HN146 Colin Black, a senior Special Branch officer who managed and authorised SDS deployments, faces detailed cross-examination on the dissemination of secret intelligence on the Stephen Lawrence campaign up to the Commissioner, the weak paperwork behind SDS deployment authorisations (including HN81, HN26, DC Jenner and DC Boiling), and the missed intelligence from J18/Reclaim the Streets. The bulk of the session examines his handling of DS James Thompson's misconduct - passport theft, a false identity taken from a dead child, multiple sexual deceptions of women, and Black's choice of informal, confidential discipline to protect the SDS from embarrassment - culminating in his own damaging remarks during a 2013 Operation Herne interview.
00:24:25 Good afternoon everybody. This afternoon's proceedings are being transmitted on the live link but only after a 15minute delay. Those with mobile telephones may use them to report
00:24:36 mobile telephones may use them to 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. Mr. Bar,
00:24:47 photography. Mr. Bar, thank you, sir. Could we have up please 722486?
00:24:54 This is going back to the file we were looking at before lunch, Mr. black and that flow of tactical intelligence around the Lawrence inquiry and broader work on race crime. Could [snorts] we go
00:25:05 work on race crime. Could [snorts] we go to page 117 please?
00:25:11 This is a special branch note as we understand it produced by HN53 of the SDS.
00:25:22 of the SDS. I'm going to give you a moment to read it.
00:25:36 [clears throat] Thank you.
00:26:36 And then if we could go back one. I'm just on paragraph one. Is that Yes. If you could just read it all and then let me know when you've read it. Thank you. [clears throat]
00:27:43 Right. Sorry. Thank you. If we go back a page to 116
00:27:50 in the covering minute, we see at the top of the page DCI HN58 writing to you, I understand you
00:28:01 writing to you, I understand you requested from DI53 a summary of the state of play of left-wing involvement in the Steven Lawrence inquiry. [snorts] The attached note has been compiled from a secret and reliable source which must
00:28:12 a secret and reliable source which must be protected. Similar intelligence report has been sent to C squad. Can you help us with why you requested
00:28:23 Can you help us with why you requested this summary from DI 53? Uh, no.
00:28:29 Uh, no. Can you help us with why you now think that you would have done? [sighs] um either because we needed a summary because there was so much well as you
00:28:40 because there was so much well as you can see from the note I mean the fracturing between the groups is just the break into splinters to reform who's doing what um we needed it
00:28:51 reform who's doing what um we needed it for just our own purposes um or it was requested from somebody somewhere in my chain of command
00:29:00 command from above. Yes. If we look at minute two
00:29:08 and in fact we have both the the all of the handwritten minutes please. Thank you.
00:29:21 [snorts]
00:29:39 [clears throat]
00:29:53 [clears throat] [snorts]
00:29:54 [snorts] It appears from these minutes that you sent the document to the commander of special branch, Mr. Moss.
00:30:05 Moss. Um, you also sent it to AXO, Mr. Vanesse at the time, who appears to have seen it and thanked you for it.
00:30:17 and thanked you for it. And there is an endorsement from the DAC 12th of January 99, which also acknowledges seeing it. And if I can, if I've read that correctly, he says, "Seen
00:30:29 I've read that correctly, he says, "Seen thanks for the courtesy of your visit." Can you help us with why this document was shared so widely with your chain of
00:30:40 was shared so widely with your chain of command?
00:30:42 command? Well,
00:30:43 Well, as I said, it's probably a document which I thought would be valuable to chain of command upwards or the chain of command upwards actually asked for it in the first place. That's what I can
00:30:54 the first place. That's what I can surmise now. I don't remember a reflection of the interest in the activities of those around the Steven Lawrence inquiry I guess.
00:31:06 I guess. And can you help us with your visit to see the DAC with why you visited the DAC and what
00:31:17 with why you visited the DAC and what passed between you? [clears throat] Um,
00:31:22 I'm not sure which DAC it was and I can't answer that question until I do and I'm not allow not it's blacked out.
00:31:34 and I'm not allow not it's blacked out. Well, we can check that and come back to you on that. Um, we'll check whether or not it was still Mr. Howley. Um, could we have up 722486,
00:31:46 we have up 722486, please? It's the same document. Sorry. Page 182.
00:31:53 This is all part of the file that you open these documents. [sighs] We get to 14th of September 1998.
00:32:04 We get to 14th of September 1998. This note is marked secret and is for the attention of the named addresses only. Any further dissemination should be discussed with the detective superintendent Z squad in SO2.
00:32:17 superintendent Z squad in SO2. CO24
00:32:19 CO24 referred. Can I take it from that endorsement that you have made that the people who will have seen this document are the named addresses
00:32:30 are the named addresses detective superintendent C squad and CO24.
00:32:37 [clears throat] I would I don't without seeing the other Have you got the other minutes? I would have suggested that it had probably come from detective superintendent C squad to me. If not, it it doesn't matter. Yes,
00:32:50 me. If not, it it doesn't matter. Yes, it would have gone to CO2 24 through the channel that we had established. And I see. So with the with the caveat that in fact it might have come to you from C squad.
00:32:59 squad. It is seen by the named address ease and CO24.
00:33:03 CO24. Yeah. If [snorts] we go over the page and look at the document itself, [snorts] it says branch note Steven Lawrence campaign associated
00:33:15 Lawrence campaign associated organizations. And if we could have the words in italics under the title, expand it, please. This note is produced for the information of the commissioner of
00:33:27 information of the commissioner of police, DAC Grievant Thornton. It contains secret and delicate source material. There should be no downwards dissemination of this
00:33:39 be no downwards dissemination of this document without reference to the detective superintendent SO2 C squad.
00:33:46 C squad. Can you help us with how this document came to be produced? [clears throat] No, I can't. However,
00:33:58 it's clearly got some the sort of ownership of it clearly lies with the detective superintendent C squad because he's the person to whom
00:34:09 squad because he's the person to whom people should refer should they want information about it as it says in the minute or the top of the note and therefore I assume that it contains
00:34:20 therefore I assume that it contains information and intelligence of a variety of from a variety of sources as authority SDS the fact that it's going to commissioner please D grieve and superent Thornton I
00:34:34 superent Thornton I don't think I know or knew um suggests that it's been asked for from the top down rather than somebody in our special
00:34:46 down rather than somebody in our special branch department saying oh here's a good idea let's produce a report thank you could you help us with why that is
00:34:53 that is I have no idea Well, you say you've told us that you suggest that it's come from the top down. Y can you help and you're saying that obviously from the benefit of your experience as a chief superintendent in
00:35:06 experience as a chief superintendent in the special branch. Could you help us as to what it is that has made you conclude it was asked for from the top down because it's [clears throat] almost almost never would we produce a report
00:35:17 almost never would we produce a report for the commissioner of police.
00:35:22 Can you help us with how you come to be the person who is directing its further dissemination? What am I? [clears throat] Am I the at this time? Am I the occup commander
00:35:33 this time? Am I the occup commander operations or the standing commander for Roger Pierce? In September 1998, you are still a super you still a super holding the rank of superintendent.
00:35:45 superintendent. I mean it's a chief superintendent. And I know it says superintendent, but we had all this ble with the superender as you explained this morning. Um, in that case, I mock you commander and I'd be the person that made the
00:35:56 and I'd be the person that made the decision if it I could have I don't know where Roger Pierce was at that stage whether he was there or somewhere else. I'm the come to me therefore I make the decision.
00:36:06 decision. So the decision to promulgate it to the commander of special branch to Mr. and to Mr. Vaness your decision [snorts]
00:36:17 to Mr. Vaness your decision [snorts] unless somebody has asked for it specifically to go there and I can't tell from the number of minutes there are there it would be my decision to put it to who I mean I [sighs] would I mean I wouldn't have pardon [clears throat]
00:36:28 I wouldn't have pardon [clears throat] me I wouldn't have said [snorts] the commissioner of police should see this that's not my decision I' passed it I'd have passed it further up to whoever it was up there and they can decide whether the commissioner of
00:36:40 can decide whether the commissioner of police
00:36:40 police want well it was obviously produced for the commissioner I I was asking about the the minute that we looked at a moment ago which shows that you disseminated it such that it
00:36:52 that you disseminated it such that it was seen by commander special branch AXO and the DAC right
00:36:59 right and that was my question is that dissemination was your decision was it? Uh yes,
00:37:06 Uh yes, if we go to page 183 please. And if we look at the introduction
00:37:17 And if we look at the introduction section
00:37:30 [clears throat]
00:37:36 [snorts]
00:38:15 Right. [snorts] So this is quite a wide ranging introduction, isn't it? In that it touches on disorder, but also politics and it touches upon some of the groups
00:38:27 and it touches upon some of the groups of interest to special branch, but it also
00:38:30 also ranges more widely to refer to others, including perfectly ordinary members of the public enraged by events. Yes. Is that because the Steven Lawrence
00:38:43 Yes. Is that because the Steven Lawrence inquiry and its consequences for police were considerable and of interest to the Metropolitan Police Service in their own right?
00:38:53 right? I sorry I say the question again please. The wide-ranging ambit of this document as set out in [clears throat] the introduction is that because the Steven
00:39:04 introduction is that because the Steven Lawrence inquiry and its consequences for police were considerable and of interest to the Metropolitan Police Service in their own
00:39:15 Metropolitan Police Service in their own right.
00:39:17 right. Well, I I mean you've I think told me that the Steven Lawrence's inquiry was important to the police and certainly the second bit I can't remember what you said
00:39:27 said the public order around it is clearly interested. Let me put this very simply. Is the scope of this document so wide because the Steven Lawrence inquiry was a big deal to the Met?
00:39:40 deal to the Met? U I well it was a big deal to admit and this may or may not be wide because that what was asked for. It may may just be
00:39:52 what was asked for. It may may just be wide because that's what the reporting our reporting was. If we go down to the next section please we see
00:40:01 we see first up is a section on the Lawrence family campaign group.
00:40:10 group. Um, I'll give you a moment to look at that.
00:40:16 Yep. And it starts off by referring to one of the Lawrence's [clears throat] closest advisers, the spokesman of the campaign, Mr.
00:40:29 the spokesman of the campaign, Mr. Grover, and setting out some background about him, doesn't it? Yep. And if we go over to the top of page 184,
00:40:42 there's more on Mr. Grover.
00:41:19 Yep. And if we go now to the next paragraph, we'll see there's information about the Justice for Ricky Real campaign
00:41:30 Real campaign and Mr. Grover's support for that. And then there is uh some coverage of Mr. Khn, the Lawrence's solicitor. Mhm.
00:41:46 Self-evident, isn't it, that the fact that Mr. Khn is a solicitor does not inhibit reporting on him? I assume it was public knowledge.
00:41:57 I assume it was public knowledge. It is indeed, but that's not the question. And it doesn't inhibit special bunch writing about his actions. No, it doesn't.
00:42:08 No, it doesn't. So, what we're seeing here, the top of uh this report is reporting on the Lawrence's closest advisors, their
00:42:19 Lawrence's closest advisors, their spokesman and their solicitor. And is there prominence at the start of this report because special branch was interested in who was close to the
00:42:31 interested in who was close to the Lawrenes?
00:42:34 Lawrenes? I don't know. I imagine looking at it from today that they were interesting not as individuals but as part of movements that may or may
00:42:45 but as part of movements that may or may not detach or take a different course of action from as you have pointed out the intended peaceful campaign that the Lawrenes were running. [snorts]
00:42:57 Lawrenes were running. [snorts] Uh
00:42:59 Uh are you aware of any suggestion at all that at any time either Mr. Grover or Mr. Khn sought to promote disorder. I wouldn't um have been aware of it at
00:43:11 I wouldn't um have been aware of it at the time and I'm not aware of it now. Could we look at paragraph three, please?
00:43:24 This is a section on the Lawrenes themselves. I'll give you a moment to read that.
00:43:49 Yep. So, echoes of what we saw this morning. [clears throat] Yeah.
00:43:55 Yeah. Come from this come from at least in part the
00:43:59 part the SDS.
00:44:01 SDS. Why is information on the Lawrence's marriage, private information about the state of the Lawren's marriage and their
00:44:14 state of the Lawren's marriage and their individual positions in relation to their campaign being pushed up the chain to the commissioner?
00:44:35 I I [clears throat] don't know. I don't imagine for a second that the commissioner specifically asked for information on the Lawrence's private
00:44:46 information on the Lawrence's private split. He would have asked for what is this? A threat assessment, do I remember correctly? Or what's this note? Is it a notice? It's um entitled Steven Lawrence campaign associated or organization.
00:45:00 campaign associated or organization. Right. It's it's the same uh isn't [laughter] is this not the same discussion that we had earlier about whether the special branch can
00:45:11 whether the special branch can if it is then just say so is is that why um this intelligence was being pushed up the chain of command to the commissioner?
00:45:22 commissioner? If the commissioner wanted an entire summary of what was going on, then that information is in the part of the summary. And again, I would we wouldn't be holding back
00:45:35 I would we wouldn't be holding back information that we had if the commissioner of police asked for a summary.
00:45:41 summary. You presumably read this report before it was pushed up the chain of command. I I Yes, I probably did. Yes. And at the risk of repeating questions from
00:45:52 at the risk of repeating questions from this morning, it obviously didn't ring any alarm bells with you. Not at all. You thought it was a good thing. I think it's well if we [clears throat] if we're back to discussing whether I think it's
00:46:03 back to discussing whether I think it's a good thing to discuss private um family information in relation to um public disorder or any other type of
00:46:15 public disorder or any other type of excuse me chair um outcome then I think it's perfectly legitimate to do it. Yes. And you knew by this stage that it had come from the information about the
00:46:27 come from the information about the split had come from the SDS, right?
00:46:29 right? Because we saw Oh, the information has come from the SCS. Yes.
00:46:32 SCS. Yes. Yeah.
00:46:34 Yeah. Did you give any thought as to whether or not it was appropriate for an undercover police officer to be reporting on the personal interpersonal relationship between the Lawrenes?
00:46:47 relationship between the Lawrenes? As I said this morning, I think it's perfectly entitled to do that for the reasons that I expressed this morning. [snorts]
00:46:56 [snorts] And if we could go now to section two,
00:47:07 there's a section on the MFJ.
00:47:12 MFJ. I think for my purposes we can go over the page and right at the end of that section
00:47:19 section uh we see the intelligence that we saw earlier about um the MFJ's role in the inquiry
00:47:29 inquiry itself.
00:47:30 itself. And
00:47:32 And once you've read that, let me know.
00:47:48 Is that just a cut and paste then from the previous report that we saw or is it Well, whether it's a cut or paste or or something very close, [clears throat and laughter] I seem to have read it. I just seem to have read it before. Yeah, it reflects the int reflects the
00:47:59 Yeah, it reflects the int reflects the intelligence. Thank you.
00:48:06 Right. Okay. So again, you h appear to have had no qualms about this being disseminated outside of special branch up the chain of command.
00:48:19 No, a huge amount of STS and other material is disseminated by special branch. That's its function or one of its functions even though it's about the perfectly
00:48:31 even though it's about the perfectly lawful participation of MFJ in a public inquiry. This is going to the commissioner of police. We would do that for the commissioner of police. Can we have page 187, please?
00:48:51 We go to section seven. Thank you. Just as for Ricky real campaign, this is entitled.
00:49:01 When you're ready to go over the page, just say
00:49:22 Okay. The activity described here is all lawful, isn't it? Oh, yeah.
00:49:30 Oh, yeah. No public disorder adverted to. No.
00:49:32 No. It's not subversive. But it is a campaign critical of the MPS on racial grounds. You had no qualms about this being passed up the chain of command.
00:49:46 I repeat, special branch is a preventative organization. It can't just react to things that happen. If there was a chance that I
00:49:57 happen. If there was a chance that I don't know, Mrs. drill's hunger strike had led to disorder and violence and the special branch is duty bound to present it to the commissioner of police or one of his departments in order that they
00:50:08 of his departments in order that they can take appropriate action. So can I take it that there are no boundaries whatsoever as to what might be reported to whom
00:50:18 to whom to the commissioner of police commissioner of police and well that depends upon the source of the information. And if the source of information came from one of the intelligence agencies, then we would have to ask their permission in order to
00:50:29 have to ask their permission in order to disseminate it. If it's an internal police source, then can report it. Yes. No boundaries on what those sources can report.
00:50:37 report. Well, that that depends. I think no, probably no boundaries. Yeah. It has to be it may have to be um put in different words rather than the raw intelligence
00:50:49 words rather than the raw intelligence that's reported. I mean he isn't going to get SDS reporting for example as in fact is happening here. No, he's getting a a version from the desk sergeant as you said wherever he is
00:51:01 sergeant as you said wherever he is which is not raw that it's we're having a discussion about the meaning of the word raw mean the raw intelligence in my view is the accepted version of it is that's the intelligence that is
00:51:12 that's the intelligence that is transmitted from the undercover officer to the management of the SDS that's the raw intelligence the SDS report which you're referring to is a I think is a a rendering of that
00:51:23 think is a a rendering of that intelligence but if you want to use that wording as a SDS intelligence report then yeah I'll go with that. Okay, if we could uh take that down now
00:51:35 Okay, if we could uh take that down now I want you to put yourself in the shoes of the Lawrenes for a moment. The sort of material I've been showing you today
00:51:46 of material I've been showing you today is reporting on them because they are complaining of racism in the police. Uh you're nodding your head. We have a have to have Oh, sorry. I beg pardon. Yes. Yes. Yes.
00:51:57 Oh, sorry. I beg pardon. Yes. Yes. Yes. Beg pardon. And they were making entirely justified complaints about the police, weren't they?
00:52:04 they? Um, yes.
00:52:06 Um, yes. And they [snorts] are being reported on by an undercover police officer for their actions.
00:52:17 Not necessarily for their actions, but yes.
00:52:20 yes. But the reporting does cover their actions. Yes, it does. And their thoughts? Yes, it does. Notwithstanding their firm stance against disorder, notwithstanding that
00:52:31 notwithstanding that that sort of reporting in official documents is less favorable treatment, isn't it?
00:52:38 isn't it? I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.
00:52:40 question. Well, it's not favorable. It's not a favorable thing to be featuring in police intelligence reports, is it?
00:52:51 being having your privacy intruded upon by the state. [clears throat] I see what your point is. I I mean [clears throat]
00:53:02 [clears throat] that's half a picture of course and the reason that the police intruded was as we have discussed. So without the qualification, yes, it's an it's you can understand why it would be seen
00:53:13 understand why it would be seen negatively by the and it is on racial grounds in the sense that the basis of their complaint was that the police were racist.
00:53:28 Um sorry, say that again. The reason they're being reported on is on racial grounds. There's a racial element to it because they are
00:53:39 element to it because they are complaining about race discrimination. No.
00:53:43 No. Can you
00:53:44 Can you It's not It's not about the Lawrenes. The reporting the Lawrenes are [clears throat] they are they are the vehicle through which the information has is is coming.
00:53:55 which the information has is is coming. But it's not it's not reporting on the Lawrenes. is reporting around the Lawrenes, which is the word that you um used about for, which should have been around. That's what the information is
00:54:07 around. That's what the information is for. It's not for it's not about the Lawrenes, although the information on the Lawrenes contributes, of course, to what's going on around them. Well, I'm I'm struggling with the
00:54:18 Well, I'm I'm struggling with the description of reporting on their separation as not being about them. It was about them, wasn't it? In strict and narrow terms, it is about them, but it's
00:54:29 narrow terms, it is about them, but it's not it's not reporting that's reported for the sake of reporting about the Lawrenes.
00:54:35 Lawrenes. It's they're reporting on the Lawrenes because the Lawrence inquiry is a very big deal for the Metropolitan Police Service.
00:54:43 Service. Well, that's your interpretation. My interpretation would be that it's reporting in order to keep monitoring the groups that are likely to subvert and to take different action once
00:54:54 and to take different action once especially now they've split up and moved into different groups and fractured and all the rest of it around the Lawrence Inquiry. You they our reporting is about them using the Lawrence Inquiry. Details about the
00:55:05 Lawrence Inquiry. Details about the Lawrenes affect the way in which these groups will move maneuver and manufacture things to do um in the future. Another way of looking at it is the the attitude of the Lawrenes is very
00:55:17 the the attitude of the Lawrenes is very important, isn't it? Because if they support demonstrations, people will turn out. If they don't, they won't turn out in such big numbers. But we know they're not going to do that.
00:55:30 that. And the whole context of this is in the environment of complaints of racism against the police, which are incendurary, aren't they?
00:55:48 only if you interpret what's going on as exclusively being um centered on reporting on the Lawrence inquiry.
00:56:00 inquiry. Our the special I mean that may be for the rest of the Metropolitan Police. I don't know. You'll have to ask the commissioner of police as I'm sure you will. um our our our focus is not really
00:56:11 will. um our our our focus is not really about that. Our focus is elsewhere. The bottom line is though that there is reporting about the Lawrenes in special branch files going up to the
00:56:26 in special branch files going up to the commissioner essentially as a result of them making complaints of racism against the police. No, it's not that. If it if it had been
00:56:37 No, it's not that. If it if it had been a complaint, [laughter] if it their complaint had been that a police car had run into them, it would be the it would be the same issue. We'd be looking at what they're doing if the campaign was doing that. The missing the additional ingredient
00:56:49 The missing the additional ingredient here is the fact that the circumstances of their allegations of racism are particularly incendurary because they involve a failure of police to solve a
00:57:01 involve a failure of police to solve a racist murder. Yeah, that's that that's correct. It's particularly and so from the looked at through the perspective of the Lawrenes,
00:57:13 perspective of the Lawrenes, they are being the subject of reporting
00:57:19 as a result at least in part of having complained about police racism in this particularly incendurary case. You'd have to ask the
00:57:30 incendurary case. You'd have to ask the Lawrenes what their perspective was, but I could see that they could have that perspective. Yes. And that is a form of racism, isn't it? It's so designed and defined. Yes. Why?
00:57:43 It's so designed and defined. Yes. Why? Why? Why? I'm sorry. Can you explain why?
00:57:47 why? Because at least part of the motivation for the reporting is on racial grounds.
00:57:57 Well, the reporting is necessarily going to involve you what you can't right. Yes. Okay. Looked at through the perspective of the
00:58:10 Looked at through the perspective of the other black and Asian justice campaigns. So take for example Mrs. Real the same applies.
00:58:17 applies. They are appearing in police reports because they are making allegations of racism against the police. That is drawing interest to them
00:58:30 drawing interest to them and that is an expression of institutional racism.
00:58:38 I think you're stretching a point, but you're right. Yes, of course.
00:58:53 Can we move now to uh UCP? It's a UCPI number 36856.
00:59:10 [laughter] [clears throat]
00:59:15 This is a document from the PS to the home secretary. It's dated the 28th of June 1999.
00:59:29 28th of June 1999. We're moving on to an entirely different uh topic. uh and it follows the event known as J18
00:59:42 uh and it follows the event known as J18 or the carnival against capitalism which occurred on the 18th of June of 1999.
00:59:54 On that occasion considerable disorder ensued in the city of London including around the life building. Do you recall the disorder
01:00:06 the disorder arising from that demonstration? No, I don't. No. It was organized by the event was organized by reclaim the streets which
01:00:18 organized by reclaim the streets which at that stage was being infiltrated by Jim Boiling and HN3 was just beginning his um
01:00:29 and HN3 was just beginning his um deployment into reclaim the streets.
01:00:41 [clears throat] We've heard evidence that Mr. Boiling infiltrated
01:00:53 infiltrated Reclaimed the Streets so thoroughly that by this stage he was part of their core organizing group. Were you aware of that at the time? Uh no, I don't think so.
01:01:05 Uh no, I don't think so. and he provided the most detailed uh intelligence on plans for the 18th of June. Uh and he was able to do so, not
01:01:19 June. Uh and he was able to do so, not least because he was thoroughly involved in them. and his role on the day was driving vehicle a vehicle into the city of London and colliding it deliberately
01:01:31 of London and colliding it deliberately with another vehicle to help block off a street. Were you aware of that at the time?
01:01:38 time? I don't remember.
01:01:42 This is an occasion on which the SDS did provide intelligence of very clear policing value, including identifying the main target of the protest, the
01:01:55 the main target of the protest, the lifebuilding. However, it appears that policing on the day did not exploit that intelligence. And what we're looking at now
01:02:08 And what we're looking at now is a document from the home secretaries PS
01:02:14 PS saying in addition, the home secretary has asked for urgent advice on a clear strategy which may need to involve the security service and NPSB to secure better penetration and intelligence
01:02:26 better penetration and intelligence cover of reclaim the streets which is a highly professional organization with what appears to be very good counter surveillance methods. It's ironic that
01:02:37 surveillance methods. It's ironic that that request is being made, isn't it, when the SDS already has an officer who is a part of the core organizing group and who had served up
01:02:50 organizing group and who had served up all the intelligence police could wish for to police J18. Do you recall there being
01:03:01 Do you recall there being um questions asked about why on earth the SDS's intelligence hadn't been put to good use? No.
01:03:12 No. Did you get a whiff that there was an allegation that there hadd been a breakdown of communication or at least a breakdown of trust between the Metropolitan Police Service and the City of London Police?
01:03:23 of London Police? No.
01:03:25 No. Did you have I remember Can you recall any um involvement in the response to the request that MPS
01:03:37 the request that MPS secure better penetration of reclaim the streets?
01:03:41 streets? I can't remember that. Now, are you able to help us with whether or not somebody went back to the home office and said, "Don't worry, Home Secretary. Uh we've got a source
01:03:54 Secretary. Uh we've got a source well inside RTS and there was just a failure of failure to exploit the intelligence on this occasion. I'm sorry I don't know whether that happened or not.
01:04:06 happened or not. Wouldn't this have been quite a prominent event?
01:04:18 Was it I well I don't know member of the incident. What was it a prominent event? I don't remember the incident. I see. It was quite extensive disorder in the city of London. Right. It was
01:04:31 Right. It was see.
01:04:32 see. Could we take that document down now? Could we have 526760 please?
01:04:40 please? I'm moving now to the question of the authorization of undercover deployments by the SDS. And if we look at page two of this document, this is a document
01:04:51 of this document, this is a document from the 9th of October 1998 and it is a code of practice for the SDS and it includes
01:05:03 and it includes um
01:05:06 um content about authorization of deployment. So, if we could look first of all at paragraph 1.3 on that page,
01:05:30 you'll see that those are the prescribed grounds on which um an undercover operation might be authorized. If we go over the page and look at 2.2, please
01:05:47 [snorts]
01:05:58 right. [snorts] So you'll see there are some additional conditions over [clears throat] and above the deployment fitting into one of the pres prescribed grounds. Um if we go to 2.5 please on
01:06:13 grounds. Um if we go to 2.5 please on the same page
01:06:19 there is um provision here uh for
01:06:26 uh for what to do in the event that legally professionally privileged material or confidential personal information or confidential journalistic material um is going to be the likely consequence
01:06:39 um is going to be the likely consequence of the deployment. And the uh result there is that authorization is required by
01:06:50 by commander special branch on the recommendation of the ops commander.
01:06:58 You see that? Once we've had that, could we go to page five, paragraph 4.1?
01:07:11 Sorry. Page five, paragraph 4.1, please. We need
01:07:23 Thank you. Authorization for deployment will be for four years. This will be reviewed on an annual basis by the authorizing officer.
01:07:35 officer. So this is a new provision as far as we understand it at the time. Bearing that all in mind, could we have 526906
01:07:49 that all in mind, could we have 526906 please?
01:07:59 Page two. If we could expand the text,
01:08:08 we'll see that we see here that this is an annual authorization of operations for HN 81 in his deployment against movement for justice and it is signed by
01:08:21 movement for justice and it is signed by you on the 14th of May of 1999. Since the office has been deployed since 1996, this is clearly an annual
01:08:32 1996, this is clearly an annual reauthorization, isn't it? Yes. Uh, excuse me. What date is this? 99. Yes. Yes. 14th of May 99.
01:08:43 Yes. 14th of May 99. Yeah. Yeah. So, if I could ask you please to look as at the development and summary sections.
01:09:05 That refers back, doesn't it, to
01:09:10 to HN881's
01:09:13 HN881's reporting relating to the Lawrence inquiry?
01:09:22 [clears throat]
01:09:27 Yes. And you were familiar with that, weren't you?
01:09:32 you? Yes.
01:09:34 Yes. What this does not do is refer to the size of MFJ or the potency of MFJ [snorts] or the
01:09:47 or the potency of MFJ [snorts] or the scale or severity of any disorder that they might have been involved in. Does it?
01:09:56 it? No, hasn't. before signing this off, did you question it at all?
01:10:08 I don't know. Um, I don't know. [snorts]
01:10:14 [snorts] Did you consider that what you already knew about HN81's work in relation to matters around the Lawrence inquiry was
01:10:25 matters around the Lawrence inquiry was sufficient to have justified uh his deployment and continuing work?
01:10:34 I don't know. Uh that's how how far in advance of of um the Lawrence inquiry?
01:10:45 Lawrence inquiry? By this stage, the inquiry has reported and the Metropolitan Police Service is dealing with the aftermath. Okay.
01:10:52 Okay. Did you consider that MFJ's actions in confronting the police at every opportunity justified infiltration of the group?
01:11:04 justified infiltration of the group? [snorts]
01:11:05 [snorts] Not according to that. Not I mean that minute doesn't um or that is it a document or a minute that doesn't say that. No
01:11:17 that does touch upon what I'm driving at. This document doesn't say very much does it?
01:11:22 does it? No.
01:11:23 No. And what I would really like to know is how inquisitive were you before reauthorizing this deployment? I don't remember author reauthorizing
01:11:34 I don't remember author reauthorizing it. So I can't ask your question. It's unlikely that I would have made the authorization without further discussion.
01:11:44 And you knew that HN81 had been reporting personal information, confidential personal information, predominantly the split of Dorine and
01:11:55 predominantly the split of Dorine and Neville Lawrence. I'm sure he had um reported confidential personal information about nearly everybody in his group. And on the basis of the procedural
01:12:06 And on the basis of the procedural document we just looked at, that meant that this deployment should have been authorized by Commander Special Brown, shouldn't it? I'm sorry. You've
01:12:18 I'm sorry. You've Can we go back? It said Sorry, no. Yes, we can go. Just tell me. Yeah, if we go back to 526760. Can't remember the wording. That's all. And
01:12:29 And paragraph 2.5 on page three.
01:12:50 Oh, I see what you're driving. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
01:12:56 Can you help us with whether or not that point struck you when you were signing this off?
01:13:01 this off? Well, was I the branch the commander of the branch at that time? Well, you are the you're the ops commander and you're signing it off. You're not command you're not commander special branch at the time.
01:13:12 special branch at the time. Well, was the commander? Mr. Moss was commander special branch at that time.
01:13:21 had he been if if not he may have been succeeded by Mr. Pierce. Well, I think I do. What is your recollection? I
01:13:29 I don't remember working for a very long time for Mr. Moss. I think he was you. You may be right. I may be wrong. But whoever it was, whether it was still Mr. Moss or whether it had by that stage become Mr. Pierce. Yes,
01:13:40 Yes, it was commander special branch who should have authorized this deployment, wasn't it? Yes. Now
01:13:48 Yes. Now I understand if if [laughter] Roger Pierce had been there, he should have he should have signed it. There's no question about that. If he wasn't there, then I would have signed it. Presumably,
01:13:59 Presumably, is this the reason it's not? Is that oversight or is it deliberate? How could Why would I'm sorry, I don't I
01:14:09 I If I'm signing it in lie of Roger Pierce, then Well, it doesn't say that. It says you're
01:14:15 you're It says you're signing it. Yeah.
01:14:19 Yeah. I I can't understand why it would be deliberate. Yeah. No, I just wanted to to ask you. I'm told that it is we we think it was in fact still Mr. Moss at this time. Okay.
01:14:29 Okay. Which is pertinent to my next question. Do you have any reason to believe that Mr. Moss would have taken any different view to you on the authorization of this deployment? I doubt it. No. Um, no. I don't have any
01:14:43 I doubt it. No. Um, no. I don't have any reason.
01:14:49 It may be said that you should not have authorized this deployment, not just because you were the wrong person to do so, but because it was completely unjustified for
01:15:00 unjustified for HN81 to be infiltrating a very small Troxius group and reporting on um uh the Lawrence family. Would you accept that
01:15:13 Lawrence family. Would you accept that you should not have authorized this deployment? No.
01:15:21 Is there anything in addition to what you've already said to the inquiry to justify that position?
01:15:30 No. If we take that down now, please. And can we go to 748789?
01:15:41 [snorts]
01:15:44 this document uh or or the authorization for HN81
01:15:52 for HN81 is part of a series of authorizations as far as we can tell for all of the SDS's undercover operations
01:16:03 undercover operations at the time. So this is a a document headed annual authorization of operations. If we go to page eight,
01:16:21 you'll see that DCI HN58 is submitting the authorization forms to you
01:16:34 the authorization forms to you and asserting that it's under the current codes of practice and asking for you to return the papers. We're going to go in a
01:16:46 the papers. We're going to go in a moment to the individual authorizations, but can I ask you first of all, was this a purely paperbased process or would you
01:16:57 a purely paperbased process or would you have discussed the authorizations with SDS managers? [clears throat]
01:17:06 I don't know, but I would imagine in many cases I would have discussed it. probably not with the STS managers, but with the superintendent attendant in charge of the STS. I wouldn't have talked to the the group themselves at
01:17:19 talked to the the group themselves at all.
01:17:20 all. And how much did you know about the detail of these deployments?
01:17:29 Not a huge amount.
01:17:36 Sergeant Beals gave evidence that there was a you visit to the effect that you visited annually and dip sample documents. Did you do that?
01:17:49 dip sample documents. Did you do that? I don't know. I don't remember. Whereas DCIL suggested that you visited more frequently than that, perhaps as often as monthly.
01:18:00 often as monthly. I don't think so. Well, not that I can remember.
01:18:08 You said that you didn't know a great deal of the detail of these deployments. Apart from the particularly good or the particularly bad which crossed your
01:18:20 particularly bad which crossed your desk,
01:18:22 desk, how were you able to assess the efficacy of the SDS?
01:18:28 [snorts and clears throat] They produced a report at lower management level which I believe then went through their
01:18:40 which I believe then went through their superintendent who brought it to I think the management meetings
01:18:48 meetings and and outside that other reports as necessary. We've seen annual reports although the last complete annual report we've got was for the year 1996 1997 in
01:19:02 we've got was for the year 1996 1997 in other words before your time. Can you recall whether you saw annual reports? I I can't I noticed that there were annual reports in the I think so the
01:19:15 annual reports in the I think so the previous report from this inquiry. Um that been where I saw it. Um but I don't recall whether I saw annual reports or not. So are the reports you're talking about
01:19:27 So are the reports you're talking about a different sort of report? No, I I sorry I was projecting there. I may not have seen them. Annual reports. They certainly the superintendent certainly came to management meetings with um summaries of the work of
01:19:42 with um summaries of the work of SDS in the same way that superintendent from every squad came with summaries of work undertaken and work done by particular sections of that squad.
01:19:53 particular sections of that squad. How were you able to judge the need for the SDS's product? Um I didn't. How were you able to assess whether or not there were alternative
01:20:05 whether or not there were alternative sources of the intelligence
01:20:11 discussions of that nature were between the superintendent S squad the superintendent C squad in particular but sometimes the other squads depending on the nature of the resourcing of the um targeting as you
01:20:25 resourcing of the um targeting as you call it. um the SDS super uh sup SDS super well or the S squad superintendent because he had lots of other things apart from the SDS the S
01:20:36 of other things apart from the SDS the S squad superintendent would also have through me I guess talked to the intelligence services whoever else it was that was requiring information and
01:20:48 was that was requiring information and assessed whether the information was necessary or not not necessary well that that might go to its its value but what time was what I was asking about was whether or not there were
01:20:59 about was whether or not there were alternative sources of that information. I I think that at various times throughout the time of the SDS when I was there often it was not often at some
01:21:10 was there often it was not often at some points it was felt no we no longer need this stream of intelligence because uh the need for it has disappeared. So so no long don't you don't need to go on with this group anymore. Go and find
01:21:22 on with this group anymore. Go and find another one if you know what I mean. Was there a consideration for example of whether you could get the information from open sources? Yes. Yes.
01:21:33 Yes. Yes. What means did you have for evaluating the degree of intrusion that was being required to get SDS intelligence over and above knowing that they were
01:21:45 and above knowing that they were long-term deployments into activist groups?
01:21:48 groups? I didn't I didn't have that role. So you had no way of telling how intrusive individual deployments were unless you saw particular reports?
01:22:00 were unless you saw particular reports? No. Unless I was so advised by the management team of from sergeant to superintendent that was on es squad or other squads who'd asked for information and had noticed particular
01:22:11 information and had noticed particular levels of intrusion. And does that lack of detailed knowledge mean that you were actually poorly placed to assess the proportionality of a deployment? Namely to balance the
01:22:23 of a deployment? Namely to balance the value of the intelligence against the degree of intrusion required. Well, I did I make that in decision that
01:22:33 that well that's inherent, isn't it, in authorizing a deployment whether it's Oh, I see you're talking about the authorization of an employment. Yeah.
01:22:40 Yeah. Yes. I I mean if I had left to my left to my own devices I I wouldn't have had enough information to do that. So I'd rely on either the note that was produced which you've said in the cases
01:22:51 produced which you've said in the cases cases that you're going to show me. I'm sure it was inadequate. I wouldn't have been able to do that without discussion with the people involved. So let's look at them now. Um can we
01:23:03 So let's look at them now. Um can we have the next page um please? Page one.
01:23:13 This is uh HN26 who we touched upon earlier who helped release the mink. Uh she by this stage had been deployed for
01:23:25 she by this stage had been deployed for 4 and a half years says that her targets were the ALF London Animal Action and West London SABS. I'll leave you to read the development and summary. uh
01:23:38 the development and summary. uh paragraphs.
01:23:55 [snorts]
01:24:00 Right. It's uh high on assertion, isn't it?
01:24:08 Sorry. Well, for example, there is little doubt that as a result of her reporting, public disorder in London has been kept to to minimum in respect of animal
01:24:19 to to minimum in respect of animal rights activity. That's quite a big claim, isn't it? It depends upon which what the claim is based, I guess. Uh, which takes me to my next question.
01:24:30 Uh, which takes me to my next question. It's low on detail, isn't it? Yes.
01:24:34 Yes. Is there not is have you not come across reports where the detail is um in more in I mean we have a great deal we have a great deal of reporting but my question is
01:24:47 deal of reporting but my question is this is sent to you for you to approve and to authorize HN26's continued deployment on the face of this
01:24:58 continued deployment on the face of this document you are told very little yes is that document not attached to a file.
01:25:07 Well, can you help us? Were you shown anything else other than these very peruncter applications? Well, I don't know, but if you found
01:25:19 Well, I don't know, but if you found that document, you must be able to tell me it's attached to a file. Well, the documents we've got are HN26's intelligence report. I see. Right.
01:25:31 So my question to you is in respect before authorizing the continuation of HN26's deployment, did you have any more information than is set out here?
01:25:44 information than is set out here? I can't answer that question. I don't know what discussions took place. And would you agree with me that the information here on its face is insufficient for you to make an informed decision?
01:25:56 decision? Yes, [clears throat] it is. If we look at the next page please, we see the application for DC Jenner.
01:26:11 Let you read that.
01:26:18 [clears throat]
01:26:27 [snorts]
01:26:42 [snorts]
01:26:45 Right.
01:26:49 [snorts]
01:27:07 What's the date of this report, please? This is May 1999. Thank you.
01:27:15 Right. Would you agree that uh even on its face uh the justification here is quite thin because the extreme right wing is described as relatively quiet
01:27:27 wing is described as relatively quiet and because the peace process was in place by this stage.
01:27:34 Um yes
01:27:38 yes and if we have the next page page three please
01:27:45 this is the application for DC boiling slightly different issue here I'll give you a moment to read it.
01:27:59 [clears throat]
01:28:13 Mhm. The issue here is is not so much whether it's he's providing intelligence of value. He's right inside RTS's inner circle. The real question here, isn't
01:28:25 circle. The real question here, isn't it, is whether he's acting as an Azon provocator and whether he is staying on the right side of the line between Azon provocator and someone reporting on
01:28:38 provocator and someone reporting on other people's criminal activity. That's that's right. And there is insufficient information on the face of this document to answer that question.
01:28:50 question. Yes. Do you have information on who else was involved in the decision-m process? We've got what I've shown you. HN58 sends this document to you. I see.
01:29:04 HN58 sends this document to you. I see. And as we'll come to in a moment, you sign them all off. Right.
01:29:08 Right. Um
01:29:09 Um but uh I could go on, but perhaps I should stop at this stage. There are more examples I could show you if needed.
01:29:17 needed. [snorts]
01:29:17 [snorts] What it comes to is this. On the face of the the paperwork appears not to give you sufficient information to make a fully informed decision. Can you recall
01:29:30 Can you recall whether you sign them off? You sign them off the next day. They're sent to you on the 13th. You sign them off on the 14th. Can you help us with whether you glean any other information,
01:29:42 any other information, ask any questions or take any other steps to satisfy yourself that these should be approved before you do so? There are other people in the reporting
01:29:54 There are other people in the reporting line who are better placed than I am to decide whether the issues that you have raised are present. These do these reports are unlikely,
01:30:06 These do these reports are unlikely, although in some cases they might have been um sent through a reporting paper system. They'd more usually be given to me by hand by the SDS management because
01:30:17 me by hand by the SDS management because that's how they operated. Um it's possible that I would have signed them off if I had known the issues of the or the or the deployment and I'd kept track in some
01:30:30 deployment and I'd kept track in some way of the employ of the deployment. If not, I would have asked some questions of the uh person presenting the report. But on paper, that is the only document
01:30:41 But on paper, that is the only document that will exist as far as I was concerned. And because you're signing them off on this occasion, you are the person responsible for authorizing the continued activities of the SDS.
01:30:53 continued activities of the SDS. Yes.
01:30:55 Yes. And I think you've been shown some of the signatures that you made. And I unless you tell me otherwise, it appears to us you signed all of these off on the
01:31:06 to us you signed all of these off on the 14th of May, 1999, right?
01:31:14 If it was suggested that you I'm sorry. I I signed them all off and there's 14 me. Right. So they must have Sorry, a big pardon. They must have been presented to me by somebody. They can't have come through a
01:31:27 somebody. They can't have come through a a paper train a paper secretary to secretary and PA to this cuz that would have been like the postal service. It wouldn't have arrived for a week. Would you accept that you sign them off
01:31:39 Would you accept that you sign them off without properly considering whether or not the continuation of these deployments was justified? I can I can certainly say see that in some respects
01:31:50 certainly say see that in some respects I may or may not have asked for more information. In some respects I didn't. I it's difficult for me at this distance to say which ones are which.
01:32:01 to say which ones are which. But yeah, I'm sure I can see your point of view. Yes. Standing back, did you consider whether there were inherent risks in long-term undercover deployments into activist
01:32:14 undercover deployments into activist groups in terms of first of all the level of collateral intrusion? Yes, collateral intrusion has always been a an issue of not only undercover
01:32:26 been a an issue of not only undercover offices but informants and other forms of intelligence gathering. Yes. But when you're putting an officer into a group for four years, that is going to lead to a lot of collateral intrusion, isn't it?
01:32:38 a lot of collateral intrusion, isn't it? I've got informants that have been in groups for 20 years, and that also leads to collateral intrusion. But yes, you're sorry, I'm being finicky. You're right. The well-being of UCOs, they are very important.
01:32:50 they are very important. And issues about the accuracy of uncorroborated intelligence. Yeah, that's difficult because [snorts] the officers themselves you tend to
01:33:01 the officers themselves you tend to believe because they're,
01:33:05 you know, police officers. I know people will laugh, but um you tend to trust them and believe them because they've been selected and they're being supervised. Um so [snorts] you it's
01:33:16 supervised. Um so [snorts] you it's difficult then to corroborate other than some of the information is corroborated through other sources. Yes. Some isn't.
01:33:26 Again, some of these officers are reporting very confidential information, aren't they? That is likely to be a feature of SDS intelligence. Yes.
01:33:37 Yes. So, we're back to the point that these perhaps ought to have been signed off by Commander Special Branch, not by you. Were he there? In respect of any of these, do you have any reason to think
01:33:49 these, do you have any reason to think that Commander Moss, if these papers had been put in front of him, would have taken a different decision to you? I don't think so. No. Um,
01:33:59 Um, but you'd have to ask Commander Mar. DC Jenner was co-habiting with a woman we're calling Allison in a long-term
01:34:10 we're calling Allison in a long-term deceitful relationship. If you'd known that, would that have made a difference? Yes.
01:34:16 Yes. DC Boiling was having sexual relationships in his undercover identity. By this stage, he deceived the woman we are calling Monica and he was deceiving the woman we are calling Ruth.
01:34:27 deceiving the woman we are calling Ruth. If you had known that, would that have made a difference? Yes.
01:34:31 Yes. Uh DS Thompson was sexually deceiving the woman we are calling Sara at this stage. Would that have made a difference if you'd known? Yes.
01:34:41 Yes. And the evidence at least suggests that HN26 and a man called Frampton were in a sexual relationship at this [clears throat] stage. Uh [snorts] assuming for the purposes of my question
01:34:53 assuming for the purposes of my question that that is true, would that have made a difference if you'd known it? Yes.
01:34:59 Yes. In each case, what difference would it have made? Well, it would have and there are two um reasons. One is cynical which is that the and self-preser self preser what's
01:35:12 the and self-preser self preser what's the word [clears throat] anyway um it it would relate to the fact that the officer was um endangering the post league of an SDS
01:35:25 endangering the post league of an SDS officer into the group [clears throat] by so doing secondly um you you you couldn't justify SDS officer using their position to have sex with somebody in
01:35:37 position to have sex with somebody in their group. Is that your view? That is plainly your view now. Was it actually your view at the time?
01:35:45 the time? I'm not sure the discussion came up. I can't remember anybody discussing with me this was an issue in any of those cases.
01:35:57 this was an issue in any of those cases. Are you saying it wasn't a matter to which you addressed your mind? It's certainly not something that I raised.
01:36:07 We may come back to that topic in a little bit more detail uh in a moment.
01:36:17 On the question of knowledge, Detective Constable Jenner's uh deceitful relationship with Allison, did anyone ever tell you about that?
01:36:31 anyone ever tell you about that? I I can't remember anyone ever telling me about it. Did anyone ever tell you that a woman who we are calling Allison was trying to find Detective Constable Jenner after he
01:36:44 find Detective Constable Jenner after he exfiltrated? I don't I don't remember that. Now, uh there's a woman we are calling Rosa who was uh deceived by Detective
01:36:56 who was uh deceived by Detective Constable
01:36:58 Constable Boiling.
01:36:59 Boiling. She made extensive efforts to try and trace DC Boiling after he exfiltrated because they'd been
01:37:10 after he exfiltrated because they'd been in a sexual relationship. She [snorts] visited Mr. Boiling's Duff address. Did anyone tell you that? I I can't remember. I mean, if you have
01:37:21 I I can't remember. I mean, if you have papers that would prompt me, then I Well, we've got written evidence that she did so. There's no doubt about that, but we we haven't got a document saying it was drawn to your attention, which is
01:37:33 it was drawn to your attention, which is why I'm asking you if you can remember. I certainly don't remember these sort of things these sort of things being mentioned. And she telephoned the office four times in one day and in terms from which a
01:37:48 in one day and in terms from which a sexual relationship might readily be inferred. Did anybody tell you about those calls? At what office? At the SDS office. No, I don't think so.
01:37:59 At the SDS office. No, I don't think so. And she emailed uh DC boiling uh emails which the office appear to have known something about in terms which clearly suggest a romantic
01:38:13 which clearly suggest a romantic relationship. Were you told about that? No. Um what dates are we talking about? Is Barry Moss still there or is Roger Pierce?
01:38:23 Pierce? This is this is much later. This is in 2000 towards the end of 2000. Right. Thank you.
01:38:35 Did you know anything about DC Boiling's relationships with women undercover? I don't recall ever knowing anything
01:38:46 I don't recall ever knowing anything about that. No. Carlo Saraki uh engaged in a number of sexual relationships undercover. During your
01:38:58 relationships undercover. During your time, he deceived a woman we're calling Lindsay and a woman we are calling Donna Mlan. Did anyone ever tell you anything about either of those relationships?
01:39:09 about either of those relationships? I don't call them ever mention Nobody ever mentioned them now. So, we're about to move on to another topic.
01:39:17 topic. May we take the break? Certainly. [clears throat]
01:39:29 10 minutes. 10 minutes.
01:56:50 Thank you, sir. Mr. Black, Detective Sergeant James Thompson, do you recall him? Yes.
01:57:01 Yes. Uh the background to this is there was quite a dramatic operation in France which recovered a firearm, ammunition and powder, wasn't there?
01:57:13 and powder, wasn't there? Apparently indeed. Uh at the time of that operation, uh did you think anything was a miss? No, I didn't. Uh there comes a point in
01:57:27 No, I didn't. Uh there comes a point in time when it becomes apparent that things are a miss with uh DS Thompson's deployment. Can we have 748359 please?
01:57:50 Uh this is a file note about Mr. Thompson. It starts with um DCI Dell uh communicating with you uh about
01:58:01 communicating with you uh about arrangements to meet with DS Thompson on the 20th of November.
01:58:11 November. and you will see minute two uh there is a handwritten minute which appears to be yours about that meeting. I will give you a moment
01:58:24 that meeting. I will give you a moment to refresh your memory.
01:58:28 [snorts]
01:58:43 Right. At this stage, um, we understand that what you had been told was that Thompson had been caught having traveled to
01:58:54 had been caught having traveled to Indonesia
01:58:57 Indonesia contrary to express instructions not to. Can you recall whether at that stage you had been told about any other concerns
01:59:10 had been told about any other concerns relating to DS Thompson? I don't think so. I think this minute is related to the overseas trip. That's all.
01:59:18 all. Uh
01:59:21 the meeting appear with Thompson appears to have been a very short meeting. Mhm.
01:59:27 Mhm. Did you ask him who he went to Indonesia with?
01:59:33 with? No. Had he gone with somebody? He had indeed. He'd gone to Indonesia with the woman he was deceiving who we are calling Ellie. [sighs]
01:59:44 are calling Ellie. [sighs] No, I didn't know. That is something that you should have explored, isn't it? Well, I did I know that he'd gone with somebody else.
01:59:55 somebody else. Well, wasn't the question of who did you go with an obvious question to ask him?
02:00:04 It was a question I could have asked. Yes,
02:00:07 Yes, on reflection, you should have asked, shouldn't you?
02:00:13 I quite understand. You may not have got an honest answer, but I could have asked that. Yes.
02:00:21 Did you ask if there were any other issues you should know about? No.
02:00:30 Why not? Because in the same way that this had brought was brought to me by DC Idel, he would have brought to me other issues if So from your point of view, you're you're faced with a specific issue and
02:00:43 you're faced with a specific issue and you deal with that. This is a withdrawal strategy for the officer. I understand.
02:00:51 And ex acting contrary to express instructions was a disciplinary offense, wasn't it? He wasn't disciplined for this. Why not?
02:01:08 Well, I I judged that
02:01:12 that the disciplinary issue would not have been useful.
02:01:21 useful. Wouldn't have been useful for the officer,
02:01:23 officer, wouldn't have been useful useful for the branch.
02:01:27 branch. Wouldn't have been necessary,
02:01:32 but wasn't necessary.
02:01:37 Why not? Surely disobedience of orders is a serious matter which should be punished.
02:01:43 punished. Well, you know, in the same way that if children misbehave, you don't smack them. There's there's not really any reason for me to smack Mr. Thompson. He's and he's already showing he's
02:01:55 He's and he's already showing he's already showing very poor judgment. He's on his way out of the SDS. He he needed to be brought down in some way. So, he was
02:02:08 brought down in some way. So, he was taken off the coming off the SPS redeployed. There was no reason for me to do any more than had been done because
02:02:19 do any more than had been done because there were reasons why I didn't want to do that.
02:02:22 do that. What were those reasons? The reasons were about the damage to the officer and the damage to the SDS. More more to the SDS and to the officer.
02:02:33 More more to the SDS and to the officer. Both actually. I think there is a difference between smacking, which is an inappropriate punishment, and a formal disciplinary um charge, which is an appropriate
02:02:44 um charge, which is an appropriate punishment, isn't it? Well, in 2002, smacking your children wasn't disciplinary, wasn't um frowned upon. So, I mean, I didn't want to
02:02:55 upon. So, I mean, I didn't want to damage the officers already clearly fragile health. If we scroll out a bit, please.
02:03:06 And if we go over the page, it says Commander SB to C. Um, so that means it was to go to Mr.
02:03:18 so that means it was to go to Mr. Pierce.
02:03:20 Pierce. Did [snorts] you discuss Thompson's case with
02:03:24 with Commander Pierce? I don't remember. Is it likely that you did so?
02:03:32 Yes. And can we take it that Commander Pierce was content with the way you were dealing with matters? Otherwise, he'd have commented. So, yes. If we uh zoom out again to look at minute three,
02:03:46 this is a minute the gist of which is that Superintendent Mccclaclin is raising questions about the volume and quality of reporting uh coming out of the SDS with DCID.
02:03:59 uh coming out of the SDS with DCID. Were you aware that there was a concern about the volume of DS Thompson's reporting? Uh, not at that stage, I don't think. No,
02:04:10 No, we've got in the papers some examples of quarterly statistical returns from the SDS, including statistics about the volume of reports from individual
02:04:24 the volume of reports from individual officers. Did you see that statistical information? No.
02:04:30 No. Whose job was it to analyze statistical returns from the SDS? [clears throat] It would have been their immediate management team and possibly the superintendent in charge of um charge of
02:04:43 superintendent in charge of um charge of S squad. Um I I didn't see them at all. We've heard some evidence that the volume of DS Thompson's reporting dropped very significantly in the last
02:04:54 dropped very significantly in the last approximately two years of his deployment. Would you have expected that to have been picked up and acted upon? Yes, I I would have done. There might have been mitigating reasons. I don't
02:05:05 have been mitigating reasons. I don't know what they could have been, but yes, I would have expected that. Can we go to 7286, please?
02:05:23 And if we could go to page seven, please.
02:05:27 please. Matters don't stop with the disobedience of orders uh in relation to the trip to Indonesia. We're moving forward now to March and
02:05:41 We're moving forward now to March and this document uh records uh that
02:05:47 uh that on the 5th of March you had been briefed about development relating to DS Thompson's cover
02:05:59 Thompson's cover passport.
02:06:01 passport. Um, I'll give you a moment just to look at the first two paragraphs.
02:06:15 Okay.
02:06:22 Once you've uh considered that, can we go to page nine, please? Can I have it back, please? Sorry. Yeah, thanks.
02:06:50 Okay. [snorts] So if we go to page nine please.
02:06:58 You had decided back in November to a bridge the remainder of DS Thompson's deployment to January. It had proved
02:07:09 deployment to January. It had proved impossible to abridge it much and he is still deployed at this stage. But we see uh here that by early March an imposed
02:07:22 uh here that by early March an imposed withdrawal strategy is being detailed uh with a view to uh withdrawing him very shortly thereafter.
02:07:33 very shortly thereafter. Can we go to page 10?
02:07:42 you are well there's a note at the bottom of that page which says colin B to be asked to authorize a full financial check on MT which is magenta triangle HN16
02:07:54 triangle HN16 and Colin B to consider tech op on MT's phone and ping [snorts] can I take it that you were being kept a breast of events and told
02:08:05 being kept a breast of events and told by the SDS that further irregularities with his passports had been detected. They were going to expedite his exfiltration
02:08:18 expedite his exfiltration and they wanted permission from you to investigate him further. I I think that I I only see this. Yeah, I think that's what it says. Yeah, I can you show me the whole document rather
02:08:29 you show me the whole document rather than just the Yes, please. large bit. Sorry. Zoom out. I think that's fine as it is now. [clears throat]
02:08:39 Yeah. And if we can go to page 13 now, please.
02:08:52 This is a file note um about uh his passports um which includes HN 53's conclusions that there was clear
02:09:04 53's conclusions that there was clear evidence of criminal offenses committed by DS Thompson in by way of theft of a passport and obtaining another by deception. Would you have seen this
02:09:15 deception. Would you have seen this document?
02:09:20 I'm not sure. There is one by HN53 which lays out in great detail. Yeah, we're coming to that. I think that's the one that I remember. I'm not not sure about this one.
02:09:33 I'm not not sure about this one. Okay. Could we have up 719696?
02:09:39 [clears throat]
02:09:51 Uh this is a file note made by HN53 um on the 11th of March 2002
02:10:03 um on the 11th of March 2002 and it essentially records that made by HM53 and it records that he had voiced concerns about Thompson long since.
02:10:16 concerns about Thompson long since. Could I ask you to read the first paragraph, please?
02:10:53 Yes, you will see that there HN53 is asserting uh that he had voiced concerns about the veracity of DS Thompson's
02:11:05 about the veracity of DS Thompson's claims both with SDS managers and with you.
02:11:11 you. Is that true? I don't remember him ever doing so. Do you have any reason to doubt HN53? No. Well, I I I can't comment on whether
02:11:24 No. Well, I I I can't comment on whether he's right when he says he saw me or not, but as an you mean as an officer or the words he wrote here? Uh, well, about whether or not he's he voiced concerns with you about Thompson
02:11:37 voiced concerns with you about Thompson all along. Well, I don't I don't remember that. Can we go to paragraph two, please?
02:11:53 [snorts]
02:12:00 He's right about that, isn't he?
02:12:06 Well, yes. I mean, he says so. That's right. And we've discussed corroboration on a previous um issue. Single source reporting is most most of the importing that goes on.
02:12:18 most most of the importing that goes on. Yeah. Uh did you see this note? Uh gosh,
02:12:31 I'm not I don't think so. Was it a when I got the Is the whole thing one file or is it in different different files? Because if I had seen the one file then I might have done but if they were all
02:12:42 I might have done but if they were all separate bits of paper then they may not have come through me at all. They may have gone they may actually have gone up to the commander. What I'm driving at is this is dated the
02:12:53 What I'm driving at is this is dated the 11th of March 2002. You meet Thompson again on the 19th. Right. And what I want to understand is whether or not you had recently had put in front of you
02:13:05 had recently had put in front of you HN53's
02:13:07 HN53's concerns about Operation Lime, i.e. the trip to France before you met DS Thompson for the second time. I don't I don't remember that. No, I
02:13:19 I don't I don't remember that. No, I don't remember whether that I did or whether I hadn't. Could we have 7286 up, please?
02:13:32 [snorts] Page four, please.
02:13:43 The next page, please.
02:13:49 This is a loose note um about a meeting with DS Thompson which we understand took place on the 19th of
02:14:00 understand took place on the 19th of March 200 uh and two with DC IDEL and DS Thompson [snorts] records that this meeting took place over the course of
02:14:12 meeting took place over the course of about 40 to 45 minutes. Does that accord with your recollection?
02:14:21 Is, [clears throat] excuse me. Is this my my note or is If we go to the end, we'll see who's who's written it.
02:14:33 HN53's note. Nope. Nope. That's Can we go to page five of the file?
02:14:44 Sorry. It is your report. 19th of March written by you. Right.
02:14:50 Right. So if you could go back one page. Yeah.
02:14:56 Can you help us with what you had been told about Thompson before this meeting? I can't. Um
02:15:07 I can't. Um I when it came eventually to deciding about Thompson, there were there were three issues. I think we'll be coming to another meeting in
02:15:18 we'll be coming to another meeting in September where more uh meeting more issues were raised. At this stage you will see paragraph two is about passports
02:15:29 passports right [snorts] um
02:15:34 um let's look at that first of all.
02:15:41 Yeah. [clears throat]
02:15:47 Yeah. Would you agree that primmaishi what has been revealed is a criminal offense? Yes.
02:15:53 Yes. As well as a disciplinary offense. Yes.
02:15:56 Yes. On multiple grounds. Disobedience, integrity, and disrepute. Yes.
02:16:01 Yes. Uh and that he plainly hadn't come clean with you in November. Yes.
02:16:07 Yes. Paragraph three, please.
02:16:14 driving licenses. I'll give you a moment to read what is recorded there.
02:16:30 Yeah. some uh disagreement about how many he'd had, but on any view too many.
02:16:41 Sorry. Yes. Absolutely. Go ahead. Uh and he says about the purpose of the additional license that when faced with a possible serious road traffic prosecution, he had sought a further
02:16:52 prosecution, he had sought a further license. Did he explain what he meant by that?
02:16:57 that? I don't remember. Was that to try and avoid the consequences of the prosecution by keeping a second clean license?
02:17:08 license? I don't remember why he did that. Why what he said, I'm afraid. Whatever the details, the bottom line is again primmaaci criminal conduct.
02:17:19 again primmaaci criminal conduct. Yes.
02:17:19 Yes. And again disciplinary offense on multiple grounds. Yes.
02:17:24 Yes. Paragraph four, please.
02:17:32 um an unauthorized further false identity. Give you a moment to refresh your memory.
02:17:47 Yep. We know that the name uh that he'd adopted was Kevin Crossland, that of a child who had died
02:17:58 child who had died uh very young in an airplane crash. Did you learn anything of the circumstances of Kevin's death when speaking to
02:18:09 of Kevin's death when speaking to Thompson?
02:18:10 Thompson? No.
02:18:10 No. Did you ask him how long he'd had the birth certificate? No. Did you ask him anything about the circumstances in which he'd come to create this additional fictitious
02:18:21 create this additional fictitious identity?
02:18:22 identity? No.
02:18:23 No. Did you ask him whether he'd used um the Kevin Crossland identity? No.
02:18:29 No. Can you recall whether he said anything about whether or not he'd been arrested in that identity? No. Did he? Anything? It's something we're investigating.
02:18:41 It's something we're investigating. [sighs]
02:18:44 Prima again, more criminal offending. Yes. No, I agree. More disciplinary offenses. Yes.
02:18:50 Yes. Uh, paragraph five.
02:18:56 Financial matters. Uh, he's recorded as agreeing to produce all bank statements relevant to his time on his current unit. Can you help us with what the concerns were at the time? on the
02:19:08 concerns were at the time? on the concerns I think were around him using
02:19:13 using um police monies for personal use. I think do you recall something about his cover earnings and his cover identity?
02:19:25 earnings and his cover identity? I don't recall that. Is that it might be? I don't I don't recall that. Could we go on the next page to paragraph nine, please?
02:19:46 [snorts] And that simply acknowledges what we've been through. Namely, there's a host of potential potentially criminal offending. Absolutely. Uh that has been uncovered. If we could
02:19:58 Uh that has been uncovered. If we could go to page, same page, paragraph 12, please.
02:20:07 Now, one might have expected upon a police officer having been discovered apparently committing multiple criminal and disciplinary offenses for the matter
02:20:18 and disciplinary offenses for the matter to be referred to the Directorate of Professional Standards and or for consideration of prosecution. But this records that you wrote
02:20:32 But this records that you wrote that you'd asked Dell for a risk assessment of the officer's behavior should the matter be brought to the attention of DPS or the media. Can you
02:20:44 attention of DPS or the media. Can you help us with why you did that? Sorry, DPS is [snorts] Directorate of Professional Standards is our understanding. Um,
02:20:52 Um, can we pause a moment please? I think that uh there has to be a prohibition on disclosure of information. Justice just mentioned
02:21:19 and if that does then I do apologize. I I'm sorry. I've I've mixed up a name [sighs] with apologies.
02:21:31 I shall proceed then, sir. Certainly, and I I do apologize for false alarm.
02:21:39 Can you help us with why this was the course of action you chose? I because one of the options for me in
02:21:50 I because one of the options for me in dealing
02:21:51 dealing with Thompson was indeed the disciplinary actions which the director what a DPS would have undertaken.
02:22:03 would have undertaken. And one of the other issues was the fallout from the Thompson affair should it become known to the media.
02:22:14 should it become known to the media. These are two areas where I would be concerned. Can we look at those one at a time? What was your concern about drawing
02:22:25 was your concern about drawing Thompson's criminal conduct and unprofessional conduct to the directorate of professional standards? Are they not the people that would take
02:22:36 Are they not the people that would take disciplinary action? Yes.
02:22:38 Yes. Yeah. Well, that was one of my options and I wanted to know from them what their view would be, I guess. Well, that's not what you're asking here. You're asking Dell to risk assess.
02:22:54 here. You're asking Dell to risk assess. Oh, I see. I beg your pardon. If the matter comes to the attention matter, I'll be pedantic. If it's brought to the attention of the DPS,
02:23:04 the DPS, you required a risk assessment before it was so done. What was the risk? Well, there's loads of risks, but the risk mainly would be to the operation, to the officer, to the SDS,
02:23:16 to the officer, to the SDS, to the branch, to the police
02:23:21 of disciplining Thompson. Yes. Was there not a way of disciplining an SDS officer for misconduct
02:23:33 an SDS officer for misconduct [clears throat] privately? I didn't know. I don't know. I still don't know. Did you ask? Well, that's what the risk assessment's for.
02:23:42 for. Are you sure? But that's all I can think. The media? How would the media find out? Oh,
02:23:53 Oh, the media finds out in many ways. I I mean, I don't know how they would find out. Should they find out? We needed a risk assessment. Did you have a concern? Did you have a concern that the
02:24:04 Did you have a concern that the directorate of professional standards might act unprofessionally in the eyes of the media? I didn't have that. Um,
02:24:12 Um, how is the media going to find out? Well, Thompson might tell them and without a concern operating on your mind at the time. I can't remember which particular concern it was, but the consulting the
02:24:23 concern it was, but the consulting the fallout from from media exposure is something you do on a regular basis.
02:24:31 Can we go to 719770 please?
02:24:35 please? This is the risk assessment. Dated the 22nd of March 2002. May I ask question? You can try. I may not understand.
02:24:46 You can try. I may not understand. I know I'm not supposed to. Is that note that I did the previous one? It's to somebody is it? We'll go back to it and why why would I have said I have asked
02:24:59 why why would I have said I have asked I have asked for DCI was that a note to myself.
02:25:03 myself. If we go to the if we go back to page four to the first page of the document it's just headed loose note. You just seem to be recording the fact
02:25:14 You just seem to be recording the fact that you've asked L to do the risk assessment.
02:25:21 Okay. We go to the risk assessment 7286
02:25:31 page four. [clears throat]
02:25:36 I I beg your pardon. Um 719770
02:25:49 [snorts]
02:25:54 22nd of March 2002. Um if we go to page two
02:26:04 uh this if we go to the bottom see disciplinary action options three options presented themselves formal discipline arrest and charge
02:26:17 formal discipline arrest and charge informal
02:26:18 informal discipline. If we go over leaf now please
02:26:25 and then you see basically pros and the cons um of informal discipline are there set out. Says informal discipline avoiding public discussion of the entire
02:26:37 avoiding public discussion of the entire workings of a secret operation was preferred for the following reasons. Secure the safety of Thompson. maintain the integrity of the entire SDS
02:26:49 the integrity of the entire SDS operation. Thus, secure the safety of all SDS officers, present and past, wider public interest, preserve the ability to provide highgrade
02:27:02 ability to provide highgrade intelligence and then uh uh the disadvantages below. Now, the option you went on to prefer was the informal route, wasn't
02:27:14 prefer was the informal route, wasn't it?
02:27:15 it? Yes.
02:27:18 Looking at those asserted benefits,
02:27:24 benefits, they wouldn't
02:27:27 acrue if it was possible to discipline an officer without compromising the SDS.
02:27:39 Yes. These are Mike Dell's views of the benefits.
02:27:42 benefits. Yeah. And I'm asking you, they don't acrue if it's possible to bet to discipline Thompson
02:27:54 without compromising the SDS save to spare Thompson himself. Yeah, agreed. Did you explore whether that could be done?
02:28:10 No. Why not? because there were other issues which I felt ought to be taken into consideration before a decision was taken as to whether to go down this route or that
02:28:21 whether to go down this route or that route or the next route. And what were those considerations?
02:28:29 Well, the first one clearly is as um outlined in TCI Dell's report, which is safety of the off the officer um the
02:28:42 safety of the off the officer um the officer is fragile. The officer I don't have you have you seen the officer? We have I mean he when he spoke to me I as you know referred
02:28:56 he spoke to me I as you know referred him to psychological help. Um I thought that for on the first for the first point was I did I felt that the health
02:29:07 point was I did I felt that the health of the officer was important. So, I didn't want to do anything particularly if it would I don't like to use the term tip them over
02:29:18 don't like to use the term tip them over the edge, but um it would make that worse. Um
02:29:25 Um certainly the integrity of the SDS, I'm not sure about the entire SDS operation, but part of the SDS operation would be compromised. Why would the SDS operation be
02:29:37 Why would the SDS operation be compromised if Thompson was disciplined in private? Oh, I see. in private you're talking about not not the decision that I eventually made. Yes. What that that's what I'm exploring. He could what I'm putting to
02:29:50 exploring. He could what I'm putting to you is he could have been disciplined in private, couldn't he? Um he could have been. Yes, he could have been. The fallout from that would definitely have been referral to the
02:30:01 definitely have been referral to the criminal proceedings. They wouldn't have they wouldn't have disciplined him and then not investigated the crimes. And there are mechanisms in the criminal justice system to protect the public interest,
02:30:12 system to protect the public interest, aren't there? Yes.
02:30:14 Yes. So
02:30:16 So you could have explored with the direct the the legal department how that might be done. I could have explored that. Yes. No, you didn't. Did you?
02:30:27 No, you didn't. Did you? No.
02:30:28 No. Why not? I'm still back to the fact that any action that's going to formally damage the officer is not going to be is going to be a
02:30:41 is not going to be is going to be a worse situation than the formal than the formal channel that we go down. And were you concerned that there might be scrutiny of special branch if this
02:30:53 be scrutiny of special branch if this got out to DPS? Yes.
02:30:58 Yes. And were were you concerned that there might have been leaks into the public domain?
02:31:05 domain? I can't remember whether we discussed that or not, but but it's a possibility. Uh and you've adverted a moment ago to the possibility that Thompson might do.
02:31:17 the possibility that Thompson might do. Was that a concern at this stage? Was a concern. Going uh to the other side of the equation, our action could be characterized as involving uh neglect of
02:31:29 characterized as involving uh neglect of duty. Um it is, isn't it? Could have been characterized as such. Yes.
02:31:35 Yes. Uh impropriety could have been classified or characterized as all of those, I imagine.
02:31:43 imagine. Well, that um helps to circumvent most of my questions, but I would like your assistance, please, as to why it would be a failure to comply with Ripper. I'm sorry. And this, as it happens, is written on
02:31:56 And this, as it happens, is written on the same day as, as we understand it, Detective Sergeant Thompson's last actual day of deployment. Right.
02:32:07 Right. Can you assist us with why it would have been a failure to comply with Reaper? No.
02:32:19 Now if we
02:32:28 just go over you you having shortcut shortcuted my questions very helpfully to 7286
02:32:40 page
02:32:47 This, as we understand it, is a note uh sent to you recording. It's
02:32:58 uh sent to you recording. It's essentially a telephone uh message from [snorts]
02:33:03 [snorts] the wife of HN9 who was the detect by this stage uh serving on the SDS.
02:33:27 Oh yeah. It appears on its face to be taking issue with uh the treatment
02:33:39 to be taking issue with uh the treatment of
02:33:41 of Thompson.
02:33:43 Thompson. Can you recall this being drawn [clears throat] to your attention? I couldn't, but I think I've seen this in the Is this in the papers that you I hope so. I hope certainly hope
02:33:54 I hope so. I hope certainly hope [laughter] so. I think that's where I saw it. And I think I think I do on reflection remember that actually. Yeah. And so essentially she's accusing you of a cover up, isn't she?
02:34:05 a cover up, isn't she? Yeah.
02:34:06 Yeah. And she's got a point, hasn't she? No.
02:34:10 No. Why not?
02:34:13 Well, a cover up a cover up means that something is being done surely to difficult. I can't find the words to cover something up. [laughter]
02:34:24 cover something up. [laughter] Well, what's been covered up is DS Thompson's criminal and unprofessional behavior.
02:34:28 behavior. No, [laughter] no, that's not true at all. There's a there are ways of dealing with with incidents of this sort and you have to take into account quite a number
02:34:39 have to take into account quite a number of issues. One, as I've said before, is the health of the officer. Another one is the as we discovered the the the the risk of fallout for the SDS,
02:34:50 the the the risk of fallout for the SDS, the police central branch, the police service. These are these are risks. You have to work out whether there's a likelihood of reoccurrence.
02:35:01 likelihood of reoccurrence. Um in this case, answer no. You have to work out whether there's any public harm. Is there any public harm? No. You have to work out um a number of
02:35:14 No. You have to work out um a number of those issues and then you have to work out whether the formal discipline line or the other line is is the best one to take. I think
02:35:26 is is the best one to take. I think covering it up is the wrong uh way to do it. We took a we took a line which we felt well I took a line which I felt was best for the officer
02:35:37 best for the officer and the police and that's not a cover up. That's a way of dealing with it. You didn't have in your possession any medical evidence to the effect that DS
02:35:48 medical evidence to the effect that DS Thompson was unfit to be tried or unfit to be disciplined. No, but you could see listening to him and looking at him that he wasn't right. And it can't be right that someone
02:35:59 And it can't be right that someone should not be disciplined because it would be an embarrassment to the police. No.
02:36:07 So that does amount to a cover up, doesn't it? It it amounts to a course of action that um
02:36:14 um doesn't result in disciplinary offenses or or crime. But in my view, the perfectly there are perfectly good reasons why this didn't go to formal disciplinary um action or criminal
02:36:26 disciplinary um action or criminal proceedings. No. And I've outlined what these, excuse me, [clears throat] what these are. One of the downsides that we saw enumerated um in the last document was the impact on morale. That's because
02:36:40 the impact on morale. That's because treating conduct as ser misconduct as serious as this as leniently as you did contributes to a culture of impunity, doesn't it? I you can argue that and I
02:36:52 doesn't it? I you can argue that and I see that argument. And that does prejudice morale, doesn't it? It could do. Those who do follow the rules and want
02:37:04 Those who do follow the rules and want to be associated with a unit with high standards are affronted by that. And Mrs. um HN articulates that.
02:37:15 articulates that. Yes. This is an example of that risk eventuating, isn't it? And it's bad leadership, isn't it? No.
02:37:27 Can we have 719717 up, please?
02:37:38 This is uh 15th of April and it is a file note made by DCI Dell and it is essentially a member of the SDS coming
02:37:52 essentially a member of the SDS coming to him and telling him that he thinks Detective Sergeant Thompson had a unauthorized firearm which he was
02:38:03 unauthorized firearm which he was keeping in France. Were you told about that? Yes.
02:38:10 Yes. Were you told about it at about this time?
02:38:12 time? I don't know when. What did you do about it? The the SDS had um as I recall, the SDS had investigated [clears throat] that and couldn't work out one way or
02:38:24 that and couldn't work out one way or the other whether it was true or whether it wasn't true. I don't think there was ever a firearm found and there was no other information about where or whether it
02:38:35 information about where or whether it might exist. I I mean it in the end I think it was put down to the fact that everything that Thompson said was a little rubbish.
02:38:47 A firearm was in fact recovered but I was I don't think I need to ask you any further questions. Can can I have up please 719722.
02:39:05 Now this is a report um produced by HN53 on the 5th of July 2002 entitled overview and summary of
02:39:19 overview and summary of inquiries. If we could I mean it's a long document. I'm not going to take you to all of it. Uh but if we could go to pages page nine please.
02:39:33 By this stage there had been investigation of DS Thompson's telephone billing and you see the um results
02:39:44 billing and you see the um results summarized here. First of all, it appeared that he'd been using his cover phone for personal use and therefore
02:39:55 phone for personal use and therefore contaminating his calls. And if we go over the page to page 10,
02:40:03 uh we see uh some statistics there about the calls he was making. I'm particularly interested in the table at the bottom uh which recorded that there
02:40:17 the bottom uh which recorded that there had been 31 calls between DS Thompson and the woman we are calling Ellie. 48 calls between DS Thompson and the
02:40:31 48 calls between DS Thompson and the woman we're calling Sara. Those those are the two women that we now know he had sexually deceived. [snorts] And 94 calls with a woman called Wendy with
02:40:43 calls with a woman called Wendy with whom he had formed a close friendship and remained in contact. Was this information drawn to
02:40:55 contact. Was this information drawn to your attention? It wasn't drawn to my attention. was the but it must have been in the report that I saw if I saw that report which I guess I did did I
02:41:06 I did did I well we'll we'll come to the the next report in due course can we go to page 12 please top of page 12 there's a section
02:41:19 sorry could we have p first page 11 at the top of 11 4.2.3 2.3 relationships.
02:41:56 So HN53 by this stage is suspicious that DS Thompson has been involved in improper relationships, isn't he? You mean sexual? Yeah.
02:42:09 Has suspicions at this stage. Well, you'd have to ask him. Can you recall whether those suspicions were relayed to you at this time?
02:42:21 were relayed to you at this time? Uh, no, not sexual relationships. No, I mean it job was to establish relationships. Can we go to the top of page 12, please?
02:42:33 There's a summary of actions required there
02:42:38 there which is to the effect of these relationships need to be further investigated.
02:42:49 Did you think that these suspicions should be further investigated? I don't think I did. No. And was that because you were already minded to
02:43:02 because you were already minded to uh deal with this in an informal way? I don't know what what the um timet was, I'm afraid. Is that likely to have been the your state of mind at this time?
02:43:14 state of mind at this time? I don't know. It's after we've seen I'm taking you through these documents chronologically. Right. Thank you. Thank you. That's after you've seen the risk assessment.
02:43:25 after you've seen the risk assessment. If [laughter] if there had been other information brought to my attention following my risk assessments and had I made a had I actually made a decision by that time?
02:43:36 actually made a decision by that time? What what
02:43:36 What what No, you hadn't made a decision by this time.
02:43:38 time. Well, I mean I I not formally and what I'm driving at is were you did you know which way you were heading?
02:43:43 heading? No, I wait till all I waited till all the information that I could have was in before I made the decision.
02:43:51 Did you hear anything to the effect that Thompson was concerned that managers were concerned that he had been involved sexually with somebody in
02:44:03 been involved sexually with somebody in his undercover identity? Not to remember and know.
02:44:10 Why weren't these matters investigated further?
02:44:18 Well, which matters? Well, first of all, the extraordinary number of calls between Diaz Thompson and Ellie, Wendy, and Sarah. Well, if there were members of his
02:44:29 Well, if there were members of his group, I'd have expected that to be the case. To be honest, I didn't. But the the numbers of calls weren't drawn to my attention. There isn't there is obviously a 301 versus a four or
02:44:41 is obviously a 301 versus a four or whatever it is, but if there were members of his group, you'd expect constant conf converations between them. I didn't it didn't and because nobody had mentioned sexual relationships I
02:44:52 had mentioned sexual relationships I don't think at that ever. So how would I I don't understand why you would ask that question. Did you give any consideration to trying to identify and contact Kevin
02:45:04 to identify and contact Kevin Crossland's family? No.
02:45:07 No. And why was that? because we used undercover officers names and had done forever and I don't know whether anybody else's family had ever been contacted.
02:45:19 been contacted. Well, that practice had finished some years before this time. Did you know that? Is this just something that didn't cross your mind? I didn't know that. No,
02:45:31 because by not investigating this further,
02:45:36 further, a a chance was lost, wasn't it, to prevent the further deception
02:45:44 deception as happened of Ellie and Wendy? Oh, yes, it could have been. Yeah, absolutely. Did it cross your mind at the time that Diaz Thompson
02:45:56 the time that Diaz Thompson might remain in contact with women he'd befriended in his undercover identity? No, he was being withdrawn from his undercover identity. But it was a risk, wasn't it, that someone who was behaving as badly as him
02:46:08 someone who was behaving as badly as him might do that? It's always a risk. Why wasn't anything done to stop it eventuating?
02:46:19 I don't I don't see where you I don't see where you're going. I mean,
02:46:25 if if I wasn't suspecting that there was anything wrong with the with the contacts and the relationships, I wouldn't have asked for it to be further investigated. A little bit further in the chronology.
02:46:36 A little bit further in the chronology. I may revisit this uh
02:46:41 this uh topic. Did you report the uh further investigations up the chain of command? Yes.
02:46:47 Yes. Uh who to? Well, I was asked, I think, if I remember correctly, I was asked to do this by the assistant commissioner because I wasn't like command for SDS and therefore I had an element of
02:47:00 and therefore I had an element of independence in the um matter and so he asked me to do this and I gave I gave the file to him once I had finished as as I recall.
02:47:11 as I recall. And what was his view of the matter? I don't know. Any approval or disapproval expressed? I don't know. He took it and said thank you. I think if I remember
02:47:22 you. I think if I remember if we go to 7289
02:47:36 if we go to page eight please.
02:47:46 Um, this does appear to be clear evidence of you being updated. This is DCIDell updating you on the 5th of July 2002
02:47:57 2002 with this file note in entitled summary of inquiries. If we look at the first paragraph, it essentially is communicating to you
02:48:09 it essentially is communicating to you um that after thorough inquiries by HN53 that there's a conclusion that Thompson's deployment for the last two to two and a
02:48:20 deployment for the last two to two and a half years has been a a sham and that he's been routinely dishonest. So what was your reaction when you heard that? Well, I knew that cuz he convinced
02:48:33 that? Well, I knew that cuz he convinced me that operation whatever it was called was a
02:48:37 was a um bonafidey operation. It turned into a load of old nonsense. Paragraph two is precisely that the conclusion of the SDS was that operation
02:48:49 conclusion of the SDS was that operation lime had been an invention. Can we go to paragraph three?
02:48:59 The conclusion here is about his cover employment which appears to have been reasonably glamorous in the film industry with the suggestion that he had
02:49:10 industry with the suggestion that he had in fact
02:49:12 in fact rather spent his time doing that uh and producing almost no intelligence. What was your reaction to that? I I couldn't why I mean I it was kind of
02:49:24 I I couldn't why I mean I it was kind of odd that somebody involved in what was it animal rights activity was doing something with the film industry. I couldn't I didn't understand why I was
02:49:35 couldn't I didn't understand why I was that not I thought that was part of the extraction plan. He had to go to America or something to finish that. That was part of the extraction plan, but his cover employment for a long time had
02:49:47 cover employment for a long time had been in the location side of the film in the previous papers. Did that concern you? Yeah.
02:49:54 Yeah. If we go over the page to page nine, paragraph 2,
02:50:01 and it concludes, DS Thompson should therefore be confronted with the issues summarized by DI 53 at pages 13 and 14. And that's referring back to the report we were
02:50:13 referring back to the report we were looking at. Issues essentially of systematic dishonesty impinging on the validity of his vetting status which find their most worrying manifestation in Thompson's
02:50:24 worrying manifestation in Thompson's creation of a third identity, Kevin Crossland. Now this is July. You do meet Thompson
02:50:35 Now this is July. You do meet Thompson again, but not until the middle of September. Before we go to that meeting, I want to take you to an intervening document 7282
02:50:46 document 7282 please
02:50:58 paragraph uh page three please.
02:51:07 This is a document written by Thompson himself. Um, we think from the metadata it was
02:51:18 Um, we think from the metadata it was written towards the end of July of 2002. Give you just a moment to orientate your yourself uh in the document, but I I
02:51:30 yourself uh in the document, but I I don't need you to consider the detail.
02:51:35 If we go to page, if we go to the end of that second paragraph on the first page,
02:51:48 what's material there is an an offer of resignation.
02:51:58 Did you know that Thompson had offered his resignation? I can't remember whether I did or whether I didn't. Did he make the same offer to you?
02:52:10 Did he make the same offer to you? I can't remember that. Um, yeah, I can't remember. Can you assist us as to why his offer of resignation wasn't accepted?
02:52:22 resignation wasn't accepted? Well, I don't know, but had it been me and I had remembered that he'd done that, I wouldn't have let him resign cuz I
02:52:28 I Why not? because he'd have jumped off the Plymouth Bridge into the river temps. And I think that's um one reason for not offering to him, not letting him resign.
02:52:38 resign. And he'd be out then of the [snorts] the way in which we might be able to help him or not. And were there other reasons? Uh well, that's the one that would
02:52:49 Uh well, that's the one that would spring to my mind. I can't think of another reason. Was another reason to keep him in the fold?
02:52:55 fold? No.
02:52:57 No. I mean, if you I mean, you seem to have the impression that there's a fold and that everything is a conspiracy and a cover up. Is that I mean, are you is that is that what you're What I'm meaning is if you keep him in
02:53:08 What I'm meaning is if you keep him in special branch, you can keep an eye on him.
02:53:11 him. No, you can't. 600 people, not a chance. and any
02:53:16 and any temptation for him to go public is less if he's still employed, still receiving a salary, still welcome within special
02:53:27 a salary, still welcome within special branch.
02:53:27 branch. That's possible. Yeah. When you say possible, can I take it that that might have been another reason why you would not have wanted to accept his resignation?
02:53:38 his resignation? No.
02:53:40 No. Purely for his own benefit. Well, I mean, there might have been other ones had I had I known about it, but I can't remember ever. I can't remember why I would have why. Sorry. What I'm doing is speculating as to why I might have
02:53:51 speculating as to why I might have refused his resignation. I don't remember seeing that he'd resigned. Right. I'm going to take you now to a record of a meeting on the 18th of September 2002 where you superintendent
02:54:04 September 2002 where you superintendent and superintendent Mccclaclin meet Detective Sergeant Thompson 7289 please page 10. So it's the same document just page 10
02:54:17 So it's the same document just page 10 please
02:54:21 [snorts] if we go to Thank you. Uh before we go into the detail of what transpired at this meeting, can you help me as to your state of mind when you went into this
02:54:32 state of mind when you went into this meeting, it's mid o it's it's midepptember. You've got a lot of evidence that there are all sorts of problems with Thompson's deployment and
02:54:43 problems with Thompson's deployment and he's behaved very badly indeed. You've had a risk assessment about going formal as opposed to going informal.
02:54:54 as opposed to going informal. Had you decided that this was going to be dealt with informally before you listened to Thompson? I think certainly I was on that path.
02:55:08 What would it have taken to move you off that path? His admission of further malfeasance, if that's the right word.
02:55:19 malfeasance, if that's the right word. Well, how serious would it have had to have been? I'm I'm sorry you're smiling. I I I I'm not sure [laughter] I'm I I You're not
02:55:30 not sure [laughter] I'm I I You're not suggesting how how serious would it have had to have been
02:55:35 have been well
02:55:36 well to to change your mind? Well, I can't answer that question. I don't know whether you know I don't know.
02:55:41 know. I mean, that's just that's just one of the things. I mean, if he'd said other things that may have been relevant or not relevant, I might have changed my view.
02:55:51 view. Could we look at paragraph two, please? These suspicions fall broadly into five categories. Intelligence product,
02:56:02 categories. Intelligence product, operational security, disobedience to orders, finance, and documents. There's no mention there of sexual
02:56:14 There's no mention there of sexual relationships. Is that because they weren't considered to be particularly important? No. I
02:56:24 No. I did I I don't think I knew about them. Did I?
02:56:27 Did I? Yeah. Well, we'll come back to that. with Detective Superintendent Mccclaclin. I spoke to DS Thompson on the 18th of September 2002 and put all the suspicions
02:56:39 the suspicions to him. If we could look now under little B.
02:56:44 little B. I won't go through every last one, but B is operational security. Again, the officer could not argue with the results of DI 88
02:56:56 argue with the results of DI 88 53's research, namely that he had compromised his own security by mixing his telephone and credit card use and had carried on relationships with some of his targets in dangerous proximity to
02:57:10 of his targets in dangerous proximity to his own family house. And then the conclusion, in your view, the security standards of DS Thompson fall far below those expected
02:57:21 Thompson fall far below those expected of an SDS officer. His actions of risk compromise, not only of his own operation, but also those of his colleagues. I made it clear to him that his professional standards were
02:57:32 his professional standards were unacceptably poor. Now, that reference to carrying on relationships with some of his targets, was that a reference simply to mixing with activists very
02:57:45 simply to mixing with activists very close to his family's home? That's what I take it to mean. Yes. If we could go um over the page to sub paragraph E, please.
02:57:56 paragraph E, please. [snorts]
02:57:57 [snorts] Documents.
02:58:03 I'll give you a moment to read it, but the bit I'm going to be interested in is the last sentence of the first paragraph which reads, "This is so particularly because the crossland identity is known
02:58:15 because the crossland identity is known to both L2 or L3 and to an SDS um SB officer
02:58:26 officer further risking compromise." Right. Can you help us with the basis? How how you knew that? I
02:58:39 I I don't know. Is there a bit of paper that says that or No, I'm asking you because I I'm seeking your assistance. Can you recall? I No, I can't recall where that came from. If we go on on page 11 to the
02:58:51 from. If we go on on page 11 to the penultimate paragraph,
02:59:04 there is no doubt that the officer has behaved in an appalling manner, endangering both his own operation and the very existence of the SDS. In addition to the issues raised above,
02:59:17 In addition to the issues raised above, it is clear that he has entered into relationships in the course of his work which are inappropriate.
02:59:27 Can you help us with what inappropriate relationships you are referring to there?
02:59:35 there? The ones that we recovered that we've covered, aren't we? Haven't we? Well, previously this does say in addition to the issues raised above. [snorts] This is something
02:59:47 raised above. [snorts] This is something additional, isn't it?
02:59:51 Oh, no. I don't think so. Well, I I mean, I don't think so. No. Is there any other
02:59:58 other Well, what I mean, no, I don't I don't read it like that. I read it Well, I see what you're saying, but what did you What did you ask Thompson? I don't I don't recall [snorts] what I
03:00:10 I don't I don't recall [snorts] what I asked him. Did you ask him about the very high number of telephone calls? No, I don't think so. Because [snorts]
03:00:19 Detective Sergeant Thompson's evidence about this meeting
03:00:26 meeting is that he said, as I recall it, he said, "Did you have a sexual relationship with those two?" And I said, "Yes.
03:00:37 It's not. Did Thompson confess sexual relationships to you? No.
03:00:43 No. Are you sure? Yeah. I mean, that that would have gone bing and I'd have had to refer it at that moment straight up the chain to the assistant commissioner. Well, what did you mean by inappropriate
03:00:54 Well, what did you mean by inappropriate relationships? Well, talking to carrying on I don't know what it was, drinking in the pub next to his home address. I don't know what that meant. And would you really have
03:01:05 have reacted so strongly if he had told you he'd had sexual relationships? Yes.
03:01:16 Can May I interrupt? Um, if you look at this document, um,
03:01:26 the passage you've just been shown, quote, in addition to the issues raised above, it is clear that he has entered into relationships in the course of his work which are inappropriate. Close
03:01:38 work which are inappropriate. Close quote.
03:01:40 quote. If you look above under the heading B, operational security, you see that he has carried on relationships with some of his targets in dangerous proximity to
03:01:52 of his targets in dangerous proximity to his own family house. So that the inappropriate relationships referred to uh in um the bottom paragraph can't be a reference to that, can they?
03:02:04 can't be a reference to that, can they? I'm sorry, I don't understand. This is your document, isn't it? You signed it. I'm told I Well, I haven't got it in front.
03:02:14 front. Well, look look look over. Okay. What page have you Can we look over the page at page 12?
03:02:20 I see it's up on the screen now. Right. I suspect your signature has been um properly redacted. No, I'm sure. Um but it clearly this is your document.
03:02:32 but it clearly this is your document. You signed it. Yep.
03:02:35 Yep. And these are your words in the document.
03:02:39 document. Yes.
03:02:40 Yes. Uh in the bit I referred you to at the bottom of uh towards the bottom of the document, you referred to uh it is clear that he has entered into relationships in the course of his work which are
03:02:51 in the course of his work which are inappropriate and that is in addition to the issues raised above. The issues raised above include under B on page 10,
03:03:03 raised above include under B on page 10, he'd compromised his own security by mixing his telephone and credit card use and had carried on relationships with some of his targets in dangerous proximity to his own family house. So you are referring in the bottom
03:03:14 you are referring in the bottom paragraph to something in addition to that.
03:03:18 that. Yes, I understand I understand that now. I'm referring to in addition to other issues, not necessarily it's the whole thing is not about relationships. Hold on. In addition to the issues raised above include relationships with
03:03:31 raised above include relationships with people near to his family house. Okay, that's badly I badly structured that. The issues raised above relationships with people next to his
03:03:42 relationships with people next to his family house were only one of about 20 or 30 and or not quite. Um but they're all about his finances, his documents, his his behavior. These [clears throat] are the issues and then and and on top
03:03:54 are the issues and then and and on top of that he's been putting his risk putting his job at risk by carrying on relationships with people in the next to his house.
03:04:07 That is one of the issues which you identified explicitly in the paragraphs above under the headings intelligence product operational security finance and
03:04:18 product operational security finance and documents. Yes, you are referring here uh in the last paragraph
03:04:25 paragraph uh to
03:04:28 uh to the fact that he has entered into relationships in the course of his work which are inappropriate in addition to the issues raised above. So you're referring to relationships other than those that you've expressly referred to.
03:04:41 those that you've expressly referred to. No, I'm referring I don't think so. I'm referring to the other issues um which are raised above the finance the documents. I'm not I'm not just talking in the
03:04:53 I'm not I'm not just talking in the document about relationships. In addition to all these other things that he's done, finance and documents in addition to that he's carried on a relationship with some of his targets in
03:05:04 relationship with some of his targets in dangerous proximity to his own family house which is not the right thing to do. Forgive me, your draftsmanship may have been imperfect and that may be the explanation, but you
03:05:16 and that may be the explanation, but you cannot surely maintain that one of the issues raised above was not relationship. No, it was. Yeah. But and therefore I'm if I have made it unclear, I apologize, but that's not
03:05:28 unclear, I apologize, but that's not what I was referring to. Extra relationships.
03:05:35 Sorry. Please continue.
03:05:40 We now know that Thompson in fact continued to deceive Ellie and Wendy for many years after this.
03:05:53 There is nothing in this document which suggests you took any action to [snorts] stop him continuing to associate with people he had met
03:06:07 to associate with people he had met undercover. Is that is it fair to conclude you didn't take any such protective steps? And it's fair. I don't sure whether we take any protective steps with any
03:06:18 take any protective steps with any officer when they come off now. Do we? Were you aware uh what happened with an historic officer, Mike Chitty? No.
03:06:28 No. And that he had remained in contact with a woman who he'd formed a relationship with undercover? No.
03:06:38 No. And he'd been caught? None. None of that had been passed down to you?
03:06:43 to you? No.
03:06:43 No. Would it have helped you if it had been? Yes, it would have added to my knowledge of circumstances in the SDS. Yeah. Could we look at the bottom of this page
03:06:54 Could we look at the bottom of this page of page 11? I've explained to Diaz Thompson that his operation is to stop forth with that his vetting status will be reduced and reviewed and that uh for now he will work under
03:07:07 and that uh for now he will work under close supervision of a squad. I have told him that he has come very close to central discipline and criminal investigations and that if it were not for the secret nature of the operation
03:07:18 for the secret nature of the operation and the need to protect his colleagues, he would be long gone. Now, first of all, can you help us with operation to stop forth with? Our understanding is
03:07:29 stop forth with? Our understanding is that by this time, not only had he stopped in fact operating undercover in March, his deployment had been formally ended in July.
03:07:42 ended in July. Did Were you under the impression that he was still deployed? I must have been. Yeah. Yes, I must have been. As for the reduction of vetting, he was reduced
03:07:57 reduction of vetting, he was reduced from
03:07:59 from develop vetting down to security cleared. Is that right? I'm not I'm I I'm [clears throat] sorry. I don't know. The vetting was [snorts] a completely different area. I if I
03:08:12 a completely different area. I if I didn't specify, which I presumably didn't,
03:08:14 didn't, we've got documents which show that he was he was reduced to security cleared. So, and that is consistent with vetting status reduced. His vetting status
03:08:25 status reduced. His vetting status wasn't taken away completely, was it? No.
03:08:29 No. And why not? Well, he wouldn't have been of any use to anybody. That would have stopped him working for you
03:08:40 you working in special branch. Yeah. Um,
03:08:46 Um, no actually he could have probably got working with confidential vetting rather than secret. I'm not sure.
03:08:56 sure. Could have reduced him what probably one rank further. That would be a matter for the vetting officer. But presumably you didn't want to do that much damage to him. I I
03:09:09 that much damage to him. I I don't think I was involved in what status he was going to be reduced to. Well, it's your decision, isn't it, to reduce his vetting status? It is, but not what level it's to be reduced to.
03:09:23 reduced to. And you told him that you left him in no doubt. If we go over the it's the
03:09:32 if it were not for the secret nature of the operation and the need to protect his colleagues, he will be long gone. Um, were those the reasons you gave him?
03:09:43 Um, were those the reasons you gave him? I I don't I don't think I said to him that
03:09:49 that I think you're unstable and you know, I'm worried about you. I don't think I said anything like that. I I've definitely said those things that
03:10:00 I I've definitely said those things that are on there. I'm not sure whether I would have said anything else to him. The reasons. And were these two reasons true?
03:10:11 And were these two reasons true? Among others, these two reasons are true. Yes. And the other reason being his welfare, public harm, um the other the other reasons I gave you earlier,
03:10:25 further criminal activity anticipated. If we zoom out and look at the endorsement, please.
03:10:38 Uh Commander SB, if we have that. Thank you.
03:10:46 you. You are writing to Commander SB to get him to note essentially what you're doing, aren't you? Yes.
03:10:56 Yes. What was uh Mr. Pierce's reaction? I think I don't know. I think it was just there for him to note. I don't think I
03:11:07 think I I he wasn't asked to do the investig investigation. He wasn't asked to deal with the matter because he's this SDS officer. I was just asking if you can recall any
03:11:19 I was just asking if you can recall any reaction from him one way or the other. No.
03:11:23 No. And can I take it that he must have asented either silently or otherwise to your decision? Yes.
03:11:35 Yes. This was a very concerning case, wasn't it?
03:11:39 it? Yes, it was. Did you consider commissioning any wider review into the SDS as a result of Detective Sergeant Thompson's case?
03:11:50 Detective Sergeant Thompson's case? Um, I think there was a review of policy by the SDS, a very long review of policy produced by the SDS,
03:12:02 produced by the SDS, possibly as a result of this. I you it's in the documents somewhere. They certainly changed some of their practices about documents etc.
03:12:13 practices about documents etc. Did you consider any wider review about how officers were behaving undercover?
03:12:24 behaving undercover? No.
03:12:26 No. Would you accept that was another lost opportunity? Yes, it was. Now the the records we've got show that Thompson's vetting was downgraded to security cleared for two years and then
03:12:39 security cleared for two years and then it was uh restored. That reduced level of vetting still involves placing quite a lot of trust in DS Thompson, doesn't it?
03:12:51 DS Thompson, doesn't it? Yes.
03:12:52 Yes. And yet he had proved himself to be thoroughly untrustworthy. He was under the closest much closer supervision than he would have been anywhere else.
03:13:08 Can I move now just to ask you some questions on a totally different topic? You've told us uh in your witness statement, we might as well have it up. It's 749752,
03:13:20 It's 749752, page 20, please.
03:13:29 Paragraph 42 on page 20.
03:13:37 This is about your regular liaison work with the home office. Can you give me a a yes or no answer? Was there ever any explicit reference to
03:13:51 Was there ever any explicit reference to the SDS when you were liazing with the home office? I don't remember. Might there have been?
03:14:03 There might have been. Yes. I don't know.
03:14:05 know. Again, yes or no. Was there any explicit reference to special branch long-term undercover operations into activist groups?
03:14:15 groups? I don't remember. Might there have been. Well, there might have been and there might not have been. Did you communicate to the home office things that SDS had done
03:14:28 things that SDS had done without attributing the source? Yes, the home office would have received um
03:14:37 um SDS reporting and a different form from which it had been reported internally if if it were a matter that we knew they were interested in particularly.
03:14:48 were interested in particularly. And in terms of their interests, how did they communicate them to you? [clears throat] I think I
03:14:58 I think I think generally through the intelligence services possibly directly
03:15:06 possibly not actually to special branch but to an act rank possibly actually coming down I'm not sure how they that I'm not sure there
03:15:18 sure how they that I'm not sure there was a particular route that it came down because you say in your witness I leazed with the home office on a regular ular basis to keep them informed about SB's current work and focus. I would like to
03:15:30 current work and focus. I would like to know did they use those meetings as a mechanism for informing you what they would like to know? I think it was more of us saying here's
03:15:41 I think it was more of us saying here's here's the area we're going in and their job I think was to make sure we weren't really crossing the the the work of the other intelligence agencies. Deconction. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you.
03:15:54 Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. [snorts]
03:15:54 [snorts] Did they ever have specific requests other than deconliction? Um,
03:16:06 I don't remember that. Well, we've seen we've seen a letter from the permanent secretary to the home secretary back in 99 asking for MPS to
03:16:17 secretary back in 99 asking for MPS to improve their coverage rather ironically of RTS.
03:16:21 of RTS. Yeah. Was that did you get that sort of thing from them? That would be I mean it I didn't hadn't even remembered that one. So it must I mean they're very rare if if any more were done.
03:16:33 were done. Did the home office influence strategic priorities?
03:16:42 Yes. In what way? They reiterated the pillars of certainly of national security to which we
03:16:53 of national security to which we contributed on two of two of the pillars. Um and they asked at these meetings for updates on
03:17:05 asked at these meetings for updates on our work in relation to the particular two pillars of pillars of national security that we worked on. And when you told them what you were doing, and I don't want you to go into any specifics,
03:17:16 don't want you to go into any specifics, did they come back and tell you what they would like you to do? Whether you whether they wanted more of the same or something different? No, I don't remember that. How did it work then?
03:17:28 How did it work then? Well, they would we I would God, I can't remember. I I can remember I can't I can't remember specific meetings. I would go and tell them roughly what special branch was,
03:17:40 them roughly what special branch was, what the priorities were. I I I know that at some point most of the time you use the word targeting. I don't I didn't really like that word. I think it's priority the priorities of special branch what they were. And I would tell
03:17:52 branch what they were. And I would tell them about the priorities, what we were doing, why we were why we were doing the work that we were doing, um who had asked us to do the work, whether it was internally generated or come from outside so that they could deconlict
03:18:04 outside so that they could deconlict with any other work that was going on. And I would specifically refer to those to the the bits of well I mean it's not a secret the types of national security
03:18:15 a secret the types of national security work that we would do. I mean there are basically three levels of national security. There's going to war is one of I'm the proper acknowledge that going to war is matter of national security.
03:18:26 war is matter of national security. Stopping terrorist bombs and [clears throat] is in spies is another one. And the third level is preventative work which is mainly the one that we
03:18:38 work which is mainly the one that we were involved in in order to prevent matters
03:18:43 matters migrating from one national security to another. And I would give them updates on where we were with that. Did you discuss public order with them? Yes, because that was work a lot of the
03:18:54 Yes, because that was work a lot of the work that we were involved in. Well, I'd say a lot of the work. It's what one of the half a dozen squads in special branch was working on. Can we have uh now M and then it's 50
03:19:07 Can we have uh now M and then it's 50 MPS 500 39 please. I'm moving now to your interview with Operation Hearn or discussion with Operation Hearn on the
03:19:18 discussion with Operation Hearn on the 1st of May 2013.
03:20:43 That's correct.
03:20:47 Can't get it. Not
03:20:52 Not underscore. It's an underscore, not a hyphen.
03:21:30 page two, please. This you'll see this. These are the typed notes of a meeting with you Wednesday the 1st of May, 2003 at MPSSB
03:21:43 Wednesday the 1st of May, 2003 at MPSSB offices
03:21:44 offices 13. website 2013
03:21:47 2013 and you will see there subject to a redaction who was present. Could we look at page three please?
03:21:58 [clears throat] In the middle of the page
03:22:07 says in respect of CR asking about sexual relationships and knowledge around operatives having sexual relationships with subjects within
03:22:18 relationships with subjects within target organizations. CB says, "So that wasn't allowed then." Did you say that? I don't remember using the exact words,
03:22:30 I don't remember using the exact words, but
03:22:31 but it does sound like the sort of thing I would say. Yes, it does or it doesn't. It does.
03:22:36 It does. It does.
03:22:39 It does. Were you being sarcastic? Yes.
03:22:42 Yes. It's a serious matter, wasn't it? The matter is serious. I was mostly I was annoyed with the interviewing team. I I shouldn't have said that if I use
03:22:53 I I shouldn't have said that if I use [clears throat] those words anything like them. I shouldn't have said it and I'm sorry I did. Um they were if they were here I'd apologize to them. They had come from I I don't know you'll know
03:23:05 had come from I I don't know you'll know better than I where they'd come from. I have no idea which force they came from. They came they came from wherever it was into a force of as I said 500 600
03:23:16 into a force of as I said 500 600 people. They they had no idea how special branch operated, how London operated. So they asked daft questions from start to finish. They kind of took half notes and not half notes. And I
03:23:30 half notes and not half notes. And I mean they annoy basically they annoyed me. And um I there's some I think there's somewhere else in there which I said the same sort of thing to them. And I I
03:23:41 I I yeah I'm sorry I used those words. It wasn't anything to do with the seriousness of the inquiry. It was just annoyance [clears throat] with the people that were doing this interview.
03:23:51 Well, what's annoying or about being asked
03:23:55 asked about the subject of sexual relationships and knowledge around operatives having sexual relationships with subjects within target organizations, but had a long preamble about how
03:24:06 but had a long preamble about how special branch worked and how where it had gone and how things happened. And they had no they had no concept of the way in which I don't even know if he knew anything about undercover work or undercover offices. And they went round
03:24:17 undercover offices. And they went round and round in houses and round the houses and didn't really make any sense at all. And I was
03:24:24 And I was um I can't use that expression. I was getting fed up with It was your position that it was allowed.
03:24:31 allowed. No.
03:24:35 You've offered an apology to the police officers who were interviewing you. This inquiry is being followed by the women who were deceived by the officers
03:24:47 women who were deceived by the officers under your command. I should apologize to them.
03:24:56 goes on if we zoom out a bit uh to talk about Thompson's downgrading
03:25:06 and there's a suggestion that his downgrading uh was quite serious in comparison to
03:25:18 in comparison to what he had done. Downgrading of his vetting was a slap on the wrist, wasn't it? But it wasn't as serious a conclusion as others would have been.
03:25:30 conclusion as others would have been. It is far less than he actually deserved, isn't it? It's not what I thought he was. But there were other there were other think actions that were taken around him, but it um if you compare it with a criminal
03:25:42 it um if you compare it with a criminal trial and 10 years in jail or something, yes, it's much less. [clears throat] He deserved to be sacked, didn't he? Well, I decided he didn't.
03:25:54 Well, I decided he didn't. Can we go to the top of page four, please?
03:26:02 CB states, "The biggest issue was about being embarrassed." CR mentioned some further names in connection with the SDS. You might want to just see how the previous page ends.
03:26:21 [clears throat] was about Thompson in the quite serious paragraph that I've just put to you. Is it right then that the biggest issue
03:26:32 Is it right then that the biggest issue arising from Thompson's misconduct in your mind was in fact special branch being embarrassed?
03:26:43 special branch being embarrassed? It was certainly a major consideration. There's no question about that. I mean, how can I put this? There isn't an inquir not this inquiry there isn't an investigation of that sort involving an
03:26:56 investigation of that sort involving an public or private organization where the effect upon the organization is not taken into consideration it was certainly an important part of the decision-m process yes
03:27:10 decision-m process yes I'm sorry [laughter] who's [snorts] ACC consolidate or is that just them I don't know they maybe got that they've maybe got that wrong as well. Okay,
03:27:21 maybe got that wrong as well. Okay, could we zoom out please on page four and I'm looking for the section under the heading OP magma. Operation magma. Thank you.
03:27:32 Here you're being asked about the two officers who had brought a civil claim against the Metropolitan Police, aren't you?
03:27:44 you? I did. I I I don't know if I knew at that time they'd made a civil claim against Dorton police, but yes, I think that's what they are. That's who they are, aren't they? Yeah.
03:27:52 Yeah. Yeah. Right. And it says CB said the concern was rather if they embarrassed the branch rather than the police. So again, the theme seems to be a concern for the embarrass embarrassing the special
03:28:04 embarrass embarrassing the special branch.
03:28:05 branch. There's a theme. If we go to page five
03:28:14 and under the heading sexual relationships whilst deployed.
03:28:22 Oh yeah. CR asked the issue about sexual relationships within target organizations and subjects and CB said is that bad then? Is that not the thing
03:28:34 is that bad then? Is that not the thing you just showed me in the previous paper? Is that not allowed then? Is is that that's a different Is thisation of the Is this a second visit to the topic?
03:28:46 Is this a second visit to the topic? I think I think it is, isn't it? It's not the one you showed me originally. Allowing for some inmperence the first time round. Why weren't you serious the second time round? Still in tempmperanced.
03:28:58 Still in tempmperanced. I was still I was
03:29:03 Every time you speak to um people who know nothing about your subject, it becomes difficult. It becomes difficult to try to explain
03:29:15 It becomes difficult to try to explain how operations work, who targets whom, how how what the rules of engagement are. And these people had, bless them, had
03:29:27 And these people had, bless them, had asked so many times and round in circles, how does that squad work and how does that squad work? Tell me again how this squad works. I I frankly had completely lost patience with their
03:29:38 completely lost patience with their entire approach. They weren't they weren't doing it. What can I say? And in my view, they weren't doing it professionally or efficiently. And that's just my view. goes on to say, "CB
03:29:50 that's just my view. goes on to say, "CB stated if deemed proportionate and necessary, then he could see it happening. Were you there trying to explain to these officers um how it worked?"
03:30:01 worked?" No.
03:30:03 No. CB said he did not personally authorize these, but this was never written down. Why was it never written down? I
03:30:13 I That's not what I meant. It's the same. We're in the same vein here.
03:30:20 What did you mean? I was I was being flippant. Well, the difficulty with that, isn't it, is that officers were having sexual
03:30:34 it, is that officers were having sexual relationships undercover and it wasn't being written down. Well, I'm sorry. I didn't know that at the time, did I?
03:30:45 the time, did I? That's a matter for the chairman to decide. CB said that it could clearly be the best way to get the intelligence. If it meant sleeping with them, then so be
03:30:57 it meant sleeping with them, then so be it. Was that not in fact an accurate reflection of the SDS's position? I don't think so. I
03:31:09 I don't think so. I I don't think so. Why did you say it then? because that's what they I mean they that's almost what they wanted me to say. So I basically said what they wanted me to say. They were looking I mean they had come and
03:31:21 were looking I mean they had come and their brief was special officers are sleeping with um people that they're um looking at um and go and investigate whether CB among lots of others knew
03:31:32 whether CB among lots of others knew anything about it. So I mean they came with that um angle and so I you knew
03:31:42 you knew and I don't know whether I said those words or not. A lot of the other stuff that they seem to have reported I didn't say at all. You knew by 2013
03:31:53 that very serious problems involving the SDS had surfaced into the public domain. Didn't you? I've read it in the papers. Yeah. Yeah. including
03:32:04 Yeah. including very serious sexual deceptions of women. Yes. I think was that in the if it was in the paper then I read it. Yes.
03:32:14 And this is an interview with police officers about this very serious matter. Yes.
03:32:22 You go on. Well, the note goes on. He personally said that he did not know of them but the subject must have come up. He asked the question, did the handler tell the cover officer? And he answered
03:32:33 tell the cover officer? And he answered his own question with some must have done. And was that based on your knowledge
03:32:41 knowledge of work within special branch and your role as a manager in the chain of command?
03:32:47 command? By 2013, I couldn't have told you um what happened the day before yesterday. Never mind what happened 15 years ago. I had I mean I what am I out of hospital
03:32:58 had I mean I what am I out of hospital here by about 6 months? I I couldn't I I couldn't have told you what I had for lunch and and that so I mean this this is basically
03:33:09 is basically just me being it's [clears throat] a failed attempt at irony and a failed attempt at flippency and I'm I I I do sincerely regret any of the harm that I have caused but it's not serious.
03:33:24 have caused but it's not serious. What's not serious? none of that. CB said he would not have been shocked if informed about such a relationship. So that's a statement that doesn't
03:33:35 So that's a statement that doesn't depend upon any knowledge or memory. It is a statement of your position, isn't it?
03:33:41 it? No, it's a statement of me just making up something to get them off my back. And if he did know about relationship, he would have been unlikely to have
03:33:53 he would have been unlikely to have stopped it. Does that correctly reflect your position? No. And you know it doesn't. Well, [clears throat] isn't the
03:34:04 Well, [clears throat] isn't the difficulty with that is DS Thompson has said that he told you about his relationships and they did not in fact
03:34:15 relationships and they did not in fact stop.
03:34:17 stop. Well, he didn't.
03:34:21 Could
03:34:27 we have up 723113 please?
03:34:36 This is one of the two manuscript uh versions of this interview. Could we have page two and the top two lines
03:34:48 mentioned the CPS file ray Jim boiling so that wasn't allowed then sexual relationships. That note appears to suggest that that first comment we
03:34:59 suggest that that first comment we looked at was in connection with Jim Boiling.
03:35:04 Boiling. Is that right? that it was [clears throat] I'm sorry. You'll know from your previous experience that I mean what what is this note? Why
03:35:15 that I mean what what is this note? Why would they make a note? Why didn't they just write the statement? These
03:35:18 These this is just this is just what scribbled note on the back of a fact packet. Well, this is a note of what you said. And that's been converted then into into
03:35:29 And that's been converted then into into the statement that you're we go to page four, please. Was that was that no or yes? Can we get look at below the redacted
03:35:41 Can we get look at below the redacted block?
03:35:44 We see the section from which the typed up section on sectional relationships came.
03:35:53 Oh, I Yeah, I've seen this. This is the bit where it's all been cut and pasted, right?
03:36:02 Sorry. What I what am I reading? Yeah.
03:36:11 I'm putting this to you with the proposition that this is an accurate recolle this is an accurate record of what you said. I can't answer that. I don't remember what I said. Could we have 738086
03:36:23 Could we have 738086 up, please?
03:36:47 page six please. This is a second manuscript record of the meeting and
03:36:56 and second
03:37:02 the top will see long-term sexual relationships. Is that a bad thing? It is proportionate and necessary then no problem. Acceptable might have told handler. Report authorized.
03:37:14 handler. Report authorized. As a senior manager, would I ha would I have known I would not have told it to stop?
03:37:24 stop? Can I take it then that it is right to say that you did say to the officers something to the effect that if you'd known about it, you would not have
03:37:37 known about it, you would not have stopped it? That's clear. I said something to that effect. Yes. And was that because the culture was that the SDS was so
03:37:49 the culture was that the SDS was so important that the end justified the means? No, it's because I was taking the mickey out of the people asking me the questions.
03:38:03 [snorts]
03:38:09 And you can't, sorry, you can't read this surely. I know you've done it line by line as you would professionally have done. You can't read this document and think it's serious. Surely.
03:38:19 Surely. Can we go over the page, please? [clears throat]
03:38:28 And can we go to the end?
03:38:32 Is this the last page?
03:38:41 Thank you. I have no more uh questions uh about that.
03:38:57 So those are my questions subject to the rule 10 process. I'm told that some have come in that I shall need to look at. May I invite you to adjourn briefly?
03:39:09 May I invite you to adjourn briefly? Certainly. Um I don't know whether you understand our process but when has been explained to me sir you've had it explained to you then I'm afraid there will be a break probably of about 10 minutes. Thank you. Uh but at the end of that when the
03:39:21 Uh but at the end of that when the questions have been asked then your time here should be over. Thank you sir.
03:58:52 Thank you sir. I have got one point that I am going to follow up and I should explain to my Leonard friends that given the hour I have applied a very high bar
03:59:03 the hour I have applied a very high bar uh when considering further rule 10 uh applications. Could we have up please 7499 920
03:59:19 page five please.
03:59:34 Could we have that expanded please? Now this is um in the course of exchanges about national standards in
03:59:46 exchanges about national standards in covert policing arising from ACPO's work.
03:59:51 work. I'll let you read it. But what I'm particularly interested in is the last sentence.
04:00:04 [clears throat]
04:00:32 So, we're in August 1998, which Just shortly before the code of practice, I showed you in the course of your evidence
04:00:42 evidence on the basis on which you approved unauthorized SDS operations. It's in the period when this is all being negotiated. Can you help us please with
04:00:56 Can you help us please with the understanding from the commissioner that SDS activity will not fit wholly into these codes? What was the understanding and how did you know about
04:01:08 understanding and how did you know about it?
04:01:10 it? I have I don't remember at all I'm afraid.
04:01:14 afraid. Can you recall whether there were any discussions with the commissioner there? Well, from the minute there must have been
04:01:27 there must have been I mean when I say we I don't know what what that means. It wouldn't have been I mean the commissioner wouldn't have talked to me or even the commander I don't suppose. So I I don't know I'm afraid what
04:01:41 So I I don't know I'm afraid what discussions took place with whom clearly there were discussions or some sort.
04:01:47 sort. Can you help us any further with what was being fed down then if people above you were speaking to the commissioner about this? No I'm I'm afraid I'm afraid not. Sorry.
04:01:59 Sorry. Sir, those are all my questions. Yes. Thank you. I was um notified of a a question that you declined to ask. I support your uh decision.
04:02:14 support your uh decision. Is there any re-examination? No. Um thank you for attending. I'm sorry you've had a long day. No, thank you, sir. Um you're now free to leave as is everybody else.
04:02:26 everybody else. Tomorrow's proceedings will begin at 9:45
04:02:30 9:45 uh for reasons that will become apparent during the course of the day. [snorts]