Continued cross-examination of HN85 Roger Pearce, former Head of Special Branch, on Day 20 (PM) of Tranche 3 Phase 3. Counsel probes his account of the BBC 'True Spies' documentary, the justification for Operation Muscat's years-long tracking of ex-UCO John Dyn and Helen Steel, his denials of warning off Peter Francis, and Special Branch's surveillance of the Stephen Lawrence justice campaign and its record on institutional racism. Pearce makes several notable concessions - that Muscat was not necessary in hindsight, that collateral reporting on justice campaigns was discriminatory, and that officers' deceptive relationships caused real harm - while denying specific allegations of threats and misconduct.
00:55:34 Good afternoon everybody. The remainder of this afternoon's proceedings will be transmitted on the live link after a 15minute delay. Those with mobile telephones may use them to report what
00:55:45 telephones may use them to report what they hear in the hearing room, but only after 15 minutes of elapse since the event that they're reporting. They may not be used for photography or recording. Mr. Pierce, before lunch, we very
00:55:59 Mr. Pierce, before lunch, we very lightly touched on true spies, and I want to ask you a about that broadcast, but in doing so, I wonder if you can just bring up Mr. Pierce's statement.
00:56:10 just bring up Mr. Pierce's statement. I'd like to refer you to page 156 at paragraph uh [snorts] 192.2
00:56:20 192.2 please.
00:56:28 So here you set out that I accepted the outcome of the meeting on the 15th of January 2001 involving the production team, the commissioner AXO, David Vanesse and Chris Webb who was the head
00:56:40 Vanesse and Chris Webb who was the head of directorate of public affairs regarding the program the secret state. So this later changed its name to true spies. Yes, it is obvious that there were
00:56:52 it is obvious that there were considerations pointing in both directions as to whether cooperation with the production team was desirable. I was satisfied with the question of whether it was appropriate to cooperate with the production team had been
00:57:04 with the production team had been considered at an appropriately senior level. I had no reason to question the decision that such cooperation was appropriate. So are are you setting the record straight there that in terms of
00:57:16 record straight there that in terms of the the decision this is not your decision to uh cooperate with the program makers but it was made at a more senior level uh than you so the
00:57:27 senior level uh than you so the commissioner AXO and the directorate of public public affairs is is that the position
00:57:33 position I'm saying that and I'm also implying that it would have been um advisable I think to involve in a discussion about the publication of sub counter
00:57:46 the publication of sub counter subversion tactics by the the Met and special branches throughout the country to involve the head of special branch in those discussions. So I'm saying really I should have been notified or invited
00:57:59 I should have been notified or invited to that preliminary meeting. So perhaps I'm putting it crudely but was it a done deal by the time it reached your desk as or your attention? It was a done deal and the first I
00:58:10 It was a done deal and the first I received was a telephone call from I think Peter Taylor because we have seen it in in due course after the program is shown. You are on
00:58:21 after the program is shown. You are on the receiving end of a lot of former special branch officers. Yes.
00:58:26 Yes. Seeming to hold you responsible for the for that decision. What was your reaction to after the program has aired? were suddenly uh receiving letter after
00:58:38 were suddenly uh receiving letter after letter from special branch officers complaining to to you. What was your reaction at the time then given you've indicated here it wasn't your decision? Yes. Well, it was it was completely
00:58:49 Yes. Well, it was it was completely understandable, completely predictable and I suppose um my anger at what happened and the way that the STS was exposed matched theirs.
00:59:01 that the STS was exposed matched theirs. What I hadn't disclosed to them before was the reasoning behind it, the factors which had led to our necessity of cooperating with the BBC on this program. Do
00:59:12 program. Do do you know why those former special branch officers held you responsible or wrote to you as opposed to David Vaness or the commissioner? Why why was that?
00:59:23 or the commissioner? Why why was that? What
00:59:25 What they they were special branch officers. I was the head of special branch. They knew me as well. So I suppose I was the obvious um first port of call to to vent their anger about about this.
00:59:37 their anger about about this. I want to give you an opportunity to respond to what one of the UCOs has stated in in their witness statement, but just to provide context or possible context. Could we please bring up on
00:59:49 context. Could we please bring up on screen MPS 0741736? So this is so at your tab B142.
01:00:01 Now, this is a a letter um to you and we can see from the from the BBC. I wonder if we can look at the second page as well.
01:00:13 second page as well. Yes.
01:00:17 All right. So, so this is and we can see in the in the the middle there, Peter Taylor at the end. He he was the driving force uh behind this program. had previously uh been involved in uh
01:00:29 previously uh been involved in uh serious uh broadcasting programs. Yes, that's right. He's writing to you there. And the beginning of this uh letter, he says, "Thank you very much for hosting such an
01:00:40 "Thank you very much for hosting such an enjoyable and productive lunch on Friday. It's very good to meet you, uh Colin and Bob, and to be able to discuss our new project and your work so
01:00:51 our new project and your work so informally. Uh we were greatly encouraged by your kind offer of help with our new series on the history of subversion and counter subversion in this country since the war. At this
01:01:03 this country since the war. At this point we envisage uh excluding Irish terrorism as we have just completed an exhaustive study of the Irish conflict uh with our recent uh tril trilogy uh provos loyalists and Brits. Now in in
01:01:16 provos loyalists and Brits. Now in in relation to to that description of why why are they writing again it's in terms of the same sort of question why are they writing to you uh as opposed to say
01:01:28 they writing to you uh as opposed to say the commissioner or AXO why why are you the recipient of the of their correspondence? Well, because it follows from the meeting on the 15th of um
01:01:40 from the meeting on the 15th of um February,
01:01:41 February, just a few days before, Peter Taylor's been given my name by the Department of Public Affairs, I imagine,
01:01:52 Department of Public Affairs, I imagine, and my contact number. Uh and he's contacted us very shortly after that. And my reaction to that is that this is a, as you say, a done deal. Um it's a
01:02:04 a, as you say, a done deal. Um it's a program about subversion and in measures to to counteract it throughout the country. So we cooperate. That's the that's the Met line. That's the as it turned out the line of APOTAM,
01:02:19 the as it turned out the line of APOTAM, the terrorism allied matters committee headed by Ben Gun whose secretary was David Vanesse. Um so it's a done deal.
01:02:30 David Vanesse. Um so it's a done deal. I wonder if we can take this document down and I I want to, as I said, give you an opportunity to respond to to something that HN81 stated in his hear witness statement. So
01:02:41 stated in his hear witness statement. So I wonder if you can bring up MPS 0721941.
01:02:45 0721941. So this uh document is at your tab B249.
01:02:59 So, it's another Hearn's statement and you've already commented on on Hearn's statements, but I wonder if we could turn to page 10, please,
01:03:10 please, because you can see it's the true spy section at the bottom. So, this is what HN81 stated in his earn statement. He said, "Colin Black uh presented me with
01:03:24 said, "Colin Black uh presented me with a commendation certificate. I remember I wasn't particularly appreciative of the commenation in light of what had happened with Roger Pierce and True Spies." And this is what he says next.
01:03:37 Spies." And this is what he says next. My understanding is that Roger Pierce went out for a meal with some journalists who were going to run a program on special branch. He ended up having too much to drink and revealing
01:03:48 having too much to drink and revealing the existence of SDS to the journalists. Roger Pierce said to the journalists it was off the record, but the journalists said that it wasn't. They then wanted to
01:03:59 said that it wasn't. They then wanted to run a program on the SDS instead of their planned program, and the MPS agreed to do so for damage limitation purposes. I felt completely exposed after it was aired, as it would have
01:04:11 after it was aired, as it would have been obvious to my wearies that I had been an undercover officer. My deployment had finished one year earlier, but the profile of an SDS officer was revealed just at the time that I was dealing with compromises at
01:04:22 that I was dealing with compromises at work as I try to reassimilate. I had previously had a lot of respect for Roger Pierce, but this made me feel completely betrayed by him um and something met management several times
01:04:33 something met management several times and she feels betrayed by them too. So I want we have this statement the Hearn statement from HN81. Could you uh comment on on on the accuracy of what he has set out here please?
01:04:44 has set out here please? Uh no it's all wrong but um but understandable because 1881 doesn't have the story about the background leading to the necessity to
01:04:57 background leading to the necessity to cooperate with the program true spies rather than the program the secret state.
01:05:06 a general point concerning that and again one of the uh UCOs in terms of this is something he's put in a in a witness statement and and signed. It's
01:05:17 witness statement and and signed. It's quite a serious allegation to make that essentially you you got drunk spoke to the journalists and as a result of that true spies. It's a very serious allegation to to make and again we have
01:05:28 allegation to to make and again we have this former UCO this is about a year after deployment um writing this is is that reflective is that too general a point reflective of the accuracy of a
01:05:41 point reflective of the accuracy of a UCO such as HN81 he's willing to write this about you if what you say is true and this is incorrect. What was the reaction to reading that from a UCO? No, it's just untrue. it's um he's been
01:05:53 No, it's just untrue. it's um he's been wrongly informed. Um and this is perhaps an example of uh this a false story building through accretions of
01:06:04 building through accretions of um allegations about bad behavior and um none of it none of it happened. It simply isn't the way in which the events unfolded.
01:06:16 One more document I want to ask you about true spies and then we'll move on to operation uh Muscat. Could we turn to MPS O and then it's one with four zeros after it?
01:06:29 after it? MPS 01
01:06:31 MPS 01 O. [snorts] So it's another SDS file note about True Spies. This is one of Michael Dell's file notes and it records on Wednesday the 28th.
01:06:44 and it records on Wednesday the 28th. Uh this would have been of 28th of August 2002. Roger Pierce, Eric Mack, and I met Peter Taylor and the program's producer Sam Collins. If we just go to
01:06:56 producer Sam Collins. If we just go to the last paragraph, so it's they um conveyed the impression of being deeply concerned that they might be putting our colleagues in danger and
01:07:07 putting our colleagues in danger and offered to consider their options at greater length and to return next week week with a detailed breakdown of the program content. I judge that pressing
01:07:18 program content. I judge that pressing for a copy of the tape when it is finalized should be delayed. Would this be the wrong impression that after this meeting it's not you and your
01:07:29 after this meeting it's not you and your colleagues expressing concern, but it's the program makers conveying their deep concern that they might be putting uh your colleagues in in danger. And so
01:07:42 uh your colleagues in in danger. And so is is that right that they they did express concern uh to you? Well, I don't recall. It's not quite clear, but I think um first of all um as a former UCO,
01:07:57 um first of all um as a former UCO, I would have been the most exposed of all by this program because my name was on the Mets public material. So [clears throat] no one was at greater risk than the person
01:08:09 one was at greater risk than the person in my position. But equally importantly, I think Peter Taylor knew that for example and through his uh deep experience of dealing with
01:08:20 his uh deep experience of dealing with secret sources, sensitive operations in Northern Ireland, his work with MI5, his work with special forces and RU
01:08:31 his work with special forces and RU made him acutely aware of the need for great caution about this kind of material. So I had great respect for him as I came to know him as he began to
01:08:43 as I came to know him as he began to make the program. Um as I mentioned before the break he was awarded the CBE last year I believe for his contribution to responsible journalism of a very
01:08:55 to responsible journalism of a very sensitive nature. So this was I think from his team and I think as a gratifying mark of his sense of responsibility to the work he was doing.
01:09:07 responsibility to the work he was doing. So, in terms of M Mr. Taylor, he was a person you believe you could trust and and that was borne out by all your dealings with him. Yes. I felt if this program was going to be made, and it clearly was, and it was
01:09:18 be made, and it clearly was, and it was a scoop, um I'd rather have him responsible for it than almost any other journalist you could think of. I apologize. I will refer to one more
01:09:29 I apologize. I will refer to one more document in relation to true spies. Could we uh please uh pull up on screen MPS 0741738? So at your tab B147. And I just want to ask about this uh document that we're
01:09:42 ask about this uh document that we're going to bring up on screen again in the context of part of the reasoning for not pursuing the other options against James
01:09:53 pursuing the other options against James Thompson. though to pursuing the informal approach because understand what the evidence that you've given in relation to true spies. But if we look
01:10:04 relation to true spies. But if we look at this letter of the 30th of April 2001,
01:10:09 2001, this is a letter explaining the program. But if we look at and it's someone's marked it in pencil at the bottom, the penultimate paragraph. Yes. The purpose
01:10:20 penultimate paragraph. Yes. The purpose of this letter then is to invite you on behalf of the BBC team to contribute to this project in any way you think fit. If you do wish to participate, I should
01:10:31 If you do wish to participate, I should be happy to act as an intermediary to put you in touch with Peter Taylor. I suggest that you ring or write to me in the first instance. So again, what what
01:10:42 the first instance. So again, what what would you say to someone who uh took this view that uh the suggestion of not dealing more harshly or harshly at all
01:10:54 dealing more harshly or harshly at all with Mr. Thompson because of concern about publicity and uh knowledge about the SDS reaching the public. And then at around about this time, you are writing a letter on behalf of the BBC inviting
01:11:08 a letter on behalf of the BBC inviting for contributions in in relation to it. Could could you see how uh someone might uh be concerned about the the reasoning there?
01:11:19 there? Absolutely. And my answer would be that um because of the meeting on the 15th of um January, the program's been approved at the highest level of the Met, it's
01:11:30 at the highest level of the Met, it's been supported by the chairman of APO TAM
01:11:35 TAM and we're under an obligation to cooperate. So for damage limitation and to get the best result possible, it was [snorts] important in my view to
01:11:46 it was [snorts] important in my view to try and retain as much control as possible through my office of those who were willing to contribute which is why I wanted them to write to me in the
01:11:57 I wanted them to write to me in the first instance, respond to me rather than respond directly to the BBC. And that was I think an approach welcomed by Peter Taylor actually. But but in that
01:12:08 Peter Taylor actually. But but in that previous uh file note where the program makers are a bit worried about exposing your colleagues. So they're we've got an expression of concern from them. And in terms of dam damage limitation,
01:12:21 terms of dam damage limitation, what would you say if someone said it's not really limiting the scope of the program? It's expanding it out if you're if you're sending out essentially around around Robin. It's it's not trying to
01:12:33 around Robin. It's it's not trying to limit it as as much as possible. There's there's no there's no uh documents where from you you're exercising uh pressure
01:12:45 from you you're exercising uh pressure in in the sense of uh trying to stop stop the program or or anything like that and is the answer to that the one that you've given previously that it's a decision that was made higher rank well I draw a distinction between this
01:12:57 well I draw a distinction between this letter which affects um the program to in to look at subversion in general um in special branches throughout the country actually um which is a fairly
01:13:11 country actually um which is a fairly legitimate and standard area of research for the BBC to be looking at which has been approved by the Met at the highest level
01:13:21 level with the
01:13:23 with the second secondary and later an alarming um revelation that the PBC had discovered the existence of SDS through a retired special branch officer
01:13:36 through a retired special branch officer and this was their scoop. So at one fell swoop the secret state becomes true spies and that was the focus of their interest. So my answer would be for the
01:13:48 interest. So my answer would be for the first element this letter here um I have very little alarm compared with comparing that with the James Thompson um scenario
01:13:59 um scenario for true spies. It's quite different because we're into um crisis management here rather than exploiting an opportunity and we're looking at the
01:14:11 opportunity and we're looking at the least bad option which ultimately is to invite certain retired former SDS UCOs to contribute to the
01:14:22 former SDS UCOs to contribute to the program
01:14:24 program which meant that we could look at the history of SDS and avoid talking about the current operations of the SDS. So, in terms of the James Thompson um situation, I think this was our our best
01:14:38 situation, I think this was our our best and safest um damage limitation option. I want to move to Operation Muscat. I
01:14:49 I want to move to Operation Muscat. I want to test with you the justification for uh that o operation. Could we please uh have up on screen MPS
01:15:02 Could we please uh have up on screen MPS 35869
01:15:04 35869 please
01:15:21 now this is a chronology I believe that this was produced by HN53 3. And if we just stand back and look at the heading,
01:15:32 just stand back and look at the heading, Operation Muscat chronology, we can see October 1987. And we didn't even turn to that page yet, but the last date is the 13th of July 2004. So, a significant uh
01:15:44 13th of July 2004. So, a significant uh operation relating to uh Helen Steel trying to find uh John Dyn. Yes. Yes. And we what I would like to do is
01:15:57 Yes. And we what I would like to do is to go through this and just to to test with you whether this was a necessary and and justified uh operation. Is it right that uh although uh you had
01:16:12 Is it right that uh although uh you had um certainly at the later stages oversight of this operation for a large part of it uh HN 53 uh was working in relation to Moscat? And in terms of
01:16:27 relation to Moscat? And in terms of we will go through this in some detail, but at at this point is your evidence that although time consuming, although it took for example HN53 away from his
01:16:38 it took for example HN53 away from his other work despite the expense uh that this was a justified operation. Is that your your position knowing everything that you know now?
01:16:48 know now? It was it was justified and necessary in my view.
01:16:52 my view. All right. If we just go through, we can see October 1987, John Dyn joins the SA SDS. He's targeted against animal activists. 31st of March 1990, he's
01:17:03 activists. 31st of March 1990, he's arrested during pole tax riot, possession of offensive weapon. Charges are withdrawn. At 1990, he uh is instructed not to make himself available
01:17:14 instructed not to make himself available as a witness in the McLel litigation. Now just pausing there. Did did uh the involvement of John Dyn in the McLeal
01:17:27 involvement of John Dyn in the McLeal litigation in the sense that he was responsible for drafting part of the leaflet
01:17:33 leaflet was the concern about him being potentially called as a witness if it was revealed that he'd been an undercover officer in the course of those proceedings which as we know
01:17:44 those proceedings which as we know extended for many many years. Was was that part of the the the the justification, the necessity, the danger that he might be involved brought into those proceedings in some sort of way?
01:17:57 those proceedings in some sort of way? Yes. I'm so sorry that this is so long before I return to it. It is 1990. Yes. I just can't help with that. Um All right. question, my friend. Let's continue with the chronology. So,
01:18:08 Let's continue with the chronology. So, November 1991, uh Lucas a contamination, John Dyn's involved with three other activists. December 91, JD concludes SDS operation with notional move to South
01:18:20 operation with notional move to South Africa and then New Zealand. Okay, so that's the end of his undercover deployment. Then we have 92 to3 Helen Steel makes frequent telephone inquiries
01:18:31 Steel makes frequent telephone inquiries of John Dyn's mother-in-law in New Zealand. 1993, John Dyn retires from the MPS on ill health grounds, back injury caused during SDS operations. We can see
01:18:42 caused during SDS operations. We can see becomes a solicister, moves to New Zealand, and then this 20th of September 95, Helen Steel and Norman Blair uh visit JD's parents in London looking for
01:18:54 visit JD's parents in London looking for New Zealand John. They show a photo of JD and make it clear they know uh he is their son. And then we can see the reaction. September October 95 protective measures put in place uh in
01:19:08 protective measures put in place uh in the UK and liaison established with New Zealand police. So pausing there we can see in 95 uh this has now become international. There's a liaison
01:19:19 international. There's a liaison established with the New Zealand police. So it's a quite quite a dramatic step to take. Yes. Yes.
01:19:26 Yes. All right. Intelligence indicates this is October 95 that steel had traveled to New Zealand. inquiries failed to establish when, why, or if she made the visit. And we can see, meanwhile, Dyn
01:19:37 visit. And we can see, meanwhile, Dyn begins uh practice as criminal defense barrister. 7th of January 1998, Steele visits Doris, Dorothy Walston Hume and shows her the same photos as above, looking
01:19:49 her the same photos as above, looking for John Barker and asking about his first wife, and then she leaves New Zealand. And then we can see there's the reference to true spies that we've just heard about. Uh we can see there's a
01:20:01 heard about. Uh we can see there's a remarage of John Dyn. Now pausing there, you have recently uh been made aware of
01:20:12 you have recently uh been made aware of uh Helen Steel's uh evidence of uh the correspondence between uh John Dyn and her following
01:20:23 between uh John Dyn and her following the end of his deployment. That's right, isn't it?
01:20:25 isn't it? Yes. A and you have had an opportunity to uh
01:20:31 to uh look at the extensive appendix one schedule to Helen Steel's I think third statement in which she sets out in schedule form the
01:20:43 schedule form the letters the correspondence from John Dyn to her from the moment or well from the time that he ends his deployment but for months after that.
01:20:55 deployment but for months after that. Yes. Um in a broad question on any reading of that um can you understand that it is completely understandable why
01:21:08 that it is completely understandable why anyone who had been in a close sexual romantic relationship and that following that relationship one person leaves and
01:21:20 that relationship one person leaves and they send that level of correspondence and the content. Is it not the most basic human reaction to try and find the person?
01:21:30 person? Yes, of course. Now, looking back on this chronology just that we've started with here, does that if you had known
01:21:43 with here, does that if you had known then what you know now, is it really uh possible for you to say that this was necessary and justified? I think so because although my knowledge
01:21:56 I think so because although my knowledge of John Dyn's SDS record, operational record is sketchy um because I wasn't around at that time. I do know
01:22:07 I wasn't around at that time. I do know from um anecdotal evidence that um he was a very successful STS UCO who lived in very difficult to start
01:22:20 who lived in very difficult to start with very difficult and squalid circumstances in squats and so on to establish cover. um worked with huge diligence to um set
01:22:32 um worked with huge diligence to um set his operation on the on a a good track to provide useful intelligence. So my assumption from that is that if
01:22:43 So my assumption from that is that if you his activities with Helen Steel as an activist um when she discovers that his identity is false I said I'm so sorry I said um
01:22:55 is false I said I'm so sorry I said um John John Black it's John Barker um when she discovered that um in around 1994 I think
01:23:06 think um my reasonable assumption I believe is that her attempts to trace him are not through um love but through
01:23:18 him are not through um love but through inquiry into [clears throat] his true true nature. Is he a police officer? Well, I I don't I understand there's a technical hitch, so we may need to pause.
01:24:11 working again now. Good. Thank you.
01:24:28 Sorry, very well. I'm afraid these technical hitches occur almost invariably at the most inconvenient moment.
01:40:04 Technical hitch resolved. I hope. Thank you.
01:40:08 you. Yes.
01:40:08 Yes. Mr. Pierce, you you said before the short break that you believed that Helen Steel's attempts to trace John Dyn were
01:40:19 Steel's attempts to trace John Dyn were not through love or any any feelings towards him. uh but seeking to expose who he was. Yes. And even if um I'd been wrong on
01:40:31 Yes. And even if um I'd been wrong on that, I don't feel one could take the risk that it wasn't for some reason other than love to track him down. When did what what is your evidence as
01:40:42 When did what what is your evidence as to when you found out that John Dyn had had a sexual relationship with Helen Steel in his cover identity? I can't recall when it was but it would have
01:40:53 recall when it was but it would have been sometime after after Muscat. I think it was at the time of the media revelations actually. One of the features of Muscat isn't it is the lengths that Helen Steel went to
01:41:08 is the lengths that Helen Steel went to to try to track down John Dyn. Yes.
01:41:12 Yes. Did it not occur to you that one of the reasons why a female
02:01:02 Thank you. Purpose of the order is to protect the legitimate privacy interests of a non-state court.
02:01:13 I in terms of the uh
02:01:20 actions of John Dimes, would you agree that
02:01:27 that he was treated in the same way uh as other officers who had uh sexual relationships with um those upon whom
02:01:39 relationships with um those upon whom they spied? that that no action is is is ever taken against them. Yes.
02:01:46 Yes. And looking back on that now, um does that not send a signal to those who act in that way that they can do so with
02:01:57 in that way that they can do so with impunity?
02:01:58 impunity? I don't think so because several years had elapsed between the resignation of John Dyn from the Met and his commencement of his of his new career.
02:02:09 commencement of his of his new career. He's now a civilian and it wouldn't have been appropriate to take or possible to take disciplinary action against him. I believe given what you know now that at its
02:02:23 given what you know now that at its highest Helen Steel confronted him. There was a camera there confronted him. Yes. Um,
02:02:31 Yes. Um, if you had known that that is all she was going to do, to confront him in the way that she did, um, would you agree that the entirety and the enormity of
02:02:42 that the entirety and the enormity of Operation Muscat was not, as you set out earlier, necessary? It wasn't necessary. Well, it if I hadn't known about their sexual relationship and I was just
02:02:53 sexual relationship and I was just considering the approach of Helen Steel determinedly to track John Dyn down, um, if I'd known it was to be
02:03:05 um, if I'd known it was to be a simple confrontation and that would be the end of it, possibly we would have acted differently, but I couldn't possibly have known that at the time and had to act with caution in relation to
02:03:17 had to act with caution in relation to the possible consequences for our STS officer.
02:03:22 officer. May I ask that that document be taken down? I just want to move to a different uh topic.
02:03:29 uh topic. Before we do that, it may be a convenient moment to ask uh for your answer to the question that I asked you at the end of the private session.
02:03:37 session. Yes.
02:03:37 Yes. Um again, without disclosing what took place in the private session, are you able to answer my question? Yes. And it's it's partly um colored by
02:03:48 Yes. And it's it's partly um colored by my sketchy knowledge of John Dyn's early career as a a UCO, but I believe it was a a creditable one. It was a successful um undercover
02:04:01 It was a successful um undercover [snorts]
02:04:02 [snorts] um deployment and on that basis I think I would have taken the same action. Sir, thank you.
02:04:11 The topic I want to ask you about is this that
02:04:18 that Peter Francis um asserted that uh when uh it was announced that William McFersonen was to be the inquiry chair,
02:04:31 McFersonen was to be the inquiry chair, the Lawrence inquiry. that up until that point um he was uh concerned about uh any uh interaction with him. But when he
02:04:42 any uh interaction with him. But when he found out that William McFersonen was to be the uh chair of the inquiry, he expressed the view that he McFersonen should be told about his role in
02:04:56 should be told about his role in gathering intelligence on those involved in campaigns seeking justice for Steven Lawrence. Yes. And his evidence was that uh it was
02:05:08 And his evidence was that uh it was evident to him that you and Bob Lambert had discussed the issue and he said that he sensed that you both were allied in trying to contain him. So
02:05:20 were allied in trying to contain him. So he wants to um tell William McFersonen um about his role in gathering intelligence on those involved in campaign seeking justice for Steven Lawrence. uh and his uh impression was
02:05:34 Lawrence. uh and his uh impression was that you and Bob Lambert had discussed this between you and were trying to contain it. Could you help us with your recollection of that period and your recollection of interacting with Peter
02:05:45 recollection of interacting with Peter Francis, please? Uh there was there was none. Um the his um attitude towards McFersonen
02:05:56 his um attitude towards McFersonen appear appears to have varied from fear of exposure to insistence on disclosure once he knew the name of the chairman and his record as an SAS warrior. Um his
02:06:09 and his record as an SAS warrior. Um his other um concern was that his proposed redeployment was unsatisfactory and he wanted it changed. And on both of
02:06:21 and he wanted it changed. And on both of those he claims to have either come to me, although I don't know how that would have happened, or that I've been sent out by somebody to see him to threaten
02:06:33 out by somebody to see him to threaten him and to warn him to back off. none of this happened. Um, I I just want to put to you a a a
02:06:44 Um, I I just want to put to you a a a document just in relation to what you've just said. Could we please bring up UCPI 37385
02:06:56 in relation to what you have just said? This is a Radio 5 interview on the 3rd of July 2013. I'm going to ask if we can just go straight to page seven of this
02:07:07 just go straight to page seven of this document.
02:07:13 It's right at the bottom of the page, line 36. So, the presenter asks you, uh, but having said, uh, that you wouldn't have tolerated any kind of mention of a smear on your watch. Uh, but you know
02:07:24 smear on your watch. Uh, but you know Peter Francis, is he a credible person? And your response here is absolutely. Peter is an effective, resourceful undercover officer. And I can't think where the word smears come from. I'm convinced it hasn't come from those uh
02:07:37 convinced it hasn't come from those uh who were tasking him, those who were managing him. And if it had been used, that person would not be any longer uh within special branch. And so in terms of your description a few moments ago
02:07:49 of your description a few moments ago about uh interaction with Peter Francis, would you agree that in fact here um more complimentary about his
02:08:00 more complimentary about his effectiveness and his credibility is a essentially the question is is he is he credible? That was the question. Is he a credible person? And your your response there is absolutely. Yes.
02:08:11 there is absolutely. Yes. But your answers a few moments ago suggests um that you would you would differ from that description of him that you gave during that interview? Well, I think the the first line of my
02:08:24 Well, I think the the first line of my reply
02:08:26 reply is absolutely correct. Effective, resourceful, undercover officer who actually underwent considerable hardship during his deployment in
02:08:37 deployment in violent confrontations which to which he was um drawn. Um he was also known to be um absolutely fidious about his
02:08:49 to be um absolutely fidious about his legend and his trade craft. So he was a man with a high high reputation um a good reputation within the SDS team. Um so I'd have thought he was a
02:09:03 team. Um so I'd have thought he was a credible person in that in that respect.
02:09:08 C can I return? We we again it's a is a topic that we touched on briefly this morning a topic of of race. Um
02:09:19 morning a topic of of race. Um during your deployment as a UCO were you you deployed at the time of the Brixton riots. Is that right? Yes. And so the the issue of uh of of
02:09:33 Yes. And so the the issue of uh of of race was was that something that was very much in your mind as you
02:09:42 you occupy the position of commander ops and commander head of special branch. that background of yours, the Brixton riots, was that something that uh you
02:09:55 was that something that uh you were aware of, were conscious of, were sensitive to race relations? I suppose, no, you put it to me. I suppose it it was. And I do recall that
02:10:06 suppose it it was. And I do recall that the commissioner at the time had announced that the trouble in Brixham was down to a European anarchist conspiracy.
02:10:17 conspiracy. Um I was an anarchist in Brixton at that time in the months building up to the riots and I could say this is not this is this is definitively um a mark of the anger of young black
02:10:32 um a mark of the anger of young black men in particular who were absolutely fed up with operations such as I think it was called Swamp which was a a major stop and search operation against black men. So
02:10:43 search operation against black men. So in that respect it probably did um play on my mind I think. What was your reaction to the finding of
02:10:55 What was your reaction to the finding of institutional racism when that was that was announced? What was your personal reaction to that that it [clears throat] was a surprise that it was inevitable?
02:11:06 was a surprise that it was inevitable? your personal view of it in light of your senior position within um the police.
02:11:14 police. I think um two reactions to that. One is that um many of us felt um upset and offended that the whole organization was being condemned as
02:11:26 organization was being condemned as racist. They would go home to our neighborhoods and you're the racist in the road. that that kind of overreaction probably. Secondly,
02:11:37 probably. Secondly, um in fact there were three things. Secondly, that special branch officers had been recruited very early in their service within two years quite frequently. So they were more
02:11:48 frequently. So they were more representative of the public at large in my view than the Met the Met police which was also a prevailing factor. And thirdly, coming on from that,
02:12:00 thirdly, coming on from that, um, on my watch and I think of those before me, um, there was absolutely zero tolerance of racism. All department and head and squad heads knew that. Um,
02:12:14 head and squad heads knew that. Um, there was no room for racism in special branch. Um, and we were pretty clearsighted about it. [clears throat]
02:12:27 in terms of uh banter, racist language, particularly during your time as commander, what experience did you have
02:12:38 commander, what experience did you have of witnessing that? It it it just didn't arise. And um I I I think I should say that around this time of um the reinvestigation of
02:12:51 this time of um the reinvestigation of Steven Lawrence's murder, there was an absolute laser focus within special branch and within my branch in SO1, which I was
02:13:02 and within my branch in SO1, which I was director of intelligence that we should capture these killers and charge them and imprison them. Um, and I recall in the director of intelligence, I authorized a sting operation against
02:13:14 I authorized a sting operation against the four Lawrence suspects. So, this is to emphasize, I hope, that um, every detective with any connection to this
02:13:25 detective with any connection to this dreadful murder was absolutely focused on getting justice for the Lawrence family. Um and and it's impossible to understand how anyone could even um
02:13:38 understand how anyone could even um imagine that that you could dig dirt on a grieving elderly couple who the investigation of
02:13:49 elderly couple who the investigation of which in respect of their son's murder has been handled badly. C can I explore with you in terms of racism, not um
02:14:03 racism, not um explicit
02:14:04 explicit racist
02:14:06 racist words, racial slurs, but treating those uh for example in the black community. Yes.
02:14:14 Yes. Treating them in in a in a way uh where they are treated more harshly than um other groups. I'll just give an example. If we bring up MPS072486.
02:14:27 Okay.
02:14:38 Could we turn to page 116 please?
02:14:45 So this is from HN 58 to Colin Black. I understand you requested from DIHN53 a
02:14:56 understand you requested from DIHN53 a summary of the state of play of leftwing involvement in the Steven Lawrence inquiry. The attached note has been completed uh from a secret and reliable source. And if we just go back to the
02:15:09 source. And if we just go back to the document, we we can see commander special branch. Is that um we can see further down the play page. Is this something that you you would have seen?
02:15:21 something that you you would have seen? at the time. Yes.
02:15:24 Yes. If we turn please to page over the page to page 117. So it's quite a detailed note um about left-wing activities relating to the Lawrence
02:15:36 activities relating to the Lawrence inquiry. Um so we I'm not going to read every word of this. Matters relating to the Lawrence inquiry have died down amongst left-wing groups uh with the approach of Christmas. interest will be renewed in the new year at a time that
02:15:48 renewed in the new year at a time that will coincide with the inquiry's findings. To summarize matters as they stand at present, a great opportunity is seen to have been lost due to the infighting within these desperate groups. Had the Lawrenes called for a
02:16:00 groups. Had the Lawrenes called for a civil rights march, then it is not unrealistic to imagine that 100,000 people may have taken to the streets. Now if we just zoom back out of that the document and the analysis refers to well
02:16:14 document and the analysis refers to well we've seen the Lawrenes but also refers to Suresh Grover movement for justice Joy Gardner campaign Ricky Real campaign the Menson's campaign the national civil
02:16:26 the Menson's campaign the national civil rights movement. So these are campaigns uh and and movements in the black community. So you can see that um there was a a request for a a summary of the
02:16:39 was a a request for a a summary of the state of play of left-wing involvement in the Steven Lawrence inquiry and you get references to uh to to black justice groups and can you um see the
02:16:51 groups and can you um see the perspective of someone saying well you say that
02:16:57 say that this is not racist but this is not a a report about uh white groups and white people. The the focus is there's yet more special branch documentation about
02:17:11 more special branch documentation about black justice groups. And so because anyone that's reported on that clearly that is an invasion of their their rights um that that is that is racist
02:17:22 rights um that that is that is racist because the result is is discriminatory. What would you say to the criticism that the result is discriminatory? Well, I should say initially I wasn't in special branch at this time. I was director of
02:17:34 branch at this time. I was director of intelligence. Um, so I wouldn't have been involved in any of this work. But as a general point reading this now
02:17:45 as a general point reading this now I'd say that the objective the purpose was to minimize reduce the probability of disorder
02:17:56 the probability of disorder disorder on the street or the possibility of criminality. And and I think I'd also say that um many of those engaged in this work would
02:18:08 many of those engaged in this work would support the core groups to justice. They would they would police officers would have in most cases I believe um supported many of these actions.
02:18:21 supported many of these actions. Their objective was to keep public tranquility really reduce the possibility of disorder. That was their aim. not to not to um undermine or
02:18:34 their aim. not to not to um undermine or contaminate the cause itself. But the Lawrenes, the Joy Gardner campaign, the Ricky Real campaign, the Menson's campaign, none of these
02:18:46 Menson's campaign, none of these groups wanted to promote anything other than uh campaigning for for their cause. Yes.
02:18:56 Yes. And yet
02:18:58 And yet repeatedly they their names the details about what they were doing appears in special branch documentation. Yes, it's intrusive collateral reporting which is I I regret to say one of the um
02:19:11 which is I I regret to say one of the um great drawbacks and great risks of covering organizations such as Movement for Justice. What would you say to to this that the description of collateral
02:19:22 this that the description of collateral reporting
02:19:25 reporting makes no real difference because if you are reported on again and again in intelligence reports that there comes a point when it's not
02:19:37 that there comes a point when it's not incidental for example the the Lawrenes are mentioned in a number of intelligence reports and we can see in terms of this document here references to uh for example Suresh Grover. And so
02:19:52 to uh for example Suresh Grover. And so can you understand the perspective that it is it reaches a point where describing it as incidental uh reporting
02:20:03 describing it as incidental uh reporting that in effect there's little difference in practice because people's detailed information about them appears in formal special branch documentation.
02:20:14 special branch documentation. I think yes I think seeing this document now and reading it now I do completely accept your point but I just repeat that the objective wasn't to build up
02:20:25 the objective wasn't to build up intelligence upon those closely associated with black victims. The objective was the classic special branch objective of reducing um unrest on the
02:20:39 objective of reducing um unrest on the street.
02:20:41 street. Uh I just want to ask you a few more questions in relation to uh justice uh campaigns and of this topic and then we'll break for rule 10 questions. Could we please turn to MPS 072643
02:20:57 this relates to HN 81. It's in fact the cancellation of his authorization. There's something I want to ask you about in relation to it. So if we go to page four of this document,
02:21:12 so we can see at the bottom. So you're the authorizing officer there. H but it's it's still contains a description of the basis for
02:21:24 contains a description of the basis for his authorization HN81. If we just go back a page to page three, please can you just help with this? Can you see where it says objectives of use and conduct of Cheers? And it says this, to
02:21:35 conduct of Cheers? And it says this, to obtain information relating to threats to public order and racially motivated crime from extreme left-wing activists in the Burough of Lambbeirth and
02:21:46 in the Burough of Lambbeirth and elsewhere in the MPS in support of local and MPS policing objectives. What does what is that a a reference to? Racially motivated crime from extreme
02:21:57 Racially motivated crime from extreme left-wing activists. And we're just thinking of left-wing groups. There's a number of left-wing groups, but one example, Youth Against Racism in Europe. Would you
02:22:10 Against Racism in Europe. Would you agree that the left-wing groups [laughter] not usually motivated uh to commit uh
02:22:21 not usually motivated uh to commit uh racist crime? I just wonder if you can just help with what what is set out there and just just what that means, please.
02:22:31 Yes. Having read this again now, I'm not sure what I'm not sure that that is a correct determination of what was uh the objective here. I understand the threats to public order. Um
02:22:45 to public order. Um and I think the public order threat would come from
02:53:39 Mr. Pierce, I was asking you about attitudes towards UCIO's being arrested and I was explaining to you paraphrasing the uh the shock that it had been
02:53:51 the uh the shock that it had been allowed for HN18's Rob Hastings to reach the charge phase and contrasting that with the attitude in earlier times in the SDS
02:54:03 in earlier times in the SDS and you [clears throat] were explaining that you yourself were arrest you were arrested when you were a UCO, what was the attitude to officers being arrested?
02:54:16 the attitude to officers being arrested? Because of course, as soon as they appear in court, they're lying straight away by lying about very basic basics of who they who they are. What was what was your attitude, though? Was it, well,
02:54:27 your attitude, though? Was it, well, well done. That's that's helped your legend less worried about deceiving the courts or could you help us with that, please? Yes, it was the the concern was how to um facilitate this process
02:54:39 how to um facilitate this process without having to deceive the court. So, as I mentioned earlier, arrest, charge, any activity within the police station is acceptable. But as soon as it moves
02:54:50 is acceptable. But as soon as it moves beyond that to an appearance at magistrate's court [clears throat] um you reach a stage where the court has to be notified or the charge withdrawn or the officer
02:55:03 or the charge withdrawn or the officer withdrawn. C
02:55:05 C can I refer you to an example where where that that didn't happen. So if we just turn up Mr. Pierce's witness statement at page 223 please. It's paragraph 266. It's it's in relation to
02:55:17 paragraph 266. It's it's in relation to Jim Boiling. Yes, we'll go through this uh paragraph and then I'll just ask you about it. It's the bottom of page 223 into page
02:55:28 It's the bottom of page 223 into page 224.
02:55:29 224. And so here, thank you. I have considered and then there's a file note there a bundle of documents including handwritten minutes regarding
02:55:40 including handwritten minutes regarding the arrest of Jim Boiling in his undercover identity during a reclaimed the streets action on the 7th of August 96. DC Jim Boing was a member of a group who entered the office of a chairman of the London Transport Executive. He was
02:55:52 the London Transport Executive. He was taken to Charing Cross police station from where he was bailed and was subsequently charged with public order act offenses. A not-uilty plea was entered and the matter went for trial at
02:56:03 entered and the matter went for trial at Horsesfree Road Magistrate's Court between the 8th and 10th uh January 97. In the event he was spared from running a defense case as he was acquitted after the close of the prosecution case the time of DC Jim Boing's arrest. I was not
02:56:16 time of DC Jim Boing's arrest. I was not working in SDS at the time I was assigned to B squad Irish squad. I believe I became aware at some stage following my appointment as commander ops in October 96 regarding DC Jim
02:56:27 ops in October 96 regarding DC Jim Boiling's arrest. I have reviewed MPS 0526753
02:56:32 0526753 specifically minute 8 on page four which is an update from DCI docker. I've signed this minute on the 28th of January 97 in order to acknowledge
02:56:43 January 97 in order to acknowledge receipt. I note this is following the conclusion of the criminal case. So if we go to that document MPS 0526753 uh page 4 the minute 8 please.
02:56:56 uh page 4 the minute 8 please. And so
02:56:58 And so as you set out in that uh paragraph, we have uh Docker's notes um a most satisfactory conclusion to this drawn out affair and once again highlights the
02:57:10 out affair and once again highlights the professionalism and dedication of our SDS officers. I will speak to DC boiling personally on my next visit to the unit and we can see this is addressed to you
02:57:21 and we can see this is addressed to you and your signatures been covered by by your initials. So what we have here is standard SDS fair in the sense of here
02:57:32 standard SDS fair in the sense of here is a UCO that has gone through the uh criminal justice system. There would have been nothing to stop him providing evidence apart from the fact that there was a successful halftime submission.
02:57:44 was a successful halftime submission. But again it's it's the attitude is pat on the back. I'm going to speak to this officer personally uh and and congratulate him. and contrasting that with the position in 2007 where Rob
02:57:57 with the position in 2007 where Rob Hastings is arrested for going into or trying to go into the XL center and uh the the SDS closes shortly afterwards. So, how do you account for the the difference in attitude? And going back
02:58:09 difference in attitude? And going back to what I was asking you, is it the case that you are correctly described as the the old guard that they were doing things uh outside the rules and as soon
02:58:22 things uh outside the rules and as soon as the new brooms come in and they realize what has been going on that the uh SDS managers and UCOs breaking the law, breaking uh the rules um uh
02:58:34 law, breaking uh the rules um uh consistently who who is correct are the are the new guard who look at shock at someone being arrested, a UCO being arrested. Are they naive? Are they wrong? What's your attitude towards
02:58:46 wrong? What's your attitude towards them? Well, I wouldn't want to comment on what I think their view might be, but my own view would be that um during my time, and I think during my time as an UCO and as commander,
02:58:59 UCO and as commander, the arrest of a an SDS UCO um if not caused by negligence or committing crime or being a provocator
02:59:11 committing crime or being a provocator is by definition really an an example of um the success uccess in that officer's infiltration. To prevent crime or disorder, he or she
02:59:23 To prevent crime or disorder, he or she may be required to participate in crime or disorder and that in itself can lead to the arrests of the officer and others. the problem. So it it is it is
02:59:36 others. the problem. So it it is it is um time to say this is commendable work by the officer because it proves that he's he's trusted, he's performing well and of course it it enhances his cover.
02:59:49 and of course it it enhances his cover. But that that doesn't mean that SDS management are entitled or any police officer is entitled to mislead the court um when it moves beyond the charging
03:00:00 um when it moves beyond the charging stage.
03:00:01 stage. Well, it's mis misleading a court when acting as a defendant in in a trial in his undercover identity. That's misleading, isn't it?
03:00:12 misleading, isn't it? Well, that that shouldn't that shouldn't have happened there. No SDS officer should be allowed to go before a court in his undercover identity and remain
03:00:25 in his undercover identity and remain in in in that identity for the duration of the trial. Just to be clear, when you said it's an example um o of a a success, it's it's
03:00:38 example um o of a a success, it's it's it's a it's a positive. Is would you would your attitude not be the same as Eric Docker here that you would agree with Eric Docker's sentiments that that
03:00:49 with Eric Docker's sentiments that that this is an officer who should be congratulated and and to do so personally? Well, I suppose it depends upon the reasons for the arrest and the circumstances leading up to the arrest. If it's um a very complicated case in
03:01:02 If it's um a very complicated case in which um two sides of extremists are fighting each other and our officer is arrested in the course of that, that
03:01:13 arrested in the course of that, that can't be seen as being his fault. It's a sign of his success actually in gaining credit in having credibility with the group which is infiltrating. This is in the greater scheme of things low
03:01:25 the greater scheme of things low lowlevel public order and similar to uh HN18 when he's arrested. But in terms of the attitude of of your uh almost warmth or or pride that an
03:01:40 uh almost warmth or or pride that an officer has gone through this and wanting to speak to them personally and be able to associate with that feeling of wanting to personally thank uh the officer contrasts with those that came
03:01:51 officer contrasts with those that came after you. it does who are shocked. And how do you account for for that that that that difference that you would describe something as a success and something that should uh warrant
03:02:02 something that should uh warrant personal congratulations compared to those that come after you that effectively use it as one of the reasons why the SDS shut down that this sort of thing is allowed to happen? Yes. I think because because we would
03:02:13 Yes. I think because because we would applaud
03:02:14 applaud the dedication of an officer who's gone to such lengths to infiltrate the extremist group that he's been become involved in often
03:02:25 that he's been become involved in often violent activity committed by that group and we saw this in reclaim the streets and no platform and organizations like that. officers underwent huge hardship and were often injured um physically
03:02:38 and were often injured um physically injured through taking part in that kind of activity and that to me would be something um provided it wasn't there was no case of a provocator that would be something to be applauded because
03:02:51 be something to be applauded because it's another step they've taken in this arduous life uh leading an undercover existence at our request for example this same officer Jim
03:03:02 for example this same officer Jim Boiling
03:03:03 Boiling uh told us that he came up with the idea in J18 protest in the city of London. It was his idea amongst other things to purchase four cars which he did.
03:03:14 purchase four cars which he did. Yes.
03:03:14 Yes. To organize for a number of other activists. They crashed the cars preventing the uh police entering the uh city of of London.
03:03:25 city of of London. And in terms of the way in which he described it on the face of it of that description clearly Arjan provocator he's come up with an idea to to carry that out but but again in terms of what
03:03:39 that out but but again in terms of what your description is really someone acting in that way earning your respect because that they're this phrase they're a deep swimmer. So the deeper they go, the more the more that they get involved
03:03:51 the more the more that they get involved in that from your perspective that that is something that that would gain your respect.
03:03:58 respect. I think that encapsulates the situation perfectly. Azan provocator is never acceptable. the successful UCO
03:04:09 the successful UCO will manage to walk the tight rope between
03:04:14 between um maintaining cover uh becoming involved in in minor crime but not provoking that crime. I think to be fair, Jim Boiling did what I can
03:04:27 be fair, Jim Boiling did what I can remember from his evidence. Um, despite his conduct, he was a highly successful undercover officer who was commended and his success wasn't gauged for the times
03:04:39 his success wasn't gauged for the times he had been arrested or the incidents of a provocator. It was his um success in sometimes preventing violent activity taking place.
03:04:50 taking place. uh not forgetting the relationships, three relationships that he had a and the the the misery and the destruction
03:05:01 the the the misery and the destruction to those women's lives. Yes. And whenever one speaks of this, one has to have um great consideration, sensitivity to the women that in his
03:05:13 sensitivity to the women that in his case that he deceived, which was completely unacceptable. All I'm trying to say with um great care is that despite all this and from a coldly
03:05:24 despite all this and from a coldly calculating point of view, which is mine, looking at this as the commander of special branch, clearly he was successful as an undercover officer. He
03:05:36 successful as an undercover officer. He shouldn't have used um sexual relationships by deception to enhance his cover. It shouldn't have been a tactic. It shouldn't have been done. But what I'm trying to say with sensitivity
03:05:48 what I'm trying to say with sensitivity is that um in his case, Mark Jenner, Carlos Sarra, and others um despite ev everything um they were often commended
03:05:59 everything um they were often commended for what they had done. Despite everything, I would wish I would not wish the bad things they did to totally eradicate the good. If if that
03:06:10 totally eradicate the good. If if that makes sense. M Mr. It appears what what I would like to do now is ask you a series of questions in relation to a number of of topics. Forgive the speed in which um I cover
03:06:21 Forgive the speed in which um I cover these topics, but I wonder if we can turn up please MPS0722 uh sorry 072623 page uh pages 57 to 58.
03:06:57 In relation to James Thompson, part of the plan was for him to uh be closely uh supervised following his
03:07:10 be closely uh supervised following his departure from the SDS. This is an Operation Hearn document. And if we look at the bottom of the first of those pages on screen, it says, "Please Sergeant Thompson is is shown as Aztec
03:07:22 Sergeant Thompson is is shown as Aztec team leader. It appears that he was pivotal to developing the Aztec team covert deployments within the S01 command with Detective Inspector Trevor Morris, himself, a former undercover SDS
03:07:34 Morris, himself, a former undercover SDS officer, commenting in March 2004, when he first arrived on a squad. I gave DS Thompson the intelligence officer role. He made positive strides in this area. Uh, however, DS Thompson's light truly
03:07:46 Uh, however, DS Thompson's light truly began to shine when I was tasked with creating, implementing, and deploying the Aztec unit as the day-to-day tactical organizer of the units DS Thompson in the startup phase of the
03:07:57 Thompson in the startup phase of the Aztecs was exceptional. And so, the question is, well, what wasn't the plan uh for him to be kept under a short leash and monitored? instead he's given
03:08:08 leash and monitored? instead he's given at a later date uh the intelligence officer uh role I in short what would you say to the point um instead of any
03:08:19 you say to the point um instead of any sort of sanction uh he he was allowed to continue also to continue with firearms and to experience a successful post SDS career h how was that allowed to happen
03:08:30 career h how was that allowed to happen given what he did yes well my response to that is that by March 2004 obviously I I'd gone um the anticipation um in 2002 2003
03:08:43 um in 2002 2003 with jointly with Colin Black was strongly supported by me was that he should be deployed in a squad intelligence section and retained there.
03:08:55 intelligence section and retained there. So this would be this is the first time I've seen this actually. Could we take that document down in relation to your evidence and it's paraphrased on the inability to
03:09:07 paraphrased on the inability to discipline UCOs including those engaging in dishonest and deceitful sexual relationships due to the risk of SDS explo exposure? Did you tell Commissioner Condon that there was an
03:09:18 Commissioner Condon that there was an issue with impunity within the SDS and an inability to apply the discipline regulations particularly given uh Condon's public initiative to tackle
03:09:29 Condon's public initiative to tackle corruption in the uh MPS and this was called the dishonesty prevention strategy in 1998. In other words, uh Commissioner Condon is promulgating the
03:09:40 Commissioner Condon is promulgating the a dishonesty prevention strategy. or did you tell him uh that you you can't properly discipline an SDS UCO because you risk exposing the unit? Did you have
03:09:52 you risk exposing the unit? Did you have any conversation with him of that vein? What with um Commissioner Paul Condan? Yes.
03:09:58 Yes. Uh no.
03:10:00 Uh no. And in his statement, uh, he stated that, "I am asked whether I considered the conduct of engaging in a sexual relationship and an undercover identity amounted to discreditable
03:10:12 identity amounted to discreditable conduct within the discipline code, whether the process was followed in relation to any person where an allegation had been received. I was not aware of this conduct occurring. So I could not have considered whether it
03:10:24 could not have considered whether it amounted to discreditable conduct, nor was I aware of any disciplinary actions being taken against undercover officers when such conduct occurred. However, I would like to make clear now my view
03:10:36 would like to make clear now my view that this was most certainly was discreditable conduct and should have been dealt with accordingly. So, uh, uh, Commissioner Condon, uh, stating that he wishes to make it clear that, uh, it
03:10:48 wishes to make it clear that, uh, it most certainly was discreditable conduct. Do you agree with him? It was discreditable conduct. Yes, I would agree with that. All right. If we um u do you recall earlier in your
03:11:02 um u do you recall earlier in your evidence when I took you to the trade carcraft manual in paragraph 5 uh uh 6.1 uh there was reference to uh in the past
03:11:16 uh there was reference to uh in the past emotional ties to the opposition have happened and caused all sorts of difficulties including divorce, deception. Yes. And disciplinary charges.
03:11:27 charges. Uh in that uh vein, do you recall that that related to uh what people must still have been talking about the Chi the Chitty affair, Mike Chitty and his
03:11:40 the Chitty affair, Mike Chitty and his relationship with Lizzy? I think it's highly probable, although I'm not I'm not um again my knowledge of the Chitty matter is sketchy,
03:11:51 but it's quite likely that does it does refer to that. I think you referred um to uh rules about LPP being standard
03:12:02 to uh rules about LPP being standard rules that every police officer should cherish.
03:12:04 cherish. Yes.
03:12:05 Yes. Could you answer this? When and how did uh special branch officers get training on LPP? For example, when did you you receive any training on legal professional privilege?
03:12:18 professional privilege? Well, to the best of my recollection, this would have been um part of regular police detective training, if not part of special branch training. But there would certainly be
03:12:30 training. But there would certainly be an expectation that every police officer was aware of the principles around LPP, a provocator and within SDS, the
03:12:41 a provocator and within SDS, the prohibition of sexual relationships. in a different topic in Bob Lambert's evidence to this inquiry on the 16th of June um when he confirmed that a meeting
03:12:54 June um when he confirmed that a meeting took place between himself, Peter Francis, uh Keith Edmonson, uh HN86
03:13:02 uh HN86 and you at a safe flat. He explained that was one meeting that he had a he described as an actual visual recollection of and when he was asked what reassurance the senior managers
03:13:16 what reassurance the senior managers present gave Peter Francis Bob Lambert said quote from those two senior managers you know there is quote you should not be concerned you will not be exposed do you remember that meeting
03:13:29 exposed do you remember that meeting that Bob Lambert recalls where you were present and that was conveyed to Peter Francis, you should not be concerned. You will not be exposed and discussions of that nature.
03:13:40 of that nature. No, because I I was not at that meeting
03:13:46 in relation to an SDS file note on true spies. Perhaps we didn't bring it up on screen, but the reference is MPS1 and then four zeros. The note um also
03:14:01 and then four zeros. The note um also refers to a meeting of journalists and how they related how they had secured interviews from provincial undercover officers and their uh handlers.
03:14:13 officers and their uh handlers. Yes.
03:14:13 Yes. And you said in your statement paragraph 270.2 I believe this is consistent with my belief that there were a number of contributors. So not just former SDS
03:14:24 contributors. So not just former SDS officers but also those uh form uh provincial underass officers. There were
03:14:33 and I think um the chairman of APOTAM had circulated um heads of special branch around the country um describing the program and inviting
03:14:45 um describing the program and inviting them to assist in it.
03:14:50 So those are my questions. I I know sir that you mentioned earlier today um you asked whether I had finished my questions about justice campaigns and it was perhaps a topic you may uh want to
03:15:03 was perhaps a topic you may uh want to return to. Yes, I do. David,
03:15:07 David, um,
03:15:12 for many, [clears throat] many decades, even before the introduction of legislation, the means of keeping control of street
03:15:23 the means of keeping control of street events in London organized by groups willing to cooperate with the police, has been for the groups and the police to cooperate. operate to
03:15:35 and the police to cooperate. operate to ensure that the event remains peaceful. You nod. I hope for the benefit of the transcript it'll have true. Yes, it's true. Um, one of the problems with uh,
03:15:48 one of the problems with uh, black police justice campaigns is that on the whole uh, they were um, complaining about actions or inactions
03:16:00 complaining about actions or inactions of the police from the most celebrated case, the Lawrence case, failing to investigate and deal with things properly to other
03:16:11 and deal with things properly to other instances where uh the police had themselves caused uh the harm by their own actions. Um and and you're no doubt aware as I am of
03:16:23 and and you're no doubt aware as I am of the notorious cases. Um,
03:16:28 Um, did that create a difficulty for the police in that the police justice campaigns
03:16:35 campaigns were unlikely to uh get in touch with the police to help with the maintenance of public order when they staged public events.
03:16:47 events. I think that's quite possibly true. And I think that um a major contribution to addressing this was the I think it's the race racial violence task force set up
03:16:59 race racial violence task force set up by
03:17:01 by John Grieve from whom I think I believe you'll be hearing that is however at the end of 1998. Yes.
03:17:08 Yes. It's set up in October 1998 I think. Yes. I think it probably was. Yes.
03:17:20 Is it the case that
03:17:28 infiltrating and reporting on the police justice campaigns was the preferred method of finding out
03:17:40 was the preferred method of finding out what, if any, public order problems there might be with uh public events, I think it was. So, yes.
03:17:52 And and a very intrusive [clears throat] method to use within them. Yeah.
03:18:07 Was that a decision made or is it something that simply happened?
03:18:15 I believe it's something that happened arising from our duty in a more widespread sense to prevent or minimize public disorder
03:18:26 minimize public disorder and some of the um groups which coalesed around the campaigns were by our assessment intent on creating street disorder. Therefore, logically it
03:18:39 street disorder. Therefore, logically it was our duty to monitor them and through SDS infiltrate them. But as I've seen that involved the
03:18:50 But as I've seen that involved the infiltration sometimes and frequently reporting on the perfectly lawful campaigns themselves. It did. So, it did it did involve um
03:19:02 It did. So, it did it did involve um through intrusive reporting um individual SDS officers who were quite properly doing their job as they had been tasked to do through the nature
03:19:13 had been tasked to do through the nature of their work um collecting the names of people who were involved in the perfectly legitimate campaigns. But her hope was always this would be in the raw
03:19:24 hope was always this would be in the raw reporting and and distilled out for the report to be disseminated to for example sea squad. But as we've seen in relation to um the
03:19:37 But as we've seen in relation to um the Lawrence campaign, that doesn't appear to have happened. Indeed, there is almost boasting about reporting on the Lawrence campaign in SDS uh documents
03:19:49 Lawrence campaign in SDS uh documents from time to time, sir. But I I still believe that their their true instinct was to
03:19:56 was to um have a successful infiltration of organizations which sought to manipulate the campaign or encourage those within the campaign to take a more
03:20:08 those within the campaign to take a more active role for example in the streets through demonstrations and so on. Um and that in the course of that we keep using the word hoover up but they were
03:20:19 the word hoover up but they were collecting information which was collateral intrusion and on the face of it shouldn't have been reported but it was and the understanding was from the individual UCOs that it was for the
03:20:32 individual UCOs that it was for the office to take the raw report and detach from it
03:20:38 from it um factors which may not appear relevant.
03:20:43 Does any question arising out of what I've just asked uh now arise? No. Any re-examination?
03:20:53 Thank you for your patience. I'm afraid you've had a long day. Um but um uh we will resume tomorrow at the normal hour of 10:00.
03:21:04 I'm so sorry someone stands up behind.
03:21:11 This is writing. Um, yes, I would normally expect to see that in writing, but um uh trying to follow the process that we've been told. No, very well. Well, um for the future,
03:21:24 No, very well. Well, um for the future, this must be done in in writing. Uh unless for some reason that's not possible, but um on this occasion and exceptionally, I will uh hear what you have to say.
03:21:38 I'm sorry. This is a rule 10 question that you you want. Do you want me to I I I want to know what the question is so that I can then uh because I don't know whether you've asked and you've
03:21:49 know whether you've asked and you've been turned down or whether um you are asking for the first time. These are private private
03:21:58 private ah well in that event uh we will have to resume in a private hearing will we not? Yes sir.
03:22:05 Yes sir. Forgive me I'm being slow on the uptake. I understand very well. I will rise while the court is uh prepared for a short private hearing. And I'm afraid
03:22:16 short private hearing. And I'm afraid you haven't finished yet.