In this afternoon session, Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ret'd) John Grieve concludes his evidence on family liaison, the covert recording of meetings with Dwayne Brooks, and a special branch file on QC Michael Mansfield, before apologising for training failures. The session then hears from Robert (Bob) Quick, who led the Metropolitan Police's Lawrence Review team in 1998, on how his team concluded the Met was likely to be found institutionally racist, how that finding was received by senior officers, and a previously secret August 1998 meeting between his colleague Richard Walton and an undercover SDS officer discussing the Lawrence family's campaign supporters.
00:21:36 Good afternoon everybody. This afternoon's proceedings like this morning's are being transmitted over the live link after a 15-minute delay. Those with mobile telephones may use them to report what they hear in the hearing
00:21:48 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. Yes. Thank you, sir. Um, Mr. grieve. I'm in a
00:21:59 Thank you, sir. Um, Mr. grieve. I'm in a moment I'm going to move to some new and completely discreet um various uh different topics. Um but before I do so I just want to ask you one further question about your meeting with um Mr.
00:22:12 question about your meeting with um Mr. Colin Black in on the 12th of January 1999. You'll recall we looked at the minute that you had signed um to say that you'd seen a report um or and that
00:22:23 that you'd seen a report um or and that you'd had a meeting with Mr. black and that was the one in which you said you challenged his view about the about Sesh Grover and the monitoring group. Um was
00:22:34 Grover and the monitoring group. Um was that the first time you were were aware of um special branch or SDS reporting on Sesh Grover and the monitoring group or or do you think that there had been reporting prior to that?
00:22:46 reporting prior to that? Well, there had been reporting prior to that because I've seen the reports now. I had no recollection of it. I I thought my first
00:22:57 my first exposure to Chesh Grover was when I saw him with Mrs. Real at Eling, but it's obviously possible that I'd seen previous
00:23:11 possible that I'd seen previous reports on him or or where he was referred to in previous reports, shall I say. I had no recollection of seeing him at other aspects of the Steven Lawrence
00:23:22 at other aspects of the Steven Lawrence inquiry.
00:23:24 inquiry. Do you are you aware of when special branch's interest in Sesh Grover began? No.
00:23:32 No. Thank you. Um I want to ask you about um Paul Charlton please and his role. Paul Charlton. Yes. So he was um uh supervised by Barry
00:23:45 Yes. So he was um uh supervised by Barry McDow who was a member of your team on the task force and he was Mr. Dwayne Brooks family liaison officer. Do you recall that? I do. Yes. Um
00:23:56 Um Mr. McDow um in an interview with the Steven Lawrence review team um recalled that essentially accepted that information could be gleaned from Mr.
00:24:08 information could be gleaned from Mr. Brooks in relation to movement for justice to inform public order policing. Um and he records um he he recalled that through said through our relationship
00:24:19 through said through our relationship with Dwayne Brooks useful information may be gleaned that will assist with policing arrangements therefore ensuring both public and police safety issues are planned for thoroughly. and he felt that
00:24:33 planned for thoroughly. and he felt that uh his role, whatever his role in an investigation, it's incumbent upon uh anyone to gain relevant information and to pass that information on. Um did you
00:24:44 to pass that information on. Um did you see it at at the time as being part of a family liaison officer's role to to gain information from Mr. Brooks which could be used by special branch for public
00:24:56 be used by special branch for public order policing purposes?
00:25:00 Uh yes and no sir. Um this was at a very early stage of our thinking our new thinking about family
00:25:11 thinking our new thinking about family liaison officers. Um uh
00:25:20 we eventually got to the position whereby the family liaison officer has to explain to the families that he or she is a member of the investigation
00:25:31 she is a member of the investigation team and that there were a variety of matters that may come to um uh that officer's attention that would be
00:25:42 officer's attention that would be reported. back to the inquiry. Um, we got in a muddle quite frankly at an early stage with this. I've apologized to Paul Charlton uh for some of what
00:25:56 to Paul Charlton uh for some of what went on here. Um, and we eventually tidied up our thinking. Um, it's quite complicated what we ask
00:26:07 Um, it's quite complicated what we ask the family liaison officers to do. Um we don't all we didn't always get it right. Um it's a much better system now. It's
00:26:19 Um it's a much better system now. It's been deeply thought about uh by a number of officers who've written extensively about it and there is a big training um implication
00:26:32 um implication out of family liaison that we should have got to much earlier. Was it ever explained to Mr. Brooks that he could be used as a source of information for use by special branch
00:26:44 information for use by special branch a lot later. Not at the time. No.
00:26:48 No. Um, wasn't there a risk of undermining the support and trust between the family liaison officer and Mr. Brooks? Absolutely. Um, was there a racial motive for attempting to gain useful information
00:27:01 attempting to gain useful information from Mr. not not from our perspective by which I mean at the very least mine and Barry McDow's um so looking back on it with hindsight
00:27:15 um so looking back on it with hindsight do you consider now that to have been inappropriate yes to do well
00:27:21 well in the manner that it in the manner that it was conducted that if it had been explained through and explored properly and the riskmanagement aspects of it
00:27:34 and the riskmanagement aspects of it examined.
00:27:36 examined. Um I I need to explain perhaps that
00:27:43 there is a point an early point in inquiries
00:27:48 inquiries where you have to consider um that there may be some immediate
00:27:59 um that there may be some immediate either family or relationship aspect to the inquiry. [snorts] But as Dr. Neville Lawrence pointed out to me, it doesn't take very much to come to the conclusion
00:28:11 take very much to come to the conclusion that this has got nothing to do with the family or with say Dwayne Brooks or somebody that's close to you in this case and we should have come to that
00:28:23 case and we should have come to that realization much earlier. Um, as for looking at the public disorder aspect of it, I'd go back again sir to what we were talking about earlier of what
00:28:35 were talking about earlier of what criteria would have to be deployed if you were going to carry out that kind of activity
00:28:42 activity and they didn't apply here and it didn't apply here and I deeply regret it. Thank you. Um, do you consider it to have been inappropriate for the SDS to be reporting on Mr. Brookke's civil
00:28:53 be reporting on Mr. Brookke's civil claim against the Metropolitan Police Service? Absolutely. Um, did your task force receive any such rec report reporting that you can recall?
00:29:01 recall? Sorry.
00:29:02 Sorry. Did your task force receive any such reporting that you can recall? No, we got loosely involved in that through the deployment of a mediator which is covered in my statement.
00:29:16 which is covered in my statement. Thank you. Um, I want to move on then, please. Um, in 2000 you attended a number of meetings with Mr. Brooks and his legal team. Um, we believe that
00:29:27 his legal team. Um, we believe that there were 12 in total. Um, and in relation to at least one of them on the 24th of May 2000, but possibly two, the second being on the 16th of August 2000,
00:29:40 second being on the 16th of August 2000, you gave authority for those meetings to be covertly recorded. Um, do you recall that?
00:29:46 that? I do. Um, why did you consider that it was appropriate as the head of the racial and violent crime task force to covertly record either those one or two meetings with Mr. Brooks's solicitors
00:29:59 meetings with Mr. Brooks's solicitors and both parties notetakers? One, Dwayne Brooks was on bail on at least one of the occasions and there
00:30:11 least one of the occasions and there were very strict requirements about meeting people on bail. two, he had been the subject of enormous criticism
00:30:23 criticism by um Mr. Justice Curtis, all of which is heavily reported in chapter 41 of the Steven Lawrence inquiry and the
00:30:34 Steven Lawrence inquiry and the complexities of uh dealing uh with Dwayne. three, it was within my gift at the time in the
00:30:46 was within my gift at the time in the rank that I was in uh to deploy um a uh what's called a Nagra, which is a recording device. three, although I
00:30:58 a recording device. three, although I was criticized by it in Mark Ellison's report. Um, although Mark Ellison actually said that it was uh his colleague Allison Morgan who'd uh done
00:31:12 colleague Allison Morgan who'd uh done that part of it and he told other people that I'd done it for the best of reasons um and was justified. Um he he he
00:31:23 um and was justified. Um he he he reported that I was unjustified um in making that deployment for the independent no the investigatory
00:31:35 no the investigatory powers tribunal subsequently looked at those kind of covert um deployments and said it was the very best evidence that they could
00:31:47 the very best evidence that they could get and they were not going to discourage that kind of activity. Now, that was not on all fours with my deployment of it, but it went some way to justifying what I'd done. However,
00:32:01 to justifying what I'd done. However, with hindsight, I don't think the risk analysis of talking to Dwayne and his lawyers and the way it was interpreted by other
00:32:15 the way it was interpreted by other lawyers later. um uh
00:32:19 um uh should have we we should have considered that it undermined some of the things that we were doing. It it would have undermined the relationship between um
00:32:31 undermined the relationship between um the Metropolitan Police who [clears throat] and given that they had had previously failed to treat him with respect as a victim had he had he discovered it wouldn't it and relations
00:32:42 discovered it wouldn't it and relations between and the NPS. Yes, as I said. Um, had you considered the legality and the necessity and the proportionality of
00:32:54 the necessity and the proportionality of such recording prior to doing the authorization for the recording? No. What what happened was I I got to the meeting with um
00:33:06 the meeting with um Mr. Brooks and his lawyer and uh u the rest of my team were waiting outside and they were extremely worried about the
00:33:17 they were extremely worried about the meeting and they were very unwilling um uh to take part in it without taking safeguards because of allegations that
00:33:28 safeguards because of allegations that had been made about other meetings. Um uh uh they asked me to make a decision at the time. I thought about it fairly quickly. Um, and I I I I wrote a
00:33:42 quickly. Um, and I I I I wrote a shorthand version of what my thinking was before we went into the meeting, before we deployed it. Afterwards, I
00:33:53 before we deployed it. Afterwards, I went through it what would what would have been in my mind and I identified, I think, 21 reasons why I thought it was a reasonable way of behaving. But it's not
00:34:04 reasonable way of behaving. But it's not your view that it was reasonable. Now, is it?
00:34:06 is it? Well, [laughter] I could still argue around um chapter 41 in the Steven Lawrence inquiry. There is so much material in there that you you
00:34:19 so much material in there that you you have to ask yourself, you know, what what are we doing? But we didn't have any choice but to have a meeting with him and his lawyer because we were
00:34:30 him and his lawyer because we were having meetings um with Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence and their legal representatives. We had to treat Dwayne in the same way as we were treating other people.
00:34:42 treating other people. Thank you. Um, new topic. Um, Mr. Michael Manfield, Mansfield Casey. Um, given your views about him and your
00:34:53 given your views about him and your interaction with him, do you have an opinion as to whether there was any justification for a special branch file being created on him in 1972?
00:35:06 Well, they'd have to know a lot about him that I didn't know to justify it. I don't know what justifications uh they had. I've
00:35:20 I've had several dealings with him down a great many years. I haven't seen any grounds under any circumstances
00:35:32 any grounds under any circumstances that would justify seeing him as a threat to the state. Are you able to shed any light on who would have authorized the creation of such a file? No.
00:35:44 No. Um, are you able to say who would have had access to it? No,
00:35:51 No, I [snorts] certainly didn't have access to it. Nobody told me they'd got a file on him. They didn't come and brief me about him. Um, and you've confirmed that in your
00:36:03 Um, and you've confirmed that in your view reporting upon him um on your knowledge wouldn't have been justified on your knowledge of him. No, he's part of the criminal justice
00:36:16 No, he's part of the criminal justice system of this country. Uh, sir, my my mother was a lawyer. You know, she'd never forgive me if she thought I was collecting information
00:36:28 thought I was collecting information about defense lawyers. My mother defended people. Um, we know that some of the reporting on him contained legally privileged
00:36:39 on him contained legally privileged material. In your view, um, should that kind of material not have been recorded because it was legally professionally p privileged? My answer remains the same, sir. I I
00:36:53 My answer remains the same, sir. I I can't see how it could be justified in a democracy. Um, it appears it sounds like, you know, it sounds like the behavior of
00:37:04 you know, it sounds like the behavior of a police state. Thank you. Um, it it appears that Mr. the Mansfield file was destroyed in 2021.
00:37:13 2021. Um given your earlier comments um it this morning in evidence about missing paperwork and um your suggestion that there must be paperwork somewhere, including down a coal mine in the
00:37:25 including down a coal mine in the Midlands. Um do you um have any view about whether the file may have been deliberately destroyed to prevent its disclosure to this inquiry?
00:37:36 I have no information that could add to that. Sorry. Hi. Um just finally then please um I
00:37:47 Um just finally then please um I understand um that you've reflected upon your time as commander training commander in charge of training in the Metropolitan Police Service and that there's something you wanted to say
00:37:58 there's something you wanted to say about um that time and the lack of training that police officers receive to to equip them in relation to uh racial awareness and race discrimination.
00:38:12 awareness and race discrimination. Yes, it goes to this uh sir. Um
00:38:18 the definition of institutional racism which we've gone through involves collective failure of the organization and in in accepting that
00:38:31 organization and in in accepting that you have to accept your own role. I was a metron police officer and proud to be so for 38 years. But if you're going to admit to a collective failure, then you
00:38:43 admit to a collective failure, then you have to look at what it is exactly was your role in that collective failure and apologize for that. And I thought of
00:38:55 and apologize for that. And I thought of two things that aren't included in the commissioner's apology. I identify with the commissioner's apology uh to the women who were behaved who were treated
00:39:07 women who were behaved who were treated so dreadfully. Um so I identify with all that but I'd add one more thing in in looking at the collective failure. I as commander training I never thought one
00:39:21 commander training I never thought one about improving the training for family lea laser officers. There was no training at all. was just an ad hoc job. Linda Holden was just Linda UB family
00:39:34 Linda Holden was just Linda UB family liaison officer. You know, I've long thought that if Linda was put put in charge of surveillance, we wouldn't be sitting here now.
00:39:45 Um so so there should have been some of these should have thought through and my responsibility as commander training during um three years of the preceding
00:39:56 during um three years of the preceding decade
00:39:58 decade before all this happened. I I bear some responsibility for not having thought through that we should have been training family leaison officers. We did do from a very early stage.
00:40:11 do from a very early stage. you know, my own team came to me and said, "You need to listen to some of the unofficial training that's going on elsewhere. Um, uh, designed by junior officers, I may
00:40:24 uh, designed by junior officers, I may say, in complete contravention to the training regime that we're adopting." So that that was one thing I should have thought of that but the other thing was I was actively involved
00:40:37 other thing was I was actively involved in what was the training for crime undercover officers and I did some of the ethical inputs to the crime undercover officers training which again
00:40:49 undercover officers training which again was designed and delivered by some very junior officers who were very experienced in it and had thought through many of the pitfalls that you're having to examine. I mean now I should
00:41:01 having to examine. I mean now I should have thought at that time
00:41:07 that the uh special branch officers should have been made to go on the SO10 training course that we were already
00:41:18 training course that we were already delivering that was already being delivered at at great success. So I apologize for both those things to
00:41:29 So I apologize for both those things to everybody concerned but particularly to the women who you're considering here and to the Lawrence family. Thank you. Um sir those are all my
00:41:41 Thank you. Um sir those are all my questions. I've considered and asked the rule 10 um within those questions. Um I understand there isn't any re-examination um now. So um I think we
00:41:52 re-examination um now. So um I think we can conclude u Mr. Gre's evidence. Thank you for once rather earlier than usual um the evidence of a witness is completed. I'm very grateful to you for
00:42:03 completed. I'm very grateful to you for coming and giving forthright evidence about these matters. It's of great assistance to me. Thank you. Thank you. So I will now rise and we will uh resume
00:42:15 So I will now rise and we will uh resume in I hope quarter of an hour. Um but uh we'll see how it how it goes. I'll I'll double check, sir. Yes.
01:03:07 [snorts]
01:03:10 May the witness be sworn, please. Thank you.
01:03:15 you. Please stand. Take the Bible and repeat after me. I swear by Almighty God I swear by Almighty God Let the evidence I shall give that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth shall be the truth the whole truth
01:03:26 the whole truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you. Thank you.
01:03:36 Um, please can you provide your name to the inquiry? Robert Quick. Mr. Quick, do you recall providing the inquiry with the witness statement dated the 2nd of December, 2024? I understand
01:03:49 the 2nd of December, 2024? I understand you'd like to make a correction to that statement. So, I'll just bring it up. It's um MPS0749663
01:03:59 bottom of page three please paragraph 10.
01:04:05 10. And I understand it's the final sentence going over the page. So where it reads, it was also common practice to be secounded to a murder investigation team if a homicide
01:04:16 investigation team if a homicide occurred in the area. For example, within the first few weeks of my being acting detective inspector at over the page, please plumstead Orville Blair was murdered on
01:04:28 plumstead Orville Blair was murdered on the Tempame's media estate by a group of white youth in what was perceived as a racially motivated attack. I understand you'd like to make an amendment to that. I I was in fact referring to the murder
01:04:39 I I was in fact referring to the murder of Ronan Adams, right? Not Orville Blair, although I was involved in the investigation of Orville's
01:04:47 Orville's murder sometime later. Subsequently, thank you. Yes.
01:04:52 Yes. Having now made that correction, can you confirm that the contents of the witness statement are true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief? Yes.
01:05:04 Yes. Starting, Mr. Quick, with your career background before you joined the Lawrence review team.
01:05:13 You joined the MPS aged 18 in January 1978,
01:05:18 1978, correct?
01:05:19 correct? And served in South London in your early years.
01:05:21 years. Yes.
01:05:23 Yes. April 1983, you were selected as a detective constable and transferred to Brixton subdivision based at Brixham Police Station where you investigated
01:05:34 Police Station where you investigated recorded crimes and dealt with arrested prisoners brought in by uniformed branch. Yes, we know that Robert Lambert, who was then a detective
01:05:45 Robert Lambert, who was then a detective sergeant, he was on C squad in special branch from October 1982 to September 1983
01:05:53 1983 and he worked in four area liaison with special responsibility for the Brixton area following public order disturbances. I just wanted to ask whether you came across him at all when
01:06:05 whether you came across him at all when he was working in that capacity and you were in Brixton. Not to my knowledge.
01:06:16 You set out in your witness statement at paragraph 7 how in February 1984 you were promoted to sergeant and transferred to Catford Police Station.
01:06:27 transferred to Catford Police Station. You were a uniform sergeant supervising officer on a on a relief led by an inspector and consisting of about 30 to 40 constables. and that your duties including carrying out supervisory
01:06:39 including carrying out supervisory patrols and acting as a station officer, that is the sergeant in charge of the police station and the detainees. That's correct. Right. In the summer of 1987, you returned to
01:06:51 In the summer of 1987, you returned to detective duties permanently and then remained at Catford Police Station as a detective sergeant. You did that until 1989. Then you were selected to serve on the Southeast London Drug Squad.
01:07:03 Southeast London Drug Squad. Yes.
01:07:07 Paragraph 10 of your witness statement, you describe how in early 1991, so if it was, if I understand correctly, if it was before, just before the murder of Roland Adams, it must have been February
01:07:19 Roland Adams, it must have been February 1991. He was murdered on the 21st of February 1991. So around February 1991, you transferred to our division, Plumstead subdivision, as an acting detective inspector, and
01:07:31 as an acting detective inspector, and you became a substantive DI later that same year. Correct.
01:07:39 You've referred to it already that within the first few weeks of your being an acting acting detective inspector at Plumstead, Roland Adams, was murdered on the Tempsme estate.
01:07:51 the Tempsme estate. And I understand that suspects were arrested very soon after the murder. So the following week, is that accurate? Uh, no. That that night. That night.
01:08:02 That night. Yes.
01:08:04 Yes. and an individual was convicted for that murder. Yes. Mark Thornbro. Were you aware that there was some criticism of the police investigation into that murder? We heard from Roland Adams
01:08:16 murder? We heard from Roland Adams father, Richard Adams, in our charge 2 hearings. And he took issue with the fact that no one was ever charged with the attack on Roland's brother, Nathan,
01:08:27 the attack on Roland's brother, Nathan, who was hit on the head. and he described a reluctance on the part of the police to investigate it as a racist murder. That it was only the sentencing judge who brought the issue of racism
01:08:39 judge who brought the issue of racism into it and that they felt at the time the police were reluctant to investigate it as if it were a murder born out of race hate. Were you aware of that?
01:08:50 race hate. Were you aware of that? I wasn't aware of it. I may have been at the time, but I don't recall it. I'm slightly surprised by it. But does it chime with your recollection? Do
01:09:02 does it chime with your recollection? Do you
01:09:03 you recall at the time it doesn't considering it not to be a racist murder?
01:09:07 murder? Uh well, I I I think the organization's definitions uh of racist murder at that time may have been different to what they are
01:09:18 have been different to what they are today. But um my recollection was as far as I can in detail was that it was
01:09:31 it was a murder with elements of racial motivation there. There was racial abuse spoken.
01:09:37 spoken. Yes. There was that that was Yes.
01:09:40 Yes. Nathan Adam said that when the gang were on the scene and they used a racial slur,
01:09:46 slur, right? So, I'm perplexed that the police would deny that was the case. Um, whether it didn't fit some kind of definition that existed at the time, I
01:09:57 definition that existed at the time, I don't know. I can't recall, but it ought to have done. Um,
01:10:04 Um, soon after that, so in May 1991, Orville Blair was murdered. And were you involved in that investigation as well? And did you consider that to be a racist
01:10:15 And did you consider that to be a racist murder?
01:10:17 murder? My recollection of that case is not as clear. Um, there was an individual called Peter Snell, I understand, who was convicted for that murder who knew Mr. Blair,
01:10:30 for that murder who knew Mr. Blair, right?
01:10:31 right? But it was, I understand, understood to be a racist. Right. It may well have been I wouldn't dispute that. I I what I do remember I think there were about six murders in
01:10:44 think there were about six murders in and around Plumstead during the very brief time I was there which was was um unusual obviously that was a scary and concerning development the number of
01:10:57 and concerning development the number of murders in a very short space of time and I I do believe a number or I do know that a number of them were racially motivated I just couldn't remember the the or Blair's circumstances.
01:11:08 circumstances. Yeah. The
01:11:12 Yeah. The BMP opened a bookshop we know in Upper Wickham Lane in 1989. Was it understood at the time by you and your colleagues that there was a causal link between the opening of that
01:11:23 link between the opening of that bookshop and this surge in racist murders?
01:11:31 I certainly have recollections of the bookshop and the controversies surrounding it. Uh whether a causal link
01:11:42 surrounding it. Uh whether a causal link was acknowledged, I honestly can't remember or don't know. The increase in racially motivated crime in the area led to the setting up of
01:11:55 in the area led to the setting up of what became the racial incidents unit in Plumstead in 1991. Is that right? I do recall that. Yes. Did you work closely with the racial incidents unit when you were stationed
01:12:07 incidents unit when you were stationed at Plumstead?
01:12:12 I believe I would have had interaction with it, but I I can't remember when I left Plumsy, but I think I was only there for a few months. Um
01:12:25 there for a few months. Um I think by the summer I had been transferred. So there was a very limited window. Yeah.
01:12:33 Yeah. For me.
01:12:33 For me. Yeah. You say you were So later in 1991 you were transferred to L division working out of Kennington. So you weren't in Plumstead for very long. For over under a year you were there.
01:12:44 For over under a year you were there. Yeah.
01:12:47 Looking at attitudes within the police force in Plumsteads in that area, were you privy, Mr. Quick, to any racist attitudes amongst your colleagues at
01:12:59 attitudes amongst your colleagues at that time?
01:13:03 I certainly would have been in one shape or another. I mean, from joining the police in 1978, yeah,
01:13:11 yeah, you know, the use of racist language when I was a very junior officer was not uncommon. In Plumstead at that time, particularly
01:13:22 In Plumstead at that time, particularly in that window, did you notice as an inspector that your colleagues, your junior colleagues, your peers, did you notice explicitly racist attitudes and also any more subtle
01:13:36 attitudes and also any more subtle I can't remember cases of people demonstrating explicit racist attitudes in Plumstead. Through the 1980s, the organization was
01:13:48 Through the 1980s, the organization was certainly changing. Yeah.
01:13:50 Yeah. And I think even even those that, you know, were racist would have felt vulnerable to
01:14:01 racist would have felt vulnerable to expressing those opinions openly. um they might have done in select company or groups but supervisors by then were beginning to challenge these
01:14:13 then were beginning to challenge these behaviors robustly. Yeah.
01:14:16 Yeah. Not everywhere. It was a moving feast through the 80s into the '9s and we're talking about the early 1990s now. But I don't remember specific
01:14:28 But I don't remember specific instances. Could I could I honestly hand on heart say I didn't hear anything? I couldn't say that. And in terms of institutional racism, did you witness
01:14:42 institutional racism, did you witness examples of that? So, for example, stereotyping or perhaps black families being treated differently, black families who are victims of crime or black individuals who are victims of crime being treated differently from
01:14:54 crime being treated differently from white individuals of non-ethn minorities.
01:15:00 I'm trying to think of an example of where I actually witnessed that. Um, and I can't think of one, but the the police it it's a complex culture
01:15:13 the the police it it's a complex culture and they,
01:15:15 and they, you know, they they certainly stereotype in all sorts of directions um based on um their experience in in the field, if
01:15:27 um their experience in in the field, if you like.
01:15:28 you like. Um it's unhelpful, it's crude, um it's lazy, but um it was a cultural problem and challenge.
01:15:40 problem and challenge. Yeah. And you recognize that it did exist at that time. I do.
01:15:46 I do. Steven Lawrence was murdered on the 22nd of April, 1993. I understand that you weren't serving in the police at that time. You had left in January 1993 to study for an MBA at X2 University.
01:15:59 study for an MBA at X2 University. Yes.
01:16:00 Yes. You say that you returned to the MPS in the spring of 1994 as a detective inspector at Greenwich Police Station. And you say this that when you returned
01:16:11 And you say this that when you returned in the spring of 94 was in a managerial position in Southeast London and Greenwich, so similar area to Blumstead after Steven's murder. And you say that the murder and its immediate aftermath
01:16:23 the murder and its immediate aftermath was still an issue even though you had no involvement in the police response. What do you mean by it was still an issue?
01:16:32 I'm talking about probably 1994 when I returned from uh the university. Um
01:16:41 Um it was an issue in as much as it was a very profound case, very controversial. It was in the news regularly. There was lots of uh discussion about
01:16:56 There was lots of uh discussion about what had happened. Um I can't remember I I I I returned to Greenwich Division and I I can't remember whether
01:17:08 and I I can't remember whether um the location of Steven's murder was on that division. I think it may well have been. I think it was Plumstead. Oh, was it Plumstead? Okay. So it was it was close to the border. I think it might was it Well Hall Road in in Elton?
01:17:22 might was it Well Hall Road in in Elton? So So it was very close by and I remember it being the subject of discussion um and you know opinions and mixed views
01:17:35 um and you know opinions and mixed views really being expressed by people at the time.
01:17:37 time. Do you mean within the police force? Within the police? Yes.
01:17:48 You say that you were in post in as it you you went on promotion sorry as DCI in September 1996 to South Norwood.
01:18:02 DCI in September 1996 to South Norwood. Yes.
01:18:03 Yes. And you had responsibility for managing the entire divisional crime response and the divisional C. You were in the post for about a year before moving around 1997 to the assistant commissioner's office in
01:18:15 assistant commissioner's office in Southeast London as the staff officer to assistant commissioner Ian Johnston. Yes. Of four area. And four area I understand is Southeast London.
01:18:25 London. Yes.
01:18:27 Yes. You say that as his staff officer in 1997, you had some limited involvement in the run-up to the inquiry being announced and commencing evidential hearings in assisting with diary management and drafting letters and
01:18:39 management and drafting letters and other correspondence. Um, assistant commissioner Johnston was obviously
01:18:44 obviously quite involved in inquiry, gave evidence of the hearings. Can you give us an insight into the behind thescenes response in Assistant Commissioner Johnston's office when the inquiry was
01:18:55 Johnston's office when the inquiry was announced? Was it one of outrage? Was it one of acceptance, nervousness? Certainly apprehension. Um uh I I think
01:19:09 Um uh I I think there was a sense of vulnerability. Um I didn't have an intimate knowledge of what gone before. As I say, I was uh not in the Met. Well, I I was a Met
01:19:22 not in the Met. Well, I I was a Met officer, but I was on secondent on a on a scholarship. Um, but definitely uh it was a serious issue.
01:19:33 definitely uh it was a serious issue. The assistant commissioner was, you know, very preoccupied with it. Um, I think the inquiry may have been announced while I was still serving as
01:19:45 announced while I was still serving as the staff officer and then there were then there began um efforts to retrieve documents and prepare for for this.
01:19:59 [clears throat] Moving now to your appointment to the Lawrence review team. You say that after a promotion to superintendent, you were tasked by
01:20:10 superintendent, you were tasked by assistant commissioner Johnston to Peckham division to help address the high number of robberies in the area. You were transferred early 1998, but very shortly after that transfer, so
01:20:21 very shortly after that transfer, so within a few weeks of the Steven Lawrence inquiries having begun, so that was mid-March 1998, you were called in by assistant commissioner Johnston to set up the
01:20:32 commissioner Johnston to set up the Lawrence review team. So is that are we talking April, midappril 1998 later?
01:20:41 later? Can you tell me when the inquiry actually started? It started on the 16th of March 1998. I think it was very late March, early April.
01:20:49 April. Okay. So, very soon after. Yes. [snorts] Thank you.
01:20:59 Looking at the circumstances in which you were appointed, you say that around this time, so we're saying late March, early April, you received a phone call from Assistant
01:21:10 received a phone call from Assistant Commissioner Johnston asking you to attend the commissioner's office at Scotland Yard in connection with the inquiry. [snorts] Yes. And you describe arriving at the commissioner's offices and saying that
01:21:21 commissioner's offices and saying that you say there was a meeting already in progress and it was full of very senior officers including the commissioner a number of assistant commissioners and several deputy assistant commissioners and that you recognized a few people in
01:21:32 and that you recognized a few people in the room including assistant commissioner Johnston and assistant commissioner Dennis Okconor. Yes.
01:21:40 Yes. Can you recall was John Griev there? I'm not sure that he was. He could have been. I I I I certainly know um Ian
01:21:52 been. I I I I certainly know um Ian Johnson, Dennis O' Connor, the deputy commissioner uh and the commissioner were present. But you have no positive recollection of deputy commissioner.
01:22:07 If I understand the timeline correctly, this meeting predated, don't worry if you can't recall, but I'll ask the question. This predated
01:22:18 question. This predated the point in the inquiry hearings which was the 20th of April when Commissioner Condon made submissions via the his council the Metropolitan Police Council
01:22:31 council the Metropolitan Police Council Jeremy Gonertz QC criticizing the confrontational approach of the inquiry. Do you think this meeting predated that? It would seem it did. I think it did. Yeah.
01:22:43 Yeah. You say in your witness statement that the discussion at this meeting was focused around the inquiry and its impact on the Metropolitan Police, in particular, its reputation and morale?
01:22:54 particular, its reputation and morale? Yes.
01:22:57 Yes. Was it your impression that these senior officers believed that it was the inquiry that was making the Metropolitan Police look bad?
01:23:08 the Metropolitan Police look bad? No. Um I I I think at some point the the style of the inquiry surfaced either at that meeting or subsequently. But but I think the the
01:23:21 subsequently. But but I think the the concern
01:23:23 concern really being expressed was um in fact I think there was expressions of concern about the aggressive nature uh of the questioning and and of of some
01:23:35 uh of the questioning and and of of some very junior officers that was expressed at this meeting. I think it was right
01:23:41 right that there was a sort of sense of crisis in the room and the evidence that was going that was being heard by the inquiry
01:23:52 inquiry um was obviously being reported on in the press by that time and I'd read some of the headlines myself I think um and there was a sense of not being prepared
01:24:06 there was a sense of not being prepared um and my tasking was really to to form a small team and examine the evidence that was being heard by the inquiry.
01:24:17 inquiry. Yeah.
01:24:18 Yeah. Um and really help the the Met um make sense of that and um make recommendations as to what it
01:24:29 um make recommendations as to what it ought to do to respond. Yeah. Oh, you've preempted some of my later questions. Just moving back. No, no, don't apologize. Moving back to just something you said a minute ago, um
01:24:41 something you said a minute ago, um you referred to a sense of the senior officers not being prepared and you make a similar point in your witness statement uh paragraph 17. You say that
01:24:52 statement uh paragraph 17. You say that you you gained a sense that unexpected issues had emerged. Yes. And you said a similar thing to Ellison uh in 2013. You said you were asked to lead a review because it was deemed in
01:25:03 lead a review because it was deemed in effect to be going very badly and the Met were, if I am honest, quite perplexed about what was happening. I yes I I looking back I I think they
01:25:16 I yes I I looking back I I think they were quite naive about what was to come or what this inquiry might involve and what might surface in terms of officers
01:25:28 officers um giving their evidence and and the lines of inquiry that might develop um and
01:25:36 and in the original briefing I think you know there was expressed confidence that our main vulnerability is is actually competence, not racism or not corruption.
01:25:47 corruption. Yeah.
01:25:48 Yeah. Um
01:25:49 Um um
01:25:51 um in so far as you're able to cast your mind back, what do you attribute that attitude to? Do you think for example that the MPS have been given a false sense secure false sense of security by
01:26:03 sense secure false sense of security by the Barker Review by the Kent investigation and thought that the inquiry was going to be more of the same? I think there was an ex to some extent. Yes. I think that there had been lots of
01:26:16 I think that there had been lots of scrutiny.
01:26:17 scrutiny. Yeah.
01:26:18 Yeah. But
01:26:20 But arguably not as effective as it should have been.
01:26:28 Now you've mentioned it. This idea that you were told at the end of the meeting, we are bombroof on racism. We are bomb proof on corruption.
01:26:39 racism. We are bomb proof on corruption. Did that come from Assistant Commissioner Johnson? Yeah, you remember that? Yes, I I remember that. And um
01:26:49 um it was interesting in a sense because at that time some colleagues of mine were working in the anti-corruption arena.
01:26:59 arena. Yeah.
01:26:59 Yeah. Uh-i- which was a very confidential sort of set of operations, but these were people I knew very well. So I kind of knew that that we weren't probably weren't bombroof on corruption,
01:27:10 weren't bombroof on corruption, right?
01:27:11 right? Because there were developments in the organization about that. Yeah. And what were your views on racism just from your own personal experience? Did you think again this was a bit complacent or did you take his word for
01:27:22 complacent or did you take his word for it?
01:27:24 it? I think at the time I didn't take his word for it. I I you as ever as an investigator you try to keep an open mind but my my personal experience of
01:27:37 mind but my my personal experience of life in the police service you know made me realize that we might not necessarily be bombroof on any of those things. Sure.
01:27:49 Sure. Looking at the role of the Lawrence review team as you understood it. What did you understand your remit to be as head of the Lawrence review team? Uh my remmit
01:28:01 Uh my remmit specifically was to examine the evidence that the inquiry was hearing uh and to comment on that and make
01:28:13 uh and to comment on that and make suggestions or recommendations about how the Met might respond to it. So if there were headlines on something that was said, you know, how would we
01:28:24 that was said, you know, how would we interpret that evidence, others might interpret it differently, but how would the police Yeah.
01:28:30 Yeah. uh interpret the evidence that was heard by the inquiry? Yeah.
01:28:35 Yeah. So really my my core function uh throughout my time there was really examining that transcript. Okay.
01:28:44 Okay. You say in your witness statement at paragraph 18 that
01:28:53 you understood that there was a need to understand the inquiry's processes and the Metropolitan Police's own vulnerabilities.
01:29:03 By that do you mean their vulnerabilities to criticism, the organization's vulnerabilities in that regard? Yes, I I think I think partly
01:29:15 I I think it was understanding our vulnerabilities. Y
01:29:22 Y So, is there other evidence that we could introduce that may balance some of those issues out or or may um
01:29:33 those issues out or or may um you know be helpful to the inquiry in some way. But but certainly in terms of vulnerabilities, it was really about how how we respond.
01:29:44 it was really about how how we respond. For example, um one of the responses was to uh introduce the diversity strategy. Would it be fair to say that the concern
01:29:55 Would it be fair to say that the concern at this stage was more about managing the criticisms rather than reflecting on the causes of those criticisms as in
01:30:07 the causes of those criticisms as in looking
01:30:09 looking within the MPS and actually having a root and branch analysis of whether or not these criticism are actually completely valid. Yeah, I understand. I I think it was a
01:30:20 Yeah, I understand. I I think it was a mixture and actually different characters at senior level had different emphasis.
01:30:25 emphasis. Yeah.
01:30:26 Yeah. Some were very focused on let's learn from this and let's change. Yeah.
01:30:36 Yeah. Others were more focused on damage limitation and protecting the reputation of the organization. I think others were very concerned about the impact on the personnel
01:30:49 the impact on the personnel morale
01:30:50 morale the morale 55,000 staff I think we had at that time or probably a bit less then but a lot
01:30:57 but a lot uh of people um who were watching this play out in the public sphere uh many of whom were deeply proud of being a member of the Metropolitan Police and and many of whom
01:31:10 Metropolitan Police and and many of whom were doing very good things. So it was I don't think you could just brand it as one concern. There were lots of perspectives and lots of motivations at
01:31:21 perspectives and lots of motivations at the top of the Met. I understand. Briefly looking at your sort of predecessor Matt Bagot, chief
01:31:32 predecessor Matt Bagot, chief superintendent who it appears was working on a or heading up an earlier iteration of the Lawrence Review team. what was called the Lawrence review team, even if it had a
01:31:43 Lawrence review team, even if it had a different function. Um, you say that you were aware that he was working from Scotland Yard acting as the interface between the Metropolitan Police and the inquiry itself. [snorts]
01:31:54 Police and the inquiry itself. [snorts] You say that if the inquiry had a particular question or issue, it was Chief Superintendent Bagot's job to reach back into the Metropolitan Police and resolve it. And he also briefed the
01:32:05 and resolve it. And he also briefed the senior management team on the day-to-day progress of the inquiry. So that's very senior police officers including the commissioner, the assistant commissioners. I believe that's what his role was. Yes.
01:32:16 I believe that's what his role was. Yes. And that's so secondon at the time, assistant commissioner Johnson,
01:32:24 assistant commissioner Okconor. Yes.
01:32:30 Is it your recollection that Griev was involved that deputy assistant commissioner Griev was involved at this stage or not? my recollection um because I I knew him quite well.
01:32:42 um because I I knew him quite well. Um he was
01:32:46 Um he was I think he was either in the anti-terrorist he says he was Yeah. Yes. And
01:32:55 Yes. And counterterrorism. So I my my recollection is he wasn't involved that early on. Um but that would chime with his recollection. Right. And but when the commissioner
01:33:10 Right. And but when the commissioner agreed that we should set up a race and violent crime task force, um John was identified as the right person to lead that. And uh although his his own career
01:33:24 that. And uh although his his own career plan was to stay in counterterrorism, he very graciously um accepted the challenge that the commissioner gave him and uh and
01:33:35 commissioner gave him and uh and actually enthusiasticly took up that role and I think that was in the summer early summer that would chime with the paperwork in his recollection. We'll come to that. Uh [cough]
01:33:47 [cough] we understand and you say in your witness statement that Chief Superintendent Bagger was supported by Superintendent Sarah Thornton. Yes.
01:33:55 Yes. There's a little bit of ambiguity around this. You recall that she was there from when you were brought in to set up the Lawrence review team. So again, we're
01:34:06 Lawrence review team. So again, we're talking end of March. Yes.
01:34:08 Yes. Early April. Yeah, you comment on the fact that she told Ellison she was on maternity leave until July 98, but actually later on in that interview with Ellison,
01:34:20 later on in that interview with Ellison, she rose back on that and says that she believes she was in post working on the inquiry when John Barker gave evidence and that was early June. So it seems she
01:34:31 and that was early June. So it seems she might have been there actually earlier than
01:34:34 than July. I wonder whether my my recollection she may have been coming into the office. Yeah.
01:34:41 Yeah. You know, while still on leave, which is often the case. Yeah. Like easing her way back into work. Yeah. Um
01:34:50 Um Chief Superintendent Bagot, did you cross over with him at all? Very brief. There was a very brief uh he briefed me. I remember that. Right. And uh but there was a very short
01:35:03 Right. And uh but there was a very short space of time and then he uh he transferred to another force. Yeah. Assistant chief constant understand. Um but was it your understanding that your role even though he briefed you
01:35:15 your role even though he briefed you that your role was divergent from his? You were undertaking a slightly different function. Yes, that was my understanding. My my understanding was Sarah Thornton and um
01:35:26 understanding was Sarah Thornton and um Mark Simmons Yeah. would carry on the role that Matt Bagot historically had been undertaking and I would now do something different
01:35:38 and I would now do something different which was to very much focus on the evidence being heard by the inquiry and brief senior officers and make recommendations off the back of that
01:35:49 off the back of that and and then quite early on that that was what was added to that was I was asked to write the commissioner's response to part one of the inquiry.
01:36:01 response to part one of the inquiry. We'll come to that. I just want to bring up a document just quickly, Mr. Quick. Um, if we could bring up please MPS 0749500.
01:36:11 It's dated the 28th of 28th of April 1998. It would seem that Chief Superintendent Bagot was still in post. I mean, maybe he was just on the brink of leaving. Yeah. Um, if we look at just
01:36:24 of leaving. Yeah. Um, if we look at just the first minute, it reads, "You may wish to see this excellent unclassified report, copies of which I've forwarded to Chief Superintendent Matt Bagot, who heads the Lawrence review team."
01:36:35 heads the Lawrence review team." Right.
01:36:35 Right. Uh, it's come from special branch, dated the 28th of April, 1980, sorry, 1998. Yeah.
01:36:42 Yeah. Um,
01:36:44 Um, if we could go to page three, please. Paragraph three.
01:36:55 Oh, sorry. Sorry. I don't actually have a bundle reference for this. I realiz I can follow my I cried it myself. Don't worry.
01:37:02 worry. Um,
01:37:06 just looking at this paragraph, Mr. This is a I should just explain this is a report written by C squad sergeants within special branch. It's [snorts]
01:37:18 within special branch. It's [snorts] about the reporting in the black press and the left-wing press on the inquiry. And this paragraph reads, accordingly,
01:37:29 And this paragraph reads, accordingly, due to the nature of the inquiry, much of the opinion expressed in various publications is reactionary. Any perceived admission of failure or acknowledged error by the MPS will be seized on and exploited. The inquiry has
01:37:41 seized on and exploited. The inquiry has provided the left-wing press with an unmissable opportunity to castigate the MPS. Whilst the pro whilst the proceedings do not feature heavily in the consciousness of revolutional socialists, it's provided their media
01:37:52 socialists, it's provided their media with a stick to beat the establishment. The MPS [snorts] is essentially in a no-win situation. Should it be found blameless, the inquiry will be denounced as a government whitewash. Any criticism expressed against the service will be
01:38:04 expressed against the service will be seized on as confirmation of our iniquities. The left-wing press are committed to showing the police as incompetent, morabundant, and inherently racist. Furthermore, it is in their interest to link the death of Steven
01:38:16 interest to link the death of Steven Lawrence to other racist attacks such as Roland Adams and Roit Dougle. Regardless of how remote the connections in real time may be, they regard this as a
01:38:27 time may be, they regard this as a fundamental part of raising class consciousness. The inquiry [snorts] is politically sexy and the left cannot fail to exploit it.
01:38:38 fail to exploit it. if we can take that down.
01:38:42 Were you in receipt of that kind of analysis and reporting when you started on the Lawrence Review team or indeed over the course of your time running that team? No, I don't ever recall seeing that
01:38:56 No, I don't ever recall seeing that um anything like that with that sort of no
01:39:00 no analysis? No. um and it wouldn't have been relevant to what I was asked to do and my focus was on the evidence being heard by the inquiry.
01:39:11 heard by the inquiry. Um I don't recall ever seeing special branch reporting. I don't know what what um classification that document had. Uh I wasn't cleared at that time. So I
01:39:25 I wasn't cleared at that time. So I wasn't allowed to see um documents marked secret. for example, right?
01:39:32 right? Um,
01:39:33 Um, but Chief, your understanding was Chief Superintendent Bagot was because he was Yeah, he may have been cleared. Uh, he he was clearly in receipt of it or it
01:39:44 he was clearly in receipt of it or it certainly indicates he was, but I didn't see that reporting to the best of my knowledge. No, fair enough. I mean, I accept you didn't see that particular report. It was more would does it surprise you that
01:39:56 was more would does it surprise you that this iteration of the Lawrence review team given that it seems if I understood your description of their role they were there just to leers between the MPS and the inquiry that
01:40:07 between the MPS and the inquiry that they were in receipt of this type of analysis.
01:40:11 analysis. I mean, it doesn't surprise me in as much as um the
01:40:18 the special branch may have thought they had a contribution to make and uh they were profering their particular views of what
01:40:29 profering their particular views of what was going on. Um I don't know what was done with that if anything. And uh but I didn't actually know uh that until
01:40:40 I didn't actually know uh that until recently. I thought the Lawrence review team was the team I set up. Sure.
01:40:45 Sure. I've subsequently learned that Matt Bagot's team was also called the Lawrence review team. But but the so the Lawrence review team in effect split into two things. Yeah. and and I was on this
01:40:58 Yeah. and and I was on this um task to comment on the evidence exa analyze the evidence that was being heard and um give a commentary to senior officers on that and help interpret what
01:41:11 officers on that and help interpret what that meant for the organization and its response.
01:41:15 response. Um if we could just bring up that report again. Sorry. If we could just look at page one, it's 0749500.
01:41:25 On page one, there's a minute from Superintendent Colin Black and it's the second minute and he writes,
01:41:37 writes, "Thank you for the useful report. There's no doubt the inquiry is going to influence police work for a long time to come. The review team will keep the commissioner aware. Otherwise, I would have sent this up for information.
01:41:49 have sent this up for information. Please thank DC Simons. Yeah.
01:41:51 Yeah. Um, again, does that surprise you that I mean that suggests obviously it doesn't ultimately prove, but that this type of material was being sent up from that team to the commissioner?
01:42:04 team to the commissioner? Yes.
01:42:04 Yes. Does that accord with your understanding of how they were operating at the time? Be that does accord because Sarah Thornton and Mark Simmons Yeah. were attending the inquiry on a
01:42:17 Yeah. were attending the inquiry on a regular I think probably most days certainly Sarah Thornton was um
01:42:23 um often accompanied by another senior officer might have been you know m Miss John Grieve or Dennis Okconor but um
01:42:34 John Grieve or Dennis Okconor but um they were also part of the briefing machinery back into the senior level of the organization and sometimes I was uh in the room when that was
01:42:46 I was uh in the room when that was happening. Yeah.
01:42:47 Yeah. Other times I wasn't. Right. Um
01:42:53 so your role as you describe it looking at what was coming out of those hearings and then making recommendations. How does that differ from their briefing role? Can you explain that? Um well I I
01:43:05 role? Can you explain that? Um well I I think the the the briefing role uh was a wider discussion about the inquiry, how it was running, how it was being perceived,
01:43:18 running, how it was being perceived, um how you know strategically how the organization ought to position itself and respond. And then there was my contribution which
01:43:30 And then there was my contribution which was much more focused on the evidence. it it was really rooted in the evidence that was in the transcripts. So theirs was more of a holistic the entire running and processes of the
01:43:42 entire running and processes of the inquiry.
01:43:43 inquiry. Yes.
01:43:46 You referred to it just then you said you were in some meetings involving Sarah Thornton when she was discharging this role of briefing the senior management team. So
01:43:59 briefing the senior management team. So does it follow from that there was a quite a lot of crossover between your work?
01:44:05 work? Yes, there was some certainly some crossover. Uh we can take that down. Thank you. Looking now at how you formed your team.
01:44:18 Looking now at how you formed your team. You say in your witness statement at paragraph 21 that you were given some limited parameters for selecting your team and you were told that they should consist that they the team should
01:44:30 consist that they the team should consist of independent officers who were not in any way connected with the inquiry
01:44:37 inquiry and I understand that you formed a team of around 10 officers. Yes.
01:44:43 Yes. These parameters, were they set for you by Assistant Commissioner Johnson?
01:44:50 I think they probably were. I can't remember specifically, but um they they they were partly common sense. We we wanted officers that were
01:45:01 sense. We we wanted officers that were not tainted in any way by any of the events that had gone before. And
01:45:13 I understand that they had no you weren't looking for officers who were in any way connected to the investigation or but also in terms of their outlook were you actively seeking officers who
01:45:28 were quite open-minded. So for example weren't going to be blindly loyal to the organization. Is that something you specifically Absolutely. that that and I think that was more my my uh parameter. Um I wanted
01:45:43 was more my my uh parameter. Um I wanted freethinking um bright progressive officers that would have an open mind and challenge um and not not you know adear to the
01:45:56 um and not not you know adear to the orthodoxy in terms of how the Met responds or how it interprets what's going on. Would it be fair to infer from that that
01:46:08 Would it be fair to infer from that that you understood that a great number of MPS officers were not very independent-minded and were
01:46:17 and were blindly loyal to the institution, defensive, [snorts] likely to take umbrage at any criticism? Of course, it's a it it it still is to some extent, but certainly
01:46:28 still is to some extent, but certainly then, you know, was very defensive. the the experience of police officers is hugely polarized. They they come into contact regularly
01:46:39 They they come into contact regularly with the worst elements of our society. Um they they they become very sensitive to criticism. Um and they they seek um refuge in their
01:46:53 Um and they they seek um refuge in their own you know company of other officers and everything gets more polarized then um so they they become very defensive
01:47:04 um so they they become very defensive and a sense that no one is really in a position to criticize because they don't understand the nature of the job. Sometimes they they may take that view and there are elements of truth in that.
01:47:16 and there are elements of truth in that. But you know I think we've all learned in recent years you know that police officers have to have to look at the world differently and we we need to find
01:47:28 world differently and we we need to find ways of of guarding against that polarization of attitudes and the you know the embedding of a culture that can be very unhealthy. Yeah.
01:47:40 Yeah. Yeah. Um, John Grieve in his inquiry witness statement referred to receiving hate mail when he worked on the racial and violent crime task force. And um,
01:47:51 and violent crime task force. And um, one of his former DIs who were working under him in that unit, Steve Kavana, said to Ellison that he was seen to some in the NPS as going native, which is a
01:48:04 in the NPS as going native, which is a phrase with racist overtones. um when he works on that. Does that surprise you that some members of the organization were that hostile to his
01:48:15 organization were that hostile to his work
01:48:17 work trying to build community relations? That does surprise me a bit that you know the officers would uh you know would threaten colleagues but there's no
01:48:28 would threaten colleagues but there's no doubt there were hardened attitudes in the organization you know that were deeply
01:48:35 deeply resentful of what was happening. Yeah.
01:48:41 Um, you say in your witness statement that you appointed Inspector Nick Fgrave as your deputy in the team and you assembled a team around you, including
01:48:54 assembled a team around you, including Detective Sergeant Neil Bassu, who I know is very invol I mean, this is irrelevant, but was involved in the Ssbury poisonings, managing that. He's got quite a high profile now. and you recruited a female officer from Pekkham
01:49:05 recruited a female officer from Pekkham division and the team grew quickly in size. So reaching its full compliment within a couple of weeks. So you managed to fill these positions quite quickly. Yes, it was a it was a bit of an ad hoc
01:49:18 Yes, it was a it was a bit of an ad hoc process. It was something I had to do really quickly. Yeah.
01:49:22 Yeah. So I had to rely on trusted people that would make recommendations about officers with these qualities. Right. I understand.
01:49:33 Right. I understand. Looking at when Richard Walton joined the team.
01:49:38 the team. You say he was recommended to you. Yes.
01:49:41 Yes. Uh you recall interviewing him and thinking he was mildmannered, thoughtful, and bright. Yes.
01:49:48 Yes. You refer to his career management transfer form. We don't need to bring it up, but the reference is UCPI 36892, which suggests that he joined the team
01:49:59 which suggests that he joined the team in June 1998 as an acting detective inspector. And you say that that accords with your recollection of when he joined because you think he was one of the last, if not the last person to join the
01:50:10 last, if not the last person to join the team.
01:50:10 team. Yes, I think he was. He joined later. I thought it was earlier than June. Maybe late May, but sure. Late May. You think it's possible? cuz he thinks it was May.
01:50:22 cuz he thinks it was May. Yes. I think he doesn't give a specific date. No, I think it could have been May. Yes. Can you help us with when in May? Um
01:50:31 Um I can't I couldn't rely my my belief is he he came in May because I would have been
01:50:41 been uh desperately trying to find the right officers
01:50:45 officers right
01:50:45 right to come onto this team and I was under enormous pressure to get an enormous amount of work done and I think he was with us in May.
01:50:57 You've touched on this already, but just to recap. So, it seems that the role of the team evolved as time went on. So,
01:51:09 first of all, as you've described, your first task was to consider the transcripts from the hearings to identify and highlight the issues both from the questions that were being asked and the evidence. Yes.
01:51:20 Yes. That was being provided.
01:51:23 You said to Ellison, again, we don't need to bring it up, but it's page 19 of 03261.
01:51:33 And you say, of the role, we were analyzing evidence. We were finding new arguments to be fair. Well, actually, maybe that wasn't quite the way it's being interpreted. We were presenting
01:51:44 being interpreted. We were presenting arguments back to DLS and back to Sarah Thornton and her team. So just to clarify, is that before you were tasked with writing the submissions? This was something you were doing. This was early on.
01:51:56 This was early on. Yeah.
01:52:02 Can I ask when you say that you were presenting arguments back to the legal team and to Sarah Thornton, to what end? Was that so that these arguments could be fed back to police lawyers when
01:52:15 be fed back to police lawyers when questioning witnesses? Yes.
01:52:18 Yes. Right.
01:52:21 Right. Would it be fair to describe that as you were helping it was a type of defensive action that you were helping with? I don't think it was defensive. I think
01:52:33 I don't think it was defensive. I think it was um helping elicit all of the evidence.
01:52:40 evidence. Right.
01:52:40 Right. Because sometimes there was a line of questioning. a a lot of questions weren't necessarily asked perhaps should have been. So in a sense um we we were
01:52:53 have been. So in a sense um we we were commenting on what was before us in the transcript, right?
01:52:57 right? And there were times when it was clear there was kind of misunderstanding in the in in the in the questioning and the answering. you know, the two things were not aligned and people were clearly not
01:53:10 not aligned and people were clearly not answering the question that they were asked or sometimes answering a different question. Um, so we were pointing that out. No more than that. Right. I understand. So it was more about clearing up misunderstandings
01:53:23 about clearing up misunderstandings sometimes. It was a range of things, but what I do recall that patterns emerged in the questioning. So there were themes emerging and we were flagging those up
01:53:34 emerging and we were flagging those up to the organization and that was the principle thing. Yeah. Well again we'll come to that when it you you were reaching quite robust conclusions about what was emerging. Um,
01:53:45 conclusions about what was emerging. Um, you've referred already to the fact that you
01:53:52 were working from the transcripts first and foremost and you say that you weren't, if I understand your evidence correctly, you didn't receive material from special branch, for example. Um, you say in your witness statement at
01:54:04 Um, you say in your witness statement at paragraph 114, you say there were strict controls on the flow of intelligence through the MPS. You say material from CIB3, anti-corruption command, was passed to me on the Lawrence review
01:54:16 passed to me on the Lawrence review team, but I was not permitted to read it.
01:54:20 it. I understand the point you're making there that you your level of clearance wasn't sufficiently high. Yes.
01:54:26 Yes. But
01:54:28 But it would seem from that that you were being sent information that other departments considered might be relevant to your work on the Lawrence review team. Notwithstanding, you were unable to read it. Is that a fair?
01:54:40 to read it. Is that a fair? Not really because um the reason that came to me was the the senior people in the anti-corruption command had had
01:54:53 anti-corruption command had had approached me um about joining the anti-corruption command. Um and so
01:55:03 Um and so um I think and I knew them very well. Right. I knew them very well. The the the the chief superintendent and the superintendent at CIB3. So they came to me I think just because
01:55:15 So they came to me I think just because they knew me really well with a very sensitive issue and and said look um in this file we've got some material that's relevant
01:55:26 we've got some material that's relevant to the inquiry. So then then it turned out the file was marked secret. I see. So at that point I realized I couldn't deal with it or my office or my team. So I took it to DAC Roy Clark
01:55:41 team. So I took it to DAC Roy Clark um with their blessing and he he then examined the detail of the content. Right.
01:55:49 Right. What what what I did know I think they did share with me that an officer who had been on the initial investigation and who had given evidence to the
01:56:01 and who had given evidence to the McFersonen inquiry had been arrested or was about to be arrested for corrupt for a suspected corruption case. So um so I took that to Mr. Clark, Roy Clark, and he wrote to um
01:56:17 Mr. Clark, Roy Clark, and he wrote to um Sir William McFersonen about that. Right. But are you saying that that is quite an isolated example? It was receiving. Yeah. I think information from other departments.
01:56:28 information from other departments. It didn't generally happen. Didn't generally happen. No.
01:56:35 Looking at when you first became aware that institutional racism was going to be a big issue for the MPS, you say that going through the
01:56:46 you say that going through the transcripts was a revealing process and that the themes of racism, corruption, and incompetence were apparent from early on and that the term institutional racism came up very early on in the
01:56:57 racism came up very early on in the review and that you read up on it. Yes.
01:57:00 Yes. Because you weren't familiar with the term.
01:57:01 term. I wasn't. No. Um, so if I understand correctly, you were aware that there were allegations being made of overt racism, but also of the subtle iteration,
01:57:14 but also of the subtle iteration, institutional racism. Yes.
01:57:16 Yes. That's less direct. Yes.
01:57:19 Yes. But racism, a form of racism nonetheless. Um,
01:57:25 Um, I understand that
01:57:30 Dr. Robin Oakley set out in the hearings the definition of institutional racism and that he also provided a supplementary paper in September 98 for
01:57:42 supplementary paper in September 98 for a meeting with senior police managers to help them with their understanding of it. Does that chime that does chime? Yes. I remember reading his paper. Yes. Do were you at that meeting?
01:57:53 were you at that meeting? I don't recall being at that meeting. No.
01:57:58 No. What was your understanding then of what institutional racism meant? Well, I I I read his paper and I was intrigued by it. Um what what it meant
01:58:13 intrigued by it. Um what what it meant was this organization called the Metropolitan Police had policies and procedures and attitudes and beliefs uh that routinely resulted in
01:58:27 uh that routinely resulted in racist conduct or certainly um unequal or discriminatory behaviors and outcomes.
01:58:39 You say in your witness statement that there came a point quite soon, well, several weeks after you'd been analyzing these transcripts, when you realized that
01:58:49 that a finding of institutional racism was likely to be made or at least borne out through the evidence. Yeah. I mean, it was really interesting. my my team who were you know relatively
01:59:01 my my team who were you know relatively junior officers. Um, you know, they they picked up on this as as did I. And uh, you know, we we we as a team would sit down and discuss the
01:59:13 a team would sit down and discuss the transcripts each day and the evidence and um, you know, we we all came to the view that
01:59:22 view that that this is heading to the point where, you know, the the Metrop Police is likely to be found institutionally racist by that definition. And was that
01:59:33 racist by that definition. And was that based largely on the performance of [snorts] police officers in the witness box? So just to give you an example, DAC Osland uh repeated in testimony that
01:59:45 DAC Osland uh repeated in testimony that the Lawrenes had been difficult and hostile and gave a interview I believe in the I mean this predated the inquiry but saying that the police officers
01:59:57 but saying that the police officers should sue the Lawrenes for claiming that they were racist. Are you talking about that sort of thing that made you think
02:00:03 think partly? Yeah. I I think a lot of it was based on the evidence that was given by officers and their you know their attitudes as has
02:00:14 you know their attitudes as has displayed to the inquiry. Um part part of it was you know some of the comments some of the panel members were were making
02:00:23 making I think betrayed a a a agenda uh of some sort and and we eventually got to the point where we we believe that was going to be an outcome.
02:00:36 believe that was going to be an outcome. Would it be fair to say that some of the officers giving evidence were displaying in real time the shortcomings that beset the investigation into Steven Lawrence's murder?
02:00:46 murder? Yes.
02:00:49 You describe seeing which way the wind was blowing and
02:00:56 and recognizing the gravity of the situation for the MPS, the sort of moment of peril that they faced. And [clears throat] you
02:01:07 And [clears throat] you understood is this right that it was a kind of crisis point that public faith in the organization was in peril. You say that it was agreed between you
02:01:18 You say that it was agreed between you Sarah Thornton and to some extent assistant commissioner Okconor and DAC grieve that you would write a briefing paper for the management board. Yes.
02:01:27 Yes. Setting out the analysis. Can you help us with when that was more or less? Are we talking now May? End of May. I think end of May.
02:01:39 I think end of May. Yeah, early June possibly. It was um
02:01:44 It was um if Griev is in is involved. Does that help you at all? Because you seem to have a clear recollection that he was involved. We know that the CO24, the racial violent crime task force wasn't
02:01:56 racial violent crime task force wasn't established until early August. Yes. But is it your he was involved before? Is it your recollection he was involved before that was officially Yeah.
02:02:05 Yeah. set up?
02:02:06 set up? Yes.
02:02:08 Yes. And in a
02:02:11 And in a in what capacity? Before that was set up, was there an understanding that was a train?
02:02:17 a train? I I think that that idea was germinating and [clears throat] um I think there had been discussions about setting it up and that John might lead it. whether the commissioner
02:02:29 lead it. whether the commissioner sanctioned it at that time, but I think we were heading in that direction. And John John being the character that he is,
02:02:37 is, yeah,
02:02:38 yeah, you know, was very engaged in what was going on and had a lot to offer. He he advised me um often about you know
02:02:50 about you know how should we respond to some of the evidence that we've heard. You know what what what would be a fair analysis and a fair conclusion for the Met to draw about a particular episode that was
02:03:02 about a particular episode that was heard by the inquiry or what an officer had said.
02:03:05 had said. Yeah.
02:03:07 Yeah. So he would appear to be the paradigm of the open-minded, independent-minded, definitely challenging. Yeah.
02:03:15 Yeah. And very, as we've seen when he gave evidence today, very willing and able to reflect on criticisms. And Dennis Okconor very similar, right?
02:03:24 right? And and for that reason, they those two Yeah.
02:03:28 Yeah. became my principal source of support and advice. Yeah.
02:03:33 Yeah. as I was undertaking this job, this role.
02:03:36 role. Right. Um
02:03:39 Right. Um Sarah Thornton was involved also in this decision
02:03:43 decision certainly in discussion. In the discussion and again is that indicative again that your roles were quite blurred. I mean I understand you were working on different floors of Scotland Yard. We were working on different floors.
02:03:54 We were working on different floors. Yes. Um there was some interaction. Sometimes she would come down and say, "Oh, this happened at the inquiry today or we're preparing a briefing note to the commissioner on this or that." But
02:04:06 the commissioner on this or that." But um she she was less I I wouldn't have written that report and tabled it in front of the commissioner without some top cover and I think that was Dennis O'Connell.
02:04:17 O'Connell. I understand. Looking now at the meeting that you describe as uncomfortable. Um, so I think are we still talking early June?
02:04:28 early June? There's this meeting that's convened. Um,
02:04:39 now you recall Grieve being at this meeting?
02:04:43 meeting? Yes.
02:04:44 Yes. He
02:04:46 He obviously again there's some ambiguity about the date because the date wasn't pinned down in your witness statement. um he believes it would have been after the 6th of August 1998
02:04:58 the 6th of August 1998 when the racial and violent crime task force was set up. But just to be clear, your recollection it was at least two months before that. Well, I think it was I think it was
02:05:09 Well, I think it was I think it was earlier than August. I mean, I would have been writing I would have had quite a lot of the submission written by early August.
02:05:18 August. So, um
02:05:21 So, um Um my sense of it it was before that. Can you help us? Don't this may not assist but Mrs. Lawrence called for S. Paul Condon to resign on the 30th of June 1998 which
02:05:33 to resign on the 30th of June 1998 which I imagine was quite was a significant moment. Can you recall whether this meeting predated that? I can't.
02:05:39 I can't. Don't worry. If I'm honest I can't remember him being I wonder if that might help orientate it but don't worry. No. Um
02:05:49 can you tell us what happened at this meeting when you presented this paper? In what terms did you set out your umis? Well, well, we I think as we were
02:06:00 Well, well, we I think as we were drafting or beginning to draft the response,
02:06:05 response, we had to have a clear direction Yeah.
02:06:09 Yeah. from the top about how we address this allegation that the organization is institutionally racist. Yeah.
02:06:18 Yeah. And and in my view, this likely finding that we were institutionally racist as an organization. So the paper was written
02:06:29 written um to
02:06:32 um to partly really to convince the senior team that this was really very likely to be the outcome. Yeah.
02:06:42 Yeah. And um and and I I I haven't seen the report. Maybe you you have it. No, we haven't obtained it. Well, obviously I can't remember exactly what was in it, but I used the evidence
02:06:55 what was in it, but I used the evidence uh and the definition and the arguments to say look this is this is where we're heading.
02:07:00 heading. Yeah.
02:07:01 Yeah. And um and my recommendation support support discussed with with others but um Dennis Okconor I think particularly was the organization needs
02:07:13 particularly was the organization needs to reposition itself. It needs to change its attitude and it has to think about how to positively
02:07:24 think about how to positively respond to the evidence that you know whether it likes it or not, the evidence the inquiry is hearing and the conclusions is likely to draw
02:07:35 and the conclusions is likely to draw on that evidence. So that was really the purpose of that meeting. You say that this was not met with
02:07:46 You say that this was not met with very positively and that
02:07:50 and that you had the distinct impression to use your words that there was not much appetite to hear it from the senior management. I think there was shock uh a bit of shock. I I I mean, you don't
02:08:04 uh a bit of shock. I I I mean, you don't know what's in people's minds, but I felt uncomfortable that maybe some of my bosses thought I'd gone rogue or something. So, just to be clear, this at this meeting, the commissioners at this
02:08:16 meeting, the commissioners at this meeting,
02:08:16 meeting, yes.
02:08:17 yes. Um, other assistant commissioners. Yes.
02:08:22 Yes. Johnston, assistant commissioner Johnson and assistant commissioner Griev Deputy, sorry. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Griev and Okconor.
02:08:34 Commissioner Griev and Okconor. Okconor. Yes. And other We don't need to set out all the names, but other would have been DLS people there. DLS people. Right. And when you say
02:08:45 DLS people. Right. And when you say there was not much appetite to hear that, was that from the commissioner in particular? Did you get a negative response?
02:08:51 response? I couldn't really read the commissioner. He he he he is um he's quite difficult to read uh as a as an as an individual. So I was uh I wasn't getting too many
02:09:04 So I was uh I wasn't getting too many signals from him. He was austere. Yeah.
02:09:06 Yeah. Uh but I couldn't read one way or the other.
02:09:09 other. Um I felt Ian Johnson uh was
02:09:14 uh was um disappointed in you
02:09:18 in you in me and some of what I was saying. I may be wrong because I'm trying to interpret what I was seeing. I can't read his mind. Yeah.
02:09:27 Yeah. Um, but I I felt it wasn't necessarily what everyone wanted to hear in the room. What gave you that impression? Was that just a general vibe? Was it things that
02:09:38 just a general vibe? Was it things that were explicitly said? No. No, it wasn't. It was more about what wasn't said. It was there was um it was an austere meeting and uh
02:09:52 it was an austere meeting and uh it there was a lot of um silence. I was talking and not a lot coming back in the opposite direction. Um Dennis O' Connor
02:10:06 Um Dennis O' Connor was was very supportive. He was um by my recollection he was sort of rolling with it and saying look we we
02:10:17 rolling with it and saying look we we need to we need to we need to put something on the table that shows we are listening and we are learning.
02:10:27 learning. Yeah
02:10:28 Yeah I'm paraphrasing but that that's my recollection that you are taking a reflective approach as opposed to purely defensive. Yes. Um, this meeting came after the
02:10:39 Yes. Um, this meeting came after the submissions made by the commissioner at the inquiry on the 20th of April in which he criticized the hostile questioning of some of the police witnesses. Was there any reference to that or those
02:10:51 Was there any reference to that or those kind of sentiments expressed in this meeting that that the proceedings have been unfair? No, I don't remember any of that nature being discussed at that meeting. Um, you
02:11:03 being discussed at that meeting. Um, you know, there was an enduring sense by many that the, you know, the inquiry was, um, treating some of the
02:11:14 inquiry was, um, treating some of the junior officers very harshly and sometimes unfairly. But, um, but I think as time went on, you know, there was an acceptance. This
02:11:25 you know, there was an acceptance. This is the reality of this inquiry. Uh, we're not going to change it. We have to,
02:11:32 have to, you know, we have to reflect and think carefully about how we respond to it.
02:11:40 it. In his oral evidence yesterday, um, Lord Condon rather disparaged the idea that you, as quite a relatively junior officer had sort of opened senior
02:11:52 officer had sort of opened senior officers eyes to this hard truth, as it were.
02:11:58 were. Would you like to comment on that? Do you think that's unfair? Um,
02:12:03 Um, no. They senior officers may have come to these conclusions already and not shared them with me, but uh all I can tell you is um Sarah Thornton,
02:12:17 all I can tell you is um Sarah Thornton, John Grieve, Dennis Okconor discussed how to how to table this issue. Yeah. and um what sort of recommendation
02:12:28 Yeah. and um what sort of recommendation should be made. So I I was the author of the report. I'm sure they may have had some input. I certainly I'm [clears throat] sure they would have read it before finalizing it
02:12:41 read it before finalizing it and so um
02:12:44 and so um we tabled it and Dennis O' Connor Sarah Thornton afterwards um were very supportive because I I think
02:12:57 think I can't remember what it was or what was said but I think afterwards um
02:13:03 um you know there was a don't worry kind of yeah you describe that in your witness statement you say that you got that from Okconor and from Greece but you say that Sarah Thornton you felt rode back
02:13:14 Sarah Thornton you felt rode back yeah because the atmosphere you know it wasn't openly hostile but it was just as I say it was uncomfortable and uh and you you kind of your career flashes before your eyes and think it's
02:13:26 flashes before your eyes and think it's coming to an end very quickly but uh as I say it's it's not an easy thing to do and um and Dennis Okconor was very supportive to be
02:13:37 Dennis Okconor was very supportive to be fair
02:13:38 fair and I understand that after this meeting assistant commissioner Johnston rather withdrew from his role overseeing the team and that yes
02:13:48 yes Okconor
02:13:49 Okconor yes step forward took his place he took a much more prominent role if I understand your evidence correctly did you agree that the organization was institutionally racist do you think
02:14:00 institutionally racist do you think that's what the evidence was showing or was this just something that you felt felt that the inquiry was pushing as an agenda. I think at the time I had very mixed feelings,
02:14:10 feelings, right?
02:14:11 right? Um and I think I still do today in in the academic um definition of institutional racism and my I think I understand it and I I think I agree with
02:14:23 understand it and I I think I agree with it. But but its application in practice to the real world, you know, is is tricky and you know it it it can it can
02:14:34 tricky and you know it it it can it can do good and it can do harm and I think we're still debating how much good and how much harm it did at the time. Um just a small digression before we look at what happened off the back of
02:14:46 look at what happened off the back of that meeting. Mr. Mansfield.
02:14:51 Obviously, he took a very prominent role in the inquiry. Were you aware of Mr. Mansfield being seen and branded by the Metropolitan Police as the devil
02:15:02 Metropolitan Police as the devil incarnate? Was that a view of him? No, I've never I've never heard that. Um, as a subversive? No, I I would certainly not say a
02:15:13 No, I I would certainly not say a subversive. I mean I my impression and my recollection was he was generally respected as a very capable lawyer
02:15:24 capable lawyer was seen as someone who had agendas uh was you know more leftwing as a lawyer than than other than some others but but I I don't I don't recall particular
02:15:38 I I don't I don't recall particular vitriol um or him being described in those terms at all um as anti police.
02:15:50 Well, it depends what you mean by that. As someone who really dislikes the police or someone who pursues uh causes against the police.
02:16:01 uh causes against the police. Well, it's it's something we heard from a former UCO Mark Jenner. He said that he understood the general feeling was that Michael Mansfield was anti- police
02:16:12 that Michael Mansfield was anti- police amongst his MPS colleagues. That's how they saw him. I mean, you'd have to be you'd have to have your head in the sand not to recognize that he picked up the cause of
02:16:24 recognize that he picked up the cause of many who had issues and grievances against the police. And he was very good at it. But I don't think he was anti police and I don't I've never heard him described in those terms.
02:16:35 described in those terms. Right. Um, sorry, it's a colloquial one here. Peter Francis said that he was known as a pain in the ass.
02:16:46 I I guess some some might describe him as that, but uh that wasn't the general when you were working in the Lawrence Beauty. This was not the
02:16:57 This was not the Yeah. the common no
02:16:59 no conception of Michael Mans you know that that's sort of very um low-level kind of banter but if you're professional you know you will
02:17:10 you're professional you know you will recognize he's doing his job and we did recognize he was doing his job and I think the people around me did um were you aware of the existence of a special branch registry file on Michael
02:17:23 special branch registry file on Michael Mansfield at any point no
02:17:25 no you didn't see that file you were aware Where were you? I mean, I presume if you weren't aware of the existence, you didn't know it was destroyed in 2021. No, I've never never heard of such a thing.
02:17:36 thing. Going back to that meeting and what happened afterwards, I understand from your witness statement that it was a catalyst for two things. So, first of all, it led to the development of a diversity strategy.
02:17:50 of a diversity strategy. Uh you see a program of work began within the MPS to respond positively to this potential finding of the force as an institutionally racist organization. It led [snorts] to the development of a
02:18:01 It led [snorts] to the development of a of a sorry of a diversity strategy which was led by Sarah Thornton and assistant commissioner O' Connor. So this diversity strategy is this what then became the racial and violent crime task
02:18:14 became the racial and violent crime task force. Can you help us with what the diversity strategy was just briefly? So just to clarify, I don't think the report
02:18:23 report per se.
02:18:24 per se. Yeah.
02:18:25 Yeah. I think it was the timing right
02:18:27 right that that report and that that meeting coincided with a kind of shift in emphasis. Um and I'm sure there were other conversations, you know, with more
02:18:38 other conversations, you know, with more amongst senior officers about what was going on and what we should do. But at that time we then started having meetings about a diver, you know, what would a diversity strategy involve? What
02:18:52 would a diversity strategy involve? What initiatives could we could we implement? Yeah.
02:18:57 Yeah. In support of a more diverse and inclusive organization, right? And to improve public confidence and police officers, the kind of things you could do. Absolutely. and and and then we were having meetings and I was making
02:19:09 having meetings and I was making contributions you know to those meetings because of of the work I was doing in that side of the review team. I understand. So you were having meetings with DAC Grieve Okconor
02:19:23 meetings with DAC Grieve Okconor Thornton. So again the roles were blurring a little bit across the teams.
02:19:29 teams. Um, the second thing, if I understand your witness statement, is that after that meeting you were tasked with drafting this drafting the submissions
02:19:40 drafting this drafting the submissions to part one, the commissioner's response to part one of the inquiry?
02:19:47 Who tasked you to do that? Was that the commissioner? I I think I was tasked with that very early on by AC Johnston. Oh. Oh, so you think you mean prior to this meeting you were tasked with
02:19:58 this meeting you were tasked with drafting the submission? Yes. I I think we very early on my team were all designated as leads for different elements of uh of
02:20:09 as leads for different elements of uh of the submission and and the submission Yeah.
02:20:13 Yeah. was structured to mirror how the evidence was heard and the themes that the inquiry was was focusing on. Yeah. So, for example, corruption,
02:20:25 Yeah. So, for example, corruption, um, you know, racism was a was a was obviously a theme, but there were other things like first aid. Yeah. Um, so each of my team had an area
02:20:36 Yeah. Um, so each of my team had an area or maybe more than one area that they were asked to examine all of the the transcript evidence on those issues, undertake research
02:20:47 undertake research on that issue, and then start to formulate what we the Metropolitan Police would say about the uh the issue. Um, I you just say in your witness
02:20:59 Um, I you just say in your witness statement that it's a paragraph 39. You say the second significant change that followed from that meeting, so the uncomfortable meeting is that I was told I would be writing the commissioner's response to the evidence heard in part
02:21:10 response to the evidence heard in part one. So that suggests it did happen off the back of the meeting. Are you now saying that actually you think that happened before that meeting? I'm certain it happened before because I just can't see how we could have written
02:21:21 just can't see how we could have written that between Did you say the 6th of August that meeting was? Well, no, that John I mean you say my understanding is that it could have been in
02:21:30 in Yeah. June, July. Grieve, Mr. Griev believes it was the 6th of August, but he's not entire. I mean, there's some ambiguity around it because he thinks he would only have
02:21:41 because he thinks he would only have been there once the racial and violent crime task force was actually set up, whereas you suggest that actually he was there before it was officially set up. I'm I'm as certain as I can be that I
02:21:52 I'm I'm as certain as I can be that I was tasked before that meeting or I certainly had a No, I think it was before because I just remember very early on we had these boards up in the office.
02:22:03 boards up in the office. Yeah.
02:22:05 Yeah. thematic boards where we were making notes of the evidence, the chap the the the documents, the bits of particularly transcript references and it was a
02:22:16 transcript references and it was a complicated task and I think we started that very early on. um
02:22:22 um you divvied up the writing of the submissions amongst the team and we understand that Richard Walton was given responsibility for chapters 15 which was entitled race
02:22:33 entitled race and chapter 19 issues of race um fairly well very significant chapters. Can you help us with why he was selected to write those chapters?
02:22:49 I can't honestly say why he was selected.
02:22:54 selected. Um he was he was he was very thoughtful. I think he he might have been doing some research in that area. I may be wrong about this but I
02:23:06 about this but I he may have been he may have done some research in this area before but he was a thoughtful guy. He was um you know he was a very reflective character, very
02:23:17 was a very reflective character, very balanced and um
02:23:21 um so I felt he was appropriate. Yeah. Well placed for whatever reason at the time you and and Nick Fgrave my deputy had a big uh input into that as did I.
02:23:34 uh input into that as did I. Right. What into deciding who would write which no no into the content because it was a seinal you know these were issues you know the race and issues of race was at the core yeah of the inquiry
02:23:46 the core yeah of the inquiry issues
02:23:47 issues looking at the process of writing those submissions um you say in your witness statement at paragraph 39 that Jeremy Gumpertz QC and Jason Beer worked alongside you
02:23:59 alongside you and you had regular meetings with the lawyers and with the senior officers and that writing the response was a lot by drafting by committee. Yes. Um
02:24:12 Yes. Um it it was in as much as we had to canvas views from others who you know had expertise and insight that
02:24:23 you know had expertise and insight that they could share. We wanted to get the balance right. We wanted to respond constructively and comprehensively. So it was and of course you had to
02:24:34 So it was and of course you had to engage the more senior officers because ultimately the commission's name was going on this document. Yeah.
02:24:42 Yeah. You describe
02:24:45 Assistant Commissioner Okconor and DAC Grieve taking a leading role in overseeing the work. So yes,
02:24:54 yes, if I understand that correctly, you and the lawyers would have a first go, then they would have a look and then it would go up to the commission. Yes. Is that correct? Yes.
02:25:10 Condon um Lord Condon describes himself as heavily involved in the drafting of the response and says that he personally wrote part of it. This is in his inquiry witness statement at paragraph 221.
02:25:23 witness statement at paragraph 221. Would you agree with that? Yes, I was keeping him appraised uh regularly on how the drafting was going, how we were tackling different themes
02:25:36 how we were tackling different themes and specific more controversial bits of evidence.
02:25:40 evidence. Y
02:25:41 Y um and I definitely remember him annotating some of the drafts that we were giving him and also writing paragraphs,
02:25:52 him and also writing paragraphs, right,
02:25:52 right, himself.
02:25:53 himself. Okay. We'll look at that in a bit more detail in due course. Um, you describe to Ellison the process of writing the submissions as one of the hardest and most frustrating things in the world
02:26:04 most frustrating things in the world that you'd ever done. Just at a general level, why was it so frustrating? Was it because there were so many people involved? It was the very tight time scales, the limited resources, the
02:26:18 scales, the limited resources, the diver, the diverse opinions around me about how we should tackle this issue or that issue. So, um, and it was all undertaking in a sort of sense of
02:26:29 undertaking in a sort of sense of crisis.
02:26:30 crisis. So, it was a very challenging time. Yeah, you're right. We're under time pressure. Yeah. as well. Um, you say in your witness statement that one of the reasons you found it frustrating was
02:26:42 reasons you found it frustrating was that you wanted to write it in a less forensic and more contextual way and you felt strongly that the operational policing context needed to be drawn out. Can you help us with what you mean by the operational policing context?
02:26:54 the operational policing context? Yes. Um so the
02:27:00 the we had um Jeremy Gonertz and Jason Beer who were quite quite closely involved with my team particularly as the drafting advanced
02:27:11 the drafting advanced and obviously there were important evidential and legal considerations and of course DLS the department of legal services was was heavily involved as well and Um
02:27:25 well and Um quite often, you know, the lawyers understandably would would want things written in a very ev a very forensic way.
02:27:34 way. Yeah.
02:27:36 Yeah. Um and my my my sense of it was sometimes you you you needed to wrap some context around that bit of evidence and put some commentary into to to put some operational context
02:27:50 into to to put some operational context around an issue. Um and that was you know um a bit controversial you know sometimes the lawyers pushed back on that
02:28:01 the lawyers pushed back on that right
02:28:02 right um other times not so much but uh I guess it's you know when you take a snapshot and I always remember the advert
02:28:11 advert um you know I think it was used as a recruiting advert for policing where you had a a black man running with a police
02:28:23 had a a black man running with a police council running behind him and and and it says, "What what do you see?" And then and then it plays the video and actually you see uh a robbery and the the the black man is run is actually a
02:28:37 the the black man is run is actually a plane closed police officer running towards the the the asalent that the attacker and the the constable is just running in sport. So you're getting the whole picture. So it was that that kind
02:28:49 whole picture. So it was that that kind of
02:28:50 of that kind of um approach that you know if you just look at one tiny slice of evidence you may you may miss the context.
02:29:01 context. You said to Ellison uh on page 19 we don't need to bring it up but 03261 that we ended up writing a report I don't think well I wasn't happy with I don't
02:29:12 think well I wasn't happy with I don't think anyone was that happy with it. It was almost that it didn't really get to the heart of what I thought the real issues were. So, do you mean by that that you felt it was a bit superficial,
02:29:24 that you felt it was a bit superficial, struck the wrong tone? We'll look at it in more detail in due course, but just a level of generality. Yeah, I I think it was sometimes tone. It was sometimes
02:29:35 It was sometimes um not drawing out the operational realities that officers face on the street sometimes. Um, you know, it's it's a it's a familiar
02:29:47 you know, it's it's a it's a familiar argument, isn't it? You know, where when you're dealing with something in a very sort of isolated way. Um, you sometimes can not always appreciate the context of
02:30:00 can not always appreciate the context of why an officer might be behaving in a particular way. Right. And
02:30:08 was it your view that providing that contact context might mitigate some of the criticism of the police if it could be put in a I mean let me give you an example. Um I
02:30:19 I mean let me give you an example. Um I I think at one point in the process uh there was quite a lot of criticism of an officer. It may have been a fe female officer who who
02:30:31 officer who who at the scene at the scene who was the first officer to have contact with Dwayne Brooks. But Linda Bethl. Linda Bethl. That's right. Maybe. I think that rings a bell. And I think she said
02:30:42 that rings a bell. And I think she said to him, "Have you got any weapons on you?" or something similar. And uh and and I think initially there was criticism um maybe in an early
02:30:54 um maybe in an early um exchange about you know why would she why did she say that was that racist and and you know officers routinely say that to anyone
02:31:06 officers routinely say that to anyone and everyone for self-preserv so so it was that kind of operational context that is that is a kind of you know when you're on a in the dark night when you've heard there's
02:31:17 dark night when you've heard there's been a a fight or violence or and you confront someone you don't know who it is, you know, you are thinking about protecting yourself. Um, so it was that
02:31:28 protecting yourself. Um, so it was that kind of thing that we just wanted to be sure people had some appreciation of the context and the way police officers think and behave
02:31:39 the way police officers think and behave sometimes. Sir, I'm aware of the time. I think it's Yes. I was wondering um Yes.
02:31:45 Yes. when the transcribers were going to have their much deserved break. Um how long do you need? 10 minutes. Very well. Thank you.
02:49:30 Mr. Quick, looking out when you think the submissions were completed. You say in your witness statement at paragraph 46, the document, as in the
02:49:43 paragraph 46, the document, as in the submissions in response to part one of the inquiry, were drafted over the summer of 1998. I think it was largely finished by the end of August 1998 or early September
02:49:55 end of August 1998 or early September 1998. I recall that we were working up to the last minute to finalize and print the submission so the commissioner could take a hard copy along with him to the inquiry when he gave evidence in around
02:50:07 inquiry when he gave evidence in around midepptember 1998. I actually understand that he gave evidence on the 1st of October 1998. But yeah,
02:50:14 yeah, does it follow from that that your evidence that you were working pretty much up until Absolutely. he gave evidence? Yes.
02:50:23 Yes. Richard Walton in his witness statement says that the submissions were submitted on the 18th of September. So that would be
02:50:34 that would be a week or so before Sir Paul Condon gave evidence. Does that make you reassess? [clears throat] Not not really because when I say working up to the last minute that was includes getting them printed,
02:50:46 includes getting them printed, right?
02:50:47 right? And that was a task in itself, believe it or not. Yeah. But in any event, it seems you were working on them until midepptember. Yes.
02:50:56 Yes. At least.
02:50:57 At least. At least.
02:51:00 And there was a a long period of proof reading and uh editing, you know, grammatical changes. And was your entire team involved until
02:51:14 And was your entire team involved until that point? um
02:51:18 less so in that latter stage. Um so who was involved in that? Um well I remember Helen B. I think Helen was a superintendent um who had really good editing skills,
02:51:31 um who had really good editing skills, proofreading, so we were doing a lot with her or I was. Um I'm not sure the team necessarily were that involved in that stage. Um
02:51:45 that stage. Um yeah, I can't remember them being around. So I I think by early September they were largely done. Um whether they were still coming
02:51:57 done. Um whether they were still coming into the office every day, I don't know. Let's take a closer look at some of the documentation and particularly in relation to Richard Walton. There's a memo that I think you've seen
02:52:09 There's a memo that I think you've seen in your bundle. I don't think we need to bring it up, but for reference, it's UCPI 36893, page 7. It's a memo dated the 6th of August 98, and it says that Richard
02:52:20 August 98, and it says that Richard Walton joined CO24, so went to work for DAC Grieve on the 5th of October, 1998.
02:52:29 Um, Richard Walton's evidence in his inquiry witness statement is that in August 98, he was already in the process of transitioning over to
02:52:41 process of transitioning over to Greavves team. He says that my work on chapters 15 and 19 was substantively completed by early August.
02:52:51 August. And then he says, we'll look at the minutes of the meetings, but he says the meetings of the 7th and 13th of August with members of the Steven Lawrence review team were to establish a final collective position on the shape of the
02:53:02 collective position on the shape of the part one submission. We'll look at those minutes, but again, at a high level, do you recall his work being finished by early August or does that seem a bit premature?
02:53:14 premature? No, I think um it could well have been early August, mid August, probably latest. Um, I do remember Richard
02:53:26 starting to be intermittent in as much as he was, I think, selected to have a role in CO24.
02:53:37 CO24. And I think there were days when he was over there. Yeah.
02:53:40 Yeah. Doing whatever it was he was doing where he was transitioning. I think well to help set it up. Yeah. Because it didn't exist before then. Right. So
02:53:52 given Grieve, Mr. Griev says that he started work on the 3rd of August for the
02:53:57 the Mhm.
02:53:58 Mhm. racial and violent crime task force or CO24.
02:54:03 Obviously there's some ambiguity. You say he was involved with you a little before that, but if it was officially set up on the 6th of August, when you talk about this
02:54:14 of August, when you talk about this transitional period, do you think or is it your recollection that Walton was involved from early August on before he then fully moved over on the 5th of
02:54:25 he then fully moved over on the 5th of October, which is when this documentation suggests that he did? Does that accord with yourction? the the October day may well have been the formal date of transfer,
02:54:36 transfer, right?
02:54:37 right? But if you can if you can imagine setting up something from scratch, you know, there was a lot of prep work, a lot of conversations to be had about what this new unit would look like,
02:54:49 what this new unit would look like, where it was going to be housed, who was how it was going to recruit, all these sort of things. So I guess um he was involved in some of that. I don't know
02:55:00 involved in some of that. I don't know what
02:55:01 what again we'll look at the minutes in due course but the meeting minutes show that he was attending meetings of the Lawrence review team until the 24th of August at least. So does that fit right with your
02:55:13 does that fit right with your yes
02:55:14 yes memories of it.
02:55:20 Um, if we could look now actually at the meeting minutes before the meeting between Lambert, Richard Bolton, and HN81, which we'll come to. If we could
02:55:31 HN81, which we'll come to. If we could bring up please, it's B6 in your bundle, sir. It's MPS0749660.
02:55:45 These are minutes of a meeting of the Lawrence review team regarding part one submission says at the top the meeting
02:55:57 submission says at the top the meeting of the 3rd of August 1998. Um we can see the attendees there. Superintendent Quick, you're one of the attendees. There's AC Johnston, Okconor
02:56:10 attendees. There's AC Johnston, Okconor Grieve,
02:56:11 Grieve, Superintendent Thornton, Inspector Fgrave, and there is acting detective inspector Walton. Um, and again, I've made this point
02:56:23 Um, and again, I've made this point several times, but the fact that Superintendent Thornton was there, even though, if I understand correctly, she was in charge of writing the submissions to part two,
02:56:35 submissions to part two, is again indicative that actually you did cross over a lot, that you had a lot of involvement in each other's work. Yes.
02:56:41 Yes. Across this Yeah. piece of work. Um, if we go to page three, please.
02:56:51 Um, you can see under the initials ST just three paragraphs down denoting Sarah Thornton.
02:57:03 denoting Sarah Thornton. And she's recorded as having said this. There are three sources of evidence in the submission. One, evidence heard at the inquiry. Two, evidence that exists but has not been heard. three elements
02:57:15 but has not been heard. three elements of the developing debate, eg on the subject of stereotyping.
02:57:24 Little one, ev no sorry, little two, evidence that exists but has not been heard.
02:57:31 heard. On the face of it, that seems to be quite a wide category. Does that mean evidence that the inquiry understood would be received but hadn't yet be received or are we just talking about a
02:57:42 received or are we just talking about a great pool of evidence that you might be privy to but that's not going to be heard at the inquiry. What can you recall what that meant? I understand it was a long time ago.
02:57:54 I understand it was a long time ago. Um
02:57:56 Um I can't recall specifically. What what I can say is there
02:58:06 it may refer to evidence that we wanted to include in the submission, right?
02:58:12 right? Which we felt was relevant to the evidence that the inquiry had heard. I understand. But that was not heard by not heard by the inquiry. Yeah. So would it be fair to say that you were looking
02:58:23 it be fair to say that you were looking at other evidence other than that that was coming out of the transcripts when working on these submissions? Yes, I I think we we must have well I
02:58:36 Yes, I I think we we must have well I know we were think the one that comes to mind was first aid right
02:58:40 right and and you know there there were records in the organization there were statistics that you know we could could have I don't can't remember if we did in the end but we could have cited in our
02:58:51 end but we could have cited in our response
02:58:53 response um that may not actually have been given in evidence at the inquiry um if we just look under do so Move down just slightly, please.
02:59:10 So, this is Dennis O'Conor, I presume. He's recorded as saying, whilst accepting mistakes, there's a need to restate the operating context. Is that what we talked about just before the
02:59:21 what we talked about just before the break, Mr. Quick? Yes.
02:59:23 Yes. If Yeah. public interest factor, we need to show the complexity of the operating context to ensure that solutions are enduring. So again, is that a reference to again what you described before the
02:59:35 to again what you described before the break?
02:59:36 break? Yes.
02:59:49 And
02:59:52 if we could then move down just to look at JG and the bullet points under those initials.
03:00:01 initials. John Grieve. If we look at the point at
03:00:09 point at seven, Roman numeral 7, the legal test where there is an overwhelming balance of evidence for an issue, it should be included subject to other checks, balances being satisfied.
03:00:22 balances being satisfied. And then question, could reference to Mrs. Lawrence's own prejudice be seen to be racist. Um, now I appreciate
03:00:35 Um, now I appreciate these are records from a long time ago, nearly 30 years ago. To the best of your recollection, does that question about Mrs. Lawrence flow from the point
03:00:47 about Mrs. Lawrence flow from the point above? as in there was a belief within the team that there was an overwhelming balance of evidence that Mrs. Lawrence had her own prejudices
03:00:58 prejudices or do you think they're completely separate?
03:00:59 separate? I think they're separate. You think they're separate? I'm convinced they are. Yeah. Yeah.
03:01:04 Yeah. Um
03:01:07 this reference to Mrs. Lawrence's own prejudice. Um, there is a section, again, we'll look at the submissions in due course, but there is a section which refers to some evidence she gave at the
03:01:20 refers to some evidence she gave at the inquiry about not trusting the police. Do you understand that that's what this refers to, her prejudice, is that she before her son was murdered and the investigation was botched, that she
03:01:32 investigation was botched, that she didn't trust the police? Is that what this is a reference to? I suspect it is. I I that's would be my belief having read that. not reminded
03:01:43 belief having read that. not reminded myself of that. Yes. Um,
03:01:50 did you believe and as far as you could see, was it a view held within the team and by senior police officers that Mrs. Lawrence was anti police
03:02:03 Lawrence was anti police even before her experiences after the murder of her son? No. Um my own team um and the senior officers I was working
03:02:17 um and the senior officers I was working with at that time were hugely sympathetic to the plight of the family and you know um wh whilst you know organizations have
03:02:31 um wh whilst you know organizations have a kind of survival instinct and drama protect themselves. Yeah. Um,
03:02:38 Um, you know, human beings are often empathetic and caring and certainly, you know, there was an acknowledgment of a terrible ordeal
03:02:49 terrible ordeal and terrible failings among many of the people I I worked with at that time. um how you know how the organization responded to that.
03:03:01 responded to that. Yeah. was complex because it involves so many different opinions and legal considerations, evidential um
03:03:10 um you know
03:03:12 you know fairness issues, a whole host of issues were in the were sort of being balanced and the I think the Met generally wanted to find a
03:03:22 to find a an ethical and moral morally sound fair position
03:03:27 position and represent itself in such a way. But uh it wasn't straightforward. To the best of your recollection, why
03:03:38 To the best of your recollection, why do you think it was felt necessary to include in the submissions, evidence about Mrs. Lawrence not trusting the police? Would it be fair to
03:03:49 trusting the police? Would it be fair to say that that was about trying to create some balance from the MPS's view? as in well the MPS might have their own prejudices but actually it goes both
03:04:00 prejudices but actually it goes both ways. Was that about temper and criticism do you think or something else?
03:04:08 Without reading the submission I think it's quite hard to comment on it. I can't recall it if I'm honest. I understand. Well, we should we look at the submission now. It probably makes sense to bring it up now if you just
03:04:19 sense to bring it up now if you just bear with me. Um
03:04:24 Um I will find the reference. We might need to go back to it.
03:04:33 Um, so yeah, the document reference is UCPI 36911,
03:04:43 um, page 37, paragraph 78.
03:04:49 It's in the conclusions section. And this is chapter 19. So this is one of Richard Walton's chapters.
03:05:01 Um I'll read it out loud, but you can see it. So Mrs. Lawrence her preconceptions of the police. The onus was on officers to work to overcome these. And the transcript reads, "I know that
03:05:12 And the transcript reads, "I know that for a long time beforehand, I used to talk to Steven about the dangers of being out and the dangers of the police as well because of stories that you hear that used to frighten me. The stories that you would hear would be about walking on the street on your own with
03:05:23 walking on the street on your own with your friends or whatever and the police would stop you and bundle you into the back of the van and beat up the kids. That's the story that would be going around, especially with black children. Steven's attitude towards the police was always, well, if I'm not doing anything
03:05:34 always, well, if I'm not doing anything wrong, how could they do that to me? I used to say to him, from what I am hearing, you don't have to. I didn't trust the police.
03:05:43 So that would seem to suggest I mean that
03:05:47 that would seem to be the bit that's being referred to in the minutes. Would you agree?
03:05:51 agree? I I would imagine it is. Yes. And having read this, does that assist you in terms of why it was decided that it was necessary to include this in the submissions?
03:06:02 submissions? Yeah.
03:06:05 Do you think it was about trying to create what the MPS saw as some balance? I I think it was
03:06:16 I I think it was a a factual issue. Um I don't I don't think I would have been aware uh of of um
03:06:31 uh of of um of this you know that that sort of view of the police um until it emerged through the transcript. Um so it seemed like a a balancing
03:06:44 Um so it seemed like a a balancing point. No more than that. I don't think it's anything else other than what Mrs. Lawrence said, but with the inference perhaps that if
03:06:55 but with the inference perhaps that if there was a breakdown relations between the police and Mrs. Lawrence that it might have been partly her fault because of her preconceptions, not because of failures on the part. Well, I don't think it seeks to ascribe
03:07:08 Well, I don't think it seeks to ascribe fault. I think it's an observation. uh I don't think it's any more than that but um and for others who are reading
03:07:19 but um and for others who are reading the submission to to come to a view on whether it's relevant or not. Would it be fair to say obviously there was a question in the minutes about
03:07:30 was a question in the minutes about whether or not including this would be considered racist. Would you accept that including this feeds into a stereotype that was one of the things the Lawrence complained about
03:07:41 the things the Lawrence complained about that they and that black people and black victims of crime were generally anti police, hostile, suspicious of the police and that that this feeds into that or do you think that's unfair?
03:07:55 into that or do you think that's unfair? Well, it it's saying that there were preconceptions and that there the the onus was on officers to overcome these preconceptions. Right.
03:08:06 Right. So,
03:08:09 I'm not sure it's trying to ascribe blame
03:08:14 blame or criticism. It it seems to me to be stating
03:08:22 the obvious in a sense based on what Mrs. Lawrence said to the inquiry that that the onus was on officers to overcome
03:08:33 overcome those perceptions of the police. If we could take that down please. If we could refer to the minutes uh which is B6 sir MPS0749660.
03:08:47 Again we're back to the meeting of the 3rd of August 98. Um page three
03:08:57 there's reference. Yes. So it's under the the bit we were looking at John Grieve the JG initials and there's reference at
03:09:08 and there's reference at Roman numeral six to the Oakley test for unintentional racism. I don't think you're disputing this but this appears in
03:09:16 in chapters 19 15 and 19 that were written by Walton. Would you agree that this is indicative that at this stage at least Richard Walton was still involved in drafting his submissions?
03:09:28 drafting his submissions? It's an it's indicative. Yes. Um
03:09:34 or certainly they were being reviewed. I mean think you know things could be edited and changed right up to the point they were printed I guess. Yeah.
03:09:44 Yeah. But Walton's in the meeting. Yeah.
03:09:47 Yeah. And it would suggest that he's still involved. I mean we're talking the 3rd of August so we're still well summer's drawing to a close but we're in the summer period. Yes. Um,
03:09:59 Yes. Um, page four, please.
03:10:08 Um, BQ, that's you. Mhm. Yes.
03:10:12 Mhm. Yes. And you're recorded as having introduced the case of Dougle. So, this is Roit Dougle murder which took place on the 11th of July 1992.
03:10:25 the 11th of July 1992. um highlighted the fact that this murder also took place in Well Hall Road a [snorts] few months before the death of Steven Lawrence. Pointed out that the uncle of Dougle was quoted in the press as being supportive of the police
03:10:36 as being supportive of the police approach to the case.
03:10:42 So is the correct interpretation of that that you were raising some evidence of a racist murder in which the police were deemed by close relatives to have acted
03:10:55 deemed by close relatives to have acted properly?
03:10:57 properly? I'm I think that's the point that was being made. I'm I'm pretty sure of it. Yes. Um,
03:11:05 Yes. Um, do you recall that the investigation of that case was however criticized because it was one in which the police apparently were
03:11:17 which the police apparently were dilatory about describing it as a racist murder.
03:11:24 Do you recall any discussion of that or acknowledgement of that in these meetings despite the fact the uncle may have been
03:11:34 have been despite the facts the young Paul may have been apparently pleased with the way it was investigated that there had been criticism of the way it was investigated it could well it could well have happened that discussion um I mean I
03:11:46 happened that discussion um I mean I obviously I don't I didn't take the note and how comprehensive this note is uh it doesn't look that comprehensive but um
03:11:57 yeah I I can't I can't really comment on um whether whether we did discuss that in
03:12:08 whether whether we did discuss that in detail, but um or how much discussion there was, I just can't recall. Sure,
03:12:13 Sure, but you have no positive recollection of there being discussion around that murder and the way it was handled particularly. Don't worry if not. I mean, I appreciate it's not done. I couldn't honestly say I can remember.
03:12:24 I couldn't honestly say I can remember. Um we can take that down, please. If we could bring up Some more meeting minutes. This is
03:12:35 Some more meeting minutes. This is MPS0749705
03:12:40 tab B48.
03:12:44 These are meeting minutes that have been typed up by an MPS lawyer so as to include all matters that are not covered
03:12:56 include all matters that are not covered by legal professional privilege. Mr. quick. So, it's a summary of a number of meetings held around this time. Um, page
03:13:07 meetings held around this time. Um, page three, please.
03:13:11 This relates to a meeting of the 7th of held on the 7th of August 1998. Um, we can see from the list of attendees at paragraph 4 that you're
03:13:24 attendees at paragraph 4 that you're there,
03:13:26 there, um, Superintendent Thornton. And we can see that acting detective inspector Walton is there too along with the MPS council team and some members of the DLS.
03:13:38 DLS. Um, paragraph five reads, "The meeting was open by AC Johnson who explained that its purpose was to discuss the content and style of the submissions to the inquiry. During the course of the
03:13:49 the inquiry. During the course of the discussion, Superintendent Thornton and Superintendent Quick gave their views of the part one submissions. Assistant Commissioner Johnston provided detail as to the commissioner's
03:14:00 detail as to the commissioner's view.
03:14:03 view. Um,
03:14:06 Um, so the fact that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the content in addition to the style, would you agree that that's indicative that at this stage there was still some work going on on the substantive
03:14:18 on the substantive part of the submissions? It wasn't just about tweaking the style. Yeah. Um the the drafts were quite advanced at this stage. Um so it may
03:14:32 advanced at this stage. Um so it may have been about you know should it should anything be added? Yeah.
03:14:37 Yeah. Should anything not be included um that you know wasn't sufficiently relevant or appropriate. But but I don't think um well well all
03:14:50 But but I don't think um well well all all I can say is I think it was largely written by that time. You' done the bulk of the work. The first drafts had been written and qual you know been through several
03:15:02 qual you know been through several layers of quality assurance or review if you like
03:15:05 you like and gone up and down the Yeah. So to grieve and then up to the commissioner and back down again. Yes. Um page four please.
03:15:22 Um just the first paragraph recommendation for the format of the submission NSY team products to be used as the basis
03:15:33 team products to be used as the basis then edited and modified by council. NSY team Mr. Quick does that as far as you recall refer to your team? Yes. So that means the review team.
03:15:45 Yes. So that means the review team. I'm sure it refers to my team. I mean obviously that stands for New Scotland Yard. You were based in New Scotland Yard, but I understand lots of other people were too. But that's your understanding. You are the NSY team. Thank you.
03:16:00 And it it it accords because there was then a period where Jeremy Gomeberts and Jason Beer Yeah.
03:16:11 Yeah. went through all of the draft material with their sort of legal eyes over it if you like.
03:16:18 you like. Yeah.
03:16:18 Yeah. And they they undertook some editing or modific or suggested some some edits. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um
03:16:29 if we just scroll down, zoom back out please,
03:16:34 please, and then look at the record of the following meeting. So the meeting dated the 13th of August 1998 at 8:00 a.m. So this is the day before the meeting that Richard Bolton had with Lambert at H&81.
03:16:49 Um now we can see in the list of attendees here that you were there but Richard Walton isn't at this meeting. Again I appreciate
03:17:00 appreciate it's a long time ago. Do you have any recollection of why he was not at this meeting? He does appear again in a later meeting, so it doesn't appear to be the case that he's left.
03:17:12 Um I I don't honestly know why he wasn't at that meeting. Uh what what does it say what the meeting was for? Um well, we can have a look at paragraph
03:17:23 Um well, we can have a look at paragraph 8. It says, "The meeting was open by AC Johnson, who explained the meeting was called in response to a memo received from Jeremy Goner's QC. AC Johnson made the following introductory comments.
03:17:34 the following introductory comments. time is pressing on. There's a need to establish a final collective position and then outlined some understandings from the previous meeting. Does that help you at all?
03:17:46 help you at all? Not necessarily. Um I do recall there were times when Richard Won wasn't available. Um quite often he went back to special
03:17:57 quite often he went back to special branch
03:17:59 branch to do bits of his day job. In fact, all of the officers at different times had to go back to their home posting. Okay. Oh, that's interesting. So, they weren't It's good to clarify that. So,
03:18:11 weren't It's good to clarify that. So, they weren't with you full time. They were multitasking almost full time, but but inevitably when they're secounded at such short notice, there'll be things back at the ranch, if you like, that that hadn't been done or they had
03:18:23 that that hadn't been done or they had to rush back and finish something um or attend to something that had come up. So all of the officers on my team at different times had to go back to their home units.
03:18:34 home units. So it may just have been that he had another
03:18:36 another could have been pressing matter to deal with the special branch. Um if we could just scroll down please to paragraph nine.
03:18:49 Um
03:18:54 just three paragraphs down. councelor responsible for the forensic analysis, the NSY team, so your team, the Lawrence review team responsible for contextualization and recommendations.
03:19:06 contextualization and recommendations. In relation to the completion of the written submission, DAC grieve observed there needs to be an ongoing discussion between council and the NSY team
03:19:17 between council and the NSY team and it's recorded at the bottom. NSY team will be the authors of race corruption competent summaries. Uh council will need to comment on these
03:19:29 Uh council will need to comment on these and that's attributed to AC Johnson. Again, would you agree that that indicates that again some substantive work was still extent and that Walton was still
03:19:42 was still involved in doing some drafting? I think it does suggest that. Yes.
03:19:51 Um,
03:19:56 page six, please.
03:20:07 Um, sorry. Bear with me.
03:20:12 Next page, please. Oh, no. Apologies. At the top. No, apologies. I've missed it. If we go back. Yeah, just at the top of the page. Uh, race new Scotland Yard submission is
03:20:23 Uh, race new Scotland Yard submission is excellent. Council need only add a small factual input. Eg. RIU. So, the racial incidence unit at Plumstead. Jeremy Goner's QC.
03:20:36 Goner's QC. Richard Walton makes the point that this shows that his work was complete.
03:20:46 The chapter on race was chapter 15. The chapter issues of race was chapter 19. Yes.
03:20:53 Yes. Would you agree that this indicates that perhaps chapter 15 was complete? But that in light of some of the other points made, it seems that chapter 19 perhaps wasn't. I mean, I understand
03:21:05 perhaps wasn't. I mean, I understand it's difficult to say, but th this bit at least suggests that chapter 15 was there more or less. Yes. I I I think both chapters were actually
03:21:15 actually right.
03:21:16 right. Um by this time they were pretty much written as I said earlier. Um because it was such a seinal topic we uh Fgrave
03:21:28 was such a seinal topic we uh Fgrave Nick Fgrave and myself were heavily involved in in in that although Richard wrote wrote it and did most of the work.
03:21:38 the work. Yeah. uh we were quite heavily engaged in it
03:21:42 in it um because it was important. Yeah.
03:21:45 Yeah. And so it's not necessarily a guarantee that Richard was still there picking up any work because I think Nick Fra or I could have made modifications to it but it's possible
03:21:58 modifications to it but it's possible certainly possible. Um just one final thing to look at in these minutes. If we go to page six please, paragraph 10. And it's noted there then follows a
03:22:10 And it's noted there then follows a discussion in the meeting about the issue of race as an issue and a theme. So that would seem to be a reference to chapter 19 which is entitled issues of race. During the course of this discussion, Jason Beer notes that the
03:22:22 discussion, Jason Beer notes that the NSY team race paper is very good. DAC Griev Connor and Superintendent Quick make comments in relation to relevant evidence concerning race. AC Johnston
03:22:33 evidence concerning race. AC Johnston comments that in terms of prioritizing the preparation of the written submissions, the racism issue, how to present it, etc. needs to be resolved first.
03:22:46 And again, would you agree this suggests that again chapter 19 still has some work to be done on it? Yeah, I I think this there was a long drawn out
03:22:57 this there was a long drawn out discussion about how this was presented and there was this conflict between, you know, this very forensic evidential presentation
03:23:08 presentation or a a more discursive and more um sort of commentarybased submission on those chapters. And I
03:23:20 submission on those chapters. And I think in the end they were more commentary and discussion. Um because the you know the there there was more of a sort of academic element
03:23:33 was more of a sort of academic element to the racism Yeah.
03:23:35 Yeah. question. um it could it couldn't necessarily be encapsulated just by a forensic analysis of some incidents or episodes
03:23:47 incidents or episodes um of officer's conduct. Yeah.
03:23:50 Yeah. But um so I think I think that's what that's reflecting. So I think the material was pretty much the same. It it was very much about how do we prevent uh
03:24:01 was very much about how do we prevent uh how do we present it and uh you know how much of the research material that we had should be included in it.
03:24:11 in it. So if I understand correctly is the lawyers wanted to bring it more down to evidential matters that had been reduced in the hearings and you were wanting it to be at a slightly higher level and there was some conflict there.
03:24:22 there was some conflict there. Yes.
03:24:23 Yes. Um you can take that down please. Final lot of meeting minutes from a slight. So that was a meeting on the 13th at 8:00 a.m. Looking now at some meeting minutes of a meeting that same
03:24:35 meeting minutes of a meeting that same day but at 9:30 a.m. This is MPS0749705.
03:24:42 Page four, please. Now Walton is at this meeting so he couldn't make the one at 8, but he is at the one at 9:30. Um, page seven.
03:24:59 Oh, no, apologies. I missed. Oh, no, he is there. Sorry. So, there's Walton and there you are and council.
03:25:08 council. Um,
03:25:10 Um, and then at 13, the second line, racism summary should be distinct at the end of the submission. Um and then paragraph 14. Following discussion, the agreed structure was
03:25:21 discussion, the agreed structure was refined and set out by superintendent quick follows. Agreed structure for each issue and author. Introduction NSY team. Forensic evidence council 1993 operating
03:25:33 Forensic evidence council 1993 operating context NSY team. 1998 operating context NSY team. Recommendations NSY team. Recommendations are likely to be themes rather than specifics. So
03:25:48 rather than specifics. So from what remains, your team is responsible for most of it, it would appear, apart from forensic evidence, which is council's responsibility. Um, but again, I'm really just laboring
03:25:59 Um, but again, I'm really just laboring the point that there's still some work to be done. It's obviously not complete and Walton is still involved. Yes,
03:26:06 Yes, we can take that down, please. Moving now to the meeting of the 14th of August.
03:26:14 We know that
03:26:18 DI Lambert as he was at that time and acting DI Walton knew each other from special branch and from April 1989 to May 1995. Richard
03:26:31 and from April 1989 to May 1995. Richard Walton was a DC on the ABC and E squads and Lambert was on E squad from 1989 to September 93. So they crossed over
03:26:45 September 93. So they crossed over during that period and knew one another.
03:26:50 This meeting that took place on the 14th of August, were you aware of that in advance?
03:26:55 advance? No.
03:27:00 In her interview with Ellison, Sarah Thornton
03:27:04 Thornton said, um, we don't need to bring it up, but for reference, it's MPS0721575,
03:27:11 page 13, lines 32-34. She says this of the meeting that she certainly hadn't tasked him, as in Walton. Most certainly I was aware of it
03:27:22 Walton. Most certainly I was aware of it but my explanation of that is that Richard Walton had been on special branch and I suspect it was more self-task than anything else that suggests she might have known about
03:27:33 that suggests she might have known about the meeting. However, similar to the point about when she returned from maternity leave a little later in the interview it becomes a bit more ambiguous where she says on page 20
03:27:44 ambiguous where she says on page 20 of the meeting I can't remember it ever being talked about at the time. My question for you is, do you recall Sarah Thornton ever saying anything about this meeting or anything that in retrospect
03:27:55 meeting or anything that in retrospect might have been a reference to this meeting at the time either before or after
03:28:01 after the meeting between Wharton and Lambert? Absolutely not. I I would have been curious about, you know, if if that
03:28:12 been curious about, you know, if if that had surfaced somehow, what you know, what's that about? Yeah, it would have piqued your interest, you think, and you think you would remember it if it had been mentioned to you?
03:28:26 Were you aware at all that Richard Walton had spoken to then superintendent and commander ops Colin Black about coverage
03:28:39 Colin Black about coverage around the fringes of the Lawrence family campaign? Did you have any awareness of that? No.
03:28:47 No. Did you know Superintendent Black at all? Did you have any dealings with him? I don't think I've ever had any dealings with him.
03:28:55 with him. If he walked in here now, I don't think I would know who he was. Um,
03:29:07 Robert Lambert said to Mark Ellison that the meeting was arranged at the request of senior management. So someone above DCI HN58 who was head of the SDS
03:29:20 above DCI HN58 who was head of the SDS at the time and that the reason for the tasking was that Richard Walton it was to enable Richard Walton to fully brief the commissioner
03:29:33 brief the commissioner if that were true. Sorry to ask a hypothetical, but do you think given that you were in frequent contact with the commissioner, you and Richard Walm is in your team, you would have known?
03:29:45 is in your team, you would have known? I am absolutely convinced I would have known. And I'll be honest, it sounds like nonsense. I don't believe Richard Wharton [laughter] was he wouldn't have been briefing the commissioner.
03:29:57 been briefing the commissioner. I'm con I'm absolutely sure of it. And if he had, I would certainly have been there. And if someone in that senior management team above you had tasked him to do that, you would. And unless, you know, this was all being
03:30:09 And unless, you know, this was all being done covertly and and uh I was completely out of the loop, but I I I don't think Does that seem likely? I think it's very unlikely. If we could bring up the file note of
03:30:21 If we could bring up the file note of the meeting, please. This is tab B32. It's MPS0728625.
03:30:30 It's a file note written by DI Bob Lambert. It's dated the 18th of August 98 and the meeting took place on the 14th of August 98.
03:30:43 Oh, sorry. It's MPS0728625. Thank you. Um, paragraph
03:30:52 paragraph Oh, no, apologies. It's page 12.
03:31:02 entitled file no windmill Tiltera that's the code name for HN81 who's an SDS officer um on Friday the 14th of August I had a meeting with Windmill Tilta and Richard Walton Richard is currently
03:31:15 Richard Walton Richard is currently working with the Steven Lawrence review teammill Tilta talked about the Lawrence inquiry for a from a movement for justice perspective and Richard Walton from his it was a fascinating and
03:31:27 from his it was a fascinating and valuable exchange of information concerning an issue which according to Richard Walton continues to dominate the commissioner's agenda on a daily basis.
03:31:47 Would you agree given that this meeting takes place on the 14th of August that and as recorded by Bob Lambert that
03:31:59 and as recorded by Bob Lambert that Richard Walton was attending this meeting in his capacity as a member of the Lawrence review team as opposed to in his capacity as a member of the racial and violent crime task force or
03:32:11 racial and violent crime task force or do you think it's possible it was under the opaces of both? or the latter. Well, it it says um
03:32:24 Well, it it says um he so Lambert has said that he's working with the Steven Lawrence review team, which suggests that's what he was told. Yeah.
03:32:33 Yeah. By Wharton. Um I think at that time
03:32:40 he was still engaged with us to some extent. Um he certainly was doing some preparatory
03:32:52 he certainly was doing some preparatory work with CO24 or or um I couldn't tell you what that was but I know he disappeared at different times to do things in relation to that but um but
03:33:05 things in relation to that but um but but it sounds to you reading that I would say
03:33:09 would say uh Richard Wharton has has told Lambert and the other officer that that he's working on on that Yeah. Um,
03:33:20 Um, were you familiar at the time with this group, the Movement for Justice? No.
03:33:25 No. You hadn't heard of them at all? They were involved. I've heard the name at some point, but I I don't know anything about them. They were a small group campaigning for
03:33:37 They were a small group campaigning for justice for Steven Lawrence and they attended the inquiry and they had contact with the Lawrence family to some extent.
03:33:45 extent. Right. and HN81 had infiltrated that group and was reporting on them and on their interactions with the Lawrence family around this time.
03:33:59 family around this time. Um,
03:34:03 when it says in paragraph one, it was a fascinating and valuable exchange of information concerning an issue which according to Richard Walton continues to dominate the commission's agenda on a daily basis. Would
03:34:20 you agree that this is an accurate description of the prominence of the Lawrence inquiry in relation to the commissioner's agenda
03:34:31 in relation to the commissioner's agenda at the time? I think that's a reasonable thing to say.
03:34:39 say. Yeah,
03:34:39 Yeah, it it was it was a it was a very high priority
03:34:46 priority uh thing at that time in what was this August 14th? Um so yeah, that's not an unreasonable statement to make. Yeah.
03:34:56 Yeah. Um
03:34:57 Um probably an obvious statement. If we could look at paragraph two, please.
03:35:08 Richard Walton thanked Wiml Tilta for his invaluable reporting on the subject in recent months. So I understand you saw some of the reporting. It was provided to you in your bundle, but he's referring to reporting. We we'll look at
03:35:20 referring to reporting. We we'll look at some of it in due course, but this is reporting from HN81 about movement for justice and their activities, their campaigning activities
03:35:31 activities, their campaigning activities in relation to, amongst other things, the Lawrence family campaign and the Steven Lawrence investigation and the events flowing from that.
03:35:46 Do you recall at any point Richard Walton saying anything to you about receiving useful reporting on campaign
03:35:57 receiving useful reporting on campaign groups around the Lawrence family? No.
03:36:00 No. Never came up in any of the meetings, any private conversations. No.
03:36:06 No. Is that an assertion that he did not say it or that you can't remember? I can't remember. Um I think I would remember had he said that to me.
03:36:19 So I'm confident he didn't say it to me. Um,
03:36:31 would you agree that intelligence about groups around a justice campaign, so like the Lawrence family campaign,
03:36:41 is tantamount to intelligence about that campaign's political environment and its supporters and its allies?
03:36:53 What the point I'm making is that it's it's the fact it's described as being around a campaign. It still goes to that campaign and how it's functioning
03:37:04 that campaign and how it's functioning and its orbit and significant aspects of that campaign. Well, without knowing
03:37:15 Well, without knowing the detail, I I couldn't say. I appreciate that's diff it's a bit hard to ask in the abstract. We'll have a look at some of the reporting later on. Um, the next paragraph, please. He says
03:37:27 Um, the next paragraph, please. He says this,
03:37:35 apologies, paragraph, yes, paragraph two. Richard Walton thanked Wimblel Tilted for the invaluable reporting. No, sorry, paragraph two, just at the top. An in-depth discussion enabled him to
03:37:47 in-depth discussion enabled him to increase apologies. It's paragraph two, not actually number two, just the second paragraph. An indepth indepth discussion enabled him to increase his understanding, so Richard Walton's
03:37:58 understanding, so Richard Walton's understanding of the Lawrence's relationship with the various campaigning groups like movement for justice. This, he said, would be of great value as he continued to prepare a draft submission to the inquiry on
03:38:11 draft submission to the inquiry on behalf of the commissioner. Movement for justice's future plans were also discussed at some length.
03:38:24 Mr. Quick, do you agree that uh an understanding of the Lawrence's relationship with the various campaigning groups like Movement for Justice would be of great value when
03:38:37 Justice would be of great value when preparing the draft submissions to the inquiry? Is that the kind of information that you would have valued at the time? Absolutely not. I I I don't know what
03:38:49 Absolutely not. I I I don't know what I mean, this sounds [snorts] exaggerated. Um I don't know how that would be relevant to the task that I was given um and how it would be valuable.
03:39:03 um and how it would be valuable. [snorts]
03:39:03 [snorts] Um
03:39:05 Um again, apologies for a hypothetical question. Uh, Lord Condon yesterday referred to a jaundest view prevailing in special branch about some campaign groups. Um, do you think if someone were
03:39:19 groups. Um, do you think if someone were coming at the submissions with that jaundist view with a slightly defensive mindset, they might in fact find this kind of information useful? Not necessarily to
03:39:31 necessarily to directly transplant this information into the submission submissions, but as part of the patchwork and the general picture that if you're coming at it with that
03:39:43 that if you're coming at it with that defensive mindset, it might be useful.
03:39:53 I'm not sure how it would be useful.
03:39:59 Paragraph three, please. Not actual number paragraph 3, just that one. Thank you.
03:40:08 you. Richard Walton explained a lot of the behind-the-scenes politics involving the Home Office. It emerged that there is great sensitivity around the Lawrence issue with both the home secretary and the prime minister extremely concerned
03:40:19 the prime minister extremely concerned that the Metropolitan Police could end up with its credibility in the eyes of London's black community completely undermined. Richard Walton explained the three main areas that his team is
03:40:31 three main areas that his team is addressing. Just pausing there. Is that accurate? Were you made aware that
03:40:40 that the Lawrence issue was one that was causing extreme concern with the prime minister Blair at the time and Jack Straw, the home secretary,
03:40:51 time and Jack Straw, the home secretary, and they worried about the Mets credibility. No one ever said that to me. You wouldn't need to be a rocket scientist to work that out for yourself, but um I
03:41:02 to work that out for yourself, but um I don't think anyone ever said that to me. Right. You weren't briefed in those. No, definitely not. Um then looking just at the rest of that paragraph, the three main areas that your team were purported to be
03:41:15 your team were purported to be addressing. Number one, if we could zoom out please. Yep. Then number one, how to respond to the charge of institutional racism.
03:41:26 Here the team seems likely to admit the essence of the charge. What is exercising their minds is merely the terminology. There is a preference for phrases like unconscious racism, a lack of
03:41:37 unconscious racism, a lack of understanding of black culture. The team realizes that, however expressed, such a frank admission of failure will shock many serving police officers who have thus far been fed a much more upbeat
03:41:50 thus far been fed a much more upbeat response to the inquiry in the job. So the suggestion here as recorded by Lambert appears to be that
03:42:03 the review team understand the meta are to some extent going to have to fall on their sword but that they don't like the phrase institutional racism. So [clears throat] they don't disagree if I
03:42:15 [clears throat] they don't disagree if I if I read this correctly that they don't disagree with the substance of the charge but they object to that phrase. Is that an accurate representation of
03:42:27 Is that an accurate representation of the commonly held views at the time? Um,
03:42:32 Um, well, I'm not sure it really reflects it. Uh I mean you we've already gone through the fact we wrote a paper saying that um you know this this definition if
03:42:47 that um you know this this definition if you like is being applied to the organization and we have to acknowledge it. Now there were there were mixed views in the organization about
03:42:59 about that term
03:43:01 that term um and people's views probably changed over the years on it. Yeah.
03:43:06 Yeah. But um
03:43:08 But um I I don't recall you know
03:43:12 you know there was certainly concern at the top of the Met about the you know the impact of applying that to the organization. Yeah.
03:43:22 Yeah. um and how that would be understood by rank and file officers particularly but others.
03:43:33 Paragraph two, how to handle the second stage of the public inquiry. Richard Walton explained that the commissioner plans to stage a series of public forums in the months ahead at which he will
03:43:44 in the months ahead at which he will attend personally and set out the Met's position. One proposed venue was Lambeath Town Hall and where Mil Tilta was able to advise Richard Walton of the vulnerability that such a meeting would have to disruption from movement for
03:43:56 have to disruption from movement for justice and local black youth. Again, do you recall Richard Walton imparting to you any information of that kind about public order
03:44:09 kind about public order issues relating to the commissioner's appearance at public forums? I don't recall that. I didn't know he I don't recall that he was doing these public for I mean he probably was but I
03:44:20 public for I mean he probably was but I don't remember them and you it follows clearly that you don't recall anything about his perhaps being vulnerable if he appeared at
03:44:31 being vulnerable if he appeared at certain locations. No, but what I mean that again would stick out in my mind, you know, if the commissioner was putting himself at some severe risk uh
03:44:42 putting himself at some severe risk uh of harm, then I think I would remember that.
03:44:46 that. Um
03:44:47 Um the next paragraph at two reads, "As regards the second stage itself, there continues to be daily discussions within Richard Walton's office as to the best tactics to adopt. The question of the
03:44:58 tactics to adopt. The question of the commissioner's resignation and that of his assistant Ian Johnson is regularly addressed. Is that an accurate depiction of
03:45:09 Is that an accurate depiction of discussions that were taking place within the office about the second stage? Were you discussing tactics?
03:45:18 I don't remember the issue of the commissioner's resignation being discussed. Dorian Lawrence had called for it on the 30th of June. Right. Uh do you don't recall?
03:45:29 Right. Uh do you don't recall? No. No.
03:45:32 No. No. Um I'm aware of the time sir. I don't think
03:45:38 think Well, I can probably finish this document
03:45:41 document in 5 minutes. Would you prefer? Certainly do that. It's sensible to finish a topic. It is indeed. It's cleaner. Um if we just look at three, please. How to
03:45:52 just look at three, please. How to regain the confidence of the black community. Commander Griev is now in charge of post Lawrence black community relations and is clearly hoping to be able to draw a line under the affair and work towards a more positive relationship where Mil
03:46:04 more positive relationship where Mil Tiltter was able to highlight the enormity of his task as regards sections of the black community in and around Brixton. He was also able to provide Richard Walton with some specific and positive information as regards those
03:46:16 positive information as regards those community groups who might be prepared to build bridges. Again, were you privy to any of this information as regards your work as on the diversity
03:46:28 as regards your work as on the diversity strategy, your conversations with DAC Grieve?
03:46:33 Grieve? No, I mean this, you know, wouldn't really have been very relevant to my immediate focus. Yeah.
03:46:41 Yeah. Of
03:46:43 Of getting this submission uh written and agreed and printed. Yeah. Um,
03:46:50 Yeah. Um, but no, I don't remember anything about that.
03:46:53 that. Um, and nothing about building bridges with the black community and the best ways of doing that and groups who might be open to that. Well, we certainly when we were talking
03:47:05 Well, we certainly when we were talking about diversity strategy, you know, the a big theme in that was winning back trust and confidence. But um
03:47:16 But um but in terms of groups, you know, who were prepared to work with the Met um I'm sure there were, but I I know nothing about that and I didn't know
03:47:27 nothing about that and I didn't know anything about it at the time. Right. Um over the page, please.
03:47:37 Richard Walton also explained how the Home Office was very sensitive about the wider implications of the Lawrence case, in particular the potential for rioting or disorder by sections of the black community in the wake of an
03:47:49 community in the wake of an irretrievable loss of confidence in police. Allied to this was a concern about the damaging effects of sustained political pressure from hardleft and
03:48:00 political pressure from hardleft and anti- police elements.
03:48:07 I mean, some of this just doesn't sound right to me. I mean, why doesn't it sound right? Well, the ho, you know, Richard Walton talking about the home office was very
03:48:19 talking about the home office was very sensitive. I mean, well, where did he get that from if he did say that? Um because I, you know, I mean, you could summize that the Home Office might be
03:48:32 summize that the Home Office might be concerned about the inquiry and how it was going and the evidence emerging, but you know, very sensitive to the wider implications of the Lawrence case. How would Richard Won
03:48:44 the Lawrence case. How would Richard Won know that? I don't, you know, I didn't know it. I hadn't heard that. Well, you've preempted my next question because I was going to say, had you heard anything along these lines? I mean on one reading
03:48:57 it almost sounds like Richard Walton is tasking HN81 as in these are our concerns you know intelligence about this might be useful but again I understand from your
03:49:10 but again I understand from your evidence so far that if that is what he was doing that wasn't something that he told you about or that you had in turn directed him to do. Absolutely not. They had no business in my view having these conversations. I
03:49:23 my view having these conversations. I mean, what we were doing in our unit, you know, was confidential and uh
03:49:32 and uh so, you know, he had he didn't have my permission to share this detail with other parts of the Metropon Police. So, I'm very, you know, disappointed to read this if
03:49:43 you know, disappointed to read this if this if this is an accurate reflection of the conversations. So that was a breach of confidence if it were accurate.
03:49:50 accurate. Yes.
03:49:51 Yes. Um
03:49:52 Um is it accurate that there was concern within your team and the senior management team about the damaging effects of sustained political pressure from hard left and anti- police elements
03:50:03 from hard left and anti- police elements on the relationship between the black community and the police. I don't ever remember that ever surfacing. It sounds very special branch
03:50:14 surfacing. It sounds very special branch to me.
03:50:16 to me. Right. So it's not the case that
03:50:22 there was some deflection, let's say, that political groups or campaigning groups were being blamed for damaging a relationship when in fact rather than the police looking to their own actions.
03:50:34 looking to their own actions. Yeah.
03:50:35 Yeah. And how they had damaged. The conversations we were having with the commissioner and the senior ranks of the organization were focused on the police
03:50:47 were focused on the police and you know where where we had failed and you know um where we were being criticized
03:50:59 criticized and you know whether whether we should defend some of those actions or whether we should accept the criticism and you know what we're going if we
03:51:10 and you know what we're going if we accept it what are we going to do to change that that was the tenor of the discussion I don't remember any discussions about you know deflecting
03:51:21 discussions about you know deflecting this on to hardleft groups or I mean none of that was on my radar really at all.
03:51:27 all. Um I appreciate that you've said you didn't know about this meeting in advance or subsequently. Again, apologies for finishing on a hypothetical. If you had learned about
03:51:38 hypothetical. If you had learned about this meeting at the time, I appreciate you were working under people of senior rank, but do you think you would have advised or been of the mind that the fact of this meeting should have been disclosed to the inquiry?
03:51:53 I may have I may have come I mean it is hypothetical, but I would like to think I would have come to that conclusion. I would certainly have been
03:52:04 would certainly have been I would certainly I think alarm bells in my mind would have would have gone off about
03:52:10 about you know
03:52:13 you know receiving intelligence related to the family
03:52:17 family and and clearly you know we were in this semi-advers adversarial process and and the family were you know opposing a lot
03:52:28 the family were you know opposing a lot of what the bet had done or challenging a lot of what the Met had done. So the ethics of this would immediately have caused me a lot of concern and my
03:52:39 have caused me a lot of concern and my team you know I I I think uh we would have said well you know how how can we justify this?
03:52:50 Um sir I think that is a good point to stop today. Exactly. Um, my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that um, if, as we're going to, we start at 9:30 tomorrow,
03:53:02 9:30 tomorrow, yeah,
03:53:02 yeah, there is a reasonable chance that the evidence of this witness will be finished by 10:30. I think that is a reasonable assumption. I hope you take some encouragement from
03:53:13 I hope you take some encouragement from that.
03:53:13 that. Thank you. [snorts]
03:53:16 [snorts] Until 9:30 tomorrow.