Morning session of Day 2 of Robert Lambert's (HN10 "Bob Robinson") evidence, focused on his management of Peter Francis's SDS deployment. Lambert concedes there was no blanket ban on officers committing violence, defends extensive reporting on justice and anti-racism campaigns (Silcott, Brian Douglas, Ibrahim Sey), and is pressed on Francis's fear of exposure during the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, his wife's welfare concerns, the chaotic exfiltration from deployment, the fallout from Francis's litigation against the Commissioner, and the SDS's eventual abandonment of using dead children's identities.
00:25:56 Good morning everybody. Uh today is the second day of Mr. Lambert's uh evidence. Uh as yesterday the uh evidence will be uh transmitted over the uh live link but
00:26:09 uh transmitted over the uh live link but only after 155 minutes have elapsed. Those with uh mobile telephones may use them to transmit what they hear in the hearing room but only after 5 minutes
00:26:20 hearing room but only after 5 minutes have 15 minutes I'm sorry 15 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're describing. They may not be used for recording or photography. Mr. Bar. Thank you, sir. Mr. Lambert, we're going
00:26:32 Thank you, sir. Mr. Lambert, we're going to move this morning to Peter Francis's deployment and your management uh of it. Did you give Mr. Francis uh any advice
00:26:43 Did you give Mr. Francis uh any advice to the effect that if he was going to have sex with somebody uh during his deployment, he should use a condom? I'm pretty sure that I didn't.
00:26:55 I'm pretty sure that I didn't. Uh, did you warn him that there had been an incident in the past where an activist had pricked holes in a condom and therefore uh he should make sure he
00:27:07 and therefore uh he should make sure he used his own condom? Well, again, I'm pretty sure that I didn't.
00:27:13 didn't. Did you give him any advice at all on the subject of sexual relationships undercover? I have no recollection that I did. I can't rule it out, but I I really
00:27:26 can't rule it out, but I I really I don't think that I did. His evidence is that you did advise him to use his own condom. Are you saying he's lying or are you
00:27:39 Are you saying he's lying or are you saying you just can't recall? I'm I'm certainly saying more than I can't recall. I
00:27:50 can't recall. I um
00:27:51 um I don't think that I I'm pretty sure that that I would not have said that. If someone had come to you asking uh about the question of sexual
00:28:03 about the question of sexual relationships undercover and contraception, what would you have said?
00:28:09 Um,
00:28:16 it's hard to say now. I I don't know what I would have said.
00:28:23 Can I move on to the question of um criminal conduct undercover? Can we call up your witness statement,
00:28:34 Can we call up your witness statement, please? 36956 at page 130
00:28:41 and this is where you are dealing with questions about what Mr. Francis has said on the subject of authority to commit violent crime undercover
00:28:53 commit violent crime undercover at paragraph 226.
00:28:58 Uh if you look at 2 point read the preamble then we look at two 226.1 please.
00:29:23 Yes. And then if we can see the rest of it over the page,
00:29:32 that sentence at the end, there was no specific level of violence sanctioned by SDS management as you could not anticipate and cater for every scenario
00:29:45 anticipate and cater for every scenario in any guidance. Read with the rest of your uh answer. It's implicit, isn't it, from that wording that you are saying that participation in violent crime
00:29:58 that participation in violent crime against the person was not the subject of a blanket ban was not the subject of a blanket ban.
00:30:10 a blanket ban. Yes, that's right. And so there were circumstances in which you could conceive that one of your undercover officers might have to participate in a crime of violence.
00:30:21 participate in a crime of violence. Yes.
00:30:24 Yes. [snorts]
00:30:25 [snorts] Was that um subject discussed with more senior managers? Um yes.
00:30:35 Um yes. uh being careful about anonymity with which managers did you discuss that co that topic? Well, I can't recall today, but um I can be fairly certain that
00:30:50 but um I can be fairly certain that the the topic would have been discussed with man with um with other managers and the conclusion being that sometimes
00:31:02 and the conclusion being that sometimes your officers [clears throat] might have to commit crimes of violence against members of the public in order to maintain their cover and further their mission.
00:31:12 mission. um in in particular scenarios, contexts where they were having to um defend themselves.
00:31:26 having to um defend themselves. Self-defense is not a crime as long as it's proportionate. That's not what I'm talking about. Forgive me then. I I'm we're
00:31:37 Forgive me then. I I'm we're perhaps I'm um picking up the wrong point, but there was no specific level of violence sanctioned by SDS management.
00:31:48 sanctioned by SDS management. Um I'm talking about violence. Um and I'm thinking now of what was not,
00:31:59 and I'm thinking now of what was not, you know, not uncommon, in other words, what was common place. um for field officers to have to deal with
00:32:11 with um a violent situation that they that arose in their in their deployment whether at a public order event or elsewhere.
00:32:22 elsewhere. And the bottom line was that you accepted some of your officers might have to commit crimes of violence. Not crimes of Forgive me, I'm sorry. Not crimes of violence.
00:32:33 crimes of violence. Um but
00:32:36 Um but you know violence [snorts] uh defensive um yeah
00:32:40 um yeah why didn't you say that in your statement? Well, um I I obviously obviously should have been clearer, but I think
00:32:51 been clearer, but I think just reading the final sentence um you know, I I think that that covers what I'm
00:33:02 that covers what I'm um talking about. And putting to one side what the actual ground truth was, you were receiving a lot of reports from, for example, Peter Francis to the
00:33:14 from, for example, Peter Francis to the effect he was infiltrating a group that was attacking its political opponents. Yes.
00:33:25 And you were content for him to participate in that sort of activity? No. No. Why didn't you prohibit it then? Why didn't I
00:33:37 Why didn't I prohibit it? Um
00:33:42 Um well I you know I don't accept um the premise here that you know at no time
00:33:51 time um did I authorize Peter Francis to commit
00:34:01 commit um a criminal offense [snorts]
00:34:06 [snorts] that sort of misses the point I was asking you about pro prohibition. Was this another case of SDS management leaving officers to their own devices?
00:34:18 leaving officers to their own devices? Not to their own devices, being aware of what the guidelines were on participation in crime um and
00:34:31 um and acting
00:34:33 acting accordingly. um maintaining cover um and
00:34:40 um and um you know treading a very difficult line but uh they I think they were well supported in that. I think Peter Francis
00:34:52 supported in that. I think Peter Francis at the time I think he understood um those parimeters.
00:35:00 If they found themselves in a situation where they could not avoid some involvement because of a risk that this might undermine their cover, then they should seek to minimize their
00:35:11 should seek to minimize their involvement and then report the incident to their managers at the first available opportunity. That is not a prohibition on committing violent crime, is it? Well, it's
00:35:23 Well, it's there's vi, you know, not all violence is is criminal.
00:35:34 Did you expressly tell Peter Francis that he was on no account to commit a violent offense in any circumstances?
00:35:45 violent offense in any circumstances? Well, um
00:35:50 I certainly made him he would have been aware of the uh guidelines um on
00:36:02 um on on this this topic on participation in crime. He would Does that amount to a no?
00:36:11 Um I think it's neither. Is it? Uh it's an explanation of um what I what I think he
00:36:24 what I what I think he what his understanding was at the time. Being very careful about anonymity. Did a UCO ever tell you that he or she had committed a crime of violence?
00:36:37 committed a crime of violence? Um, not that I can immediately recall. Or behaved in a way that amounted to a crime of violence. Not that I can recall.
00:36:50 Not that I can recall. Can we take that down now, please? SDS social events. Did you go on one or more trips to Amsterdam with the SDS?
00:37:06 Um, [snorts]
00:37:09 I can't specifically recall Amsterdam. Um, and in some of the material I've read, I think there might be
00:37:21 read, I think there might be some confusion on locations, I can remember an SDS trip um to
00:37:30 um to Bruge.
00:37:33 Bruge. Did you go to Las Vegas? No.
00:37:41 Can I ask you now about the Lawrence inquiry? Um before we move on to that, can I just deal with a trip to um the Netherlands?
00:37:53 deal with a trip to um the Netherlands? Yes.
00:37:54 Yes. Or or or low countries at least. Um there was a trip to Leiden in 1998 when you were authorized to go on it.
00:38:05 when you were authorized to go on it. Oh, that. Yes. But and
00:38:07 and I think that's a a deployment. Yes.
00:38:10 Yes. Whereas you were authorized to go on it as a supervising officer as a cover officer. Yes. Which is um operational.
00:38:21 Yes. Which is um operational. Yes. And but and that was for HN26. Sorry.
00:38:26 Sorry. HN26 was on it. Um
00:38:32 Oh, yes. Yes. I'm with you. Yes.
00:38:36 Yes. Yes, I I'm with you. Yeah. Um well, that Leiden trip I No, I I would I would expect to remember
00:38:48 No, I I would I would expect to remember that, but but I don't. In your witness statement, you've you've erroneously referred to it as taking place in 1996, and you denied going on
00:38:59 place in 1996, and you denied going on on such a trip in 1996, but the documents show it's 1998. Right. Right. Um
00:39:08 Um either way, um I
00:39:13 I in respect of HN26
00:39:18 a support role for is it HN26 and another field officer? Yes.
00:39:27 Yes. Uh and and it shows um me being authorized and other one or maybe one or another officer going with you as a cover officer. Yeah. Yeah. Now, well, it seemed it's strange.
00:39:39 Yeah. Now, well, it seemed it's strange. No, I don't recall it whether it was 96 or
00:39:44 or 98. I'm sorry. Yeah. Forgive me for interrupting. Not at all, sir. Uh the Steven Lawrence campaign. Uh this question is about the period before the Steven Lawrence
00:39:56 period before the Steven Lawrence inquiry. So between um Steven's murder and the inquiry, Mr. Francis has given evidence to the effect uh that in conversation
00:40:10 effect uh that in conversation you explained the purpose of uh reporting
00:40:16 reporting uh on the campaign as being part of an effort to educate the public about what the campaigns were really about.
00:40:27 the campaigns were really about. Did you say anything to that effect to Mr. Francis? Well, I have no recollection of saying that. That that's for sure. And I've
00:40:40 that. That that's for sure. And I've thought long and hard about it really. Um
00:40:46 Um I no I I really don't think that I would have said that. Was there a feeling first of all that far-left groups were
00:40:58 first of all that far-left groups were trying to use such campaigns to further their political subversive aims?
00:41:10 Yes. And that part of the value of the work that you were doing was to get to the truth of what they were doing and disseminate that information to
00:41:24 and disseminate that information to special branch. Yes.
00:41:26 Yes. And then that intelligence could be used as needed
00:41:33 as needed to spread that message. Yes.
00:41:38 Yes. And was there a feeling uh that anti- police campaigns also had the same effect? They were
00:41:49 also had the same effect? They were damaging to society. No, I think the considerations between the two are very very would have been very very different at the time. Um I
00:42:02 very very different at the time. Um I think to some extent I covered this yesterday in in regard to um justice campaigns
00:42:13 um justice campaigns um in North London.
00:42:18 Looking now at some of Mr. Francis's targeting and reporting. First of all, militant labor. We have a number of Mr. Francis's reports um about
00:42:33 number of Mr. Francis's reports um about militant labor. Don't think we need to go to them, but covering some of their campaigns, their annual conferences, a letter to their comrades, report on a
00:42:47 a letter to their comrades, report on a Marxist school, and a report where they're resolving to shout their revolutionary aims from the rooftops. Can we have up please 722654?
00:43:10 This is the SDS annual report for the year 9394. If we could have page eight please.
00:43:22 Could
00:43:26 you go a page or two forward? I'm looking for paragraph 1.7.
00:43:49 Thank you. the bottom of the page. Paragraph 1.7.
00:44:20 the information recorded there to the effect that Militant had by then withdrawn
00:44:28 withdrawn from the Labor Party uh meant that there's no longer any question of entreism, doesn't it? Yes.
00:44:38 Yes. And by this stage, militant labor, which became the Socialist Party, was operating openly as a political party participating in democratic elections,
00:44:50 participating in democratic elections, wasn't it? Yes. Yes.
00:44:52 Yes. Yes. Uh although it had clearly enunciated revolutionary aims, the reality was uh that it had little prospect of victory at the polls,
00:45:06 little prospect of victory at the polls, didn't it? Yes. and therefore little prospect of bringing about the end of multi-party democracy. Yes.
00:45:15 Yes. So in subversive terms, it was not more than a minimal threat to the established system.
00:45:25 system. Yes.
00:45:27 Yes. So far as public order is concerned, the concern appears to have been youth against racism in Europe. The inquirers
00:45:40 against racism in Europe. The inquirers he had conflicting evidence about how Y worked.
00:45:46 worked. Do you have any personal experience of Y
00:45:53 of Y to assist the inquiry to resolve that dispute?
00:45:57 dispute? Um well I [clears throat] I would have been able to um at the time I can't really recall uh today but um
00:46:11 uh today but um certainly
00:46:12 certainly I mean certainly I have some clear recollections of Peter Francis um
00:46:23 um talking um about this period period. Um, and
00:46:31 and um, and in a particular context, but which I perhaps don't want to touch on unless I
00:46:38 unless I Yeah. But let me give you some direction. Is it fair to say that Peter Francis was producing intelligence reports which portrayed Y as violent? Oh, here. Um, yeah. Yes. Yes. And
00:46:51 Oh, here. Um, yeah. Yes. Yes. And presumably um you were having frequent conversations with him about his deployment. Yes.
00:47:00 Yes. Was he in those conversations portraying y as violent or was um he portraying them in ways which were then
00:47:12 portraying them in ways which were then exaggerated or emphasized in the reporting? I think [clears throat]
00:47:20 um
00:47:23 I think I can recall that um
00:47:29 um he he was targeted against
00:47:35 against um individuals that were violent. Um not Yeah.
00:47:42 Yeah. When you say they were violent, what was your basis for saying that? Was it purely reliance upon what Mr. Francis was telling you? Um I think no. Um obviously a lot of
00:47:56 Um I think no. Um obviously a lot of other
00:47:58 other source reporting at the time but in but more
00:48:04 more focused on the SDS. Um myself and all the other members of the management team, office team would on
00:48:16 management team, office team would on occa, you know, fairly regular occasions um see see for ourselves and um
00:48:25 um how would you see for yourselves at a at a perhaps um a public order event? Um, can you recall a public order event uh
00:48:37 can you recall a public order event uh at which you attended and witnessed a member of Y committing a crime of violence as opposed to exercising the right of
00:48:49 opposed to exercising the right of self-defense? I certainly can't call it to mind today. Um,
00:48:58 what steps did you take to verify the accuracy of Mr. Francis's reporting about Y?
00:49:08 about Y? I think
00:49:10 I think um
00:49:13 um I think we would have taken um steps on a on a regular basis not spec not just in relation to but um
00:49:27 spec not just in relation to but um other groups. would be we had regular opportunities to um
00:49:35 um to to to assess uh the credibility of what
00:49:41 what Peter Francis was saying. Sometimes perhaps
00:49:46 perhaps in at a meeting where he has taken part in the same public order event as other uh field officers. And we would often
00:49:58 uh field officers. And we would often get uh very you know very uh detailed accounts of what various groups including y were doing that at the time.
00:50:10 including y were doing that at the time. It would have been a very very clear way of um checking the veracity and of what was being said and um
00:50:23 was being said and um and also
00:50:26 and also that we would see the the work of C squad where you know they would be able to
00:50:34 to um
00:50:36 um cover monitor the same uh the same group same events. Could we take that document down now? Could we have up 721934
00:50:47 Could we have up 721934 please?
00:51:00 This is a record of an interview with police in September 2013. Could we go to page 14, please?
00:51:17 at the the bottom. Uh the question is did Peter Francis's tasking change during your time as a DI
00:51:28 tasking change during your time as a DI and then I will leave you to read the answer that you gave.
00:51:56 Yes, I've read that the
00:51:59 the passage that I'm particularly interested is now right at the top of the screen. If we could come down a little bit so I can see a little bit starting with the word customer. Uh it's
00:52:10 starting with the word customer. Uh it's no
00:52:11 no it certainly developed in the way that um you know those roles and particularly on the far left did in other words he increased his position of seniority and
00:52:23 increased his position of seniority and influence within his target area and then I think towards the end the requirement from the security service began to tail down
00:52:35 began to tail down increased his position of seniority and infl fluence. What did you mean by that? Um, well, beyond what I've actually
00:52:47 Um, well, beyond what I've actually said, um, I I can't immediately add anything.
00:52:52 anything. In what way was Mr. [clears throat] Francis's influence within his target area increasing?
00:53:03 within his target area increasing? Well, I think by just typically as a field officer um
00:53:12 um progresses um
00:53:16 um as in any other any other situation um become winning trust and I mean
00:53:27 trust and I mean influence I think in in [clears throat] terms of his role. It's just it, you know, it gives him
00:53:38 know, it gives him opportunities to um manage the role even even I should say, you know, if he needed to
00:53:46 needed to um get out of a particular event can he positions he is taking positions of responsibility within his target area,
00:53:57 responsibility within his target area, isn't he?
00:54:01 isn't he? What influence
00:54:06 did he have over his targets and how did you want him to use it? Um well to win to win trust to obtain the intelligence
00:54:19 to win trust to obtain the intelligence that he uh did obtain.
00:54:25 obtain. Um,
00:54:28 Um, no more than that. Do you want him to try and steer those he was mixing with away from violence?
00:54:40 violence? No, he he was I think he understood that um
00:54:46 um well, I'm sure he understood that he should not um
00:54:53 um encourage
00:54:54 encourage incite
00:54:57 incite violence and he should remain neutral. Um
00:55:02 Um so neither encourage nor discourage. Yes.
00:55:12 What's the point of having influence if you're going to do nothing with it? Well, it's that's not doing nothing with it. It it's um giving, you know, it's
00:55:23 it. It it's um giving, you know, it's just what naturally follows. and um influence
00:55:29 influence in terms of if if let's say if he wanted you know if we if if the SDS and if customers
00:55:40 we if if the SDS and if customers wanted him to be present at a particular event
00:55:46 event um but the someone in his group wants him to be doing something else um he would he would have influence to do legit, you
00:55:58 would have influence to do legit, you know, without raising any suspicion um to go to the event that customers were interested in. Your questions or your answers to my question seemed to be
00:56:09 your answers to my question seemed to be directed at access and security, not at seniority and influence. What was the significance of seniority and influence? No, I think well seniority it that the
00:56:23 No, I think well seniority it that the example I just gave that sits perfectly with seniority. Um and I think it does fit with
00:56:34 Um and I think it does fit with influence. Um can we take the document down now please? Now 34484 please.
00:56:52 This is uh a report uh attributed to Mr. Francis which you have signed. Um and if we could expand the the main
00:57:04 Um and if we could expand the the main section of the report, it's about George Silcott and the Winston Silcot defense campaign. And I'll give you a moment to refresh your memory as to the content.
00:57:30 Yes. Was
00:57:34 Was Winston Silcot widely regarded within the MPS as having murdered PC Blake clock?
00:57:43 clock? Oh, I'm sorry. I I think I did catch the name, but could you just repeat it? Was Winston Silcot, George's brother? Yes. Widely regarded within the MPS as
00:57:54 Yes. Widely regarded within the MPS as having murdered PC Blake clock? Uh, not to my knowledge. Are you sure about that? Yes. Was Winston Silcot hated within the
00:58:07 Was Winston Silcot hated within the police?
00:58:10 Not to my knowledge. What was your view of Winston Silkcott? Um,
00:58:26 I I don't think I had a a particular view. Um,
00:58:33 view. Um, I certainly can't recall I can't recall um one.
00:58:42 This is a report on a man who is standing
00:58:47 standing for election at a local level, isn't it? Yes.
00:58:53 Yes. On a justice campaigning ticket. Yes.
00:59:01 And the report provides details, contact details for the Winston Silkot Defense Campaign.
00:59:10 Campaign. Yes.
00:59:12 Yes. What was the justification for signing off this report? Um,
00:59:23 Um, I can't say fully today. All the only thing that that strikes me this morning is
00:59:33 is for whatever reason um that there is a a file Winston Silkot file um for for the
00:59:47 file um for for the report writer and you know probably the DCI re you know reading it and signing it off, sending it sending it to C squad.
01:00:01 off, sending it sending it to C squad. Um,
01:00:03 Um, that would have been sufficient. Um, sufficient that it's a Winston Silcop defense campaign.
01:00:14 Yes.
01:00:20 Could we take that down now, please? Could we have 245210?
01:00:28 Going to show you two documents then ask you some questions. The the first is a a nominal performer dated the 21st of June
01:00:40 nominal performer dated the 21st of June 1995.
01:00:42 1995. Uh and these questions uh are about Lisa to Toys
01:00:48 to Toys and you will see in this document the nominal performer about her. Once you've absorbed the contents of this page, please say so and we can go over leaf.
01:01:04 Yes. [snorts] So that's June 95 and the report is obviously raising concerns about an alleged sham marriage,
01:01:15 concerns about an alleged sham marriage, isn't it?
01:01:20 Yes. Take take that down now and have 742997 up, please.
01:01:29 We're moving forward in time 10 months. This is a special branch report. The minute sheet is signed by HN67 who's
01:01:40 minute sheet is signed by HN67 who's obviously moved on from the SDS by this stage. If we go over the page please
01:01:48 and it's a report about Ms. Tossa and it's about her struggles with the immigration and
01:02:00 her struggles with the immigration and nationality uh department and how the immigration and nationality department is dealing with its concerns about the alleged Sham
01:02:14 about the alleged Sham marriage.
01:02:16 marriage. [snorts]
01:02:17 [snorts] If you read the first three paragraphs just to get the background.
01:02:54 Yes. Paragraph four, you will see in so far as we've been able to publish it, deals with the position of the IND, the immigration and
01:03:08 position of the IND, the immigration and nationality direct department. That appears appears therefore special branch understands what the IND position is. And if we go over to page two and
01:03:21 is. And if we go over to page two and look at paragraphs six and seven, we'll see that the writer has a good understanding of IND's strategy and intentions.
01:03:46 Yeah. Yes. Thank you. Uh having seen those two documents, what I'm interested in is this document appears to show special branch have been liazing with IND
01:03:59 liazing with IND in order to investigate an alleged sham marriage. Is am I understanding the documents correctly? Yes.
01:04:07 Yes. In your experience, how or how common was it for special branch to be using its intelligence
01:04:18 its intelligence to liers with IND? Um
01:04:24 Um I don't think I had at the time I don't think I had any um
01:04:31 um any awareness of that connection. Um, I certainly don't have a a recollection of it today. [snorts]
01:04:42 recollection of it today. [snorts] Well, that was going to my next my next question. Can you help us fill in any of the gaps as to what was passing between the SDS and C squad about this case in
01:04:53 the SDS and C squad about this case in order to pursue the allegation of sham marriage? No, [snorts]
01:05:00 [snorts] I don't want any specific details, but can you think of any other instances in which SDS intelligence was used to further the work of the Immigration and
01:05:12 further the work of the Immigration and Nationality Department? Well, I no I have no recollection.
01:05:21 Could we take that down now, please? Can we have 246030 please?
01:05:36 This uh is a report dated the 5th of March 96 about a forthcoming industrial action uh the following day.
01:05:48 industrial action uh the following day. It's about a council workers strike in Hackne. Um it's an advertised event organized by the trade union
01:06:00 event organized by the trade union unison at which a significant number of people were expected. Could we expand the text please?
01:06:25 Yes. Thank you. This is a report about trade union activity, isn't it? Yes.
01:06:35 Yes. There is no reporting here one way or the other of a public order angle. There's no suggestion that it is going to be either disorderly or not disorderly.
01:06:48 disorderly or not disorderly. No,
01:06:50 No, one would not expect a strike organized by a union such as Unison to be anything other than properly stewarded. Would you?
01:07:02 properly stewarded. Would you? Yes.
01:07:05 Yes. Why is the SDS reporting on straightforward unit uh trade union activity?
01:07:16 Um
01:07:21 well [clears throat] I today I can't say it would certainly it certainly wasn't um
01:07:32 it certainly wasn't um crucial intelligence but a decision was made to report it in March 1996. Um
01:07:44 Um it probably, you know, probably didn't need to be. I think it would have it would have happened um in the way, you know, the undercover
01:07:56 in the way, you know, the undercover officer has um picked it up. That officer doesn't know um how
01:08:04 um how whether it's of interest or whether it's important or not. I mean at the time who know you know it's just difficult to say isn't it there are going to be 500
01:08:16 say isn't it there are going to be 500 people
01:08:17 people uh turning up um in Hackne I guess you know local police will be having to deal with that but
01:08:29 deal with that but this is you know this is not vital intelligence I accept this is an example of the SDS is crossing the line and reporting on trade
01:08:41 crossing the line and reporting on trade union militancy as opposed to subversion. I don't well it doesn't strike me now as as suggesting that it what it strikes me as
01:08:54 suggesting that it what it strikes me as a field officer reporting what he has heard
01:09:01 heard um in the course of his duties which is not you know not targeting trade union um trade unions at all. Um but quite why
01:09:16 um trade unions at all. Um but quite why it was decided to report it and send it uh presumably to C squad. Obviously now you think well you know this this was unnecessary
01:09:30 know this this was unnecessary but it [snorts] would not have been done in response to any um targeting of trade unions. If we take
01:09:41 um targeting of trade unions. If we take that down now please can we have 246031 up please?
01:09:48 Uh this is also dated the 5th of March uh 1996.
01:09:55 uh 1996. I'll give you a moment to read it.
01:10:13 Yes. Yes. This is another report about industrial action, isn't it? In this case, um the suggestion uh that a concession by the LFCDA is not going
01:10:26 a concession by the LFCDA is not going to be enough uh to prevent calls for strikes to continue. Yes. Again,
01:10:38 no suggestion here of any public disorder arising from this legitimate industrial action, is there? No.
01:10:47 No. And uh as I think you were adverting to in relation to the last report, it would have been perfectly open for Hackne if it had any concerns to acne London
01:10:58 it had any concerns to acne London Council to contact the police about those or for police to ask questions. Yes. No need for undercover reporting here?
01:11:07 here? No.
01:11:08 No. Was there any subversive concern underlying this report? No.
01:11:12 No. No.
01:11:13 No. Because again, this is on the right side. This is mere industrial militancy as opposed to subversion, isn't it? Yes. Yes.
01:11:20 Yes. Yes. Is this another example of unjustified reporting on trade union activity?
01:11:27 Oh, I'm sorry. Is this another example of unjustified reporting on trade union activity?
01:11:34 activity? No. Um,
01:11:37 No. Um, it's I would give the same answer as I did in in um the the previous case. What is the justification?
01:11:48 What is the justification? Well, it's an explanation. I I'm not seeking to justify it. If you're not seeking to justify it, we can move on. Uh can we take that document down now please and have 747764
01:12:00 document down now please and have 747764 please?
01:12:02 please? [snorts]
01:12:03 [snorts] Uh this is a report uh about a march which is going to take place on the 23rd of March 1996 between Forest Gate and
01:12:14 of March 1996 between Forest Gate and Ilford police station in furtherance of the Ibrahim SE memorial campaign. a march in a picket. 300 to 350
01:12:25 a march in a picket. 300 to 350 people expected the mood anticipated to be uh tense and hostile. Uh can we have a look at the
01:12:37 hostile. Uh can we have a look at the first paragraph please?
01:12:43 I'm afraid I think I this is an expose facto report. It makes no difference for the questions I want to ask. Uh, look at that first paragraph, please. And I'm asking you to
01:12:54 paragraph, please. And I'm asking you to direct your mind specifically to the reporting on the racial mix.
01:13:11 Yes. Thank you. Why is it necessary to report upon the racial background of the demonstrators
01:13:24 um at the time it I'm sure that um the um the undercover officer, the field officer and the
01:13:37 officer, the field officer and the report writer and the manager signing it off. I think the the understanding was that um this was useful
01:13:50 this was useful um useful reporting not not in any way um well
01:13:58 um well if I could stop you there and pick up on useful reporting in what way was it useful for the SDS and the Metropolitan Police Service to know that 90% of the
01:14:09 Police Service to know that 90% of the demonstrators were blacked It's um
01:14:14 It's um uh it didn't have that kind of use. This was being sent to [clears throat] um
01:14:21 um customers
01:14:23 customers um who whose job it would be to provide a risk assessment. Um and at the time it would have just been um information that um has been
01:14:38 been um information that um has been gleaned not for any other purpose than um allowing um allowing special branch customers to
01:14:50 um allowing special branch customers to uh have a full a full picture. Was there a view that because the demonstrators were predominantly black, they might be more volatile?
01:15:01 more volatile? Um,
01:15:04 I can't I can't tell from reading this uh today. Uh,
01:15:14 so I don't really know the answer to that.
01:15:19 Could we move now to paragraphs two to four? or I'll give you a moment to to read them, but uh essentially I'll be asking you if they paint a picture of a
01:15:31 asking you if they paint a picture of a highly emotionally charged march which was well pleased and well stewarded by the new monitoring project.
01:16:22 Yes, thank you. And if you go if we go over the page so you can see the end of that final paragraph.
01:16:36 through through to the source comment. Well, if you read the it was the paragraph that uh ends at the top of that page and then it would be useful if you read the source comment as well.
01:17:17 Yes. Yes. Thank you. And do you agree it records a highly emotionally charged march well policed and well stewarded? Yes.
01:17:27 Yes. By the NMP? Yes.
01:17:31 Yes. Does this report continue to reflect the keen interest in racially charged protest that the SDS had? I can't I can't you know in any way
01:17:44 I can't I can't you know in any way properly answer that today but what I can say is that um this [clears throat] report reflects
01:17:54 reflects the work of a field officer who is you know by and large reporting um
01:18:03 um you know fairly in a sort this is you know
01:18:07 know that's not the it's not addressing the question I'm putting. No, of course the SDS is interested in this sort of march because there there's a high level of racial
01:18:18 there there's a high level of racial tension.
01:18:19 tension. No, I think No, no. the SDS is interested in this march because um we we are um infiltrating
01:18:31 we are um infiltrating a group that um that took part in it and our officer is reporting it um to the best of his ability and fairly well it
01:18:42 best of his ability and fairly well it seems to me um on a public order event which was I mean this was the SDS um you
01:18:53 which was I mean this was the SDS um you know this was bread and butter wasn't it this was routine uh SDS work but what the SWP and militant labor are doing at this event is purely selling
01:19:07 doing at this event is purely selling their papers um well
01:19:12 um well but but the well but that was the that was sufficient for the officer to be able to report it um and for the report
01:19:24 able to report it um and for the report writer to
01:19:26 writer to um prepare this and and for it to be sent to customers who we can test it this way. If the SDS was interested solely in what the SWP and militant labor were doing, the report
01:19:39 militant labor were doing, the report could have been one paragraph saying they attended this event and limited themselves to selling their newspapers. Um,
01:19:48 Um, you're interested in more than that, aren't you? You're interested in a racially charged No, I think No, no, no. I think it was, you know, it was standard practice whether it I mean if we were to look at
01:20:01 whether it I mean if we were to look at um
01:20:03 um if we were able to look at a sea squad reporting at the time um you know we would see I think how public order um whether an event is
01:20:17 public order um whether an event is peaceful like this or not it it's you know there's a big uh police department there that wants risk assessments whether they are sort of s a risk
01:20:31 whether they are sort of s a risk assessment that is suggesting a a benign event or a very difficult one they wanted that's what we were contributing to um and um this is an
01:20:44 contributing to um and um this is an expose facto report so this part of the reporting on this event doesn't fulfill that
01:20:51 that which which part sorry that an exposef facto report like this doesn't fulfill the need for preemptive intelligence. I think it does because um this is these
01:21:02 I think it does because um this is these you know this the campaigns are going are ongoing. Customers want this um you know want this kind of reporting um and
01:21:16 know want this kind of reporting um and you know a risk risk assessments will um benefit from it. The NMP's role here is conspicuously helpful isn't it?
01:21:28 helpful isn't it? Seem yes seemingly yes and entirely in line with that of the Bereieve family. Yes.
01:21:36 Yes. [snorts]
01:21:36 [snorts] There is a lot of evidence, isn't there, that left-wing activists did want to support racial justice campaigns and to protest, but they wanted to do so
01:21:47 protest, but they wanted to do so peacefully. Yes.
01:21:53 Why then knowing that these campaigns and the left-wing activists who wanted to support them overwhelmingly wanted to
01:22:06 to support them overwhelmingly wanted to do so peacefully? Is the SDS generating so much intelligence about them? Um I think [clears throat] I mean generally not
01:22:19 [clears throat] I mean generally not specifically to this but but I I can recall that our main
01:22:27 our main customers on C Squad who you know the risk assessment people that they they valued this kind of reporting um and
01:22:39 valued this kind of reporting um and that
01:22:41 that I'm sure we we would have had feedback as well, you know, public order branch. They um they valued it. Can we take [snorts] this down now and
01:22:53 Can we take [snorts] this down now and have 246190, please?
01:22:56 please? We're moving on to the 29th of April, 1996.
01:23:01 1996. And this is a report about a protest in support of the Brian Douglas campaign outside the CPS headquarters then at
01:23:12 outside the CPS headquarters then at Lgate
01:23:13 Lgate Hill. Um it's about a picket approximately 20 people disorder unlikely and it had been advertised publicly by leaflet. Could we look at
01:23:26 publicly by leaflet. Could we look at the text please? I'll give you a moment to read that.
01:23:49 Yes. Yes. Thank you. Pick it outside CPS headquarters. Very small one by the sounds of it to protest a decision not to prosecute
01:24:01 protest a decision not to prosecute followed by a pick it outside police station.
01:24:08 station. [snorts]
01:24:08 [snorts] uh report on a black justice campaign. Yes.
01:24:12 Yes. No criminality indicated. No.
01:24:16 No. No public disorder predicted. No.
01:24:20 No. Very small event
01:24:24 with minimal Troskyist involvement. Yes.
01:24:29 Yes. This isn't justified reporting, is it? Um it's it's hard to um justify it today, but at the time it would have
01:24:41 today, but at the time it would have been reported uh for the benefit of um C Squad um and um
01:24:53 um and um this event. I'm sorry if I can just quote one um one sentence purely to sort of try and get
01:25:02 get get the um an impression of what it what was happening at the time. This event will be followed up by a picket of Kennington Police Station. Um
01:25:15 Kennington Police Station. Um well, I think we were expected to report um on this again any any public order
01:25:26 order context. It was not it was not understood as targeting um the Brian Douglas campaign. Um
01:25:39 Um and
01:25:40 and you know not withstanding the low level of um
01:25:46 of um threat obviously this is one of those instances where uh an SDS report would assist risk assessors to
01:25:58 assessors to um to respond accordingly. Can I put it another way? Would it be fair to say there was no system in place to apply any sort of proportionality
01:26:09 to apply any sort of proportionality test to your reporting? Um,
01:26:15 Um, not sure. I don't think that's quite right. I think
01:26:23 um, well, where's the line if you report something like this? Sorry.
01:26:27 Sorry. Where's the line then if something like this is being reported? well a public order interest and I'm not quite sure if we are
01:26:40 quite sure if we are as a you know a small unit contributing to um the bigger picture. Um and I I think we we would have been
01:26:54 Um and I I think we we would have been told or asked by C Squad to provide this kind of intelligence and it's Mr. I understand what you're saying about it having some policing value,
01:27:08 having some policing value, but when I mention proportionality, I'm talking about setting that off against what it is involving to get it. This is a very minor public order matter and you
01:27:22 a very minor public order matter and you have got an undercover police officer who is attending a vigil for [snorts] a dead man as part of the family's
01:27:35 as part of the family's campaign of protest against the police. Well,
01:27:40 Well, did anybody address their mind to whether that was a proportionate and appropriate thing to do? I think [clears throat] even if we did uh as SDS managers
01:27:52 uh as SDS managers did you
01:27:53 did you pardon
01:27:54 pardon did you
01:27:57 did you I can't I can't rule that out but I I don't you know let's say um no probably not because if we had if we were being
01:28:11 if we had if we were being if if this was considered to be of value um to C squad, we would report it. Um can I just stop you there and can we take this document down and can we go to
01:28:23 take this document down and can we go to 720991?
01:28:30 If we go over one page and see what it is. This is um the transcript of an online question and answer
01:28:40 answer uh where Peter Francis was asked questions by members of the public online sponsored by um organized by the Guardian in 2013. Can we go to page
01:28:53 Guardian in 2013. Can we go to page seven please?
01:28:58 Can we have a look at the um question and answer under tux 28 25th of June timed at 12:58.
01:29:11 I'll give you a moment to read that.
01:29:48 Yes, thank you.
01:29:53 Were you aware that Mr. Francis was uh attending the Brian Douglas's campaign candle lit vigil outside Kennington
01:30:04 candle lit vigil outside Kennington Police Station? I can't recall today. I would have had a good understanding at the time, I'm sure.
01:30:13 sure. An event at which Mr. Douglas's relatives were all there.
01:30:22 Why didn't you stop [snorts] attendances like this at deeply emotive
01:30:33 at deeply emotive events?
01:30:37 Um well look I I can't [clears throat] I can't recall um I can't recall that he was there but um
01:30:51 I can't recall that he was there but um I'm quite prepared to accept that he was or he certainly could have been um pro you know if his if his target group
01:31:03 you know if his if his target group um was there um then I can understand why he would have been there as well. Doesn't answer my question as to why you
01:31:15 Doesn't answer my question as to why you didn't stop this sort of very intrusive reporting on emotive justice campaigns.
01:31:25 I think I I mean I don't want to resort to saying this is above my pay grade, but what I've I think I've indicated is that
01:31:39 think I've indicated is that um you know this was um this was work and this was reporting um that was uh valued. It's not it's not
01:31:51 um that was uh valued. It's not it's not an unfair point you're making, Mr. Lambert. Can I take it from what you've just said? Nobody above you in the chain of command did anything to stop this.
01:32:03 did anything to stop this. Well,
01:32:05 Well, no. Uh, okay. Let's say that. Yeah. I interrupted you. Was there anything else you wanted to add material to the question? The question of why didn't I mean, no, I should wait. I I mean
01:32:17 I mean, no, I should wait. I I mean there are other things that occur to me reading it, but I shall wait and see what you ask. Was there ever an occasion when Peter
01:32:29 Was there ever an occasion when Peter Francis said in your presence that what the Metropolitan Police should really be doing, and the words that he says he used were, "Stop killing black people," or anything remotely like
01:32:42 black people," or anything remotely like that,
01:32:44 that, I I'd be very surprised. I I feel I can I know he
01:32:52 I know he he has this recollection. Um but um I'd be very surprised. I think I would remember
01:33:01 remember um I can certainly recall him developing um you know concerns of of this kind. But
01:33:14 you know concerns of of this kind. But um
01:33:16 um not um not in May 95.
01:33:24 Can we take this document down now, please?
01:33:27 please? I want to move now to the question of Mr. Francis's sexual conduct undercover. [sighs]
01:33:37 [sighs] Mr. Francis has said that he had a number of
01:33:44 number of one night stands whilst he was undercover. Did he ever say anything to you about those? He didn't. And I was I was very surprised
01:33:55 surprised um to to read about them and [snorts] his other various comments that he's made. Um,
01:34:05 made. Um, why were you so surprised given that the tradecraft manual we went through yesterday did not prohibit sexual activity undercover?
01:34:16 activity undercover? Well, I think the tradecraftraft manual comes comes a bit further a bit f certainly well down. I think Peter Francis was um you know quite well
01:34:30 Peter Francis was um you know quite well deployed before then. Um, no. I I I
01:34:38 no. I I I just [snorts] um I didn't really I didn't see him I didn't understand him in the way that he has more recently um described himself um being he talks
01:34:52 um described himself um being he talks about well I don't want I shouldn't perhaps
01:34:58 perhaps uh talk about that um f but um no I was genu despite my own background. I in his case I it did s surprise me.
01:35:10 case I it did s surprise me. Why?
01:35:12 Why? Because I I hadn't I I he I um I suppose I'd got to know him I'd got to know him I thought pretty well. And um
01:35:25 know him I thought pretty well. And um I should I guess where we are today I I shouldn't be surprised sitting here. Um but there we are. Can we take it? You never asked.
01:35:37 Can we take it? You never asked. No. Um, no I No, I didn't. Could we have up 748733?
01:35:56 [snorts and clears throat]
01:36:07 Uh this is a witness statement uh made by DCI masters uh in the course of in response to questions put by this
01:36:18 response to questions put by this inquiry to her. If we go to page two please paragraph 15.
01:36:29 Give you a moment to read that
01:36:45 104 is um Carlos Saraki. Oh, right. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah.
01:37:05 So what DTI Masters is telling us is that during the course of her investigations uh she was told by Carlos Saraki
01:37:16 uh she was told by Carlos Saraki um
01:37:18 um that there was a suggestion that Mr. Francis uh had had a relationship with a woman called Judy Bishan and that the reaction of an SDS sergeant was, "Oh,
01:37:32 reaction of an SDS sergeant was, "Oh, yeah, that's Pete's Bird." Are you able to help us one way or another with whether or not there was ever a sexual relationship between Mr. Francis and Ms. Bjon?
01:37:43 Francis and Ms. Bjon? Um, no, not to my knowledge. Uh, are you able to assist us uh as to uh why a sergeant uh should think um to
01:37:55 uh why a sergeant uh should think um to adopt the rather uh sexist language that Pete had a bird? Um
01:38:04 not I mean not directly. I have read this and I I think it it probably comes after my deployment. Um but I do I
01:38:17 comes after my deployment. Um but I do I know I I I know the um sergeant. Yeah. The rumor is circulating after your time, but it's about events alleged events.
01:38:28 events. Yes, of course. In your time? No. Well, I Were there rumors circulating that Mr. Francis was involved in any sort of sexual activity undercover? No. No.
01:38:39 No. No. Um to be clear, um both Mr. Francis and Miss Bishon say nothing happened between them.
01:38:46 them. Yes. Yes.
01:38:47 Yes. Yes. Um but what I'm interested in is whether there was any suggestion at all at the time that Mr. Francis might be involved in sexual activity undercover.
01:38:59 in sexual activity undercover. No, I can say definitely not not to my knowledge. [sighs]
01:39:06 [sighs] Can I move if we take that down now? Can I move now to the summer of 1997 when the Steven Lawrence inquiry is
01:39:17 when the Steven Lawrence inquiry is announced? Can you recall what Mr. Francis's reaction was at the time of the announcement of the public inquiry?
01:39:31 announcement of the public inquiry? Um I can recall that there or thereabouts that he um expressed uh concern whether it was you know
01:39:43 uh concern whether it was you know immediately or days weeks later I can't recall
01:39:50 recall and what was his concern
01:39:54 um was his deployment going to be uh revealed to the inquiry
01:40:09 and at that early stage was his position that he was fearful that his cover was going to be blown.
01:40:19 Yes. And
01:40:22 And what was your response?
01:40:27 Um again, you know, I don't want to sort of condense the chronology, but um but at some point um
01:40:39 some point um well, let me go back. I'm sure that
01:40:45 that um at the very least I I would have discussed it immediately with uh with the DCI uh and the rest of the team but particularly obviously the
01:40:57 the team but particularly obviously the DCI um
01:41:00 DCI um um but um I have forgotten the sort the well I can prompt you if you like uh I'll put Mr. Francis has told us
01:41:12 I'll put Mr. Francis has told us that you and DCI DCI Edmonson reassure tried to reassure you saying that wouldn't happen. You wouldn't he
01:41:23 that wouldn't happen. You wouldn't he wouldn't be exposed. He didn't like that answer. He didn't think enough was being done. He went up the chain of command and went to see HN86.
01:41:33 HN86. Not not you know, is that correct? Not that. Well, not quite. I mean just he he didn't really have it as a field officer. He he relied
01:41:46 have it as a field officer. He he relied on me and the rest of the team to um sort facilitate sub the subsequent meetings where he met
01:41:58 sub the subsequent meetings where he met senior managers that that wasn't behi he you know it wasn't behind our backs it was through I'm I'm not ask sorry I'm not asking that I'm asking [clears throat] is it right that he didn't like the answer
01:42:09 right that he didn't like the answer that he got from you and went up through the chain of command his evidence was initially to HN86 and when he still didn't like the answer up to Commander Pierce.
01:42:19 Pierce. Although when I was reading the about this uh my recollection was that when he spoke to uh Mr. Pierce um
01:42:32 spoke to uh Mr. Pierce um and and
01:42:34 and and other others I thought I think that was all one of the same meeting. I think there was um Mr. Pierce was there. I think um is it
01:42:45 Mr. Pierce was there. I think um is it um the a former DCI I've forgotten the number my my my first DCI who it doesn't has just has a cipher I think he was
01:42:58 has just has a cipher I think he was there that's two and and then of course well [snorts] he was by then I think he was a superintendent 1886
01:43:09 1886 um whereas I think Peter Francis remembers I think two separate meetings. I I think it was all one. I I can certainly picture the the venue because
01:43:20 certainly picture the the venue because it was unusual. It was um it it was yeah it well I suppose there were lots of unusual things happened but
01:43:33 were lots of unusual things happened but um sorry.
01:43:34 um sorry. Yep. If I could, so your recollection is as Peter Francis, Commander Pierce, H&86,
01:43:42 H&86, yourself, DCI Edmonson in a room because Mr. Francis is very concerned about this issue. And I'm just going to say just to sort of emphasize if you like this is
01:43:55 sort of emphasize if you like this is um
01:43:57 um one I mean one occasion where I have a I can picture it visually because it was in a it was in a safe flat and um that's all I need to say but it
01:44:10 and um that's all I need to say but it just for me it it's one of those things that where I have an actual vision ial recollection of something and
01:44:22 vision ial recollection of something and um and um what before I forget um at one point the my first DCI who's there whose
01:44:33 point the my first DCI who's there whose cipher I can't he um
01:44:37 he um I think after the meeting he said to me goodness me he said um you know he's um he's changed a lot um
01:44:48 you know he's um he's changed a lot um reference to Peter. I'm sorry. If I could ask you now, what I'm interested in is what was the substance of the decision of this collection of
01:45:01 of the decision of this collection of senior officers? What did they say to Peter Francis about his concerns? I think number one was to
01:45:12 think number one was to understand understand his his concern why um and um and to
01:45:23 and to and to
01:45:25 and to you know re try to reassure him but first of all to try and understand what um exactly how he'd arrived at this
01:45:37 arrived at this and and How did again if you could succinctly tell us how in how did Peter Francis fear that his cover was blown and what reassurance
01:45:49 his cover was blown and what reassurance did senior managers give him? Yes. Well, um from um from those two senior managers, um
01:46:01 um from those two senior managers, um you know, there's you should not be concerned. um you will not be
01:46:11 not be um exposed or was there any discussion at that stage about whether or not the inquiry would be told of
01:46:22 be told of Mr. Francis's presence within activist groups? I can't recall that. and and maybe well um they probably
01:46:37 well um they probably whether I don't think they would necessarily have been discussed with uh Peter Francis at that point. Wouldn't that be one way of reassuring him?
01:46:47 him? Yeah. Well, may indeed. And so maybe maybe it was I I can't recall all of the the content. Mr. Francis's evidence is
01:47:00 the content. Mr. Francis's evidence is that um he changed his tune once Sir William McFersonen was announced as the chair of the Steven Lawrence inquiry. And he says at that
01:47:13 Lawrence inquiry. And he says at that point he positively wanted Sir William to be told of his presence within activist groups because he
01:47:24 within activist groups because he trusted Sir William. Is it true as far as you're aware that Mr. Francis changed his tune in that way?
01:47:36 changed his tune in that way? No, I've had the opportunity to think think about that. Um I I I definitely do not recall that. Um
01:47:48 do not recall that. Um I would expect to had it had it um had it been expressed if he had expressed that concern to me, I I would expect to remember that.
01:48:00 remember that. Were you party to any conversation uh as to whether or not the presence of SDS undercover officers in left-wing protest
01:48:12 undercover officers in left-wing protest groups associated with campaigning on behalf of Steven Lawrence and his family being disclosed to the inquiry?
01:48:24 being disclosed to the inquiry? No.
01:48:27 No. Are you aware whether or not there were any such discussions? I may well have been at the time. I I can't recall now.
01:48:38 can't recall now. And would it be right that to the best of your knowledge and belief, the Steven Lawrence inquiry was not told about the presence of officers like Peter Francis
01:48:50 presence of officers like Peter Francis and HN81?
01:48:52 and HN81? Yes.
01:48:56 [snorts] Can we move now to 246959
01:49:02 tab B179 sir? Uh we're moving now to the decision not to extend Mr. Francis's
01:49:13 decision not to extend Mr. Francis's deployment. This document is a file note made by you dated the 28th of January.
01:49:41 give you a moment to look at that. But, uh, what I'd like you to concentrate on is the reason for not extending Mr. Francis's uh deployment
01:50:24 I don't think you need dwell on the details of the withdrawal strategy. It's the timing that I'm interested in. Oh, it's the timing of the uh the decision not to extend that I'm particularly interested in. It says in
01:50:36 particularly interested in. It says in paragraph one, it was decided that the customer requirement in respect to militant labor was not sufficient to justify an extension and he was told his duty would finish as
01:50:47 and he was told his duty would finish as scheduled in September 1997. Is it right that by customer requirement this is a reference to the security
01:50:58 this is a reference to the security services diminishing interest in groups with revolutionary aims? Yes. And that they were moving
01:51:10 And that they were moving to a watching brief about such groups using the SDS as a sort of minimal eyes and ears in case of any sort of
01:51:21 and ears in case of any sort of renaissance of activity. Yes.
01:51:26 Yes. And against that background, there is no longer a justification in the view of management for continued infiltration of militant labor.
01:51:38 militant labor. Yes. [clears throat] Can we inherent in that is it wasn't thought that any public in public order threat arrive arose from militant
01:51:50 threat arrive arose from militant Labour's activities. Well, that's true. But there is I mean there is more to be said. Um I think just I don't but I I maybe I should just
01:52:01 just I don't but I I maybe I should just wait and see what's in the rest of the paper. Well, let me just say this just for clarity while it's in my mind. Um you you you
01:52:13 you you you know he has what are we 97 um September? This is at the end of what four years a normal tour. He's coming up to the end of a normal tour. He wants to he wants
01:52:24 of a normal tour. He wants to he wants to stay in longer. You're saying no. Yes. But but it I don't I dare say it it'll come on to say it, but of course,
01:52:36 it'll come on to say it, but of course, you know, my his role was not solely and not primarily to do with the security service interest, but that was, you know, it,
01:52:48 interest, but that was, you know, it, you know, I mean, it's a given. It's a given that his role um is is is greatly valued in respect of public order
01:52:59 valued in respect of public order intelligence and and uh you know and as you know from the record um [snorts] I was
01:53:08 I was you know wholly and highly um praiseworthy about his work. The point here is that an extension, you know, he an extension
01:53:21 know, he an extension he's he's he would require something additional to that. It um anyway, I just wanted to put put that into context.
01:53:33 wanted to put put that into context. We looked at a report earlier which showed that militant labor was no longer um pursuing its aims through having members join the Labor Party and was
01:53:46 members join the Labor Party and was committed to democratic elections. In circumstances where that had been known for some time, why wasn't Mr. Francis's deployment
01:53:57 why wasn't Mr. Francis's deployment drawn to a close earlier than the normal 4-year term? Well, I think I've just answered that um because uh for you know
01:54:08 answered that um because uh for you know the the substantial part of his deployment and right through to when he finished he was providing um uh very good u public order
01:54:19 um uh very good u public order intelligence um in when we much of which we've seen I I think
01:54:30 by the time of this document. Is it right that Mrs. Francis had raised concerns about PC DC Francis's
01:54:42 PC DC Francis's well-being? Yes.
01:54:47 Yes. That in itself had not led to Mr. Francis's deployment being ended, had it?
01:54:56 it? Um
01:54:59 Um well, it would have been it would have been taken would have been taken into account and I I think it was taken into account.
01:55:09 account. Your evidence in your witness statement, Mr. In fact, it reinforces the decision not to extend. But that wasn't my question. My question was her concerns
01:55:20 question. My question was her concerns had not prompted uh him to be withdrawn early early. Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, no, that's correct.
01:55:27 correct. Why not?
01:55:29 Why not? Well, I think her her concerns were uh
01:55:37 her concerns were listened to um I mean I listened to them um very closely and I discussed them [clears throat]
01:55:48 discussed them [clears throat] with the DCI and actually well other at least one other member of the team. Um and um
01:56:00 other member of the team. Um and um we certainly took it very you know very seriously. Um
01:56:08 Um we did not I don't know I there might be some reporting on this. Um we we did not think that it warranted
01:56:20 think that it warranted um an early an early exit. I'm sure One of our considerations would have been
01:56:30 been had um Peter Francis been told, "Right, you're leaving early." Um that may well have exacerbated the the um some of the
01:56:44 have exacerbated the the um some of the concerns that we'd been made aware of. Was anything done? Um, well, I I'd have to
01:56:57 anything done? Um, well, I I'd have to sort of
01:56:59 sort of try to refresh my memory on what the what the concerns were. I mean, I can reme you know, I can remember
01:57:11 reme you know, I can remember what I think was the central concern. Um, if you want me to talk about that.
01:57:20 My question was, was anything done? Um,
01:57:30 in Well, I not that I can recall um beyond
01:57:36 beyond um I guess
01:57:41 um
01:57:45 you know the trying to um Yeah. Okay. Okay. Well, look, there would have been obvious there would have been obvious things that we we would have done because the the concern was
01:57:58 have done because the the concern was really that or the illustration um that I was given was of um Peter being unable to
01:58:10 being unable to uh switch off and um he had whether it was some some whether it was a really some sort of phone early mobile phone or a page or
01:58:22 of phone early mobile phone or a page or something. But I just, you know, remember that um Mrs. Francis was very, you know, concerned that when he
01:58:33 very, you know, concerned that when he was at home, she could see he he he was constantly concerned about If I could direct you, Mr. Lambert, not to what the concern was, but to answer the question, was anything done? Well,
01:58:46 the question, was anything done? Well, we could I I use the illustrate the concern to illustrate how you know I think we would have um you know been able to encourage him to
01:59:00 you know been able to encourage him to um you know go think tried to you know try to for you know carve out I mean we spoke earlier about [snorts] influence and so in his group um and other field
01:59:14 and so in his group um and other field officers We we would have we would have sought um help from other field officers without dulging. I mean I was under strict instructions from Mrs.
01:59:25 was under strict instructions from Mrs. Francis not to not to tell him that I' that she'd asked to see me and I didn't want to breach that. But we could do a lot of things and I'm sure we did with
01:59:36 lot of things and I'm sure we did with senior field officers people he would listen to say LP you know how's it going and blah blah well why don't you know cuz by then I think a lot of you know field colleagues were saw him as having
01:59:49 field colleagues were saw him as having become more and more you know wound up anxious um and on always on the job and so senior field officers who did the
02:00:01 so senior field officers who did the right thing and took took a period of leave and used their influence within their target group to take leave and to get away from it or um
02:00:14 get away from it or um um [clears throat] you know they they could have they would have helped in that or could have done um and we you know myself I would try to I would try
02:00:27 know myself I would try to I would try and suggest those that approach so as to help him be able to, you know, step back from
02:00:40 be able to, you know, step back from the this constant involvement. So, is that a convenient time for the break?
02:00:46 break? Certainly. Uh, we'll have a 15-minute break.
02:20:11 Thank you, sir. Uh, could we have up please 747560?
02:20:17 Mr. Lambert, we're moving to Mr. Francis's exilration. And I'm going to show you two documents. uh this is a post operational report
02:20:33 uh this is a post operational report that you wrote on the 3rd of February 1998. And if we could have the text expanded.
02:20:41 expanded. Thank you.
02:21:41 Yes, thank you. And if we could have up 721
02:21:47 721 965
02:21:48 965 please
02:21:53 [snorts]
02:22:02 page four. This is a a note of Sergeant War's interview with Hearn officers and the
02:22:13 interview with Hearn officers and the section Francis's removal from role. I'll let you read that, but it um paints a more dramatic picture of events.
02:22:25 events. So, could you just Sorry, just tell me again the who's written this. Sergeant, it's it's Hearn. It's a hearn officer writing up what Sergeant War has said.
02:22:36 said. Right. Right.
02:23:41 [snorts]
02:24:14 Yes. Thank you. I'd like to take you through your recollection of events a step at a time and see what uh what your recollection is now. Can you recall whether it was a
02:24:28 is now. Can you recall whether it was a case of the plan to go to Greece falling down because of changes to activist plans and being replaced
02:24:41 activist plans and being replaced by a plan to exit via Spain? Or was it a case that Mr. Francis wanted to go to Spain first and then to Greece?
02:24:52 to go to Spain first and then to Greece? Uh my recollection would be the former
02:24:58 Greece having fallen through. Did you approve uh an exfiltration strategy that involved a trip to Spain?
02:25:12 strategy that involved a trip to Spain? I I believe so. Yes. Was it also approved by your DCI? Um, I would have thought so. I can't recall.
02:25:28 When you agree that exfiltration strategy, to what extent did you approve or talk to him about the detail of
02:25:40 or talk to him about the detail of executing that strategy? I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? To what extent did you discuss the detail of that exfiltration strategy with him?
02:25:51 with him? I can't recall today. Can you recall whether it was agreed he would travel over land? Um
02:26:03 Um well yes I expect so. Can you recall who it was that he was going to travel with? No.
02:26:15 going to travel with? No. Can you recall whether there was any suggestion that he was traveling with the wife of a member of his target group?
02:26:27 group? No, I don't recall that.
02:26:33 when he executed the withdrawal strategy,
02:26:41 strategy, did [snorts] Mr. Francis execute it in the manner that had been agreed or not? Um
02:26:58 well I um not without um not without some uh problems but um generally yes.
02:27:10 generally yes. What problems uh were there? Well, there's
02:27:16 there's there are issues that um um DS war sets out in or this interview with um DS war, some of which
02:27:31 with um DS war, some of which uh some of which I I you know I I recall um and um
02:27:41 as you can see Um um
02:27:48 there were um there were difficulties.
02:27:55 Which which of these difficulties recorded by Sergeant or on Sergeant War's behalf on his account do you recall?
02:28:08 do you recall? [clears throat and cough] Um,
02:28:44 Um, I don't well I don't recall um
02:28:53 I don't recall much of it.
02:28:58 Were there problems with drug use? Were there problems with drug use? Um, not that I was aware of. No. Were you aware that he was taking drugs?
02:29:12 Were you aware that he was taking drugs? Uh, no.
02:29:14 Uh, no. Did you have to track his location by tracing his financial expenditure via the police issued credit card?
02:29:26 the police issued credit card? Um,
02:29:30 no. This this um though this rather surprises me.
02:29:38 Was there any suggestion at any point that he hit somebody on a plane? [clears throat] I think the the concern was um
02:29:51 the concern was um that he was in Spain um
02:29:57 um without any without any uh cover. Um
02:30:04 Um could you answer the question? Was did you hear anything to the effect that he'd hit somebody on a plane? That he hit somebody on a plane? No. No. So you were saying the concern
02:30:15 No. No. So you were saying the concern was that
02:30:17 was that he didn't have cover with him. Yes.
02:30:26 Any other concerns?
02:30:31 Um
02:30:37 I think the concern that um he needed
02:30:43 he needed needed to return home. Why didn't he have any cover with him?
02:30:54 [snorts] Um I can't recall today why that why that was. It wouldn't have been it wouldn't have been without precedent. Um there would have been
02:31:06 there would have been you know there would have been a discussion. Um but if there was um you know if it I think if it was thought to be
02:31:17 thought to be um safe
02:31:20 um safe and um
02:31:23 and um then
02:31:26 there wouldn't necessarily be a
03:00:57 Thank you, sir. Uh, you were explaining to us, Mr. Lambert, that you were disappointed when Mr. Francis and HM123 brought legal proceedings um against the
03:01:09 brought legal proceedings um against the commissioner. Was that disappointment shared by others within the unit? Yes. And what was the strength of feeling?
03:01:20 feeling? Um
03:01:23 Um well it was um
03:01:28 it was you know it it was I think re reasonable. I don't think um I don't think it was wouldn't describe it as
03:01:41 it as uh anger but certainly you know disappointment. I think some
03:01:50 some well there'd be each I mean field officers
03:01:54 officers and management there'd be different um different levels um but um
03:02:06 but um I think for some
03:02:10 you know well some managers Um the there was yeah the disappointment was be was um
03:02:22 was be was um uh because um you know one one officer in particular
03:02:32 um was you know highly regarded and it it was um I think disappointing all round. Uh it for um all concerned
03:02:45 Uh it for um all concerned did you get to see the evidence? Did see the evidence? Um I
03:02:54 I I don't think I know I don't recall that I did.
03:02:58 I did. Uh were you involved in any of the decision- making? Um
03:03:04 Um no I don't no I I don't decision making I
03:03:10 I in what sense um as to how to deal with the claim well um [clears throat]
03:03:19 I can I I think I was at at certain points I think I was able to contribute to discussions
03:03:36 Did you provide a witness statement? I I mean I could well have done. I can't recall it. [snorts]
03:03:46 [snorts] Were you aware uh that the allegations included um allegations that there had been sexual relationships undercover? No, I don't recall that. Uh, and that
03:03:59 No, I don't recall that. Uh, and that justice campaigns had been targeted. No.
03:04:03 No. And that officers had assumed positions of influence within their target groups. No.
03:04:15 [snorts] Presumably. Then I don't need the details, but were you providing instructions as to what as to the SDS's version of events?
03:04:29 I I don't think so. I No.
03:04:35 Are you sure? Because you were Francis's direct in his direct chain of command within the unit, weren't you? Yes. Yes.
03:04:48 Yes. Yes. You sure you didn't know what the allegations were? Um,
03:04:55 Um, I don't think I would. Um, no. I don't think I was ever told.
03:05:03 The litigation is ultimately settled and Mr. Francis is awarded a commendation. Do you recall being at the commenation ceremony?
03:05:14 commenation ceremony? Mr. Francis? Yes.
03:05:18 Um, yes, I do. Oh, yes, I I do recall. Yeah. Uh, and what contact did you have with
03:05:29 Uh, and what contact did you have with Mr. Francis at that stage? Um, yeah, as I've said, I I had an ongoing
03:05:39 ongoing um welfare brief. What was your view of the commissioner's decision, and I'm not necessarily meaning that personally, of the decision
03:05:50 meaning that personally, of the decision by the Metropolitan Police Service [snorts]
03:05:53 [snorts] uh to settle the claim.
03:05:58 Um
03:06:04 probably mixed, you know, mixed feelings. um still ongoing ongoing disappointment. There might perhaps on the other hand some some relief that uh
03:06:17 the other hand some some relief that uh this long
03:06:19 this long uh process had had come to an end. Was part of the relief that any threat to the operational security of the SDS
03:06:30 to the operational security of the SDS was much diminished by a settlement? Yes. But um as I've said already, I I I just I don't think I had I I don't think
03:06:41 just I don't think I had I I don't think I had been I don't think I was ever given
03:06:45 given the details that you've described. Was there a feeling that by bringing the litigation, the two officers had given rise to a risk to the operational
03:06:57 rise to a risk to the operational security of the SDS? that the proceedings were provided a threat. Yes. By bringing a claim. Yes.
03:07:07 Yes. And was that feeling widely held? Yes.
03:07:12 Yes. And that would amount to a breach of the golden rule, wouldn't it? Yes.
03:07:20 Yes. Uh
03:07:22 Uh sometime after the commen the settlement and the commenation comes the 40th anniversary dinner
03:07:31 dinner of the SDS. Yes.
03:07:36 Mr. Francis said that the at the time of the commenation you gave him to understand that he would be invited to that event and welcome at it.
03:07:47 that event and welcome at it. Did you do so? No. Um I'd like to just just um expand upon what I've said in my witness
03:07:58 upon what I've said in my witness statement, which is accurate. I what whatever the pre the question was um I answered it but I I think um I
03:08:09 um I answered it but I I think um I didn't go into if maybe I didn't uh then have time but certainly since I've had time to um
03:08:22 I've had time to um recall
03:08:23 recall the
03:08:25 the uh issue of the 40th anniversary two um 2008 I think. Right. Um
03:08:37 Right. Um [clears throat] so
03:08:40 so this this was there was never um an SDS reunion on um on on
03:08:51 reunion on um on on at the 40th anniversary. The only
03:08:56 The only official SDS reunion um took place at the 25th anniversary. Um
03:09:07 Um that said what happened what happened often
03:09:11 often um and I can recall when it was the 30th anniversary a small group of uh officers largely branch one would
03:09:24 uh officers largely branch one would meet um socially in a pub and at the at the 40th anniversary um
03:09:34 um I That's what I'd heard. That's what I'd become aware of. Um that a small group of officers
03:09:45 of officers um were meeting um you know for a drink. It you know it was a smallcale thing. Um
03:09:56 was a smallcale thing. Um I think I mentioned it to Peter Francis and others. Um, I was retired from the police. I was working at the
03:10:09 from the police. I was working at the time.
03:10:09 time. I [clears throat] don't think we need to know that level of detail, Mr. Lamb. But what I what I need to know was did you give first of all, did you give Mr. Francis to understand that he would be invited to that event?
03:10:21 be invited to that event? There was it, it wasn't a question of invitations. Um, had I had I been had I been going, had I gone, uh, you know, I would have
03:10:35 had I gone, uh, you know, I would have Could you answer the question? Did you did you give Mr. Francis to understand that he would be invited to that event? Um,
03:10:45 Um, yes.
03:10:48 Is it right that he was not invited to that event? Well, it wasn't a question of having an invitation. Um, I think
03:11:01 invitation. Um, I think had I you know, did he know where and when it was going to happen? Did I know? Did he know? Did he know? I um had anybody No, did did I know? I don't probably
03:11:13 No, did did I know? I don't probably didn't. I' It was something I was aware of. I'd mentioned it in conversation to him. it what was you know look if um
03:11:24 him. it what was you know look if um I did not intend it and I don't think it was understood to be I'm just trying to establish the facts told us you did give him to understand he'd been invited as I understand your
03:11:36 he'd been invited as I understand your evidence you're telling me you don't know whether he was actually invited well I can no I can be clearer than that it was you know there's a discussion
03:11:47 it was you know there's a discussion um between me and Peter Francis. It's do we and perhaps one or two other friends, you know, former people um do
03:11:59 friends, you know, former people um do we want to go? Um didn't need that was it. And um it was a very small informal gathering. It um and
03:12:10 gathering. It um and why wasn't Mr. Francis there? Why wasn't he there? Well, because probably
03:12:16 probably um
03:12:17 um you know, out of what 100 200 uh former officers that could have been there, I I expect there were about no more than 10.
03:12:28 more than 10. Was he was he invited?
03:12:32 Well, not in the sense no. No, there was no formal invitation. Was he invited in any way whatsoever? only to the extent that I'm describing.
03:12:45 only to the extent that I'm describing. Did he telephone you to discuss the fact he'd not been invited?
03:12:54 I I'm I can't recall this, but I would have surely I think I would have contacted him to say, well,
03:13:06 I would have contacted him to say, well, you know, I'm not going. I can't go. No one. I would have probably said, "Well, no, as far as I can tell, no one that we know is going. It doesn't add up to
03:13:17 know is going. It doesn't add up to much."
03:13:18 much." Um,
03:13:21 Um, did you tell him that people had voted for him not to go? No. Um, now, okay, that I've read that's what he, you know,
03:13:32 that I've read that's what he, you know, that's his understanding. Um,
03:13:37 Um, I No, I've I really don't think it's No, it's
03:13:44 it's [clears throat] very
03:13:48 very um it seems inconceivable to me that I would have said that. Did you tell him that the black balls exceeded the white?
03:13:59 exceeded the white? Not um not not no not in relation to this uh this reunion. In what rel in what um context did you say that to him? I I have no idea. It's um you know it see
03:14:12 I have no idea. It's um you know it see it's a phrase I might well have used at some point but um was the feeling that as a result of Mr. Francis having breached the golden rule
03:14:25 Francis having breached the golden rule by bringing proceedings against the commissioner he was persona nong grata. Um [clears throat] well it he may well have been persona
03:14:38 well it he may well have been persona nong gratatera in places. Um you know but that was not that was not the basis of why
03:14:51 that was not the basis of why um he didn't go and I didn't go. Um that was not the basis of it. Why didn't he go? um because I was
03:15:03 Why didn't he go? um because I was stuck in Scotland, couldn't make it and I, you know, he was um I was, if you like, try maybe trying to rustle up a a small group
03:15:16 to rustle up a a small group um that could go along. Why were you trying to rustle up a group if you couldn't Why were you trying to rustle up a group if you couldn't go? Well, that that was before uh it was
03:15:28 Well, that that was before uh it was only on I think it was probably only on the day or when I you know realized I wasn't [clears throat] going to be able to
03:15:36 to um get down to London in time. Can I move to another topic now please Mr. Lambert? Uh there was a change of various systems in May 1997. I'll call
03:15:49 various systems in May 1997. I'll call up the document 527362 please.
03:16:06 It's a document setting out new administrative support and liaison arrangements and it appears to uh occur at around the time the unit moves from having two sergeants to three sergeants.
03:16:19 having two sergeants to three sergeants. And so if we go to page six for example,
03:16:25 we see with each of the three s below each of the three sergeants initials, various administrative roles and within the body of the document there is
03:16:36 the body of the document there is reference uh linking various sergeants to various um officers. Can I ask you this administrative change in May 1997,
03:16:50 this administrative change in May 1997, did it in practice affect the amount of contact that you personally had with undercover officers or not? Um, yes.
03:17:01 Um, yes. Uh again without mentioning any specific officers um could you tell us how these changes affected the level of contact
03:17:12 changes affected the level of contact that you had with undercover officers.
03:17:17 [clears throat] Um
03:17:20 Um well, here we see [clears throat] um
03:17:25 um the
03:17:26 the the three sergeants. Uh previously it was two and we [clears throat] we know that previously
03:17:37 [clears throat] we know that previously one was reports and one was um finance admin. But what this I I let me
03:17:48 admin. But what this I I let me Um
03:17:50 Um well just looking at the top lines admin finance transport actually what isn't stated is that um one
03:18:01 one took responsibility for I'm I'm
03:18:06 I'm I'm just [clears throat] going to stop you there in terms my question is very specific
03:18:11 specific in terms of the di the con the direct contact that you have with undercover officers. Does that change? Yes, to a degree. Yes.
03:18:24 Yes, to a degree. Yes. Do you have more [clears throat] or less?
03:18:27 less? Less.
03:18:31 Is that because And you can give me a yes or no to this, please. Is that because the sergeants are taking more of that role? Yes.
03:18:42 Yes. Does it follow that your relationship with the sergeants changes and you are dealing with them more as intermediaries between you and the sergeants
03:18:55 between you and the sergeants um in some in some situations? Yes. Would it be fair to say though that you still have plenty of contact uh with the undercover police officers?
03:19:06 undercover police officers? Yes. and that you still know in broad terms what they're doing on a day-to-day basis.
03:19:11 basis. Yes.
03:19:14 Yes. Going to move now to HN26. But before I do so, sir, I have a confession as well because I fear I've set a a hair running. I appear to have
03:19:25 set a a hair running. I appear to have misread the handwriting of the Hearn officer about striking a woman on an airplane. I've been it's been pointed out to me that the properly deciphered the word is stuck not struck.
03:19:39 the word is stuck not struck. What is the sorry the stuck a woman on an airplane? Uh do you recall Mr. Francis any any talk of Mr. Francis not striking a woman on a plane but sticking a woman on a
03:19:52 on a plane but sticking a woman on a plane?
03:19:53 plane? Um no
03:19:54 Um no thank you. HN26.
03:19:59 HN26. Did you give HN26 any advice about sexual activity in her undercover identity? No.
03:20:11 No. Uh could [snorts] we uh have up please 746
03:20:16 746 uh 348.
03:20:23 This is moving on now. I I'm interested. These documents I'm going to take you through are the start of thinking about how her cover identity was generated.
03:20:36 how her cover identity was generated. This is a document of the 29th of May and it's about John Dyn in the light of the Chitty affair.
03:20:49 in the light of the Chitty affair. And it records at the bottom of page one that close comrades have sought to trace him since his departure from the field
03:21:00 him since his departure from the field for welfare reasons. We'll be coming back to this topic in some detail later, but our understanding is that from soon after John Dyn withdrew from
03:21:14 from soon after John Dyn withdrew from the field, uh there had been efforts to contact him through his mother-in-law. Is that right? Um
03:21:26 Um yes. Yes. But well, well, maybe not. I It's the chronology. I think the first thing I think that the first concern I think is when um
03:21:39 the first concern I think is when um um two two people [clears throat] visit his parents uh address. Yeah. Uh what I'm interested in is when
03:21:52 Yeah. Uh what I'm interested in is when in I am interested in the chronology when in May 1994 it's being noted that close comrades have sought to trace him since his departure from the field for welfare reasons.
03:22:05 welfare reasons. Is that
03:22:07 Is that referring to recent activity, past activity, or both? Um
03:22:19 I um I think I have dealt in my statement with what what I've you know recalled about
03:22:31 you know recalled about um
03:22:34 um the the these um issues. At this stage, the document goes over the page and paragraph two of the second page to say he's still highly regarded
03:22:48 believed to be living in New Zealand. Yes.
03:22:53 Yes. So, if you can't answer the question, just say so. But my question is, is what's said about attempts to trace him referring to past
03:23:04 him referring to past or past and then current attempts to trace him? certainly [clears throat] um 94 certainly passed but um
03:23:17 passed but um whether it I can't recall now what in what the position was uh in 94. Okay, if we take that document down now, HN26
03:23:29 we take that document down now, HN26 joins the SDS in the summer of 1994. Was she in, we know that she does not
03:23:40 Was she in, we know that she does not use a deceased child's identity, right,
03:23:43 right, to found her legend? Was she instructed from the outset not to use a deceased child's identity
03:23:54 not to use a deceased child's identity or did she initially was she initially told to use one and then there was a change of mind? [clears throat] No, I unless unless I I've made a a note, I can't
03:24:07 unless I I've made a a note, I can't can't recall now. I can't recall the details of her cover.
03:24:17 She deploys in November 1994 using a cover identity that we know did not uh rely on
03:24:30 rely on uh a deceased child's identity. Can we go to 52743 please? Tab B79, sir,
03:24:43 and to page two of that document.
03:24:52 And we'll see that if you see the text in the middle of the page,
03:25:03 we see a record there of the change of system.
03:25:13 Yes.
03:25:18 Our understanding, the evidence is going to be that Helen Steel found the death record
03:25:28 record for Philip John Barker, the child who John Dyn used to found his SDS legend in the middle of November 1994.
03:25:41 in the middle of November 1994. Right.
03:25:42 Right. And my question comes to this. Do you know
03:25:48 know whether or not Helen Steel's efforts to trace John Dyn had any influence in the SDS's decision
03:26:01 had any influence in the SDS's decision to change to a system of no longer using deceased children's identities?
03:26:10 I can't recall today um [clears throat] whether and and to what extent it played a part in in that um decision
03:26:21 it played a part in in that um decision that's um [clears throat] and the detail that's provided in this report.
03:26:29 report. Did you have a role in making that decision to abandon the use of deceased children's identities? Yes.
03:26:38 Yes. What was your role in that decision? Um, we would have we would have had a discussion um myself, the DCI and DS's
03:26:52 myself, the DCI and DS's pros and cons. Um I think
03:26:57 I think I think the system I possibly the the major [clears throat] prompt for a change I think was a change in the system itself
03:27:09 in the system itself um the system um registration and so forth. [snorts]
03:27:17 [snorts] Who was the decision the ultimate decision maker? Was it you or somebody else?
03:27:24 else? Um,
03:27:27 Um, well, yes. Obviously, the the DCI would make the final decision. Do you know whether the DCI sought the approval of anyone in a higher rank?
03:27:39 approval of anyone in a higher rank? Um, almost certainly. I mean, sorry, I don't recall, but I mean, I I' you [clears throat] know, I'd be very surprised if it wasn't.
03:27:50 surprised if it wasn't. At what rank would you expect a change of this kind to have been approved? Um
03:27:58 Um well
03:28:00 well in the ch in the chain above the DCI so the head of es squad and probably
03:28:10 probably commander operations. [snorts]
03:28:15 [snorts] Sir would that be a convenient time to break for lunch? Yes it would. Um, can we try and resume at two slightly shorter lunch break? [snorts]