Continuation of the afternoon session in which HN236 (Alan Mitchell), a former Detective Chief Superintendent in Special Branch's C Squad who later worked within SO15 Counter Terrorism, is questioned about Special Branch's covert research into claimant Lois Austin and her witnesses during the 2004-05 Mayday 2001 civil litigation, including an undercover officer's clandestine briefing of defence counsel on the eve of Austin's own trial evidence. The hearing also examines Reaper/RIPA authorisations for HN18 and HN104 (Carlos Saraki), the SDS's 'disrupt from within' remit, and Bob Lambert's admitted deceptive relationships and fathered child ('TBS'), before closing with questions about undercover reporting on NHS industrial action and government pressure for wider domestic intelligence.
00:18:16 Good afternoon everybody. This afternoon's proceedings uh will be uh transmitted on the live link but only after a 15minute delay. Those with mobile telephones may use them to report what they hear in the hearing room but
00:18:29 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 recording or photography. Yes, thank you sir. Just a couple of matters to clear up from the morning session.
00:18:42 to clear up from the morning session. [snorts] Um firstly in relation to the document 074 9712
00:18:50 which was reference to the gold group meeting number three on the 12th of February 2004. Um
00:19:00 Mr. Mitchell, I think you said um that such
00:19:05 such matters would be uh referred to the legal services department potentially and we can see there at the bottom of the list of persons present uh somebody
00:19:17 the list of persons present uh somebody from the DLS is in fact present at the gold group meeting. Do you do you accept that?
00:19:21 that? Yes. And so were they able to give some kind of briefing in relation to the legal framework that would surround such matters as we addressed in the evidence earlier today?
00:19:32 earlier today? Um I couldn't comment. I think that's perhaps a question for the director of legal services. Unfortunately I can't remember but I would presume that if they were there they would give appropriate legal advice and direction.
00:19:45 appropriate legal advice and direction. Um and sir the other matter is in relation to the um Mr. Mitchell's recollection of superintendants that were present during the course of his uh
00:19:56 were present during the course of his uh uh tenure in S squad. The fifth name or the fourth name actually that was uh he recorded was McKini Julia McKini
00:20:08 who we are familiar with. Um, moving then back to the Austin against the Met litigation. [snorts] There was a a
00:20:21 [snorts] There was a a obviously some liaison between the Met legal team and special branch. Firstly, you're involved as a witness, but also
00:20:32 you're involved as a witness, but also as a a researcher, if you like, into the background of those involved in the litigation, not only Lois Austin herself, but also the witnesses uh that
00:20:43 herself, but also the witnesses uh that are providing evidence about Mayday 2001. Is that fair to say? Uh yes, I think that would be fair to say. Um, behind tab 12 we have MPS0749876.
00:21:01 This is an email from um, [snorts]
00:21:09 if we can it's it's the email I want to have a look at is the second email down the page. We'll work in chronological order. So, we have uh lawyer one
00:21:21 order. So, we have uh lawyer one emailing to you in the middle of the page. You see this this second email down.
00:21:27 down. Um
00:21:31 I asked the Mayday Civil actions team if there was anything known at special branch regarding the claimants witnesses. The result is shown below. Obviously, I don't know quite how
00:21:43 Obviously, I don't know quite how sensitive the information is, but if there's anything the legal team is allowed to know, it would be helpful. Can you please look into this for me and give me a call at your convenience? So, that's from lawyer one to you. Lawyer
00:21:56 that's from lawyer one to you. Lawyer one being the solicitors for the Met. Um,
00:22:01 Um, if that can be reduced down please.
00:22:08 And what we see below is is on page two gov. We've had a reply from such and such well redacted regarding the special branch checks.
00:22:19 branch checks. So many individuals are known. Two organizations are known. So in terms of the research then you did into those individuals and organizations.
00:22:30 organizations. Can you recall making those investigations? I can't recall making the investigations, but as is documented here, I have no doubt that they took place.
00:22:42 place. And in fact, you say at the top of page one, in response, I will seek to find out what is known and get it in a form we can use.
00:22:53 And then you make reference to an interesting article on Italian anarchists. Um it highlights a trial in Italy of a group who have the same views as Mayday 2001
00:23:05 2001 where they liberate property from shops and then redistribute it to the populace. The group where the I think that's meant to say inspiration for the wombs etc. So, you're looking into
00:23:19 So, you're looking into um the uh uh claimant and her witnesses in the context of what they knew from Mayday 2001.
00:23:31 Mayday 2001. What steps were you taking in order to do that? What searches would I be undertaken? Yeah. How would you go about looking
00:23:42 Yeah. How would you go about looking into that? Um, I would delegate it to the officers on the desk who were responsible for looking into these organizations and I would say what the
00:23:53 organizations and I would say what the brief was and who it was for for legal services. It was a request for them um and to be minded with what they can give them.
00:24:01 them. Okay. And would that be when you say on the desk, you mean C squad? Yeah, C squad. Was that fairly standard? Had you received requests like that before or is
00:24:12 received requests like that before or is this something very unusual? I I can't remember if I'd received requests like that, but from what I recall, uh, legal services at the time had staff who were cleared to SC and DV level, so they were allowed access to
00:24:25 level, so they were allowed access to sensitive material and there was a lot of, uh, I would say they were used quite frequently, uh, by special branch. um the Italian connection that you make reference to at the top. Any
00:24:39 reference to at the top. Any uh thinking around Carlos Saraki being the person that you needed to speak to then?
00:24:44 then? No, not particularly because uh I think the the group were known and please forgive my attempt at the time. I think it was known as Tutti Biano, which I think meant white overalls movement. Um,
00:24:55 think meant white overalls movement. Um, and we had uh very good [clears throat] UK police leaison with Italians and also as I think it said there, it's an interesting article from a newspaper.
00:25:07 interesting article from a newspaper. Uh, sometimes where you get some good intelligence. Did you make any direct contact with DCI Dell who was heading up the SDS at that time?
00:25:15 time? No, I wouldn't have made direct contact on among that. Um, did you request any written briefings to be made by the SDS for the purposes of
00:25:26 be made by the SDS for the purposes of the litigation? No. No.
00:25:29 No. No. We understand that there were some written briefings that um DCIDell says that he would have written to the to council.
00:25:38 council. Yes. Again, these would have been requests from legal services through probably either me or C squad to DCIL. weren't requests for me for my interest.
00:25:51 weren't requests for me for my interest. They would be requests emanating from legal services. And when when [clears throat] such briefings are sent back to council in in the legal services, would they have come back through you?
00:26:02 back through you? Not necessarily. No. Do you recall seeing any written briefings? Um I can can't recall at the time receiving any. I have rece saw one in a package which I didn't uh recognize. Um,
00:26:16 package which I didn't uh recognize. Um, but I can't remember receiving any at the time. It would be unusual for me to see information at that level. It would normally go to the desk to be collected and then uh sent on.
00:26:29 and then uh sent on. Do you recall hearing anything about Lois Austin being represented as a wild radical? No.
00:26:40 No. Um, behind tab B13, MPS0749882.
00:26:55 This is a type gist of a telephone call on the 1st of December 2004. We can see telephone call Alan Mitchell.
00:27:08 We can see telephone call Alan Mitchell. Austin has a file maybe mainly when she was with a militant youth group which would have been um youth against racism in Europe can look at it. Others get
00:27:19 in Europe can look at it. Others get mentions here and there. Do you recall having a
00:27:25 having a a a telephone call at the beginning of December? If we reduce that down please.
00:27:33 Um, no I don't. And I can't see who it's from. Perhaps for reasons that I I should guess at. Um, but no, I I can't
00:27:44 should guess at. Um, but no, I I can't remember that.
00:27:52 Um, the understanding is that that's coming from the legal uh uh the legal team. Do you recall letting somebody see somebody from the
00:28:05 letting somebody see somebody from the legal team see the material that you had on Lois Austin in special branch? I can't recall uh having let anybody from the legal team see that. That's not to say it didn't happen, but I can't
00:28:17 to say it didn't happen, but I can't recall it. We can see at the bottom, sorry, it's still quite small, but the appointment to attend uh SB 4 p.m. 14th of December. [snorts]
00:28:29 of December. [snorts] Do you recall having somebody from the legal team come over on the 14th of December?
00:28:33 December? I don't recall it, but again, that may well have happened. Yeah, th this might help. behind tab B14.
00:28:40 B14. MPS
00:28:42 MPS 0749811.
00:28:53 We can see this is an attendance note from the 14th of December 2004. and lawyer one, which is who we think was uh writing that attendance uh that
00:29:05 was uh writing that attendance uh that telephone note,
00:29:10 attending Detective Chief Superintendent Alan Mitchell
00:29:14 Mitchell and Inspector Redacted at SB to look at this pink secret docket on Lewis Amelia Austin.
00:29:27 Lewis Amelia Austin. So, do you recall having the legal team or at least the solicitor coming to inspect the file now and in particular
00:29:38 inspect the file now and in particular um looking in relation to what was known about Los Austin? No, I don't recall that. But again, it uh looks as if it happened, but I don't recall it. That can be reduced at par paragraph
00:29:49 That can be reduced at par paragraph four.
00:29:54 We can see that there's a the rise of right-wing extremism. Uh that that paragraph
00:30:04 paragraph it suggested that Louiswis Austin will ooze charm in her favored role as police liaison to find out how much police know about Y.
00:30:15 about Y. So at the time she was a national organizer for YA. Um,
00:30:22 that we know is a quote that comes from an SDS report. Were you aware that SDS reports were being put on her pink secret file?
00:30:35 being put on her pink secret file? No.
00:30:35 No. In special branch? No.
00:30:38 No. Were you would you have had access to those those SDS reports? If I'd wanted to, then yes, I would. But again, given the portfolio of work I was undertaken, it wouldn't be routine for
00:30:49 undertaken, it wouldn't be routine for me to ask to see uh SDS reporting on any particular individual. And in terms of your previous role on Squad in the public order um area, you
00:31:01 Squad in the public order um area, you were familiar with Lewis Austin? No, I would say that I wasn't familiar with Lewis Austin. Um there was a a whole range of individuals who uh would have been of interest to uh C squad and
00:31:13 have been of interest to uh C squad and I wouldn't like to single out one particular individual as a special case. Um so I can't say that she was somebody of special interest to me. Um would she have been somebody that was
00:31:25 Um would she have been somebody that was somebody that was regularly regularly reported on? Again I wouldn't like to comment without having access to the file to see how many entries there was on the file. We can see some excerpts from the file
00:31:37 can see some excerpts from the file that's set out below in this document. And we can see a bit of a history of the types of uh uh campaigns that she's been involved in and the organization she's
00:31:49 involved in and the organization she's been involved in. Um
00:32:00 there's no sense that Lois Austin was anything other than a genuine campaigner against racism and social rights. She's standing up against the far right and
00:32:11 standing up against the far right and and exercising her own rights within a democratic society. Is that fair to say? That could be one opinion.
00:32:22 But I noticed that also uh they were a member of militant tendency and militant tendency was an organization that I think at the time was of interest um across various agencies which is
00:32:35 across various agencies which is probably why the file was opened in the original situation. Um and is that just a left-wing uh like political party? Um without wanting to
00:32:46 political party? Um without wanting to go into sort of history of the militant tendency, it was regarded as a troskiest infiltration group within the Labor Party. Um which Labor Party took some years to uh disestablish it from within
00:32:59 years to uh disestablish it from within the party
00:33:01 the party and ultimately became the Socialist Party.
00:33:03 Party. Yeah. And again uh I wouldn't like to necessarily be quoted on it. It may have at one time when the word subversive is more commonly used have been classed as
00:33:14 more commonly used have been classed as a subversive organization that being the militant tendency at that time and uh labor politicians of that era spoke out uh quite veently against it.
00:33:25 uh quite veently against it. Uh
00:33:27 Uh no convictions, no suggestion of violence within this summary. Presumably if she had been convicted of anything that would have been something that would have been flagged. I would presume if she had been convicted of anything
00:33:39 if she had been convicted of anything with the Metaporn police district, yes, it would have done. In effect, was Lewis Austin simply a thorn in the side of the government at this uh time through her campaigning.
00:33:50 this uh time through her campaigning. I think uh to say that they were a thorn in the side of the government might be taking things too far. Um and I think the government of the time would probably think that this wasn't an individual who was a major uh
00:34:02 individual who was a major uh contributor to sleepless nights. Um, the penultimate paragraph on page two says that it's thought by special branch that this civil action may have
00:34:13 branch that this civil action may have been taken partly to flush out what the MPS knows about her and special branch method methodology generally. Is this just a very suspicious take on
00:34:26 Is this just a very suspicious take on Lois Austin bringing a a genuine civil action for breach of her uh fundamental rights?
00:34:33 rights? No. Uh at the time there was other organizations which special branch were looking at which together with uh partner organizations believed that other organizations were
00:34:45 believed that other organizations were actually using uh criminal and civil proceedings as a means of uh establishing uh police and security security agencies methodology. And it may well have been
00:34:57 methodology. And it may well have been that at the time that this was another throwaway remark to suggest that uh that line of [snorts] uh behavior might have been been taken place by uh this group
00:35:12 been been taken place by uh this group behind tab B15 MPS 0749804.
00:35:18 [snorts]
00:35:26 This is an attendance note again by L1 on the 5th of January 2005.
00:35:37 So this is uh the lawyer speaking to somebody from special branch and we can see paragraph three that somebody described the socialist party
00:35:48 somebody described the socialist party itself as an insidious and devious organization. So it's the paragraph just above
00:35:56 militant by name and nature. It works behind the scenes gradually bending people to its thinking and is the enemy within. Its objective is to overthrow governments and create world socialism.
00:36:07 governments and create world socialism. We heard evidence from Lois Austin uh last year and also in February of this year and her campaigns have been around
00:36:18 year and her campaigns have been around education and and work, housing and the sorts of socialist uh principled campaigns that one might expect in terms of the way that the socialist party is
00:36:30 of the way that the socialist party is described here in a lawyer's um uh note of a meeting. Was there really a very very skewed perception of
00:36:43 really a very very skewed perception of what Lois Austin and her claim was all about?
00:36:47 about? Um, I don't think so. No. Did that fit with what you thought the Socialist Party was like at that time in 2005? Um I
00:36:59 was like at that time in 2005? Um I cannot now in 2026 give an opinion of what my views on the socialist party at that time would have been. Um it may well have been a different beast from
00:37:11 well have been a different beast from the beast that it may well be now. Um and again I would have to look back into quite a lot of information to give you what my view in 2005 might have been.
00:37:24 what my view in 2005 might have been. [clears throat] Page two, paragraph one of this document links Lois Austin's partner Neil Mullholland
00:37:35 Mullholland [clears throat]
00:37:39 um to issues relating to Northern Ireland and the troubles again. Is this trying to smear the [clears throat] claimant and her camp
00:37:50 [clears throat] claimant and her camp and and her claim? No, I don't think so. I believe it's just trying to give some background on the claimant uh and the claimant's world view.
00:38:03 world view. Page two, paragraph three,
00:38:08 we saw there the claimants witnesses are described as hardened activists. And then we also go on to look at Louis Christian, the claimant solicitor, and the suggestion that she's a member of the Socialist Alliance.
00:38:21 of the Socialist Alliance. reference to Sadique Khn um when he was a a partner in the law firm Christian Khn and obviously now mayor of London but looking at them in a very suspicious
00:38:34 but looking at them in a very suspicious light as if their actions in representing Lewis Austin are somehow uh the malicious potentially is that what you were investigating is that what you were
00:38:46 investigating is that what you were looking for for some reason to undermine the litigation itself? No, not in the not in the slightest. Uh my take on that is slightly different from yours and that I look at it is it's just giving
00:38:57 that I look at it is it's just giving some background on the uh the the individual and because as you have said uh these people are regarded as respectable individuals. It actually
00:39:08 respectable individuals. It actually rebalances the picture of the claimant from being a wild militant uh if her uh individuals are people of uh upstanding character.
00:39:20 character. Um there are some articles attached to this letter I think in relation to um uh Louise Christian
00:39:31 um uh Louise Christian on that document. Do you remember trying to find open source material in relation to Louise Christian and her activities as a solicitor? No, it's not something that I would have been uh interested in doing.
00:39:44 been uh interested in doing. Um, Lewis Austin had given evidence about what happened on Mayday 2001 when she was kettled in Oxford Circus along with about 3,000 others. No toilets uh
00:39:57 with about 3,000 others. No toilets uh accessible or water. We understand she was lactating as a a young mother and needed to get back to pick up the infant from the child minders.
00:40:08 from the child minders. What value did reporting like this provide to the defense? What was the purpose behind this background
00:40:20 was the purpose behind this background uh uh uh research? I think you would again have to ask the director of legal services what benefit they gained from it as they were the people doing the original requesting. uh we were just in effect facilitating what
00:40:33 we were just in effect facilitating what uh to special branch would appear to be a reasonable uh request from lawyers representing the commissioner behind tab B16 please
00:40:47 behind tab B16 please MPS0
00:40:48 MPS0 749862
00:40:53 page two first
00:40:57 we can see this is an email from John Begs the council to the Met Police to Lawyer One on the 10th of January
00:41:08 to Lawyer One on the 10th of January 2005 at 9:05 in the evening regarding the potential
00:41:16 uh Socialist Party links between the claimants witnesses. I'll give you a moment just to read that.
00:41:44 Do you recall that being a real concern at the time when you had met with the the lawyers for the Met about there being this potential for um a conspiracy
00:41:56 being this potential for um a conspiracy iracy or perverting the course of justice because people were saying that they weren't members of the Socialist Party when it was suspected that they were.
00:42:05 were. No, I don't remember that.
00:42:09 We can see down at the bottom, can Mr. Mitchell consider devoting some more resources to this point given the potential criminality of what Austin and her followers are attempting if the
00:42:20 her followers are attempting if the person's intel is accurate. I mean, was this seen to be a real a real problem. This wasn't just a legitimate civil claim being brought by people that had been detained in Oxford
00:42:32 people that had been detained in Oxford Circus for hours. It was a potential criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice for some reason. I think Mr. begs obviously thought it
00:42:43 I think Mr. begs obviously thought it was, but the fact that that wasn't pursued obviously meant in my uh opinion that the intelligence wasn't acted on
00:42:54 that the intelligence wasn't acted on and uh that wasn't the case. Did you have concerns that this isn't this isn't the job of special branch or this isn't the job of my SDS unit? Did
00:43:06 this isn't the job of my SDS unit? Did you push back on this at all? push back on what
00:43:09 on what the request to dig around as to the background of the whether somebody is a part of a socialist party or not. Um
00:43:19 Um I would have probably questioned what the rationale behind it was and I would have been satisfied by whatever uh council Mr. Begs and Metton police legal services uh had said at the time.
00:43:32 services uh had said at the time. Looking at page one
00:43:36 of this document, please. This is now an email from lawyer one to you. This is following up on that last email we were just looking at.
00:43:48 email we were just looking at. And this is sent on the 11th of July, 2005,
00:43:52 2005, the following morning at at 9:56 in the morning.
00:44:00 And uh dear Alan, a recent information from such and uh from redacted urgent priority please. this urgency
00:44:13 about information regarding the claimants's witnesses
00:44:31 and again we can see in paragraph three there reference again to Louise Christian their solicitor Sir,
00:44:45 aside from the fact that it's not clear what the benefit would be to the claimant if most of her witnesses were members of the Socialist Party or not.
00:44:57 members of the Socialist Party or not. It's clearly something that was pressing in the minds of the Metleal team and you're being asked to urgently look this up. Do you have any concerns about
00:45:08 up. Do you have any concerns about looking up the backgrounds of a a lawyer?
00:45:11 lawyer? I can't remember uh I have no doubt that it came to me, but I can't remember what my views or opinions on it would be at the time.
00:45:23 The second part of this email is in relation to links between individuals targeted by CO11 fit teams, the Socialist Party and Lewis Austin.
00:45:35 Socialist Party and Lewis Austin. And and here we can see reference to um CO11 telling the lawyer that a number of individuals were being specifically targeted by fit teams. And we know that
00:45:46 targeted by fit teams. And we know that some of these people are engaged with this inquiry and [snorts] uh have been activists in their own right um and were obviously able to give
00:45:57 right um and were obviously able to give evidence about what happened on Mayday 2001.
00:46:01 2001. Um,
00:46:02 Um, were you aware about individuals being specifically targeted by fit teams? No, I wasn't aware, but it would be uh normal for uniform fit teams to uh
00:46:16 normal for uniform fit teams to uh target individuals of uh interest to to them and their public order duties during uh demonstrations and protests. Were you aware of any individuals being
00:46:28 Were you aware of any individuals being harassed by FIT team officers? Certainly not. Was that an objective at all of uh of special branch or investigation teams in
00:46:41 special branch or investigation teams in relation to uh activists, campaigners? FIT teams were managed and controlled by the public order branch and were not deployed uh in any way through uh
00:46:54 deployed uh in any way through uh special branch management. Uh deliberate targeting by fit teams could inhibit the desire to exercise their democratic rights to assemble and protest. Would you agree with that?
00:47:08 protest. Would you agree with that? No, I I I would go back to the reason the fit team is there. is to enhance the uniform public order intelligence to manage to allow police to safely uh
00:47:21 manage to allow police to safely uh police public order demonstrations. Um
00:47:27 Um when HN118 gave his evidence to this inquiry on the 17th of March this year, 118 being Simon Wellings um page 91 to 94, he was asked about
00:47:41 um page 91 to 94, he was asked about this uh fit team targeting and whether it had a chilling effect. He said, "Well, I meant that if you, you know, if you put extremely overt close,
00:47:53 know, if you put extremely overt close, you know, police presence behind somebody, it's clearly going to disrupt their ability to do whatever they were hoping do to do that day." And he went on to accept it could have a chilling
00:48:04 on to accept it could have a chilling effect.
00:48:05 effect. These people who were involved in the civil litigation with Lois Austin were not terrorists, were they?
00:48:16 were not terrorists, were they? No, they weren't. And they weren't uh serious criminals, were they? Not serious criminals? No.
00:48:27 Not serious criminals? No. Um so what is the policing value of finding out uh the information that you were being asked to find out for the purposes of the litigation?
00:48:39 purposes of the litigation? I believe and again just on the documents I've seen today one uh view might be put forward that it was actually to rule out the possibility that there had been uh perversion in the
00:48:52 that there had been uh perversion in the coast of just of justice and some of the statements that had been made and it was to clarify who in fact were the protesters rather than to uh go with the assumption that
00:49:04 than to uh go with the assumption that there was a giant conspiracy uh to pervert the course of justice by clearance. Um, we know that you were aware of HN 104
00:49:15 104 Carlos Saraki under the name Craggy Island being in the field around uh 2003 at least.
00:49:23 at least. Did your did this request for you to look into who was part of the Socialist Party and these individuals trigger the request for Carlos Saraki to come and
00:49:34 request for Carlos Saraki to come and brief the legal team? Not that I'm aware of. I wasn't aware that he had briefed the the legal team. Uh this is the first that I'm been made aware of that.
00:49:50 Um did you make these requests known to anybody above you? Did Commander Williams become aware of this request?
00:50:00 request? I I can't answer that question. I may have mentioned it to her. I might not have mentioned it to her. She would obviously have been aware of the uh litigation at the time. Yeah. What about ACS Vaness? Would you
00:50:13 Yeah. What about ACS Vaness? Would you have had any dealings direct directly with him over this? I would very much doubt it. Um Mr. Vaness is a very present figure and knew most of things that were happening
00:50:24 knew most of things that were happening in the Metropolitan Police that affected his area of business. I didn't tell him that it was happening, but then legal services might have made him aware. the uniformed assistant commissioners might
00:50:36 uniformed assistant commissioners might have made him aware or it could have even come up at various meetings where the commissioner met with these chiefs of staff. I wouldn't like to speculate as to if or when he knew. Would you have had any concerns about um
00:50:48 Would you have had any concerns about um the authority for using undercover officers for this purpose? again the authority unless I was in the role of the acting officer for authorizing it
00:51:01 the acting officer for authorizing it wouldn't be something that would be within my grade or area of responsibility
00:51:08 is that where [ __ ] flows uphill you would have raised it with your managers or not
00:51:14 or not the in terms of the authorities I wouldn't be granting authority and and could you just clarify what it is you're asking me if I grant would have granted authority Would would you have gone to
00:51:25 authority Would would you have gone to um uh Commander Williams because she was the one that was authorizing uh UCA deployments under Reaper, wasn't she? Yes. Ultimately, yes.
00:51:35 yes. Um obviously Dell would make the request. Um and that would go up to either yourself or Commander Williams. No, it would go by pass me and go to the
00:51:47 No, it would go by pass me and go to the commander because uh although Mike Dell might make me aware of requests, most of the uh authorized would go straight to the commander. So you wouldn't have thought to raise
00:51:58 So you wouldn't have thought to raise this sort of request, which request is could you just specify exactly which the request? the request to find out more information on the uh the claimant and her witnesses and the people who are
00:52:11 and her witnesses and the people who are being targeted by fit teams. The fit teams wouldn't be uh anything to do with special branch. Sorry, the indivi the individuals targeted by them. Those being um the
00:52:22 targeted by them. Those being um the ones who are of interest to the legal team. Again, I'm not clear from what I've seen that all the information that was provided was actually provided from an undercover officer. It could well
00:52:35 an undercover officer. It could well have come from the desk officers, from a collection of sources. I'm not quite sure, I'm sorry, I may be being particularly thick here, where the link is between the information and the
00:52:46 is between the information and the undercover officer. Okay, we'll get to um a particular meeting in a moment, but behind tab B17 MPS0749864.
00:53:00 So this is an email from the 11th of January 2005. So this is the week before trial now. And if we start at the bottom half, we can see an email from lawyer one to council John Begs
00:53:15 one to council John Begs at 3:37 in the afternoon relation to SP links between the claimants witnesses
00:53:25 and he has discussed it with Alan Mitchell is happy for them to be challenged as to their membership. Alan Mitchell thinks this case is a conspiracy to get information out of the MPS.
00:53:38 MPS. Uh Lewis Christian has not been looked into and will not be unless something very significant is found warranting it. So firstly, was it your idea that this
00:53:49 So firstly, was it your idea that this was a conspiracy to get information out of the NPS? No. If I can go back to my previous answer when we're talking about it being something that was mentioned probably as a throwaway comment and I think again
00:54:01 a throwaway comment and I think again it's been repeated here as a throwaway comment given that it was strongly suspected that other organizations that we were looking at as a special branch were using it as a tool to uh find out
00:54:15 were using it as a tool to uh find out police methodology and why they had got to wherever it was they were. if they were in the dock and what sort of information would
00:54:26 and what sort of information would warrant looking further into the background of the solicitor. I think it would have to be exceptionally serious which is why we've not looked into her uh as detailed there
00:54:40 and would you seek any authorization from your supervisors for the purposes of looking into the solicitor's background? I think it would not even be something I
00:54:51 I think it would not even be something I would consider doing. Uh as soon as you start looking at solicitors, you have to have in my view exceptionally strong rationale for doing it. Uh and again uh I would be
00:55:05 doing it. Uh and again uh I would be looking to take legal advice as to what the current situation at that time was. if it was felt that there was enough uh information to launch an investigation.
00:55:17 information to launch an investigation. I mean, you're talking about an investigation there. Um, and I would say it would have to be very significant. And also, I would be wanting to know what the legal safeguards were around uh
00:55:29 what the legal safeguards were around uh the individual and to ensure that officers weren't breaching that. Looking at the top half, the response from Mr. begs to lawyer one on the 11th
00:55:41 from Mr. begs to lawyer one on the 11th of January 2005 at quarter to 5 in the afternoon.
00:55:55 We can see that he suggests let's put the question first and see if the replies
00:56:00 replies if blank
00:56:02 if blank deny even support for the socialist party then we can discuss with Mitchell whether this amounts to a sound basis for raiding SP's offices to prove a crime of perjury or pervert etc. So, had
00:56:16 crime of perjury or pervert etc. So, had you had any discussions prior to this email about the options for raiding the Socialist Party offices in terms of membership lists?
00:56:27 membership lists? I have no recollection of that at all and it looks to be a rather draconian step.
00:56:34 step. Would you have serious concerns about that?
00:56:36 that? Absolutely.
00:56:40 Um did you have any discussion about less intrusive steps of finding out whether they were members of socialist party or
00:56:51 they were members of socialist party or not?
00:56:52 not? Not not that I can recall. No.
00:57:00 Um we can see in paragraph three that there's reference to getting the message of violence to the judge. given that you were on C desk at the
00:57:13 given that you were on C desk at the time when Mayday 2001 happened and you're a witness in this litigation to the threat assessment. You're speaking to that, aren't you?
00:57:24 You're speaking to that, aren't you? That's why you're brought in as a witness.
00:57:27 witness. um this this core message of violence. Were you able to uh
00:57:37 uh give any more detail in relation to that in relation to Lewis Austin in particular? I can't recall at uh this precise time
00:57:48 I can't recall at uh this precise time what my response to that would been and what my action would have been. Were you ever asked to enhance your evidence about the threat assessment as
00:57:59 evidence about the threat assessment as to the threat of violence uh of Mayday A201?
00:58:05 A201? No, that to do that would be a very dangerous direction of travel particularly if it was asking me to alter uh threat assessment which was already common knowledge uh within
00:58:19 already common knowledge uh within quite a wide area. Uh, and also it would be potentially illegal. Um, you knew at the time from the pink file that Lois was not violent.
00:58:32 file that Lois was not violent. Do you accept that? I accept that on the file it said they weren't violent and there was no reporting to suggest that she was violent. On the information I've seen today that
00:58:43 On the information I've seen today that is the case. Was council looking for some intelligence that Lewis Austin or her witnesses were violent? I think that again is a question for council. It's not one that I would feel
00:58:55 council. It's not one that I would feel qualified to answer.
00:59:00 [laughter] Um, were you able to say to the legal team that you've got information to show that the Socialist Party Lois Austin were not violent? So to undermine the
00:59:12 were not violent? So to undermine the reference there to to violence in her claim.
00:59:16 claim. I can't recall what I would have said at that time. Um we understand that the skeleton argument that was put before the judge said that the police had no knowledge of
00:59:27 said that the police had no knowledge of where the threat of violence emanated from.
00:59:31 from. Um, were you able to say that you at least knew where it didn't emanate from? And it didn't emanate from Lois Austin and her her group in the uh kettle at
00:59:44 and her her group in the uh kettle at that at that time in Mayday uh uh Oxford Circus. Again, I can't say that because again, uh I don't have access to that information at the moment and I don't
00:59:56 information at the moment and I don't have access to the information of what the uh thoughts and the actions of her and her associates were whilst they were in the so-called kettle.
01:00:07 in the so-called kettle. Um Carlos Saraki had that information. Was there was there a way that Carlos Saraki could have uh disclosed that to
01:00:18 Saraki could have uh disclosed that to the council? I honestly uh don't know that. I it's not something information that I've been made aware of. Um if he put a report in and the report was actioned, it would
01:00:30 and the report was actioned, it would have eventually uh been put in with the rest of the information from sep officers. But again, um it's a hypothesis that I'm not
01:00:41 again, um it's a hypothesis that I'm not able to really take forward. Um we have Carlos Saraki's witness statement which is UCPI 35550
01:00:49 page 114
01:00:54 paragraph 259.
01:00:58 Carlo was there um near to uh Lois on Mayday 2001 in in the kettle and he says he was assisting with stewarding and
01:01:09 he was assisting with stewarding and amongst a large group of socialist party activists probably more than 20 who were kettled.
01:01:19 [snorts]
01:01:21 Page 114 please. Paragraph 259. And if we can have the next page up as well. We can have them side by side and he remembers that Louisis Austin was in the group
01:01:33 the group and he
01:01:37 and he I think if that's reduced down we can see both I'm just going to summarize effectively what he says and he recalls um
01:01:48 and he recalls um that sorry he does not remember any specific incidents of violence occurring. He recalls being asked um
01:01:59 He recalls being asked um by council about her activist activity and her character which he provided. Um she was an activist in the socialist party the Walam Stow branch. She was involved as a spotter on occasions. She
01:02:11 involved as a spotter on occasions. She was an outgoing feisty person not a violent person. He says she may have been present at Mayday 2001 and obviously we know that she was. Um,
01:02:23 Um, would you have expected him to provide information like that to council when we know they met? They met later on on the 17th of January.
01:02:35 17th of January. Um,
01:02:37 Um, again, I would be speculating as to what information he gave to council. I can't remember him meeting council. Uh, and this is probably about the first occasion that I've seen information that
01:02:48 occasion that I've seen information that he met with council. I hadn't realized we'd met with [clears throat] council.
01:02:56 Do you accept that that is information that would undermine council's approach to the litigation which was to suggest that it was very
01:03:08 which was to suggest that it was very violent
01:03:10 violent and that message of violence that needed to be got over to the judge is undermined by what Carlos Saraki himself says about um what was going on in the kettle. I
01:03:21 um what was going on in the kettle. I don't feel it's my place to say whether it would have undermined council's argument. Again, I think that a question perhaps better asked to council. I don't feel qualified to uh answer what the
01:03:34 feel qualified to uh answer what the council's
01:03:35 council's uh strategy was in that matter and uh would not necessarily want to go down that line.
01:03:45 If we can go over onto page 116, I think that sets out. [snorts]
01:04:01 Okay, that's all I want to ask about um that. If we can go to tab B18, MPS0749865.
01:04:12 This is an email from you Mr. Mitchell to lawyer one of the 11th of January 2005
01:04:24 in the afternoon.
01:04:28 So here you say I've spoken to blank and asked for the info he gave you in writing
01:04:35 writing to enable me to answer questions on the linkage between witnesses in court if this is required. I'll phone you tomorrow on the 12th of January to
01:04:46 tomorrow on the 12th of January to discuss this issue.
01:04:50 Um, moving on to tab B19, we have the telephone call note of the 12th of January 2005 between you and lawyer one.
01:05:12 0749 809.
01:05:27 So here we can see that you're saying that you working on it to see if any open source cooperation. We'll get something in writing this afternoon or first thing tomorrow.
01:05:38 first thing tomorrow. happy to front it for SB at court would speak to judge on his own and cannot compromise source. Were you um happy to
01:05:49 compromise source. Were you um happy to um speak to the judge about the background information that you had been able to gather from uh SB intelligence? Uh yes.
01:06:08 And moving on to B20, MPS 0749810.
01:06:17 [snorts]
01:06:33 [snorts]
01:06:40 This is an attendance note that indicates that we're looking for a link between Lois Austin and her solicitor.
01:06:53 Did you have any sense of how important that was?
01:06:56 that was? Sorry. Could you repeat the question? There's a seeking a link between Lewis Austin
01:07:04 Austin and the solicitor Louise Christian. Why would
01:07:12 Why would that that was something that was seen to be important? Was it was um
01:07:17 um asking you similar similar things again. I appreciate again it's a director of legal services report. So it was obviously important to the director of legal services. Um I can't answer that question I'm afraid.
01:07:30 can't answer that question I'm afraid. Um moving to the actual meeting that council had with um Carlos Saraki
01:07:45 um
01:07:50 we understand from John Begs's witness statement which is UCPI [snorts]
01:07:56 [snorts] 5039326
01:07:59 5039326 page two.
01:08:03 This is his first witness statement. And he page two, paragraph 5, he says, "I met with him because I had been given some briefings in writing about what he could say about Lois Austin.
01:08:22 So we know that the meeting did happen between uh John Begs now Casey and uh Carlos Saraki page three paragraph 10.
01:08:36 Carlos Saraki page three paragraph 10. He says, "I think the meeting came about because some of the written briefings from the UCO did not directly but via his supervisors
01:08:46 seemed to portray Lois Austin as some kind of wild radical possibly involved in very serious matters. I was asked whether I wanted to meet with the UCO and I said yes because as stated I was
01:08:57 and I said yes because as stated I was skeptical about the written briefing. So these written briefings uh are they the written briefings that we saw referred to earlier that you were looking to get is something in writing?
01:09:08 looking to get is something in writing? I can't say I can't say specifically that these would be the the briefings that he was referring to. Um we understand that DCI Dell had
01:09:19 Um we understand that DCI Dell had written these briefings. Mr. begs suggest that at paragraph 12 at the bottom of this page that the written briefings were hyperbolic and paranoid like reds under the bed.
01:09:36 It may be over the page.
01:09:41 Was that still the sense of special branch even in 2005 that [clears throat] socialist party members were reds under the beds? you know that it was very people were very
01:09:52 know that it was very people were very suspicious of them a committed socialist. This is something that needed uh looking into investigating.
01:10:02 No, not particularly. I can't comment on um Mike Dell's views or opinions on it, but certainly it wasn't the view of special branch. Uh a lot of our effort
01:10:14 special branch. Uh a lot of our effort and direction was looking at an area that I'm not allowed to discuss here. uh and that I would say would be where quite a lot of our direction was going at that time in relation to violent
01:10:25 at that time in relation to violent disorder etc. In relation to this organization it would be in terms of public order and um assisting uniform
01:10:36 public order and um assisting uniform branch to effectively police the streets of London. Tab B21 please. NPS0749 812
01:10:58 we can see here this is a an attendance note of the 14th of January 2005. So just 3 days before the trial commences, telephone call between John Begs and the
01:11:10 telephone call between John Begs and the DLS lawyer one. Um he will ring Mitchell direct on his mobile.
01:11:21 So, were you having contact with John Begs in the days in the runup to uh the trial starting?
01:11:33 the trial starting? I can't remember whether I spoke to him on the runup to the trial or not. Um, as I was given evidence, I may have spoke to him, but whether that was about my evidence or anything else, I couldn't
01:11:44 evidence or anything else, I couldn't say. I can't remember any conversations on the runup to my appearance. As well as being a witness in the trial, were you also involved in the strategy
01:11:55 you also involved in the strategy around how to present evidence in trial? Uh, no, not at all. That would have been an issue I would have thought uh rested better with legal services and with council.
01:12:06 council. Were you involved around the decisions involving disclosure? again uh only if there was particular sensitive source issues which could uh
01:12:17 sensitive source issues which could uh compromise the safety of an individual. That would be the only time I would look to get involved or if it was information from another organization. Is it fair to say that you were involved
01:12:28 Is it fair to say that you were involved in evidence gathering in relation to the claimant and her witnesses? No, I don't believe it is uh fair to say it was evidence. we were responding as
01:12:40 it was evidence. we were responding as requests for information from our legal services team. Um, you say in your witness statement too at paragraph 20 that you were uh basically limited to being a witness at
01:12:53 basically limited to being a witness at trial and you state you were not aware of the tactics or decisions or knowledge of information in the hands of the legal team. But in fact, is that not quite accurate because you were involved a lot more in the runup to the trial in terms
01:13:06 more in the runup to the trial in terms of conferences and discussions with the council legal team? Sorry. I think it was highly accurate at the time when I made my statement. When I made my statement, uh I hadn't been
01:13:17 I made my statement, uh I hadn't been presented with any of these documents. Didn't know of their existence and was trying to remember an incident that happened 23 years ago. Um, I would still say that my involvement was to support
01:13:29 say that my involvement was to support the commissioner and the Metropolitan Police legal team in defending the action. I don't think it would be fair to say that I was an active participant in how the case was conducted.
01:13:43 Um, I think just in terms of whether you had the documents before when you made the statements, your second and third statements for the purposes of this hearing, you did have the documents that
01:13:54 hearing, you did have the documents that I've been referring to since lunchtime. I admit you didn't have the ones referred to just before lunch, but you did have these records to be able to show that you had involvement with the
01:14:05 show that you had involvement with the legal team in the preparation for the trial. I I if that is the case, I can't dispute it. But as recently as Friday, I was being shown documents which again um
01:14:17 was being shown documents which again um weren't included in my statement. So I'm uncertain as to when I saw certain documents and didn't see some others. Okay. Um you weren't shown this next
01:14:28 Okay. Um you weren't shown this next document I'm about to take you to, which is MPS0749817.
01:14:33 It's an attendance note of the 17th of January, 2005. Um, and this is in relation to 17th of January is the first day of the trial. This is in the evening of that day, 5:50
01:14:46 This is in the evening of that day, 5:50 p.m. And it's a telephone call between uh lawyer one and council John Begs. And we know that he was well the note is was
01:14:57 we know that he was well the note is was he was told to attend a certain location between 4:30 6:30 to meet SB informant. Told A.M. that he'd be he'd be there at 5:30. He has since he has been waiting
01:15:09 5:30. He has since he has been waiting since 5:15. Now 5:50. No one has showed up. Gave him AM's MOI number. So AM we understand was you. Do you recall having a conversation with John Begs about a
01:15:22 a conversation with John Begs about a meet on that first evening of the trial? No, I have no recollection of that.
01:15:34 Um, do you accept that am is Alan Mitchell?
01:15:39 Mitchell? Well, I because I don't know the content of the telephone conversation. Um, I don't really feel in a position to say that is definitely me. If John Beg says
01:15:50 that is definitely me. If John Beg says it's me, then it is me. It may well be me. But I can't for definite say it's me because I didn't can't remember the call. Th
01:15:57 call. Th this might help. It's lawyer 1's witness statement. NPS0749960
01:16:06 page 9 paragraph 25. So this is uh the solicitor who wrote this note
01:16:20 at paragraph 25
01:16:24 she says that on that date she gave the mobile number of another person am i.e. Alan Mitchell. So does does that help? Although you have no recollection of it, I think it's clear that it was you. We
01:16:35 I think it's clear that it was you. We understood it uh to be the case. And um
01:16:39 um does that help you recall now whether you helped set up that meeting that John Begs had with Carlos Saraki? That SB
01:16:50 Begs had with Carlos Saraki? That SB informant we know is Carlos Saraki. No, I'm afraid it doesn't doesn't help me with that at all. Why would you be having contact with John Begs in that capacity on that night
01:17:02 John Begs in that capacity on that night had you not been the person to set up that meeting? Because he would regard me as his point of contact um who might be able to get things done at short notice and to find
01:17:13 things done at short notice and to find out what was happening. Um I don't know that he had any details for uh any other people within the special branch, but he did know me. And and you would have
01:17:25 did know me. And and you would have called Dell? Yeah. Yes, I would have called Dell. So you understood Dell was bringing the SB informant to the No, I didn't understand that. I would have understood that from Mr. Beg's telephone conversation.
01:17:36 telephone conversation. Okay. So, so you understood it from a conversation you had with Mr. Begs? No. Uh what I'm saying is I can't remember the telephone call coming in, but if I had then realized that Mr. begs
01:17:49 but if I had then realized that Mr. begs wanted to speak to uh Skarachi and DCidell, it would be because of that telephone conversation. Um,
01:18:02 were you in fact at that meeting? I have no recollection of being at that meeting. No. Do do you recall being briefed by Carlo
01:18:14 Do do you recall being briefed by Carlo Saraki at all? No. No, I have no recollection of being briefed by him. I would have expected that if he was meeting with Mr. Begs, there would have been another officer
01:18:25 there would have been another officer present as that tended to be the way uh they would have held meetings. I can only remember having meetings uh with SDS field officers at
01:18:39 meetings uh with SDS field officers at safe houses uh and again that was on specific occasions um with either I think the cover officer or management from the SDS unit present
01:18:50 or management from the SDS unit present and none of that was to discuss anything in this area of uh work. Um,
01:18:57 Um, another document again was not in your pack. MPS0749866.
01:19:05 There's an email from John Begs to lawyer one on the 17th of January 2005 now at um half 10 in the evening.
01:19:16 now at um half 10 in the evening. Good meeting. some useful general information info about nature of beast but nothing specific on anyone but Lois Nile and just about privacy.
01:19:28 Nile and just about privacy. Um, so what appears to have been some kind of secret meeting between defense council and an operational undercover officer Carlos Saraki
01:19:39 officer Carlos Saraki and his managers on the on the night of the first day of trial appears to have taken place. Do do you agree
01:19:49 agree from this uh not it would appear that that was the case? Yeah. Um that was the night before Lois Austin was to commence her evidence over two days at the high
01:20:00 her evidence over two days at the high court trial. Do you recall the the uh temporal link between the two? No, I have no recollection at all of the trial.
01:20:10 trial. Do you know why the meeting was arranged for then?
01:20:13 for then? No. And again, it would be something that uh either Mike Dell or John Begs or Carlos Garachi might be able to answer. Um,
01:20:30 do you agree that it must have been quite an important meeting for council to take time out of the first day of trial in the evening before questioning the key witness
01:20:43 before questioning the key witness um in in the case to come to a meeting. It must have been an important meeting with an anticipation of getting some fairly important information from that undercover officer.
01:20:55 undercover officer. Again, I wouldn't want to assume anything. Um, but I think if Mr. Begs wanted to meet the officer in question on that evening, then it may well have been important for Mr. Begs. What What would have been so important
01:21:07 What What would have been so important that couldn't have been put in an email? I have no idea.
01:21:19 Um,
01:21:36 it appears to have been accepted by DCIDele that he was probably at the meeting, albeit he can't remember the details of the meeting. We know John Begs was at the meeting and we know Carlos Saraki was at the meeting. Um,
01:21:49 Carlos Saraki was at the meeting. Um, from John Begs's witness statement, his first witness statement, uh, paragraph 8 on page three, I don't need to bring it up, but he says, "There were, I think, two other officers at the
01:22:00 were, I think, two other officers at the meeting of higher rank, perhaps a DI and a DCI."
01:22:05 a DCI." Um, can you help us with who would have been in attendance, the DI and DCI? I can only presume that if it's was Carlos Skarachi, one of them would have been
01:22:16 Skarachi, one of them would have been Mike Dell and the other may well have been the
01:22:20 been the his deputy, whoever was the DI at that time. But again, that's an assumption on my part.
01:22:42 Um, HN53, [snorts] who was his DI at the time, said in his witness statement for MPS 07500
01:22:54 witness statement for MPS 07500 08,
01:22:56 08, dated 13th February, 2026, at page 3, [cough] paragraph 8.
01:23:06 [snorts]
01:23:12 He says, "I have no recollection of asking Carlos Saraki to speak with council to the MPS in relation to the Mayday 2001 proceedings. If this request had come to me, I would have consulted Mike Dell and Steve Beals initially and
01:23:24 Mike Dell and Steve Beals initially and then produced a memo setting out the advantages and disadvantages from the SDS perspective so that approval could be sought from the S12 senior management team
01:23:35 team at the time. Would that have been you? It depends. Again, because it is dealing with the use and conduct of an SDS
01:23:46 with the use and conduct of an SDS officer, it may be something that would have gone to commander rank, an actual rank,
01:23:52 rank, but again, I wouldn't want to necessarily speculate, but that would have been I would have thought the logical place for it to sit. So that Sorry, who was that? You said
01:24:04 So that Sorry, who was that? You said that
01:24:04 that I would have think um at that time it would probably be Janet. I would have thought
01:24:08 thought gone to Janet Williams. I would have thought if that was a request for use and conduct around an SDS officer meeting a council in a a
01:24:19 SDS officer meeting a council in a a live court case, then that would have probably gone to her for authority. And had that and had she not been available, that would have fallen to you.
01:24:26 you. It probably have fallen to me. Um, at this at this period of time, I wouldn't have known what the the protocol was if it was in connection with something like that. Something like
01:24:37 with something like that. Something like that, it may well have gone to another act uh such as the director of intelligence. Uh, but given that you But it might have come to me if the commander wasn't available and I was acting commander.
01:24:48 acting commander. Yeah. And given your relationship with council, having met with council, uh your liaison with the legal team, that would have made sense. Actually, if I could correct it, I think at that time I was a superintendent, so
01:25:00 at that time I was a superintendent, so it would have gone to the relevant chief superintendent. I think you was chief superintendent. This is 2005. Yeah, it would have gone to me in 2005. Um, looking at the reaper authorizations
01:25:11 Um, looking at the reaper authorizations in Carlos Saraki's pack, MPS0526804
01:25:23 page. So, if we scroll down, you can see this is a whole composite of documents relating to the initial authorizations and reviews uh and uh renewals. But if
01:25:35 and reviews uh and uh renewals. But if we go to page 54, these are these are documents the type of documents you will be familiar with. I'm not saying that you've read this recently. Um but these are the sorts of documents that you would have completed, wouldn't you, in reviewing SDS operations
01:25:47 reviewing SDS operations if I was as the acting act, right? Yes. Um and at page 54, we can see this is a review for the use and conduct of a UCO
01:25:59 review for the use and conduct of a UCO in March.
01:26:01 in March. Page 56
01:26:04 Page 56 in relation to Kraggy Island. Cray Island being um Carlos Saraki. Page 56, bullet point five says that UCO Kraggy Island has been in a position to provide background
01:26:15 a position to provide background briefing to both Metropolitan Police Legal Advisers and SO2 senior management in the current Mayday 2001 civil case where individual activists with support from the SP organization are suing the
01:26:26 from the SP organization are suing the police. So here it it appears clear that he briefed both the legal advisers and SO12 senior management. So did he brief you?
01:26:38 you? I have no recollection of meeting with Carlos Garrett. Um would he have briefed you in any other way rather than face to face? No. The only other way that I would have got information would have been if uh an
01:26:51 got information would have been if uh an intelligence report came up from uh SDS. And the person that he might otherwise be referring to in terms of S12 senior
01:27:03 be referring to in terms of S12 senior management would be it would have been the commander at that time or it could have been superintendent escort and the superintendent esquad I think was either Renol
01:27:15 was either Renol um or Fuller I think at that time I wouldn't like to say. Okay. Doesn't it make sense that it would have been you given your involvement here? You've uh taken the
01:27:27 involvement here? You've uh taken the legal team to look at this pink pink special files in special branch. You've had
01:27:35 had I think some some uh involvement in researching the backgrounds you're you're involved quite centrally in this, aren't you? Isn't Isn't it referring to you?
01:27:46 referring to you? It doesn't say that it was me. Is it most likely to have been? Well, I wouldn't like to assume that. It says SO2 senior management. Um, it doesn't say specifically me. It may have
01:27:57 doesn't say specifically me. It may have been me, but that's not what it says.
01:28:02 Um, we can see at page 39.
01:28:16 This is a an update.
01:28:22 And this is now in May. It's signed further down in May. [snorts] Um, again, an authority for the use and conduct of Craggy Island.
01:28:33 conduct of Craggy Island. And it's page 41 in relation to an intelligence case. Bullet point 8.
01:28:51 that it provided a personal background meeting briefing to MPS defense council in the Mayday 2001 civil action by members of the socialist party.
01:29:02 Um,
01:29:09 scrolling down this is sign this um request is signed by DI53 on the 27th of May May 2005.
01:29:21 on the 27th of May May 2005. page 48
01:29:27 and page 49 we've got
01:29:33 um the customer squad comments from CEOs DI
01:29:42 and the last sentence in that box says that UCO craggy islands intelligence and assessment for MPS council in relation to the recent Mayday action was of significant
01:29:55 recent Mayday action was of significant value.
01:29:59 Um for information to be of significant value
01:30:06 value clearly this is not just Carlos Saraki telling um Mr. begs that she's a feisty outgoing woman and a member of the Socialist
01:30:17 woman and a member of the Socialist Party and and that sort of thing.
01:30:22 What would you understand from this information being given uh in response to um his intelligence by C squad desk? Again, I wouldn't want to speculate. I
01:30:35 Again, I wouldn't want to speculate. I believe that what the officer is saying is that it was a significant value because it may well have been that that was the feedback that he got from the legal team at uh director of
01:30:47 legal team at uh director of [clears throat] legal services. Uh again, without knowing exactly what was in the officer's mind at the time, um it's difficult for me to say.
01:30:58 it's difficult for me to say. John Begs's evidence in his witness statement was it was not of particularly useful um value and didn't really tell him anything he didn't already know about Lois Austin. But can we take it
01:31:09 about Lois Austin. But can we take it from this note that in fact it must have been there must have been something that happened during the course of that meeting that was of more significant value? No, not necessarily. Uh I would
01:31:20 value? No, not necessarily. Uh I would say that uh here what they're trying to do is they're trying to show the effectiveness of the officer. And what they're doing is they're showing that yes, he's met uh MPS council and that
01:31:32 yes, he's met uh MPS council and that that was a significant value. Again, it doesn't say that this was found by council to be of significant value. And again, without speaking to the officer, it would be difficult to know what made
01:31:43 it would be difficult to know what made him say that it was of significant value. behind tab B22 please. MPS 00043 069.
01:32:02 This is an intelligence report in relation to the socialist part civil action against the police of the 19th of April 2005. So this is post the trial. The trial took place in January and
01:32:13 The trial took place in January and February in the high court. And this notes paragraph three
01:32:25 [snorts] says that council for the police were able to discredit her and other plaintiffs.
01:32:34 Paragraph four says that she's instructed her legal representatives to prepare an appeal as they believe there is still a slim chance of victory under the Human
01:32:45 slim chance of victory under the Human Rights Act, but nobody however is holding their breath. Um the the suggestion here is that there's been some kind of um ability to discredit undermine the
01:32:58 um ability to discredit undermine the claim
01:33:03 um by the use of information given by Carlos Saraki
01:33:10 and that he then is also reporting further about the outcome of that civil claim and the steps being taken to appeal.
01:33:22 appeal. Do you have any concerns about this sort of reporting? Only thing I would comment on uh is that it says that in there of the opinion that did not give a good performance uh
01:33:35 that did not give a good performance uh while she was giving evidence and as a result council of the police were able to discredit her and other plaintiffs. that to me that sentence looks as if it's based on her performance and giving
01:33:46 it's based on her performance and giving evidence rather than anything the police were necessarily able to do to discredit her.
01:33:53 her. Um we we
01:33:55 Um we we um have some evidence this inquiry that one thing that Carlos Saraki was able to do was uh inform on what would wind her up in the witness books. Well, again, I've not seen that. um I've
01:34:07 Well, again, I've not seen that. um I've been shown the document and asked to comment on that document and and and one thing in particular being the Irish link with her partner. So given that that was information that was provided by you as well about uh that in
01:34:20 provided by you as well about uh that in the documents that we've looked at, has this all been utilized to um undermine her in her evidence? Not that I'm conscious of. Again, any
01:34:31 Not that I'm conscious of. Again, any information given by Kosarachi to uh council would have to be something between Kosarachi and council as to what was said and how uh council used that
01:34:42 was said and how uh council used that information. I can't really comment on it.
01:34:45 it. Does it appear here that it's not a level level playing field in that the um police have a spy on the other side of the litigation in the claimant side of
01:34:57 the litigation in the claimant side of these proceedings reporting back everything that is known from inside the Lewis Austin's No, I don't think that's a fair comment at all because on the information I've
01:35:09 at all because on the information I've seen there is not any information that's been given about discussions between the claimant and their legal team or anything that would give uh Metropolan
01:35:20 anything that would give uh Metropolan police information to assist their uh conduct of their uh defense of the action. To me, it looks very much as if
01:35:32 action. To me, it looks very much as if what has been reported is either historical information uh on the individuals or uh peripheral information post the event. What's the policing value in relation to
01:35:44 What's the policing value in relation to this sort of reporting? The reporting in general about the party or just in general? The reporting about the litigation.
01:35:56 The again because of the information held on certain individuals with it. It may well have been felt by the defense
01:36:07 may well have been felt by the defense that they wanted to ensure that it from their perspective it was a level playing field and it wasn't a conspiracy as outlined several times by um John Begs and it would appear that Carlos Garachi
01:36:19 and it would appear that Carlos Garachi was able to confirm that there wasn't a giant conspiracy and so the Metapon police didn't go down that line completely baseless suspicion about Lois Austin and her her claim. No, I I I
01:36:31 Austin and her her claim. No, I I I wouldn't agree that it's a completely baseless uh claim. I would say that on the information I have seen um the deployment of the officer and the
01:36:43 deployment of the officer and the information given was correct and a completely inappropriate use of undercover officer reporting. No, I don't believe so because the
01:36:54 No, I don't believe so because the officer was reporting on a group and the information was historical. I haven't seen any information or much information from Carlos Arachi
01:37:05 from Carlos Arachi on paper that supports the fact that he was reporting lots of information on the proceedings. Um, behind tab B23 MPS00
01:37:17 Um, behind tab B23 MPS00 you were asked about the policing value. Yes. of knowing that uh some full-timers are of the opinion that Austin didn't give a good performance
01:37:28 Austin didn't give a good performance while giving evidence and that they regard the prospects of an appeal uh as having a slim chance of victory. What on earth has that got to
01:37:40 victory. What on earth has that got to do which is of policing value? I would say that specifically has nothing to do with the policing value. I think that that is uh something that the officer has probably put in as a result
01:37:51 officer has probably put in as a result almost as a piece of information. It's not what I would class as intelligence. Thank you. Forgive me for interrupting. Thank you. Behind tab B23 MPS 0071194.
01:38:09 This is an SDS manager summary of HN 104's deployment. the 13th uh dated ultimately the 13th of the 11th 2006. But if we go to page 8, please
01:38:23 But if we go to page 8, please paragraph one, we can see that during the course of 2005, Carlos Saraki provided backgrounds information to police council defending MPS in a large civil claim by socialist party activists
01:38:35 civil claim by socialist party activists following their detention in Mayday 2001 section 60 containment at Oxford Circus. The main plaintiff of the claim was Lois Austin from the Socialist Party. MPS
01:38:46 Austin from the Socialist Party. MPS successfully defended itself against the claim. To my knowledge, never done before by SDS field officer. The suggestion here by Carlos Saraki's manager is that Carlos Saraki's
01:39:00 manager is that Carlos Saraki's uh in involvement in this led in part to the successful defense of the claim. What do you say about that?
01:39:12 It could be read that way. Yes. But [snorts] again, not knowing what information uh Carlo provided to uh John Begs, um I wouldn't like to comment on
01:39:25 Begs, um I wouldn't like to comment on whether the statement is accurate or not.
01:39:27 not. Given that this was such an important claim uh against the police, was that discussed at all within special branch?
01:39:38 branch? what specific the success of it and the involvement you know the the the the um contribution that Carlos Saraki made no I can't remember any discussion about
01:39:50 no I can't remember any discussion about it within special branch uh it was something that had happened and um we moved on to to other issues you were a witness in that claim though
01:40:01 you were a witness in that claim though um in that trial and uh had been involved in the run-up to that trial. What discussions did you have then with uh the legal team about that and Carlo Saraki's involvement in it if anything?
01:40:13 Saraki's involvement in it if anything? I can't remember having any discussions uh post the event with the legal team.
01:40:26 Um, we know from the witness statements of John Begs and George Thomas that uh Lois Austin's performance at trial would have made no difference anyway
01:40:37 would have made no difference anyway because ultimately it did not form part of the judge's decision-making on the legality of the cordon and the police action that day. Um, in terms of the threat assessment that was uh uh created
01:40:50 threat assessment that was uh uh created and the presentation of Lois Austin and the circumstances that day portrayed to the judge, do you think that that's a fair assessment or could Carlos Saraki
01:41:03 assessment or could Carlos Saraki have
01:41:05 have uh uh
01:41:08 uh uh provided information that would have put a different slant on his view of the uh event that day. Not having the threat assessment in
01:41:20 Not having the threat assessment in front of me and not knowing uh what the judge's thinking was, uh I wouldn't like to comment on that. I think there is uh a danger that Carlos Arach's involvement
01:41:33 a danger that Carlos Arach's involvement in is potentially being overrated. Was
01:41:38 Was any consideration given to disclosing the involvement of a UCO in the gathering of background intelligence on the claimant and her witnesses? Again, I can't remember any discussion
01:41:50 Again, I can't remember any discussion and I think as I've already answered, a lot of the information, the background information was also obtained from within special branch existing records. Um, the involvement of Carlos Saraki on
01:42:01 Um, the involvement of Carlos Saraki on the evening of the first day of trial would not have been part of the PII disclosure. uh uh that would normally take place in the course of the trial, would it?
01:42:10 would it? Uh I I can't honestly say I don't have that level of knowledge. We have one document um that you won't have been shown before. Um it's MPS0749
01:42:27 have been shown before. Um it's MPS0749 868.
01:42:30 868. I'm not too sure if I can bring this up actually. No, it's not on Epic. Um,
01:42:39 do you recall that on the day that you gave your evidence on the 24th of January 2005 that Kia Starmer, who was representing Lois Austin as council
01:42:53 was representing Lois Austin as council wrote to the MPS council suggesting that in light of Mitchell's evidence so far, I think we' better ensure that the uh, special branch threat assessments and any other advice passed by special
01:43:05 any other advice passed by special branch to messenger or French are at court as soon as possible. Do you recall having some involvement in that? I can't recall that. Do you recall having a phone call with
01:43:17 Do you recall having a phone call with lawyer one on the evening of you giving tri uh evidence at trial? No, I've not pi no recollection of that.
01:43:28 [clears throat]
01:43:46 Um,
01:43:56 MPS0749850.
01:43:59 Again, I'm not sure if this is going to come up [snorts] on Epic.
01:44:14 Do you recall a situation where Kstama did not pursue a PII um uh uh uh application or challenging any PII
01:44:27 uh application or challenging any PII application that had been warned off in relation to that and that was a cause of some
01:44:34 some uh
01:44:36 uh Celebration is not quite the word, but do do you recall any of that at the end of the trial? No recollection of that.
01:44:44 Sir, note the time. It's half past 3 and it may be a time for an afternoon break. Yes. Um h how much further do we have to go before we deal with rule 10 process?
01:44:56 go before we deal with rule 10 process? Um about
01:44:58 Um about 3/4 of an hour. Yes. So be it. Then we'll have a break. Um 10 minutes or quarter an hour.
01:45:09 We'll have a long 10 minutes then. Yes. Right. [laughter]
02:01:41 Thank you. I just want to ask you about um some of the operations that you authorized under Reaper as acting up as commander. So, two documents, if I can have them side by side, these relate to
02:01:54 have them side by side, these relate to HN18,
02:01:56 HN18, Simon Wellings's uh uh operations. Now, the reason to have these two side by side is because one [clears throat] is signed by you in August 2003
02:02:09 is signed by you in August 2003 and one is signed in August 2004. Um, now do you recall authorizing uh operations under REIA? I think we've
02:02:21 uh operations under REIA? I think we've already established that you did do that if Janet Williams wasn't available. Yes.
02:02:36 And the authority for conduct is the the text that um we're interested in. And in in the August 2003 document, we can see
02:02:47 in the August 2003 document, we can see that it's fairly short uh fairly short text
02:02:52 text and no references made to relationships. Whereas in August 2004, we can see that reference is made to relationships.
02:03:04 relationships. But fourth [snorts] line down, that conduct will include establishing relationships with members of globalized resistance who will not know that the source is a police officer. Anything
02:03:15 source is a police officer. Anything more intrusive than the establishing of such relationships and living the life of the committed activist is not authorized.
02:03:26 Um just this reference to relationships living the life of the committed activist nothing further authorized is that in fact reference to
02:03:39 authorized is that in fact reference to sexual rel relationships and the fact that they should be prohibited I can't be specific on that at the time [clears throat] um
02:03:50 um but it would probably include living the life
02:03:56 I mean it would include such things as drug taking um sexual relationships I would say would be within the gambit of that whether that was in the forefront
02:04:07 that whether that was in the forefront of my mind or not but I think it would be generally uh in terms of the relationship yeah drugs that sort of and whether this is your own text or whether this is now standardized text
02:04:19 whether this is now standardized text within the uh ripper authorization forms is the change between 2003 and 2004 a result of what was known by the officer
02:04:31 result of what was known by the officer A and officer B statements in that we know from what we looked at earlier today that both officer A and officer B talk about sexual relationships in the course of their deployments.
02:04:43 course of their deployments. Uh I can't answer that question because I don't have enough detailed knowledge on when it changed or why it changed. It may well have been that uh advice came
02:04:54 may well have been that uh advice came from uh stated cases or from uh the police management on the wording and what was acceptable. The original
02:05:06 what was acceptable. The original wording looks quite sparse and it may well be that over time that they were asked and directed to include more information in detail, but I can't say specifically what um the
02:05:18 but I can't say specifically what um the rationale for the change was. Um, just to be clear, I um HM123 um is not known to have had a sexual relationship in his deployment, but he
02:05:29 relationship in his deployment, but he made reference to others having sexual relationships in his officer B witness statement. I just wanted to make that clear.
02:05:37 clear. Um, so you're not able to assist as to whether that triggered this change in the wording? No, I'm unfortunately not. other ripper authorizations that you
02:05:49 other ripper authorizations that you were involved in signing off on MPS0526935.
02:05:55 [snorts]
02:05:59 This is in relation to HN18 Rob Hastings's uh deployment.
02:06:09 If we can go to page one, we can see that it's common wheel was his code name.
02:06:16 name. Um, page 176, please. [snorts]
02:06:27 If that can be enlarged, we can see paragraph one in relation to authority relates to commercial interests. I'll let you read that paragraph.
02:06:53 [clears throat and cough]
02:07:00 H18 we know infiltrated international solidarity movement London and uh DIY uh uh disarm uh DIY.
02:07:11 uh disarm uh DIY. Um, in terms of the the anti- business trajectory, [clears throat] the anti-war campaigns, was there a sense that part of the
02:07:23 was there a sense that part of the reason for his operation was the uh the commercial interests involved in the arms manufacturing industry and the need
02:07:34 arms manufacturing industry and the need to invo avoid embarrassment to the government? Was that part of the thinking around uh deploying him into those areas?
02:07:46 Uh I can't say at this time whether that would have been a a fact. I would very much doubt that it would have been a fact. I do notice that it says that I do not grant authorization.
02:07:57 [clears throat]
02:08:01 Yeah, I'm not too sure that that is accurate because I consider the following authorization remains appropriate. So, I think you're not granting the authorization from from at the outset, but you're um updating it.
02:08:15 the outset, but you're um updating it. If we can scroll down to where you sign off on this, I think it's the next page. [clears throat]
02:08:24 [snorts]
02:08:35 We can see you're signing on behalf of um Commander Gormley. Yep.
02:08:45 And we can see there my authority for youth and conduct commenced on [snorts] um the 22nd of November 2005, expires a year later, but this is an update midway
02:08:58 year later, but this is an update midway between that time. So this is May 2006. Does that help? Yes. Could you repeat your initial question please? Um it was about um HN18 and the reason
02:09:11 Um it was about um HN18 and the reason for his deployment in terms of whether there was a motivation to protect um uh against the threat to commercial interests particularly in the arms
02:09:22 interests particularly in the arms um field
02:09:25 um field [clears throat] or to avoid or avert um embarrassment to the government. My reading it would be to prevent uh criminality in relation to the
02:09:39 criminality in relation to the business and the company would be how I would
02:09:43 would look at the rationale. And how is it that the Palestinian cause um in particular featured in HN18's deployment? I can't remember at this stage what the rationale for that was. Um we heard from
02:09:56 rationale for that was. Um we heard from DCIDell that infiltration into ISM was meant to be a stepping stone yet um uh he remained within ISM for the for the
02:10:07 he remained within ISM for the for the duration of his deployment. Was that something that you were aware of? Uh no. No. Okay. So that message from DC IDEL hadn't
02:10:15 hadn't I can't remember that conversation from again 20 years ago. um page 151 [snorts] of this authorization composite
02:10:27 composite of paragraph two.
02:10:33 So this is a later um
02:10:36 um authorization paragraph two says that ISM was virtually moribond around this time. Do you recall having any thought as to
02:10:50 Do you recall having any thought as to whether H&18's um [clears throat] deployment was still valid, if it ever was, under your watch?
02:11:01 under your watch? Um I can't recall having thought about it at the time.
02:11:10 All right, it's back on.
02:11:16 Um page 152 talks about collateral intrusion. Um we've heard evidence about those that
02:11:27 Um we've heard evidence about those that came into contact with H&18 in the course of his deployment including Aif Chowry and a woman we know as Maya. We can see here it says there
02:11:38 as Maya. We can see here it says there have been no trace instances of collateral intrusion in this period. Focused tasking and briefings will continue in an effort to minimize any such intrusion. Some collateral intrusion is inevitable,
02:11:50 Some collateral intrusion is inevitable, particularly in areas that consistently attract eccentric but well-intentioned persons. And CW is tightly focused on those individuals planning antisocial and serious manifestations of public
02:12:01 and serious manifestations of public dissent and disorder.
02:12:06 Knowing now what we know of HN18's deployment where he spent considerable time infiltrating the private life and the family of Atif Chowry and the home
02:12:20 the family of Atif Chowry and the home life, the personal life and the sexual life of Maya. Was this sufficient um uh
02:12:31 um uh protection to try and mitigate against the risk of over intrusion into people's personal lives. And by that I mean this uh uh
02:12:43 lives. And by that I mean this uh uh form of ripper authorization was the oversight sufficient in order to try and protect [clears throat] the public against overly intrusive undercover
02:12:54 against overly intrusive undercover operations. I think plainly no it wasn't. What more could have been done to protect against that sort of intrusion
02:13:05 protect against that sort of intrusion into the lives of members of the public? I wouldn't want to give an off-the- cuff response. It's something that I would uh require some thought about.
02:13:17 [clears throat and cough]
02:13:22 These ripper authorizations were were meant to be a a a form of protection, weren't they, for members of the public to avoid unnecessary, disproportionate,
02:13:33 to avoid unnecessary, disproportionate, and unlawful intrusions on their lives? Why why was it not working? Again, um my perception would be that most of these forms were a means of
02:13:45 most of these forms were a means of showing that uh issues had been thought and had been considered. But again, I would say that historically across a lot of the RIPA authorizations perhaps
02:13:56 of the RIPA authorizations perhaps thought wasn't given into what is it we're trying to achieve here. Are we achieving it? Could it be done better? And is there a danger it just becomes a purely bureaucratic process?
02:14:08 purely bureaucratic process? Do you think that was the case that it was a an almost tickbox exercise as opposed to a an intrusive form of close management? I think it would depend very much who
02:14:19 I think it would depend very much who was completing the information and the forms. I think some forms uh potentially became
02:14:27 became I wouldn't say a cut and paste but uh formalistic words were used without actually what it was they were trying to achieve.
02:14:35 achieve. Uh and
02:14:37 Uh and again just looking at these now historically there doesn't appear to me much detail as to what the uh control factors are to ensure that what has been
02:14:48 factors are to ensure that what has been written is being complied with. Did you have training on human rights articles in particular 8 and 10 and 11?
02:14:59 articles in particular 8 and 10 and 11? Again I can't say specifically in relation to those articles. Um I believe I would have probably like other officers in my rank had some form of [clears throat] uh you say HR training but I can't be
02:15:12 uh you say HR training but I can't be definite or specific on that who provide who or who would have provided that human rights input into training.
02:15:20 training. It would
02:15:22 It would and again uh I'm having to really think back here. It would either have been MET police training or more or perhaps more likely to have been uh organizations or
02:15:33 likely to have been uh organizations or individuals contracted by the MPS to deliver that training and would that have been training for people within special branch with these responsibilities of completing REI?
02:15:44 responsibilities of completing REI? I think it would I think again I don't know it would be RIPER specific and I don't know that it would be SB specific. I would believe it may well be for management in general. Um,
02:15:57 well be for management in general. Um, as to being specific for officers doing it, I can't remember specific courses. I can't remember doing a specific course on uh RIP authorizations.
02:16:08 on uh RIP authorizations. Is it likely that there wasn't training on?
02:16:11 on? There may well have been. I just can't remember whether I did it or not. Um, what about the national intelligence model and the minimum minimum standards in relation to that? What were the implications of um of not meeting those
02:16:25 implications of um of not meeting those minimum standards in the lawfulness of deployments that were being authorized at the moment? I can't remember. I can't remember. There was [clears throat] uh
02:16:36 remember. There was [clears throat] uh information about uh national intelligence model. Training was given in the national intelligence model and special branch um moved to the national intelligence model at one time. Um, and
02:16:50 intelligence model at one time. Um, and I know that one of the other units, the NPIU, had a review, commissioned a review into its compliance on the national intelligence model. But what the result of that was and what the specifics, I'm afraid I can't answer at
02:17:02 specifics, I'm afraid I can't answer at the moment. If we can move to page 193 of this document, please. So again within HN18's composite of uh reaper authorizations
02:17:16 composite of uh reaper authorizations we can see here that this is a excuse me a a a quality assurance review completed by DCI flood on the 21st of
02:17:29 completed by DCI flood on the 21st of March 2006. Um
02:17:35 Um is that something that you were familiar with? Did you know that those quality assurance reviews were being conducted? This may be after your time. I think it was after my time. I can remember and I believe it was Janet that
02:17:46 remember and I believe it was Janet that commissioned uh Frankie to do that inspection. So I I I may have been aware that he was doing a review, but the actual contents uh and findings of it I can't remember.
02:17:58 can't remember. Um and and the last box points one and four
02:18:03 four said that this was from the beginning of February 2006 that there was an S so2 ripper compliance unit started to take on the responsibility
02:18:14 started to take on the responsibility for quality assurance of all SDS files.
02:18:22 Um point for the authorizing officer will conduct reviews as in line with best practice guidelines disseminated by the cso with the addition of a new review
02:18:33 cso with the addition of a new review page.
02:18:34 page. During the course of your tenure, did you not have the benefit of best practice guidelines? I can't remember I can't remember having best practice guidelines and again I
02:18:47 best practice guidelines and again I thinking back I wouldn't have known who would have issued the best practice guidelines at that time given that uh the authorization of undercover officers was quite a unique area of uh
02:19:02 officers was quite a unique area of uh police authorizations.
02:19:06 Um when you are reviewing authorizations like this, you would have had a a reasonable understanding of the deployment of an officer. Is that right? Do you look back over previous uh
02:19:17 Do you look back over previous uh reviews?
02:19:17 reviews? I would look over the reviews, but also what I would try and look to do would be to speak to line management officers uh to try and get behind what was in the writing.
02:19:30 get behind what was in the writing. Um
02:19:31 Um so you would have a particular briefing by somebody? Yes, I would have a particular briefing and um although I would imagine it's not in your documents, there is or was examples of
02:19:43 documents, there is or was examples of me refusing deployments uh under officer safety reason.
02:19:51 Um, do you recall in relation to HN18 him reporting on matters touching on the
02:20:02 him reporting on matters touching on the John Charles Dominesz's campaign, the Justice for John campaign? If I can refer you please to MPS, sorry, um, page 152.
02:20:12 152. [snorts]
02:20:14 [snorts] Sorry. No, that's the docu that's the page I've referred you to before. Actually, [snorts]
02:20:26 I don't I it's not in [snorts] uh this document, I don't think. Um do you recall him uh
02:20:37 uh reporting on those involved in the campaign? I can bring up some of the initial intelligence reports. MPS 0065522.
02:20:51 is one example from 2006.
02:20:56 Again, this may be post your time. John Charles Dezes was shot just after the 77.
02:21:02 77. I have no recollection of that. It I would think it would be unlikely to come anywhere near me, but I may be wrong, but I can't recall. I haven't seen that or seen any of that reporting. Do you remember MPS interest in the campaign
02:21:15 remember MPS interest in the campaign that started up a following his death in 2005?
02:21:19 2005? Uh no, I can't remember uh any interest of that. My my uh energies and directions was taken elsewhere at that time.
02:21:31 elsewhere at that time. Um we know that there are a number of reports similar to this as individuals who are working in the campaign and their contacts are reported in an intel
02:21:43 their contacts are reported in an intel intel report like this. Do you have any comment to make on as to whe the appropriateness of that in terms of it touching upon that again?
02:21:51 again? without knowing the rationale for it and what was the authority and the rationale behind the authority I don't really feel qualified to comment. We know that uh DCI Dell and potentially
02:22:03 We know that uh DCI Dell and potentially uh HN30
02:22:07 told HN18 not to report on matters concerning the campaign. Were you apprised of that? Did you have any knowledge of that? I I can't recall any knowledge of that.
02:22:21 I I can't recall any knowledge of that. Um, can I ask you about TBS, please? That's a cipher that we've given to the child fathered by Bob Lambert with Jackie whilst he was deployed as a UCO in the 1980s.
02:22:32 in the 1980s. Um, we know that there was an investigation um or or the matter was raised by OP in 2011
02:22:42 2011 or looked at by OP. Um the SDS had closed by that stage, closed down in 2008. Um but we understand that postc closure
02:22:54 Um but we understand that postc closure of the SDS you held the rank of DCS within SO 15 is that where you once the merger had happened and the SDS has closed down, you were within the
02:23:05 closed down, you were within the counterterrorism. That's correct. um
02:23:10 unit
02:23:14 NPCC 051LE5
02:23:20 please. This is a 2011 email chain uh in which you are uh uh named and Peter Ward. Peter Ward
02:23:35 uh uh named and Peter Ward. Peter Ward says that he uh you were his direct manager. We'll come to that in a moment. Um
02:23:43 the 21st of October 2011, page two, please start at the bottom.
02:23:55 We can see here that Bob Lambert contacts Rob Evans who is the author of the undercover um um book and or
02:24:06 the undercover um um book and or reporter in the Guardian
02:24:13 and at the very end of the penultimate paragraph Bob Lambert admits that as part of my alter ego's cover story I had a
02:24:25 alter ego's cover story I had a relationship with Belinda Harvey to whom I owe an unreserved apology. That was one relationship that he had. [clears throat] Um, scrolling up please.
02:24:43 Oh, back to page one.
02:24:52 that is copied to you. So you were aware at the time that Bob Lambert had admitted to sexual deceit of uh Belinda Harvey. Is that right?
02:25:04 uh Belinda Harvey. Is that right? That would appear to be the case. Yes. Do do you remember that? Um
02:25:09 Um I can remember some of the peripheral details and the concern being exercised by the Met Police at the time, but the actual chronology uh I can't remember in detail. Okay. And was your were you
02:25:23 detail. Okay. And was your were you surprised at that? Yes.
02:25:27 Yes. Um MPS 0749744 please.
02:25:37 This is his actual witness statement in relation to an investigation. Um
02:25:47 Um this is dated the 7th of May 2025 page two please.
02:25:58 So [clears throat] he says a paragraph three
02:26:06 at that time he was uh working within so SO15 as a member of police staff and believes that his immediate line manager were uh was you and commander Richard Walton. So is
02:26:19 you and commander Richard Walton. So is that who you were working with at the time? Commander Richard Walton. I believe Richard would have been the commander and I believe Peter although he was working for us at the time was actually attached to special operations
02:26:31 actually attached to special operations command as an operational security adviser although working within SO15 at this time
02:26:38 this time and so in terms of Peter Ward's involvement in well it says operation Swisson but what became operation Hearn uh you were directly above him was he
02:26:49 uh you were directly above him was he reporting into you in in terms of what he was looking into. Yes.
02:26:53 Yes. As part of that, yes, he would he would report into me and he would also report into uh a gold group that I think had been established uh to look at issues arising.
02:27:05 uh to look at issues arising. And it says here that you had uh responsibility for the welfare of those officers who were still serving who had worked in the SDS. That yes, that makes reference to uh what I mentioned earlier
02:27:16 reference to uh what I mentioned earlier where I was asked to ask the officers if there was anything particular they had done that was likely to come to light that it would be better for them to tell us now than us to find out. And also to
02:27:28 us now than us to find out. And also to look at the welfare uh around some of the officers. Uh there was concerns that because they had been identified or ran the risk of being identified, depending on which area they'd been working in,
02:27:39 on which area they'd been working in, security measures might have to be put in place to safeguard the individual officers and their families. And did any of the officers that you asked disclose to you sexual relationships?
02:27:50 relationships? I can't remember anybody doing specifically, sir. No.
02:27:58 And did you speak to Mr. [snorts] ward about the contents of the Guardian email.
02:28:05 email. I probably did. Yes. Yes. And did you speak to him about uh contacting Bob Lambert to see if there were any other uh relationships that he
02:28:16 were any other uh relationships that he had had as well as the one disclosed? I can't remember if that was part of our discussions or not. We go to page three, please.
02:28:30 [snorts]
02:28:37 Um, this is in relation to the um the consequence of uh uh Jackie uh which
02:28:50 the consequence of uh uh Jackie uh which is the mother of TBS and somebody who had a deceitful sex sexual relationship with Um Bob Lambert.
02:29:01 sexual relationship with Um Bob Lambert. Um
02:29:02 Um in terms of the investigation around that, how involved were you in terms of speaking to Bob Lambert and finding out exactly what was going on?
02:29:13 finding out exactly what was going on? Um I noticed that I don't appear to be part of that gold group um mentioned in par 7. Um, when it comes to the investigation of
02:29:25 when it comes to the investigation of Bob Lambert, I can't remember that I had a specific role in investigating him at the time.
02:29:36 We can see that in terms of the between 8 and 10, paragraphs 8 and 10, we can see that there were two gold group meetings. first on the 24th of
02:29:48 group meetings. first on the 24th of October 2011. The second on the 8th of November 2011.
02:29:56 And we can see there's reference to Lambert's contact with the Guardian newspaper and his relationships whilst undercover and the fact that
02:30:07 undercover and the fact that one relationship had resulted in the birth of a child who is known as TBS.
02:30:15 There's also reference to the potential for him to have an hereditary disease. Do you remember discussion about that?
02:30:26 discussion about that? Uh, as I say, I don't think I'm shown has been at that gold group meeting. I was aware that Bob uh carried a hereditary gene because I'd attended
02:30:38 hereditary gene because I'd attended as a very junior officer the funeral of his daughter. Uh, so I knew that he carried a hereditary gene. Um,
02:30:48 gene. Um, but was this not raised with you by Peter Ward who were you were his direct line? Was there I don't think Peter would have raised the gene. I don't know that he necessarily knew about the gene.
02:31:03 He he must have known about it because he was in the gold group meetings, wasn't he? Again, I'm not sure that his name is shown as being listed. Paragraph seven, please.
02:31:15 I This looks to be a particularly highowered group and I can't see his name there. There may well have been other meetings held at um
02:31:26 other meetings held at um SO5
02:31:27 SO5 level uh which he and I attended, but this one neither of us are shown as being present. um given that he was involved. Um
02:31:38 um given that he was involved. Um sorry to me. Pardon?
02:31:43 Yes, thank you. Um we can see just past the the black redacted box there it says and me which will be Peter Ward. Oh great.
02:31:53 Oh great. Thank you to my learner friend for pointing that out. I thought he was part of the gold group. Um, so yes, given he that he was part of the goal group, was he not discussing these serious matters?
02:32:04 he not discussing these serious matters? Yeah, he would know that if he if he was part of the goal group, yes, he would. Um, again, I would be aware of things that he was talking about, but I'm surprised I
02:32:15 talking about, but I'm surprised I wasn't at the the gold group. I may well have been absent at that time for whatever reason. And we can see down at the bottom on the 8th of November. So if we can take that
02:32:26 8th of November. So if we can take that down please. Sorry
02:32:31 Sorry reduce the expanded bit but keep the document up please.
02:32:42 [clears throat] So we can see on the 8th of November discussion followed about Lambert's hereditary medical condition and doctor privacy. has been approached to trace
02:32:55 privacy. has been approached to trace the child. There is no wider responsibility
02:33:00 for the MPS. In respect of this,
02:33:06 in paragraph 10, an examination of the minutes of similar meetings held in late 2011, early 2012 contained no record of of there being any further discussions in relation to TBS. So was it your
02:33:18 in relation to TBS. So was it your understanding at the time that um a doctor had been approached whether that's a medical doctor or an academic doctor or somebody had been approached to to trace TBS
02:33:30 to to trace TBS no wider responsibility and then it appears to go quiet in relation to TBS. The only thing I can recall around TBS was hearing, and I can't remember who I
02:33:42 was hearing, and I can't remember who I heard it from, that um when tests have been done on the child, the child was not carrying the hereditary gene, which would potentially have been fatal to them. That that's the only thing that
02:33:54 them. That that's the only thing that stands out in my mind on We understand that Bob Lambert had contact with Jackie. Um but in terms of the MPS's responsibility towards TBS,
02:34:06 the MPS's responsibility towards TBS, what involvement did you have at all in terms of um the moral, ethical, legal responsibilities of the MPS towards the
02:34:17 responsibilities of the MPS towards the child of Bob Lambert that was essentially a a result of his deployment in the SDS. Looking at that, it looks that the that's a very cold legal
02:34:30 that the that's a very cold legal definition of the MPS's responsibility. I can't imagine that um any police officer would have or member of police staff would have said that off the top
02:34:41 staff would have said that off the top of their head as a policy decision without consulting uh to find out what the perhaps the cold hard facts were in relation to the MPS liability. Um,
02:34:55 relation to the MPS liability. Um, I would have thought that the MPS uh has both a moral and financial responsibility to the child.
02:35:08 Um, NPCC trip 05151
02:35:16 please.
02:35:22 This is an email from Peter Ward [snorts]
02:35:27 [snorts] copying you in on the 24th of October 2011
02:35:31 2011 9:55
02:35:36 and it's from Peter Ward to Bob Bob Bob Lambert and he says that things are far more complicated than your email below sets out. I still stick to my
02:35:47 below sets out. I still stick to my original advice that you do not comment to the media or Peter Francis even though you clearly have done so already. I hope the family issues are being resolved. The the sense that
02:35:59 resolved. The the sense that Bob Lambert should not be making contact with others about this. Was there a sense at the time that they should be uh contained within special branch and it
02:36:10 contained within special branch and it was a case of trying to maintain the neither confirm nor deny policy at that stage?
02:36:17 stage? Absolutely not. No, I don't think it was a sort of issue that there would be any thought of containing it. I think it was that uh Bob was starting to do uh take
02:36:29 that uh Bob was starting to do uh take actions which uh potentially would harm him and uh perhaps his extended family. And it was a question of uh bringing
02:36:41 And it was a question of uh bringing Bob, I suppose, back into the fold of trying to resolve the situation rather than him trying to resolve it on his own. uh at that time
02:36:52 own. uh at that time and page two of this document
02:37:00 um where Bob has written to Rob Evans of the Guardian again. You can see down at um
02:37:11 about about a third of the way down. Yesterday I revealed to my family the secret of my relationship with Jenny.
02:37:21 [clears throat] So this is another woman that he had had a relationship with. Um, [snorts] what steps did you take
02:37:33 what steps did you take in light of the fact that he'd had a number of relationships, fathered a child to find out if this practice, well, I say this practice, but such issues were more widespread
02:37:46 issues were more widespread given that you also knew what had happened or I'm suggesting you knew what had happened with the AMB litigation in 2004.
02:37:55 2004. Were bells ringing in your mind at this stage at all that this is not the only person that's again looking at it and I'm not sure what the chronology is um and when
02:38:06 what the chronology is um and when Kennedy came on the scene whether that was before or after but these would be issues that would certainly have raised alarm bells. I can't uh at this stage remember as to
02:38:19 I can't uh at this stage remember as to whether it was more widespread, but I think the very fact that Peter and I were asked to speak to those XSD officers, we could to find out in a a
02:38:31 officers, we could to find out in a a straw poll whether there was issues we needed to be aware of. Um indicates that at least it was being thought of and discussed somewhere. Um he says in on page three
02:38:47 line six [snorts]
02:38:52 during the last 10 years I have often wished I had employed the tactic of police partnerships with credible and legitimate non-violent animal uh rights campaign groups instead of the tactic of infiltration as a less damaging and more
02:39:05 infiltration as a less damaging and more effective way of preventing political violence and intimidation by the ALF and related violent groups. What's your understanding of the tactic
02:39:16 What's your understanding of the tactic of police partnerships as a less intrusive form of evidence gathering? Again, I would I would refer to the paragraph underneath in relation to um
02:39:27 paragraph underneath in relation to um his perceived success against al-Qaeda inspire political violence in partnership with non-Muslim organizations. Uh Bob was a very
02:39:38 organizations. Uh Bob was a very enthusiastic manager of a unit called the Muslim Contact Unit who established very genuine links with uh the London
02:39:49 very genuine links with uh the London Muslim community in particular groups and individuals that had been in the past regarded as hard to reach. And uh I would say that he was effective in doing
02:40:00 would say that he was effective in doing that and had the respect at the time of a great many people who we would have regarded as being hard to reach. and he probably is thinking that as a result of
02:40:11 probably is thinking that as a result of his success or perceived success within uh sections of the Muslim community in London that that might well have had a read across uh to the animal rights activists and he could perhaps have in
02:40:24 activists and he could perhaps have in effect uh mirrored his success there. Do you think that is something that could have been deployed um in [clears throat] place of some of the operations that you oversaw? Again,
02:40:38 the operations that you oversaw? Again, again, in addition to animal rights activity, it's difficult to say when you look at the animal rights activity, certainly at its peak, it was actually causing more financial damage to the UK
02:40:50 causing more financial damage to the UK than the provisional IRA and uh was a very violent self-structured extremist group within uh the broader animal
02:41:01 group within uh the broader animal rights movement. whether he could have engaged with these people who were involved uh in criminality in the same way he could have dealt with hardto-reach groups in the Muslim
02:41:12 hardto-reach groups in the Muslim community who weren't involved in criminality. Uh I think is uh an interesting discussion for some people.
02:41:24 I'd like to ask you about an intelligence report um MPS0527125
02:41:32 an intelligence requirement look which looks at the intelligence requirement in respect of the SDS coverage for domestic extremism and this is a um if we go to page one
02:41:45 page one this is a document from the 21st of July 2006
02:41:49 2006 we can see that you've looked at the document around 27 uh 26th of July 2006.
02:42:00 Um page uh
02:42:06 next page please. Page three.
02:42:11 Um this is going to detective chief superintendent Zenzan through you. And at the bottom of the page, we can see a handwritten note by you to Dave, that
02:42:22 handwritten note by you to Dave, that being DCS Zinzan. Can we discuss particularly 3.8 and 3.27 um
02:42:32 um 327
02:42:34 327 when we go to that please? Page 19
02:42:43 is in relation to Green Peace Direct action. What was your specific interest in that or why did you want to discuss that in particular? [snorts]
02:43:16 I can't remember now what I particularly would have wanted to speak to him about. It may have been uh the difference between I think Greenpeace London and Greenpeace in
02:43:28 Greenpeace London and Greenpeace in general, but I can't now looking at it think what I would have wanted to have spoken to him about. Can we look at page 10 please?
02:43:39 [snorts]
02:43:46 You can see here the first uh the second bullet point is about the visit of the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Chiron to London in 2004. So during the time that you were um uh had some oversight of the
02:43:59 you were um uh had some oversight of the SDS. Um, if you recall, this is about a suspected hoax um, stunt involving somebody wearing a suicide bombers's vest and jumping over
02:44:12 suicide bombers's vest and jumping over a, um, a barrier to confront Ariel Chiron. Do you recall that? No, I'm afraid I don't. plan. We've heard uh from the person known as MT who
02:44:26 heard uh from the person known as MT who was alleged to have been involved in in planning this stunt uh who says he had absolutely nothing to do with it at all. And it was in relation to somebody else um suggesting something uh in a much
02:44:37 um suggesting something uh in a much more uh jokey kind of way and it never came to anything at all. The uh suggestion here just underneath the redacted box is that
02:44:51 just underneath the redacted box is that um while a proactive SO2 operation was put in place to trace and place the subject under control, the fact that the protest did not occur was entirely due to the SDS officer effectively talking
02:45:02 to the SDS officer effectively talking his fellow activist out of this plan. This is at the 11th hour when the person concerned had in fact constructed his vest and was fully intent on carrying
02:45:13 vest and was fully intent on carrying out his plan. This um report here doesn't bear it doesn't seem to bear any correlation
02:45:24 doesn't seem to bear any correlation with the the realities of what had happened in that there there was no vest that had been constructed. There was no intent on carrying out this plan. So the suggestion that an SO12 operation had
02:45:37 suggestion that an SO12 operation had managed to foil the supposed plan is almost fabrication. What can you help us with that as to where this information came from to make
02:45:49 where this information came from to make its way into this uh intelligence uh report? I can't help with where it's come from. Um, but if I may comment, um, am I to
02:46:02 Um, but if I may comment, um, am I to assume that the person that says it wasn't, it was a joke may have a vested interest now, uh, after the event in saying that, and are we relying on that individual's uh, assessment of what
02:46:15 individual's uh, assessment of what happened? Or is there a information to support the statement being made by the individual that it was all just a prank and it wasn't going to happen? Well, the evidence has been given to uh
02:46:27 Well, the evidence has been given to uh the inquiry from uh uh that's all I'm saying is that I'm being asked to condemn unless Yeah.
02:46:39 Yeah. But not that the vest was already constructed.
02:46:47 Are you able to assist a store with that?
02:46:49 that? I'm not able to assist. uh and as I say uh this would be the officer and the SB
02:46:58 SB position and you have the other position from the other individual. Um and all I would say is is what the other individual is saying is it supported by other
02:47:10 other information or are we having to decide between the SB officer's interpretation and the individual who was the subject of reporting? Do you recall this? I
02:47:22 of reporting? Do you recall this? I think you've said that you don't recall it at all. It wasn't hailed as a big success of the SDS, was it? No, I can't recall it. No. Um, page 15, please.
02:47:39 We can see here in terms of uh the extreme left wing, the socialist workers party, socialist party uh mentioned here
02:47:52 party uh mentioned here and over the page we have individuals as well that I think are mentioned in the in the document. some of the the individuals that are uh
02:48:04 some of the the individuals that are uh named particularly towards the end of um paragraph 3.16 are and and in 3.17
02:48:15 are CPS in this inquiry um [clears throat]
02:48:24 is it fair to say that you were you had some det detailed understanding of the types of uh uh
02:48:35 understanding of the types of uh uh operations that had taken place in relation to these organizations and the people who are named within this document.
02:48:43 document. At the time when I was responsible for it, I would have had knowledge of it and could have found out further knowledge uh from sources previously mentioned. So your your your
02:48:55 your your your knowledge wasn't limited at the time when you were uh in the position you were between 2002 slash3 up to 2005 but it's limited now is it well
02:49:07 it's limited now is it well because for historical reasons we're talking about 20 odd years ago. Um, was there any reason to suggest in your witness statement that your knowledge was limited about SDS
02:49:19 knowledge was limited about SDS operations for any other reason other than the passage of time? Yes.
02:49:24 Yes. Essentially, were you trying to distance yourself from the SDS? No, I wasn't trying to distance myself from the SDS. Um, but it is accurate to say I wasn't involved in selection
02:49:35 say I wasn't involved in selection tasking of SDS officers. The SDS was a very small unit within uh a very large structure of special branch and even within um my areas of responsibility
02:49:48 within um my areas of responsibility there were quite a lot of uh other uh very what could be regarded as important and strategic areas of business. Um
02:49:59 and strategic areas of business. Um the dayto-day management of SDS would have been done by DCI and the superintendent esquad. If I had wanted information about specific operations, I
02:50:10 information about specific operations, I would have gone to them. Um, but my day-to-day involvement with the SDS was limited, very limited. Um
02:50:25 you
02:50:29 there is a note behind tab B24 of an OP uh a meeting that you had with the OPAN investigators in 2014
02:50:41 in 2014 and um that is MPS 0738090.
02:50:47 zero.
02:50:50 And your evidence about that in your witness statement is that well, this was a meeting that took place in the canteen and a note was taken of it. It wasn't a formal interview and I didn't have an opportunity to to sign the notes or
02:51:01 opportunity to to sign the notes or agree the the written up typed version of the meeting. Do you recall? Do you recall that? Yes, I do. I was invited to come and uh give some background information to
02:51:12 give some background information to Operation Harland and I went in that took place in the lounge area of the canteen with people sitting next to me reading books or doing knitting and it
02:51:23 reading books or doing knitting and it uh was more of an informal discussion with one or two questions put to me uh by the officers concerned. There's a couple of um um extracts I'd like to draw your attention to in this
02:51:35 like to draw your attention to in this written up version of that meeting. Um the first is page two please
02:51:50 under um in relation to the SDS third paragraph my understanding of the role was to disrupt from within. It's that it's that reference the disrupt from within and you take uh uh issue with
02:52:05 within and you take uh uh issue with that the use of that phrase in your witness statement. Um in terms of that you suggest that the disrupt from within phrase was something
02:52:16 disrupt from within phrase was something used by Rod Leeing and you recall him using that phrase. In terms of how that uh sits with SDS operations, did you have an understanding that SDS
02:52:27 have an understanding that SDS operatives would infiltrate a group and try and disrupt their activities? No, I was quite surprised. It arose when I visited on one of my first visits to
02:52:38 I visited on one of my first visits to the NBIU and I was told about their unit that the undercover unit that had been set up within Arie when it was under home office control and um that the
02:52:49 home office control and um that the difference between their unit which was to gather evidence and that they were all uh national undercover course trained and the SDS was that the SDS was
02:53:00 trained and the SDS was that the SDS was there to disrupt from within. And the reason it stuck in my head is that I had never heard that description before. That was the first time that I had heard it used as a description uh by anybody
02:53:12 it used as a description uh by anybody as to what the potential role of the SDS was.
02:53:15 was. There's a there's a um a document MPS0526827
02:53:28 which if we go to the first page we can see the this is about ring wraith. So again this is um HN118 Simon Wellings and his disengagement. If we go to page
02:53:40 and his disengagement. If we go to page three please it's a file note from the 25th of August 2004. So during your tenure, it's a report by uh DCI Dell. Um
02:53:52 Um and the last [snorts] bullet point here
02:54:00 is to consider with C squad whether we should leave globalized resistance intact or [snorts] through RW mount destructive operation. Is that something
02:54:13 destructive operation. Is that something that you understood could take place?
02:54:18 It seems very dramatic that you could do that um with one organization. I would have been very surprised, I must admit, uh if they were going to propose that on page 40.
02:54:40 The note concludes that formal monthly presentations by detective superintendent Connell and me Dell to DCS Mitchell for review of the process
02:54:51 DCS Mitchell for review of the process of disengagement. So do you recall uh DCI Dell DSU Connell uh uh uh briefing you in relation to
02:55:02 uh uh uh briefing you in relation to that?
02:55:02 that? No, I have no recollection of that at all, I'm afraid.
02:55:07 So was there any suggestion at all to you that there may be opportunity to uh uh disrupt this organization or I think the decision was not to. I have no recollection of that and as I
02:55:19 I have no recollection of that and as I say I would be rather surprised um that they were going to suggest that at that time
02:55:25 time and and you don't think there would have been capacity to be able to do that anyway. It it's a question not just about capacity, it's about legitimacy of doing it.
02:55:36 doing it. So was it not legitimate to even contemplate doing that? It wouldn't have been a proper use of undercover officers.
02:55:44 officers. Looking at it now, um I would be I would like to think I would have been concerned at the time that what you have as a an organization which is a pain.
02:55:55 as a an organization which is a pain. Um, but it's a it's a rocky road to go to start disrupting organizations because they're a pain. Uh, and to bring it to its knees. Uh, I don't think that would be necessarily what the role of
02:56:07 would be necessarily what the role of special branch was then. And when you say a pain, it's a pain pain in a pain in terms of public disorder, public order. Um I I wouldn't
02:56:18 disorder, public order. Um I I wouldn't want to speak to what the government regard as a pain or not, but um it's
02:56:26 it's a lot of these organizations potentially wither on the vine and it's it's not a particularly good slope for police to start uh hastening them on their way.
02:56:40 Paragraph eight. Oh, sorry. Um, [snorts]
02:56:49 back to page three, please.
02:56:57 [snorts]
02:57:05 Sorry. Can we get Can we go back to the OPHN meeting now? The other document MPS 0738090.
02:57:27 And page three please.
02:57:36 under the subheading incidents. There's a number of different incidents that uh you spoke about during this meeting with the Opern investigators
02:57:47 and one of them
02:57:59 um was in relation to John Dyn. You say, "I knew of the problem surrounding John Dyn." What did you know about um Helen Steel's relationship with John Dyn at
02:58:13 Steel's relationship with John Dyn at this time later on? Because you've described her as her being a stalker. Was there any understanding on your part that in fact what she was responding to
02:58:25 that in fact what she was responding to was John Dyn's con continuing to contact her once he'd uh left his deployment in loving ways but also suggesting that he was having a me mental breakdown. So
02:58:38 he was having a me mental breakdown. So this wasn't a woman that was stalking a a a previous associate or anything like that. It was somebody that was trying to find out what had happened to a loved one.
02:58:49 one. No, I have no recollection of knowing that at all. Otherwise, I feel that I would have said that to the operation heron officers as well. I wouldn't have just left it at that stage. So, I I wasn't
02:59:02 left it at that stage. So, I I wasn't aware of the full extent of uh what you've just told me.
02:59:11 you suggest at um [snorts] so was your your your was your understanding that there was no sexual relationship there. This was just a stalker in from what you had heard.
02:59:23 stalker in from what you had heard. Again, I what I'd heard was in in passing at the time, it wasn't something that I was specifically involved with uh in in discussions and so I didn't really
02:59:35 in in discussions and so I didn't really follow it up and I didn't uh follow up or was aware of developments or uh what the conclusion was. at page six please
02:59:51 paragraph five
02:59:56 you talk you you mentioned the the um John Dyn's situation again um
03:00:07 um you say
03:00:09 you say I believe that the sexual relationship would not have been documented in the claim as it would have uh needed approval from the MPA in order to get the amount of money necessary to relocate him. Talk of sex would have had
03:00:22 relocate him. Talk of sex would have had would have raised questions surrounding the normaly or normality of such an occurrence. In terms of that is is it your suggestion here that sex would have been
03:00:35 suggestion here that sex would have been dampened down effectively to protect him being able to get the money necessary to relocate? It may well have been the case. Yeah, it may well at that time when I was speaking to her, it may well
03:00:46 when I was speaking to her, it may well have been on reflection to suggest that. And would it similarly have been the case that any sex in relation to other officers may have been dampened down in order to protect the SDS or any other
03:00:59 order to protect the SDS or any other interests that either the office or the officers themselves had? I would like to think it wouldn't be, but in reality, is that likely?
03:01:12 but in reality, is that likely? Again, uh I would like to think that the senior officers I worked with and the people I worked with uh wouldn't have been quite as cynical.
03:01:28 Was there a cons was there a sense that by 2014 when you're giving this uh having this meeting that sex undercover was a normal occurrence
03:01:41 sex undercover was a normal occurrence or more normal than you thought it had been?
03:01:45 been? By that time the the information that was coming out certainly suggested that it was more normal uh occurrence than uh I would have thought of at the time. Uh
03:01:58 I would have thought of at the time. Uh so my views in two for 2014 would have been uh flavored by the fact of what I was reading in the press and on the media because of course by that time I was no longer a police officer.
03:02:10 was no longer a police officer. Did you have any involvement at all in the relocation of Dines to Australia? No.
03:02:17 No. [snorts]
03:02:20 Were you involved at all in the decision- making around the payment for his relocation? No, that would have been above my pay grade. The only thing I knew about uh
03:02:31 grade. The only thing I knew about uh his relocation in Australia was that one of the SDS managers had gone out uh and only knew that because he said he was off to Australia.
03:02:42 off to Australia. Was that HN 53? Uh H53.
03:02:50 That's correct. And what did you understand he was going to Australia for? uh he was going to help relocate uh John Dyn from New Zealand
03:03:13 in terms of true spies. You address this at page four towards the bottom. Well, I say you address it. The note is that you you spoke about this at the bottom of page four.
03:03:25 page four. of this note
03:03:29 and you say to my memory there was only one segment of the program that was edited effectively by SB which was the part relating to operation sparkler as it was believed to posed too much of a risk to the officer involved. We know
03:03:40 risk to the officer involved. We know that was officer uh HN10. Was that the only um
03:03:48 um issue that there was a discussion about uh what with the producers? Yes. About editing it out or or I wasn't involved in the actual setting up the program. I was involved
03:04:01 setting up the program. I was involved in looking at the potential illegality of the officers taking part um and and being careful not to um
03:04:13 um and and being careful not to um uh breach any arro which you uh uh may not know exactly where the lines are, but was was there any other discussion about any other operation that might
03:04:25 about any other operation that might have been edited out of uh the true spies? documentary. From what I understand, uh the BBC retained
03:04:35 retained all editorial control and that was the only uh piece that was removed. That would be my understanding. Was there was there any attempt by SB to
03:04:47 Was there was there any attempt by SB to redact anything else out? Um I can't say because I wasn't involved with the uh producers at that stage. my involvement uh because I would be a DCI
03:05:00 involvement uh because I would be a DCI working within another area of uh special branch at the time. My role was the potential investigation of offenses by those that took part in it.
03:05:12 by those that took part in it. Um, finally in relation to this document, um, page six, please. [clears throat] In the first paragraph, you you say,
03:05:23 In the first paragraph, you you say, "The most successful officer I know of was EN32." That was an MPIU officer. Is that right? Should be
03:05:32 Should be um, yes, it probably would be, but looking through, I have a very good idea who that would be.
03:05:43 Yeah. Yes. Sorry, that that's an open officer Rod Richardson. Um and he was deployed from 1998 to 2003
03:05:54 Um and he was deployed from 1998 to 2003 um in the uh reclaim the streets wombs um movement against the monarchy in the Sumac Center. What in relation to his deployment? Were you
03:06:05 in relation to his deployment? Were you aware that he had used a deceased child's identity uh for the b for for the reasons of uh legend building? No, I wasn't. Um in 1998 the unit was
03:06:17 No, I wasn't. Um in 1998 the unit was part of Arie and it was an undercover unit part of Arie which was uh managed and run by the home office at the time. I only discovered that the officers used
03:06:29 I only discovered that the officers used uh the dead baby names when the operation her officers told me at the meeting in I think 2014. Uh which I was very surprised that was a practice that had pretty much
03:06:41 that was a practice that had pretty much ceased within the SDS around 1994, but we know that HN16 had uh used the practice again for his own purposes. um and um uh uh was under investigation in
03:06:56 and um uh uh was under investigation in relation to the use of that identity of Kevin Crossland. Um, what comment do you have, if any, about the fact that EN32 in the MPIU
03:07:08 about the fact that EN32 in the MPIU was also using an outdated form of um legend building or providing cover in using such a such a inappropriate
03:07:20 using such a such a inappropriate uh uh method. Again, I can't speak for the uh organization and the management in 1998 when he was uh put out into the
03:07:32 in 1998 when he was uh put out into the field.
03:07:34 field. To my mind, it raises all sorts of issues. Apart from the moral issue, there's also the operational security issue that you're using somebody else's name. Most of the NPIU officers had all
03:07:46 name. Most of the NPIU officers had all done the national undercover course. Many of them were experienced uh to my recollection experienced undercover officers. To my mind to use another name
03:07:57 officers. To my mind to use another name that wasn't supported by a legend could potentially bring operational security problems in the future if by some inadvertent uh accident they met
03:08:09 inadvertent uh accident they met somebody who they had been deployed in another name. And [snorts] again because they were managed or all trained centrally I had always assumed that they would be given a legend and an identity that would move with them whichever role
03:08:22 that would move with them whichever role they were pursuing to avoid that operational security issue. So while he was deployed during the time that you were responsible for the NPI U that comes as a surprise to you does it that
03:08:33 comes as a surprise to you does it that it does it does my assumption would have been because they had all been trained uh on a national course uh cover identities and identities would have
03:08:44 identities and identities would have been taken care of there and that there would have been a structure in place for them.
03:08:51 them. So those are all the questions that I have. Um if we can take a break for rule 10 please and I'm sorry for the late hour. Yes, I I think before we before I rise to admit that to happen, um Miss
03:09:04 rise to admit that to happen, um Miss Manion, um there is a topic that was very briefly covered this afternoon, um but about which I understand the um [clears throat] Metropolitan Police Commissioner and
03:09:15 Metropolitan Police Commissioner and those who advise him is um uh contemplating and um uh considering whether or not uh further disclosure can
03:09:28 whether or not uh further disclosure can be made. Am I right about that? Yes. In respect to the case of TBS, waiver of legal profession. Yes. Yes. I can confirm that is under review. I can't hear you.
03:09:39 can't hear you. I'm so sorry. No, of course. Please do. You're quite right to point it out. Thank you. Is this better? Yes.
03:09:47 Yes. Yes. Well, simply sir to confirm that the uh commissioner is considering the waiver of LPP in respect of TBS uh decision-m that happened in 2011.
03:10:00 decision-m that happened in 2011. Yes.
03:10:00 Yes. And that is under review at the moment. Uh a a contemporaneous note to which the witness was not referred. He was referred to his own recollections about it, but a contemporaneous note has been
03:10:13 it, but a contemporaneous note has been redacted to eliminate legal advice given at the time, I believe. Yes. I I haven't seen it and I don't know what it says. Certainly, sir. And that's included
03:10:24 Certainly, sir. And that's included within that review. Yes. Thank you. Very well. I'll rise now um for 10 minutes. Yes. For 10 minutes to deal with rule 10.
03:18:09 Yes. So just one uh question if I may in relation to um the authorization of HM104 Carlos Saraki's deployment and looking at his reaper authorizations
03:18:22 looking at his reaper authorizations please MPS0526
03:18:25 932.
03:18:35 Uh if we go to the first page, we can see that this is Craggy Islands docket which relates to 104 Carlos Saraki. Page seven of that document. We can see
03:18:48 Page seven of that document. We can see that there is an authorization signed off
03:18:53 off by you on the 2nd of August 2006. So it appears in 2006 you were still signing off SDS um authorizations
03:19:05 um authorizations in place of the commander. So you were acting up as commander in 2006. Is that is that right that although your tenure came to an end around two
03:19:16 your tenure came to an end around two end of 2005 as we have you on the timeline you were still signing SDS documents in 2006. I can't I can't remember specifically whether I was or
03:19:27 remember specifically whether I was or not. This is one I signed. Uh and in terms of the chronology of who was doing what. Um I may have been but I can't remember signing many if at all other
03:19:40 remember signing many if at all other than you know maybe one or two. Um if we go to page 39 of the document please.
03:20:04 So we can see that Kraggy Island continues to maintain access to the [clears throat] socialist party, the antifascist militant group Antifa,
03:20:16 whilst continuing to carry out gradual extraction from the group at the request of the domestic extremism red desk. Kraggy Island has been able to provide up-to-date reporting on two prominent SP
03:20:29 up-to-date reporting on two prominent SP activists as well as ongoing assessments of likely industrial action particularly within the NHS and the public sector generally. And the question is about the
03:20:42 generally. And the question is about the legality or appropriateness of such reporting. Did you have a view on this when you were looking at his deployment? I can't remember when I was looking at it. My
03:20:53 remember when I was looking at it. My assumption now and probably at the time would have been what he was looking at was not so much industrial action within the NHS as in general industrial action but industrial action that may well be
03:21:05 but industrial action that may well be being uh orchestrated or encouraged and developed by groups that he was looking at. Uh so not mainstream uh industrial action but um extreme leftwing political
03:21:19 action but um extreme leftwing political motivate action. What would be the policing interest or value in knowing about uh industrial action within the NHS or other public sector bodies?
03:21:32 other public sector bodies? In terms of policing uh interest or knowledge, there might be peripheral uh interest in any public order events and any protest. But in terms of the broader
03:21:45 any protest. But in terms of the broader interest, there may well have been uh interest from within government or the home office around uh militant activity
03:21:56 home office around uh militant activity being orchestrated within the NHS. But that's me looking at it now. um
03:22:04 on this date on the day I may well have asked Frankie what it was about and he may well have satisfied me and it just wasn't reflected in the document but that's all I can think of.
03:22:15 that's all I can think of. Can there be any justification for that sort of undercover reporting? I think I think it's probably a very badly worded uh
03:22:27 uh document at the moment. I would say no. Well, there probably isn't. Uh, industrial action isn't really something that police should be looking at in terms of intelligence gathering unless
03:22:38 terms of intelligence gathering unless it's going to lead to crime, serious disorder or you know, acts other acts of criminality. Who would be the customers of such reporting? Um
03:22:50 Um well the customers now or the customers then
03:22:52 then then for that for these reports in 2006.
03:22:57 in 2006. If it was in terms of orchestrating within the health service it may [snorts] well have gone to other government departments depending on what
03:23:08 government departments depending on what the intelligence was that was being gathered and what it was saying. What government department? The conduit for it would have been through uh another government agency
03:23:20 through uh another government agency which which is what? Well,
03:23:24 Well, SDS would uh report occasionally to the security service and that would be a conduit into government if it was felt appropriate. But again, I cannot say specifically in
03:23:36 But again, I cannot say specifically in this case that's what happened. Looking at this now in hindsight, would you accept that that was a completely inappropriate use of undercover policing?
03:23:46 policing? Again, because I don't know what the actual rationale for them putting in within the ANHS is, I wouldn't want to make a sweeping statement that that was the case without knowing the full
03:23:58 the case without knowing the full background to why it was necessary. And I unfortunately I don't have that in front of me and I can't assist on that.
03:24:09 Sir, I have no further questions. I've been told uh that the security service ceased to have um any effective
03:24:21 service ceased to have um any effective interest in groups of the sort that might have been involved in this type of activity.
03:24:27 activity. um their interests began to be lessened uh in the in very early 1990s and ceased uh in the mid 1990s.
03:24:39 uh in the mid 1990s. Uh the suggestion that they would be interested in passing on this information to elements of government in 2006
03:24:50 2006 is one that they might bulk at. Absolutely. Absolutely. I I think I I should clarify that if we wanted to get information sir into government or uh
03:25:01 information sir into government or uh for any particular reason that would normally be the conduit unless it was home office but I don't at the moment begin to
03:25:12 but I don't at the moment begin to understand uh why an element of a police force would think it a requirement to communicate to
03:25:25 to communicate to any element of central government this sort of activity this this sort of intelligence.
03:25:34 Can you help me? Yes. Uh if I could sir and I would go back to
03:25:39 back to probably the year 2000. Um and having recently taken up with the NPIU at the time, you may recall that there was a fuel and uh farmers dispute and my
03:25:54 fuel and uh farmers dispute and my experience at the time was that within government that was the biggest thing that had happened for decades within certain sections of the homeless government. And at that time with the
03:26:05 government. And at that time with the newly formed NBIU, there was a desire for lots of intelligence to be gathered which we pushed back on. But at that time there was certainly within sections
03:26:16 time there was certainly within sections of government a desire for um intelligence uh and not just in relation to undercover uh officers but other areas of uh police
03:26:29 uh officers but other areas of uh police intelligence gathering which uh I think we felt was totally inappropriate. So there was uh an example of where there was a desire within certain section of government for some of this sort of
03:26:40 government for some of this sort of intelligence.
03:26:50 I think that's probably as far as we could take this issue today. Thank you for your attendance. I'm sorry you've had a long day, but I'm afraid that is um by now traditional here and
03:27:01 that is um by now traditional here and um witnesses such as yourself have to put up with it. I'm grateful for you for doing so.
03:27:06 doing so. Thanks.
03:27:06 Thanks. Thank you. We [snorts] will um uh resume uh it being Thursday today on Monday, will we not? Uh at the usual hour of 10:00. Yes.