UCPI Evidence Hearings | Tranche 3 (Phase 3) | Day 19 - (14 July 2026) - AM

Name: UCPI Evidence Hearings | Tranche 3 (Phase 3) | Day 19 - (14 July 2026) - AM
Uploaded: 2026-07-14
Duration: 3 h 55 min 50 s
Description: In this Tranche 3 Phase 2 morning session (Day 19, 14 July 2026), Counsel to the Inquiry examines HN146 Colin Black, a senior Special Branch manager who held chain-of-command responsibility for the SDS as detective superintendent, then detective chief superintendent, then acting commander between 19

14 July 2026 · HN146 Colin Black (Detective Superintendent / Detective Chief Superintendent / Acting Commander, Special Branch), Counsel to the Inquiry, Sir John Mitting (Chairman) · 3:55:50

▶ Watch on YouTube Open in interactive viewer

In this Tranche 3 Phase 2 morning session (Day 19, 14 July 2026), Counsel to the Inquiry examines HN146 Colin Black, a senior Special Branch manager who held chain-of-command responsibility for the SDS as detective superintendent, then detective chief superintendent, then acting commander between 1998 and 2003. Black repeatedly says he cannot recall SDS training, tradecraft, or specific operations — including HN26's unauthorised participation in a mink farm raid — while being pressed on why the SDS reported so extensively on the Stephen Lawrence family campaign, MFJ, and other anti-racism campaigners. Under sustained questioning he concedes several damaging points: that having two former undercover officers run the SDS risked "set practices and a lack of fresh thinking", that extreme left-wing groups posed no real national security threat, that a report dismissing racism critics as a "bandwagon" was cynical, and that undercover intelligence was used to help the Commissioner manage the Met's community relations.

Key moments

01:01:18AdmissionAdmits he had no specific training in managing undercover officers before taking on chain-of-command responsibility for the SDS.
01:01:52EvasionOn how SDS officers were trained: "I don't remember having any knowledge of that... other than that, I don't know."
01:03:54AdmissionConcedes he did nothing to satisfy himself officers were properly trained: "I didn't see that as my role. I wasn't in a supervisory role."
01:04:22AdmissionAgrees he took no steps at all to check officers were being trained properly, and had never seen a written job description.
01:04:57EvasionCannot remember ever seeing, or even knowing of the existence of, the SDS "tradecraft manual" recruits were meant to read before deploying.
01:06:51EvasionRepeatedly denies being the superintendent "in charge of the SDS" in 1998, saying he can't remember his precise role, until Counsel puts personnel records to him.
01:09:03EvasionStruggles to recall his own 1998 posting: "I think I was on a different squad as a superintendent if I recall. You'll have detail of that somewhere."
01:11:32PolicyOn recruiting HN53, a former SDS undercover officer, as DI alongside DCI HN58 (also ex-SDS): "I may have signed the form that authorized it eventually... I don't know."
01:14:22AdmissionAsked if having two former undercover officers run the SDS risks "set practices and a lack of fresh thinking", Black concedes: "yes, of course there's a risk."
01:16:05PolicyConfirms C Squad "appear to have influenced the targeting" of undercover officer HN60, agreeing this was "normal" practice within Special Branch.
01:22:15EvasionCannot recall visiting the SDS unit around the time of the Lawrence inquiry disorder, saying he was only "sometimes" aware of officer targeting, "in broad terms."
01:23:50PolicyDescribes his oversight visits to the undercover unit as "rarely" - just to "walk around and say hello" rather than for any operational reason.
01:26:49EvasionSays he cannot remember being told in advance that UCO HN26 planned to take part in releasing mink from a Hampshire farm.
01:29:10PolicyAgrees that under the 1998 draft code of practice, the SDS was expected to seek Commander Special Branch's authority before officers took part in serious crime such as burglary.
01:32:16AdmissionOn learning 3,000-6,000 mink were released without proper authority being sought, Black admits his first reaction would be to ask "why the authority wasn't asked for."
01:33:07Evasion"I can't remember it now" - says he has no recollection of the unauthorised mink release ever being raised with him at all.
01:36:13AdmissionHis own contemporaneous minute is put to him showing that he "regarded the Steven Lawrence inquiry as influential" within the Met from early 1998.
01:41:10ContentiousAgrees a document's view that the Lawrence inquiry left the Met in a "no-win situation" politically was "widely shared in the country", not just the police.
01:47:54ContentiousInitially disputes Counsel's framing that Special Branch was "collecting information" on the Steven Lawrence family campaign ("I take issue with your summary"), then concedes: "That's fair."
01:57:11Witness ImpactShown footage of 1998 disorder when murder suspects appeared at the inquiry, agrees Neville and Doreen Lawrence "distinguish themselves in terms of calming things down."
02:24:16ContentiousDenies SDS reporting on MFJ was about the Met's "image", insisting it was about "building the relationship" with the black community, then admits "I have no idea" how it actually helped.
02:44:05PolicyIdentifies "public order and national security" as the only two grounds on which Special Branch says it monitored extreme left-wing groups like MFJ.
02:45:34AdmissionConcedes plainly that extreme left-wing groups "didn't pose a national security threat" in 1998, undercutting the stated rationale for SDS surveillance of them.
02:48:39EvasionDeflects detailed questions about MFJ by likening Special Branch to a "600" person company and himself to its "CEO", saying he can't know "what nuts are used to put the wheels on the car."
02:54:00AdmissionAgrees an SDS report dismissing anti-racism critics as part of a "corrupt racist police bandwagon" reflected institutional cynicism: "this is cynical, isn't it? Yes... badly phrased."
02:59:41Witness ImpactSDS reporting recorded that Doreen and Neville Lawrence had privately separated and were "only continuing together as a front" - intimate personal details on grieving parents gathered via infiltration.
03:12:14AdmissionAsked if he knows the outcome of the Lawrence Inquiry, confirms: "That the Metropolitan Police was institutionally racist. I'm sure that's correct."
03:14:15PolicyExplains he told DI Walton nothing about the SDS operation should go "on paper", partly to protect the officer and partly so Special Branch's interest in the Lawrence inquiry stayed hidden.
03:26:03ContentiousOn the Met's looming admission of racism to the inquiry, remarks that acknowledging police "unconscious racism and lack of understanding of black culture" "wouldn't have been new to anybody."
03:34:23AdmissionAccepts Counsel's reframing that HN81's intelligence on community groups willing to "build bridges" was being used for that purpose by the Commissioner's team: "That's a much better way of putting it. Yes."
03:45:59ContentiousPressed on the "policing value" of an SDS report on an MFJ figure presenting a petition to the inquiry, admits: "I can give you my opinion, but that wouldn't be of any use really."
03:50:05Witness ImpactOn reporting about Ricky Reel's grieving mother, insists it is "secret intelligence" not collected to pass on to anyone, but kept in case "something happens to her."
03:54:39PolicyClosing the morning session, explains the correspondence file he opened funnelled both "tactical intelligence around the Lawrence inquiry" and "broader work on race crime" on to CO24.

Full transcript

00:03:12 That's fine.

00:03:21 I'm

00:03:46 not saying anything.

00:03:58 Oh [ __ ] sorry.

00:04:15 party.

00:04:20 [music]

00:04:26 [singing and music]

00:04:32 [clears throat]

00:59:40 Good morning everybody. Uh this morning's proceedings uh will be transmitted over the live link with a 15minute delay. Uh those with uh mobile telephones uh in the hearing room may

00:59:53 telephones uh in the hearing room may report what they hear in the hearing room, but only after 15 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're reporting. They may not be used for recording or photography. Yes.

01:00:05 recording or photography. Yes. Stand.

01:00:06 Stand. Of course.

01:00:10 That in the right hand. I swear by Almighty God I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give the evidence I shall give shall be the truth shall be the truth the whole truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and

01:00:22 and nothing but the truth and nothing but the truth to see

01:00:26 [clears throat] thank you sir could you give us your full name please Paulen John Black are the contents of your witness statement for this inquiry dated the 5th

01:00:37 statement for this inquiry dated the 5th of June 2025 true and correct to the best of your knowledge knowledge and belief.

01:00:43 belief. Yes.

01:00:45 Yes. Uh we see from your witness statement that before uh your association with the SDS, you worked for the Cabinet Office. Could you

01:00:56 worked for the Cabinet Office. Could you assist us with whether or not any of your duties within the Cabinet Office had anything to do with domestic affairs?

01:01:05 affairs? Uh no, they did not. Can I move now to training? Before you assumed responsibility for the SDS in the chain of command, did you

01:01:18 the SDS in the chain of command, did you have any specific training in the management of undercover police officers engaged in long-term intelligence

01:01:29 engaged in long-term intelligence gathering operations? No.

01:01:34 No. Can I ask you now about the training system?

01:01:38 system? What knowledge did you have of the way in which SDS officers were trained for their undercover operations?

01:01:52 I don't remember having any knowledge of that. If they if it was mandatory training, they'd have to do mandatory training, but um other than that, I don't know.

01:02:03 don't know. When you say you don't have a recollection, would you have known at the time how UCOs were prepared for their deployment or is that something

01:02:14 their deployment or is that something you would have left entirely to those below you in the chain of command? I don't recall one way or the other, I'm afraid. Sorry. Who was responsible

01:02:27 Who was responsible for training UCOs? [clears throat] There was a training department. I'm not sure what its role in their training was. And there was a there was a SDS

01:02:38 was. And there was a there was a SDS office and they would have been involved in the training. And in your role as first of all superintendent, later chief

01:02:49 superintendent, later chief superintendent and then acting commander, did you have responsibility for oversight of training? Uh, no. So is it your evidence that you

01:03:04 Uh, no. So is it your evidence that you had no responsibility at all for ensuring in any way that SDS officers were properly prepared for their deployments? It's not my evidence that that's the

01:03:16 It's not my evidence that that's the case. No.

01:03:16 case. No. What is your evidence then about your level of responsibility? [clears throat] Well, the SDS, pardon me, the SDS at various points fell under my responsibility

01:03:27 responsibility and as such I would have been responsible for their behavior and training. Um, but the actual training would not have come under my remitt. There is there was a

01:03:40 under my remitt. There is there was a training department. Understood. Did you do anything to satisfy yourself that the officers were being properly trained? No.

01:03:54 Did Oh, why not? Um, I didn't see that as my role. I wasn't in a supervisory role.

01:04:05 wasn't in a supervisory role. But in a higher management role, presumably you would accept you should have ensured that somebody was training them properly. I I would I should have

01:04:16 them properly. I I would I should have ensured that um the supervisors of those officers were training them properly. Yes.

01:04:22 Yes. And have I understood your evidence correctly? You took no steps to ensure that they were in fact doing so. You're right. Were responsibilities of this sort set

01:04:33 Were responsibilities of this sort set out in writing anywhere? I can't remember whether that's the case or not. [snorts] Did you have a written job description? No.

01:04:45 No. Can I move to a specific document? It was known as the trade craft manual and it was a collection of advice from

01:04:57 it was a collection of advice from former undercover officers which recruits were asked to read before deploying. Did you ever see the tradecraft manual?

01:05:10 Did you ever see the tradecraft manual? I can't remember having ever seen it. Were you aware of its existence? I can't remember that either. Was it the sort of document that you ought to have been aware of in order to

01:05:23 ought to have been aware of in order to ensure that officers were being trained properly?

01:05:28 properly? No.

01:05:29 No. Why not?

01:05:29 Why not? That would have fallen to their supervisors. But in terms of you ensuring that they were doing their jobs properly, should you not have familiarized yourself with how officers

01:05:42 familiarized yourself with how officers were being trained? No.

01:05:44 No. Why not?

01:05:45 Why not? Because that wasn't within my sphere of responsibility as a manager, not supervisor. So as a manager, your evidence is it mattered not to you whether or not they

01:05:57 mattered not to you whether or not they were being trained with adequate materials. No, that that's not what I said or meant. What I meant was it wasn't my job to ensure that the officers who were undercover had their training. That was their

01:06:09 had their training. That was their supervisor's job. Whose job was it to keep an eye on the DCI in the SDS to make sure that he was running the unit properly? His supervising officer,

01:06:21 His supervising officer, which would be the superintendent, which would be the superintendent. Yes. And you were a superintendent at one stage, weren't you? in the early part. So it would have been your responsibility at least in that era.

01:06:34 responsibility at least in that era. No.

01:06:35 No. Why not?

01:06:37 Why not? Well, I wasn't the superintendent in charge of the SDS.

01:06:44 You were a superintendent in es squad? No.

01:06:48 No. In 1998?

01:06:50 In 1998? No.

01:06:51 No. Between April 19, what what was your precise role in 1998? Um I can't remember. Have you got you've got the documents as to what? Yeah. Our understanding is that you were

01:07:02 Yeah. Our understanding is that you were a detective superintendent between April and December 1998 and you were promoted to detective chief superintendent in December 1998. You served as such until July 2003

01:07:16 You served as such until July 2003 before being promoted to acting commander between July and December 2003.

01:07:23 2003. those ranks if that's what the personnel file says those ranks would be correct. So in that period when you were a detective superintendent should you not have familiarized yourself with how the

01:07:36 have familiarized yourself with how the DCI was uh ensuring that officers were trained?

01:07:42 trained? No, I wasn't the superintendent in charge of the SDS. And who

01:07:48 And who what was your role visav the SDS then? I was the man the I was the same role as the de detective superintendent role. It's just that the metropolitan police

01:08:00 It's just that the metropolitan police decided at some point that chief superintendent were there was a redundant term. So so they called it superintendent one and superintendent two and I and then they went back of

01:08:11 two and I and then they went back of course again to chief superintendent as these things do. So I didn't have when you say I was a superintendent in charge of SDS, I'd have been the chief superintendent

01:08:22 superintendent either acting or as part of the job that I've I eventually ended up with as the operations commander. Two ranks above the DCI. Yes.

01:08:33 Yes. So what did you see your oversight role as being?

01:08:39 as being? as as which at which point visav well let's take it a step at a time as superintendent in 1998

01:08:51 time as superintendent in 1998 what was the ambit of your oversight role for the SDS well what what role was I performing in in those days well

01:09:00 well that's your question yes

01:09:03 yes um well I I I think I was on a different squad as as a superintendent if I recall. You'll have detail of that somewhere.

01:09:15 somewhere. And and then thereafter I've either filled in or was posted to the role of operations commander.

01:09:26 the role of operations commander. Now whether I'm called a superintendent or a chief superintendent depends on when the Metropolitan Police fiddled about with those ranks. But as the operations commander, I wouldn't have

01:09:38 operations commander, I wouldn't have supervision of the SDS. Yes. I'm asking about oversight rather than supervision. Well, oversight. Yes. And what was the ambit of your oversight responsibilities in relation to the SDS?

01:09:50 responsibilities in relation to the SDS? Well, when um my predecessor had left and become the head of the branch, um he took with him a lot of the responsibilities for the SDS. And my

01:10:02 responsibilities for the SDS. And my oversight was when he was not there or not available, I had oversight. And these were that was oversight of the strategic direction of the branch, oversight of the um way in which the

01:10:15 oversight of the um way in which the different squads interfaced with each other and with other agencies and but not directly for the SDS or nor directly for any other um part of special branch

01:10:29 for any other um part of special branch at that level. By your predecessor, do you mean Mr. Pierce? Yes.

01:10:37 Just before you joined the chain of command for the SDS, Helen Steel had been in New Zealand searching for John Dyn.

01:10:49 Dyn. Were you made aware of that? I don't know. When you say you don't know, do you mean I don't remember? You can't remember? No.

01:11:00 No. Shortly after you joined the chain of command, a new detective inspector was recruited to replace Bob Lambert within the SDS. Was a a man we're calling HN53.

01:11:27 Did you have any role in the recruitment of HN53?

01:11:32 of HN53? [clears throat] I don't think so. I may have signed the form that authorized it eventually, but I it wouldn't be part of my role to authorize the appointment of officers on

01:11:43 authorize the appointment of officers on any particular squad. The result of that appointment was that the SDS had a DCI and a DI who were both former SDS undercover officers.

01:11:57 former SDS undercover officers. Uh, did you consider whether it was a good idea to have two former UCOs managing that unit? I did consider it. No. Were you aware? Would you you would have

01:12:09 Were you aware? Would you you would have been aware of that appointment, would you?

01:12:11 you? Uh, yes.

01:12:12 Uh, yes. And you would have been aware of the personalities HN58 and HN53. I would have been aware um that they were probably SDS officers.

01:12:25 um that they were probably SDS officers. Is that what you're suggesting? Yes.

01:12:28 Yes. Yeah, I may have been. I don't know. What's your view now as to whether it's a good idea for a unit like the SDS to have two former UCOs occupying the two most [clears throat] senior management

01:12:40 most [clears throat] senior management roles within the unit

01:12:45 in a in a special branch. Generally, it's very difficult not to have someone who's already been in a job in a supervisory role in that particular

01:12:57 supervisory role in that particular department, for example, in the squad that dealt with international matters. It's quite like well, it's quite likely that the supervisors would previously have been members who dealt with that

01:13:10 have been members who dealt with that subject.

01:13:11 subject. We understand quite a lot of of people floating around special branch had been in the SDS in the past. But there are occasions when the unit is managed by a mix of ex SDS officers and non SDS

01:13:25 mix of ex SDS officers and non SDS officers and times when it's managed by DCIS and DIS both of whom are ex SDS officers. And what I'm asking for now is

01:13:36 officers. And what I'm asking for now is your view as to whether or not that is a good idea. Well, the supervisor would who was a supervisor would

01:13:48 supervisor would The DCI was HN58. And what was the superintendent's name or a number? The superintendent was Mccclaclin. Well, he No, he hadn't been No, that's not where I'm driving at. I'm

01:13:59 No, that's not where I'm driving at. I'm driving at the DCI and the DI. It's often the case that DCI and DI on a particular squad and there were several squads had been in that department that part of the branch

01:14:12 that department that part of the branch on previous occasions. Is there a risk that it means that you get um

01:14:19 get um set practices and a lack of fresh thinking?

01:14:22 thinking? I see what you're driving at and yes, of course there's a risk. Can I move now to the targeting of the officer we are calling HN60?

01:14:34 Bear with me. Sorry. Take your time.

01:14:40 [snorts] Right.

01:14:46 [snorts] Uh can we have up please 526758?

01:14:52 Sir, that's your tab B25.

01:15:09 [clears throat]

01:15:12 You will see that this is a minute sheet and that DCI HN58 is communicating to you through

01:15:23 is communicating to you through Detective Superintendent Mccclaclin um

01:15:28 um about Apple Source is HN60's code name about HN60's targeting strategy.

01:15:40 If we once you've read that,

01:15:44 please indicate and we'll go to the next page.

01:15:54 I've read it. If we go to page three now, this is the targeting strategy itself. And at paragraph 1.1

01:16:05 paragraph 1.1 you will see that C squad appear to have influenced the targeting of HN60. Is that fair? Yes.

01:16:16 Yes. And also normal. Yes.

01:16:20 Yes. If we go to page four please in paragraph 2.2.

01:16:29 Give you a moment to read that sub paragraph.

01:17:00 Right. Uh, may help you if we call up UCPI5039936

01:17:13 in relation to the reference to Mr. Prescott.

01:17:18 Prescott. This is a newspaper article following the death of Mr. Prescott and it is referring back to an event in February

01:17:29 referring back to an event in February 1998 when Mr. Prescott was attending the Brit Awards and the lead singer of a band called Chumba Wumber poured water

01:17:40 band called Chumba Wumber poured water over Mr. Prescott. Do you recall that happening? No.

01:17:47 No. If we go back please to 526758.

01:18:00 Can you help us with uh what the cabinet officers concerns were about the SWP at the time?

01:18:13 the time? No.

01:18:15 No. Can you help us as to the heckling and disruption to which Mr. Prescott was subjected to by the SWP?

01:18:28 by the SWP? No.

01:18:29 No. Are you able to help us with whether or not the stunt at the Brits, the assault on Mr. Prescott was uh any part of the

01:18:43 on Mr. Prescott was uh any part of the reasoning behind uh the targeting of HN60?

01:18:49 HN60? No.

01:18:52 That paragraph goes on to refer to the trade union unison and its concerns about uh the activities

01:19:04 and its concerns about uh the activities of SWP activists within their union. Can you assist us with what those concerns were?

01:19:14 were? No.

01:19:17 And is that because of lack of recollection now or because of lack of knowledge at the time? I don't know the answer to that question.

01:19:36 It appears on the face of the document uh that the concerns may have been about industrial militancy rather than subversion. Can

01:19:50 militancy rather than subversion. Can you help us as to whether the concern was about militancy or subversion? Could you bring Sorry, could you bring the paragraph up again? 2.2, please.

01:20:04 That's better. [laughter] Thanks.

01:20:23 Sorry, what was the question? Can you help us whether the reason for targeting the SWP

01:20:31 the SWP was because of concerns about uh militancy or about subversion? I can't help you now. Can you recall whether you did discuss

01:20:43 Can you recall whether you did discuss with HN58 the targeting of HN60?

01:20:48 I don't know the answer to that question. I can't remember. Can we take that document down now, please, and go to 527323, please?

01:20:57 please? Sorry, could I ask a question? Was the minute sheet attached to this document? That's our understanding.

01:21:08 Well, I mean, you have you don't know. Oh, sorry. Okay. Right. Do you have any concerns? And if you do, please articulate them. This is not time or place.

01:21:21 This is not time or place. Uh

01:21:24 527323. We're moving forward now to the summer of n of 1998. A visit is being arranged

01:21:36 A visit is being arranged for the 7th of July 1998 at which the AXO Mr. Vanesse is going to visit the SDS

01:21:47 SDS with you. Uh, and this is HN58 sending a memo

01:21:55 memo to um you and Detective Superintendent Mccclaclin with the arrangements for that

01:22:05 that visit.

01:22:07 visit. Can you help us with the visit itself? Did you attend and meet members of the unit?

01:22:15 unit? I don't remember that. Were you aware of the targeting of SDS officers?

01:22:23 Sometimes. Yes. In detail terms or broad terms? In broad terms.

01:22:34 This visit happened very shortly after those suspected at the time of murdering Steven Lawrence appeared at the Steven

01:22:45 Steven Lawrence appeared at the Steven Lawrence inquiry where there was some disorder.

01:22:50 disorder. Can you help us with whether you discussed events uh at the Steven Lawrence inquiry with anyone when you visited the unit?

01:23:02 visited the unit? No.

01:23:07 To what extent did you see SDS reporting?

01:23:17 I saw some SDS reporting. If um it were to be passed further to the assistant commissioner that you mentioned or to

01:23:28 commissioner that you mentioned or to the head of the branch um if it was something that were worthy of praise or had a wider effect than simply the gathering of intelligence by

01:23:40 simply the gathering of intelligence by a special branch. How often did you visit the unit? Rarely.

01:23:50 Rarely. How frequently would you say rarely meant?

01:23:54 meant? I can't remember. Once a year, once a month? No, certainly not once a month. In what circumstances did you visit the

01:24:05 In what circumstances did you visit the unit?

01:24:10 Just to walk around and say hello. I think I wouldn't have gone to them for any operational reason. I don't think. What caused you to visit the unit? revisit all the units.

01:24:21 revisit all the units. Part and parcel leadership. Yes.

01:24:27 Yes. Could we take that document down now, please? Can we go to 247766? We're moving now to August of 1998.

01:24:44 This [snorts] document doesn't name you. It's a file note that was generated by Sergeant Greeny um and copied to HN58, the DCI of the

01:24:59 um and copied to HN58, the DCI of the SDS at the time. It's about a developing operation involving a UCO HN26

01:25:11 and in particular um her forthcoming participation in the release of Mink from a farm in Hampshire. If we go to page two, please.

01:25:27 Hampshire. If we go to page two, please. [sighs]

01:25:28 [sighs] I'd like you to look at the last three paragraphs, please.

01:26:36 Right. Did [snorts] you know anything about plans for HN26, that's RB Road Bridge, to participate in

01:26:49 that's RB Road Bridge, to participate in the release of Mink in Hampshire before she did so? I can't remember. Do you think you would remember if you had been told?

01:27:05 I don't know. Possibly. Could we go to 247864, please?

01:27:21 This is um a draft code of practice for undercover operations dated the 3rd of June 19

01:27:32 June 19 98.

01:27:34 98. Uh it says in the towards the end of the first paragraph, while these codes of practice do not specifically relate to SDS operations, current operating

01:27:45 SDS operations, current operating standards do fall within the spirit of the code.

01:27:52 the code. If we could go to uh page three, please.

01:27:59 And uh paragraph 1.6 Six.

01:28:30 Yep. You can see clearly from 1.6 that if an officer is going to participate in crime that needs to be authorized.

01:28:41 that needs to be authorized. If we go to page 4, paragraph 2.4, please

01:28:54 refers back to the paragraph we've just looked at.

01:28:59 and provides that where there is going to be serious criminal activity, the level of authorization required is commander

01:29:10 commander special branch. Would you agree that participating in the release of mink, in other words, potentially committing the offense of burglary would be serious criminal

01:29:22 burglary would be serious criminal activity?

01:29:24 activity? It would be criminal activity. My question though is directed at under this code of practice which the SDS is adhering to at least in

01:29:37 which the SDS is adhering to at least in spirit would you expect the SDS to seek the authority of the commander of special branch?

01:29:48 commander of special branch? Yes.

01:29:50 Yes. If [snorts] the commander of special branches as authority was sought, would you expect expected to have been copied in?

01:30:00 in? Not necessarily, unless I was standing in for the commander of special branch. [snorts]

01:30:06 [snorts] The

01:30:08 The release of the animals went ahead in the early hours of the 8th of August 1998.

01:30:17 And in the result, thousands rather than hundreds of mink were released. The estimate is somewhere between three and 6,000 mck were released into the

01:30:31 6,000 mck were released into the environment. Uh our understanding is that that was an event which attracted some publicity because of the damage which the mink did

01:30:42 because of the damage which the mink did for example to domestic pets and wildlife. Can you recall the publicity following this release? No.

01:30:53 No. When did you first become aware that HN26

01:30:58 HN26 had participated in the release of these mink?

01:31:03 mink? I don't remember. Did you ever become aware before this public inquiry that HN26 was involved in the mink release? Was this in the papers

01:31:15 the mink release? Was this in the papers that you gave me to look at prior to this a year ago? I'm not putting a document to you showing an awareness. I'm asking you

01:31:27 showing an awareness. I'm asking you whether you can recall whether you ever knew of the release of the mink. I don't remember it. Can you recall any reaction within

01:31:38 Can you recall any reaction within special branch? No.

01:31:44 Had you known, had you been made aware immediately afterwards that 3 to 6,000 mink had been released by a group of animal rights

01:31:55 released by a group of animal rights activists, including an SDS undercover police officer uh without either your or commander special

01:32:06 either your or commander special branches

01:32:07 branches authority having been thought sought, what would your reaction ction have been that the authority should have been sought.

01:32:16 sought. And what would you have done about that? Well, I I don't know was the authority sought from commander special branch.

01:32:27 sought from commander special branch. Well, there as far as we're aware, no authority was sought. So I'm asking you if you had found out in the aftermath of this event that HN26

01:32:39 that HN26 had participated in the release of the mink without proper authority. What would you have done?

01:32:55 The first question I would have asked is why the authority wasn't asked for. And am I am I to understand that you have no recollection of this issue arising at all?

01:33:07 arising at all? I can't remember it now.

01:33:11 Can I move now to 749500, please? This is the first of three documents I'm going to show you

01:33:23 documents I'm going to show you um which are from early 1998. and uh

01:33:31 and uh relate to the Lawrence inquiry. Uh if we look if at the top of the page please if we could have the

01:33:42 please if we could have the first minute expanded first of all please.

01:33:50 It says detective superintendent TN61 to you.

01:33:56 to you. You may wish to see this excellent and classified report, copies of which I have forward to Chief Superintendent Bagot, who heads the Lawrence review team.

01:34:21 And if we go to the minute, could you just give me a second? Yes, of course.

01:34:31 Yep. If we go to the minute below, this is from you in response. I'll give you a moment to

01:34:43 in response. I'll give you a moment to read that.

01:34:49 Would you be able to read for me the first line? I can't read the first. Could we expand that manuscript even more, please?

01:35:38 Do do you know what the last part of that first line actually says? I can't I can't read it. I'm not sure uh I can properly decipher it.

01:35:49 properly decipher it. Right.

01:35:52 This is not the document we're going to come to is not SDS an SDS document. I know.

01:35:58 know. But the point of putting this document to you is it shows, doesn't it, that your view was that the Steven Lawrence inquiry was going to be very influential.

01:36:13 Sorry. Can I read the rest of it? Yes, please do. Concentrating on that unreadable mine.

01:36:55 I'm sorry. Could you show me a previous document the first minute? Yes, please.

01:37:08 the top of the page. That's okay. I've got that. Thank you. Yeah.

01:37:14 So, it's okay. So, there's a document that's come to me but has already gone. That correct?

01:37:25 but has already gone. That correct? You are being sent a document to note

01:37:28 to note to note. You write a reply. My first question is you can see from your reply that you regarded the Steven Lawrence inquiry as influential. Yes.

01:37:38 Yes. And if we could have that second minute up again, please.

01:37:46 We can see that the review team was keeping the commissioner aware of developments. Yep. [clears throat] Uh otherwise you would have arranged for this report to have been sent further up

01:37:58 this report to have been sent further up the chain of command. Yes.

01:38:01 Yes. And is the review team the Steven Lawrence review team? Yes, I well I seem so. Yes. Could we go uh to page three of this file please?

01:38:13 file please? This is the document itself. If we look at paragraph one so you can see what it's about.

01:38:41 Yep. So, it would seem that this is a report passing um or recording for dissemination up the chain of command openly available information about the

01:38:54 openly available information about the Lawrence inquiry and reactions to it. Yes.

01:39:00 Yes. and uh that there are also formal threat assessments being produced on a weekly basis.

01:39:08 basis. Yes.

01:39:09 Yes. Are those threat assessments related to the Lawrence inquiry? Yes.

01:39:14 Yes. If we go to paragraph three, please

01:39:23 [snorts] give you a moment to read that. But I'm interested in the last sentence.

01:40:43 Right. So, the author there painting a bleak picture from the MPS perspective of the inquiry putting uh the MPS in a no- wind situation,

01:40:55 uh the MPS in a no- wind situation, politically sexy, the left are going to exploit it. Yes.

01:41:01 Yes. Was that a view that you shared?

01:41:10 As far as I remember, yes.

01:41:14 yes. And was that a view that was widely shared within the MPS? I think it's a view that was widely shared in the country.

01:41:25 If we could uh look now at paragraph five.

01:41:34 [clears throat]

01:41:42 And then once you've got to the bottom, that paragraph runs over the page, which I would also like you to see, please.

01:42:13 And so we can take from that, can we, that special branch, amongst other things, was monitoring the left-wing press to see what it was saying about

01:42:24 press to see what it was saying about the Lawrence inquiry. Yes,

01:42:28 Yes, including

01:42:30 including noting quotes from the family.

01:42:37 I'm sorry, I've [clears throat] missed that bit.

01:42:39 that bit. It's the addition also carries frequent quotes from the Lawrence family and the topic is often aired in the editorial. So, it's noting the Lawrence family is being quoted.

01:42:52 Yeah. Could we take that down now, please, and have 749537? The document we've just been looking at was dated the 21st of April. This next

01:43:05 was dated the 21st of April. This next document is dated the 19th of May. Um,

01:43:11 this is the covering uh minute. I'm interested in the content of the document. If we could go to that,

01:43:22 document. If we could go to that, please. Just give me a second to look at this one.

01:43:24 this one. Sure.

01:43:55 Right. Thank you. If we could go to the next page, please. This is a special branch threat assessment the Steven Lawrence inquiry

01:44:06 the Steven Lawrence inquiry and it's under the name of HN67 who was a superintendent [snorts] at that time. If we look at

01:44:17 at that time. If we look at paragraph two, please

01:44:47 Right. And so we can see first of all that the threat assessment is considering at least amongst other things the actions of the Steven Lawrence family campaign.

01:45:05 Yes. And were you aware that the Steven Lawrence family campaign was the family and its immediate advisers?

01:45:16 and its immediate advisers? It's public knowledge, isn't it? Yes.

01:45:19 Yes. Yeah.

01:45:22 Yeah. Uh, and if we uh take look take that as a whole, it's obvious that the Steven Lawrence family campaign are not seeking public

01:45:36 campaign are not seeking public disorder, are they?

01:45:43 Yes. [snorts] Sorry. I mean, they [laughter] aren't, you know, I understand. Uh if we can go to paragraph five, we see that reinforced.

01:46:05 Yep. And were you aware at the time that the family itself was against disorder? I don't remember. Could we look at the next page?

01:46:19 This [snorts] is a leaflet issued by the Steven Laurens family campaign attached to the document we've just uh looked at and it's seeking to

01:46:32 just uh looked at and it's seeking to drum up support for people to come and rally in support of the campaign outside the or at the inquiry on various days.

01:46:43 the or at the inquiry on various days. So, can we take it? Special branch is collecting information about what the Steven Lawrence family campaign is doing.

01:46:58 That's one of those yes or no answers that doesn't really have a yes or no answer.

01:47:02 answer. You can give this an as nuanced an answer as you wish. [laughter]

01:47:08 I think we'll come to this again. Um, and it's I mean you're the I know that the way in which you're directing the question is to determine whether the

01:47:19 question is to determine whether the special branch was looking at the Steven Lawrence family and campaign as and as I would say the people who were supporting that campaign. Um, and

01:47:33 were supporting that campaign. Um, and therefore I slightly take issue with your statement. The special branch was what? What was the word you used?

01:47:44 what? What was the word you used? Well, it's collecting information, isn't it?

01:47:46 it? Collecting information on the Steven Lawrence campaign, per se.

01:47:54 So, I take issue with your summary.

01:47:58 summary. In that case, you can help by explaining to us why special branch is collecting this flyer and attaching it

01:48:11 collecting this flyer and attaching it to a threat assessment. Didn't collect the flyer. The flyer was given. The flyer therefore requires somebody to say whether it poses any threat or doesn't pose a threat.

01:48:23 threat or doesn't pose a threat. But in that way, information about the actions of the Steven Lawrence family campaign, openly available information is being collected by special branch as

01:48:35 is being collected by special branch as part and parcel of its regular assessment of threat arising from the Lawrence inquiry. That's fair. And if we can take that down now and go

01:48:46 And if we can take that down now and go to 749535.

01:48:53 [snorts] Uh this is again the 19th of May. This is um an update. I'll let you have a look at the minute sheet first.

01:49:41 Right. And if we go now to the document itself,

01:49:49 it's if we could have the if we go Thank you. you see it's a a briefing note entitled reporting on the Steven Lawrence public inquiry. If we go over the page now,

01:50:03 [clears throat]

01:50:06 I don't need you to look at this in particular detail, but if you look perhaps at the first two p first two paragraphs,

01:50:28 This is a a retread of the previous document you showed me. Yes.

01:50:33 Yes. So, we're seeing again this is the collation into a formal report of openly available information about the Lawrence inquiry of of reporting which I assume is the

01:50:46 of of reporting which I assume is the meaning of the word on the previous page rather than I mean it's reporting by others rather than reporting by special media reporting. Yeah.

01:50:57 Yeah. Yes. [clears throat]

01:51:00 Can I take it that you were I mean your name is on the minute sheet for the first of the three documents I've taken you through but not the other two but can I take it that you were aware in

01:51:11 can I take it that you were aware in general terms that special branch was monitoring events around the Lawrence inquiry.

01:51:20 inquiry. Yes.

01:51:21 Yes. Including the actions of the Steven Lawrence family campaign. Yes.

01:51:28 Yes. If we could take that down now, please. I want to remind you of events on the day on which the five people then suspected of murdering Steven Lawrence

01:51:42 suspected of murdering Steven Lawrence appeared at the inquiry. [clears throat] Um, I understand that we're going to be working from the YouTube version of the footage. If we could start at 47 minutes and 19 seconds into uh this is a

01:51:57 and 19 seconds into uh this is a documentary uh the murder that changed a nation episode two. It's about the Steven about Steven Lawrence. [snorts] This uh extract is uh showing events on

01:52:10 This uh extract is uh showing events on the day I've just mentioned. Can we watch it through to 5123 please?

01:52:26 A high court judge has ruled that five men who've all been charged in the past with murdering Steven Lawrence should give evidence to the inquiry into his death.

01:52:36 death. [cheering] The appearance of the five suspects was almost the climax of the inquiry. There was a huge sense of anticipation.

01:52:48 It's a public inquiry. Anybody can go up into the public inquiry and the police were stopping them. Then you had the Nation of Islam downstairs in the foyer. And I remember we were just about to start. Somebody

01:53:01 we were just about to start. Somebody just burst into the room saying that there's promotion happening downstairs.

01:53:12 And it got so bad that they had to stop the inquiry. But what the police was doing was totally out of order because the police had used CS gas in their faces and

01:53:23 had used CS gas in their faces and stuff. So it was really, really bad. Why is it on the Steven Lawrence inquiry when it's black people who are coming to seek justice that the police want to use offensive capability weapons like the CS

01:53:34 offensive capability weapons like the CS gas?

01:53:35 gas? This is the scenario that everyone feared. emotions running out of control down here and the evidence of the five suspects temporarily derailed. [cheering]

01:53:46 They were going to cause a riot and I had to calm them down and and tell them that my family don't deal with things like that. What's happening here this morning is not going to get to the truth.

01:53:57 not going to get to the truth. No,

01:53:57 No, it's going to stop us getting to the truth and we are going to be branded as holy guns. That's right. It's a public inquiry. You have every right to hear it. But I'm Steven's

01:54:10 right to hear it. But I'm Steven's mother and if I ask a request of people just to just to respect me, I think it should be done.

01:54:20 But we can't let them come through and they just get in a van. Yeah.

01:54:25 Yeah. Black people have the right to run their own struggle and you can't do it through a white judge sitting in some inquiry that doesn't have the opportunity to punish the police responsible or to

01:54:37 punish the police responsible or to actually put behind bars forever the murderers of Steven Lawrence coming out. [cheering]

01:54:48 If the public needed persuading that this was a case in which on the one hand you had Neville and Dorian and on the other hand you had these five then I think they began to think about the

01:54:59 think they began to think about the things that had seriously gone arry here. The system that had fallen apart. One suspect David Norris hit out as the youth strut in down the walkway out of the Elephant Castle shopping center.

01:55:12 the Elephant Castle shopping center. that picture fixed in the public eye the fact that there was something really really badly wrong about this investigation. A racist crime is one where it just

01:55:25 A racist crime is one where it just doesn't attack you in the physical sense. There's psychological trauma. There is a sense that there are people out there that hate you not [music] because they want your phone but because

01:55:36 because they want your phone but because of your existence as a being. Steven was murdered simply because he existed and because of the [music] color of his skin.

01:55:45 skin. At least one of the suspects was hit while they scrambled into their white getaway van. [cheering]

01:55:57 [music]

01:56:05 Why? Why you protecting him? You have this young man, Steven [music] Lawrence, who's never been in trouble with the police, who's not affiliated with the G. Thank you. [snorts]

01:56:17 Thank you. [snorts] Those events attracted widespread publicity in the media, didn't they? Yes.

01:56:25 Yes. And no doubt you were very well aware of them at the time. I don't remember, but yes, I probably was.

01:56:34 was. And we could see, we can take from that footage two things. First of all, there certainly was disorder on that occasion.

01:56:45 certainly was disorder on that occasion. And secondly, both Neville and Dorene Lawrence distinguish themselves in terms of calming things down.

01:56:57 in terms of calming things down. Yes.

01:57:00 Yes. And you would have been well aware from that and from reporting of the kind we've seen that that was very much the position of the family.

01:57:11 position of the family. I I from from what you've shown me. Yes. Well, do you have any recollection of any contrary information relating to the family?

01:57:20 family? Uh, no.

01:57:22 Uh, no. I want to move now against the background of all that material to the meeting that was arranged uh between HN81,

01:57:34 uh between HN81, the UCO who was targeted against movement for justice, detective inspector Bob Lambert, and acting detective inspector Richard

01:57:47 and acting detective inspector Richard Walton.

01:57:48 Walton. Oh yes. Now that occurs in the middle of August at 19 98. The footage I've just shown you was from the very end of June.

01:58:01 from the very end of June. Can you help us first of all with how that meeting

02:18:56 was something they were entitled to do though, wasn't it? As people who themselves believe there was a lot of racial injustice in policing. Yes. As long as the largecale campaign

02:19:09 Yes. As long as the largecale campaign which they were hoping to organize didn't involve any other form of illegal activity.

02:19:16 activity. So, it's got the potential to cause police

02:19:21 police embarrassment on the same scale as the Lawrence case. What was the significance of that?

02:19:30 of that? I don't know. Um, I don't know. I mean, all these cases would cause police embarrassment. It seems to have been important to the writer to point that out.

02:19:45 And [snorts] was the position that the police was keen to understand what criticism was coming its way? Well, it certainly wasn't special

02:19:56 Well, it certainly wasn't special branch's concern.

02:20:01 Goes on, certainly so far as Mrs. Real and the activists are concerned, there are glaringly similar racist overtones between the police handling of both

02:20:12 between the police handling of both investigations. Again, windmill tilt will be ideally positioned to monitor important developments in the month

02:20:23 important developments in the month ahead.

02:20:26 Uh so it appears again that the racist uh allegation, the allegation of racism in particular is noteworthy.

02:20:39 Is that something that would have been noteworthy to you when you read this? No, because special branch wasn't interested in that's the wrong phrase had no role or

02:20:50 that's the wrong phrase had no role or remit in

02:20:52 remit in presenting that sort of information. It had no role or remit in the racism issue. It was simply presented that to

02:21:03 issue. It was simply presented that to HN whatever it was I said who was trying to build the bridges between the police service and the black community.

02:21:14 service and the black community. So the information in this report wouldn't have been for special branch. Well this is an SDS report. Yeah.

02:21:23 Yeah. which has come to you as an SDS as a special branch manager and in the chain of command for the SDS. Yes. But it doesn't I mean does it stay within special branch or is it then um

02:21:35 within special branch or is it then um you know changed so that it can go outside?

02:21:38 outside? We'll come to to dissemination of of information in due course. Uh well this report I mean it wouldn't have gone further in this format.

02:21:50 gone further in this format. No, you're right about that and we'll come to the format in which intelligence is uh disseminated. Uh but

02:21:58 Uh but windmill tilt ideally positioned to monitor important developments in the months ahead. What's striking is there's no reference here is there to public

02:22:09 no reference here is there to public disorder.

02:22:12 disorder. Well, that that would only be the case if there was a reason to put it in. This is about um assisting it seems to me or I don't know what the entire report says because we haven't looked at the entire

02:22:23 because we haven't looked at the entire report but this is not about public disorder. This is about assisting the Metropolitan Police and specifically CO24 or HN I can't remember the number

02:22:36 CO24 or HN I can't remember the number sorry Double14 was it in in in doing his job.

02:22:44 job. So, hoovering up information about an Asian justice campaign and MFJ's attempts to support that campaign

02:22:56 attempts to support that campaign in so far as it would assist the the police. I mean, special mar didn't collect even public order information just to collect it. It collected it to pass it on to public order branch in

02:23:08 pass it on to public order branch in order that they could take action to mitigate any public order issues. is in the same way um anything that would um affect the um relations with the black

02:23:20 affect the um relations with the black community would be passed to the appropriate branch in order for them to take any kind of action or to inform them as they saw fit to help them to manage the police's relations

02:23:32 relations and image

02:23:35 and image in the face of a largecale critical campaign on racial grounds. Well, you use the word image. I don't Where does it say that? I mean, it's

02:23:46 Where does it say that? I mean, it's about the relations, not the image. That's part and parcel of it, isn't it? I I don't understand that.

02:23:57 I I don't understand that. Part and parcel of the relationship is the police's image, isn't it? No, it's about building the relationship. And how does this help build the relationship? Well, I don't know. I wasn't involved in building the relationship. that was part

02:24:09 building the relationship. that was part of HN114's.

02:24:13 How did you think it might help um improve race relations? I have no idea.

02:24:21 Were you ever made aware that HN81 had driven Mrs. Real home from a meeting with MFJ?

02:24:30 with MFJ? I don't remember.

02:24:34 [snorts] Is that an appropriate time, sir, to have the morning break? Certainly it is. [clears throat] Um before we break uh I I want to uh ask you about an answer that you gave about

02:24:46 you about an answer that you gave about half an hour ago and if you want time to think about it and tell me after the break by all means take that opportunity. Thank you. Um you uh told me that um extreme left-wing groups

02:25:00 told me that um extreme left-wing groups attach themselves to campaigns um

02:25:07 to put their own slant and influence on the campaigns. And you said that that is why we asked for a note to ensure that it wouldn't

02:25:18 for a note to ensure that it wouldn't have led to public disorder or any other form of activity in which we might be interested. I read understand public disorder but in what other form of

02:25:30 disorder but in what other form of activity would special branch have been interested. I take that question sir and if I may come back to you after break. Thank you.

02:42:46 Thank you, sir. If we could pick off pick up where we left off. We may, I hope, have an answer to my question.

02:42:53 question. Forgive me, sir. Yes, sir. Um

02:42:59 one of the areas in which Special Branch would be interested in the activities of those groups would be um in foreign

02:43:10 those groups would be um in foreign expansion. They all had and that's not true. Some of them had links with people abroad

02:43:21 people abroad um similar-minded groups perhaps and

02:43:27 and that gives rise to a fear may or may not be um the case. It gave rise to a fear and you you will know from this inquiry that there that is the case that these these groups were in contact with groups

02:43:39 these groups were in contact with groups abroad. that would bring us into a is there a national security angle here and that would be because once it gets into you know out

02:43:50 because once it gets into you know out into the wider world you never know who's going to find out about what. So that would be why that was one of the areas in which we would be interested in how the groups were acting.

02:44:05 how the groups were acting. So it's public order and national security.

02:44:07 security. Those are the two that I can think of off hand. Yes. Um, as far as national security goes, uh, the, um,

02:44:18 uh, the, um, collapse of the Soviet Union and of, um, uh,

02:44:25 uh, state

02:44:26 state uh,

02:44:29 uh, sponsored communism um, surely removed the threat that had traditionally uh, involved. Traditionally, yes. So what was the

02:44:40 Traditionally, yes. So what was the remaining threat? Well, there's there are national security threats from foreign actors um to this day just just [laughter] because it's not

02:44:52 just just [laughter] because it's not communist doesn't mean it's not a threat to national security. That's what MI6 does.

02:45:01 does. See what I mean?

02:45:08 Um, I have some [clears throat] understanding of this from work I've done previously in a judicial capacity, but um,

02:45:18 but um, I'm at a loss to understand how extreme left-wing groups could by 1998

02:45:29 could by 1998 have um, posed a national security threat.

02:45:34 threat. They didn't pose a national security threat threat and but by their actions they may have contacted other groups abroad who would have been

02:45:46 abroad who would have been and attached to some kind of national security threat. That was that was one of the reasons that we would report upon and why the reports went outside special branch.

02:45:58 branch. Forgive me for failing to understand the national security threat that might be posed by those uh who do or who did

02:46:10 be posed by those uh who do or who did in 1998 pose a threat to our national security by associating with extreme left-wing groups. For example, to take the obvious example, Islamist [clears throat]

02:46:21 [clears throat] terrorism by then was on the horizon, even if it hadn't fully um materialized. But uh it's very difficult to understand how that could conceivably have had

02:46:33 how that could conceivably have had anything to do with extreme leftwing activity.

02:46:40 Well, I'm I'm not sure that's entirely the case, but any other um quasi

02:46:49 quasi terrorist group that they would be in touch with would be the sort of thing that we would be interested in. um whether they posed any actual national security threat would be something that

02:47:00 security threat would be something that somebody else would decide upon, but it's something that we would report upon in case it were and would pass on the reporting to whoever would decide whether it was or whether it wasn't.

02:47:12 whether it was or whether it wasn't. Well, I remain, I'm afraid, completely puzzled as to the national security threat that might arise from the activity of domestic extreme leftwing groups uh in the United Kingdom.

02:47:26 groups uh in the United Kingdom. I understand your position, but it wasn't our view that that was the case.

02:47:39 MFJ's uh underlying political philosophy was Tropskiist, wasn't it? I don't know. Did you not establish it at the time? Oh, I didn't

02:47:52 Oh, I didn't don't remember then what [clears throat] they're underlined. And the Troskyists don't have an international sponsor, do they? Again, I don't know. And MFJ was also a tiny group, wasn't

02:48:04 And MFJ was also a tiny group, wasn't it?

02:48:04 it? Again, I don't know. Would you have known at the time? I doubt it.

02:48:09 doubt it. Why not?

02:48:10 Why not? I wish.

02:48:11 I wish. Sorry.

02:48:12 Sorry. Why not? [snorts] Well, I wouldn't I didn't have supervisory control as I keep saying over the SDS. I was I mean special branch is a branch

02:48:24 I was I mean special branch is a branch of

02:48:26 of what was it 600 people larger than any other that's in the metropolitan place. That's larger than any other that all the branches in the country put together.

02:48:39 country put together. I'm the CEO of what is a medium to large company.

02:48:47 company. Your your questions suggest that I have a a knowledge of you know what nuts are used to put the wheels on

02:48:58 what nuts are used to put the wheels on the car. That's simply not the case. Can we go back to where the document we were on before lunch? 720946.

02:49:11 And uh we were on page can we go to page nine please? Um can we have paragraph three now?

02:49:24 A [snorts] new SDS source, an Apple source, is now well placed to report additionally on the involvement of the SWP and ANL in the second phase of the Lawrence inquiry and the civil rights

02:49:37 Lawrence inquiry and the civil rights march in October. Lacking the key personal contacts enjoyed by MFJ, the SWP can nonetheless be relied upon to add its stridident voice to the

02:49:49 to add its stridident voice to the corrupt racist police bandwagon and significant numbers to related demonstrations.

02:49:57 So the author is informing the reader that there's a second SDS officer, this time in the SWP and ENL who can report

02:50:08 time in the SWP and ENL who can report on the second phase of the Lawrence inquiry and the civil rights march from the perspective of infiltrating the SWP, isn't he?

02:50:21 isn't he? Uh, sorry, [clears throat] let me read it again.

02:50:41 Right. I've read it. Sorry. Can you repeat the question? Uh the writer is informing the reader of the presence of a second SDS source this time in the SWP

02:50:54 a second SDS source this time in the SWP and ANL

02:50:55 and ANL right

02:50:55 right who can report on the second phase of the Lawrence inquiry from that perspective. Yes.

02:51:05 Yes. The

02:51:07 The yes

02:51:07 yes the SWP and ANL's involvement in the second phase of the Lawrence inquiry per se does not give rise either to national security or public order concerns does

02:51:20 security or public order concerns does it

02:51:22 it [sighs]

02:51:23 [sighs] are we going to get into a discussion about national security at some stage or not

02:51:28 not well I will answer the question of course but I I don't want to answer the question now in terms of national security

02:51:34 security well please do answer the right minute from that um document. This is you're you're you're trying to say that we're monitoring views rather than actions and

02:51:45 monitoring views rather than actions and we are monitoring views to ensure that they do not lead to actions. What I'm interested in is why the monitoring is framed as relating to the

02:51:59 monitoring is framed as relating to the second phase of the Lawrence inquiry. Does the Lawrence second phase of the Lawrence inquiry um mean there's going to be a hardening of attitudes and uh

02:52:10 to be a hardening of attitudes and uh threat public disorder for example? But it is also when the inquiry was opening up the ambit of its work to cover racism within the police

02:52:21 cover racism within the police more widely in the context of the experience of black people. then that would be of interest to the department within Metropolitan Police that was

02:52:32 within Metropolitan Police that was trying to rebuild relationships with the black community. The phrase strident voice to the corrupt racist police bandwagon.

02:52:44 racist police bandwagon. What did you understand by corrupt racist police bandwagon? I

02:52:53 I don't remember at all what I meant by what I understood by that. In what was it? 2001. 1998.

02:53:01 1998. 1998.

02:53:05 It's a phrase that's in common use and has been for 50 years. Did it reflect a view within the institution that people who were criticizing the police on racist grounds

02:53:19 criticizing the police on racist grounds um were on a bandwagon.

02:53:28 It's that's what that line looks like. It says yes. Yeah. As opposed to raising it from now. I beg pardon looking at it from today's perspective. I don't know what

02:53:39 I don't know what in terms of perspective saying that as opposed to acknowledging that there might have been legitimate grounds for criticism. Sorry, repeat that question.

02:53:51 Sorry, repeat that question. As opposed to reflecting that there might be legitimate grounds for criticism.

02:54:00 No, I don't think that's the case. There's clearly legitimate grounds for criticism. I mean, this is cynical, isn't it? Yes.

02:54:09 Yes. badly phrased. And if we could go to the next paragraph, please.

02:54:18 Perhaps just before we do, actually, there's a reference there to lacking the key personal contacts enjoyed by MFJ. Did you understand by that that the

02:54:29 Did you understand by that that the writer was communicating to you that HN81 was significantly closer to the Lawrence campaign than Apple source?

02:54:40 Apple source? Can I have the bit back again? That third paragraph. Thanks.

02:54:54 keep

02:54:57 [snorts] I read that to I don't know what I thought about it at the time but reading it now

02:55:05 it now that that's about the personal contacts enjoyed by MFJ with the Lawrence campaign.

02:55:11 campaign. Is that what you mean? Yes.

02:55:12 Yes. That's what it looks like. Yeah. So you were being told effectively that HN81 is close to the Lawrence family through MFJ. Well, close to the MFJ and therefore

02:55:26 Well, close to the MFJ and therefore close to the anything that the MFJ was involved in, including the Lawrence campaign. I guess key personal contacts. But these are the key personal contacts that the MFJ has with the Yes, I understand.

02:55:37 Yes, I understand. Yeah. and whether it's true or not I is a maybe a separate question but that is what's being communicated to you that the MFJ has close personal contacts with the Lawrence campaign

02:55:49 with the Lawrence campaign and can we have the next paragraph paragraph four

02:56:04 right so um DI Lambert that is communicating to you when you read this document that what's proposed is regular reporting to C squad and additional discrete

02:56:16 C squad and additional discrete briefings to active detective inspector Walton when necessary. Can you help us with whether there were any further such briefings? I can't help you now.

02:56:28 I can't help you now. Can we go to [snorts] page 11, please?

02:56:33 Did you wish to add something? No, it's okay. We'll come to it, I'm sure.

02:56:37 sure. Uh this is the first of the two reports that were attached to the briefing that we've just been looking at. Uh this is a report produced uh on the basis of

02:56:50 report produced uh on the basis of HN81's

02:56:52 HN81's intelligence uh dated the 23rd of July 1998. If we look at paragraph one,

02:57:04 [snorts] we'll see there that it reports on the Lawrence family support campaign and a meeting held by that support campaign

02:57:16 a meeting held by that support campaign on the 20th of July 1998.

02:57:20 1998. If we go to page 13, please

02:57:37 the top paragraph. First of all,

02:57:58 Mhm. This is further evidence, isn't it, that the Lawrenes did not want anything to do with other groups. Yeah. further evidence of their independence.

02:58:09 independence. Uh, next paragraph, please.

02:58:14 [snorts] Give you a moment to read that.

02:58:24 Sorry. What was the um hang on the previous group? What what were the two groups? NM that's the Newm Monitoring Project and the South Hall monitoring group.

02:58:37 the South Hall monitoring group. What are they monitoring? Do you know? Police.

02:58:39 Police. Oh, I see.

02:59:15 [snorts]

02:59:28 Okay. Uh so in particular the second half of this paragraph communicates that Dorene and Neville Lawrence had in

02:59:41 Dorene and Neville Lawrence had in reality separated and were only continuing together as a front.

02:59:51 It goes on then to explain the two different positions of Dorine Lawrence and Neville Lawrence.

03:00:04 and Neville Lawrence. What was the relevance of the Lawrence's separation to the police?

03:00:17 You're asking about personal details now, aren't you? About will the police be collecting personal details? Is that your No, I'm asking what the relevance of that particular personal detail was to

03:00:28 that particular personal detail was to the police. That's the same question. I I think that um if you're monitoring a group or a series of groups, it turns out who are using the

03:00:40 groups, it turns out who are using the Lawrence campaign to further whatever their their actions may or may not be. Um then every detail

03:00:51 may or may not be. Um then every detail makes a difference. For example, if in that at that time Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence had or we were separated.

03:01:02 had or we were separated. Who was who was coming into the forefront therefore of the campaign? Who was keeping the campaign going? What would their objectives be in relation to carrying it on in either violent or

03:01:14 carrying it on in either violent or public order or other type of activity? That's what we'd be interested in. Not this not the simple fact that Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence had separated. It was what was then going to happen to the

03:01:25 was then going to happen to the campaign.

03:01:27 campaign. But the starting point is the fact that they have separated. Well, there are lots of personal details, I'm sure, that would have been relevant to that. If they've gone on

03:01:40 relevant to that. If they've gone on holiday for 3 weeks, okay, they've gone on holiday for 3 weeks. Who is now running the campaign? Where are they taking it? What on earth meetings have they organized? Um, and what protests have they organized in the Lawrence's

03:01:51 have they organized in the Lawrence's absence? These are details which are important in relation to keeping an eye on where the campaign is going.

03:02:00 going. So I take it from that answer that you do not criticize Detective Inspector Lambert for writing this down. No.

03:02:08 No. Or HN81 for reporting it? No.

03:02:11 No. And likewise Dorene and Neville's separate positions. No,

03:02:20 No, I don't know what their separate positions were. Well, oh, I see at the end as it continues. All right, hang on. Yeah. Yeah. No, that's I think that's

03:02:31 Yeah. Yeah. No, that's I think that's relevant. Yes. And was there any relevance in to how the police behave towards the Lawrenes?

03:02:43 Lawrenes? if they the police are having to discuss matters with the Lawrenes, aren't they? I don't know what the connection between the police and the Lawrenes was. Were

03:02:55 the police and the Lawrenes was. Were there direct um meetings and at the time there were calls for the commissioner to step down, weren't there?

03:03:04 there? Yeah, but I thought the question said what meetings the police were having with the Lawrence. Is it? So if there was any dialogue between the Lawrence family and the MPS,

03:03:18 Lawrence family and the MPS, would it assist the police to understand that there were different views between Dorene and Neville? I don't know. You'd have to ask those that were taking part in those discussions.

03:03:30 discussions. And was reporting this information something which might assist people the people you've referred to inform themselves before any

03:03:43 referred to inform themselves before any such negotiations. Again I'm not I'm not sure whether it be of interest or not to them. I mean special branch didn't decide what was of interest or not of interest to the persons that wanted the information.

03:03:55 persons that wanted the information. They simply provided the information and others can. So again, would I take it that you would not criticize the recording

03:04:04 recording of this information if it would have been useful for that purpose?

03:04:12 Sorry, say again, I lost the track of the cough. Am I understanding you correctly? You would not criticize the recording of this information for the purpose of informing police communications with the

03:04:23 informing police communications with the Lawrence family? I'm not sure that's the purpose for which it was intended. It's not quite an answer to my question. Do you criticize it being recorded for

03:04:35 Do you criticize it being recorded for that potential purpose? Was it passed to whoever it was? Well, we're going to come to who it was passed to in due course, but at this stage,

03:04:48 do you criticize it being recorded potentially to be used for that purpose? you

03:04:57 you special cord has recorded all sorts of stuff that may well I think it's your connection between the recording and the purpose that is confusing me and we may come let's come to it when we talk about

03:05:09 come let's come to it when we talk about the reporting if that's okay this report was attached to the Lambert briefing which we looked at can I take it that you

03:05:21 we looked at can I take it that you would have read this at the time this report Yes. I don't know. What does the minute say? Well, it's attached. Okay, we come. We are going back to the minute. Let's go back to that page

03:05:32 minute. Let's go back to that page three.

03:05:48 Yep. Hang on. Sorry.

03:05:57 Right. Would you have read the report attached to Mr. Lambert's update? And can I take it? But when you say the report, you mean that report that you just showed?

03:06:09 that report that you just showed? Yes.

03:06:09 Yes. Not the original SDS reporting. Well, that was the original SDS. Well, it was a compilation of what the original SDS reporting was. No, no, no. Let's go back to Sorry.

03:06:20 Sorry. 7 720 946

03:06:31 that's on the screen at the moment. Page one,

03:06:33 one, page uh 13, please. Thank you. Paragraph two.

03:06:48 This is Yeah. Sorry, this is an SDS intelligence report. I'm sorry. Dated the 23rd of July 199. I I I was thinking in my mind that this is not the raw intelligence that the S that the SDS officer had was now putting

03:07:01 that the SDS officer had was now putting on a bit of paper. It is um a report based on the information that's coming from the SDS officer. This is an SDS intelligence report. Yeah. But that doesn't mean, let me

03:07:14 Yeah. But that doesn't mean, let me think. The SDS officer would have reported to his supervisor what there was. He may have not he may or may not have put it in writing. I'm not sure.

03:07:25 have put it in writing. I'm not sure. And this is what DI who did you say it was?

03:07:28 was? This has been written up in the SDS probably by a sergeant on the basis of 81's reporting. On the basis of is what my issue is. You said this is the SDS officer's report.

03:07:40 said this is the SDS officer's report. No, no. It's the It's what DS Sergeant, whatever it is, took from the SDF's officer's report and wrote on it. It's a quibble, but it's an SDS report. Okay. And you would have you would have read

03:07:53 And you would have you would have read this, wouldn't you? Because it was attached to Lambert's report. [snorts]

03:07:57 [snorts] And what I'm driving at is having read this and seen that H&81 was reporting to his sergeant in the SDS at the Lawrence had separated and what Dorene and

03:08:08 had separated and what Dorene and Neville's respective points of view were about the campaign. You haven't reacted to that negatively, have you?

03:08:17 have you? No.

03:08:20 No. You are not questioning its propriety in any way.

03:08:23 any way. No.

03:08:24 No. Back to page three. and the minute.

03:08:32 The second line, the reference to the focal crisis points of policing in London.

03:08:41 London. Uh the focal crisis point at that moment was

03:08:47 was I have no idea. I can't remember. 1998, what would it be? Well, you are writing this minute about a briefing written by DI Lambert uh

03:08:58 a briefing written by DI Lambert uh about uh the Lawrence inquiry and HN81's reporting by focal crisis point in policing. Did you mean the Steven Lawrence inquiry?

03:09:13 I I don't I have no idea what would I have what were the focal points of poling in London in those days? I Tell me, was there a Were there bombs going off? Were there Were were there

03:09:25 going off? Were there Were were there public guard or demonstrations? There's a big fight outside wherever it was that you just showed me a video of I'm afraid I'm afraid, Mr. I'm afraid, Mr. Black, I have to ask the questions. You answer them. You were a

03:09:38 You answer them. You were a superintendent in special branch. You've read the report,

03:09:44 report, the update and the report that we've just been through and you write a minute praising the SDS as being well positioned at the focal crisis points of

03:09:57 positioned at the focal crisis points of policing in London. That is a reference to HN81, isn't it? Being well positioned. Yes.

03:10:07 Yes. And the focal crisis point of policing in London you are referring to there is the Steven Lawrence inquiry. It's the fallout from the Steven Lawrence inquiry I would say rather than

03:10:18 Lawrence inquiry I would say rather than the inquiry itself. The threat to the MPS. No, the threat to any kind of activity that was criminal or public order relevant

03:10:29 relevant not from the Lawrence inquiry itself because we know that Dorian and Neville Lawrence had tried to calm it all down. not be involved in anything violent or criminal. However,

03:10:40 criminal. However, the role of the of the of special branch was to report on these things that may well become um violent or criminal because the role of the special branch is preventative rather than reactionary.

03:10:55 The sort of disorder that occurred when the suspects arrived was obviously very unwelcome. But it was not

03:11:08 very unwelcome. But it was not sufficient to amount to a crisis for London, was it? Crisis point of policing in London. I mean it's very easy to look with hindsight as um with respect I believe

03:11:21 hindsight as um with respect I believe you were doing on what and what did not happen in London on what the crisis points were. Special branch is preventatively trying to make sure that people are aware that there may or may

03:11:33 people are aware that there may or may not be activity that comes out of Lawrence inquiry or the people that are attached to it. It was a crisis. The inquiry was a crisis for the Metropolitan Police

03:11:46 crisis for the Metropolitan Police because it was being accused of serious racism in circumstances where the investigation was deeply flawed. I'm sure it was wasn't that particular aspect wasn't of great interest to

03:11:58 aspect wasn't of great interest to Special Branch. I have to tell you

03:12:03 the outcome of the Lawrence inquiry was was of interest to Special Branch and the Met, wasn't it? What did it say? I don't know.

03:12:14 What did it say? I don't know. Peggy, pardon me. Are you saying you don't know what the outcome of the Steven Lawrence inquiry was? I am saying that. Yeah. That the Metropolitan Police was institutionally racist. I'm sure that's correct.

03:12:25 I'm sure that's correct. That's what the inquiry said.

03:12:30 And was not the adjudication on that allegation of institutional racism a crisis point of policing in London? Well, it might have been, but whether

03:12:41 Well, it might have been, but whether that's the phrase that's the particular point that that refers to, I can't tell you.

03:12:51 Goes on, I am aware that DI Walt, Richard Walton of CO24 receives ad hoc off thereord briefings from the SDS. What was the basis for writing that?

03:13:06 What do you mean by the basis? I'm sorry. Why you mean why? How did you know that?

03:13:13 Well, I guess somebody I must have either received a report or somebody must have told me. I don't know who and I don't know which report.

03:13:23 report. It goes on to say you've reiterated uh to him. That's to Oh, it must be to Walton. Is that to Walton? Can you help us with whether you did that orally or in

03:13:34 whether you did that orally or in writing?

03:13:36 writing? I did. I did write a it's in the paperwork somewhere. There is a file. Yeah. Where we'll come to the endorsement at the start of that file. But can you recall whether you also spoke to him?

03:13:47 also spoke to him? I well I have I have reiterated to him and I imagine that's orally that it is essential. I can't say that's true. If you wish to to continue your answer

03:13:58 If you wish to to continue your answer please do. And I was going to say I can't I couldn't tell you absolutely that that was correct, but I would say it was probably that it is essential that knowledge of the operation goes no further.

03:14:11 the operation goes no further. Why not?

03:14:15 Partly because well mostly because that would risk um the exposure of the STS officer.

03:14:23 officer. Did you say partly? I did and then I drivers

03:14:33 and would give and would give away special branches interest in matters surrounding that Lawrence inquiry.

03:14:43 I would not wish him to receive anything on paper. Why not? I think well I think we changed that didn't we in the papers that are coming and the he worked for

03:14:55 that are coming and the he worked for DAC Griev who was working in

03:15:02 CO24 that was to Was that not the the department that was trying to rebuild

03:15:11 rebuild relationships with black community and he Was the Was he not working for John Griev? We're going to hear from from Mr. Walton

03:15:23 We're going to hear from from Mr. Walton in due course. The documents we've got suggest that he was about to move at that stage. Right.

03:15:33 So I would not wish him to receive anything on paper. Why not? Well, I don't know. That's cuz he hadn't moved.

03:15:45 moved. I don't know. It's the answer. Is that again because you would not have wanted

03:15:52 wanted things to get out both for source protection and to protect and not to broadcast what you were interested in? Yes,

03:16:03 Yes, I've established a correspondent route to DAC Grievve and opened a file for copy correspondence with CO 24. It will fall of course to C squad to provide the

03:16:15 fall of course to C squad to provide the bulk of that material. They will undoubtedly consult SDS as appropriate. We'll be going in due course to that file. But essentially, you are setting up a file and you envisage that C squad

03:16:29 up a file and you envisage that C squad including uh well aided by the SDS are going to be feeding intelligence to them. Yeah, I mean I wouldn't like you to think that SDS was the only thing

03:16:40 to think that SDS was the only thing that

03:16:40 that no, you know, we got intelligence from about domestic public order and other issues.

03:16:46 issues. Indeed, and you will recall we went to three reports about the Lawrence campaign uh earlier in the day. On that note, I can now take you back to the document I wanted to show you earlier

03:16:57 document I wanted to show you earlier this morning. If we take that down now, please can we go to 728625, which was the right document, but I [snorts] need page 12, please. This is

03:17:10 This is um

03:17:12 um DI Lambert's note of the meeting at which he was present along with Mr. Walton and HN 81. Can I

03:17:26 along with Mr. Walton and HN 81. Can I invite you first of all to read the first three paragraphs?

03:17:49 [snorts]

03:18:28 [snorts]

03:18:44 Right. Uh, from the first paragraph, would you agree that the Lawrence inquiry was continuing

03:18:55 that the Lawrence inquiry was continuing to dominate the commissioner's agenda on a daily basis at that stage? This is um during the Lawrence inquiry, just after

03:19:06 during the Lawrence inquiry, just after stage one is finished and as preparations for stage two are underway. I don't know what the commissioner's agenda was, but it says there that they continue to um dominate. I I don't know

03:19:19 continue to um dominate. I I don't know whether Richard Walton was aware of what the commissioners What was your impression at the time of what? Sorry, whether how important the Steven Lawrence inquiry was to the

03:19:30 Lawrence inquiry was to the commissioner. I don't know what else I don't.

03:19:34 don't. [snorts]

03:19:34 [snorts] It describes a fascinating and valuable exchange of information. Why would an exchange of information between HN81

03:19:47 between HN81 and active acting detective inspector Walton of the Steven Lawrence review team be fascinating and invaluable?

03:19:59 team be fascinating and invaluable? Well, I I

03:20:02 if I got a if I had got a minute on this tour, is that the minute you showed me? Is there a minute you showed me earlier or

03:20:08 or Well, the minute I showed you earlier was your minute in response to Lambert's update briefing of in September, right?

03:20:18 right? There's no specific minute about this. I'm asking you about the way it's described here as fascinating and valuable and I would

03:20:30 fascinating and valuable and I would like to know why such an exchange would be fascinating and valuable. Are you asking me what I thought about it at the time? Yes.

03:20:40 Yes. I don't know. Don't remember at all. The second paragraph

03:20:51 says that um an in-depth discussion increasing Walton's understanding of the Lawrence's relationship with various campaigning groups would be of great value as he

03:21:04 groups would be of great value as he continued to prepare a draft submission to the inquiry on behalf of the commissioner. Why is that important to the Steven

03:21:16 Why is that important to the Steven Lawrence review team? I

03:21:21 I don't know. Was it secret information that was being passed?

03:21:27 passed? Well, it's as described here. Um, it's the basis of HN81's reporting [snorts] certainly on some confidential matters

03:21:38 certainly on some confidential matters as we've seen. But were these the matter these was that the reporting that was passed on to this?

03:21:44 this? What I what I would like to know from your point of view, why would

03:21:52 why would such an exchange between an undercover officer infiltrating MFJ close to the Lawrence campaign have been of great value to the man helping to draft the commissioner's

03:22:04 helping to draft the commissioner's submissions for the inquiry? I don't know what was passed and therefore I can't answer the question. I don't know. You'd have to ask Walton. Did you have any reason to doubt that it

03:22:17 Did you have any reason to doubt that it had been a valuable meeting? [snorts]

03:22:24 Was I aware of the meeting? Sorry, I've now the minute we looked at showed you were certainly or you certainly appeared to think that there were off thereord

03:22:37 to think that there were off thereord briefings happening.

03:22:41 Right. Did you have reason to think that they were anything other than important?

03:22:53 I I don't know. I can't answer that question. I don't recall. The third uh paragraph here refers to the home secretary and the prime

03:23:05 the home secretary and the prime minister being extremely concerned that the Metropolitan Police could end up with its credibility in the eyes of London's black community completely

03:23:16 London's black community completely undermined. Was anything said to you about that by anybody in the SDS? I don't remember. Um

03:23:29 I don't remember. Um I don't remember at all. Was anything said to you about that by Walton?

03:23:35 Walton? I can't remember. Or anybody else.

03:23:41 I don't think I don't know. I can't remember.

03:23:45 remember. And this [snorts] does suggest, doesn't it, that one of the purposes of this meeting was to exchange information that was important to defending the

03:23:56 was important to defending the credibility of the Metropolitan Police Service.

03:24:00 Service. Yes.

03:24:06 And that might include any weaknesses in the Steven Lawrence campaign. [clears throat] It might do. Or anything that might undermine the

03:24:18 Or anything that might undermine the Lawrence's standing.

03:24:23 Well, it might do. I hope I answer that question.

03:24:27 question. Can we look at the numbered subparagraphs, please?

03:24:37 If we look at the uh first [snorts] one,

03:24:43 it appears that Walton has told Lambert and 81 that the Metropolitan Police Service will be making some form of admission of racism.

03:24:57 admission of racism. Was that news to you? I beg pardon. Are you on this paragraph that says how to respond to the charge of

03:25:04 of bear with me a second? Sure.

03:25:29 Right. Sorry. Did that come as news to you that

03:25:34 that there was going to be an admission of racism?

03:25:40 I can't remember. Um, can you recall whether you learned that that admission was going to be made? I don't remember whether I I mean I the

03:25:51 I don't remember whether I I mean I the the admission of police unconscious racism and lack of understanding of black culture been [clears throat] going on for how many years.

03:26:03 many years. I mean

03:26:05 I mean it it wouldn't have been new to anybody. [snorts]

03:26:11 Can we go to paragraph two please?

03:26:48 Right. This appears to be focused on how 81's intelligence has assisted the commissioner to deal with the second

03:27:00 the commissioner to deal with the second stage of the public inquiry. He was planning a series of public forums and 81's intelligence is enabling him to

03:27:14 81's intelligence is enabling him to avoid a venue where the message might be disrupted. [clears throat] I'm sorry. Could you go could you take the large

03:27:24 the large one 123s away and let me look at the bit before that? May May I have the paragraph before that please? the one that starts. I can't read it. Yes. Thank you.

03:27:51 This is this is a this is a a Walson briefing and not an STS briefing. Am I correct?

03:27:58 correct? This is a docu these points here. This document is created by detective inspector Lambert of the SDS following the meeting with

03:28:10 the meeting with himself, Walton and HN81. I understand these three points that we're going going to discuss. These are not HN81's points. These are Richard Walton's

03:28:21 points. These are Richard Walton's points. Am I correct? This is Lambert saying that Walton had explained the three main areas that his team was addressing were. And then when we got to the second one, which was the response

03:28:34 the second one, which was the response to part two of the inquiry, the Steven Lawrence inquiry, if we could go back to that, please.

03:28:45 Does that give you the context for this paragraph? Yes. I I'm sorry. I I was confused. It's my fault. I thought this was what um

03:28:56 my fault. I thought this was what um HN81 was saying to Walton, but in fact this is what Walton is saying to detective inspector or she inspector is Lambert and H81. Right this paragraph?

03:29:07 Right this paragraph? Yeah, we'll save that. This paragraph says RW explained that the commissioner plans to stage a series of public fora in the months ahead at which he will attend personally and set out the Met's

03:29:19 attend personally and set out the Met's position. So that is Walton explaining what the commissioner is doing to get his points across part and parcel of the response to the

03:29:30 part and parcel of the response to the second stage of the inquiry. Yes.

03:29:32 Yes. One proposed venue is Lambeath Town Hall and Windmill Tilta that's 81 was able to advise Richard Walton of the vulnerability that such a meeting would have

03:29:43 have to disruption from MFJ and local black youth.

03:29:46 youth. Right. So essentially the SDS is providing information to Walton advising the commissioner to steer clear of Lambbeath town hall.

03:29:58 of Lambbeath town hall. Right. And we had we've had a previous paper where um SDS information was directed towards avoiding a public meeting where there was going to

03:30:09 public meeting where there was going to be disorder. Haven't we? My question that's the same one. My Yeah. My question for these purposes

03:30:18 is that was regarded as a good use of SDS intelligence, wasn't it? Yes. [snorts] And it was for the purpose of enabling

03:30:29 And it was for the purpose of enabling the commissioner to get his message across more clearly and avoid a meeting which would be disrupted. Well, I don't know about his getting his

03:30:40 Well, I don't know about his getting his message across. I think certainly we'd have been interested in him not getting [clears throat] attacked or whatever the public disorder was going to be. It doesn't say it'd be attacked. It say it would be disrupted.

03:30:52 it would be disrupted. Right. Disrupted. Avoiding a meeting at which the message might be disrupted. Could you regard that as a proper

03:31:03 Could you regard that as a proper policing purpose for an undercover police officer?

03:31:09 I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?

03:31:11 question? Avoiding a meeting at which the commissioner's message might be disrupted

03:31:16 disrupted in the course of his response to the Lawrence inquiry. Did you think that that intelligence was for a proper policing purpose? Well, you've you've put the word

03:31:28 Well, you've you've put the word commissioner's message into this paragraph

03:31:33 paragraph and the paragraph is not about that. The paragraph is about the disruption and [snorts] that's about public disorder reception. It's not about commissioner's message.

03:31:43 message. Well, it says he's going to attend personally and set out the Met's position.

03:31:47 position. Yeah.

03:31:50 Yeah. So, is the answer to my question that you think it is justified because it has a public order angle? Yes.

03:31:57 Yes. Can we go to three, please?

03:32:07 How to regain the confidence of the black community. Now, you've adverted to this uh already.

03:32:42 [clears throat]

03:32:54 So HN81 is being is giving some specific and positive information about community groups who might be prepared to build bridges. a UCO being used to spy on

03:33:07 bridges. a UCO being used to spy on community groups for the purpose of assisting the MPS to manage its community relations. Is that fair? Was that his tasking to spy on them in order to assist? Well, that's what I'm ask. That's what

03:33:19 Well, that's what I'm ask. That's what I'm asking you. It It looks like that from this document, doesn't it? No.

03:33:23 No. No, I disagree, but it looks like that from that document. He is providing specific and positive information as regards community groups

03:33:34 information as regards community groups who might be prepared to build bridges in the context of seeking to regain the confidence of the black community. That is spying on community groups for the purposes of assisting the MPS to

03:33:46 the purposes of assisting the MPS to manage community relations, isn't it? No.

03:33:49 No. Could you explain why not? Because he isn't charged. He isn't targeted to do that. That's what he's picked up and is there for reporting. That's not using him. You you you're

03:34:00 That's not using him. You you you're using you're using words which suggest that he was put in there specifically to um do that. Well, that's not simply not true.

03:34:07 true. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that amongst other things his in his intelligence is being used for that purpose in this meeting.

03:34:19 purpose in this meeting. Well, that's a much better way of putting it. Yes.

03:34:23 Did you consider whether that was an appropriate policing purpose? Yes. I don't I don't know whether I considered at the time. No, I think it's looking at it now. I think that's appropriate. Yes. [clears throat]

03:34:34 appropriate. Yes. [clears throat] Wasn't the need to build bridges and the depth of feeling already obvious?

03:34:40 Uh I guess so. I don't know. And how does providing such intelligence fall within a legitimate police policing

03:34:51 fall within a legitimate police policing purpose?

03:34:54 If it assists the whoever it was, Commander Griev who was doing this, it would it would assist him in knowing where to build the bridges with the black community. One for which you thought using an

03:35:06 One for which you thought using an undercover police officer was legitimate. Information from anywhere would have been of assistance to Commander Grieve. Whether it came from satellites in the sky or underground under cover SDS officer, he needed that

03:35:18 under cover SDS officer, he needed that information. Had HN81 been compromised at that time, it would have set back police community relations even further, wouldn't it? Uh, I suppose so. Yeah.

03:35:33 Uh, I suppose so. Yeah. or if it had been known that an undercover police officer was being used for these purposes.

03:35:43 Being used for these purposes. Yeah. An undercover police officer's intelligence was being used for these purposes.

03:35:53 Only if you were talking about HN81 being exposed, that would have made it that would have been

03:36:00 been that would have been a problem. But the fact that his intelligence that I'm I'm even if his precise identity wasn't known, the fact that an undercover police officer was being used

03:36:11 undercover police officer was being used for those purposes, that become known. Yes. If we go over the page to the top of the next page,

03:36:29 if you look at the tight text, please

03:36:54 Does the final sentence allied to this was a concern about the damaging effects of sustained political pressure from hard-left and anti- police elements

03:37:05 hard-left and anti- police elements properly articulate the reason for SDS interest in far-left campaigning against the police.

03:37:24 That's what it suggests. And do you agree with it? I was going to say damaging effect.

03:37:36 I'm sure that concern would have existed. Yes. uh and the campaigning of others against the police, including black and Asian justice campaigns.

03:37:51 Well, potential for writing in disorder would have been our first thing on our minds. Yeah. Well, I'm not asking about that. I'm asking about the damaging effects of sustained political pressure from

03:38:03 sustained political pressure from hard-left and anti- police elements. And I'm particularly focusing on anti- police elements. [snorts]

03:38:09 [snorts] Does that reflect campaigning of others against the police?

03:38:16 police? Well, yes, including black and Asian justice campaigns. What it suggests? Yes. And again, do you agree with that that it did? I I I don't know. I I imagine everyone would agree with that.

03:38:30 imagine everyone would agree with that. And if we zoom out now and look at the manuscript endorsement,

03:38:42 right? Can you recall whether you saw this at the time?

03:38:49 the time? I can't recall. If you had, is this a sentiment that you would have agreed with?

03:38:58 Excellent teaching. Good example.

03:39:10 It looks a good example of the

03:39:18 uh Yeah. Could we take that down now and have 722486? Now we're moving now to the correspondence file that you set up.

03:39:33 We go to page two, please.

03:39:40 This is the cover page for the file just so you can see it. And then can we move to page three and minute one

03:39:51 move to page three and minute one please?

03:39:56 This is you on the 14th of September 1998

03:40:02 1998 opening.

03:40:03 opening. I'm sorry. Could I have a look at the cover file because the covers are quite important. Yes, of course. I'm sorry about that. No problem. Go back [clears throat] to cover. Thank you. Thank you.

03:40:41 Right. Thank you. I'm sorry about that. Uh if we go to page three, minute one, [clears throat]

03:40:55 right? Yeah. This is the 14th of uh September uh 1998.

03:41:04 uh 1998. And you explain here why you are opening the file.

03:41:08 the file. Yeah.

03:41:31 All

03:41:45 right. Yeah. Can you can you help us? Was it Lambert's

03:41:53 Lambert's update in September that we looked at just before the break which proved to be the catalyst which caused you to open this file? I can't remember whether that was the

03:42:06 I can't remember whether that was the catalyst or not. If it wasn't, what was the catalyst? Well, I I can't remember. If we look at um the parag sub paragraph

03:42:17 If we look at um the parag sub paragraph one commander SB to C policy agreed the report of the 10th of September 98 is very helpful I assume the original was

03:42:28 very helpful I assume the original was signed

03:42:29 signed um

03:42:31 um let's yeah okay I want to digress to that report if we could have up please MPS301290

03:42:47 [snorts] This is the report of the 10th of September 1998. It's one of HN81's reports in the sense we discussed earlier about the Steven Lawrence inquiry. I'll give you a moment to read

03:43:00 inquiry. I'll give you a moment to read the text.

03:43:01 the text. Thank you.

03:43:16 [clears throat]

03:44:02 Right. So that report is communicating essentially three things. First of all, the arrangements that have been made between Mr. Oladi of MFJ and the Steven

03:44:15 between Mr. Oladi of MFJ and the Steven Lawrence inquiry to [snorts] present a petition to that inquiry. the plans for a concurrent demonstration and media interviews and an update on Mrs.

03:44:30 media interviews and an update on Mrs. Real's own progress with the inquiry as to whether she would be able to speak. All of that is legitimate activity, isn't it?

03:44:42 isn't it? Yes.

03:44:45 Right. Yeah. What is the policing value in reporting on Mr. Olawadi's uh presenting a petition to the Steven Lawrence Inquiry.

03:44:59 This is information that's gone to I presume. Well, I don't know the answer. I can give you my opinion, but that wouldn't be of any use really.

03:45:12 I think you've got it back to front. I think this information has come down to special branch and is incorporated as part of a windmill tiltter report. I'm not necessarily I am not sure that I

03:45:25 not necessarily I am not sure that I can't answer for windmill tilt. What's his name? Windmill tilter. I can't answer for him. Well, our understanding is that this is what HN81 has reported

03:45:37 has reported to his sergeant who has written it up and it's the product of his infiltration of MFJ. Can you help me please with what

03:45:48 of MFJ. Can you help me please with what the policing value is of reporting that Mr. OAD is to present a petition with the agreement of the Steven

03:45:59 with the agreement of the Steven Lawrence inquiry. Reporting for whom? Reporting per se? Well, he's reporting. He's reporting it as you know in the normal SDS way. And

03:46:12 as you know in the normal SDS way. And this is a report which I've taken you to because commander special branch has written on the minute we've just looked at that he thought well he had a very

03:46:26 at that he thought well he had a very positive view of it right

03:46:29 right and I'm asking you what the policing purpose of that information is.

03:46:40 Special branch collected intelligence and information from everywhere. From flyers, from informants,

03:46:53 From flyers, from informants, from the intelligence services, from all over, from public information and from private intelligence sources in this country, abroad.

03:47:06 this country, abroad. It collected it in order to inform them itself

03:47:10 itself of a wider picture. It's a picture which in due course having considered all the elements that arrived in special branch it may or may not be able to put together to make some

03:47:24 not be able to put together to make some kind of useful assessment of what was going on.

03:47:31 going on. This is an element of that. If in time it turned out after collection of it that it was of no value, it was destroyed.

03:47:42 value, it was destroyed. These that's how special branches operated. It doesn't you don't have to report something that then gets disseminated to anybody. It reports internally so that special branch can

03:47:55 internally so that special branch can provide a picture in order that at some point he can put together something that may or may not be of relevance. That's [snorts] so so therefore in that

03:48:06 That's [snorts] so so therefore in that context

03:48:08 context this is a piece of information that will be added somewhere to the file and at some point somebody will assess the file to whether it's relevant or not relevant

03:48:19 to whether it's relevant or not relevant and therefore it will be destroyed or disseminated depending on what's happening at the time. Well, this particular report, as we've seen, received a very favorable view from Mr.

03:48:34 received a very favorable view from Mr. Moss, who was commander special branch at the time. Can I take it from what you've said that you also would have had a positive reaction to it at the time?

03:48:48 a positive reaction to it at the time? Yes.

03:48:49 Yes. On reflection, is it in fact something that an undercover police officer should not have been reporting?

03:49:01 not have been reporting? On reflection, the I think about it now. Yeah.

03:49:24 No, I find that [clears throat] entirely legitimate in terms of it adding to a picture internally within special branch which may or may not assist a future

03:49:38 which may or may not assist a future assessment of some action or not. Is your answer any different in respect of the information communicated about Mrs. real.

03:49:58 I don't remember as you know Ricky Bill's mother. However, it's

03:50:05 it's it's secret intelligence. Secret intelligence is is not collected to pass on to anyone in the first instance. It's collected to compile

03:50:18 instance. It's collected to compile It's that's reporting for [snorts] internally in the branch. Should now something happen where Ricky Re's mother gets

03:50:29 gets something happens to her. This is information which will be useful in determining what sort of action has happened and what why it may or may not be relevant to whatever happened to Ricky Real's mother. What is secret

03:50:42 Ricky Real's mother. What is secret about the question whether the a public inquiry is going to permit a grieving mother

03:50:53 a grieving mother to address them? It may be that she is I mean I have no idea about Rickyville's mother. It may be she gets very um upset about not giving the the uh not getting into

03:51:05 giving the the uh not getting into whatever it is and takes some other course of action. Is that pure supposition on your part? Well, you've asked for you've asked for my reflection. Of course, it's pure supposition.

03:51:19 Did you consider this was valuable because of the importance of the Steven Lawrence inquiry to the police?

03:51:34 I didn't consider that. Well, I don't know what I considered at the time. I don't remember seeing the paper.

03:51:43 Could we go back to 722486 please

03:51:53 to page four please? This is the file itself.

03:51:58 itself. Um if we could look at minute three here. This is a minute from you dated the 26th of September 1998.

03:52:21 Yep. The wording you have used indicates two purposes. You want to see a flow of suitable material, both tactical intelligence about the Lawrence inquiry

03:52:35 intelligence about the Lawrence inquiry and broader work on race crime. Could you clarify what you meant by that, please?

03:52:41 please? Well, it's not tactical intelligence about the Lawrence Inquiry. It's tactical intelligence around Lawrence Inquiry is what it actually says. And it's in order to assist where it go 24

03:52:53 it's in order to assist where it go 24 is that yes it'll go to it'll go via McDow

03:52:57 McDow um in order to assist the work in order to try and build relationships in the first place and then broader work on race crime.

03:53:08 race crime. What I'm interested is that phrase tactical intelligence around the Lawrence inquiry. What did you mean by that?

03:53:15 that? Well, intelligence which would say which way the campaign was going in terms of it being nonviolent, violent, whether it

03:53:26 it being nonviolent, violent, whether it was going to be I mean we weren't interested in the the politics at all in special branch. Why does DS MDA need to know whether the Steven Lawrence campaign is going to be

03:53:38 Steven Lawrence campaign is going to be violent or not? because he's working for Commander Griev

03:53:47 and M. Caner Griev is trying to build the relations with the black community as I understand. And how does that differ from broader work on race crime?

03:53:58 work on race crime? Well, that may be a different department that goes to broader if it's crime, it'll go to the it'll go to the division uniform division in which investigates race crime. But this is a file. This is

03:54:11 race crime. But this is a file. This is a minute on a file which is going to CO24.

03:54:15 CO24. And they will then send it on if they feel that there is a need or we might even have sent it on to the we have lessen officers in uniform divisions and we would send it on via them to the uniform commander in order the uniform

03:54:27 uniform commander in order the uniform commander can investigate it or allocate somebody to investigate it. Isn't the broader work on race crime about responding better to

03:54:39 responding better to race crime in the future? Well, that would be for John Gre to decide whether it would be or not. So, would [snorts] that be an appropriate time to stop for lunch? Certainly. We'll resume at two. Thank

03:54:52 Certainly. We'll resume at two. Thank you.

↩ All hearings