 um may have been formulated by you on the basis of information that you had but may have been simply signed by you on the basis of information provided by one of the detective sergeants.
03:29:51 one of the detective sergeants. Yes. And because it it that was the the the standard practice. It was the expertise of the individual sergeant who knew the the the detail and background
03:30:02 knew the the the detail and background of the um the officer that they were dealing with [clears throat] um to to to formulate the document and then um for for that to be signed. I I'm
03:30:13 then um for for that to be signed. I I'm I'm fairly sure that that was the the system that we we adopted. Right. Well, thank you for that explanation. and in due course you will see the um original documents and be
03:30:25 see the um original documents and be able to reflect upon them. Thank you. And I'm sorry you've had a a lengthy day today. I'm afraid um it inevitably it being the last day of open evidence from those in the SDS um that we're having in
03:30:40 those in the SDS um that we're having in this um part of the proceedings that um something was bound to go wrong and and it it has done in spades. I do understand.
03:30:51 I do understand. Thank you. That concludes um proceedings for today. You I'm afraid there's um I'm just being told there's an application for specific
03:31:02 told there's an application for specific questions to be put to this witness. I'm afraid I've just been alerted to that and I um but before well I'm forgive me would you bear with us a little longer. Uh is there going to
03:31:14 us a little longer. Uh is there going to be any re-examination? No. So there may be one further question. I don't know what it is. So, may I have a moment because if the
03:31:25 So, may I have a moment because if the witness needs to be taken off screen I'm asked if um temporarily HN53 can be taken off screen so um council can um
03:31:36 taken off screen so um council can um enter the room and address you sir. Very well. Perhaps
03:31:50 if we can confirm that now that it's been taken off the screen.