Lord Paul Condon, Metropolitan Police Commissioner from 1993 to 2000, gives evidence on the Special Demonstration Squad's activities during his tenure, including the 1993 Welling riot, the aftermath of Stephen Lawrence's murder, an SDS commendation later found to involve a deceptive sexual relationship, and the adequacy of oversight of the unit. He opens with a personal apology to those harmed by SDS officers, and repeatedly concedes that, with hindsight, warning signs were missed both by him personally and by the wider inspection framework meant to catch them.
00:29:24 Good morning everybody. Uh today's proceedings will be uh livereamed after a 15minute delay. Uh those with mobile telephones may use them to report what
00:29:36 telephones may use them to report what they hear in the hearing room, but only after 15 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're reporting. They may not be used for recording or photography. Uh my understanding is that
00:29:47 photography. Uh my understanding is that uh at Lord Conan's request uh we will uh rise every hour for 10 minutes. I I am relaxed, chairman. If if longer
00:29:59 I I am relaxed, chairman. If if longer sessions uh make the day more productive, I am in your hands. Thank you very much indeed. But uh like all witnesses, your welfare is one of my primary concerns and um I'm
00:30:11 of my primary concerns and um I'm anxious to ensure that uh you are not put under unavoidable stress. Thank you, chairman. Right. Yes.
00:30:23 I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
00:30:38 Please, could you give us your full name?
00:30:40 name? Paul Leslie Condan. And are the contents of your witness statement to this inquiry dated the 3rd of March 2025 true and correct to the best of your
00:30:51 and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief? Yes, they are. Uh before I ask any further questions, I understand that you would like to make an apology.
00:31:02 an apology. Chairman, I would like to apologize and endorse the apologies of the current commissioner, Sir Mark Roley. I personally apologize for every single
00:31:13 personally apologize for every single person who has been damaged by the actions of officers in the special demonstration squad over the decades.
00:31:24 demonstration squad over the decades. And I am appalled by so much of what I have learned throughout this inquiry. And I sincerely apologize to every single person who has been damaged in
00:31:35 single person who has been damaged in this process.
00:31:41 I'd like to start with some of your background in the police before we get to your appointment as commissioner. And I want to take you back in the first instance to 1979.
00:31:54 instance to 1979. I understand from your witness statement that at that stage you were working for the community relations branch A7. Is that right? Yes, it is.
00:32:07 Yes, it is. In broad terms, how did A7 monitor community relations? A7 had community relations officers
00:32:20 A7 had community relations officers um in the field at the rank of chief inspector and superintendent largely burbased
00:32:26 burbased whose task primarily was to foster uh good community relations within each of those bur. And then there was a central team in Scotland Yard of which I was a
00:32:40 team in Scotland Yard of which I was a part which helped to shape and influence policy for the commissioner. When you were serving in A7, was A7
00:32:51 When you were serving in A7, was A7 receiving intelligence from special branch?
00:32:56 branch? I my rank was chief inspector and I cannot remember any occasion when special branch uh information was
00:33:07 special branch uh information was conveyed to me or to my colleagues to my knowledge. You tell us in your witness statement that as part of your duties in A7, you were the secretary to the police
00:33:20 were the secretary to the police investigation into the death of Blair Peach.
00:33:23 Peach. Yes. a young man called Blair Peach died during a the violence uh at a a demonstration in Southall. Um and there
00:33:36 demonstration in Southall. Um and there were allegations made at the time that I I can stop you there. We're very familiar with the death of Blair Peach and the inquiry and we we've heard evidence um about it.
00:33:47 evidence um about it. Uh yes. So I I was appointed by the then commissioner Sir David McNe to be secretary to the uh inquiry that the home secretary asked him to conduct and
00:34:00 home secretary asked him to conduct and over a process of days and weeks. Uh I ran that inquiry, wrote the report uh and was I use the term generally
00:34:11 and was I use the term generally secretary to the inquiry. And you tell us in your witness statement that you also wrote a confidential report recommending that the special patrol group be disbanded. Yes, I did. The special patrol group had
00:34:23 Yes, I did. The special patrol group had a growing reputation for being involved in um heavy-handed policing and it was a central unit that had no particular
00:34:35 central unit that had no particular allegiance to individual burers. In my view, it was doing harm to the public and to the reputation of policing. And I recommended a system of
00:34:47 policing. And I recommended a system of local officers based within burers to fulfill that role under the command of local officers. And that was implemented. And so from that work, I can take it
00:34:59 And so from that work, I can take it that you are very famili familiar with the circumstances surrounding Mr. features death including the demonstration in which he was fatally injured.
00:35:12 in which he was fatally injured. I was at the time. Yes. Can I take you please to MPS 301219?
00:35:20 Now this is a much later report. I'm going to show you. It's a special demonstration squad report. It's dated the 28th of July 1998.
00:35:31 the 28th of July 1998. So whilst you were commissioner the intelligence source touchy subject that is the code name for an SDS uh officer. I'll give you a moment to
00:35:42 uh officer. I'll give you a moment to read the text.
00:36:00 I have read that. Yes. Would I if this document had been drawn to your attention at the time in 1998,
00:36:13 to your attention at the time in 1998, would it [snorts] have caused you any concern that an undercover officer was reporting on preparations for the 20th anniversary
00:36:24 anniversary um demonstration? The only justification could be if there was a belief or a substantial concern
00:36:35 was a belief or a substantial concern that the event could lead to serious public disorder or crime. There could be no justification for mere gossip around the activities of
00:36:48 for mere gossip around the activities of Peach's ex-girlfriend. Do you have any recollection of any of the commemorations of Mr. Peach's death leading to any form of disorder?
00:37:00 leading to any form of disorder? None whatsoever. And so, can I take it that reporting on Celia Stubs would have concerned you? Yes, it would. It would seem an
00:37:13 Yes, it would. It would seem an intrusion into her life unnecessarily. Could we take that document down now please? Um 1981
00:37:24 please? Um 1981 you tell us that you were working in Bethyl Green Police Station. I was the superintendent and acting chief superintendent in command of
00:37:36 chief superintendent in command of Bethnel Green. And then you tell us that between 1987 and 1988 when you were holding the rank of DAC uh you had within your area Notting Hill
00:37:49 uh you had within your area Notting Hill Police Station. [snorts] My question arising from those two postings is can you help us with what key lessons you learned first of all about race
00:38:01 learned first of all about race relations
00:38:02 relations policing in those areas? Uh yes I will. Um, I was asked to come back to the Met uh by the then commissioners Kenneth
00:38:13 uh by the then commissioners Kenneth Newman because he was concerned of the serious risk of disorder uh at Notting Hill Carnival and poor race
00:38:24 Notting Hill Carnival and poor race relations generally in the area. Um, and I spent a great deal of time trying to win the confidence of the organizers of
00:38:36 win the confidence of the organizers of Carnival and that led to a memorandum of an understanding. I remember spending my 40th birthday underneath the motorway
00:38:47 underneath the motorway uh in the area uh helping to finalize the memor memorandum of understanding which would allow police to introduce
00:39:00 which would allow police to introduce sanitized corridors for emergency vehicles
00:39:04 vehicles uh to allow a much safer carnival. Um, and so I the lesson then and throughout my career is poling can only work at its
00:39:15 my career is poling can only work at its best with community involvement, support and encouragement. Um, and pleasing by
00:39:26 and encouragement. Um, and pleasing by siege or occupation or imposition is always doomed to failure. And was there a sense that there were certain groups out there on the far left
00:39:38 certain groups out there on the far left of the political spectrum who were working against that need to foster good community relations? Yes, in any any capital city and in
00:39:51 Yes, in any any capital city and in particular London will be the focus for demonstrations, for protests, most of which are totally legitimate
00:40:03 which are totally legitimate um and should be supported, encouraged in a free society. But capital cities are vulnerable because of the oxygen of publicity of riots or disorder
00:40:15 publicity of riots or disorder to um challenging demonstrations and events. So that that that is just a fact of life I think of capital cities around
00:40:26 of life I think of capital cities around the free world. uh and particularly London has a history um then and since then of protest most of which is quite
00:40:38 then of protest most of which is quite lawful and peaceful but some of which is violent and not peaceful. I understand the point you're making there, but my question was more directed at whether there was a sense that there were groups
00:40:49 there was a sense that there were groups on the left out there who were working against police efforts to build constructive relations with the community. Not
00:40:59 Not Yes. I mean, it's um as a generic, it's a very clumsy definition. Um but there are
00:41:10 are groups who some might label have extreme views both on the uh for convenience the far left and also the far right of politics
00:41:23 the far right of politics who will use public disorder both to further their own aims uh and to cause embarrassment uh to
00:41:34 uh and to cause embarrassment uh to government. um and to seek to change the nature of politics
00:41:39 politics in in in our country.
00:41:43 Want to move now to the period between 1982 and March 1984 when you tell us that you were the staff officer to the then commissioner Kenneth
00:41:56 officer to the then commissioner Kenneth Newman.
00:41:57 Newman. Yes.
00:41:58 Yes. Uh, can we have up please 748355 [snorts]
00:42:14 [snorts] show you first of all this title page. you will see it's a report entitled political extremism and the campaign for police accountability within the
00:42:25 police accountability within the Metropolitan Police District. And it's a special branch report dated January 1983. If we look at page two now, please um
00:42:38 If we look at page two now, please um I'll give you a moment just to scan your eye over the contents page. When you're ready, um, tell the projectionist and we will move over to the second page.
00:43:04 Yes, I have a flavor of that first page. Thank you. If we go to the second. Thank you.
00:43:18 And if in considering those contents I could ask you also to get a flavor of what was recorded in the appendices.
00:43:30 Yes, I've noted that. If we could go now to page four, please. And to paragraph 1.1 in the introduction.
00:43:44 Give you a moment to read that.
00:44:13 Yes, I've read that. Thank you. A
00:44:16 A at that point in time, early 1983, what was your thinking about police accountability campaigns
00:44:27 accountability campaigns uh then and sub subsequently? And I I there's a certain irony in this. If I will answer how I felt then, but if I could just fast forward slightly. Um I
00:44:40 could just fast forward slightly. Um I didn't apply to be commissioner. I was appointed
00:44:44 appointed um and I made it clear to the then home secretary and the then head of the civil service and head of the home office that taking in taking on that role. I would
00:44:56 taking in taking on that role. I would do so and would campaign for a mayor of L for for London and a proper police committee because I have always held on to the view and that view was
00:45:11 to the view and that view was uh enhanced as chief constable that policing is far too important to not be enveloped in a uh process of political
00:45:22 enveloped in a uh process of political accountability. um not just for the public interest but for the police themselves. And so that reading that now with the benefit of
00:45:34 reading that now with the benefit of hindsight
00:45:35 hindsight uh and knowing my own career trajectory and what I I did and influenced and sought to achieve as commissioner that
00:45:46 sought to achieve as commissioner that there is a sort of uh an 80s paranoia in there around any attempt to sort of look at the activities of the police rather than
00:45:59 activities of the police rather than acknowledging it as legitimate democratic accountability.
00:46:07 The last few lines of this introduction talk about the blatant encouragement of anti- police feelings and perhaps most significantly of all the advancement of
00:46:18 significantly of all the advancement of known political extremists. Was there a feeling in early 1983 that that is what the Labor Control GLC
00:46:33 that that is what the Labor Control GLC was doing? No, I I think say I I can only talk through the through the lens of
00:46:44 through the lens of uh
00:46:45 uh a young chief superintendent um at the time. Um but I think this this is symptomatic of a sort of insular
00:47:01 is symptomatic of a sort of insular almost inevitable insular inev uh insularity within special branch whose raisen detra is to monitor and prevent
00:47:16 at the high end subversion and treason and at the lower end um events that might lead to serious public disorder.
00:47:27 might lead to serious public disorder. And I think as uh a a senior officer outside of special branch that um
00:47:37 um there was I I always felt there was uh um uh
00:47:45 um uh the nature of the work could give people a jaundice view um and an unsophisticated view of the politics.
00:47:56 an unsophisticated view of the politics. ics of policing and the need for policing to be uh enveloped in a legitimate democratic framework. So
00:48:07 in a legitimate democratic framework. So I
00:48:11 sitting here I'm [clears throat] embarrassed by the um and I don't know who the author was. It might have been a quite junior person could have been a conible or a sergeant.
00:48:24 could have been a conible or a sergeant. Um uh there is a naivity a political naivity which concerns me. If we could go to the next sub paragraph on the same page 1.2
00:48:43 just to note that that was the purpose of the report and reflecting what special branch had done. Yes. Once you've absorbed that, can we go to page 45, please? And I'm skipping
00:48:55 go to page 45, please? And I'm skipping a very long report to take you to the conclusions.
00:49:07 Yes, I've I've read this piece. I'm not Thank you. page 45, please. Thank you. [snorts] Uh these are the uh conclusions. Uh, I'll give you a moment to to scan
00:49:20 Uh, I'll give you a moment to to scan those, but on this page, it is sub paragraph one that I'm most interested in your noting.
00:49:40 Yes, I I note that. And I think that is uh um an an accusation that
00:49:49 I think is overweighted and I would needed I'm not aware of evidence to justify that comment. Uh it would be helpful to know
00:50:00 comment. Uh it would be helpful to know who the author of the report was, what rank they were, um what credentials they had to be um authoring this report.
00:50:12 authoring this report. I can take you to that in a moment. If we go over the page
00:50:18 and then over again.
00:50:28 See, it's written by a detective inspector whose name we've redacted. Yes. As two junior to warrant um public naming and it's counter assigned by
00:50:41 and it's counter assigned by chief superintendent. Uh green up or on behalf [snorts] of chief super. I mean in its cultural setting um
00:50:53 um and its political setting um there was um a lot going on in national politics that led to the
00:51:06 national politics that led to the abolition
00:51:07 abolition of um the the GLC wrongly in my belie in my opinion and [clears throat] London became became the only major city in the
00:51:20 became became the only major city in the world,
00:51:22 world, the only major capital in the world without a democratic framework of a mayor or a committee. It became merely the aggregation of burers
00:51:35 merely the aggregation of burers or faith groups or other organizations. So I think this is a subset
00:51:44 and I think that detective inspector no disrespect to the rank of inspector in the context of the seniority of my
00:51:55 in the context of the seniority of my working life is a is a very junior rank. Um, and the language is not the language I would use or encourage, but in the
00:52:06 I would use or encourage, but in the context
00:52:07 context of national politics, national policing um, at the time, although it jars significantly with me now,
00:52:19 significantly with me now, I suspect
00:52:20 I suspect it would have jarred less so then because of what was happening uh, nationally with politics. Now, we've gone slightly out of
00:52:31 Now, we've gone slightly out of sequence, but whilst we've got this page up, it might be worth you looking at paragraph 6.2 and the the final part of the conclusion. And once you've read that, we'll go back one page to look at the rest of the itemized conclusion.
00:52:44 the rest of the itemized conclusion. I mean, that that's a gratuitous comment by a fairly junior ranking officer. Um I guess who's every time he
00:52:55 officer. Um I guess who's every time he was on duty he or she well he I think so he um their task was this sort of subject matter. Um
00:53:08 task was this sort of subject matter. Um and and
00:53:10 and and I I I guess you know that depending on their um intelligence and sophistication they would or would not use um wording
00:53:22 they would or would not use um wording and analysis that either um we would approve of or not. and with the benefit of hindsight and uh the interpretation of democracy
00:53:35 and uh the interpretation of democracy and politics and the governance of London now this jars um considerably but if I'm understanding your evidence
00:53:47 but if I'm understanding your evidence correctly it is to the effect that at the time in 1983 the sentiment that political extremists were clearly intent upon on causing
00:53:59 were clearly intent upon on causing mischief for the Metropolitan Police Force was one that might have had some traction
00:54:04 traction in special branch, not necessarily beyond it. We could um go back one page, please. Again, I I'll ask you to scan them. Uh
00:54:15 Again, I I'll ask you to scan them. Uh but it's it's the conclusions at sub paragraphs 8 to 11 that I'm most interested in. [clears throat] Would it be posit? Thank you. Thank you.
00:54:38 Yeah. Again the the you know this is um these are the observations of a fairly junior person within a within special
00:54:50 junior person within a within special branch. The commissioner at the time, Sir Kenneth Newman, was a sophisticated man who had navigated the politics of Northern Ireland as
00:55:02 the politics of Northern Ireland as chief conman of the Royal O Conabulary um successfully and had then been the commonant of the National Police College of Bramill, the
00:55:13 National Police College of Bramill, the the then police equivalent of Sandhurst and Campbell and was a sophisticated um man who knew the importance of
00:55:25 um man who knew the importance of um police police accountability. And so I I mean I could relay from my own experience
00:55:36 I could relay from my own experience far more sophisticated and nuanced discussions of accountability in London. uh dismay when the Greater London Authority was
00:55:48 when the Greater London Authority was disbanded, disbanded
00:55:51 disbanded and a realization that the Met was going to struggle in that environment. Um so I
00:56:02 that environment. Um so I if I may interrupt you there for my present purposes what I am drawing your attention to this document for is you can see that it's clearly records
00:56:14 clearly records a view from within special branch and one can clearly see that special branch are collecting intelligence about police monitoring groups including
00:56:26 about police monitoring groups including substantial intelligence about individuals aren't Yes.
00:56:31 Yes. And if we um go now please to 748422. I'm going to show you the minute sheet associated
00:56:43 associated uh with this report. And you will see from the title of the the file uh political extremism and the campaign
00:56:55 uh political extremism and the campaign for police accountability within the Metropolitan Police District. We could go to page two now please.
00:57:04 And you will see here a minute written by an acting chief superintendent uh about the provenence about the author
00:57:15 uh about the provenence about the author of uh the report.
00:57:20 I'll give you a moment to look at that.
00:57:27 [snorts]
00:57:56 Yes, I've read that. Thank you. So, you see that um acting chief superintendent Greenup appears in broad terms to be signed up to this report, doesn't he? Yes, he does. And if we go over the page
00:58:09 Yes, he does. And if we go over the page to sub paragraph five um to sorry minute five
00:58:18 we will see that there that AC C in a minute to DACCSB through the commissioner writes the report is an excellent piece of work and
00:58:30 report is an excellent piece of work and a copy has been handed to the commissioner. We spoke and I understand the home office numbered copy has been handed to Mr. Hayden Phillips against
00:58:41 handed to Mr. Hayden Phillips against his signature. So it would appear this report um is regarded as excellent up to ACC level and has gone to the
00:58:52 ACC level and has gone to the commissioner. Yes.
00:58:54 Yes. If we go on page five please to minute 11.
00:59:04 Uh if this is Commander Wilson's uh minute. I'll give you a moment to read that.
00:59:49 Yes, I've read that. Thank you. And so, of course, the writer clearly here uh agrees with the cynical views expressed in the report, doesn't he? Yes.
00:59:59 Yes. uh and for our purposes it says these views were expressed by the commissioner at his conference with commanders on the 25th of March last. So
01:00:10 commanders on the 25th of March last. So it appears on the face of the minute that the commissioner likewise uh is said to have held the same views. Now that would be incorrect. I was the
01:00:23 Now that would be incorrect. I was the commissioner's staff officer uh which is his chief aid. Um, and
01:00:36 and in my discussions with the commissioner throughout my time there, I've I never heard him express in these sort of trenchant trenchant
01:00:48 in these sort of trenchant trenchant views
01:00:51 views uh the tone that is set in that minute. Um I again I am not um minimizing
01:01:02 Um I again I am not um minimizing um the con the political context nationally in which all of this would have been happening. Um the GLC was seen as um a push having taken place with um
01:01:19 as um a push having taken place with um [snorts] if I I can't remember all the names but um that certainly um in the home office and in government
01:01:31 home office and in government there was clearly a view that somehow London
01:01:35 London politically um was um
01:01:42 um was um troublesome and that eventually led to say the virtual disbandment of any political structure Londonwide for a number of
01:01:53 structure Londonwide for a number of years. Um that's the context in which there is talk about um this being passed to the home office. Hayden Phillips
01:02:04 to the home office. Hayden Phillips again was a very sophisticated senior civil servant whose obituary was in the times actually about a month ago and Hayden went on to have a very
01:02:16 Hayden went on to have a very distinguished very [snorts] senior career in the civil service. We'll be coming to the home officer's reaction to uh this document very shortly. But for
01:02:27 uh this document very shortly. But for present purposes, I mean to me it it I say and again the challenge for me is I've known my view throughout. I've known how I lobbied. I made it a condition of my
01:02:39 made it a condition of my commissionership that I should be able to lobby for and eventually get uh the the issues that I felt were necessary for uh police accountability in a
01:02:53 for uh police accountability in a democratic framework. Um, I don't looking back and although we're going back
01:03:01 back 40 years plus, I didn't have then the sense of urgency
01:03:12 urgency or pessimism that these minutes convey. Um, can I can I just stop you there please? uh Lord Condol and ask you this
01:03:25 please? uh Lord Condol and ask you this as the staff officer to the commissioner at the time having having seen the minutes which show that the commissioner that this document went
01:03:37 the commissioner that this document went to the commissioner can I take it that you would have seen this report at the time
01:03:43 time not necessarily no and there's no if the commissioner saw it I'm asking first of all whether you would have seen it is not necessarily. No.
01:03:54 not necessarily. No. Could you explain how that would be? That it may have been it may have been actually taken to the commissioner. Um special branch issues were the pro were
01:04:07 special branch issues were the pro were the one exception to the staff officer being the gatekeeper to the commissioner's documents. Um, and it was not unusual
01:04:19 documents. Um, and it was not unusual for the assistant commissioner to directly brief the commissioner and take documents to him. Again, the the
01:04:32 take documents to him. Again, the the veil of secrecy even then
01:04:37 even then extended to the commissioner's uh private staff. So there would have been documents uh that might have been passed to the
01:04:48 uh that might have been passed to the commissioner by hand um and accompanied by a verbal um elaboration of the report. Were you vetted at this stage?
01:04:59 Were you vetted at this stage? Yes.
01:05:01 Yes. So there'd be no security reason why you couldn't see a special. would have been purely
01:05:07 purely um a relationship issue that on a document. I would not be surprised if a document like this was taken to the commissioner personally um either by the
01:05:21 commissioner personally um either by the head of special branch who at that time would have been a deputy assistant commissioner which is the rank of deputy chief constable or indeed the assistant commissioner themselves. I I have no
01:05:35 commissioner themselves. I I have no recollection of that document. That doesn't mean to say I didn't see it. Um if I did see it, um I certainly don't
01:05:46 if I did see it, um I certainly don't remember it. Um
01:05:50 the [clears throat] as
01:05:52 as if I may, if I may, Chairman, I I mean, I think this is symptomatic. My my my two great passions or two of my great passions are history.
01:06:03 passions are history. uh and philosophy and this is relevant to this that
01:06:10 one of my favorite authors Julian Barnes in his book a prize-winning novel the sense of an ending describes history as the certainty at that point where the
01:06:24 the certainty at that point where the imperfections of memory meet the inadequacies of documentation and I think this is a classic example where you and I'm not criticizing you for
01:06:36 you and I'm not criticizing you for this. You are attributing our modernday values, our modern-day knowledge, our modernday culture
01:06:47 knowledge, our modernday culture um and extrapolating judgment to documents that were of a different time, in a different setting, in a different politics. Lord Condon, I I can
01:06:58 different politics. Lord Condon, I I can assure you with the prime minister who at the time who had decided to emasculate the political control of London. Lord Condan, I'm attributing nothing of
01:07:10 Lord Condan, I'm attributing nothing of these of the views set out in this document to you. At the moment, I'll may come to some questions later on when I explore your views with you further. I'm simply trying to establish the facts and
01:07:22 simply trying to establish the facts and the fact
01:07:23 the fact it would not have been uncommon for either the head of special branch or the assistant commissioner to sponsor that document by hand to the commissioner. And what I'm trying to establish is as
01:07:36 And what I'm trying to establish is as the commissioner's staff officer, the extent to which you would have been aware,
01:07:42 aware, whether you agreed with it or not is a separate totally separate question, but whether you would have been aware of issues like this and that special
01:07:54 of issues like this and that special branch,
01:07:56 branch, whether you thought it was right or wrong, special branch was gathering this sort of intelligence. This does not surprise me at all.
01:08:09 And why does it not surprise you at all? Because again, I think we have to set it in the culture of national politics at the time, policing at the time,
01:08:22 the time, policing at the time, um, and society generally at the time. And we were still several years away from the collapse of communism.
01:08:33 communism. And there was still a concern within security services, national politics, policing
01:08:46 national politics, policing of
01:08:47 of um I guess I would use the sort of generic fifth columnist in society who are seeking a different form of
01:08:59 are seeking a different form of government, a different form of control of the country. Um, and that debate um was more intense
01:09:12 um was more intense and more uh to the four than immediately post the fall of
01:09:23 than immediately post the fall of communism and so on. So I think without understanding the political and cultural and historical setting um it's quite hard
01:09:35 um it's quite hard to apply our our mores now to this sort of document. Understood. Uh if we take that down now if you could have up please 35096.
01:09:50 going to take you now to the home officer's reaction [snorts] uh to this and you mentioned Hayden Phillips who's uh the author of this letter as I understand it to Sir Brian Cubbin. Uh I
01:10:04 understand it to Sir Brian Cubbin. Uh I will give you a moment to uh look at that. Uh but the proposition I'm going to put to you is it is very clear uh that the home office
01:10:18 it is very clear uh that the home office took a rather dim view of this report.
01:10:36 [snorts]
01:11:00 Yes, I I'm pleased and not surprised by Hayden Phillips's response to it. And if we could go to the second page that you will have seen a reference there to a letter um from special branch
01:11:16 there to a letter um from special branch to uh Mr. Phillips. This is that letter dated the 4th of March. Uh I would like you to to scan that, but
01:11:28 I would like you to to scan that, but I'm particularly interested in the last paragraph.
01:11:40 [snorts]
01:12:02 [snorts]
01:12:29 [snorts]
01:12:36 I've read that. Thank you. And so that is it isn't capitulation, but it's certainly a bit of backtracking. Sorry, I I'm I'm slightly lost. Who is the author of this? This is from Special Branch.
01:12:47 This is from Special Branch. From who in Special Branch? If we turn I'm not sure if it tells us. If we go over the page, if there is over the page,
01:12:55 the page, that's Colin Huitt. PAC. Colin Huitt. Colin Huitt. Yes. And if we go Can I just Yes, of course.
01:13:19 [snorts]
01:13:38 [snorts]
01:13:40 Yes. I I mean I I as a relatively junior officer, I knew Colin Huitt um and I had respect for him and I thought he was a a
01:13:53 respect for him and I thought he was a a good senior officer. Um and so that his response to Hayden Phillip I think is more measured. Um as I say and the the
01:14:05 more measured. Um as I say and the the original report composed by an inspector was
01:14:11 was I think inappropriate wildly inappropriate. If we go back one page and go back to that last uh paragraph on the page before this,
01:14:25 as I was saying, the the tone of this letter is is backtracking but not complete capitulation. Well, that your that's your interpretation of I'm I'm putting that
01:14:37 interpretation of I'm I'm putting that to you for you to respond, but if I just focus the question before you do. says the commissioner now has the opportunity to direct other officers to take note of
01:14:49 to direct other officers to take note of the overt activities of these groups and to determine whether they are monitoring police activity fairly or are just engaged in destructive criticism. So the
01:15:00 engaged in destructive criticism. So the the view seems to be that there's an acceptance that special brown shouldn't be doing this but it is being asserted that other parts of the police met
01:15:14 that other parts of the police met Metropolitan Police Service might keep an eye on the activities of these police accountability groups and my question is would you have been
01:15:26 and my question is would you have been aware of this at the time? No, I I have I have a very good memory. Although I'm in my 80th year, um memory has not been an issue
01:15:39 year, um memory has not been an issue for me. Um and although as staff officer it's a frenetic role where there are never enough hours in the day [snorts] or
01:15:50 enough hours in the day [snorts] or night um to fulfill the role. I don't remember
01:15:56 remember being drawn in to this exchange at any stage. Um, and I would like to think that if I
01:16:07 Um, and I would like to think that if I had been aware of or drawn in to this exchange,
01:16:12 exchange, I would have formed a view at the time which would have stayed with me. And I don't have such a view. Um Colin Huitt was
01:16:23 was um say a reasonable man um not a zealot. Um he would have been on this would not have been a sort of a a a a zealot
01:16:36 have been a sort of a a a a zealot challenging criticism of police. Um, at the time that looks like a fairly measured exchange between Colin Huitt
01:16:48 measured exchange between Colin Huitt and Hayden Phillips, both men I admired at the time. If if I could and I think it's it's saying that um, you know, the commissioner has the
01:17:00 you know, the commissioner has the opportunity to ensure that local senior officers are aware of this debate. um that there you know there will be
01:17:12 um that there you know there will be people who are genuinely monitoring police activity or there may be those whose
01:17:19 whose to use those words destructive criticism could lead to uh serious public disorder. The the raise and detra for any
01:17:31 any monitoring assessment challenging of any of this is not people's politics which they are in a free society thankfully they're entitled to have. It's whether
01:17:44 they're entitled to have. It's whether any of this can get anywhere near causing crime or public disorder or serious injury. Uh
01:17:57 public disorder or serious injury. Uh there's no suggestion it's getting anywhere near subversion or threats to the state uh in in a more significant way. So
01:18:09 way. So I I I am not surprised that Hayden Phillips quite rightly took the line he took or the the more consiliatory
01:18:20 took or the the more consiliatory response
01:18:21 response from Colin Hu. Can I move now to your appointment as commissioner and we can take that document down? Now you told Operation Hearn that your office had a staff
01:18:32 Hearn that your office had a staff officer, a private secretary and an assistant. More than that, um my private office was had about seven administrative staff. I
01:18:46 had about seven administrative staff. I had a staff officer and sometimes an assistant staff officer and I had a protection team. Um because um for most
01:18:57 protection team. Um because um for most of my commissionership I was a a legitimate not a legitimate but I was a target for Irish terrorism. Now you make the point very clearly in
01:19:09 Now you make the point very clearly in your witness statement that this is a very big job uh with an enormous number of people under your command, an enormous number of important issues on the go at any one time.
01:19:22 the go at any one time. [snorts]
01:19:22 [snorts] Can I take it the the impression I've got from your witness statement that some issues you would see in writing, other issues you would be briefed upon
01:19:34 other issues you would be briefed upon orally by your staff who had read the material for you? Yes. the
01:19:41 Yes. the uh in any large organization whether it's private or public sector the a lot of action is taken in the name of the boss.
01:19:53 of the boss. So people would say things like uh the commissioner would like or the commissioner would be interested in or what they mean is they would like things
01:20:04 what they mean is they would like things done on behalf of the commissioner um to in the same way if if in even in this environment if within this building someone says the chairman would like or
01:20:16 someone says the chairman would like or the chairman is interested in that has a waiting on action. So yes, there is a there is a private staff that are both
01:20:27 there is a private staff that are both gatekeepers to
01:20:30 to um meetings and documentation and even in my time the Met was still a paper-driven organization and they are [snorts] also part of the
01:20:41 and they are [snorts] also part of the commissioning structure so that they can plan the commissioner's life and events and knowledge as productive ly as possible.
01:20:52 as productive ly as possible. Understanding the gatekeeping function of your staff, it would be right, would it though, that significant matters should always have been brought to your attention one way or the other?
01:21:03 attention one way or the other? Yes. And normally normally, certainly in my commissionership, the most documents that came across my desk would have been sponsored and
01:21:15 desk would have been sponsored and minuteed by one of my most senior team. Otherwise, I would and I had a habit of if a document came on my desk, it didn't
01:21:27 if a document came on my desk, it didn't leave it without me acknowledging me having seen it. So I would either put noted and sign it or please discuss or for action
01:21:39 for action um or whatever so that I and all of my staff could see then and now whether I had seen a document and responded to it.
01:21:50 had seen a document and responded to it. A very high level question now. During your tenure as commissioner, what did you do to address misogyny and sexual misconduct?
01:22:03 misconduct? I made it absolutely clear from the moment I was told I was going to be commissioner that I would be bringing in
01:22:14 commissioner that I would be bringing in seeking to bring in a reform program. It took me nearly five years to persuade parliament successive home secretaries
01:22:27 successive home secretaries uh to change the law and police regulations to make it easier for me to deal with bad police officers. I
01:22:39 deal with bad police officers. I inherited a discipline structure which meant that if a police officer was acquitted of criminal criminal charges, the same evidence could not be used in
01:22:52 the same evidence could not be used in discipline. So juries then were reluctant to convict police officers and police officers who it was feared had committed very serious criminal acts
01:23:05 had committed very serious criminal acts returned to policing and they and their colleagues had to work with them. Uh similarly there was no right to um draw
01:23:16 similarly there was no right to um draw inferences from a police officer's silence in disciplinary proceedings. The burden of proof was the criminal burden.
01:23:27 burden of proof was the criminal burden. There was no fast track um system for gross misconduct against
01:23:35 against the morale of the force and the wishes of the police federation and the superintendent association. I went to parliament and gave evidence
01:23:47 I went to parliament and gave evidence and said I fear I may have as many as 200
01:23:51 200 really bad officers in the Met who are doing terrible things, who are committing crimes, maybe up to an including murder,
01:24:03 including murder, and I need your help to be able to deal with these bad officers. At the time that drew national headlines, um it was realized I had a campaign to
01:24:16 um it was realized I had a campaign to change the structure of dealing with um bad behavior from whether it's racism through to the most serious crime. And
01:24:27 through to the most serious crime. And I'm pleased to say that in 1990 early 1998 I gave that very controversial evidence earlier um and
01:24:38 controversial evidence earlier um and had been briefing media for years of the need for that. Um those changes were implemented. Uh I also implemented a very
01:24:50 Uh I also implemented a very controversial career management policy which said that no one could stay at a police station or in a specialist unit for more than 10 years because I feared
01:25:02 for more than 10 years because I feared that uh one of the challenges with misogyny, racism, corruption is that little units can develop unhealthy
01:25:13 little units can develop unhealthy cultures and unless you guarantee a turnover of management you're less likely to intervene. I published a number of strategic
01:25:25 I published a number of strategic documents which every uh senior officer had to sign up to which said we've got to have the right people doing the right things in the right way. Uh clearly SDS
01:25:40 things in the right way. Uh clearly SDS for a long period of time was the wrong people doing the wrong things in the wrong way. So, I spent a huge amount of time on transforming
01:25:53 a huge amount of time on transforming the the the ability of myself and subsequent commissioners to deal with bad behavior. Um, and I'm very proud of
01:26:04 bad behavior. Um, and I'm very proud of of that. I I I also um introduced uh training courses. Um uh I in 1998 I introduced the
01:26:17 Um uh I in 1998 I introduced the [snorts] strongest anti-corruption and bad behavior program the Met has had. Um we intro I introduced integrity testing of police officers behavior where
01:26:29 of police officers behavior where randomly at police stations people within the complaints process would test the behavior uh of police officers who didn't know they were being tested. So yes, uh
01:26:43 they were being tested. So yes, uh clearly this inquiry is looking into horrendous things that went wrong, but I am incredibly proud of issues that were taking place throughout my
01:26:55 taking place throughout my commissionership to deal with bad behavior right up to and in including the most serious criminal activities by police officers. And it shames me to say
01:27:06 police officers. And it shames me to say it, but I know that I had police officers who were not only racists and misogynists, uh, they were committing very serious
01:27:17 uh, they were committing very serious crimes.
01:27:18 crimes. So, would this be an appropriate moment to take our first 10-minute break? Certainly. Um, we'll [clears throat] break for 10 minutes. Thank you, sir.
01:39:46 Lord Condon Steven Lawrence was murdered in April 1993. Yes. By the 4th of May, his family were expressing frustrations
01:39:59 expressing frustrations with police efforts to catch his killers at a press conference. Would you have been aware of that press conference? Yes, I would. But again, to put it in
01:40:11 Yes, I would. But again, to put it in context, the same weekend of Steven's tragic murder, uh, the Bishop Gates bomb went off in London. Um, one person was
01:40:23 went off in London. Um, one person was killed, dozens were injured, and about a billion pounds worth of damage was done, and we feared follow-up attacks of of equal size and proportion. And so around
01:40:37 equal size and proportion. And so around about that time, um, I think there was a two-day difference between Steven's tragic murder and the the bomb went off on the 24th. And so my my immediate
01:40:51 on the 24th. And so my my immediate focus over those next couple of weeks were around uh trying to prevent further bombs in London. But yes, I mean as
01:41:03 bombs in London. But yes, I mean as commissioner at that point there were normally about 150 to 200 murders a year um in London. um many of the victims who are black and
01:41:15 um many of the victims who are black and ethnic minority Londoners. And so um in the early stages of the inquiry, I would not have been personally drawn in or
01:41:27 not have been personally drawn in or been aware, but probably by the stage you're you're mentioning, uh I'm sure it would have been brought to my notice. On the 6th of May, Steven's family met
01:41:40 On the 6th of May, Steven's family met Nelson Mandela. Did you know that was going to happen? No, I don't think I did. Um, subsequently Nelson Mandela did a state
01:41:52 subsequently Nelson Mandela did a state visit to London and I met him and was invited back to South Africa to uh review South African police. Um, but I I
01:42:05 review South African police. Um, but I I don't remember in advance and and at the time and subsequently I I mean it was suggested that the Metropolitan Police either did more or did less at the
01:42:18 either did more or did less at the behest of Nelson Mandela. That was certainly not the case as far as I was concerned. Arrests of suspects started the next day. Are you able to assist whether
01:42:31 day. Are you able to assist whether there was a connection between the meeting with Nelson Mandela and the decision to arrest? As as far as I am aware, and I would have been aware, I'm not aware of any
01:42:43 have been aware, I'm not aware of any connection whatsoever other than coincidence.
01:42:50 And was by this stage the issue big enough to be on your radar as commissioner? not as a significant issue but as one of
01:43:01 not as a significant issue but as one of the issues that I would have been aware of. Yes.
01:43:05 of. Yes. And were being kept informed about it. Not kept informed. No, that would be too strong. um in the range of issues
01:43:16 too strong. um in the range of issues that would have been on my uh agenda at the time, the the biggest one still would have been preventing massive bombs in London and that would have been the
01:43:29 in London and that would have been the main focus of my days uh and and my nights. Um can I put it justifiably so because um further explosions
01:43:41 um further explosions um did take place. But the No, the I would have if if you said 2 3 weeks after the horrific murder of
01:43:54 2 3 weeks after the horrific murder of Steven Lawrence, was I aware of his name? Was I aware of the tragedy? Yes, of course. Um but I it was not at that
01:44:05 of course. Um but I it was not at that stage uh a significant issue more than any of the other murders that were being
01:44:16 were being investigated simultaneously at the time. Well, is that right in the sense that there was a justice campaign which had achieved a degree of profile
01:44:31 certainly very quickly and and when I when I came into the Met, there was a history of tragic deaths and murders
01:44:43 history of tragic deaths and murders of black and ethnic minority Londoners which had quite properly generated anger and concern. And so Steven's
01:44:55 And so Steven's death and subsequent protests um I would have been aware of. Were you asking for information
01:45:06 Were you asking for information relating to Steven's murder?
01:45:14 I can remember my staff for staff officer at the time, a a man called Peter Clark who went on to senior rank and became chief inspector of prisons uh and did other
01:45:28 inspector of prisons uh and did other roles for the government. I can remember Peter asking for information on my behalf and briefing me
01:45:40 information on my behalf and briefing me once I realized and he realized on my behalf
01:45:45 behalf um that this was a significant case. What sort of information was he asking for on your behalf? Um I think probably it would have been an update on uh we're
01:45:57 it would have been an update on uh we're probably talking a number of weeks into the investigation. Um probably what was the state of the investigation um were suspects arrested likely to be
01:46:10 um were suspects arrested likely to be arrested and so on. So it would have been um an update on the investigation.
01:46:18 Was there any uh appetite to understand the campaign better?
01:46:28 Uh elaborate. Did you want to know who was supporting the Lawrence's campaign?
01:46:37 campaign? No.
01:46:39 No. Who was surrounding the Lawrence family? Not particularly. No. whether
01:46:46 whether left-wing groups were trying to exploit the tragedy to their own ends. I would I don't remember actively
01:46:58 I would I don't remember actively seeking that information. I do remember being briefed by my probably by my staff officer that
01:47:10 officer that Steven's death was clearly going to be uh in a category where it it quite properly attracted
01:47:22 attracted much interest and concern and uh activity. Yes. If if if the implication is was I
01:47:33 If if if the implication is was I seeking
01:47:35 seeking information on Steven's family or who was supporting No. Well, what I'm would like to ask is was your staff officer seeking information
01:47:47 your staff officer seeking information about whether extremists were trying to capitalize on the tragedy.
01:47:58 capitalize on the tragedy. Only if it could have led to two things. Only if it could have led to public disorder or
01:48:09 or exploitation of grieving parents. And were those things that you discussed with your staff officer? I don't think I did in the in the terms
01:48:20 I don't think I did in the in the terms that I've just expressed them to you. I would have received general updates um at some point. I mean the um clearly I would have been aware
01:48:34 the um clearly I would have been aware of both the publicity and the very legitimate concerns raised by the family and others. Um so I this would not have been something which I either ignored or
01:48:48 been something which I either ignored or was unaware of or sensitive to. Can you can you recall whether your staff officer was relaying to you anything about the involvement of
01:48:59 anything about the involvement of left-wing extremists? Certainly, I can remember at the time fears that
01:49:10 uh Steven's death would attract um involvement of groups that could lead to uh protest and disorder. I can
01:49:22 to uh protest and disorder. I can certainly remember that quite clearly. And can you recall whether it was a one-way traffic of you being told or whether you were
01:49:34 whether you were asking for any further information about that? I
01:49:39 that? I can say categorically that I have no memory whatsoever of seeking information uh of who was involved in uh any form of
01:49:56 uh of who was involved in uh any form of associated process protests linked to Steven's death. I did not actively I have no memory. If I if I had a memory, I would tell you openly and honestly,
01:50:08 I would tell you openly and honestly, but I have no memory of uh specifically asking uh for that information. I do have memory of
01:50:19 information. I do have memory of passively re not passively um but of it coming into me as information primarily from Peter Clark, my staff officer.
01:50:30 from Peter Clark, my staff officer. Would you ever would have rung the inquiry team? I have no doubt at some stage because of the growing importance of of of the case.
01:50:42 growing importance of of of the case. I was going to come to that. You would have expected your staff officer to make inquiries on behalf. Most certainly. Can you recall him telling you he'd spoken to the inquiry team?
01:50:57 Not specifically, but I I would be disappointed if he hadn't telephoned himself and tried to get an update from the inquiry,
01:51:09 tried to get an update from the inquiry, the murder inquiry team at some stage so he could with authority brief me on where they had reached or not reached in their inquiry. Can you recall what you
01:51:23 their inquiry. Can you recall what you were told about the activities of left-wing extremists arising from Steven's murder?
01:51:33 No, I can't. Not not that I don't want to, but I have no vivid memories. I can remember
01:51:43 remember I can remember of it feeling in the context of other tragic deaths of black or ethnic minority
01:51:55 deaths of black or ethnic minority Londoners
01:51:57 Londoners that had not been investigated to completion that with uh arrests and convictions and
01:52:08 that with uh arrests and convictions and so on. So in in my mind I was aware that
01:52:17 that quite properly in addition to the awful grief and tragedy affecting an individual family. it was attracting
01:52:29 individual family. it was attracting attention from groups
01:52:33 groups uh who had played a role in other unsuccessful murder investigations. And I don't say that in a projorative sense. I just say
01:52:46 that in a projorative sense. I just say it in a very factual way. It did not um worry me
01:52:55 in in a way that I felt um anything other than an awareness of that was the reality of policing London. Uh it was
01:53:06 reality of policing London. Uh it was the reality of quite proper concern and grief and [clears throat] activation around the death of more than one young
01:53:18 around the death of more than one young black or ethnic minority Londoner over a number of years. Can you recall whether your staff officer told you that he whether or not he'd consulted special branch?
01:53:33 I don't I'm not aware of him ever linking special branch to the briefing. I think it was I mean it was not rocket science. It was pretty obvious from
01:53:46 science. It was pretty obvious from protests and demonstration and placard and media statements and people speaking on behalf of the family. I mean this was
01:53:58 on behalf of the family. I mean this was it didn't need subtifuge or um
01:54:04 or um anything beyond just [snorts] calculated appraisal of what was happening in the real world. Would you um most of which was very public knowledge.
01:54:15 public knowledge. Would you have expected your staff officer to contact special branch for example about some of the protest that was going on? No. Not not unless well
01:54:28 No. Not not unless well later in the year there were a number of very violent protests not all linked to the tragedy of Steven's death but the
01:54:39 the tragedy of Steven's death but the met I came back to was a met that was not unfamiliar with protests linked to
01:54:50 not unfamiliar with protests linked to uh uh the deaths of young Londoners. Yeah. We'll come to the demonstration in October at Welling in due course
01:55:01 October at Welling in due course and there are others before but there were disturbances in in the first half of the year as well, weren't there? Yes, there were. Yeah. Really what I'm driving at is would you have expected your staff
01:55:12 would you have expected your staff officer to have contacted special branch about those? No. Because that if you like that was not he may have done but the primary
01:55:23 not he may have done but the primary responsibility for policing public order uh and demonstrations and anticipating them and planning a police response was not my
01:55:35 planning a police response was not my staff officer. I had a whole branch devoted to public order that would be doing that. So it was not his specific role. uh knowing Peter Clark say height
01:55:49 role. uh knowing Peter Clark say height who went on to very senior roles within and without policing he no doubt would have followed his inclination to get information but I
01:56:01 his inclination to get information but I wouldn't have it I'm not saying he didn't and if he did I'm not saying that was inappropriate but I'm not aware of it
01:56:11 it I mean what I'm understanding your evidence to be is you think it might have been more likely that he would have contacted the public order people. Yes. If if he wanted to know
01:56:23 Yes. If if he wanted to know if Peter wanted to know what was the prospect of uh upcoming serious disorder or demonstrations. I mean I as commissioner I was not in command in to
01:56:37 commissioner I was not in command in to use police language there is a gold commander for serious public uh events and disorder. The commissioner is never gold commander. Are you being essentially are you being
01:56:49 Are you being essentially are you being briefed about the public order issues which might be in some way or another connected to the strength of feeling following Steven's murder? Yes.
01:57:01 Yes. [snorts]
01:57:01 [snorts] Were you at this time having regular meetings with the home secretary?
01:57:10 Yes. I mean, part of the challenge of of of accountability for the police was unlike every other police force that had a full-time police committee, a
01:57:23 a full-time police committee, a chairman, uh a committee made up of local politicians, magistrates, and others. The biggest police force in the country with the most intense problems.
01:57:35 country with the most intense problems. its police authority was a part-time role for the home secretary of the day perhaps one hour a month.
01:57:46 perhaps one hour a month. When you were attending those regular meetings with not regular they were in my terms they were anything but regular. We're going to come to some later on
01:57:57 We're going to come to some later on which appear to have been monthly. So, am I to understand your evidence that in 1993 your meetings with the Home Secretary were [snorts] episodic? Yes.
01:58:08 Yes. Would Steven's murder have featured or or anything arising from it have featured in your discussions with the then Home Secretary?
01:58:20 then Home Secretary? Um,
01:58:23 it's hard to remember. Um, I'm not being opaque about that. I I just don't have my home secretary for the first few months was Ken Clark. Uh and then it was
01:58:37 months was Ken Clark. Uh and then it was Michael Howard. Um so in the first few months and including Steven's death, it would have been Ken Clark and
01:58:49 have been Ken Clark and it would not have been his style to want to be briefed on operational matters like that.
01:59:00 Uh, and was the same for the position for Michael Howard or was he a man of different temperament? He had more of an appetite for forensic. Uh, he was a detail man. He liked
01:59:13 Uh, he was a detail man. He liked detail. He liked to be briefed. Um, and I suspect it would have been more likely that Michael Howard would have an appetite for operational briefings than
01:59:25 appetite for operational briefings than than Ken Clark. And can you recall uh whether the subject uh was raised when you met Michael Howard? I can't recall, but it would have been
01:59:40 I can't recall, but it would have been strange if I hadn't raised it as the intensity of
01:59:49 the protests grew during the year. It would have been probably strange if it hadn't occurred. And you've you've referred in that
02:00:00 And you've you've referred in that answer to protest. So was it the public order aspect that was a concern? Yes. I I mean the that can be the only legitimate concern was and I say having
02:00:14 legitimate concern was and I say having at more junior ranks right up to um quite senior ranks been involved in or in charge of serious
02:00:26 been involved in or in charge of serious public order events. It's an ownorous responsibility uh because very quickly people can get both police and public can get very
02:00:38 both police and public can get very seriously injured in those events. Would part of those conversations have involved discussing the sorts of groups [snorts]
02:00:50 discussing the sorts of groups [snorts] that might be getting themselves involved in these protests. It may well have done
02:00:57 have done and their agendas. It may well have done. Can you recall any specifics? No, I can't. [snorts]
02:01:07 [snorts] Can we move now to a completely different topic? Could we have up 36 884?
02:01:14 884? [snorts]
02:01:20 This is a letter which you wrote to the then Lord Chancellor Lord Mai of Clash Fern
02:01:29 Fern on the 2nd of August 1993.
02:01:36 Um, the most important paragraphs are the on this page, the first paragraph and over the page when we get to it to
02:01:49 and over the page when we get to it to the penultimate paragraph on the second page. I'll give you a moment to read it, but could you focus, as I've said, on the first paragraph on that first page, and when you get to it, the penultimate
02:02:00 and when you get to it, the penultimate paragraph on the second page
02:02:06 [snorts]
02:02:26 Yeah, I have no recollection of that whatsoever, but it clearly was a a document that had been prepared for me and clearly it must have been part of a
02:02:37 and clearly it must have been part of a national strategy because there's reference to uh the chief council of Temp's Valley expressing his concern and the association of chief police officers
02:02:48 association of chief police officers which was the collective body for chief constipals and policy. So I suspect that had been pro certainly I did not commission that. Clearly I signed it and
02:03:02 commission that. Clearly I signed it and would have been aware of it and endorsed it and sent it on its way. But that that clearly must have been generated
02:03:13 that clearly must have been generated um from within not just the Met but was clearly part of a national concern around that issue. Yeah. If we go to the next page and to
02:03:24 Yeah. If we go to the next page and to the
02:03:27 penultimate paragraph there, that seems to illustrate the scale of the problem.
02:03:49 Yeah, it it
02:03:54 [snorts] It's not my language. It's it's clearly been drafted for me. And I say I don't say in any way from dissociating myself from it or um acknowledging it's mine,
02:04:08 from it or um acknowledging it's mine, but
02:04:10 but clearly that had got to me as part of a major concern nationally and within other police forces. And I
02:04:22 and within other police forces. And I suspect that was part of a a coordinated response by the police service uh to raise that issue. Um I say sitting
02:04:34 uh to raise that issue. Um I say sitting here now I have no strong memories around
02:04:40 around the mischief the alleged mischief that we were seeking to remedy. Um although I can my mind is analyzing as we're talking what what that was about.
02:04:54 talking what what that was about. But yes, I mean if your subtext is is this illustrative of me knowing all sorts of things about SDS and their activities at that point you're wrong.
02:05:07 activities at that point you're wrong. No, I'm not suggesting that. What I'm suggesting as far as I'm I'm going is you you
02:05:13 you you are aware at this stage that there is a tension between the police and the courts about disclosure issues
02:05:24 courts about disclosure issues relating to sensitive sources such that you have been asked to and have written a letter to the Lord Chancellor about it.
02:05:32 it. Yes. And clearly it must have been part of a co coordinated set of activities probably that had been discussed within
02:05:45 probably that had been discussed within uh the association of chief police officers. Um and clearly an action plan um uh probably arose out of that and and
02:05:57 um uh probably arose out of that and and clearly I was at the time content to raise be part of raising that concern um with the law chancellor. If you could take that down now please I'm
02:06:10 you could take that down now please I'm following chronologically and moving on next to October 1993 and the Welling riot.
02:06:16 riot. Yes. of the 16th of October. If you could have up please 749355.
02:06:32 This is a handwritten memorandum um which appears to be from DAC Howley.
02:06:43 um which appears to be from DAC Howley. Um, if we could have the main text expanded, please. [laughter]
02:07:09 So we can take it that you had an awareness that some sort of undercover police officers had provided intelligence ahead of the Welling demonstration
02:07:21 demonstration such that you wish to thank them. It's more complex and nuance than that. I've read your statement and what you what you say in your witness statement, but your partial analysis so far is
02:07:33 but your partial analysis so far is right.
02:07:34 right. Yeah. Um, can I ask you first of all, you'd made a section 12 order, an order under section 12 of the public order act to rroot that
02:07:45 public order act to rroot that demonstration? Yes, I did. At the very highest level, was that because you considered it too risky to permit them to march past the BMP's
02:07:57 permit them to march past the BMP's bookshop? I I I will choose my words carefully because I realize there's only limited information I can say in open inquiry. But the sequence of events was
02:08:12 inquiry. But the sequence of events was [clears throat] the then assistant commissioner specialist operations William Taylor who went on uh to be commissioner of the city of London and chief inspector of
02:08:23 city of London and chief inspector of constabulary of Scotland. In the [snorts] buildup to the demonstrations, William Taylor told me that
02:08:36 William Taylor told me that we had very reliable intelligence. uh that would cause him and me to
02:08:50 uh that would cause him and me to seriously anticipate the most violent of protests
02:08:56 protests had the march been allowed to take its original plan route past a British National Party bookshop and de facto
02:09:07 National Party bookshop and de facto headquarters. Um
02:09:11 Um and I was um sufficiently convinced that uh and I it it may have been the only occasion when
02:09:23 it may have been the only occasion when I used that piece of legislation. I felt that I had to rroot the march um prophetically as it turned out
02:09:35 um prophetically as it turned out because it was very very violent. 60 people plus were hospitalized. 20 police officers were hospitalized. 40
02:09:46 20 police officers were hospitalized. 40 members of the public, many of them very seriously injured. Firebombs were recovered. weaponry. Um, and I fear that
02:09:57 recovered. weaponry. Um, and I fear that had that march gone ahead as planned, it could have led to deaths and very serious injuries. After
02:10:08 After the weekend of the march in Parliament in the House of Lords, um there was a very short debate about
02:10:19 um there was a very short debate about the uh
02:10:20 the uh Lord Colin, could I stop you because we we've read your statement and we've got a lot to get through today. But but that so the the thanking the officers was in that debate the I was the House of Lords
02:10:33 that debate the I was the House of Lords asked for me to pass on thanks to officers. I saw Bill Taylor and said if it's possible can I thank the undercover
02:10:44 it's possible can I thank the undercover officers? Uh, and I was told it would be too dangerous for me to do so because either bringing them to a police building or me visiting them would risk
02:10:58 building or me visiting them would risk exposing
02:11:00 exposing um their activities. And so I then requested that Parliament's gratitude and mine be passed to the officers. Before the demonstration, did you see
02:11:14 Before the demonstration, did you see any risk assessment?
02:11:18 It's hard to remember. I I believe most of my concern was uh in response to very detailed verbal
02:11:31 uh in response to very detailed verbal briefings by Assistant Commissioner Taylor.
02:11:35 Taylor. Can you recall whether or not you were shown any specific intelligence reports? I can't recall. No. Can you recall whether you were told that there was a risk that the bookshop
02:11:47 that there was a risk that the bookshop might be physically attacked? Yes.
02:11:50 Yes. Were you told that it was believed there was a plan to commit arson? Yes.
02:11:58 Were you told anything about where that intelligence had come from? Yes.
02:12:07 Yes. And was it to the effect it had come from undercover police officers? Yes.
02:12:13 Yes. At that stage, did you understand those police officers to have been involved in long-term undercover operations?
02:12:30 It's hard to say from this standpoint now. Um,
02:12:37 now. Um, not categorically, but the nature of the intelligence was so stridently um
02:12:46 um important
02:12:48 important that common sense would have suggested it was long-term.
02:12:56 [snorts]
02:13:01 We understand from the record of your interview
02:13:06 interview with Mr. Ellison, Kings Council, that you [snorts] told Mr. Ellison that you'd briefed the Home Secretary in advance that there was good intelligence.
02:13:18 that there was good intelligence. Yes, I did. And that that concerned me. that was mentioned by Lord Ferris who was a home office minister in the House of Lords debate and so I I was worried
02:13:30 of Lords debate and so I I was worried that
02:13:32 that um
02:13:33 um uh that was um that might lead to speculation and had the home secretary been told that the intelligence had come from an
02:13:44 that the intelligence had come from an undercover police officer? Um
02:13:50 I cannot say categorically but
02:13:55 but I believe I would have I would have in got as close if not being absolutely frank with the home secretary as to the origin of the
02:14:07 home secretary as to the origin of the information like me. he would have had to be convinced that there was a requirement for me to redirect the march. Um, Lord Condon, I hate
02:14:21 march. Um, Lord Condon, I hate hypothetical questions, but I'm going to have to ask you one now. Um, if you could listen very carefully to this. Um, but when answering, feel free to put whatever nuance you wish. Of course,
02:14:35 whatever nuance you wish. Of course, assume the intelligence about there being a specific plan to firebomb or physically attack the building
02:14:48 or physically attack the building is held to be false or exaggerated.
02:14:53 that assume that intelligence that large numbers of people who strongly wanted the bookshop to be shut down in the wake
02:15:04 the bookshop to be shut down in the wake of those numerous murders in Southeast London, which either were or appeared to be racist, but demonstrators mostly peaceful,
02:15:15 but demonstrators mostly peaceful, many from disciplined organizations, but including some volatile characters. If that had been the picture presented
02:15:28 If that had been the picture presented to you, would you have made the section 12 order? No. On the day there were two simultaneous marches, the the mar the sort of march
02:15:41 marches, the the mar the sort of march you would have described did take place in central London and was very peaceful and dignified and was to protest exactly along the lines as you described. Um but
02:15:56 along the lines as you described. Um but that was not the case for the one in Welling that led to 60 people being hospitalized and dozens if not hundreds more injured.
02:16:10 And if the if it was just the intelligence about the plan to firebomb or physically attack the building that is held to be false or exaggerated,
02:16:22 is held to be false or exaggerated, would you have made still made the section 12 order?
02:16:28 That's a very bizarre question. It is difficult. I understand. Well, not difficult. It's just bizarre. Why would I make an order if I knew something was force? Yeah. What what I'm
02:16:39 something was force? Yeah. What what I'm putting to you is if if you hadn't been told that. So if you're not told there if you told you're not told there's a plan to firebomb. Yeah.
02:16:46 Yeah. You're not told there's a plan to physically attack the building. But you do know there's going to be a very large uh demonstration in Welling in circumstances where feelings will be high.
02:16:58 high. largeness 100,000 a quarter a million would not precipitate thoughts of uh changing uh a march I think I only used
02:17:10 changing uh a march I think I only used that power once during my I could be wrong but I I think that was the only occasion I used that power um and without seeming arrogant I think it was
02:17:23 without seeming arrogant I think it was prophetic and necessary and probably may even have saved lives. What I'm driving at is how important a factor in your decision making was intelligence that there was a plan to
02:17:36 intelligence that there was a plan to firebomb or physically attack the building.
02:17:38 building. It was part of it, but the violence was not linked as was shown on the day. Um the bookshop was not firebombed. Uh the
02:17:51 the bookshop was not firebombed. Uh the protest was incredibly violent and more through luck than judgment. People were not killed. Um but over 60 were hospitalized,
02:18:03 hospitalized, many of whom had lifech changing injuries.
02:18:07 injuries. We're going to come to an occasion when you did visit the SDS in 1995. What I would like to know at this stage is can you recall whether you visited
02:18:20 is can you recall whether you visited them any earlier than that? No, I've been made aware of people saying I visited around after this event or and talk of a
02:18:33 around after this event or and talk of a bottle of whiskey being taken. And unless I'm having an incredibly senior moment, that just did not happen. And I think what must have been confused is
02:18:46 think what must have been confused is whether
02:18:47 whether um Bill Taylor um or another very very senior officer again as part of my passing on thanks. I've I'm not um
02:19:02 passing on thanks. I've I'm not um uh
02:19:03 uh I enjoy a glass of wine, but it's never been my style to reward officers or say to off take drink to officers as part of
02:19:14 to off take drink to officers as part of a a thank you. So the documentation that I've been made aware of say unless I am having an incredible
02:19:25 say unless I am having an incredible lapse of memory or a senior moment I in my own mind I am absolutely convinced that the only time I visited uh anything
02:19:38 that the only time I visited uh anything remotely like an SDS office was to provide a high commendation for matters which I am not at liberty to go into detail for the reasons the inquiry
02:19:51 detail for the reasons the inquiry will be aware of. Um but no, I I I say this has totally perplexed me. I I mean if and if I'd visited I would say so. I mean it's not I'm not I'm not being
02:20:03 mean it's not I'm not I'm not being devious or Understood. Look, can I take you to another topic now? Could we have up please 746107?
02:20:18 Now this is a letter that was written to you
02:20:25 you in March 1994 by a detective Sergeant Chitty. Now, Detective Sergeant Chitty at that
02:20:36 Now, Detective Sergeant Chitty at that time was facing disciplinary proceedings for financial irregularities whilst he was serving uh as a protection.
02:20:48 uh as a protection. Can if it will help with the timing. I have no recollection of that whatsoever. and which makes me think that unless you're going to show me something which
02:21:00 you're going to show me something which shows that I did see and acknowledged it and that the sort of content and the sort of memory I have I would be amazed
02:21:11 sort of memory I have I would be amazed if I couldn't remember it and look my my questions are going to be a bit more subtle than that. So, Detective Sergeant Chitty is facing disciplinary proceedings arising from financial
02:21:23 proceedings arising from financial regular irregularities as a protection officer. He had previously served as an undercover police officer and was
02:21:34 undercover police officer and was uh pleading that the impact of that service on him had affected him severely and should be taken into
02:21:45 and should be taken into account. It's quite a long letter. I'm going to take you to page five, please.
02:21:58 If you uh look just at the I'm just ask you at this stage to note the penultimate paragraph on page five.
02:22:12 Yes. So on the face of it, this part of the letter, Detective Sergeant Chitty is writing
02:22:22 writing uh to the effect that as an undercover police officer, he'd appeared as a defendant in court. Right.
02:22:30 Right. If, and I'm not suggesting you did, if you had read this letter, I can say categorically I didn't because the more the more information that you're revealing peace meal to me for
02:22:42 you're revealing peace meal to me for obvious tactical reasons. Um, still makes me believe that I I didn't see this.
02:22:51 this. I I can tell you, Lord Colin, it's more it's more for the business of getting through your evidence in time. I want to know if you had read it, would that have been something of concern to
02:23:03 that have been something of concern to you that an undercover police officer had been appearing in court as a defendant? Yes.
02:23:12 I understand you're a very busy man. You've got gatekeepers. Uh, am I to understand from your evidence so far that this is precisely
02:23:24 evidence so far that this is precisely the sort of document that would be screened out of out of being put in front of you for a number of reasons, not the least of which that the commissioner at the time was in a unique position that for
02:23:36 time was in a unique position that for disciplinary purposes um I was the appellet authority. So I didn't hear try disciplinary cases and adjudicate. I was the appellet authority
02:23:49 adjudicate. I was the appellet authority and so all matters of serious discipline I was kept immune from in case there was uh an appellet uh process and so it was
02:24:02 uh an appellet uh process and so it was not just gatekeeping either around content or or time scales. It would have been um a a due process and fairness
02:24:15 been um a a due process and fairness issue. I was the appellet authority. Yeah.
02:24:18 Yeah. And so if this was live discipline, um there's no way my staff would have allowed that to come through to me.
02:24:29 allowed that to come through to me. Would you have expected your staff to read it?
02:24:34 Yeah. any any document coming into the commissioner's office would be read and processed and and hopefully you have or there would have been a file which shows
02:24:47 there would have been a file which shows what happened to this document and how it was processed and who it went to. Would you have expected your staff officer
02:24:56 officer to have had the same reaction that you would have had reading this paragraph? It it depends on the
02:25:07 It it depends on the Sorry, can you just remind me of the timing again? What? This is March 1994. Yeah, that was probably still Peter Clark who I No, I'm not sure that even
02:25:20 Clark who I No, I'm not sure that even someone as bright as Peter um at superintendent level would have realized the the significance of of that.
02:25:33 the the significance of of that. On the face of it, it is a albeit rather deeply buried clue. It is a clue to one of the things that was going wrong on the SDS
02:25:44 the SDS with the amazing wonderful benefit of hindsight um of of the hundreds of thousands of documents that would have passed through the Met during my time as
02:25:55 passed through the Met during my time as commissionership. Um, yes, that sentence, had I seen it, would have triggered thoughts and questions and follow-ups. Um, and can I
02:26:08 questions and follow-ups. Um, and can I take
02:26:09 take I'm I'm not surprised that uh a staff officer run ragged in the rank of superintendent didn't realize the significance.
02:26:20 significance. But I would hope and assume that it would have been processed and given it would have been put back in the process either in relation to the discipline or
02:26:33 either in relation to the discipline or personnel or or whatever. It would again if it had reached my office then it would have left that office with some
02:26:44 would have left that office with some adjudication as to what should happen next. Not by me but my staff. I had excellent staff and document documentation that came in for either
02:26:55 documentation that came in for either decision or information had an action attached to it. So something must have happened to this letter. um to process it.
02:27:07 letter. um to process it. Can we take that down now, please? And can we have 746093?
02:27:12 This is um a later document about the same case. Now, this again is DAC
02:27:25 case. Now, this again is DAC Howley. Now, what this minute does is record
02:27:30 record that Detective Sergeant Chitty was going to plead guilty to the charges. But the background to it is that there'd been a an internal debate
02:27:43 an internal debate uh about what to do with Detective Sergeant Chitty. It had been decided to discipline him and he was disciplined. If we go to the sec, if you look at the
02:27:57 If we go to the sec, if you look at the bottom of this, it says I've read it all. Right. You see there's a a reference there to the media. If we go to the next page, please
02:28:14 um right there is a draft letter to the media. Maybe the break will save me, sir. and uh we'll come back to it immediately after the break.
02:28:25 immediately after the break. Uh we'll break for 10 minutes.
02:39:20 could we have up please 746095 please.
02:39:31 This is the document I was just refer about to refer to before the break. Now what has happened in the Chitty case is Chitt's been being [snorts] disciplined
02:39:44 being [snorts] disciplined said he's going to plead guilty. So there is no need to deal with the media. But a draft letter to editors
02:39:55 But a draft letter to editors had been prepared and essentially it was of the kind that informs the press that they're they may be told something that they really shouldn't publish in the public
02:40:07 shouldn't publish in the public interest. I'll give you a moment just to look at that.
02:40:19 [clears throat]
02:40:24 I have no knowledge of that letter and I've never seen it or anything like it. Did anybody say anything to you, brief you orally uh to the effect that there was a possibility
02:40:37 was a possibility that a former undercover police officer might be indiscreet with the press? No, I have no recollection whatsoever around that letter or any discussion
02:40:49 around that letter or any discussion that led to its generation. Uh, [snorts] can we take that document down now? I want to move to 1995 and the occasion when you visit the SDS
02:41:03 and the occasion when you visit the SDS safe house to present a commendation to an officer who is wholly anonymous.
02:41:13 Yes. No. Answer to this, please. Did you read the recommendation for commendation? I cannot remember, but I would assume I did.
02:41:23 did. And would you have been briefed before the visit? Yes.
02:41:29 Yes. And would you have been briefed sufficiently to understand in broad outline what the SDS was and what it was doing?
02:41:37 doing? Yes. So would you have understood by that stage that it was a special branch undercover unit involved in long-term intelligence gathering operations?
02:41:49 intelligence gathering operations? Yes.
02:41:52 Yes. I don't want to ask you anything about the officer to whom the commenation was awarded, but [snorts] when you visited the safe house, is it right that you
02:42:03 the safe house, is it right that you were able to speak to some undercover police officers? very [snorts] briefly the purpose of the visit. One of the things the commissioner can do is award
02:42:14 things the commissioner can do is award high commendations very rarely to police officers for the most gallant or outstanding professional work. Um and so
02:42:25 outstanding professional work. Um and so the the purpose of this visit was to award such a high commendation. I was briefed by uh Deputy Assistant
02:42:36 I was briefed by uh Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Howley, who was head of special branch at the time, that um there would be a number of other SDS officers there and I was invited not to
02:42:51 officers there and I was invited not to discuss with them their current deployments or anything beyond the realm of the high commenation. Not I think in any way to censor me from
02:43:05 Not I think in any way to censor me from or to mask me from information but simply because uh it was felt that would have been inappropriate and would have um
02:43:16 and would have um uh led to it seeming more like an inspection visit uh than a celebration of outstanding courage and bravery. Um,
02:43:28 of outstanding courage and bravery. Um, and I
02:43:30 and I acceeded to that request. And so it was a um, uh, a brief visit to a location in central London which involved changing
02:43:41 central London which involved changing cars and drivers and various other subtifuges. Um and it was a brief um celebration of that uh officer and
02:43:54 um celebration of that uh officer and the commendation and in passing thanking other officers in a general way for their work and their courage.
02:44:05 their work and their courage. Can you recall speaking to an officer called Detective Sergeant Andy Kohl's? No.
02:44:12 No. Can you recall speaking to an undercover police officer who was deployed in the animal rights field? No.
02:44:19 No. Can [snorts] you recall speaking to an undercover police officer who was deployed into the Socialist Workers Party?
02:44:26 Party? No. Again, I'm not not saying that in any way to disassociate from uh their deployments of what they were doing. Um my memory of that event was
02:44:41 my memory of that event was my mindset on the day was about um saying the things to emphasize the reason for the high commenation
02:44:54 reason for the high commenation and making the individual officer feel valued for uh the bravery that had led to that. And I remember relatively brief
02:45:05 to that. And I remember relatively brief discussions with other officers who were there um not in any detail and not about their specific
02:45:16 and not about their specific deployments. Could we have up please 527228?
02:45:26 This is a gist of um a file of documents relating to [snorts] the visit. If we have page three please
02:45:44 and at the bottom of the
02:45:49 That's right. Thank you. Um you will see page six is a gist of the or part of it's quoted a quote of the briefing note on the SDS
02:46:01 on the SDS um from the mid90s relating to this uh visit. I'll give you a moment just to refresh your memory.
02:46:21 [snorts]
02:46:33 Yes, I've read that. Thank you. Now, I'm interested in at the bottom of the page, it says, "At present, field officers provide intelligence in the following areas: Socialist Workers
02:46:45 following areas: Socialist Workers Party, Anti-Nazi League, Militant Labor, Youth Against Racism in Europe. This coverage is essential in obtaining timely intelligence
02:46:56 timely intelligence about the intentions of activists involved in potentially uh violence demonstrations concerning a range of issues including anti-fascists
02:47:10 range of issues including anti-fascists and anti-
02:47:13 and anti- uh police
02:47:15 uh police protests.
02:47:17 protests. Now, I appreciate that the purpose of your visit was to commend an officer, but when you
02:47:28 but when you were briefed to this effect, did you consider whether it was appropriate for the Metropolitan Police Service to be deploying an undercover
02:47:42 Service to be deploying an undercover officer
02:47:44 officer longterm? um into the Socialist Workers Party or militant labor to obtain intelligence
02:47:55 to obtain intelligence only about potentially violent
02:48:00 violent demonstrations.
02:48:04 I don't I the briefing I think was oral rather than this document but even if I had read this document um
02:48:17 there is nothing in that document I will be very honest that would set off alarm bells for me at the time uh I
02:48:30 bells for me at the time uh I [snorts] had been in charge charge of at more junior rank the policing of demonstrations involving
02:48:39 involving I suspect some of those organizations at times. Um, and I had seen since my time as commissioner
02:48:52 seen since my time as commissioner very, very violent demonstrations, more than one, which had led to very serious life-changing injuries for members of the public and
02:49:03 injuries for members of the public and police officers. So, I I have to be honest and say that I probably would not and was not
02:49:14 would not and was not um animated beyond retaking it at face value for what it says. Can you recall whether you asked any questions about
02:49:27 asked any questions about the detail of the targeting of the unit? No, because the say the whole purpose, focus
02:49:40 the say the whole purpose, focus and rationale for the visit was not uh an inspection either planned or surprised. It was my style to quite
02:49:51 surprised. It was my style to quite often drop in unannounced at police stations, at units, um, for the purposes of inspection and knowledge and checking and digging into
02:50:05 knowledge and checking and digging into what they were doing and speaking to individual officers and driving down about their supervision, their posting, um, their welfare and so on.
02:50:18 um, their welfare and so on. this was not such an occasion. Um my mindset would have been around um celebrating the incredible bravery
02:50:29 um celebrating the incredible bravery on a matter which I'm not at liberty to discuss but which the inquiry is aware of.
02:50:34 of. So can I take it that on this occasion you did not dig down into No, I didn't because that was not the purpose of the visit. Can we take that document down now please? Can we go to 749313,
02:50:46 please? Can we go to 749313, please?
02:50:50 We're [snorts] moving now to September 1996.
02:50:54 1996. 196.
02:50:56 196. Now this is a letter from the security service
02:51:01 service to um it's two chief constables and it's about the study of um subversion
02:51:12 subversion and
02:51:14 and it is to the effect that the security services interest in subversion is waning uh to the level of a watching
02:51:28 is waning uh to the level of a watching view.
02:51:32 Is this a document that is likely to have crossed your desk? No.
02:51:41 No. Are you likely to have understood that the security services interest in subversion following the end of the Cold War was
02:51:53 following the end of the Cold War was waning? Oh yes, most definitely. The reason I say it won't have come to me because in the MET context, the chief constable concerned would have been the
02:52:05 constable concerned would have been the assistant commissioner specialist operations who was a senior chief constable rank more senior than many uh county uh police chiefs running
02:52:18 county uh police chiefs running provincial police forces. uh and so that's who would have received it in the Met. I was um acutely aware of the um
02:52:30 Met. I was um acutely aware of the um short-term peace dividend from the fall of communism um uh and the euphoria of uh that that greeted it. Um uh I have
02:52:47 of uh that that greeted it. Um uh I have no doubt David Vanesse who would have been the assistant commissioner specialist ops and the recipient of the letter on my behalf um would have discussed it with me. Um,
02:53:01 um would have discussed it with me. Um, and I think I've said in my statement that the police service was less sanguin about this than the security service
02:53:12 about this than the security service because the security service were not charged with policing the streets of London or serious demonstrations or associated public order issues. So,
02:53:25 or associated public order issues. So, um, clearly aware of the geopolitics involved. um of what was happening internationally, nationally and within London. Um but again, if your subtext is
02:53:39 London. Um but again, if your subtext is should this have triggered um
02:53:44 do less in special branch in relation to subversion. Subversion starts at the innocent end with protest
02:53:57 starts at the innocent end with protest and at the serious end finishes in treason.
02:54:02 treason. Um and the Met could not be sanguin about that spectrum of activity totally. Um and so we needed to maintain
02:54:13 Um and so we needed to maintain um watching brief and beyond to ensure that um uh subversion did not tip over into crime
02:54:26 subversion did not tip over into crime and serious public disorder. The the Latin root for subversion literally means turning from beneath. Um
02:54:37 literally means turning from beneath. Um and it was the police task to monitor um the uh activities that could and did lead to serious disorder on the streets
02:54:49 lead to serious disorder on the streets of London. What was your understanding of the definition of subversion? Um, at the time I would have had a probably a technical awareness
02:55:00 probably a technical awareness [laughter] of the of subversion, but it's in essence threats to the security and the safety of the state and its form of government, [snorts]
02:55:11 of government, [snorts] democracy itself. If we could take that document down now, please. Uh, I want to move to the end of 1996.
02:55:22 1996. Yes. Yes, there comes a time when an undercover police officer from the SDS who we're calling HN1 is recommended for a commissioner's
02:55:35 is recommended for a commissioner's commendation and that is a commendation recommendation which you endorse. I'll show you uh we'll bring up the recommendation. It's 745905.
02:55:55 Uh, if we go to the next page, please, I'll give you a moment to read that.
02:56:39 [snorts]
02:56:46 Yes, I've read that. Thank you. on the face of it a glowing write up about uh very brave policing. Yes.
02:56:54 Yes. If you look at the chronology first of all on the first line between January 1992 and December 1996. So that is a clear illustration isn't it of the
02:57:05 clear illustration isn't it of the length of deployments that some SDS officers were involved in. Yes.
02:57:10 Yes. And if you see the end date December 1996.
02:57:14 1996. Yes. If we go to the bottom paragraph, it says, "Intelligence supplied by DSHN1 in May 1995 provided the basis for an anti-terrorist
02:57:25 provided the basis for an anti-terrorist branch operation which culminated in the arrest and conviction of a leading London-based ALF activist.
02:57:36 activist. I want you to think back to that exchange of correspondence we looked at earlier from 1993 when you wrote to the then Lord Chancellor about disclosure issues uh with covert
02:57:49 issues uh with covert sources. What's striking about these dates is you can see that the undercover officer stays in situ even after the
02:58:00 officer stays in situ even after the trap is sprung
02:58:05 because he's a long-term intelligence gatherer.
02:58:11 So his identity, his presence has not been disclosed at the trial.
02:58:20 I appreciate this was put in front of you as a glowing report of bravery by an undercover police officer, but did it occur to you when reading this that the officer had
02:58:33 when reading this that the officer had continued to deploy after the trap had been sprung?
02:58:41 I don't wish to be rude, Mr. bar. But that's
02:58:45 that's that in the context of this report, my role as commissioner, what I knew at the time, [snorts] that is such a
02:58:56 time, [snorts] that is such a retrospective um
02:59:01 um challenge as to be almost beyond belief. [snorts] Um I'll take that. No, no, it didn't. I'll take that as a no. No, it didn't. And I'm not surprised that it didn't.
02:59:13 that it didn't. But
02:59:16 one of the difficulties with long-term intelligence gathering operations which [snorts] leaves officers in situ after their intelligence has been used
02:59:30 after their intelligence has been used uh to initiate criminal process [snorts] is you can get miscarriages of justice arising from that can't you? But being serious I accept that totally.
02:59:41 But being serious I accept that totally. No,
02:59:42 No, but that I must confess this did not trigger those thoughts. I am not suggesting that this is anything other than the most fishly hidden clue. Yes.
02:59:52 Yes. But the question I have to you is there. I acknowledge that it didn't trigger those thoughts. But I can see theoretically in an inquiry that has had 12 years to
03:00:05 in an inquiry that has had 12 years to look at these documents. No, that's that's unfair. you may not have had 12 years but in the context of the real world of operational policing
03:00:17 the real world of operational policing that this did not trigger those thoughts for me on that that occasion. The next point I want to put to you about this commendation isn't buried is totally buried. You had no knowledge of
03:00:29 totally buried. You had no knowledge of it at all. I just want to put what we now know to you. What we now know is HN1 was conducting a sexual relationship with a
03:00:42 conducting a sexual relationship with a woman called Denise Fuller. When did you first know that HN1 conducted a sexual relationship with Denise Fuller?
03:00:54 Denise Fuller? Uh post 2014 I assume when the publicity broke around these issues. from my memory that is
03:01:05 these issues. from my memory that is that would have been the first these sexual relationships. Um, again, unless I'm having a a senior moment or a total failure of memory, I
03:01:17 moment or a total failure of memory, I had no knowledge or expectation that undercover officers were engaging in sexual relationships. I'm not I'm not suggesting you knew because this
03:01:29 suggesting you knew because this relationship was hidden even from us at the start of the inquiry. We now know about
03:01:35 about I I'm not sure I've ever been because although this is and the chairman's life I I do do other things with my life. Yeah. No.
03:01:44 Yeah. No. And and so I've not followed every nuance and day of the inquiry. That's fine. Lord Con, what I would like to know though is now that I've told you that this undercover officer who
03:01:56 that this undercover officer who received a commendation from you was in fact sexually deceiving uh as it happens a very vulnerable woman.
03:02:07 woman. I'd like I'll compound the question. What is your reaction and what difference would it have made to your decision to commend him if you had known?
03:02:16 known? I would have been appalled and he wouldn't have been commended. And I want to use this example to explore an a particular issue with you.
03:02:28 explore an a particular issue with you. When you were the commissioner and you were awarding commendations, if information came to light to suggest that the person concerned, the recipient
03:02:42 that the person concerned, the recipient should not have been awarded the commenation. What happened? Again,
03:02:52 that's such a bizarre question. I mean, um, no one would be recommended for a comment in those circumstances. If you if you find out afterwards, what
03:03:03 If you if you find out afterwards, what happens?
03:03:05 happens? Well, I never did find out afterwards. If you've got no practical experience, the reason I'm asking is this. We've heard evidence from a number of undercover officers who received various
03:03:16 undercover officers who received various forms of commendation. Some of them commissioner commendations, some of them lesser commendations. And I'm driving at whether or not they should retain those commendations. Now
03:03:28 should retain those commendations. Now it is known of their misconduct. No, they shouldn't. If if retrospect, this may be if [clears throat] the chairman would indulge me. I'm not
03:03:39 chairman would indulge me. I'm not digressing but I think an important case point needs to be made that I I am aware of
03:03:50 I I am aware of um now aware of appalling behavior by individual officers. Um but equally I think the greater um fault lies with the Metropolitan
03:04:03 um fault lies with the Metropolitan Police as a whole over decades that these officers were told daily [snorts] as their
03:04:15 as their job to lie, cheat, and deceive as a way of life. and what they are asked to do.
03:04:26 asked to do. The Metropolitan Police should have realized, we should have realized that without limits, without ethical guidance that this work in those circumstances
03:04:41 that this work in those circumstances can be corrupting and even someone with a strong moral compass will give in to baser instincts and so on. So
03:04:53 and so on. So yeah, I want to make the point that I'm not going to sit here and give evidence holier than now these are just rogue officers who've done some bad things.
03:05:06 officers who've done some bad things. The greater fault is the systemic fault by the Met. So yes, by all means, if these officers
03:05:17 these officers uh have acted so badly and appallingly that they're not worthy of commendation, then if there is a process for removing that recognition, then take that process
03:05:29 that recognition, then take that process forward. But um I'm just slightly wary of of wanting to be a commissioner who is sort
03:05:40 wanting to be a commissioner who is sort of washing his hands of all this wrongdoing. That would be unfair to the officers and to their families. The responsibility
03:05:52 The responsibility for much of what's happened should be laid at the door of the Metropolitan Police over the decades as well as the individual officers.
03:06:05 Can we take that document down now, please? Could we have up 746143? We're moving now to early 1997.
03:06:18 And uh this is a minute. Um I'll give you a moment to read it.
03:06:39 If we go over the page
03:06:46 and if you you can look at the the top minute is to you and the bottom minute uh shows that you have uh seen and noticed. And that
03:06:58 uh seen and noticed. And that illustrates that that would have been my style that if I saw a document I would acknowledge it. And so you are being told
03:07:09 And so you are being told of two
03:07:12 of two SDS triumphs, aren't you? one involving Christmas turkeys and an AF alf plot to poison them and another about
03:07:24 poison them and another about uh work that has been done to thwart a protest on the Dartford Bridge. Yes.
03:07:32 Yes. Is there any particular reason why the actions of a very small unit like this are going all the way to the top of the chain of command?
03:07:47 Can we go back to the previous page? Of course. Oh, sorry. The Yeah. Yes. Yes.
03:08:05 No, it it simply that David Vanesse must have felt that um these actions were so meritorious that he should bring it to my knowledge. And
03:08:18 he should bring it to my knowledge. And having brought it to my knowledge, I I it would have been bizarre to have said, "Please tell these officers I'm ungrateful," or or some comment other
03:08:30 ungrateful," or or some comment other than to endorse the uh the congratulations. But there no it I mean in um with the power of hindsight
03:08:44 in um with the power of hindsight um I suspect that the SDS it that the broader question is um should when I say I wanted the right
03:08:55 um should when I say I wanted the right people doing the right things in the right way. Um clearly SDS um was not the right people doing the right things in the right way. Um and I
03:09:08 right things in the right way. Um and I suspect that there was an element of self-justification as well as self-deployment. Um and that may have led to the
03:09:19 Um and that may have led to the generation of this note. But I I believe David Vanesse is will be giving evidence and so you'll be able to ask him directly. But um
03:09:31 directly. But um [clears throat] this is um I I guess David Vanesse having received it um felt that he would bring it to my
03:09:42 felt that he would bring it to my notice.
03:09:44 notice. I'm going to come back to this issue in a in a little while in relation to another document. But what I'm beginning to drive at here is to explore the SDS's internal PR machine.
03:09:56 internal PR machine. And what I'm trying to calibrate is whether this is exceptionally good internal PR getting it to your desk or whether it's routine. I I mean from
03:10:09 or whether it's routine. I I mean from what I now know um had had I had even a cintilla of knowledge of some of the things which
03:10:20 knowledge of some of the things which have been exposed here, I would have challenged the um the very recent detra for the continuation of this unit. And I suspect
03:10:33 continuation of this unit. And I suspect uh they themselves um or those in the in the more junior chain of command um must have feared that um they had
03:10:45 um must have feared that um they had they would have been aware of the action I'd taken in relation to other units and people within the force. Um and I suspect you're absolutely right. This is
03:10:56 suspect you're absolutely right. This is self as well as self deployment. This is uh self arrandisment. Now if we could take that down if we have up 36845
03:11:07 have up 36845 please
03:11:15 [snorts] we're moving to April 1997 and there'd been a very large demonstration on the 12th. Uh this is a letter uh from
03:11:31 on the 12th. Uh this is a letter uh from the Met to the terrorism and protection unit within the home office. And if we go over the page so I can show you who's written it.
03:11:43 It's written by a detective superintendent who we have granted anonymity to TN 61. And if we go back to the first page,
03:11:54 the first page, give you a moment to read the body of the text.
03:12:37 Yes, I've read that. Thank you. It is fair to say on this occasion the SDS did have a source right in the middle of reclaim the streets.
03:12:48 middle of reclaim the streets. undercover police officer was a member of the core organizing group and he did provide very accurate intelligence in
03:13:00 provide very accurate intelligence in advance of RTS's undisclosed plans to occupy a building in [snorts] Marshham Street, the old Department for the Environment buildings.
03:13:13 Environment buildings. Is it right that the intelligence was passed to you? No. I
03:13:21 No. I I again, unless I'm having a serious failure of memory, I
03:13:30 I even within and I say I I'm not being arrogant, but within a fairly prodigious workload, I would have thought that would have registered and it it doesn't. I it that
03:13:43 registered and it it doesn't. I it that just doesn't stimulate any memories at all of of that event. And [clears throat]
03:13:52 may now be a redundant question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Can you recall speaking to the Home Secretary about plans by protesters to occupy the
03:14:03 plans by protesters to occupy the Department of Environment buildings in Marsham Street? No, I can't. And if I had discussed it, I would remember it. Can [snorts] we take that down now please? Can we have up 527564
03:14:24 and if we go to the next page, this is a file uh including the minute sheet and then the SDS annual report for
03:14:35 sheet and then the SDS annual report for the year 1996 [snorts] 1997. I'm going to take you through it in a moment uh because this is an occasion
03:14:46 moment uh because this is an occasion where we do have written evidence to suggest that you did see this annual report.
03:14:51 report. I I think this was the one occasion I believe where the annual report was brought to my notice. Yeah.
03:14:58 Yeah. And the reason I'm pausing was for exactly that. Are you sure you have no recollection of seeing any other SDS annual report? know I I I mean I'm not
03:15:09 annual report? know I I I mean I'm not saying that I didn't but I I'm pretty confident that this must have been an exception. I [laughter] I um but I say
03:15:20 exception. I [laughter] I um but I say if my memory it is is wrong. I will acknowledge that I I I'm not seeking to be evasive. If I if I had memory of them I would as I am
03:15:33 I would as I am under oath to tell you I would tell you understood. Uh uh can we have page four please?
03:15:41 And we see twothirds of the way down the page a minute for uh your signature. Yes.
03:15:48 Yes. Uh conveying your appreciation to all concerned for another year of outstanding courage and professionalism. When you say another year of outstanding courage and professionalism,
03:16:00 courage and professionalism, is that on the basis that you knew about the unit
03:16:05 the unit from Welling in 93 and you had dealt with two commendations for officers since then. I I think it's just a factual statement
03:16:17 I I think it's just a factual statement that 1997 was not the only year or 1996 that the world existed. And by then I realized that um SDS was a unit that uh
03:16:32 realized that um SDS was a unit that uh had existed um for some time and you'd seen the document. So it no. So it's it's merely um an acknowledgment
03:16:43 So it's it's merely um an acknowledgment that you know it's just what it it is what it says. I'm saying thank you for another year good year of work. I see.
03:16:52 I see. But it's it's not in any way um uh some mysterious clue that I must have seen other reports reports.
03:17:02 reports. I'd encourage you not to be so suspicious of my questions. Hold on. What I'm trying to what I'm driving at I'm I'm not suspicious. I'm trying to be helpful. But what I'm transparency to me in your questioning
03:17:14 questioning give you honest answers. What I'm driving at is the context in which this report hits your desk. And what I'm suggesting I honestly believe that was the only occasion that I saw an annual report
03:17:25 occasion that I saw an annual report and the context in which it hits your desk is is self not self arandisment but um a passing up the chain look we've had
03:17:36 um a passing up the chain look we've had a good year and several year again several years of good news stories reaching your ears from the SDS. Yes.
03:17:44 Yes. Go to page seven please. This is the report itself. Um, and if we go to page nine
03:17:58 and paragraph, it's this is the introduction. I'll give you a moment to to skim it, but what I'm interested in is paragraph 1.5.
03:18:10 [snorts]
03:18:33 [snorts]
03:18:37 Yes, I've read that. Thank you. the you would have read this report at the time, wouldn't you? Yes, I I would hope so. Yes. So, if we look at 1.5, currently 30% of
03:18:48 So, if we look at 1.5, currently 30% of the units operational personnel are employed exclusively or predominantly in public order related fields. The requirement for intelligence of criminal activity motivated by or associated with
03:19:01 activity motivated by or associated with ideological or political movements is dealt with by 50% deployment.
03:19:10 Did this ring any alarm bells? No, you you are quite properly um looking at that through the lens of
03:19:21 that through the lens of the [snorts] uh hindsight retrospective lens of knowing that this was a unit that did bad things. Um I would have been looking
03:19:32 bad things. Um I would have been looking it through the lens of not had any alarm bells rung at the time. um either by the in the external
03:19:43 in the external inspectorate of Constabulary or our own internal inspectorate or any individual whistleblower or senior officer or
03:19:54 whistleblower or senior officer or anyone raising concerns. I would have been reading it in the context of um someone who had highly commended
03:20:06 someone who had highly commended uh what I thought were two courageous officers.
03:20:10 officers. Um, and I was reading what I thought was um a uh an annual report of a well- reggarded, properly supervised
03:20:23 reggarded, properly supervised and ethically supervised unit. And so my mindset, I had many many issues where I had serious doubts about
03:20:36 issues where I had serious doubts about corruption um and bad behavior and appalling behavior by police officers. At this time, at that stage of my
03:20:47 time, at that stage of my commissionership, no alarm bells had been rung uh in relation to this unit. So I would have read it um probably relatively quickly,
03:21:00 read it um probably relatively quickly, not not because I was not um interested or uh in it, but in against [clears throat] the background of having
03:21:12 [clears throat] the background of having no reason
03:21:14 no reason at that stage to have any doubts about the integrity or the supervision or the trade craft or the operating framework of this
03:21:25 or the operating framework of this human.
03:21:25 human. Understood. Um, and we've been, you know, we've been through the circumstance in which this hits your desk.
03:21:32 desk. But even at the time, you would have known that evidential undercover deployments have more rigor and more safeguards, don't you? Yes.
03:21:44 Yes. And this is telling you that by this point in time, the SDS is spending half of its resources
03:21:55 of its resources on longterm evidential criminal [snorts] intelligence gathering. And that means deployments without those rigorous
03:22:07 deployments without those rigorous safeguards. deployed not at public order but against crime.
03:22:14 crime. Yes.
03:22:16 Yes. And wouldn't that if you'd thought about it
03:22:21 it have given rise to questions? No. In totally an emphatic no. that is such um
03:22:32 I won't say the word ignorance of because that's pjorative and I don't mean to be rude but in the the real world of minute by minute hour by hour
03:22:46 world of minute by minute hour by hour day by day serious policing judgments that can lead to the life or death of members of the public and all police officers.
03:22:57 officers. and I had seven police officers murdered during my time. Um, that sort of mental extrapolation and mental gymnastics
03:23:08 and mental gymnastics I I believe is far-fetched. If [snorts] we could go now, please to page 11 in paragraph 4.1.
03:24:03 This is singing the praises of the deployment into the RTS and in particular um thwarting a stunt at the Queen Elizabeth Bridge, the Dartford crossing.
03:24:15 Elizabeth Bridge, the Dartford crossing. Yes.
03:24:15 Yes. It seems to conjure up images of exploding
03:24:19 exploding fuel tankers. Yes.
03:24:21 Yes. Um, did you take this at face value or were you at all skeptical about it? I don't remember
03:24:33 I don't remember reading that or being aware of it. So, I I can't express a judgment. [snorts] If we well, if I put it this way,
03:24:44 If we well, if I put it this way, environmental protesters are very unlikely to have wanted to plan a stunt which gave rise to a very high risk of an outbreak of fire with a fuel tanker, aren't they?
03:24:56 aren't they? I I'm not in a position to say without the knowledge at the time or intelligence. If we go to page 14, please, paragraph 8.2.
03:25:08 Uh this is a section about the extreme left and this is um first of all uh dealing with the drop in interest in
03:25:21 dealing with the drop in interest in counter subversion and rather as you've been saying it confirms that the police interest its residual interest was essentially from public order perspectives.
03:25:33 public order perspectives. Yes. Yes. I we we because of our role and our um statutory duties, we couldn't be sanguin in the way that security services could be.
03:25:44 services could be. If we go to 8.3, please
03:25:50 give you a moment to read that. But it's effectively to um the effect that the Socialist Workers Party was not active on the streets at the time.
03:26:29 [snorts] Yes. If we go to the next paragraph, give you a moment to read it, but it appears to be to the effect that the SDS is may review continuing deployment into
03:26:42 is may review continuing deployment into the SWP.
03:27:00 Yes, I've read that. Thank you. So, the SDS has got a long-term officer infiltrating a political party which is neither a
03:27:11 a political party which is neither a threat to the state nor currently involved in disorder. Shouldn't that have rung alarm bells?
03:27:23 In a perfect world with no other issues to consider and to spend hours agonizing over, it may [clears throat] have triggered such a thought. But in the
03:27:36 triggered such a thought. But in the real world, no, it didn't.
03:27:41 So I I'm close to the end of this topic. May I run till about 5? Of course. Uh, if we have 8.5, please.
03:27:54 Militant Labor, now renamed the Socialist Party, was targeted throughout the year by one SDS officer. He's now coming to the end of his operational tour. I'll leave you to read the rest of
03:28:09 tour. I'll leave you to read the rest of that,
03:28:10 that, but would you agree with the proposition that this amounts to saying uh the Socialist Party was committed to the electoral process, it was standing candidates and it was largely absorbed
03:28:23 candidates and it was largely absorbed in its own internal affairs.
03:28:30 [snorts]
03:28:41 Yes, I've read that. Thank you. So again, it amounts to telling you that the SDS has a long-term undercover officer deployed into another political party which
03:28:53 party which Sorry, can I just stop, Mr. Bar? can remind me again the the overall document we're now referring to. I've sort of lost my train of thought. It's the SDS annual report which is we're still on the annual
03:29:04 which is we're still on the annual report for 199. I do apologize for So essentially you're being told here I mean you're assuming uh that I had read every word and every
03:29:17 uh that I had read every word and every um uh paragraph and had the luxury of hours if not more um to consider this document uh about a unit that at the
03:29:29 document uh about a unit that at the time I believed was properly supervised and tasked. asked and had no reason to believe otherwise and had commended
03:29:40 believe otherwise and had commended officers for bravery. The forensic examination of every word and nuance that you have the luxury of doing quite
03:29:51 that you have the luxury of doing quite properly um was not one afforded to me or would have triggered the sort of thought processes which quite properly
03:30:02 thought processes which quite properly you are exploring with me. So in the reality of [snorts] who I was, what I was, what I was doing, my time
03:30:13 what I was, what I was doing, my time management, the scrutiny you are giving to this document is something which either neither I had the luxury to do or can
03:30:26 neither I had the luxury to do or can remember doing in the way that you are now doing. Well, I I that saves me putting some more examples, but it does take me to the standing back to the bigger point. This is a very positive report about the
03:30:40 This is a very positive report about the SDS and it's part of a long line. We know that they were blowing We now know they were blowing their own trumpet.
03:30:48 trumpet. Yeah. A long line of positive news. Were
03:30:53 Were you alive as commissioner to the fact that your internal units would wish to put the best gloss possible on what was being communicated to you? Yes.
03:31:04 Yes. And when you have got people in a long-term undercover role, I think borrowing from your own witness statement, people with a lot of opportunity Yes.
03:31:15 Yes. to misbehave. Doesn't that call for a high level of scrutiny? it with retrospect the supervision that I believed in place
03:31:27 supervision that I believed in place clearly was not uh and that is that's why I say that is I think the greater evil here in all of this
03:31:39 evil here in all of this is the failure of the Metropolitan Police over decades to put in place adequate framework of tasking
03:31:50 adequate framework of tasking supervision, guidance, inspection, review. Um, but at the time I
03:32:01 review. Um, but at the time I erroneously believed that those issues in place were in place and I erroneously believed that special branch uh and those within special branch were
03:32:15 uh and those within special branch were doing the very things which you and I are exploring. What was the basis for that belief? Because that should be that is the
03:32:28 Because that should be that is the police service is a hierarchical organization. Um it's a disciplinary body. It's not unlike the military in some respects. uh people are expected.
03:32:42 some respects. uh people are expected. I take it as red that the hierarchy of compliance all officers will comply with the law. All officers will comply with disciplining regulations. All officers
03:32:54 disciplining regulations. All officers will comply with best practice and guidance from whichever body is appropriate and the whole supervision chain is about that. So the start point
03:33:08 chain is about that. So the start point should be that all of those issues are taking place. That is then reinforced by inspection, challenge, supervision, rotation of
03:33:20 challenge, supervision, rotation of management. Um and at that point I did not have the thoughts that you are triggering with me now and which have
03:33:31 triggering with me now and which have been triggered throughout the inquiry. I did not have then because of the
03:33:41 of the dozens
03:33:43 dozens and beyond of significant challenges and problems I was dealing with. No alarm bells had been signaled in my uh office
03:33:57 bells had been signaled in my uh office to lead me to take the sort of action or analysis. I wish I had if I if I'd known I would have interveneed. Can I take it from that answer that you didn't yourself cause any inquiries to
03:34:09 didn't yourself cause any inquiries to be made about the level and rigor of supervision of this unit? I had no reason to and nor would the commissioner routinely do so. the vehicles that did that. I'm aware that
03:34:22 vehicles that did that. I'm aware that the the external and independent chief inspector of constabularary had inspected special branch in 9394 and again in 99.
03:34:35 and again in 99. Um and that was a rigorous inspe root and branch inspection of special branch and no issues had been brought to my
03:34:46 and no issues had been brought to my attention around either deployment or supervision um or ethical behavior or lack of it. Um and that would have been the most
03:34:58 and that would have been the most rigorous of inspections but clearly failed. So no uh the framework for inspection and intervention was in place. Had I had any
03:35:12 intervention was in place. Had I had any inkling of the appalling behavior that this inquiry is looking into, I would have very very robustly intervened. So is that a convenient moment to break
03:35:23 So is that a convenient moment to break for lunch? Certainly. I think your um estimate of 5 minutes was a a little short. Um the barristers 5 minutes. I'm sorry. It's my fault, not this. [laughter] We'll resume at 10 fast.