Lord Paul Condon, Metropolitan Police Commissioner from 1993 to 2000, gives evidence about his role during the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, including his monthly meetings with Home Secretary Jack Straw, disputes with fellow witness Bob Quick's characterisation of events, and Special Branch/SDS intelligence reporting on the Lawrence family, their campaign, and associated organisations. He repeatedly disputes how Home Office officials summarised his views while conceding, under sustained questioning, that some of the surveillance revealed to the inquiry met the definition of institutional racism.
00:19:13 Good afternoon everybody. This afternoon's proceedings will continue with the uh uh proceedings being transmitted over the live link after a 15minute delay. Those with mobile telephones may use them to report what
00:19:25 telephones may use them to report what they hear in the hearing room, but only after 15 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're reporting. They may not be used for recording or photography. Mr. B.
00:19:36 photography. Mr. B. Thank you, sir. Could we have up please 3255?
00:19:39 3255? It's a UCPI number. Lord Cond, I'm going to take you to the transcript of your evidence to Mr.
00:19:50 transcript of your evidence to Mr. Ellison Kings Council uh about the start of the Steven Lawrence inquiry. Right.
00:20:05 It's UCPI 63255.
00:20:16 And could we have uh page 32 please? So this was an interview on the 8th of October 2013. If we could go to line 20
00:20:34 this is about the Steven Lawrence inquiry and the start of it.
00:20:44 You told Mr. Ellison that it was an issue that was going to dominate something hugely important. It's right, isn't it, that it did go on
00:20:57 It's right, isn't it, that it did go on to dominate your agenda. Quite properly. Yes. And it was hugely important, hugely significant moment in placing then and now.
00:21:09 then and now. If [snorts] we could take that down now, please. And could we have up please 749663.
00:21:18 I'm going to show you now is the witness statement of Bob Quick to this inquiry um which uh he made on the 2nd of
00:21:31 um which uh he made on the 2nd of December 2024. If we could go to page four please in paragraph 17.
00:21:51 If we could have one more page please for paragraph 17.
00:22:03 Now, this is um Mr. Quick's evidence to us about the creation of the Steven Lawrence review team. I'll give you a moment to read that paragraph.
00:22:28 Yes, I've read that. Thank you.
00:22:33 And is it right uh that he was well if we go on to the next paragraph?
00:22:57 Do you agree with the evidence set out in those two paragraphs, namely that he attended a meeting in the broadest sense, but I um
00:23:09 in the broadest sense, but I um being forensic in the choice of words. Um
00:23:14 Um vulnerabilities I think would be more appropriately described as issues. vulnerabilities looks and sounds defensive
00:23:24 defensive um issues
00:23:27 um issues um I think is more accurate and if we go up to the paragraph before then
00:23:37 to 17 Mr. Quick says that the discussion at the meeting was focused around the Steven Lawrence inquiry and its impact on the MPS and in particular reputation and morale. Is it right that there was
00:23:50 and morale. Is it right that there was discussion about reputation and morale? Yes. in the context of um the Metropolitan Police at the time was dealing with approximately a million
00:24:01 was dealing with approximately a million emergency calls a year uh and up to 200 murders, many of whom were of uh black and ethnic minority Londoners needing
00:24:12 and ethnic minority Londoners needing help. As commissioner, I had to do two things. maintain morale and keep poling uh going in London in a professional
00:24:24 uh going in London in a professional way. And I had to try and maintain the confidence of black and ethnic minority Londoners against a background of very understandable and
00:24:36 background of very understandable and justified anger of failures in the Steven Lawrence inquiry. So yes, not again
00:24:44 again um not in a defensive mode around the facts or issues, but just the reality of policing London and what that meant.
00:25:00 of policing London and what that meant. Whilst we've got this statement up, I'm going to move forward in time. If we could go to page nine in paragraph 35.
00:25:18 This is further down the line in time. I'll give you a moment to read it.
00:25:40 When you're ready, when you're ready to see the next part, just say
00:25:47 yes. Do to go over.
00:26:05 So here can I I I I don't recognize the the the tenor of that and sadly sadly and I have to say it that um
00:26:20 sadly and I have to say it that um because I am under oath and I want to help the inquiry. I fear that is partly over
00:26:29 over inflating
00:26:32 inflating Mr. Quick's sense of importance and what he brought to these issues. There was never um any
00:26:43 never um any u ignorance around many of the issues being discussed in the inquiry. And so I I I challenge
00:26:54 I I challenge Mr. quakes reluctantly, but I do I challenge um his assessment of either our ignorance or shock or that somehow
00:27:09 ignorance or shock or that somehow at a fairly junior rank at the time he was bringing some light bulb moment to us. Essentially the picture he is
00:27:20 to us. Essentially the picture he is painting is that at the start of the inquiry there was a recognition uh that the investigation into Steven's murder uh was flawed. Uh but there
00:27:32 murder uh was flawed. Uh but there wasn't a recognition that it had been tainted by racism and that there came a moment in time when he had to break the news that the MPS was likely to be
00:27:45 news that the MPS was likely to be criticized for racism as well. I think you're falling into the I think you're falling into the trap, Mr. Bar, that many have done. Sir William McFersonen and the inquiry
00:27:58 Sir William McFersonen and the inquiry did not find that a single officer in the whole of the process had acted overtly in a rac we're very familiar with the the finding of institutional
00:28:10 with the the finding of institutional racism and the absence of specific individual findings. Yes. So
00:28:15 Yes. So I am trying to I'm trying to put a question to you which is to understand whether
00:28:22 whether you've the position was that the Met understood that the investigation could be criticized initially but only later realized that there was likely to be
00:28:34 realized that there was likely to be some finding of racism. I think what what he was raising and it was and it didn't need Bob Quick to
00:28:45 was and it didn't need Bob Quick to raise it was the inquiry was minded to take the route of institutional racism
00:28:56 institutional racism um which is a very very powerful catalyst for change and a vital catalyst with for change but brings with it
00:29:08 with for change but brings with it challenges and and problems um which
00:29:15 um which for example in relation to grooming gangs that inquiry I think will find that fear of being branded institutionally racist can have a
00:29:26 institutionally racist can have a chilling and paralyzing effect on organizations if I can if I can bring you back to the Steven just important I finish Mr. are that organizations could be paralyzed into
00:29:38 organizations could be paralyzed into inactivity and negligence as a lesser evil.
00:29:44 evil. And so I think what was emerging around about this time that there was a quite
00:29:53 quite properly the inquiry was exploring it what its findings would be and it was beginning to look as if they were going to go down the route of institutional
00:30:06 to go down the route of institutional racism which was very important. Um it's not a route that Lord Scarman took. It's not a route that most of continental Europe took then or now. Um, and so we
00:30:21 Europe took then or now. Um, and so we as a senior team were exploring what it meant. I mean its origins as you all know are from Stokeley Carmichael in
00:30:32 all know are from Stokeley Carmichael in the 1960s black power movement in America. Um and so we were trying to understand what it would mean for policing, for the wider public service,
00:30:45 policing, for the wider public service, um how we should try and analyze our own actions in relation to um institutional racism. And so there was no shock. Um, I
00:30:59 racism. And so there was no shock. Um, I had spent big chunks of my career, particularly in A7 branch, in countering racism, in training, in promulgating
00:31:11 racism, in training, in promulgating anti-racist policies within the Met. Um, so I think Mr. Quick is misguided that it it is fairly junior rank at that
00:31:25 that it it is fairly junior rank at that point that somehow he was bringing to us some revelations that we were not aware of.
00:31:32 of. When did you first form the view that Sir William McFersonen was going to find against the Metropolitan Police
00:31:44 find against the Metropolitan Police Service on a racial discrimination issue?
00:31:48 issue? what's not it's not I never saw it as fined against I think is is an I I my fear
00:31:59 fear um and I'm a number of successive commissioners who are as committed as I am to preventing racism in society
00:32:11 am to preventing racism in society generally and policing generally know that the term is a very powerful um catalyst for change but it brings
00:32:22 um catalyst for change but it brings with it challenges could deter good people from joining the police service. It legitimizes bad police officers who are racist
00:32:34 bad police officers who are racist from they can hide behind the cloak of institutional racism in the sense of what do you expect? I can't help it. I'm in an organization that's racist. Look,
00:32:46 in an organization that's racist. Look, I'm I'm not at the moment inviting evidence about the pros and cons of such a finding. What I'm and I put the question the way I did because the Met put in closing submissions to part one
00:32:58 put in closing submissions to part one of that inquiry denying that the Met was institutionally racist. What I'm seeking from you is can you help us with when it was that you realized it was likely that
00:33:11 was that you realized it was likely that the Steven Lawrence inquiry would make a finding
00:33:16 finding that the Metropolitan Police Service was in some way racist. I I think the most seinal moment for me was when I gave
00:33:29 seinal moment for me was when I gave um not not evident because I wasn't under oath but when I went to part two of the inquiry to my astonishment I was never called to part one of the inquiry which I had
00:33:42 part one of the inquiry which I had hoped to be and that was not within my gift but I was told the inquiry did not require me to give evidence. evidence [snorts] and I was then told that I was
00:33:54 [snorts] and I was then told that I was not required to give evidence for part two either. And I felt it was my public duty to be at the inquiry to sense the
00:34:05 duty to be at the inquiry to sense the anger to sense the disqu and to set out what I was doing as commissioner to reform the Met. Uh so I insisted and
00:34:19 reform the Met. Uh so I insisted and that was within my gift to lead the Met team to part two of the inquiry. And when one of the panelists, Dr.
00:34:30 And when one of the panelists, Dr. Richard Stone, said to me, you must confess your crimes like Winnie Mandela. And at the time there had been publicity
00:34:42 And at the time there had been publicity that Winnie Mandela had acknowledged she endorsed the murder of young black dissenters by having car tires put around their neck and burning them to
00:34:53 around their neck and burning them to death. I realized that there was something hugely significant. Um, and so I I left my abiding memory of
00:35:09 Um, and so I I left my abiding memory of leaving the inquiry on that day and Sir William came to see me before I left and apologized for the proceedings of the inquiry.
00:35:22 of the inquiry. Um I think he was I think he realized um that
00:35:29 um that this this was as well of being of hugely national importance to the public service to policing to the metro and
00:35:41 service to policing to the metro and police in particular. That was when it crystallized in my mind the importance of the issues. But intermediate stages much earlier on
00:35:54 But intermediate stages much earlier on clearly um I was aware that the Met quite properly should be challenged around these issues. At the start of the inquiry,
00:36:08 At the start of the inquiry, what was your understanding of the cultural challenges that the Metropolitan Police Service faced? Policing
00:36:18 Policing generates
00:36:20 generates unbelievable heroism and professionalism and dedication. It also coarsens and hardens and
00:36:31 It also coarsens and hardens and brutalizes. police officers and it can attract inappropriate people who get through the recruitment process and come into
00:36:44 recruitment process and come into policing. So I believed that the cultural challenge as ever was to try and ensure that the good and the professional and the heroic
00:36:57 good and the professional and the heroic massively outweighed the bad and the racist and the misogynist and so on. So there was and is and always will be a cultural challenge to
00:37:11 always will be a cultural challenge to ensure good behavior in policing. It's the nature of what policing is about and what it does, including racism. Absolutely.
00:37:22 Absolutely. Could we take that down now, please, and have up it's a UCPI number 36965.
00:37:29 going to move now to a series of documents which um are about contact between you and the then Home Secretary
00:37:40 between you and the then Home Secretary Jack Straw during the course of the inquiry. [snorts] This is a letter from the then Home Secretary to you. It
00:37:52 the then Home Secretary to you. It appears to be dated the 6th of May 1998 or to have been received on the 6th of May 1998 and it refers to a meeting on the 23rd of April. Just let you read the
00:38:07 the 23rd of April. Just let you read the text of that. I I I've read it and I remember it. But at this stage it appears that you were having meetings approximately every
00:38:18 were having meetings approximately every month with the Home Secretary. Is that right?
00:38:20 right? Yes. that that was that was the routine meetings of the home secretary discharging his responsibility as police authority. Uh Mr. Straw was also uh the person who
00:38:35 Uh Mr. Straw was also uh the person who had set up the Steven Lawrence inquiry, wasn't it? It it was enormously challenging for Jack Straw because there was in a sense a role conflict. He had set up the
00:38:49 a role conflict. He had set up the inquiry and simultaneously he was the legal police authority for the Metron police and accountable for it. And therefore he was the only lawful venue
00:39:04 therefore he was the only lawful venue for me as commissioner to express concerns around um the very early stages of the uh inquiry where my legal team and the
00:39:17 inquiry where my legal team and the legal teams for the police superintendent association and the police federation were so concerned about their view that sermon principles
00:39:29 about their view that sermon principles were not being adeared to, that the Superintendent Association and the Police Federation Legal Council were considering
00:39:40 Legal Council were considering withdrawing cooperation from the inquiry and I was asked if I would join that and allow the Met's legal council to also
00:39:53 allow the Met's legal council to also withdraw cooperation. I declined and persuaded they were persuaded also not to do that. But the quidd proquo was that I would seek to
00:40:07 quidd proquo was that I would seek to raise concerns with the home secretary about fairness and due process. So things like 20 police witnesses were examined and
00:40:20 20 police witnesses were examined and cross-examined before any statements from interested parties were made available to our council. Um and this this was generating
00:40:33 council. Um and this this was generating huge concern. Um my council, the police's council raised this with the judge. Um the judge in
00:40:45 this with the judge. Um the judge in fact Sir Williams stopped the interrogation of a sergeant in the very early days because he said it was a breach of the salmon principles. And after the Easter
00:40:58 salmon principles. And after the Easter recess,
00:41:00 recess, Sir William made a statement where he said, and I paraphrase, but many of the words are his, fury and aggressive and overong
00:41:12 fury and aggressive and overong cross-examination will not help the search for the truth. Um, and the second objective of the inquiry was reconciliation
00:41:24 inquiry was reconciliation and a better way forward. and Sir William made a plea for [snorts] police officers not to be pillaried and for there to be some dignity in the
00:41:36 for there to be some dignity in the proceedings and that helped enormously. [snorts] Um but so the background to this is not and and Jack Straw was in an impossible
00:41:48 and and Jack Straw was in an impossible position. Um but was the only I only had two venues to take forward due process concerns. One with the police authority
00:41:59 concerns. One with the police authority and one with the inquiry itself. And I chose to do both. Just to clarify a couple of points. First of all, we do have some documents
00:42:10 First of all, we do have some documents about concerns about the application of the salmon principles, but they come a bit further down the line. Can I They were within the first few days. C can can you help me your meetings with
00:42:22 can can you help me your meetings with the police federation and your agreement with them that you would raise issues with the homeless? No, it wasn't as formal as that. It was the
00:42:34 the the suggestion that they may withdraw cooperation came up the route through um the inquiry team, the uh staff and
00:42:49 um the inquiry team, the uh staff and the senior officers who you've mentioned earlier on. I specifically said that the Met would not be involved
00:43:00 said that the Met would not be involved in any suggestion of withdrawal of cooperation. Um and the police federation and the superintendence association
00:43:12 superintendence association um took that off the the agenda. That was not a formal meeting. Um that was an iterative process in the first few days
00:43:23 iterative process in the first few days of the inquiry. It I specifically remember
00:43:27 remember that our legal teams were saying that over 20 police witnesses had been examined
00:43:36 examined before any documentation was provided which would enable them or our legal council to prepare. And that was a huge due process concern. Um and
00:43:51 was a huge due process concern. Um and so there was this is a sort of not an arbitrary selection of a document but one of many exchanges which were not about defending the
00:44:04 which were not about defending the indefensible or being overconcerned with the Met's reputation. It was about continuing to police London effectively
00:44:16 continuing to police London effectively and to try and ensure due process and fairness um for those who are going to give evidence. One of the fears I articulated was that
00:44:29 One of the fears I articulated was that officers would go into a defensive mode rather than openness and trying to help the inquiry. Lord Condon, was it your understanding
00:44:41 Lord Condon, was it your understanding that the home secretary had channels of communication open with Sir William? [snorts]
00:44:48 [snorts] I would hope so. Is that your understanding? Yes.
00:44:54 Yes. This early letter in early May 1998 is about contextual evidence. Yes.
00:45:05 Why would I don't want to invite you to repeat what you've said, but if there's anything more by way of explanation of this specific contextual evidential
00:45:17 this specific contextual evidential issue, I'd like to know why were you raising something that was apt for Sir William to deal with with the home secretary?
00:45:29 secretary? It would have been not me meeting him and saying I must tell you about this. It would have been the meetings would have been and again very challenging.
00:45:40 have been and again very challenging. Sometimes they were uh in parliament in between votes and so on. It was the home secretary
00:45:50 secretary discharging his responsibility as police authority covering a whole range of topics including
00:46:00 including the
00:46:02 the Steven Lawrence inquiry. And in one of those meetings, I must have raised not as the sole topic or the most important topic. I must have
00:46:15 or the most important topic. I must have raised
00:46:17 raised an anxiety about were the metropon I I I was told very early on that I was not required at the inquiry
00:46:29 inquiry um either for part one or part two which I found extraordinary. Um, and so I wanted to make sure that at some stage
00:46:45 I wanted to make sure that at some stage the inquiry would have the opportunity hope hopefully to visit police stations um in or outside of London um to talk to
00:46:57 um in or outside of London um to talk to senior officers um again who were or were not involved in the Lawrence inquiry. and and I guess my expectations were more linked to an inquisitorial
00:47:11 were more linked to an inquisitorial um Lord Scarman type inquiry. What were you expecting Jack Straw to do with your complaint to him?
00:47:22 with your complaint to him? There was another complaint the handling of contextual evidence. All right. Your word was anxiety. Yes. You raise an anxiety with the Home Secretary about the inquiry's handling
00:47:35 Secretary about the inquiry's handling of contextual evidence in the context in the context of a trying to cram into sometimes less than an hour
00:47:49 in a month [snorts] all of the major issues that were facing the Metropolitan Police at that time. The Steven and Lawrence inquire was the
00:48:00 The Steven and Lawrence inquire was the most important of those issues, but there would have been many others. What were you expecting the Home Secretary to do about that
00:48:12 the Home Secretary to do about that concern?
00:48:12 concern? I was raising with him an awareness of my anxiety. I was not expecting him to do anything.
00:48:23 do anything. Well, why? If you weren't expecting him to do anything, why were you telling him?
00:48:28 him? Because he asked me. We were He wanted us to be on firstname terms, but I always called him home secretary because I felt that was necessary. But
00:48:41 because I felt that was necessary. But he would say to me something as general, you know, how's the inquiry going, Paul? What's happening? What's it what's your view? reports. Um, so I did not make
00:48:55 view? reports. Um, so I did not make I I cannot remember making uh any specific demand of the home secretary. If I did
00:49:04 If I did I'm I'm not asking if you if you asked him to do anything. I'm I asked you what you expected him to do. I I was updating him at his request on the progress
00:49:19 him at his request on the progress and interactions in the inquiry. Were you expecting him to speak to Sir William?
00:49:27 William? No.
00:49:29 No. Were you seeking to shape Mr. Straw's perception of the inquiry? No. I was seeking to inform him of my
00:49:41 No. I was seeking to inform him of my assessment of the challenges that were being faced, on the impact it was having on police morale,
00:49:52 impact it was having on police morale, and more importantly, the impact it was having on police relationships with black and ethnic minority Londoners,
00:50:03 black and ethnic minority Londoners, tens of thousands of whom were victims of crime
00:50:08 of crime and dozens of whom were families of murdered
00:50:15 murdered relatives. Uh so it was about uh due process, it was about sustaining policing and it was about
00:50:29 policing and it was about trying to deliver objective two of the inquiry which in Sir Williams were about reconciliation and a better
00:50:40 were about reconciliation and a better way forward. This is long before part two and it doesn't say any of those things. It's a specific issue about contextual evidence.
00:50:51 evidence. That That's Jack Straw's um interpretation of our conversation. Could we take that down now, please, and have 36967,
00:51:03 have 36967, please?
00:51:12 This is a briefing [snorts] for uh Mr. Boy Smith, the director of police policy uh ahead of a meeting between you and
00:51:24 uh ahead of a meeting between you and the home secretary on the 11th of May 1998.
00:51:30 1998. If we could go to page three, please.
00:51:42 over the page please.
00:51:47 Thank you. Uh you can see at paragraphs 14 to 15 under the heading item five Stevens Steven Lawrence inquiry a couple of paragraphs. I'll give you a moment to
00:51:58 of paragraphs. I'll give you a moment to read those.
00:52:15 Yeah, I I mean I read that and I can see why it is of interest to you and the inquiry. It's you'll see it's within the context of a deputy secretary in the
00:52:26 context of a deputy secretary in the home office briefing the commission and the home secretary on a range of items for our meeting including this. Um I
00:52:37 for our meeting including this. Um I have never used to the best of my knowledge to anyone the expression the inquiry has got an anti-met bias. Those are not my words
00:52:48 anti-met bias. Those are not my words that I have used. uh to the home secretary that Steven Boy Smith um [clears throat] uh I knew they say was a deputy
00:53:00 uh I knew they say was a deputy secretary rank in the home office. His shorthand is for him to explain. Yeah. Lord Con, may I ask you some very specific questions about this?
00:53:12 specific questions about this? Is it right to say that you is it fair to say that the recurrence of the subject on the agenda was a reflection
00:53:23 subject on the agenda was a reflection of your concern about it? No, it is a it is a recurrence of the quite proper hugely significant importance of the
00:53:37 hugely significant importance of the McFersonen inquiry and and
00:53:43 and and [snorts] even then it was apparent that this was going to be a very important catalyst for change not only in policing
00:53:55 catalyst for change not only in policing but for the wider public sector. And it was my duty and I believe then and now to try and
00:54:06 to try and provide the inquiry and the police authority with my professional judgments around some of these issues. But I to
00:54:17 around some of these issues. But I to the best of my knowledge I've never said or implied that the
00:54:26 that the um inquiry had an anti-Met bias. I think that um is wrong. Um it became
00:54:39 is wrong. Um it became increasingly adversarial. Um I say to the point where Sir William in relation to my own appearance apologized. Not that I felt I needed an
00:54:52 apologized. Not that I felt I needed an apology. Um and so it was um these were incredibly demanding times. There was an understandable
00:55:04 times. There was an understandable feeding frenzy in the media. um which again
00:55:11 again um was the reports I was getting from people running police stations that in any of their community meetings or interactions,
00:55:22 interactions, there was very understandable um concern about what was being said about the Met. Um, and it was an it was
00:55:34 about the Met. Um, and it was an it was a in my police career a uniquely challenging time. Um, but not one that would have led me to say that the inquiry had an anti-Met bias as nakedly
00:55:48 inquiry had an anti-Met bias as nakedly or as projoratively as that sounds. This is an official writing a briefing note. But it would appear, wouldn't it, that you have given officials within the
00:55:59 that you have given officials within the Home Office the impression that you thought that the inquiry was demonstrating a bias? It's for them to uh it's for Steven Boy
00:56:10 It's for them to uh it's for Steven Boy Smith to um justify his use of those words.
00:56:14 words. Would you accept that is how you came across to them? I'm accepting that is what he wrote. And did you give him cause to come to
00:56:26 And did you give him cause to come to that conclusion even if he did not use those precise words? I hope not, but if I did um I accept responsibility for that, but it was certainly not my aim.
00:56:39 certainly not my aim. Uh the writer also um suggests that these exchanges were becoming counterproductive. Was the view ever aired to you by anyone
00:56:51 Was the view ever aired to you by anyone on the home office side, however diplomatically, uh, that these exchanges, um,
00:57:00 um, were counterproductive or ought to stop or be diminished? No. Um, and I say I juxtapose it with
00:57:11 No. Um, and I say I juxtapose it with the position that even the most junior chief constable in the smallest county police force would have that
00:57:22 police force would have that if it had been Lomshshire Police Force that was the subject of an inquiry, then the police authority would have provided
00:57:34 the police authority would have provided not a counternarrative ative but a balancing narrative about um workloads, issues, successes,
00:57:45 um workloads, issues, successes, performance, public view and so on. Jack Straw was in an impossible position that he could not discharge [snorts]
00:57:56 discharge [snorts] any of those roles in relation to the Met in relation to the inquiry because of his role conflict. the duality of
00:58:07 of his role conflict. the duality of having set up the inquiry but at the same time being the legal police authority for the Met. So it it was a frustrating time. Um
00:58:20 frustrating time. Um uh but it was hugely important and has been you know the outcome has been a dramatically important catalyst for
00:58:31 dramatically important catalyst for change in the public service. Could we have up please 36966?
00:58:40 We're moving now to an internal home office document about your meeting with the home secretary and others on the 18th of [clears throat] May. And this is a record created on the 22nd of May. If
00:58:53 a record created on the 22nd of May. If we go to page three in paragraph 13, please
00:59:04 again under the heading Steven Lawrence.
00:59:20 Again,
00:59:25 [clears throat]
00:59:30 I don't recognize the tenor of that. Uh the the underlying information is accurate
00:59:39 accurate um in that more than 20 police witnesses were cross-examined um fairly aggressively um before
00:59:52 um fairly aggressively um before that statement was available or they had the ability to cross-examine to put it in the starkness of that
01:00:03 to put it in the starkness of that paragraph. Raph again is going back to my in inadequacy of documentation.
01:00:12 It's for others to justify their summarizing of it in that way. I would not have described Mr. Mansfield as having been clever about presenting
01:00:25 as having been clever about presenting in that way. um that's that is their um non-legal interpretation of of the events. I say the basic facts are
01:00:39 events. I say the basic facts are correct but the way they are presented in that paragraph I don't recognize. It reads he said that Mike Mansfield had been extremely clever about presenting
01:00:52 been extremely clever about presenting Dwayne Brooks. is incorrect. And uh the author of that letter,
01:01:00 letter, the author of that report can explain why they wrote it in that way. It I just I mean I I would have
01:01:12 It I just I mean I I would have described the legal process and quite properly Mr. Mansfield was doing what he had been asked to do, which was to press
01:01:23 had been asked to do, which was to press the case as strongly as possible. Um, but that
01:01:30 but that to to describe it in that porative way is not something had I said that in that way, I would acknowledge it and seek to
01:01:41 way, I would acknowledge it and seek to justify it. Um, but I I have no recollection of des of [snorts] using those words. What was the source of the factual
01:01:52 What was the source of the factual information that you conveyed to the Home Secretary [snorts] about Mr. Mansfield and Dwayne Brooks on this? I don't remember conveying anything in
01:02:04 I don't remember conveying anything in that order of uh agenda item. What I what I would have conveyed was the due process concern
01:02:17 was the due process concern uh the salmon principles concern that 20 police witnesses [clears throat] had been examined without even the bare
01:02:30 without even the bare L you've made you've made that point a couple of times now. Can I ask you Yeah, but but is the point that's what I was emphasizing. Can I can I ask you to clarify? Are you saying you said nothing at all about Mr. Mansfield Mr. Mansfield
01:02:42 at all about Mr. Mansfield Mr. Mansfield and Dwayne Brooks? Or are you saying that what you said about Mr. Mansfield and Dwayne Brooks is in its factual elements correct and it is your precise
01:02:53 elements correct and it is your precise delivery that you take. If there is a suggestion there, if you're suggesting that
01:03:01 that um
01:03:02 um somehow I'm saying that Mr. Brooks or Mr. Mansfield are doing something wrong. I'm not. So what I'm asking you
01:03:13 wrong. I'm not. So what I'm asking you is
01:03:13 is what what I'm doing is my my memory of and again in a one-hour meeting you will see how many important
01:03:25 meeting you will see how many important big issues we will have dealt with and in relation to the few minutes that we spent on the Steven Lawrence inquiry. I would have summarized
01:03:38 would have summarized again. I would have summarized um the issues that were concerning me at the time
01:03:45 time and I still had a residual concern about due process. And no, I do not remember seeking to criticize
01:03:57 seeking to criticize Mr. Mansfield or certainly Mr. Brooks in the way that those words suggest. Uh, and I was asking where you got the factual information from. Who briefed
01:04:09 factual information from. Who briefed you about what Mr. Mansfield was doing in relation to Mr. Brooks's evidence? No one. Nor did I convey that to the meeting. How did you know? How could you have
01:04:21 How did you know? How could you have raised it if nobody had told you about it?
01:04:22 it? What I raised uh I'm not I'm saying I didn't raise it in that notion of them being clever. But what I raised was and
01:04:33 being clever. But what I raised was and had consistently raised was the due process concern that le had led to legal teams considering
01:04:46 to legal teams considering uh protesting and in their words withdrawing cooperation until there was a closer adherance to the sermon principles. Did
01:04:57 adherance to the sermon principles. Did you say anything to the effect that it had not been possible for your council to cross-examine Dwayne Brooks?
01:05:05 I can't remember, but I may if that was the case, I may well have said that. I'm going I'm going to come to a series of factual propositions. In each case, I I want to ask you if you're able to
01:05:16 I want to ask you if you're able to explain.
01:05:18 explain. The first is the reason why Dwayne Brooks's evidence was read is that he was too ill to give evidence. Did you know that?
01:05:30 know that? I'm sure I would have been aware of Mr. Brooks's illness.
01:05:36 Did you communicate that as the reason why Mr. Brooks didn't give evidence to the Home Office? I would have set in context what my concerns were and why I was raising
01:05:49 concerns were and why I was raising them.
01:05:52 them. The second curiosity here is Mr. Mansfield was not representing Mr. Brooks.
01:05:59 Brooks. Right. Yeah. Which probably adds to my um con adds to my um saying that I don't recognize the tenor of this paragraph.
01:06:10 recognize the tenor of this paragraph. He was being represented by Mr. Ian Macdonald at the time, Queen's Council. And I'm sure I would have been aware of that.
01:06:20 that. Would appear that you've told the Home Office that Mr. Mansfield was. No, I I'm not. I'm You're saying that's what that paragraph says. I I can't be
01:06:32 what that paragraph says. I I can't be responsible for um the drafting of a home office document based on an hourong meeting
01:06:44 document based on an hourong meeting that would have ranged over a huge number of issues. Was Mr. Mansfield regarded as a particular bogeyman? Um no. Uh when I was appointed
01:06:58 Um no. Uh when I was appointed commissioner, the first I chose that my first public appearance was over a weekend
01:07:09 was over a weekend at a conference hosted by the Met to discuss racism in the police service. And the two keynote participants were
01:07:21 And the two keynote participants were myself and Mr. Mansfield who very kindly agreed to participate in that conference and that was deliberately the first major public
01:07:35 deliberately the first major public appearance I made as commissioner. Why did you want your council to cross-examine Mr. Brooks? No, it it was the other way round. the
01:07:48 No, it it was the other way round. the my legal team and the team
01:07:54 team supporting the inquiry
01:07:59 inquiry had raised concerns with me that uh this was a very challenging moment that many police witnesses
01:08:11 moment that many police witnesses had been examined and cross-examin examined
01:08:17 examined before the legal teams had the ability to either cross-examine or read the statement and help them prepare for what was going to happen at
01:08:30 prepare for what was going to happen at the inquiry. Well, this reads, "Mr. Mansfield had read the statement so the Met Council could not cross-examine the witness." Implicit
01:08:41 Implicit in that is a desire to cross-examine the witness. Again, you you are in you are implying as you're entitled to a sort of
01:08:54 implying as you're entitled to a sort of forensic laserlike importance of individual words that I have not authored or recognized or or seen as um
01:09:10 or or seen as um being something that you know I would have said. I'm giving you the honest and accurate context of what these meetings were about,
01:09:24 of what these meetings were about, what the issues I was raising. And again, in the real world, this was probably about an hourong meeting with
01:09:35 probably about an hourong meeting with hugely important issues. If you went back to the previous page, we were going to totally with the home office was going to totally withdraw the police
01:09:46 going to totally withdraw the police boundaries for the Metropolitan Police. That was hugely significant on in terms of funding, police stations, a whole range of issues. Lord Condon,
01:09:59 a whole range of issues. Lord Condon, the note goes on to say he was hoping that the judge would take account of that, meaning the inability to cross-examine. Can you help me? Those are not my words.
01:10:12 Can you help me? Those are not my words. Why did the Met want to cross-examine? Mr. Bar, you can you can ask me for the next several hours. Um, but we return to the truthful point that I don't
01:10:26 the truthful point that I don't recognize
01:10:28 recognize me going to that meeting with some significant agenda about
01:10:35 about uh Mr. Brooks's evidence. I remember going to a meeting with a complex series of very important issues
01:10:46 of very important issues and that I cannot remember whether the Steven Lawrence inquiry occupied 30 seconds or 2 minutes or 5
01:10:59 occupied 30 seconds or 2 minutes or 5 minutes of that meeting. But certainly it wouldn't have dominated. it probably wasn't the most significant item on the agenda
01:11:09 agenda and I you know it I I cannot um seek to justify whether why
01:11:20 I cannot um seek to justify whether why um whoever was the author of this note put it in those stark terms. Mr. Brooks was himself the victim of a racist attack, wasn't he?
01:11:31 racist attack, wasn't he? Absolutely. Yes. And should not his interests have been as paramount as those of the Lawrenes when inquiring into the failure to bring the perpetrators to justice?
01:11:42 perpetrators to justice? Yes.
01:11:45 What was the purpose of raising with a home secretary the behavior of people in the public gallery at the Steven Lawrence inquiry? the the atmosphere was one of and it's
01:11:59 the the atmosphere was one of and it's part of the reason I insisted on appearing before the inquiry was it was very understandably
01:12:10 it was very understandably [snorts] very angry quite properly so but the atmosphere and tenor throughout the inquiry was not one you would normally associate with the
01:12:23 you would normally associate with the public inquiry. Um, and that made it very challenging for quite junior police officers to give their evidence openly and honestly. Um,
01:12:38 their evidence openly and honestly. Um, and so I I say one of the officers that stays in my mind was the good Samaritan police officer off duty.
01:12:49 police officer off duty. um stopped, tried to help Steven um but was like many other officers was um
01:13:00 was like many other officers was um accused of a whole range of issues. Participants going in and out of the inquiry. Uh police participants were spat on, jostled, heckled. Again, I was
01:13:13 spat on, jostled, heckled. Again, I was I was told that I shouldn't go in through the main entrance. I was told I should wear a protective vest. I declined to do either and I believed it
01:13:26 declined to do either and I believed it was my responsibility to also be spat upon and heckled um and pluck cards thrust in my face. Um
01:13:37 um and pluck cards thrust in my face. Um and and that was that was part of the cathartic process of allowing the anger to be expressed but it made it for more
01:13:49 to be expressed but it made it for more junior officers less resilient than myself. It made it a very challenging envir a uniquely challenging environment for a public inquiry.
01:14:03 Forgive me. I was asking why did you communicate that to the home secretary? I think so that he could he would ask me. I didn't go there um
01:14:17 he would ask me. I didn't go there um with a recurring agenda. This I say once a month for maybe an hour or less we had to cram in every big issue facing the
01:14:29 to cram in every big issue facing the Metropolitan Police. At that point, it might include a massive operation that had disrupted a bombing plan for London. It might involve um a state visit and
01:14:43 It might involve um a state visit and the protection of all. Could you just the these agendas, these meetings were in my view then and now a woeful
01:14:54 in my view then and now a woeful discharge
01:14:55 discharge of the responsibility of a police authority and hence why I campaign for a mayor of London, a police authority for
01:15:06 mayor of London, a police authority for London.
01:15:08 London. Huge issues. Could I take you back to the question? Why did you communicate your concerns about the atmosphere within the inquiry to the home secretary?
01:15:19 to the home secretary? So that he could be aware of my fears that police officers, particularly junior ones, would not do justice to themselves
01:15:31 themselves or assist the inquiry in the search for the truth. A fear that the inquiry would get it wrong. No, the a fear that the inquiry
01:15:44 wrong. No, the a fear that the inquiry would not have the important open and truthful evidence from the police participants. I committed myself when I
01:15:55 participants. I committed myself when I first met Sir William. I promised him full and unconditional cooperation above and beyond any legal requirements.
01:16:07 requirements. and I tried to discharge that promise to him
01:16:11 him throughout the inquiry. So would that be a convenient moment to take a short break? Certainly. 10 minutes.
01:28:52 Lord Con, first of all, a question arising from what you said just before the break about the atmosphere at the inquiry for your officers giving evidence. There are a number of people
01:29:03 evidence. There are a number of people in the room today who spent a great deal of time at that inquiry. Uh they say that other than when the
01:29:14 Uh they say that other than when the suspects gave uh well attended at the inquiry and when Nation of Islam um were involved the atmosphere within the
01:29:27 involved the atmosphere within the inquiry was peaceful. Do you have any reason to gain say that? No, that's broadly accurate. When I talk of the atmosphere at the inquiry, I embrace the outside and the inside and
01:29:40 embrace the outside and the inside and the arrival and the leaving as well as the atmosphere inside. And you mentioned and and and peaceful doesn't necessarily mean there
01:29:52 peaceful doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't hostility or challenge. So I I I don't gain say your point. Now I could take you to quite a number of documents recording
01:30:07 quite a number of documents recording or briefing ahead of your meetings with the home secretary but I'm going to try and cut it short with some high level. suspect there is a repetitive nature to those document that document which again
01:30:20 those document that document which again is illustrative of shorthand
01:30:25 shorthand of civil servants in the home office briefing the home secretary. Did you communicate to the home secretary a growing sense that the MPS was a victim
01:30:38 growing sense that the MPS was a victim of injustice at the inquiry fueled [snorts] by almost daily adverse media coverage?
01:30:49 coverage? Repeat the question please. Did you communicate to the home secretary that there was a growing and I don't mean verbatim but in general terms. Did you communicate to the home secretary a growing sense that the MPS
01:31:01 secretary a growing sense that the MPS was a victim of injustice and that was being fueled by almost daily adverse media coverage? Not the victim of injustice.
01:31:14 Not the victim of injustice. I think I can illustrate my concern or to answer your point. At the inquest into Steven's tragic
01:31:26 At the inquest into Steven's tragic death and at the inquiry, it was alleged that the invest senior investigating officer screwed up and threw away a list of
01:31:37 screwed up and threw away a list of suspects that he had been given. um
01:31:42 um that list of suspects was um available, was not thrown away and was always available. Um and it was that
01:31:54 was always available. Um and it was that point was made at the inquest and could have been made at the inquiry. And so one of the inevitable things that hap would happen was that allegations could
01:32:07 would happen was that allegations could be made
01:32:09 be made and the allegation would be reported. Uh the rebuttal would not um because there was a time lag often between those two events. And that's not an injustice.
01:32:21 events. And that's not an injustice. That's just a fact of life of the nature of media reporting. But its consequence was to challenge
01:32:33 was to challenge uh and damage the relationship between the Met and black and ethnic minority Londoners going forward. So it was not an
01:32:44 going forward. So it was not an injustice. It was just a matterof fact reporting of the challenges of ongoing policing
01:32:54 policing every day, every hour of every day in the context of uh a media reporting that very understandably would give huge
01:33:06 understandably would give huge prominence to allegations and very little prominence to rebuttals. Could we have up 36962 please? This is a document dated the
01:33:18 please? This is a document dated the 15th of July prior to the meeting with the home secretary on the 21st of July. Could we go to page seven please?
01:33:40 [snorts]
01:33:52 Sorry. Could we have 36961 up, please?
01:33:59 Thank you. On page seven of that.
01:34:14 This is a 4th of September document preparatory to a meeting on the 9th of September. Page 7, paragraphs 28 and 29,
01:34:26 Page 7, paragraphs 28 and 29, please.
01:34:29 [snorts]
01:34:49 [clears throat] That's um a Gboard and jumbo board um note on a meeting that again had hugely significant issues
01:35:02 hugely significant issues um other than the Lawrence inquiry. Um my I note that one of the earlier subjects was corruption and I suspect the major part of that inquiry was about
01:35:15 the major part of that inquiry was about the reforms we were bringing in and also that jars because by then sorry can you give me the date again? September early September 98. Yeah, by
01:35:28 September early September 98. Yeah, by then I had already created the race and violent crime unit uh commanded by deputy assistant
01:35:40 uh commanded by deputy assistant um John Grieve. And the task, one of his tasks was to vigorous vigorously reinvestigate murders like Ricky Real and Tachi
01:35:55 murders like Ricky Real and Tachi Menson.
01:35:57 Menson. uh and use the more modern forensic tools available to us. And in fact, we successfully reinvestigated, prosecuted, and convicted one of the
01:36:10 prosecuted, and convicted one of the murderers in one of those cold cases. So I I don't recognize the tenor or tone of
01:36:24 the tenor or tone of the
01:36:25 the note maker uh
01:36:30 uh there.
01:36:31 there. Well, on the face of the note, it's painting quite a cynical view on your part of those two cases, isn't it? No, it's not. No, I
01:36:43 No, it's not. No, I I had John Grieve who I think hasn't given. So I will give evidence. I mean I he's going he's going to give Lord Condom. Can I just ask you to
01:36:54 Lord Condom. Can I just ask you to differentiate between what I'm putting? This portrays a cynical attitude as opposed to whether you did have a cynical attitude which I will come to. Yes. Not no not cynical. Well I'm I
01:37:06 Yes. Not no not cynical. Well I'm I think cynical skeptical. [laughter] Skeptical is closer. Cynical is certainly unfairly projorative. The factual the factual analysis is I
01:37:18 The factual the factual analysis is I the facts are I had appointed I persuaded John Griev who'd been selected to be the deputy chief constable of the Royal
01:37:29 Royal O. We understand we understand the I persuaded him to withdraw from that as one of my best detectives. Yeah, we understand about the RV inquiries which he did successfully.
01:37:42 RV inquiries which he did successfully. Why would I want to make light of cases where I had persuaded one of my best senior officers to withdraw to the route
01:37:54 senior officers to withdraw to the route of being the chief constable of the Royal Oster Conabulary because John had a passion like me to do justice to the families of these people
01:38:06 justice to the families of these people who had suffered the murder of their children.
01:38:13 Lord Connor, we understand that you set up the racial and violent crime task force and we understand why you did it and we understand that in the Menson case ultimately the perpetrators were
01:38:26 case ultimately the perpetrators were brought to justice. But what I'm asking you is at this stage
01:38:35 not only you can plainly see the home office is recording apparently some skepticism and my question is at this stage were you still
01:38:48 question is at this stage were you still skeptical about these cases? No, skeptical is woefully inadequate as a description. I was factually reporting
01:39:00 I was factually reporting um the history and the progress and what was happening. Could we have 360960 up please?
01:39:13 Could we have 360960 up please? [snorts] This is a home office briefing uh dated the 19th of October 1998 for the 21st of October 1998 meeting. Could
01:39:24 the 21st of October 1998 meeting. Could we have
01:39:24 we have Can I ask if I may are any Home Office authors or the Home Secretary themselves going to be giving evidence to the inquiry? that's really a matter for your
01:39:36 inquiry? that's really a matter for your legal team to correspond with us. But the answer is no. So I I the only reason I raise it is that I'm constantly being asked and it's you will use the time as you wish to
01:39:49 you will use the time as you wish to comment on what I see as note making within the home office rather than real firstirhand knowledge of meetings or the participants in those
01:40:02 of meetings or the participants in those meetings.
01:40:05 meetings. Can we look at the bottom of this page? Issue item one, Michael Mansson. Can we go over the page, please?
01:40:14 Paragraphs 15 to 18. It deals with the Menson case. I'll give you a moment to look at that.
01:40:45 Once you read that, I'd like you to look at paragraph 19, please.
01:40:55 [snorts]
01:41:01 I've only got 18 on we'll need if we can move to 19 please
01:41:21 that records you as having serious concern. concerns about the legal advisers in the Menson case. Is it right that you held such
01:41:32 case. Is it right that you held such concerns?
01:41:33 concerns? No, it no it isn't. And I that I'm actually astonished at that. Could we
01:41:39 Could we I I mean again the I really would encourage the inquiry to take direct evidence rather than um extrapolating from notes of meetings
01:41:53 extrapolating from notes of meetings which I'm not responsible for. Well, I'm I'm doing this to give you an opportunity to respond to them. Could we have up 36959, please?
01:42:14 This is the minute or the record of the meeting itself. Uh you'll see from the top paragraph uh who was the top the top
01:42:27 top paragraph uh who was the top the top section who was there. Can we go to page three and paragraph 13 and 14 please?
01:42:46 [clears throat]
01:43:20 [snorts]
01:43:23 I've read that. Thank you. Yeah. Is that an accurate statement of what you communicated to the home secretary on that occasion?
01:43:35 The challenge is again that a few words in a few words they're seeking to summarize
01:43:43 summarize um
01:43:45 um a more sophisticated and nuanced discussion of those issues. So I don't recognize the porative
01:43:56 recognize the porative implications which you are quite properly raising because of the way it is written. Um all I can do is say from my honest
01:44:07 I can do is say from my honest recollection that that was not the um stark message I gave
01:44:18 um stark message I gave or believe that I was giving at the time. It was far more nuanced than that note suggests. Did you express a fear that false complaints when being made?
01:44:31 complaints when being made? Not to my knowledge. No. But if it if that is in there, something clearly would have um prompted that to be in there. So I'm not I'm not
01:44:44 be in there. So I'm not I'm not discounting that totally, but I'm finding it hard to understand the context that would have led to it being drafted in that way.
01:45:00 As on the face of this document, you appear to be when the Menson case is raised talking in terms of false complaints. Uh there appear to have been complaints
01:45:11 Uh there appear to have been complaints being made about their legal representatives. Uh and it's all rather negative briefing about the Menson case, isn't
01:45:25 briefing about the Menson case, isn't it?
01:45:26 it? The
01:45:28 The summary which you are showing to me conveys
01:45:33 conveys certainly conveys that which I don't challenge as it's written. What I am seeking to um honestly
01:45:44 um honestly reveal to the committee to the inquiry is my mindset at the time, my ambitions, my knowledge of what we were doing in
01:45:55 my knowledge of what we were doing in investigating issues and I find a jarring juiposition between my own personal
01:46:07 juiposition between my own personal knowledge
01:46:09 knowledge and a home office note. And again, that's why I uh if it is possible that the inquiry, if these are
01:46:20 possible that the inquiry, if these are considered absolutely crucial to the inquiry, that first person evidence is given rather than a note uh that has been prepared
01:46:33 than a note uh that has been prepared not in the context of an inquiry's need, but it's an internal document that was never meant to see the light of day by uh home office authors.
01:46:45 uh home office authors. Is it fair to say that you conveyed sentiment to the home secretary before he met the Menson family which would have had the effect of undermining their
01:46:57 have had the effect of undermining their case in his eyes? No.
01:47:01 [snorts]
01:47:04 the information. You'd set up a Steven Lawrence review team. Were they briefing you regularly? Uh, define regularly.
01:47:17 Uh, define regularly. Could you were there, I was not. How often were they briefing you on a needs basis? Um, certainly not daily. Um,
01:47:30 daily. Um, certainly within every week. um primarily on a needs basis. And as I say, I put into that team with the brief
01:47:42 say, I put into that team with the brief to cooperate above and beyond some of my most talented young officers who went on to be accomplished chief constables and beyond.
01:47:54 beyond. And were they the source of some of the concerns that we've seen recorded in Home Office documents? Well, that's
01:48:06 Well, that's a circular argument in the sense of do I recognize the naked projorative nature of some of those summaries. They were
01:48:18 were very accomplished young officers like Matthew Bagot and Sarah Thornton who went on to be chief constables not long
01:48:29 went on to be chief constables not long after.
01:48:31 after. um were
01:48:32 um were who would not would not have been gossiping
01:48:35 gossiping or seeking to undermine inquiries or to have um sought to minimize the horrific deaths of the people we're
01:48:49 the horrific deaths of the people we're talking about. Were they the source of the concerns that we've seen recorded? And I don't mean necessarily in precisely the terms, but the subject matter that you were raising with the home secretary, was the
01:49:02 raising with the home secretary, was the Steven Lawrence review team the source of that information? Uh, not to my knowledge. No. Well, when you go to the home secretary and you
01:49:15 you go to the home secretary and you raise issues about procedural fairness, about media coverage, about the atmosphere for your officers, if it hasn't come from the Steven
01:49:26 hasn't come from the Steven Oh, yes. Much of that much of that did. I The two truths are not incompatible. they could have briefed me as they did um on all via also my head of legal
01:49:41 um on all via also my head of legal services who clearly commissioned our council to represent us. Um there was a constant dialogue between my head of legal services, our council to the
01:49:54 legal services, our council to the inquiry and myself. And amongst other things, were they raising with you the activities of left-wing groups supporting the Lawrence campaign?
01:50:06 supporting the Lawrence campaign? Not people like um uh Matthew Bagot or Sarah Thornton. No. Was anybody?
01:50:17 Not not in a confrontational stark way in any way in any context. Um
01:50:29 There must have been discussion um of
01:50:35 um of the
01:50:38 the interplay between uh events at the inquiry and possible public disorder. um and the impact on
01:50:51 um and the impact on uh police relationships with black and ethnic minority Londoners. That was an constant ongoing dialogue because I say I had to try to ensure that the
01:51:06 I say I had to try to ensure that the tens of thousands of black and ethnic minority Londoners who are victims of crime had the confidence to contact the police and ask for help.
01:51:17 police and ask for help. And was that sort of information coming to you also from people within the Steven Lawrence review team? I think primarily it was coming from the
01:51:29 I think primarily it was coming from the facts of life of being commissioner of having meetings with uh senior all my senior team at least once a week. um
01:51:42 senior team at least once a week. um they in turn were responsible for the policing of London, for specialist units, for all the policing issues uh
01:51:53 units, for all the policing issues uh that ultimately I was the head of and again it would have been bizarre of issues of concern were not raised across those four.
01:52:07 Can we have up MPS30? It's got a dash. MPS-301212, please.
01:52:25 This is an SDS intelligence report produced by the based on the information provided by the officer we're calling HN81
01:52:35 HN81 who had infiltrated the movement for justice. It's entitled the Steven Lawrence campaign. My purpose in showing it to you is to I'm going to show you a
01:52:46 it to you is to I'm going to show you a specific passage which I just want you for present purposes to note. Could we go to page three please? This is dated the 23rd of July 1998.
01:52:58 the 23rd of July 1998. Can we have a look at the second paragraph on page three please?
01:53:29 I approve that. Thank you. Thank you. Uh can we take that document down now, please? Can we go to 728625
01:53:41 page 12? Moving now into August 1998. This is a file note created by detective
01:53:52 This is a file note created by detective inspector Bob Lambert of the SDS and it concerns a meeting held at his home [snorts]
01:54:00 [snorts] uh at which HN81 code name Windmill Tilter DI Lambert and acting detective inspector Richard Walton were present.
01:54:13 inspector Richard Walton were present. Uh, I'm going to ask you very specific questions about this. In the third paragraph, first of all, please.
01:54:31 My question arising from this paragraph is, is it right that both the home secretary and the prime minister were extremely concerned
01:54:42 prime minister were extremely concerned that the Metropolitan Police could end up with its credibility in the eyes of London's black community completely undermined? No, that's an No, there
01:54:53 undermined? No, that's an No, there there is that's uh both an exaggeration and to the best of my knowledge not correct. I mean if if if other sources
01:55:06 suggest something which takes it nearer to being accurate, I would be amazed. Well, I am asking you um Lord Condon because you are meeting monthly in this period with the home secretary on the
01:55:19 period with the home secretary on the basis of the interactions you had with him. How would you describe his level of concern about the Metropolitan Police Services credibility with London's black
01:55:32 Services credibility with London's black community?
01:55:38 I don't think it he ever broach with me it in those terms and I have no reason to believe
01:55:49 to believe that
01:55:51 that either he or the prime minister held those views. In fact, subsequent events would confirm
01:56:04 events would confirm from discussions I had with the home secretary and exchanges of letters with the prime minister, not specifically in relation to this
01:56:17 not specifically in relation to this inquiry, the the Steven Lawrence inquiry, but quite the reverse. Um so no no I I don't recognize that. Um
01:56:31 so no no I I don't recognize that. Um again I that is um fairly low level. Um and if I revert to the earlier page I'm disgusted at the unnecessary
01:56:46 I'm disgusted at the unnecessary and demeaning intrusion into discussing Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence's marriage that has no relevance
01:56:57 marriage that has no relevance to the Metropolitan Police and is gratuitously offensive. And even though I have not seen this, I hadn't I apologize for that gross intrusion into
01:57:10 apologize for that gross intrusion into their privacy. Could we have at the top of um the next page, please?
01:57:18 There's further reference there to the home office.
01:57:28 On the basis of your understanding of the home office's position, having regularly met with them during this period,
01:57:36 period, does this text accurately convey their position? No.
01:57:45 Did they have any concerns at all about I'm sure they I'm sure they will have done because history shows then and subsequently that London
01:57:57 shows then and subsequently that London and other major cities can be a tinderbox
01:58:01 tinderbox um uh around racial incidents where understandable and justified community concern
01:58:12 concern can very quickly be converted converted into serious public disorder. So the home secretary of the day um and I remember somewhere in the
01:58:26 um and I remember somewhere in the depth of my memory right the way going back to the 1960s and I forget which home secretary said it it may have been Jim Callahan um that
01:58:39 it it may have been Jim Callahan um that um one of the one of the issues could lead to which could lead to the resignation of a home secretary was serious writing in London. So,
01:58:51 serious writing in London. So, historically, home secretaries have realized that serious public disorder in our major cities could lead to huge
01:59:05 in our major cities could lead to huge political ramifications. But I I have no reason to. Again, these these are the pretty junior officers exchanging these
01:59:17 pretty junior officers exchanging these thoughts.
01:59:18 thoughts. What was your level of sensitivity to the potential for public disorder arising from the Lawrence case? It never tipped over
01:59:31 It never tipped over again
01:59:32 again into the fears I had at the time of the welling disturbances in late autumn 1993.
01:59:48 Can we have up please 723183?
01:59:54 Now, this is Mr. Greavves evidence, written evidence to the Ellison review. If we could have
02:00:06 to the Ellison review. If we could have page 14, please.
02:00:14 If we look at, we pick it up.
02:00:20 This is Mr. Walton's
02:00:24 Yeah, if we pick it up. So, it's Mr. Walton about Mr. Greavves. If we have at line page 14, line 33, please.
02:00:36 I remember this is Mr. Walton saying, I remember John Griev effectively being called, I think, on the phone by Paul Condon. He was on the plane to go back to an interview with the RU, the deputy
02:00:48 to an interview with the RU, the deputy chief constable, I think, and he got called back. Things are bad. Can you rescue us in terms of reputation? John Grieve started going to the
02:01:00 John Grieve started going to the inquiry.
02:01:01 inquiry. Sorry. Who is giving this evidence? This is
02:01:03 This is You said it was Mr. Griev Mr. Walton. Mr. Walton is You said Mr. Griev? Yes, I did. And I'm correcting I've corrected that. This is Mr. Walton about Mr. Griev
02:01:14 Mr. Griev again. I
02:01:15 again. I Is that true? No, it's a it's a it's a sad parody of of the truth. Um and
02:01:26 sad parody of of the truth. Um and um again a very junior officer in interpreting uh information which he would not be privy to um and making assumptions.
02:01:38 privy to um and making assumptions. Hopefully
02:01:40 Hopefully John Grieve himself will be able to reassure you on yeah those sorts of you understand but I don't recognize either the tenor or the factual accuracy of that.
02:01:51 factual accuracy of that. You understand because you're you're said to be part of the conversation. I'm giving you the opportunity to respond. Yes. But no, I I find that a pathetic parody of the truth. Yeah.
02:02:02 parody of the truth. Yeah. Could we have 748392, please?
02:02:15 Could we start with page two? I think it'll be easiest if we show you the report first. This is a special branch report.
02:02:24 report. It's dated the 10th of September 1998. So that puts it after the end of part one of the Steven Lawrence inquiry and before the start of part two.
02:02:38 before the start of part two. Yes. I I appeared I think in early October. Yep. And if we look at if we could have expanded the title plus the italic text underneath
02:02:51 [snorts] this is it says this note is produced for the information of the commissioner DAC Grieve and superintendent Thornton.
02:03:02 By that stage, DAC Griev had been tasked by you to set up the racial and violent crime task force, hadn't he?
02:03:13 force, hadn't he? Yes.
02:03:13 Yes. And he was in the process of getting it going, wasn't he? I can't remember the exact chronology.
02:03:22 Superintendent Thornton, am I right that she was in charge of the team that was directly supporting the inquiry
02:03:34 supporting the inquiry from the Met side? Whether she was the most senior person in the the unit, again I would have to
02:03:45 in the the unit, again I would have to check the chronology, but certainly she was a very was and is a very able person who went on to be a chief constable and then lead the whole of the association
02:03:58 then lead the whole of the association of chief police officers as its chairperson. Um, so she would have been at or near the top of that unit cooperating with the
02:04:09 top of that unit cooperating with the inquiry. And if we could have now the first paragraph, the introduction.
02:04:30 Give you a moment to read that. I've read that thing and I have had the opportunity to read this document. It's it was it's been shown to me over the last few days. Thank you. That's that's helpful. So we
02:04:42 Thank you. That's that's helpful. So we can see there's a reflection uh of there's [snorts] mention of the politically motivated groups monitored by special branch as well as the sense
02:04:55 by special branch as well as the sense of anger and and alienation that the Lawrence issue has aroused within the black community in the context of the mention of a possibility of public order.
02:05:06 order. Yes. If we go now to um back to page one and the minute sheet,
02:05:15 this is [snorts] a minute sheet from a message from Colin Black, the ops commander. Um recording that the note is marked secret and is for the attention
02:05:27 marked secret and is for the attention of the named addresses only. And we've seen that's you and DAC Grieve and Superintendent Thornton and [snorts] limiting further dissemination.
02:05:39 dissemination. Can you help us with how this report came to be written? Yes. I've I've tried to think over the last couple of days. [laughter] Um firstly I have no recollection of
02:05:52 Um firstly I have no recollection of seeing this document and if I had seen it I would have marked up the file in my normal way sort of seen and noted or asked for further information or a
02:06:04 asked for further information or a discussion. Um the authors are very junior. I think it's a a PC and a sergeant. Yeah, the very it's very junior authors authors which um and then it's clearly
02:06:19 authors which um and then it's clearly done the rounds in special branch and the
02:06:24 the Colin Black who I don't remember specifically um but
02:06:31 um but he has selected people who he believes should be the recipients of this report. I certainly didn't commission it, nor to my
02:06:43 didn't commission it, nor to my knowledge would there be any reason for anyone within my office to commission it. The only explanation I believe is knowing that I was going to be appearing
02:06:56 knowing that I was going to be appearing before the committee shortly uh the inquiry shortly, whether [snorts] within my office
02:07:08 [snorts] within my office the staff officer had asked for an update on public order issues arising from the inquiry in preparation for my appearance and uh
02:07:21 in preparation for my appearance and uh to inform my protection assignment. um that could have led. The fact that it was prepared by a constable, the most junior rank in in the force
02:07:37 junior rank in in the force suggests to me that either it was self-generated within the branch. [snorts] Um
02:07:46 and they had the uh Colin Black then felt it should have a wider dissemination or it was commissioned because the whole
02:07:57 or it was commissioned because the whole tenor and tone is about public order threats.
02:08:02 threats. Uh it may have been commissioned by I doubt it but it could have been commissioned by my staff officer or the protection team in my office um
02:08:15 protection team in my office um of their own valition or on the basis of what they knew you might be interested in. no on simply the pragmatism of how they were going to get me in and out of
02:08:26 they were going to get me in and out of the inquiry um and other public order issues that might be arising around that that time. But this is this is not
02:08:39 this is this is not I have no knowledge that if any of the recipients or the any of the intended recipients saw it. So hopefully John Grieve will be able to help you as to
02:08:50 Grieve will be able to help you as to whether he saw it. I'm sure he will. Forgive me though. This is not this is not in this this is not in the nature of a threat assessment to get you in and out of the inquiry.
02:09:00 inquiry. No, I'm what I'm saying is the tone of it is about public disorder. What is the the tone throughout is about um the likelihood of disorder.
02:09:12 um the likelihood of disorder. Did you read this document? No. Are you sure about that? I can't be 100% certain. Um, but I'm I'm almost
02:09:25 I'm almost totally confident that I didn't, but if if I did, it would have been merely in passing reading the about public disorder. I hope that if id read
02:09:39 public disorder. I hope that if id read it, I would have picked up any gratuitous comments that needn't be in there um and and were offensive and would have reacted to them. Um but
02:09:53 would have reacted to them. Um but if if this seems to be your style, you're going to surprise me with a far note marked up later that I've seen it, then I would clearly have to acknowledge
02:10:05 then I would clearly have to acknowledge I did. But I don't honestly don't believe that I did see this. Lord Condon, special branch provide a report
02:10:16 report addressed to you personally. No, that's incorrect. A constable and a sergeant which are the most junior ranks in special branch have written this
02:10:28 in special branch have written this information which was then forwarded by Colin Black to a list of preferred addresses.
02:10:40 preferred addresses. None or all may have received it. To my knowledge I did not. John Grieve will be able to assist you if he did.
02:10:51 assist you if he did. Forgive me, Lord Colin. Colin Black has sent this
02:10:56 sent this to you and the other addresses. No, he sent it to the commissioner. Yes, he sent it to the commissioners. It's not within the gift of officers
02:11:09 not within the gift of officers uh of that rank to send anything to me. And normally uh if I had asked or my office had asked
02:11:20 uh if I had asked or my office had asked for something remotely like this, it would have been sponsored to me by David Vanesse as the assistant commissioner specialist operations.
02:11:31 specialist operations. Well, this is a report about an issue which is dominating your agenda. You would have read that, wouldn't you? No, this is not a report. This to me when I
02:11:44 this is not a report. This to me when I was shown this in the last couple of days
02:11:48 days that a the junior nature of the authors for me is hugely significant. A constable the most junior rank in the
02:11:59 constable the most junior rank in the service doesn't send a document to the commissioner. That I don't want that to sound elitist or arrogant. It just doesn't happen. Um,
02:12:11 doesn't happen. Um, for some reason, two of the most junior people
02:12:16 people in special branch have compiled a report which
02:12:22 which their supervising officer has sent on its way with the ambition it should be seen by the commissioner, Superintendent Thornton and John Grieve.
02:12:35 Superintendent Thornton and John Grieve. And Chief Superintendent Black's evidence is he was asked for this report from higher up the chain of command. Well, again, he would have to say by
02:12:46 Well, again, he would have to say by whom. It certainly wasn't me or anyone that I'm aware of. Assuming this report made it into your office,
02:12:56 office, it would have been read at least by your staff officer, wouldn't it? If it reached my office, it would have been the various filters would have included my staff officer.
02:13:07 my staff officer. Were you briefed on it? I cannot remember being briefed on this because there's nothing in it that is of significance to me at that
02:13:18 that is of significance to me at that moment in time. Do you recall being told anything about it?
02:13:26 No, I not sourcing it to this document. My staff would have been uh and my senior team would have been constantly briefing me around issues related to uh
02:13:42 briefing me around issues related to uh the inquiry, my appearance, my preparation for it, um the likelihood of disorder um in London generally linked
02:13:54 disorder um in London generally linked to the inquiry, but say the the the the jarring nature of the authorship.
02:14:05 nature of the authorship. Uh there there is and I cannot overemphasize this. There is no had I or any M1 senior in my team have
02:14:20 I or any M1 senior in my team have commissioned anything approaching this and again I'm not being elitist or pompous. it would not have been produced by a constable
02:14:31 not have been produced by a constable and a sergeant. That just doesn't ring true. So either this was self-generated um and then sent up
02:14:44 um and then sent up hopefully a chain um or it was commissioned at a lower level. Um but again it it there is
02:14:55 level. Um but again it it there is nothing in that report that is um uh
02:15:03 uh I I don't think there is anything in there that needs to be brought to my attention. Um, if it was brought to my anything getting remotely close to its
02:15:14 anything getting remotely close to its content, it would have been my staff officer or if Sarah Thornton received it or John Grieve received it, they might have verbally briefed me about uh
02:15:28 have verbally briefed me about uh elements of the content. Uh but it it it it just doesn't it just to me there is virtually no
02:15:41 it just to me there is virtually no significance in its content. So is that an appropriate time to take a a short break? Certainly 10 minutes.
02:15:52 Certainly 10 minutes. [snorts]
02:28:21 Yeah. [clears throat] Could we have backup 348392,
02:28:27 348392, please?
02:28:29 please? And if we could have the bottom of the next page, please. Uh we may be able to shortcut this slightly given that you've read this recently Lord Condom but just to get
02:28:42 recently Lord Condom but just to get into the content of this report. It starts off with a section on the Lawrence family campaign group which contains information first of all about
02:28:54 contains information first of all about their spokesman Mr. Grover then moves on to provide information about their solicitor Mr. calm and then goes on to provide
02:29:07 calm and then goes on to provide information about the Lawrenes themselves, including the fact that they have split up and that is not public knowledge.
02:29:25 When you're ready to have the page turned, we'll turn it. Yeah. Sorry, I Sorry, I should have said I've read that.
02:29:33 You'll see. I I'm reading the highlighted. You do you want me to? I'm I'm going to If you need to be reminded of it, you can see as much of
02:29:44 reminded of it, you can see as much of it as you like. I'm asking you about I'm just saying at the moment I I will respond to whatever you're highlighting or
02:29:51 or Yeah. Uh I am putting this first uh section to you about Mr. Grover, the spokesman, Mr. calm the solicitor for the Lawrenes and the Lawrenes
02:30:02 the Lawrenes and the Lawrenes themselves, including the fact that Dorene and Lauren and Neville Lawrence had split. That was not public knowledge and their individual
02:30:13 and their individual positions. That is not public order intelligence, is it?
02:30:19 is it? No, it is be beyond that. It's gratuitous and it's an intrusion into their private lives which cannot be justified. I apologize.
02:30:31 I apologize. And it's an intrusion into Mr. Grover's Exactly.
02:30:35 Exactly. political life, Mr. Kahn's life. Yes.
02:30:38 Yes. And frankly, it's toxic, isn't it? It it is gratuitous. It's disrespectful. It's unnecessary. um and I certainly wouldn't seek to
02:30:51 um and I certainly wouldn't seek to justify it. It then goes on to deal with the movement for justice in the second section. Oh, perhaps before I go on, I
02:31:02 section. Oh, perhaps before I go on, I should [snorts] point out um I showed you earlier the SDS report about Dorene and Neville Lawren's split. So, this report appears to have been informed by
02:31:14 report appears to have been informed by SDS intelligence, doesn't it? Sorry, repeat that. I showed you earlier today the intelligence report from HN81, including
02:31:26 intelligence report from HN81, including the intelligence about the Lawrenes having split. You did you? Yes, you did. And that seems to be echoed here, doesn't it? Yes, it does. And again, it's equally disrespectful here as it was earlier.
02:31:39 disrespectful here as it was earlier. And we move now to section two of the report. MFJ, the group that HN81 had in fact uh infiltrated. Uh
02:31:51 Uh it appears our understanding is this is a very [snorts] small Troskyist group which campaigned against racism in Brixton.
02:32:04 campaigned against racism in Brixton. The high points of its antecedance appear to have been that some members of the group some years earlier had poured paint over the then chairman of the Conservative Party, Brian Mwini. Do you
02:32:17 Conservative Party, Brian Mwini. Do you see that?
02:32:18 see that? I do.
02:32:20 I do. Uh, it deals with um Mr. Oladi's Olawadi's role on June the 29th when the suspects appeared in front
02:32:31 29th when the suspects appeared in front of the inquiry and it deals with Mr. Grover's um liaison with MFJ in his capacity as the Lawrence's spokesperson.
02:32:43 capacity as the Lawrence's spokesperson. It goes on to talk about the group's finances, their sponsorship by KISS FM and Choice FM so far as a particular event was concerned and it makes various
02:32:56 event was concerned and it makes various assertions about the group's aims visav the Lawren campaign but concludes and I'm looking now at the penultimate
02:33:07 I'm looking now at the penultimate paragraph in that section towards the bottom that MFJ are not likely to seek to start disorder on the march that is
02:33:18 to start disorder on the march that is being uh referred to there and then at the end it deals with MFJ and Mr. Olad's
02:33:29 the end it deals with MFJ and Mr. Olad's direct involvement in the inquiry participating in the inquiry.
02:33:39 That's not an appropriate use of a UCO is it to generate that intelligence. This is why I I I doubt and challenge
02:33:51 This is why I I I doubt and challenge the origins of this document. There to me there from a commissioner's perspective. There is nothing in there in the whole report that is particularly
02:34:05 in the whole report that is particularly um revelatory in the context of public order or pleasing needs. Uh there is gratuitous and offensive and intrusive
02:34:18 gratuitous and offensive and intrusive comment um about individuals that adds nothing
02:34:24 nothing um to the decision making process at my level. There is nothing in there from my point of view that is actionable or
02:34:36 point of view that is actionable or indeed necessary for me to know. And that is why I can say with confidence I believe I didn't see this document and
02:34:47 I believe I didn't see this document and I'm I know with absolute certainty I didn't commission it and I can't see why any of my top team would would
02:34:59 any of my top team would would commission it or what is in there that is actionable in any way. And so again I speculate that whether this is
02:35:12 speculate that whether this is um self-justification of within special branch of their work. uh um or they want to convey
02:35:26 uh um or they want to convey um up the chain um the the wrong assumption that certainly I or John Grieve or even Sarah Thornton as a
02:35:38 Grieve or even Sarah Thornton as a superintendent would be interested in the gratuitously offensive comments that it it contains. But as I say, I I don't
02:35:50 it it contains. But as I say, I I don't see anything in there that is remotely actionable or requiring a decision anywhere near my level in the organization. And if we go to the section on the
02:36:03 And if we go to the section on the Socialist Workers Party, uh the first paragraph about the Socialist Workers Party deals with their revolutionary aims. But we know, don't
02:36:14 revolutionary aims. But we know, don't we, that by 1998 they're not regarded as a subversive threat. Correct.
02:36:21 Correct. And the second paragraph essentially communicates that the SWP is not at that time a public order threat. Correct.
02:36:31 Correct. The third paragraph then goes on to deal with the SWP's campaigning on racial justice issues. And you'll see over the page that what is recorded are the
02:36:43 page that what is recorded are the members of family justice campaigns, black and Asian family justice campaigns who have been invited to speak at their
02:36:55 who have been invited to speak at their events.
02:36:57 events. Um, presumably you would not assert any policing purpose to collecting intelligence about which members of black and Asian family justice campaigns
02:37:09 black and Asian family justice campaigns have been speaking at an SWP. I agree entirely with your assessment. And then it goes on uh to deal uh with their plans for a petition to call for
02:37:22 their plans for a petition to call for uh your resignation. uncomfortable perhaps but entirely lawful. Yes, I I considered many times resigning actually during
02:37:33 actually during the um uh
02:37:38 the um uh during the inquiry. I considered whether I should be a [snorts] lightning conductor to take um the criticism and try and turn it
02:37:49 um the criticism and try and turn it into a cathartic process for the Metron police. And I decided it was my public duty and a matter of honor
02:38:00 was my public duty and a matter of honor to continue and try and lead the Met through this process. And that the the meeting I had with Mr. and Mrs.
02:38:11 meeting I had with Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence, which was then a private meeting on the 4th of February, 1999 in advance of the inquiries
02:38:23 in advance of the inquiries conclusions. I apologized again to them and made it absolutely clear that they were right and I was wrong on many of the emissions
02:38:35 and I was wrong on many of the emissions from the first report that I would implement every single recommendation of the inquiry with vigor regardless of
02:38:46 of the inquiry with vigor regardless of how challenging they might be. And even though I was approaching retirement, I would put in place steps that the Met
02:38:57 I would put in place steps that the Met would never stop seeking to bring to justice.
02:39:01 justice. Steven's killers. Um, so it pains me to read
02:39:09 read this, you know, gratuitous comments about people who have suffered the most appalling grief that any individual can suffer.
02:39:19 suffer. Can we go to page six, please? I'm skipping the Nation of Islam. Um, trade unions and media interest in
02:39:30 trade unions and media interest in sections five and six. the section on trade unions. I'll give you I think you probably should look at this.
02:39:48 You let me know when you've read it.
02:39:55 It just reinforces the junior and unsophisticated nature of the authorship of the report.
02:40:06 This is entirely lawful trade union activity, isn't it? Correct.
02:40:12 Correct. There is not a whiff of [snorts] public disorder here, is there? Absolutely correct. And you would expect any demonstration at which reputable trade unions uh were involved to be well
02:40:25 trade unions uh were involved to be well stewarded and to cooperate with the police?
02:40:27 police? Absolutely. And that was my experience. I was the designated senior officer at deputy assistant commissioner level
02:40:39 commissioner level to uh be gold commander in any and all of the contentious public order uh events which might lead to serious
02:40:50 uh events which might lead to serious disorder.
02:40:52 disorder. And I have never once in that role ever had to be show any concern for any trade union um demonstration or march.
02:41:03 demonstration or march. If we go now to section six on the interested media, admittedly not the mainstream media, but what you will uh see there is reporting on the views of
02:41:17 see there is reporting on the views of um fringe elements of a free press. Again,
02:41:23 Again, we are and you're quite entitled and and to repeatedly raise this, but I am repeatingly returning to the authorship
02:41:34 repeatingly returning to the authorship of this paper is a constable and a sergeant
02:41:39 sergeant who by definition are not going to have the knowledge or the training or the um without appearing again elitist the
02:41:53 um without appearing again elitist the sophistication to make the nuanced and appropriate judgments and wording in relation to all and everything in this report.
02:42:05 and everything in this report. I can take it from that answer that you are appalled by what you're reading there.
02:42:12 probably a pard is too strong but certainly
02:42:24 No, it isn't. I I I have to be honest. Yes, Paul isn't too It isn't too strong. It's
02:42:29 It's It's a It's unsophisticated. It is
02:42:35 It is um intrusive. Um, it's unnecessary and I don't seek to justify the the the comments in this report.
02:42:48 the the the comments in this report. It's the stuff of a police state, isn't it? And no, it's the it's the stuff of the fevered imagination of the most junior ranks in a
02:43:02 junior ranks in a special branch whose raise on detra is the more challenging and genuine concerns that serious public disorder
02:43:16 concerns that serious public disorder or subversion or other issues can lead to um and we need it's not a police state that has a special branch when you have the head of
02:43:30 special branch when you have the head of the military now saying that within two years this country could be at war with Russia. That's a public statement by the
02:43:41 Russia. That's a public statement by the current head at a very senior level in the British military at the moment. So a country, any democracy, the first
02:43:53 country, any democracy, the first requirement of any government in any democracy is to protect its citizens from attack from without and from within. And so historically that's what
02:44:06 within. And so historically that's what special branch has been about. But that role, that cloak of secrecy also masks and has led to um gratuitous
02:44:22 and has led to um gratuitous reports like this which um I would not seek to justify in any way. Lord Condon, our understanding is that
02:44:34 Lord Condon, our understanding is that this report has been compiled using intelligence obtained by special branch. It draws upon special branch intelligence reports. I
02:44:47 special branch intelligence reports. I have a table which Miss Morrisy has kindly put together for me which runs through about five pages of a number of places in which SDS intelligence reports
02:45:01 places in which SDS intelligence reports have informed this document. Now you quite rightly make the point that the authors of of this document are very junior,
02:45:12 very junior, the most junior, but they are part of a system which is systematically collecting intelligence of this kind.
02:45:26 of this kind. That should not have been happening on your watch, should it? I think that is too stark a proposition for me to willingly
02:45:38 for me to willingly uh agree with. Not because I don't want to or I fear criticism. I just think it's factually wrong. um SP as late as
02:45:53 um SP as late as 1998
02:45:56 1998 um there was still a threat of terrorism, Irish terrorism in particular in London. The Omar bomb
02:46:08 in London. The Omar bomb which killed 29 people was in August I think from memory 1998. and I still feared at that point um
02:46:21 and I still feared at that point um further
02:46:23 further uh atrocities in London. So the need for a uh wellresourced uh anti-terrorism unit special branch
02:46:37 uh anti-terrorism unit special branch um linking him with our intelligence services
02:46:41 services was vital then and is probably even more vital now in the current geopolitical environment. But I don't seek to justify
02:46:54 But I don't seek to justify um
02:46:57 the actions of any within special branch which generated this sort of report or this sort of in
02:47:08 this sort of report or this sort of in uh there may well have been a need to environmentally scan this whole spectrum of activity.
02:47:21 this whole spectrum of activity. but in a lawful and respectful and legitimate way. And I am agreeing
02:47:32 and legitimate way. And I am agreeing totally that this inquiry has been provided with evidence of activity that clearly breaches what I would have expected from special branch.
02:47:47 would have expected from special branch. And the difficulty with the proposition that this is all um an aberration of the most junior officers, I'm not saying that is that it's part of a system of
02:48:00 is that it's part of a system of intelligence gathering. And taking this report as a specific example, a chief superintendent, Colin Black, as we've seen, was proud enough of it that
02:48:14 we've seen, was proud enough of it that he's circulating it up to you, DAC Grieve and Superintendent Thornton. Can you help us with why on your watch
02:48:27 you help us with why on your watch special branch thought this was exactly the kind of thing that you would want to see?
02:48:34 see? That is for those officers specifically to justify. My my fear is and my analysis
02:48:46 analysis over the last couple of days of seeing this for the first time is you know whether that is part of seeking to continue to justify some of
02:48:59 seeking to continue to justify some of the deployments within special branch um its resources I can only speculate um but on my watch. There was the need
02:49:14 but on my watch. There was the need for special branch to monitor in a way that allowed the police to discharge its responsibilities
02:49:26 to discharge its responsibilities and for the elected government of the day to discharge its responsibilities. The first of which is to protect the
02:49:37 The first of which is to protect the public from attack from without and from within. And that monitoring goes on and has gone on uh since the uh
02:49:51 goes on and has gone on uh since the uh mid 1870s
02:49:53 mid 1870s and has been found necessary uh in a democratic our democratic society. So I don't seek to justify
02:50:05 society. So I don't seek to justify this or anything like it. Uh I do justify totally the need for special branch um
02:50:16 branch um monitoring of of organizations and with the benefit of hindsight and applying cultural mores from now to then
02:50:28 cultural mores from now to then um and earlier than um it [snorts] is the nature of special branch
02:50:36 branch um
02:50:37 um to be to be suspicious. One of the reasons why I introduced and sadly did not survive my commissionership, why I introduced the policy of moving
02:50:52 why I introduced the policy of moving people around against their will within the organization and particularly within specialist units was to mitigate
02:51:06 specialist units was to mitigate almost separate cultures developing. within units or within specialisms where they became blinded or could
02:51:17 where they became blinded or could become blinded to the overarching needs of policing. I I helped draft and promulgate the statement of common
02:51:28 promulgate the statement of common purpose for the Metropolitan Police in 1990
02:51:33 1990 uh 19 889
02:51:36 uh 19 889 which set out for every police officer in the organization from then and till now what the Met was about and the first lines were about
02:51:49 about and the first lines were about upholding
02:51:51 upholding the law firmly and fairly. And the final and that goes on to talk about the values and the integrity required. And the final paragraph says,
02:52:04 required. And the final paragraph says, I may not get the exact words right. We will respond to wellfounded criticism with a willingness to change. That was as relevant when it was drafted uh in my
02:52:18 as relevant when it was drafted uh in my time and it's as relevant now. So um I I I take pride in
02:52:29 I take pride in the
02:52:31 the historical record of special branch and anti-terrorism. Lord, I'm going to stop you there because there's no qu nobody is criticizing
02:52:42 criticizing the use of an existence of special branch to deal with the sorts of terrorists who murder people. We're dealing here with reports about
02:52:53 dealing here with reports about completely different things. Can I and with the benefit of retrospection and hindsight, it's it's easy to say um how vacuous and unnecessary much of
02:53:07 um how vacuous and unnecessary much of this seems. Perhaps, just perhaps, at the time, particularly at a very junior rank, they didn't have the perception or the
02:53:20 didn't have the perception or the sophistication uh to realize how crass their comments were and perhaps were doing their honest best to
02:53:31 perhaps were doing their honest best to do what they thought they were tasked to do. Uh,
02:53:35 do. Uh, if we could go back to page two, please. I just want to focus again on the title of this document.
02:53:44 The Steven Lawrence campaign associated organizations. Coming back to my question of why is it
02:53:56 Coming back to my question of why is it that a chief superintendent in special branch should be sending this to you? [snorts]
02:54:04 [snorts] Might part of the explanation be the way in which the Steven Lawrence inquiry was dominating your agenda and
02:54:17 inquiry was dominating your agenda and was of enormous importance to you and the MPS.
02:54:24 That may well be the de facto justification of what went through his mind. It certainly was not uh a justification that was ever
02:54:38 uh a justification that was ever generated by me or my actions or the very senior team around me. And we can see from the correspondence that we
02:54:49 see from the correspondence that we touched upon earlier with the home office, you appear to have been briefed quite a lot about what was going on in the Steven Laurens inquiry and taken it
02:55:01 the Steven Laurens inquiry and taken it very seriously to the extent of raising it often with the home secretary. Certainly
02:55:08 Certainly is the real Can I finish the question? Certainly. is the reality is it was clear that there was an appetite coming from you
02:55:19 coming from you for [snorts] information about the Steven Lawrence campaign. That is the of all the things you have said today and put to me that is the
02:55:31 said today and put to me that is the statement that is the farthest from the truth.
02:55:35 truth. Can you explain why? Because it's not true. [snorts]
02:55:40 [snorts] But you certainly we have seen we're raising issues such as procedural unfairness, media portrayal. I I would have I've
02:55:51 media portrayal. I I would have I've tried to explain to you I would have I believe I would have been negligent in my role in as commissioner from not raising due process issues that were
02:56:04 raising due process issues that were considered so seriously a breach of the salmon principles that legal council were considering
02:56:15 were considering withholding cooperation from on the inquiry. There seems from the documents to be a sense that you felt the Met was going to be or was at risk of being produced in
02:56:26 be or was at risk of being produced in this inquiry. [snorts] And is it right that you were interested in groups of people on the left who might have been making mischief
02:56:37 left who might have been making mischief for the Met by stoking up the Lawrence issue?
02:56:42 issue? Absolutely not. Can we take that document down now, please? And can we go to MPS-301370?
02:57:00 This is um early October 1998 and this is just after you've appeared at the Steven Lawrence inquiry
02:57:13 appeared at the Steven Lawrence inquiry in part two. It's again a report of HN81s
02:57:21 HN81s and it records all sorts of information such as what it is thought that Alex Oad of MFJ is going to say to the inquiry
02:57:33 of MFJ is going to say to the inquiry and there is reference to the Lawrenes as well. Did you get any briefing before [clears throat] you attended at the
02:57:47 [clears throat] you attended at the Lawrence inquiry?
02:57:53 Certainly, I tried to prepare myself um as best as I could to provide the inquiry with information I hoped they
02:58:04 inquiry with information I hoped they wanted to hear. If you're suggesting that part of my preparation was to commission um intrusive information
02:58:15 um intrusive information about Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence or uh Dwayne Brooks or anyone else. Um not you can take not if you if you can
02:58:26 not you can take not if you if you can take it and I wouldn't and I'm absolutely confident I didn't. My preparation was primarily uh writing uh information which I
02:58:38 uh writing uh information which I believed would help the inquiry to move forward.
02:58:43 forward. um and in in particular in its second objective of reconciliation and a better way forward. Were you given any briefing about the position of left-wing parties visav the
02:58:55 position of left-wing parties visav the inquiry?
02:58:56 inquiry? Not not that I can remember at all. the the briefing I say I can remember a superficial briefing about relating to my personal safety and what was likely
02:59:09 my personal safety and what was likely to happen on the day particularly outside the inquiry and I chose to ignore that advice. Um,
02:59:20 Um, I can
02:59:22 I can and it it would be a again a massive lapse of memory. Um, but there is nothing in my mind that remotely takes
02:59:35 nothing in my mind that remotely takes me anywhere near any of the uh allegations that you have put to me in terms of uh commissioning or um wanting
02:59:47 terms of uh commissioning or um wanting to be fed
02:59:50 to be fed disreputable um and intrusive information about Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence or anyone else connected. Were you given any debriefing after your appearance?
03:00:02 after your appearance? Uh no. I after my appearance I uh
03:00:09 uh did uh I think a huge [snorts] round of media appearances, television appearances right through until the late evening.
03:00:20 right through until the late evening. Uh
03:00:22 Uh and the following day again it was primarily
03:00:26 primarily um media
03:00:29 um media uh media work. Um but I do not remember. I I went to the hearing with uh assistant commissioner
03:00:40 hearing with uh assistant commissioner Okconor who became chief counselor of Surrey and chief inspector of constabary for the whole country and John Griev. Um, I arrived with them, left with them,
03:00:53 Um, I arrived with them, left with them, went back to Scotland Yard and there was no form of debrief. [snorts] Now, this report
03:01:04 Now, this report in the wake of your appearance, as I say, and if you wish to check it, you can, contains lots of uh intelligence of a similar ilk to what we've seen in the report we've just been
03:01:17 we've seen in the report we've just been looking at. Going back to that report, it appears that nobody in your office, if they saw that report,
03:01:29 if they saw that report, was alarmed by it.
03:01:35 Yes, that is and hence why I am challenging who saw it and in what circumstance. And you have no recollection of anyone
03:01:47 And you have no recollection of anyone raising any concerns with you? I the the only recollection I have are are relating to my personal safety
03:02:01 in appearing at the inquiry. I want you to assume for the purposes of my question that the report that we were looking at a moment ago, the long one reached your office,
03:02:12 reached your office, right? That was an opportunity to recognize something very wrong and stop it, wasn't it? Well, that's a hypothetical. You're
03:02:24 Well, that's a hypothetical. You're you're you're putting forward the assertion as if it did. I've asked you to answer the question on the assumption. Yes,
03:02:33 Yes, that it did. On it depends uh who would have received it. Let me put it another way. Anybody in a position of senior responsibility
03:02:46 position of senior responsibility looking at this report should have realized it was very wrong and done something about it. They should have realized that it certainly it was inappropriate and it contained
03:02:57 contained um uh information that was totally inappropriate. And what in fact happens as we see from this report is special branch and an undercover officer
03:03:10 special branch and an undercover officer within special branch in fact continue to gather information of that ilk. And my my belief is that this was
03:03:22 And my my belief is that this was primarily
03:03:25 primarily self deployment within special branch. um and a self-deployment that was not to my knowledge
03:03:38 that was not to my knowledge endorsed by anyone at a sufficiently senior level that it would be brought to my knowledge. I I fear
03:03:49 my knowledge. I I fear this is evidence of a cultural paranoia that had developed within special branch. Um not inevitably
03:04:02 branch. Um not inevitably um but uh can be explained. Um but certainly it doesn't suggest to me either in my knowledge then or now that
03:04:16 either in my knowledge then or now that anyone
03:04:18 anyone in a really senior level in the Met who was making policy who was responding to the inquiry um would have commissioned
03:04:29 the inquiry um would have commissioned or would have wanted the the the
03:04:35 disappoint ointment and horror that I feel about the gratuitous um comments about Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence and others.
03:04:47 and others. My
03:04:49 My feelings I'm confident would be echoed by people like John Grieve and others in my senior team. Um and I would hope there is not a single person at any
03:05:03 there is not a single person at any level in the organization who has come before this organization or will come before this this inquiry to suggest that I personally ever use
03:05:15 suggest that I personally ever use language
03:05:17 language or commissioned action or did anything other than show respect for Mr. and Mr. Lawrence and others who were victims of
03:05:30 Lawrence and others who were victims of this appalling murder. I want you to put yourself now into the shoes of the Lawrenes. Their actions,
03:05:42 Their actions, their views, aspects of their private life are reported upon in some detail by special branch.
03:05:54 branch. Their intelligence reports are drawn upon to brief others including you as we have seen. I'm putting aside whether you actually saw
03:06:05 putting aside whether you actually saw it or not. It was produced for you. Yes.
03:06:10 Yes. The reason for that seems to be the particular concern that the Metropolitan Police Service had about the Steven Lawrence inquiry.
03:06:22 Lawrence inquiry. We all agreed that was a matter of profound importance for the Met. Was that in part because allegations of racism are particularly emotive?
03:06:33 racism are particularly emotive? No, it it was in I realized at an early stage that this was going to be very important for not just the Metfor Police, but the police service and the
03:06:45 Police, but the police service and the wider police service, the wider public service. I it's and I the chronology is slightly blurred for me at the moment but I went
03:06:59 blurred for me at the moment but I went to see the overall head of the civil service Lord Richard now Lord Richard Wilson who had been a uh head of the
03:07:10 Wilson who had been a uh head of the home office before he became cabinet secretary and head of the sewer service and had a very um
03:07:20 good and productive meeting with Richard Wilson where I pointed out that the Met and no one should defend or seek to defend the indefensible,
03:07:33 defend the indefensible, but we were make the huge policy issues would arise out of um an issue such as institutional racism.
03:07:45 institutional racism. And that although it would be hopefully an enormously beneficial catalyst for change, is it really is it would bring with it potential paralyzing
03:07:59 would bring with it potential paralyzing and chilling effects on the public sector which might resonate for many many years. And my advice was that
03:08:11 And my advice was that policy makers should be aware of both the strengths and the downside of
03:08:20 of such a label and should make policy to minimize
03:08:26 minimize the downside and to maximize the catalytic changing effect of describing an organization is
03:08:37 effect of describing an organization is institutionally racist. Because for the average member of the public, the average cop, the average social worker, the average teacher, the nuance of what
03:08:49 the average teacher, the nuance of what institutional racism means quickly gets converted into you are a racist. And that's not what Sir William was saying.
03:09:01 Sir William was saying. Institutional racism is about the collective failure of an organization to provide a professional service based on race uh etc. Um that nuance
03:09:17 race uh etc. Um that nuance can be lost and so throughout this my challenge was never in relation to Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence who had had the worst thing
03:09:30 Lawrence who had had the worst thing that can happen to you in your life happen to them. All organizations supporting them. My concerns as commissioner which I
03:09:41 My concerns as commissioner which I conveyed to my senior team and everyone I dealt with were about us supporting the inquiry 100% and a willingness to change
03:09:55 and a willingness to change um the implementation of many policies to bring about that change. But it doesn't make me a bad person or a bad
03:10:06 doesn't make me a bad person or a bad commissioner simply because I had the tmerity to challenge the vehicle for change in the public sector. In fact,
03:10:17 change in the public sector. In fact, successive commissioners, including the current one, have raised the spectre of the challenges of using these terms, as have former home secretaries, as have
03:10:30 have former home secretaries, as have former prime ministers. So, I'm not a lone voice. No, I'm not suggesting you are. Um, can I take it from that answer that you would prefer to say the profound
03:10:41 would prefer to say the profound importance of allegations of institutional racism? I I realized very early on this that this was a hugely important
03:10:53 this was a hugely important inquiry which had massive potential for good and for change and for taking the police service and the public sector.
03:11:05 police service and the public sector. and hopefully the public on a more enlightened journey about racism uh overt
03:11:14 uh overt and institutionalized. And I was seeking to do my best in my role
03:11:22 role to ensure the inquiry had the best information possible from the police service and hopefully would react in a way that was in the public good going
03:11:34 way that was in the public good going forward. Well, Connor, do you see that the very intrusive reporting on the Lawrenes is connected to the profound
03:11:47 is connected to the profound significance of the allegations of institutional racism that they were making?
03:11:53 making? No. Um, the allegations were not of institutional racism. The allegations were of racism. And the inquiry found
03:12:05 And the inquiry found um a fact that is rarely reported um or acknowledged even that the inquiry,
03:12:14 inquiry, the very
03:12:16 the very damning and um very accurate inquiry by an outside police force, my old force, Kent Police. It was one of my former um
03:12:29 Kent Police. It was one of my former um uh junior officers who led the independent police inquiry into the uh original investigation and had the courage to reveal
03:12:41 courage to reveal the incompetence which hadn't been revealed to me up to that point. It was the police service that did that and on and on and on.
03:12:52 and on and on. there was a willingness at a very senior level to respond to wellfounded criticism
03:12:59 criticism change and I think it is both factually wrong and unfair to conflate uh a cultural paranoia
03:13:11 uh a cultural paranoia within
03:13:13 within all special branches that somehow that was unique to the Lawrence inquiry which it wasn't not and I am appalled now and
03:13:25 it wasn't not and I am appalled now and would have been appalled then by the nature of much of the documentation which uh has been revealed to the inquiry.
03:13:34 inquiry. I'll revise the question. Do you see then that the intrusive reporting into the Lawrenes is connected to their allegations of racism against the Met?
03:13:50 No, I suspect it was more a byproduct of
03:13:58 of self-deployment around
03:14:02 around um what they assumed within special branch were associated movements that might generate public disorder. They're
03:14:13 might generate public disorder. They're reporting
03:14:13 reporting and their monitoring of the Lawrenes was a byproduct of their crass self deployments. They're reporting on the Lawrenes
03:14:25 They're reporting on the Lawrenes because it's the biggest issue the police is facing at the time, aren't they?
03:14:29 they? Uh they're not reporting on the Lawrenes as the biggest issue of the time. They are reporting on a murder which quite properly
03:14:40 a murder which quite properly because the Lawrence case is became a catalyst
03:14:44 catalyst for enormous societal change almost all of which has been hugely beneficial to society. It has brought with it
03:14:55 society. It has brought with it downsides and I suspect as I say the review of how grooming gangs were allowed to flourish and so on will show that
03:15:05 that social services, health, police, the fear of the toxicity of the label of institutional racism
03:15:17 of the label of institutional racism may lead to inactivity and negligence. as being seen as the lesser criticism that organizations can live with. Well,
03:15:28 that organizations can live with. Well, condom, we have seen a lot of intrusive reporting produced by special branch, including a lot on white people, but
03:15:39 including a lot on white people, but we've not seen anything like the level of interest that there was in [snorts] the Lawrence case, the inquiry
03:15:50 the Lawrence case, the inquiry and reporting on the Lawren's as a result. I would say then that is a force analysis which has not
03:16:02 force analysis which has not allowed you to um monitor the history of special branch over over time. I I I don't see it as
03:16:15 time. I I I don't see it as as such a stark contrast as you do. [snorts]
03:16:21 [snorts] What I want to give you the opportunity to deal with after those uh preparatory questions is this. Isn't the reporting
03:16:34 Isn't the reporting by the SDS on the Lawrenes itself
03:16:41 itself an expression of the kind of institutional racism found [snorts] by Sir William McFersonen and his panel.
03:16:54 I think it reflects I think throughout the police service there was and I had to constantly fight against it a siege mentality that
03:17:08 against it a siege mentality that somehow there was a feeding frenzy focus on pleasing which at a junior unsophisticated level
03:17:19 unsophisticated level was felt as unfair. there and I believe that contributed to um the self deployment and the
03:17:30 um the self deployment and the gratuitous reporting that we have seen. I do not accept that it is um
03:17:42 that it is um illustrative as starkly as you put it. Well, I'm asking I'm asking you whether you would accept it was an expression of the kind of institutional racism that
03:17:53 the kind of institutional racism that you referred to. Yes.
03:17:55 Yes. A short while ago. Yes. In in the narrowness of special branch and many of the issues we've discussed today, I think that is it. It
03:18:06 discussed today, I think that is it. It meets
03:18:08 meets very well the parameters of institutional racism as set out by the inquiry.
03:18:17 inquiry. And if that report did end up in your office and was seen and not acted upon, then it would extend to that level as
03:18:30 then it would extend to that level as well. I would be incredibly disappointed if that had been commissioned in some way or found its way to my office um as
03:18:44 way or found its way to my office um as some
03:18:45 some um product that would please me or would um
03:18:53 um uh be something that I would be anxious to see.
03:18:57 to see. Can I take that as a yes? I'd have to remember what your original question was.
03:19:02 was. The question was, if the report did come into your office and was read, then whoever read it and did not take any action in response to it would also have
03:19:15 action in response to it would also have been
03:19:18 been part of that expression of institutional racis. That that would only be a fair analysis if we knew the circumstances of who read it, when they read it, what
03:19:30 who read it, when they read it, what else they were doing, how much time they were able to devote to it, whether it fleetingly passed across their desk, or whether they uh took time to deeply
03:19:45 whether they uh took time to deeply analysize
03:19:47 analysize what it was and what it was saying. I it may if it did and I I have no reason to think that it did reach my office. If
03:19:59 to think that it did reach my office. If a um and again had you asked this question several years ago, the person who could have answered that for you um
03:20:11 who could have answered that for you um would have been able to answer it. But Phil Hagen, my staff officer, sadly died during the currency of the inquiry, I believe. Um, but I I cannot know if it
03:20:25 believe. Um, but I I cannot know if it arrived in the office. I know having been staff officer to the commissioner that's an impossible job with not enough moments or minutes in any hour and that
03:20:38 moments or minutes in any hour and that you are constantly processing huge volumes of information and files and reports on behalf of the commissioner. Um, I'm not honestly not
03:20:50 commissioner. Um, I'm not honestly not in a position to say whether if it did reach the office and get to the staff officer whether he attributed 30 seconds or an hour to the document.
03:21:02 or an hour to the document. Standing back from that um, and standing back from the Lawrenes personally, I've showed you some reporting which and the the briefing note which also referred to
03:21:14 the briefing note which also referred to people such as Mrs. Reel, Mr. Silcott, the Douglas family, other black and Asian justice campaigners. Can I take it that you would also agree that in so far as they were monitor
03:21:26 that in so far as they were monitor monitored as part of their campaigning activity that that too was an expression of institutional racism. Yeah. Providing there is no other
03:21:37 Yeah. Providing there is no other contextual setting or information to mitigate that. the the [clears throat] I think I'm acknowledging the um the almost
03:21:50 almost cultural paranoia that goes with the overall tasking of a special branch in any force and that must be um understood
03:22:03 any force and that must be um understood and it must be mitigated against and and that's one of the very reasons that I've told you that I uh introduced um
03:22:18 told you that I uh introduced um very unpopular policies to move people in and out of units like that to ensure that they didn't become culturally insular or paranoia paranoic. Um um but
03:22:32 insular or paranoia paranoic. Um um but again I
03:22:34 again I I think it's too stark the contrast. I say there is a a spectrum of activity from lawful innocence right up to uh
03:22:48 from lawful innocence right up to uh subversion and along the way very serious disorder. And it is only with the benefit of hindsight
03:22:58 hindsight um and scrupulous forensic investigation of [snorts] documents that may have been created
03:23:07 created in a few minutes by very junior staff. um giving them very understandably from the inquiry's point of view a prominence
03:23:19 the inquiry's point of view a prominence and a significance that wouldn't have seemed
03:23:25 seemed such
03:23:26 such at the time to some of the officers preparing them. But if if you I am not challenging that you can create a model,
03:23:37 challenging that you can create a model, a theoretical model with the wonderful benefit of hindsight that gathering together um selected documents from tens
03:23:49 together um selected documents from tens of thousands of files and so on, you can create quite properly um a case that um without other explanation or mitigation
03:24:02 without other explanation or mitigation that this would be um a form of institutional racism as envisaged by the silly
03:24:11 silly going to move on very quickly to some very discreet short topics before we break. First of all, did you ever ask to be briefed about Mr. Dwayne Brooks?
03:24:22 be briefed about Mr. Dwayne Brooks? No.
03:24:23 No. Did you play any part in the settlement of his civil claim against the MPS? Not that I'm aware of. No. Were you kept a breast of it? Um,
03:24:36 I certainly don't have any memories of it.
03:24:40 it. Can I take it from that that your evidence is that the settlement must have been authorized below your level?
03:24:50 You have to remind me of the chronology. When was the settlement made? it well the the litigation was going was ongoing in the autumn of 1999 and in 2000. So it was it was in the
03:25:03 and in 2000. So it was it was in the I I retired in the first week of 2000. The actual settlement will have been after your retirement. Yes. So were you being kept in involved in No way at all.
03:25:14 No way at all. In before your retirement were you being kept a breast of developments and settlement negotiations? Not that I can remember. No. And can you help us with at what level would a settle a a case like that be authorized
03:25:26 settle a a case like that be authorized for settlement? It would be primarily through the legal route. Uh so the the in-house force solister in consultation with home
03:25:38 solister in consultation with home office solisters who were the accountable um the home office get the timing right. the mayor and the police authority didn't come into being until
03:25:51 didn't come into being until 2000.
03:25:53 2000. So any preliminary negotiations would have been um primarily a legal process involving the Mets in-house
03:26:04 process involving the Mets in-house legal team and the home office and at what level presumably if an offer legal service if an offer is made a senior officer will have to authorize that. Is that right?
03:26:15 right? Um,
03:26:17 Um, it's a very good point and and
03:26:21 I'm not sure they they do. I I mean it may have had an independent legal life of its own within the accountability structure where it was lawyers to
03:26:32 structure where it was lawyers to lawyers within the Met and the Home Office.
03:26:36 Office. The lawyers act on instruction. So somebody has well they act in the name of but no I I I certainly don't remember certainly in my time up to and including
03:26:47 certainly in my time up to and including the first week or so of 2000. My my final deployment was um Millennium Eve. So I was not operational since it didn't
03:26:59 So I was not operational since it didn't I don't remember any discussion or any paperwork around the settlement of since it didn't finally settle until after your time. I I won't pursue that any further. Can you help us with
03:27:11 any further. Can you help us with whether at any stage uh assistant commissioner special operations sir David Vanesse raised with you in any way whatsoever
03:27:23 whatsoever uh anything to the effect that the partner
03:27:28 partner of an SDS undercover police officer had sent a letter into his office raising
03:27:38 raising alleg uh asserting amongst other things that SDS officers had been having sexual relationships whilst undercover. No, I I I can say categorically David
03:27:51 No, I I I can say categorically David Vanesse did not because that would have sounded immediate alarm bells. We so that that that that of all the things you've put to me today that gives me the
03:28:05 you've put to me today that gives me the the most confidence I can say categorically even nearly 30 years on that that did not that no such conversation took place.
03:28:17 conversation took place. Were you ever aware of any special branch contact with either the economic league, the consulting association or any other commercial organization
03:28:29 or any other commercial organization which collected information about workers?
03:28:34 workers? No.
03:28:35 No. Either authorized or unauthorized? Neither. Yes. No. What controls were there to prevent information from special branch being misused?
03:28:49 special branch being misused? Yes.
03:28:49 Yes. By being leaked to or sold to uh blacklisting organizations. What controls are in place? The controls that are in place for all police
03:29:01 that are in place for all police officers around legal action, discreditable conduct and the disciplinary codes, best practice guidance, the chain of supervision,
03:29:13 guidance, the chain of supervision, uh the what should have been the quality of supervising officers and the hierarchal chain of command. So the the
03:29:25 hierarchal chain of command. So the the very uh way that the police service was organized and operated within a legal framework should have prevented that from happening. You don't you shouldn't
03:29:37 from happening. You don't you shouldn't be as commissioner having to say oh or and abide by the law and you lot even abide by even more. It should be a given
03:29:48 abide by even more. It should be a given that the law and discipline codes and best practice are ingrained up and down the chain of command. Uh and the uh
03:30:01 the chain of command. Uh and the uh tasking and the supervision and the inspection and the review of units employed in that work.
03:30:12 Final question before we break. Your witness statement includes the assertion that there should have been better but not necessarily greater
03:30:25 better but not necessarily greater supervision of undercover officers by junior and senior managers. Can you explain to us the difference that you were seeking to make between better and
03:30:36 were seeking to make between better and greater?
03:30:38 greater? More doesn't necessarily mean better. Um I I have encountered um uh very very good
03:30:51 um uh very very good supervising officers who their every fiber was about public service and uh doing things
03:31:02 public service and uh doing things right. Um and they might have been overstretched in their supervision uh in their span of command but they did a remarkable job.
03:31:15 a remarkable job. Coming in as commissioner I reformed um the whole structure of the Metropolitan Police uh from police station level. I brought in chief
03:31:27 station level. I brought in chief officers from chief constables from uh uh
03:31:34 uh Hertfordshire, Surrey, other forces to mix up all of the established culture in the Met. The one
03:31:45 the Met. The one branch that I did not seek to do root and branch reform of when I came in was special branch and the uh specialist
03:31:57 special branch and the uh specialist operations for a number of reasons. the as I say the primarily because we're on a war footing combating terrorism
03:32:08 footing combating terrorism and the heads of special branch the uh the assistant commissioner all had the delegated responsibility and the devolved responsibility to be working
03:32:21 devolved responsibility to be working with security services, military intelligence, foreign intelligence and I didn't want to disrupt all those
03:32:33 and I didn't want to disrupt all those relationships at that critical time when massive bombs were being detonated in our major cities and particularly London.
03:32:44 and particularly London. And secondly, because I knew that special branch and specialist operations were massively overranked with senior officers compared
03:32:57 overranked with senior officers compared to any other part of the force. And therefore I was entitled to believe that branches, a small, relatively small branch that had its own deputy chief
03:33:10 branch that had its own deputy chief constable, a number of assistant chief constables in the Met terms and was commanded by a chief constable
03:33:21 chief constable um and had been commanded by chief constables who were significant figures within poling and went on to incredibly senior roles um would be doing their job
03:33:36 senior roles um would be doing their job and I also took um reassurance that external inspectors from her majesty's inspector of constablishary
03:33:47 majesty's inspector of constablishary had given special branch a clean bill of health and that my predecessor um who I have enormous respect for the late Peter Ibbert had been a career
03:33:59 late Peter Ibbert had been a career career special branch officer up to and including chief superintendent and if he had had residual concerns about special branch would have briefed
03:34:11 about special branch would have briefed me accordingly. So I was lulled rightly or wrongly that special branch and specialist
03:34:23 that special branch and specialist operations was the one area of the whole of my command that I did not apply a root and branch reform to over my first
03:34:34 root and branch reform to over my first few years as commissioner for reasons that are I think both explicable and justified.
03:34:44 So might I invite you to rise while I deal with the rule 10 um question process?
03:34:50 process? Certainly. Will [clears throat] you bear with us for sir another period um and with a good luck I think it may require
03:35:01 with a good luck I think it may require that uh we will finish before 6. I I'm at your disposal sir.
03:45:41 First of all, thank you, sir. Lord Condon, first of all, you gave some evidence about contemplating whether or not to resign. I want to ask you specifically in that
03:45:53 I want to ask you specifically in that context. There was speculation, I understand, at the time that Baroness Lawrence would be calling for your resignation. Were you aware of that?
03:46:04 resignation. Were you aware of that? Um,
03:46:08 I probably was at the time and and I say I I have always had nothing but respect for Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence and they were fully entitled to make any demand they
03:46:20 fully entitled to make any demand they they they wish to articulate. Did it concern you that she was uh that she may be calling for your resignation? Not not in the slightest.
03:46:32 Not not in the slightest. What did you what did you do about that? I I thought long and hard of where my duty lay um
03:46:43 duty lay um to the police service, to the public, to the role I occupied. And I believe that I
03:46:51 I there was a part of me that wanted to be the lightning conductor as I say to take the criticism. And had I believed it would have been a
03:47:02 And had I believed it would have been a cathartic process um for
03:47:08 um for them and for the service. Um I think I probably would have resigned. Um, but I felt that on balance it was my
03:47:19 Um, but I felt that on balance it was my public duty to seek to a make sure the reforms I put in place for dealing with corruption and bad behavior
03:47:31 dealing with corruption and bad behavior were well and truly embedded for succeeding commissioners. A and that also I believed I was the right person to respond
03:47:44 right person to respond uh as I say willingly um once the report was made. I said in advance and I didn't know what was going to be in the report that I when I had my
03:47:56 to be in the report that I when I had my private meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence
03:48:00 Lawrence that I would implement every single one of the McFersonen inquiries without hesitation. Um, and I delivered that.
03:48:11 hesitation. Um, and I delivered that. And so by the time I left, every single recommendation was either being actioned or there were plans for them to be actioned. Um
03:48:25 plans for them to be actioned. Um uh and so yes, no, I um uh if I believed it would have done more good than harm, I would have resigned.
03:48:38 good than harm, I would have resigned. But my personal assessment was it was my duty to stay in post and do what I did. You gave some evidence about speaking on the same platform as Mr. Mansfield.
03:48:51 the same platform as Mr. Mansfield. Yes, I did. When you did that, were you aware that he had a special branch registry file? No.
03:48:59 No. Can I ask We go to 749920.
03:49:14 Taking you back now to August of 1998. If we could go to page five, please. This is a series of minute sheets and
03:49:26 This is a series of minute sheets and what is being discussed is the application of national standards to special branch including the SDS in
03:49:38 to special branch including the SDS in relation to the use of covert sources. Could we have expanded please minute 12?
03:49:51 I'll give you a moment to read that, but can you pay particular attention to what Detective Superintendent Black is asserting about you at the end?
03:50:17 that [clears throat] is um well it was for him to justify what he said but it's factually inaccurate um
03:50:26 um whether he's using Did you say factually accurate or inaccurate in inaccurate thank you um whether he's using the sort of royal we that the commissioner is a shorthand
03:50:37 we that the commissioner is a shorthand for the senior management of the Met. Um, that was certainly not something that was brought to my attention or that I had decided upon or
03:50:49 attention or that I had decided upon or have even been involved in a discussion about. Um any understanding that Black had is for him to explain whether
03:51:02 had is for him to explain whether he'd had discussions with more senior colleagues in special operations up to including
03:51:11 including um David Vanesse. But David will know if he gives evidence um uh what what he had said or what he knew about that. But
03:51:22 said or what he knew about that. But that was never that issue was never brought to my attention or discussed with me or was I asked to arbitrate on on that issue at
03:51:33 asked to arbitrate on on that issue at any stage. Could we take that down now please? Finally, you gave some evidence uh to the effect that things were going very
03:51:45 the effect that things were going very badly wrong in special branch and that did not reach you um in a unit which is dealing with
03:51:56 um in a unit which is dealing with secret matters and has a culture of secrecy. Would you agree that it's particularly important to have a mechanism for whistleblowing?
03:52:09 to have a mechanism for whistleblowing? Yes.
03:52:11 Yes. Can you help us with what the mechanisms for whistleblowing were whilst you were commissioner? [clears throat] I I introduced in 19
03:52:23 19 uh 98 the most comprehensive [snorts] anti-corruption and anti- inappropriate behavior that the Matt had
03:52:34 inappropriate behavior that the Matt had had in
03:52:36 had in decades. Um and part of that was whistleblowing hotlines and they were disseminated throughout the Met. They were part of senior
03:52:47 the Met. They were part of senior officer briefings. My successor, John Stevens, now Lord Stevens, was the lead senior officer on that [snorts]
03:52:59 lead senior officer on that [snorts] uh leading and implementing that process and well recognized and advertised hotlines were part of that process and it related to bad behavior right across
03:53:12 it related to bad behavior right across the spectrum. The impression I'm getting from that a proper procedure in place after 98. No. other other procedures in place prior to that. Whistleblowing encouraged
03:53:26 prior to that. Whistleblowing encouraged um whistleblowing taking place and leading to uh arrest, prosecution and conviction of police officers leading to disciplinary
03:53:40 officers leading to disciplinary processes
03:53:41 processes um leading to dismissal via those disciplinary processes. So um whistleblowing was not absent. It was um
03:53:55 whistleblowing was not absent. It was um reinforced with vigor once we had in place um the pieces of the jigsaw. So I had got in
03:54:06 pieces of the jigsaw. So I had got in place um no more double jeopardy rule, the ability to comment on right of silence. the burden of proof was much more relaxed relating to the gravity of
03:54:18 more relaxed relating to the gravity of the allegation but could be as low as the civil um burden. Um and a fasttrack gross misconduct procedure and
03:54:30 gross misconduct procedure and whistleblowing was conduct was encouraged and demanded. Um what formally once we had all those processes in place and it took until
03:54:43 processes in place and it took until [snorts]
03:54:46 mid to late 1998 to get that all of those formalized new pieces of the jigsaw in place. whistleblowing was in place before that. Can you recall whether any of the cases
03:54:57 Can you recall whether any of the cases you've adverted to came from special branch?
03:55:01 branch? I don't believe they did, but I I wouldn't again because of my appellet role, I was sanitized away from disciplinary processes up to and
03:55:12 disciplinary processes up to and including
03:55:14 including um an appellet process. Um but I would have
03:55:21 have confidently said that had there been um a whistleblowing within special branch of of a serious nature that led to discipline or other
03:55:32 nature that led to discipline or other action I would have hoped I would have been informed about it in some way or another.
03:55:38 another. Thank you. [snorts] Uh those are all my questions sir. Do you have any re-examination? No. Thank you sir. Um there is one topic upon which I would like your assistance please. Um you were asked extensively
03:55:49 please. Um you were asked extensively this afternoon about the Steven Lawrence campaign associated organizations document. I can put it back up on the screen if you need to be reminded of it. Um then can we have MPS 0748392
03:56:03 Um then can we have MPS 0748392 please.
03:56:11 and over the page to page two this document. Yes, of course, sir. I'm not going to ask you about its detail at all. No.
03:56:19 No. Um,
03:56:22 Um, there appear to be two possibilities about how it came into being. One was that uh the operations commander or commander operations Colin Black was
03:56:33 commander operations Colin Black was asked by somebody to produce it and the other is that he uh decided to produce it to send upwards. Uh yes,
03:56:44 yes, I think the former is more likely than the latter, sir. Right.
03:56:49 Right. Who would have requested of him? I if it was anyone linked closely to me, it would have been u my staff officer.
03:57:01 it would have been u my staff officer. That was a superintendent, chief superintendent rank. Um and I say, but his only reason for doing so would be in connection with me appearing at the
03:57:14 connection with me appearing at the hearing. And there is so much other detail as Mr. bar has quite rightly pointed out that doesn't look like a document
03:57:25 document uh in response to a commission uh question of what's going to happen when the commissioner appears at the hearing and so on. So if it was
03:57:37 so on. So if it was commissioned um
03:57:41 um from elsewhere, I find it hard to explain. Um John Grieve who was my um very trusted aid in as and a very senior
03:57:55 very trusted aid in as and a very senior colleague at deputy chief conipal rank. Um
03:58:02 I can't see John this if commissioning that sort of document and knowing of his integrity uh he he would have raised it with me
03:58:14 uh he he would have raised it with me I'm sure. So I'm I'm struggling sir to to
03:58:19 to um
03:58:21 um think of why it I say for me the the most telling thing is it's been written by uh a PC
03:58:32 thing is it's been written by uh a PC and a sergeant which say that I'm not being sort of elitist but that's such a that's so they are such junior ranks
03:58:43 that's so they are such junior ranks that for that for them to be authoring a document, if it had been commissioned by anyone
03:58:52 anyone um at a senior level at or near me, then um it wouldn't have been prepared by a constable or it would have been prepared
03:59:03 constable or it would have been prepared by a much more senior officer within special branch. So that I'm I'm genuinely struggling to help the inquiry with the origins of that document.
03:59:15 with the origins of that document. Well, John Grev is a a possibility, you say?
03:59:19 say? Although I doubt it, although you doubt it. I doubt it. If not him, then who? Um,
03:59:26 I'm I'm struggling to to um find someone who the the head of special branch at the time
03:59:37 the head of special branch at the time would have been Commander Moss, who either has or will be giving evidence, I presume. um
03:59:48 be giving evidence, I presume. um whether in his dealings with David Vanesse there had been some verbal verbal comment of you know it'll be nice to know uh do an environmental scan of
03:59:59 to know uh do an environmental scan of how's how is protest looking now we've got through part one it may have been a a very generic request from someone like
04:00:10 a very generic request from someone like David Vanesse or one of his senior team with Commander Moss. So, a sort of what give us an environmental scan of of the protest environment linked to the
04:00:23 protest environment linked to the inquiry so we can get that up to date. But it's so there is nothing in there that is anything other than gossip and anodine [clears throat]
04:00:35 gossip and anodine [clears throat] and disrespectful and unnecessary. There is there are no there are no operational nuggets in there at all. I I I'm not asking about the content. Yeah. But about uh
04:00:47 But about uh who the content, if you like, wearing my detective outfit. The content [clears throat] makes me gives me clues as to its genesis. And and it just doesn't look or
04:01:01 genesis. And and it just doesn't look or feel or read like a document that's been uh commissioned or by a a very senior officer. and then
04:01:13 or by a a very senior officer. and then has then been produced by it by it by it. So my speculation is perhaps it it arose out of a conversation
04:01:25 arose out of a conversation between senior officers something
04:01:31 something around you know give us a scan of the protest scene linked to Lawrence inquiry now that part one is over. It may have been as generic as that. Um, and that's
04:01:45 been as generic as that. Um, and that's why
04:01:47 why and the initial go at it was the most junior rank in the whole of special branch.
04:02:00 Thank you. Just before 6, your evidence is concluded. I'm grateful to you for lasting as long as grateful for having the opportunity to appear, sir. Uh, we will resume tomorrow at 10:00, I
04:02:13 Uh, we will resume tomorrow at 10:00, I think. We not 9:30 is it? I'll just check. 9:30 tomorrow. Is it 9:30?
04:02:18 9:30? 9:30. I may get the time right sometime.