UCPI Evidence Hearings | Tranche 3 (Phase 3) | Day 25 - (23 July 2026) - AM

Full transcript

00:50:36 Good morning everybody. Uh today's proceedings will be live streamed with a 15minute delay. Uh those with mobile telephones may use them to report what they are hearing in the hearing room but

00:50:47 they are hearing 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.

00:50:56 Mr. Quick, yesterday we finished by looking at Bob Lambert's file note of the meeting with HN81 and Richard Walton on the 14th of August. [snorts] I'd like to look briefly, please, at your

00:51:09 to look briefly, please, at your interactions with the commissioner over the period in which these submissions were being written. If we could bring up, please UCPI

00:51:20 up, please UCPI 03261.

00:51:22 03261. It's tab B39, page 18, please. This is from your Ellison interview.

00:51:34 And the question you've [snorts] been asked is essentially that you've explained how

00:51:46 I think in the context of that meeting the uncomfortable meeting you talk about when you presented your paper. [snorts] Allison Morgan says, "Yes, page 18, please." That you set out for Ellison

00:51:58 please." That you set out for Ellison how compared to your team, the senior officers were more out of touch in terms of understanding where the inquiry was likely to go and the findings that were likely to be

00:52:09 the findings that were likely to be made.

00:52:11 made. And she asks whether you thought you they were seized of the issues and if they were aware of what was going on down at the public inquiry. So if we look at line three where you respond to

00:52:24 look at line three where you respond to this you say I do I think that sir Paul Condon was as this piece of work developed I started to almost become a kind of staff officer to the commissioner on the inquiry so I started

00:52:36 commissioner on the inquiry so I started to have more exposure to him and listen you know I started to attend more small meetings in the commissioner's office and was given quite a voice in those meetings

00:52:45 meetings I started to appreciate where he was in all of this just pausing uh these small meetings that you had with the commissioner in his office, we don't have minutes for these. Can I ask how

00:52:58 have minutes for these. Can I ask how often were you having these small meetings with the commissioner over this period? So, I'm talking from when the LRT was set up to when the work on the submissions was finished. Let's say

00:53:10 submissions was finished. Let's say let's say when the commissioner appeared at the inquiry on the 1st of October, they were intermittent. Um,

00:53:22 it's very difficult to put a number to it, but I I would say maybe once or twice a week. Okay. And can you help us with who else was at those meetings?

00:53:33 was at those meetings? Um,

00:53:34 Um, I think it varied. Sometimes Sarah Thornton, one of the AC's, um, John Grieve occasionally, uh, quite often David Hamilton, the Met solicitor.

00:53:48 often David Hamilton, the Met solicitor. Yeah.

00:53:49 Yeah. And they were usually around quite tactical issues, you know. What do you mean by that? Well, maybe a legal consideration in in our response. Um, yeah, it's very

00:54:01 in in our response. Um, yeah, it's very difficult to remember precisely what what they were, but they were they were generally not big issues. They were more um

00:54:13 um things about emphasis or um you know [laughter] a a legal matter. Were you briefing him on the progress of the submissions?

00:54:26 the submissions? Absolutely. Yes. Um and if I understand your evidence correctly, Richard Walton was not at those meetings with the commissioner. No, not to my knowledge. No. Would you

00:54:37 No, not to my knowledge. No. Would you after those meetings with the commissioner come back and relay to your team the commissioner's views on tactics and emphasis for example? Not not generally no. I might uh I might

00:54:50 Not not generally no. I might uh I might have a conversation with my deputy uh Nick Fgrave. Um but generally um

00:55:00 um I wasn't espousing the commissioner's views or opinions in the office. Um do you think or were you aware that Nick Fgrave would have

00:55:12 Nick Fgrave would have voiced for the wider team the commissioner's views or particular concerns? I I don't I don't think so. I think uh he would have been very discreet.

00:55:24 discreet. So you wouldn't have considered it helpful for the team to have an idea of where the commissioner's mind was? Well, where where I did think it was helpful, I would have briefed them or or

00:55:38 helpful, I would have briefed them or or guided them. looking at the document again talking about the commissioner's views and your perception of them. Um,

00:55:49 perception of them. Um, yes, you say you became kind of a staff officer. Just quickly, what what do you mean by that? Cuz I don't quite just in terms of MPS terminology. What is a staff officer? Well, a staff officer is um an officer

00:56:03 Well, a staff officer is um an officer as a an aid to a a senior officer. Um, we'll deal with correspondence. will deal with um diaries and appointments

00:56:14 deal with um diaries and appointments and things like that. My my focus obviously was all around the inquiry issues and the drafting of the

00:56:25 the sub submissions. But the idea being you were working very closely with him for this short period of time. For a short period of time, you know, there were many others but but yes, I had some exposure to him.

00:56:37 had some exposure to him. Yeah. Um

00:56:41 halfway through that you say I started to appreciate where he was in all of this as at first I wasn't sure. I felt some senior officers were in denial. They were defensive and you know not

00:56:53 They were defensive and you know not accepting of some truths. Others were thoughtful but I wasn't quite sure where they were. So Paul Condom was one of those. But very soon after I started to realize that he was really quite straight down the middle with it. He did

00:57:05 straight down the middle with it. He did think that there was some aspects of it that were unfair,

00:57:12 stopping there. Um, actually, no, sorry. If we could continue, just scroll down. Thank you. Um, you refer to writing letters to the

00:57:24 Um, you refer to writing letters to the inquiry secretary. I understand this is in the period just before Christmas. Oh, sorry. Can we I've lost my thing. Thank you. Um,

00:57:35 you. Um, sorry, I've lost my signal. Well, I'll read it out. I've got it written here. Um,

00:57:43 you say that he was straight down the middle. He did think there were some aspects of it that were unfair and that just moving on a

00:57:54 were unfair and that just moving on a little bit. So, Paul Condon did have a very strong view that this, i.e. institutional racism was an unhelpful phrase in so far as branding an entire organization as racists.

00:58:07 organization as racists. Yes, I think a lot of people had that view. Yes. Yeah. And Mr. Ellison says here in fact what it was meant was that it was unconscious racism and you respond exactly. But his view was that it would be read and interpreted by the

00:58:19 be read and interpreted by the mainstream workforce. [snorts] Ellison Yes. as the whole institution was racist. Yes. And largely it was. No matter what you said to them, you know, that was the translation to the workforce and the subtleties of it got

00:58:30 workforce and the subtleties of it got lost.

00:58:32 lost. Yes.

00:58:43 If I understand that correctly again, is it the case then that your perception was that Condon disliked the phrase more than the actual

00:58:54 disliked the phrase more than the actual substance of what it was that it seemed McFersonen was going to find that he did accept that there were issues with stereotyping and poor treatment of black victims of

00:59:05 and poor treatment of black victims of crime, but he didn't like the phrase inst institutional racism.

00:59:13 I I I obviously didn't have indepth conversation with with him about his view of it. Um I think his mind was o very open to

00:59:26 very open to uh what the inquiry concluded. I think he he was always very clear that he would accept the findings of the inquiry um and work hard to you know implement

00:59:39 um and work hard to you know implement recommendations. But yes, I think he was troubled by the uh bluntness if you like the kind of blunt

00:59:52 of blunt uh nature of a of an institutional branding.

00:59:56 branding. Yeah. uh which if you read the Oakley definition, you know, is quite nuanced. You have to read it carefully and think about it and what that means. And translating that to a workforce of about

01:00:10 translating that to a workforce of about 50,000 people and 30,000 police officers was not easy and and um and could be, you know, perceived and received very

01:00:23 you know, perceived and received very negatively by the workforce. So I think he had genuine concerns about that but he will speak for he will have spoken for himself about these things. There's

01:00:34 for himself about these things. There's reference here to your saying that he did think aspects of it were unfair. We understand that an aspect and I've touched on this previously an aspect

01:00:45 touched on this previously an aspect that he considered unfair was the way way that some of the police officers have been questioned at the inquiry. [snorts]

01:00:53 [snorts] Um, I just want to read to you the just a little extract from the submissions that were made to the inquiry on the 20th of April 1998.

01:01:05 20th of April 1998. Um, and this is what was said on his behalf. He said, um, he was concerned about the confrontational nature of cross-examination of some of the police officers. It's not assisted the search for the truth. Such cross-examination

01:01:16 for the truth. Such cross-examination may be appropriate in adversarial procedures, but not to an inquisitorial hearing where it may lead to witnesses failing to do themselves justice by adopting an unduly defensive attitude. More seriously, the commissioner is

01:01:28 More seriously, the commissioner is concerned about the damage which is being done to the relationship between the police and the black community. If police witnesses are constantly pillaried by a barrage of confrontation

01:01:39 pillaried by a barrage of confrontation or cross-examination, the attempts by the MPS to rebuild that relationship, which was seriously harmed in the aftermaths of Steven murder, could be set back significantly.

01:01:51 set back significantly. So this idea that

01:01:55 the approach of some of the barristers in the inquiry, a sort of anti- police stance, was damaging the relationship between the organization and the black

01:02:07 between the organization and the black community. Is that something you heard him voice or express concern about in these meetings? I can't say I did. I I don't know the document that you're It's It's from the transcript of the

01:02:18 It's It's from the transcript of the inquiry hearing. So, I'm sorry that I can't bring it up. It is in the public domain, but it's the transcript of that day in the inquiry. So, was this met lawyers? Yes, it was Jeremy Gumper on the commission. Sorry, I should have made

01:02:29 commission. Sorry, I should have made that clear. Right. Um Okay. Uh I I don't rec I don't remember that, but I'm sure I must have read it in the transcript. Um

01:02:40 read it in the transcript. Um I don't I don't specifically recall the commissioner uh making remarks like that. Yeah. Um I do I do recall early on a

01:02:53 Yeah. Um I do I do recall early on a general you know amongst the senior officers a general um dismay if you like that uh some of the officers were being pillaried and you know some of them were

01:03:05 pillaried and you know some of them were quite inexperienced and quite junior and were

01:03:09 were being bullied or you know whatever description you might want to give it but they were being put through the mill argue you know you could argue well they're police officers it's their job

01:03:20 they're police officers it's their job but you know they were quite inexperienced some of them um so there there was some disquire about the the nature of the inquiry in that respect

01:03:31 nature of the inquiry in that respect but I don't I don't particularly remember the commissioner um you know going on about that particular aspect of it

01:03:42 particular aspect of it right um I don't know if you're aware but in the report McFersonen criticized that view to some extent where he said I'm

01:03:53 view to some extent where he said I'm just reading this from the report he said cross-examination of many officers this is a paragraph 3.16 was undoubtedly robust and searching but the harm to the relationship between the police and the black community was the result of police

01:04:05 black community was the result of police failures and the answers to the questions rather than the nature of the questioning. It is of central importance that the commissioner and his officers should recognize and accept this fact.

01:04:17 should recognize and accept this fact. Failure to do so can only reflect a lack of understanding of the essential problem and its depth which would make progress difficult if not impossible.

01:04:29 I sorry no go ahead.

01:04:32 go ahead. So I hear hear what you say. I I can't say I heard the commissioner uh

01:04:41 uh talking about that that particular aspect. I must have read that in the transcript and if um Jeremy Gonvertz was instructed to say those words then then

01:04:52 instructed to say those words then then he was but I certainly didn't hear that from the commissioner personally. Right.

01:04:59 Right. I think his his his you asked me about the instit his um discomfort with the term institutional racism. I think that his

01:05:10 institutional racism. I think that his discomfort was best reflected in letters that were written to the inquiry chairman. Um I think they articulated in detail.

01:05:22 I think they articulated in detail. Yes, we we don't have those letters actually, but I know Ellison had those letters.

01:05:26 letters. Great shame. We don't have them. Um, so it was not your impression or was it your impression that the commissioner was

01:05:38 illustrating a sort of lack of understanding of the essential problems and seeking some to some extent to deflect it onto the inquiry causing problems for the relationship and the

01:05:49 problems for the relationship and the topic I'll next come to is political groups around the Lawrence campaign. Did you see evidence of that in those meetings? I didn't see evidence of that. If anything, I think I saw evidence of

01:06:00 If anything, I think I saw evidence of the contrary. I I I clearly this was a moving feast. And as the weeks went by, we we started to appreciate more of, you know, what was

01:06:13 appreciate more of, you know, what was emerging in the inquiry, the performance of officers and their evidence, and we were looking carefully at that and what that meant. But but I felt the commissioner was very very balanced in

01:06:26 commissioner was very very balanced in his interpretation of the inquiry. You know, he was clearly disappointed about many aspects of police conduct and the evidence given by officers clearly

01:06:39 the evidence given by officers clearly and unsympathetic, you know, in some ways. Yeah.

01:06:43 Yeah. Um to them. But I think he he certainly um you know wanted the process to be balanced and

01:06:55 wanted the process to be balanced and fair

01:06:57 fair and um

01:07:02 beyond that I don't I don't think he was unduly

01:07:06 unduly um protective of the or you of the organization. you know, I I think he expected officers would get a tough time, but but um clearly, you know, he if if those instructions were given and

01:07:18 if if those instructions were given and those words were spoken, he had some discomfort about it, but it w it wasn't particularly reflected to me, I have to say. Um, and again just for the avoidance of doubt, did he ever

01:07:29 avoidance of doubt, did he ever articulate to you or was there ever any discussion in these meetings of the effect that political activists around the Lawrence campaign were having on the campaign and on the relationship between

01:07:41 campaign and on the relationship between the Lawrenes and the police and the wider black community and the police? I don't remember that ever featuring. I really don't. I think um all our conversations were really about

01:07:54 conversations were really about the facts and the evidence that emerged and how we respond to it. And you know many of these meetings there there were lawyers present whether they were Met

01:08:05 lawyers present whether they were Met lawyers or Jeremy Gumperts and Jason Beer.

01:08:10 Beer. Um

01:08:13 so yeah I can't tell you anymore. um the meeting of the 14th of August. You said yesterday that you did not think that meeting was appropriate under the

01:08:24 that meeting was appropriate under the circumstances and you would have liked to have thought that had you known about it, you would have suggested that the fact that that meeting was disclosed to the inquiry. Um you also point in your

01:08:35 the inquiry. Um you also point in your witness statement to uh report which I'll bring up. Um this is an SDS intelligence briefing. It's a MPS0720

01:08:49 0946. It's tab B12 and it's dated the 3rd of September 1998.

01:09:00 1998. And you say of this just generally that in light of this report which evidences HN81's clear insight into the Lawrence family campaign

01:09:13 into the Lawrence family campaign that you think it would be less appropriate for HN81 to meet Richard Walton. And I just want to have a look at what this report contains [snorts]

01:09:22 [snorts] and

01:09:25 your view that it shows clear insight on the part of HN81 into the Lawrence family campaign. Um, so MPS 0720946.

01:09:39 Oh, sorry. Um,

01:09:44 so SDS briefing notes. This is the first minute. Superintendent Black, OCU Commander through Squad. As requested, DI Lambert has prepared a briefing note, which outlines two key areas, including

01:09:58 which outlines two key areas, including extreme leftwing involvement in the Steven Lawrence campaign. Ongoing discussions with customers on CUDA will focus on maintaining and enhancing our effective coverage. Particularly pleased with AXO, who was

01:10:10 Particularly pleased with AXO, who was able to thank those officers. Now, I appreciate you've told us that you didn't see any C squad reporting. Um, I understand in your witness statement you say you didn't look at this report. I mean, you didn't see this report at the

01:10:21 mean, you didn't see this report at the time.

01:10:22 time. No.

01:10:22 No. Um, but I just want to look at some of the things that are in this report because it sheds a light on the information to which HN81 was privy when he met with Richard Walton. Um,

01:10:36 when he met with Richard Walton. Um, if we could just scroll down to sorry, the next page. So, this is a minute from Colin Black. um

01:10:46 um superintendent operations commander dated the 14th of September 98 [snorts] uh to detective superintendent es squad. Thank you. These papers can conf confirm

01:10:58 Thank you. These papers can conf confirm that SDS is as usual well positioned at the focal crisis points of policing in London. I am aware that DI Richard Walton of CO24 receives ad hoc off thereordcord

01:11:09 receives ad hoc off thereordcord briefings from SDS. I have reiterated to him that it's essential that knowledge of the operation goes no further. I would not wish him to receive anything on paper.

01:11:19 on paper. I have established a correspondence route to DAC Grieve via DS McDow formerly of SO2 and opened an SP file for copy correspondence with CO2.

01:11:30 for copy correspondence with CO2. It will of course fall to C squad to provide the bulk of that material. First of all, I appreciate this is quite late in the process. So it's the 14th of September now. He's referring to Walton

01:11:42 September now. He's referring to Walton as now being attached to CO24. So would that accord with your recollection roughly of where he was placed at that time?

01:11:50 time? Roughly. Yes. Yeah. Um

01:11:54 Yeah. Um again for the avoidance of doubt, he's aware that Richard, he says he's aware of Richard Walton receiving ad hoc off therecord briefings from SDS. Is that something you ever heard anything about

01:12:05 something you ever heard anything about whether or not as part of the LRT or a CO24?

01:12:10 CO24? No.

01:12:11 No. Um,

01:12:13 Um, does it surprise you to read or to learn that there was a correspondence route set up directly from C squad to Greavves unit CO2

01:12:28 given that it was a conduit for undercover intelligence from the SDS? Well, look, I I guess um it wasn't on my radar, but but

01:12:39 radar, but but it depends on what they were trying to communicate. I if they had a legitimate uh intelligence feed around public order related issues or community relations

01:12:50 related issues or community relations issues, then and it came from lawful uh deployments and probably managed deployments, then why wouldn't there be? But I don't know what's behind

01:13:04 But I don't know what's behind this minute, so it's very difficult to comment.

01:13:06 comment. Fair enough. Well, let's have a look at actually what the report contains because that will help with that. Um, if we could go to page eight, please

01:13:22 SDS intelligence update extremist involvement in the Steven Lawrence campaign. So just for context over the last six months SDS source WIML Tilta that's OJ81 has reported comprehensively

01:13:34 that's OJ81 has reported comprehensively on the persistent and largely successful attempts by the movement for justice to gain influence within the Steven Lawrence campaign. [snorts]

01:13:42 [snorts] The Movement for Justice is an extremely active Brixhambased anti-racist campaigning group, a front organization for a relatively small revolutionary group, the Revolutionary Internationalist League. That's a

01:13:54 Internationalist League. That's a Troskous group, just for your reference. MFJ have managed to broaden the agenda within the campaign group to include a platform of their own uncompromising view, namely that Steven Lawrence case is one is but one of many that shows the

01:14:07 is one is but one of many that shows the police to be corrupt and racist from top to bottom. Um, first of all, the accuracy of the claim that the movement for justice have gained influence within the Steven Lawrence campaign has been

01:14:20 the Steven Lawrence campaign has been emphatically rebutted by members of the Steven Lawrence campaign and others. Um, but anyway, I just want to give you that background to then what follows. Um, if

01:14:32 background to then what follows. Um, if we go to paragraph three, please.

01:14:37 In addition to providing valuable public order intelligence for sea squad, Wimmel Tiltter's unique unique insight into the behindthe-scenes machinations of the Lawrence campaign

01:14:48 machinations of the Lawrence campaign has also proved invaluable to acting detective inspector Richard Walton, who is currently attached to the Steven Lawrence review team. At a recent SDS meeting, Wim Tiltter was able to give acting detective inspector Walton a

01:15:00 acting detective inspector Walton a firstirhand briefing on the case and offer some sound advice, eg that the commissioner would be ill advised to attend a public forum at Lambeath Town Hall as provisionally planned. In terms

01:15:11 Hall as provisionally planned. In terms of the Metropolitan Police's long-term strategy of seeking to rebuild dam damaged relations with the black community, Wimble Tilter was able to comment authoritatively on the enormity of the task generally and his own local

01:15:22 of the task generally and his own local area, Brixton specifically. Um, so this is making the claim that HN81 has a unique insight into

01:15:35 insight into the behind-the-scenes machination, slightly charged language there, suggesting that there's a hint of nefarious activity perhaps, but this is the claim that's being made

01:15:47 but this is the claim that's being made and that's being passed on. It would see to CO24.

01:15:51 to CO24. Would you agree? Would I agree that that's what this suggests on the face of it? On the face of it, it's what it it suggests that, but it it to me it reads

01:16:04 suggests that, but it it to me it reads like an o over claim. You know, it's kind of

01:16:07 kind of it seems very exaggerated because I didn't see any evidence or hear any evidence of these uh groups uh being involved or

01:16:18 uh being involved or right. I mean, none of that came up on our radar on on the uh on the team I was on and obviously we were, you know, reading newspapers a lot and uh getting

01:16:29 reading newspapers a lot and uh getting all the press cutings around the uh the inquiry.

01:16:33 inquiry. Y

01:16:33 Y um and we were doing our own research. Um and and Richard Walton was doing a lot of research around the race is issue.

01:16:44 issue. Do you know what that he never surfaced any of this to my colleagues? Yeah, sorry to interrupt you. Do you know that what what that research consisted of? Like how he conducted that research? Um,

01:16:56 Um, I couldn't give you a a line dot and comma read out of what it was, but quite a lot of it was academic. I remember um I think he reached out to different academic

01:17:08 academic institutions and academics themselves possibly.

01:17:11 possibly. Yeah.

01:17:12 Yeah. Um

01:17:13 Um do you I mean again this is a hypothetical. Do you think it possible that he considered the meeting with HN81 and Robert Lambert to be part and puzzle of that research?

01:17:24 He might have considered it part of that role.

01:17:26 role. It's possible you'd have to ask him. Yeah. Well, yeah,

01:17:29 yeah, fair enough. Um, page nine of this please.

01:17:41 Um, just the second paragraph. At the time of preparing this paper, Wimil Tilter is reporting another significant breakthrough for the movement for justice. On Wednesday evening, the 2nd of September, they cemented goodly on

01:17:52 of September, they cemented goodly on contact with the Real's Ricky Real's mother and are now planning to assist her in mounting a largecale campaign against the police. It is important to emphasize here the extent to which the

01:18:03 emphasize here the extent to which the Reals case has potential to cause police embarrassment on the same scale as the Lawrence case. Certainly, so far as Mrs. reals and the activists are concerned. There were glaringly similar racist overtones

01:18:14 glaringly similar racist overtones between the police handling of both investigations. Again, Wimmel Tilter will be ideally positioned to monitor important developments in the months ahead. I don't know if you were familiar with the Ricky Reels case, but he went

01:18:25 with the Ricky Reels case, but he went missing. He disappeared and was found in the rivers and again there were suggestions that it wasn't properly investigated, that the police didn't do their job effectively because he was from an ethnic minority. Um, in respect

01:18:39 from an ethnic minority. Um, in respect of this the characterization of

01:18:48 Sukdev Real's justice campaign as a large-scale campaign against the police.

01:18:59 Is it fair to say that within the MPS there was an attitude that justice campaigns or campaigns shining a light on police failures were anti police

01:19:10 on police failures were anti police campaigns? I don't I don't think generally um I'm I'm reading this now to me um you wonder you know

01:19:25 now to me um you wonder you know whether people in charge saw the conflict

01:19:30 conflict uh in this type of reporting in these circumstances and the Met's own position you know the these you know these were people

01:19:41 you know these were people legitimately holding holding the police to account publicly and campaigning for that for greater accountability. So, um

01:19:55 you you would expect senior managers to see that conflict and think right we need to be really uh clear here. Why why are we

01:20:06 be really uh clear here. Why why are we here?

01:20:07 here? Yeah.

01:20:07 Yeah. What you know how how is this justified? Um but I I to get to the point of your question

01:20:17 question that of course there were officers who would have thought that but there were many officers who were grown up about these things and realized we live in a democracy. The police, you know, have

01:20:30 democracy. The police, you know, have power and they do need to be held to account and they they when they get it wrong, they need to know they've got it wrong and and it needs to be exposed. So

01:20:42 wrong and and it needs to be exposed. So I think to try and brand, you know, the Met as anti- um anti- police groups is clumsy and inappropriate because many

01:20:54 is clumsy and inappropriate because many many officers actually are Democrats. I appreciate it's not as if the entire NPS is a rump with a unified view on things. Did you ever see that attitude

01:21:06 things. Did you ever see that attitude in senior officers with your work with the senior management team during this I did

01:21:12 I did period of writing submissions the in my engagement with the the sen the AC's the AC grieve u the commissioner none of this stuff came up

01:21:24 commissioner none of this stuff came up I'm I'm really surprised you know to see it um and it certainly didn't bubble into conversations about the the

01:21:35 into conversations about the the commissioner's response um

01:21:39 um or you know or anything really. I'm it's a it's a surprise to me. Um we can take that down. Thank you. You say in your witness statement at paragraph 87 um that in light of this

01:21:53 paragraph 87 um that in light of this document and when you saw this document for the first time when it was provided to you in your bundle, you think it was inappropriate in light of this for HN81 to meet Richard Walton?

01:22:06 Richard Walton? I mean, at the risk of asking an obvious question, why did you think why do you now think it's inappropriate having seen that?

01:22:15 that? I think it was inappropriate because the the Met

01:22:23 the Met were in an adversarial

01:22:28 process if you like the inquiry, you know, where where grievances uh and complaints against the Met were being aired. Uh and um so to me there is an

01:22:42 aired. Uh and um so to me there is an inherent conflict here uh that should have been managed. Um I mean I think the question goes wider than that to the to the whole

01:22:53 wider than that to the to the whole deployment and what was it for and what was its justification. But um

01:23:03 But um but certainly as I said yesterday you know I I would have thought had I been aware of this I would have thought there is a conflict here.

01:23:14 have thought there is a conflict here. Yeah,

01:23:14 Yeah, there are ethical issues uh and we need to there needs to be some separation from the work we are doing. As I say, I

01:23:26 from the work we are doing. As I say, I didn't know about these conversations. So, it it it it didn't occur, but had it done so I like to think I would have and others would have seen the the dangers

01:23:39 others would have seen the the dangers of receiving any of this information. Can you help us with why I think you describe it as a sterile corridor, the lack of a sterile corridor, why it is

01:23:50 lack of a sterile corridor, why it is you think there was this blurring, ethical blurring and lack of a sterile corridor in the way the MPS was handling this type of intelligence.

01:24:02 this type of intelligence. I

01:24:04 I I can't read the minds of the people involved, but um it reads to me like unhelpful. uh misguided people trying to be helpful.

01:24:15 be helpful. Um

01:24:18 Um from what little I have read, the the material in my bundle, it it would appear the initial sort of position uh was arrived at through a through a seeking intelligence

01:24:30 through a through a seeking intelligence around public safety and public order issues and violence. But having got to that proximity of this campaign, you know, the red light should have come on

01:24:42 know, the red light should have come on and and and certainly senior people should have seen the dangers and stopped it in my view. But um but it it reads like relatively

01:24:55 But um but it it reads like relatively junior officers um

01:24:59 um misguided, trying to be helpful, thinking they're supporting the commissioner and the organization. and not being maybe experienced enough

01:25:10 and not being maybe experienced enough or wise enough to see the dangers of this type of reporting and this type of intelligence gathering in these circumstances.

01:25:21 Would you go so far as to say the fact of this reporting being disseminated and we're going to look at some additional reporting which it seems did go right up to the top um is in itself evidence of

01:25:34 to the top um is in itself evidence of institutional racism within the MPS. If if you look at the definition of Oakley, you could certainly categorize it in those terms. I I often wonder how

01:25:47 it in those terms. I I often wonder how helpful that is. I I think the you know it doesn't that doesn't help solve the problem. I I think the problem is much more kind of granular and uh so I've

01:26:00 more kind of granular and uh so I've never felt the term particularly is helpful.

01:26:05 helpful. I want to look now at the meeting of the Lawrence review team which took place after Walton's meeting with H81

01:26:16 place after Walton's meeting with H81 and Lambert. Um, this is at MPS0749661.

01:26:24 It's B10 of the bundle, sir.

01:26:31 And

01:26:36 just while we're waiting for it to come up, uh, next page, please. So, if we look at the person's present, so the commissioner is at this meeting. Um, Superintendent Thornton,

01:26:48 Um, Superintendent Thornton, Superintendent Quick, Inspector Fgrave, Detective Inspector Walton, and Detective Sergeant Southerntherland. Um,

01:27:00 Um, so would you accept that the fact that he is at this meeting is evidence that he was still involved in the submission drafting process after

01:27:11 in the submission drafting process after that meeting with Lambert? that that would certainly suggest that. Yes.

01:27:17 Yes. Um

01:27:25 if we could go to page two. So I accept actually sorry just before we do that um you make the point in your witness statement that

01:27:36 what these minutes do show is that the submissions are quite far advanced by this point and that the amendments that were being made were more stylistic yes

01:27:45 yes than substantive. So for example an example of that is the first bullet point key points currently written by committee in modular fashion now needs consistency of style

01:27:56 consistency of style inspirational moving sometimes annoying. So it seems there's a need to streamline it to some extent. Yes.

01:28:07 Yes. Um

01:28:10 if we just go to the next category. So what's missing?

01:28:18 So what's recorded as discussed? Steven Lawrence is not the only thing to happen to us in 5 years. Terrorism success of NPS dealing with racial crime needs to match success in dealing with terrorism. MPS world leader in key areas.

01:28:31 MPS world leader in key areas. Every word could be referred to in the future or turned against us. So would you accept that this suggests that there are still some matters of content that you want to address as in there are

01:28:43 you want to address as in there are things missing that you might want to include in the body of the submissions? Uh well looking at that um it seems reasonably clear that the there's a

01:28:56 reasonably clear that the there's a requirement or it's being suggested that we need to um

01:29:05 articulate in the submission some of the Met's successes and strengths. Yeah.

01:29:12 Yeah. Um, if we could then go to the section headed general points, please. I think it's over the page.

01:29:29 Less contrition, less repetition, ruthless addition. Do not launch seeks self-seeking missiles, fewer admissions, less social science,

01:29:41 fewer admissions, less social science, more generosity to difficulty, more sympathy to frontline officers, tighter drafting. We failed the Lawrence family. I won't read them all out, but it does seem like there's still a fair

01:29:52 it does seem like there's still a fair amount of work to do. Albeit that the basic

01:29:59 substance of it is there but nonetheless it seems like there are some still fairly meaningful things that need to be incorporated. Do you accept that? I I think a lot of the a lot the facts

01:30:11 I I think a lot of the a lot the facts were there really. We we had gone through the transcripts. We had done the research. We'd written the sections of the submission. Um the commissioner had I think by this meeting

01:30:24 commissioner had I think by this meeting had clearly reviewed right

01:30:26 right and and I I remember um I actually remember the term about um I can't remember it was in one of the other list emotional and annoying or

01:30:37 other list emotional and annoying or whatever it was I remember I I actually remember him saying that um so I think it was written by this meeting and um it was very much

01:30:49 by this meeting and um it was very much about language right

01:30:51 right and style

01:30:53 and style and that was that I recall this meeting having read these notes in detail now um so we had a we had a quite advanced draft the commissioner had spent all

01:31:05 draft the commissioner had spent all weekend reading and annotating so the purpose of this meeting was for the commissioner to give his feedback on the draft as it stood yes

01:31:15 yes so does it follow from that that a lot of these points are coming from the commissioner A lot of them are. Yes. Um, is less contrition coming from the commissioner? I don't think so. No. Can you recall who that's coming from?

01:31:32 I couldn't honestly say I couldn't honestly say um it's not in the minutes, but again, just for clarity, was there any mention at this meeting of

01:31:43 at this meeting of undercover officer intelligence of

01:31:48 of intelligence surrounding groups involved in the Lawrence family campaign. I'm sure anything of that nature. I would have remembered that would have been so kind of left field really from

01:32:00 been so kind of left field really from from what we were discussing. I would have remembered that and I I think it would have featured in this minute.

01:32:10 Thank you. We can take that down. Um, we've got a final attendance note um of a meeting on the 11th of September 1998. Um, I'll bring it up briefly. It's tab

01:32:23 Um, I'll bring it up briefly. It's tab B48. Uh, it's MPS0749705.

01:32:28 This is the document that summarizes the minutes of meetings excluding anything that's subject to LPP. Page eight, please.

01:32:39 please. And this shows there was a meeting on the 11th of September. This was 9:30 in the morning. You're there. Walton isn't there. Um, and this is about, we can see

01:32:50 there. Um, and this is about, we can see at paragraph 19 about the oral submissions that the MPS are going to make. And I understand that they made these submissions at the inquiry on the 18th of September 1998.

01:33:02 18th of September 1998. Yeah. So

01:33:06 does that suggest that then the written submissions are finished by this point? I think they are finished. Yes. Um, I appreciate this is about oral submissions, but again, just

01:33:18 about oral submissions, but again, just for clarity, can you recall anything being said at this meeting about undercover intelligence there being an officer sur in the groups

01:33:30 there being an officer sur in the groups involved in the Lawrence family campaign, even anything about public order relating to that kind of intelligence? I don't I definitely don't remember

01:33:41 I don't I definitely don't remember anything like that being discussed.

01:33:47 Thank you. You can take that down. Um, now you've been very clear in your evidence.

01:33:52 evidence. You never knowingly received any SDS intelligence while you were working on the Lawrence review team, right?

01:33:59 right? Um, I want to explore with you now whether you may have unknowingly been in receipt of it. uh which I know is well perhaps paradoxical but let's have a

01:34:10 perhaps paradoxical but let's have a look at the uh documentation. So if we could bring up please MPS01212

01:34:18 it's a tab B5. [snorts]

01:34:25 Now this is an HN81 report. Now there's no suggestion you saw this report. I just want to put this before you so that we can do a compare and contrast with a branch note that obviously drew from

01:34:38 branch note that obviously drew from this report. So this is from HN81. It's entitled the Steven Lawrence campaign. It's written on the 23rd of July 1998.

01:34:49 It's written on the 23rd of July 1998. And for context, the first paragraph, the organizing meeting arranged by the Lawrence Family Support Campaign on Monday, the 20th of July 98 was attended by approximately 60 people. Dorene and Neville Lawrence were not in attendance.

01:35:01 Neville Lawrence were not in attendance. The meeting was jointly chaired by Azad Remen of the Newman Monitoring Project and Suresh Grover of Southall Monitoring Group. Um, [snorts] paragraph three. The meeting had been called largely a

01:35:12 The meeting had been called largely a result of pressure from the public activists to become more involved in the escalating campaign. of Asad and Suresh pressed the meeting by stating that although they would readily listen to everyone, all that could possible typo

01:35:24 everyone, all that could possible typo emerge from the meeting would be a number of suggestions that would be presented to Neville and Dorian Lawrence. It would be the decision of the Lawrenes as to which course of actions would be pursued in furtherance of the campaign.

01:35:37 of the campaign. Um, sorry. And could we then go to page three, paragraph one?

01:35:49 Suresh Grover took this opportunity to explain his actions to the movement for justice. He stated that the main problem facing the campaign was the refusal of both Neville and Dorian Lawrence to have anything to do with other groups. They felt they've been badly treated from the

01:36:01 felt they've been badly treated from the outset by such groups as the ANL, that's the Anti-Nazi League, Gokara, and the Anti-Racist Alliance, all of whom had tried to use the family. More recently, they have had trouble from the Socialist

01:36:13 they have had trouble from the Socialist Workers Party who have supposedly been booking venues in the name of the Lawrence family campaign without the campaign group's knowledge or authority. In consequence, the family do not want such meetings or rallies to take place

01:36:24 such meetings or rallies to take place at all. It's only by the efforts of Assad Suresh, etc. that any authorized events have taken place. And then paragraph two. So that's about the

01:36:38 influence or not of groups of political groups around in the campaign and making it very clear from HN81's perspective that the Lawrenes were very alive to it and resistant to it and weren't being

01:36:49 and resistant to it and weren't being manipulated or controlled in any way by political groups.

01:36:56 This reads that both the NMP and the SMG realize that an expanding campaign can only be built with the help of activists and other groups. They cannot get the Lawrenes to realize this.

01:37:07 Lawrenes to realize this. Then just skipping ahead, Sur went on to explain that Dorene and Neville have in reality separated and that they only continued together as a front for the campaign. Dorene, in fact, wishes to

01:37:19 campaign. Dorene, in fact, wishes to wind the campaign up at this point and simply await the findings of the inquiry. Neville is more open to continuing, but only until the inquiry releases its findings.

01:37:31 So, this is obviously very private personal information on a grieving couple that has no bearing on public order or

01:37:44 that has no bearing on public order or public safety. Would you agree with that?

01:37:46 that? I would I would agree. Yes. Um, if we could take that down please. And then I want to now bring up the report which is a branch note. So it's C

01:37:59 report which is a branch note. So it's C squad. It's sanitized but that draws on aspects of that report. So it's MPS0748392.

01:38:10 It's B15 and it's dated the 10th of September 1998. Just to read this preamble. It says, "First minute, this note is marked

01:38:21 says, "First minute, this note is marked secret for the attention of the named addresses only. Any further dissemination should be discussed with the detective superintendent C squad in special branch." And then number one, we

01:38:32 special branch." And then number one, we can see CO24.

01:38:36 And that minute dated the 14th of September 98. And it's Colin Black again. So it seems he's disseminating this. If we could then go over the page, please.

01:38:49 branch note, the Steven Lawrence campaign, associated organizations, and then the bit in italics reads, "This note is produced for the information of the Commissioner of Police, DAC Grieve,

01:39:01 the Commissioner of Police, DAC Grieve, and Superintendent Thornton. It contains secret and delicate source material. There should be no downwards dissemination of this document without reference to the detective Superintendent

01:39:12 Superintendent SO2 C Squad. So it seems from that that it was produced for Sir Condom for DAC Grieve and Thornton.

01:39:26 Sir Condom for DAC Grieve and Thornton. Now when Condom was asked about it he could not recall seeing this but on the face of it would you agree it seems that it would have been sent to them to their offices at the very least.

01:39:40 offices at the very least. Well, it certainly could have been sent to one of the offices, maybe, you know, Sarah Thornton's office or John John Greavves office um initially.

01:39:53 office um initially. Um

01:39:55 Um I appreciate you can't comment on what they saw. Saw it. I understand that. Um if we could just zoom out again, please, and then just look at the final paragraph under the heading the Lawrence Family Campaign.

01:40:07 heading the Lawrence Family Campaign. The Lawrence family campaign group has on the surface remained independent of the extremist groups. However, leading figures within the campaign are well known within left-wing organizations.

01:40:19 known within left-wing organizations. Suresh Grover, who is the spokesman of the campaign, has long been the de facto head of the South Monitoring Group, now simply known as the monitoring group. He has a checkered past involving a number of Troskous groups and a high profile

01:40:30 of Troskous groups and a high profile amongst the West London Asian community. Um, just pausing there.

01:40:40 This actually contrasts with what we read in the previous H81 report and that this is using a sort of innuendo saying that on the surface the Lawrence

01:40:51 saying that on the surface the Lawrence family campaign group has remained independent but suggesting that it hasn't. Would you agree that that is in itself quite racist? this idea that the Lawrence family campaign group is

01:41:03 Lawrence family campaign group is incapable of making its own decisions and is being manipulated and that I think as Dorine Lawrence said in her evidence to the Mcfersonen inquiry, they were considered to be gullible

01:41:14 were considered to be gullible simpletons. Would you agree that that is reflective of that approach within at least C squad?

01:41:29 It's very difficult to comment when you don't know what was in the mind of the person that wrote it. But on but but

01:41:37 but on the surface it's definitely contradictory to the previous reporting. Um

01:41:45 Um and

01:41:48 and you know it it does have the hallmarks of a bit of a smear I would say reading it. Yeah. Um,

01:42:04 it's also arguably the comments it makes about Surash Grover having a checkered past involving a number of Troskous groups and a high profile among the West

01:42:15 groups and a high profile among the West London Asian community. Would you agree that's suggesting he has a slightly malign agenda that he's trying to push? Yeah. I I don't know what what I don't know anything about his past, but uh

01:42:27 know anything about his past, but uh what does that mean? I don't know. It's it's a kind of meaningless thing. It needs to be articulated. Yeah. And checkered again. It's quite charged language. Yes.

01:42:36 Yes. Um

01:42:37 Um paragraph

01:42:40 paragraph two on page three, please. Sorry, page three. Paragraph two. Um this is again about Sir Grover. His next call celebra is the justice for

01:42:51 next call celebra is the justice for Ricky real campaign that was touched on in an earlier report which he will promote as the racial murder of an Asian youth that has met police indifference and racism. Furthermore, it gives Grover

01:43:03 and racism. Furthermore, it gives Grover the opportunity to win back support from his Asian constituency. Imran Khn is the Lawrence family lawyer and a prominent member of Arthur Skargle's socialist Labor Party. despite approaching the inquiry with a left-wing agenda, he is

01:43:16 inquiry with a left-wing agenda, he is unlikely to make any overtly political statements. So again, the tone is quite cynical and unpleasant. Would you agree in the way that these people are?

01:43:27 in the way that these people are? It's charged and described. Yeah. Yes, I think it is quite cynical and very

01:43:34 and very very political. I mean, at the end of the day, you know, the police are here to deal with crime. uh and terrorism and things like that. Um

01:43:46 Um so you know it's hard to think what the justification of this type of reporting is.

01:43:52 is. Um and especially that this reporting that was being written with the view to going right up to the top of the chain. So going to the commissioner. Yes.

01:44:02 Yes. Um if we could just go to the paragraph underneath this please.

01:44:07 As for the Lawrence family, Dorene and Neville Lawrence split up during the first stage of the inquiry, although this is not public knowledge. Neville remains the more politicized of the two, though, although Dorene has recently

01:44:18 though, although Dorene has recently been vocal in her calls for the commissioner to resign. [snorts] Neville feels a measure of ownership of the inquiry and resents others who seek to make capital of it, particularly when they call for public disorder. He's not a good public speaker, but will attend

01:44:30 a good public speaker, but will attend meetings and speak if invited. Um

01:44:36 Um so again a clear example that the very sensitive [snorts] personal information that HN81 inappropriately reported has now been

01:44:51 incorporated into this report and is again on the face of it going right up to the top of the chain. Does that surprise you that this was happening? Yes.

01:45:01 Yes. And why does it surprise you? because it just looks and feels completely inappropriate. Um I can't you know to what end

01:45:12 Um I can't you know to what end uh

01:45:15 uh was this done or or undertaken? Um, again, it just comes back to um it

01:45:26 um it the unfairness of the the MET using its, you know, powers to glean this type of information that looks impossible to justify.

01:45:40 that looks impossible to justify. Um so I am very surprised and uh saddened to read this. Um if we go to page seven of this same

01:45:51 Um if we go to page seven of this same report please just under conclusion.

01:46:00 Um the final paragraph reads, "The inquiry has in bold politicized sections of the black community who hither too would not have aligned themselves to any cause or campaign. This could impact on

01:46:12 cause or campaign. This could impact on existing events where public disorder is a possibility as any action by police may provide a catalyst for serious disturbances. Ultimately, sections of the community who would have condemned such action may

01:46:23 who would have condemned such action may now feel that it was justified. [snorts]

01:46:26 [snorts] This is precisely the atmosphere in which political extremism flourishes, a fact not lost on the leaders of politically extreme groups. Um, would you agree that we're seeing again what is by now becoming quite a familiar

01:46:39 is by now becoming quite a familiar refrain that actually the inquiry is to blame for a breakdown in relations with the black community rather than the actions of the police that are being

01:46:50 actions of the police that are being subjected to scrutiny as part of that inquiry? I think so. I I mean a lot of the language and the the commentary that I'm reading

01:47:03 and the the commentary that I'm reading or have read uh before in my bundle it it re it reflect or it reads like you know um

01:47:15 know um uh it's written by people in in a in a a world that most of us don't inhabit. Um and that is the problem with which I've encountered in other roles in the

01:47:28 I've encountered in other roles in the you know with with um units that are isolated from the mainstream of the organization. Um, and there have been all sorts of challenges with that. And and I think

01:47:41 challenges with that. And and I think this is evidence of that that problem when when you have um these very secretive or or specialist

01:47:53 um these very secretive or or specialist units and they adopt you or they develop their own cultures and their own world view. uh which is largely detached from much of the mainstream of the

01:48:04 much of the mainstream of the organization and that's why you know I'm I I don't recognize this in a lot of the conversations that I had during this period uh working

01:48:16 that I had during this period uh working with um my team on the Lawrence review team and and the senior officers that were uh overseeing the production of that work. M um but you could accept

01:48:27 that work. M um but you could accept that this shows that SDS intelligence was via S squad being channelneled to people who were very closely involved in

01:48:38 people who were very closely involved in writing those submissions. Whether or not they took heed or it made any impact on them, nonetheless, they were privy to this wholly inappropriate

01:48:51 were privy to this wholly inappropriate sorry intelligence chneled by C squad. Well, that's what would appear to be happening here that this is but they weren't squadron. They weren't writing the submissions, were they? No, but they were sending the first page

01:49:02 No, but they were sending the first page the minute shows that it was written for Condon, for Thornton, and for Griev. And they were very involved in writing the submissions, weren't they?

01:49:13 the submissions, weren't they? Uh, well, certainly involved, but um weren't writing them. Um my my team and I were writing them. They were but they were editing them and commenting on them

01:49:25 were editing them and commenting on them of course but yes um and it goes to your point of the lack of a sterile corridor that the fact that even if they had no impact on the submissions and we'll look at the submissions in due course the appearance of this type of intelligence and

01:49:38 of this type of intelligence and reporting going to the commissioner at this very very very

01:49:45 fraugh time. Yeah. I can't see the justification for the reporting and um whether this ever got to the commissioner or not. I I don't know. But

01:49:57 commissioner or not. I I don't know. But uh

01:50:00 uh it it

01:50:02 it it [clears throat] I'm not sure what value it adds if you actually read it, you know, what's in it. Um but but it it is quite prejuditial and tainted, you know, it's tainted

01:50:14 and tainted, you know, it's tainted material.

01:50:15 material. Yeah. But I can't really comment further than that. Um, we had a look at an aspect of the submissions yesterday. I'd just like to go back to the submissions themselves

01:50:27 go back to the submissions themselves now if we could please. Um, it's B11, sir. It's UCPI 0. [snorts] No, sorry. UCPI 36911.

01:50:40 Um, page 31. This is chapter 19 again. That was the [clears throat] issues of race chapter.

01:50:51 Um, and at paragraph 53,

01:50:57 the lack of sensitivity of some police officers also appears to have made it difficult for officers to understand the interest being taken in Steven's murder by community groups in the area. There

01:51:08 by community groups in the area. There is also some evidence of politically motivated groups influencing communication between police and the Lawrence family. So would you agree that this echoes

01:51:22 So would you agree that this echoes analysis and viewpoints that we have seen in the reporting both in the Squad reporting that's assimilating SDS reporting

01:51:31 reporting and in the Lambert report. this idea that there are politically motivated groups influencing the way the Lawrenes communicate with police.

01:51:42 It does echo that. Yes. I I think I think this wasn't much of a secret that that type of thing. I I think there's lots of reporting at the time. I recall

01:51:53 lots of reporting at the time. I recall in the in the news about, you know, some of the political activity around the issue of of the inquiry and Steven Lawrence's murder.

01:52:06 inquiry and Steven Lawrence's murder. Yeah.

01:52:06 Yeah. So, I'm I'm not sure as a sentence it's particularly revealing or necessarily uh directly linked to that reporting. It might it may have been. Um, but it shows

01:52:18 might it may have been. Um, but it shows at least that this was something that it was felt important by your team to draw out

01:52:26 out in the submission. Yeah, it's a it's a one-s sentence comment. Uh, fair enough in a very big document. But yes, I I think it was it's it's a kind of footnote, isn't it really in in

01:52:40 footnote, isn't it really in in it's pointing to that as an issue. Um,

01:52:44 Um, it doesn't elaborate. I I'll take you. Yeah, to be fair, I'll take you to then what what's underneath because it's true. Again, you can't really um comment on it in isolation. So, if we can zoom out, please

01:52:56 out, please and just look at what is underneath. Oh, sorry. Following page.

01:53:04 So, these are extracts from the transcripts from the inquiry hearings. Um this is from the questioning of Dev Barer who was involved in Gokara I think Greenwich

01:53:16 Greenwich Community Relations Group [snorts] and the question was was there in your recollection any attempt by any politically motivated organizations in effect to hijack the relationship between Steven parents and any other

01:53:27 between Steven parents and any other organizations and the police. My personal opinion is that in the past my experience is there have been groups which have tried to do that. Yes. Did that happen in this case? Well myself personally I think yes. So he's in

01:53:40 personally I think yes. So he's in effect saying there that there were attempts by politically motivated organizations to hijack the relationship. Um then the second extract with

01:53:51 Um then the second extract with hindsight you need groups like the ARRA so anti-racist alliance to point out issues to you because somebody like myself wasn't aware that this sort of thing was happening on a daily basis.

01:54:02 thing was happening on a daily basis. And by that she means I've read just the surrounding evidence and she meant that the police making the assumption that Bat people were criminals and the

01:54:14 Bat people were criminals and the specific incident whereby someone at the vigil for Steven Lawrence was visited by the police for no apparent reason. So she's making a point about unequal treatment of black people and white

01:54:25 treatment of black people and white people. It continues, "We did not continue with their support because we felt they had an agenda. [snorts]

01:54:31 [snorts] They said they were there for the family, but they were also there to highlight the anti-racist alliance. And they weren't taking the family's feelings into consideration.

01:54:42 feelings into consideration. They saw this as something to push themselves forward and make themselves better known. And then paragraph 54 reads, "Such interest is not unusual in London, and

01:54:54 interest is not unusual in London, and it is recognized that police officers should have been able to respond effectively to it." Um

01:55:03 the claim made in paragraph 53 that there is some evidence of politically motivated groups influencing communication. Would

01:55:14 groups influencing communication. Would you agree that actually these two pieces of evidence don't bear that out in that Dev Bar saying there were attempts to hijack the relationship and Mrs. Lawrence is making it very

01:55:26 and Mrs. Lawrence is making it very clear that they were very alive to any attempts to affect the communication, but she's not saying they did get a foothold in our campaign. Would you agree with that?

01:55:37 agree with that? Is this was this is in the submission? Yeah,

01:55:40 Yeah, these are the final submissions. Um, so

01:55:44 Um, so I I agree there is a there is a conflict between

01:55:50 between um the previous statement you've shown and this

01:55:54 and this Um,

01:55:57 Um, I I think there probably was evidence in the public sphere about the efforts of groups to

01:56:05 groups to hijack or influence the c the campaign. Um, but

01:56:12 Um, but I'm pleased uh that we included this section because it's, you know, it's it's being transparent about what Mrs. Lawrence

01:56:24 transparent about what Mrs. Lawrence said in the inquiry, would it be fair to say that given that well you described yesterday how there was a slight um conflict, not a serious

01:56:35 was a slight um conflict, not a serious conflict but between your approach which you and your I think police colleagues preferred a higher level approach and the police lawyers were always trying to find forensic evidence to back things up.

01:56:45 up. Yes. Would it be a fair analysis of this that maybe not you personally, but Richard Walton perhaps was keen to advance this idea to

01:56:56 perhaps was keen to advance this idea to deflect blame from the police that actually a lot of the problems were down to political groups influencing the Lawrenes and wanted to get that high level point in and then the lawyers took

01:57:09 level point in and then the lawyers took it upon themselves to try and find evidence to back that up but actually I would argue failed because the evidence doesn't back it up. Do you think that's possible? I agree. I realize it's hypothetical. That's a huge leap I think you're

01:57:21 That's a huge leap I think you're making.

01:57:30 We looked at the section at paragraph 78 about Mrs. Lawrence's mistrust of the police that was referred to in the minute. So, I don't think we need to go there again. Um, we can take that down,

01:57:43 there again. Um, we can take that down, please.

01:57:47 Um,

01:57:51 I've asked you some questions about the propriety of the SDS reporting on the Lawrence family and that intelligence on

01:58:02 Lawrence family and that intelligence on the face of it making its way up to the top of the MPS hierarchy. Um, you say in your witness statement of paragraph 108 that

01:58:13 that you're actually not surprised to learn that senior management appeared to have received briefings about the Lawrence family, including intimate knowledge of their breakup. Can you help us with why you said that in your witness statement?

01:58:24 you said that in your witness statement? Why you weren't surprised? because there's [snorts] there was a lot of machinery in the Met to brief seniors on

01:58:36 on you know what was in the news, what was uh

01:58:42 uh what was happening in the inquiry at the time. Um some of that would have been informal

01:58:50 informal uh briefing from people going to the inquiry and um also organizations or uh units like uh

01:59:01 also organizations or uh units like uh special branch would would have been reporting on relevant material. Obviously, there's a complete uh debate about whether any of this material was lawful or relevant,

01:59:15 this material was lawful or relevant, but um so so that machinery, you know, pumps a huge amount of information. Uh and and all bits of the the Met will will think, oh, let's try and be

01:59:28 will think, oh, let's try and be helpful. You know, the bosses might need to know this or need to know that. And and what some of this is revealing is just how inadequate, you know, the control of some of that

01:59:40 you know, the control of some of that is. Um some of it I'm sure well-intentioned. Uh but but you know, but not standing scrutiny of fairness, of privacy, of

01:59:52 scrutiny of fairness, of privacy, of proportionality, legality, you know, and you do have to have a huge machinery in to control that. It's expensive. Uh but that's what we need to

02:00:03 expensive. Uh but that's what we need to do.

02:00:06 do. Um

02:00:08 Um now I understand you then once the submissions have been made, the oral submissions had been set out at the inquiry, you took a step back and then you were brought back in just before

02:00:20 you were brought back in just before Christmas to respond to some letters from the inquiry. Um,

02:00:27 Um, and you say in your witness statement that during this very intense period of work, there was an adverse aerial exchange on the topic of institutional racism. So, does it follow

02:00:39 institutional racism. So, does it follow from that that you were made aware that this was actually going to be found? Yes. Well, well, I I can't remember if I

02:00:52 Yes. Well, well, I I can't remember if I was aware or not. I think I think we might have been aware. I think we may have had drafts of the report that was going to be published shared with us, right?

02:01:02 right? To comment on finally. Yeah.

02:01:05 Yeah. Um and and you know, institutional racism was one but one uh of the of the contentious issues, let's say. M

02:01:17 contentious issues, let's say. M um and this adversarial exchange you in your Ellison interview um we don't need to bring it up and it's page 18 of that document which is 03261

02:01:28 document which is 03261 you say um the adversarial exchange was about their thought process to the best of my knowledge and so Paul Condon did have a very strong view that this was an unhelpful phrase in so far as you know

02:01:39 unhelpful phrase in so far as you know branding an entire organization as racist. So does it follow from that that he held firm to this view throughout the period that you're speaking to? He didn't bend his view or adapt it or

02:01:52 He didn't bend his view or adapt it or he cleaved to this. I I think he was. Yes, I think I think he did have a strong view and my recollection of the letters they were really testing and ch you know

02:02:04 really testing and ch you know challenging and testing the rigor

02:02:08 the rigor uh of the conclusion that you know and and

02:02:15 and I I think I think the the letters were quite um they were very detailed I think at one point Um and

02:02:27 they were testing the the strength of the conclusion and the

02:02:38 the strength of the conclusion and the you know the underpinning of it if you like and um and it got very it got quite intellectual in in some ways the the the the comments that were going back and forth.

02:02:51 that were going back and forth. Um

02:02:52 Um John Grieve in his oral evidence referred to meltdown Sunday which I understand was 10 days before the publication of the inquiry report. So we

02:03:03 publication of the inquiry report. So we by our calculations it's around the 14th of February 1998. Were you familiar with a sort of institutional meltdown? Apparently Paul Condom had to take a day

02:03:14 Apparently Paul Condom had to take a day off just to sounds very dramatic but I I wasn't uh I wasn't there at that time. I I' I I I left the inquiry or the review

02:03:27 I I I left the inquiry or the review team I think in the September October. Yeah.

02:03:30 Yeah. And gone back to my home division of of Pekkham. And then um in January I then

02:03:41 Pekkham. And then um in January I then was secunded to the anti-corruption command.

02:03:43 command. Yeah.

02:03:44 Yeah. And I stayed there until right up until the day or maybe the day before the publication. Yeah.

02:03:51 Yeah. So I don't I don't recall being there for that.

02:03:54 for that. Um you say in your witness statement at paragraph 52 that you had no further involvement in the inquiry save on the day of the publication of the report. you were part of a team of officers

02:04:06 you were part of a team of officers around the commissioner dealing with the ramifications of the report and you say [snorts] I think I may have helped out with briefing staff about the findings of the report and encouraging officers not to behave [snorts] defensively.

02:04:19 not to behave [snorts] defensively. So can you help us with just generally the

02:04:25 the way the report was received amongst these officers? I mean, the suggestion that you you had to advise them not to behave defensively, does it follow from that they were defensive in the face of

02:04:36 that they were defensive in the face of the findings? Well, well, naturally with 30,000 police officers, some of them were going to be um but I mean the ones that you were briefing particularly the commissioner was always very clear

02:04:49 the commissioner was always very clear throughout this whole period and again I think he you know he believes in democracy. um he was clear that you know this if this inquiry or

02:05:00 that you know this if this inquiry or whatever the inquiry concluded um that he would accept the findings um and would implement change to reflect

02:05:12 um and would implement change to reflect those findings. He was very clear about that and consistent throughout and yes he challenged and and argued at different points about some of the process and some of the emerging

02:05:23 process and some of the emerging findings

02:05:25 findings but on the day that report arrived he was prepared he had made sure the organization was prepared and in fact there was a cascading system of

02:05:36 there was a cascading system of briefings that were implemented on that day y

02:05:40 day y that ran I think for a number of days from my recollection uh with very specific messages to both officers and staff about what this

02:05:52 officers and staff about what this meant, you know, and how we need to respond to it. And and part of that message, I'm sure, was, you know, we shouldn't be defensive. We should accept

02:06:03 shouldn't be defensive. We should accept this is the judgment from a from a lawfully convened competent inquiry and and we need to change. Um,

02:06:14 and we need to change. Um, one of the many findings that McFersonen made was about the treatment of Dwayne Brooks at the scene. And you referred sort of tangentially to it yesterday in

02:06:26 sort of tangentially to it yesterday in your evidence about when PC Linda Bethl was being cross-examined about asking Dwayne Brooks about whether or not he had a weapon on him at the time. And um

02:06:37 had a weapon on him at the time. And um you said that that was standard police procedure, but one of McFersonen's findings was that

02:06:48 McFersonen's findings was that in fact Mr. Brooks was not dealt with properly at the scene. Um I'll just read you that small extract from his report. Um he wrote his first contact was

02:06:59 Um he wrote his first contact was probably with police constable Linda Bethl. We are driven to the conclusion that Mr. Brooks was stereotyped as a young black man exhibiting unpleasant hostility and agitation who could not be expected to help and whose condition and

02:07:11 expected to help and whose condition and status simply did not need further examination or understanding. We believe that Mr. Brooks's color and such stereotyping played their part in the collective failure of those involved to

02:07:22 collective failure of those involved to treat him properly and according to his needs. Um, in light of that finding, do you

02:07:32 [clears throat] or did you reconsider this view that in fact the way he was treated, his being asked about a weapon was

02:07:43 asked about a weapon was acceptable, an acceptable way to treat him?

02:07:46 him? Absolutely. But I think you're conflating different things here. Uh what I was referring to was during the process of the inquiry and and I can't remember the transcript

02:08:00 and and I can't remember the transcript exactly but something came up where it appeared that the very fact that um this

02:08:12 this officer had said to Brooks, Dwayne Brooks, have you got any weapons on you? was was deemed to be a racist response. That that's how it presented. And I and

02:08:24 That that's how it presented. And I and I think what what we were trying to say was well

02:08:29 was well uh you know in in the dark of night in South London when uh you've been called to an incident that suggests it's been violent.

02:08:40 violent. uh it is not unreasonable to check very early on whoever you're dealing with uh whether they pose a threat to you but in all the circumstances

02:08:53 but in all the circumstances yes and I was commenting on that specific point the the reporting the conclusions of the inquiry more generally on how Dwayne Brooks was

02:09:05 generally on how Dwayne Brooks was treated

02:09:07 treated was accepted yeah

02:09:10 yeah Um, just a very final brief point just for clarity because I think there's some blurriness around it. Um, and I appreciate I'm asking you to recall

02:09:21 appreciate I'm asking you to recall things that happened a long time ago. Um, so it may be impossible to achieve absolute clarity in respect of the drafting of the

02:09:32 in respect of the drafting of the submissions and when they were finished. Um, you say in your witness statement that, and this is paragraph 46, you say the document was drafted over the summer of 1998. I think it was largely finished

02:09:45 of 1998. I think it was largely finished by the end of August 1998 or early September 1998. But yesterday in your oral evidence, you

02:09:56 suggested at one point that it might be possible that they were largely completed by early August. Obviously, we've seen meeting minutes which show work was still being done. Yes.

02:10:05 Yes. In September. Yes.

02:10:07 Yes. Would you prefer the the timeline that you set out in your witness statement as in they were still ongoing by September that early August would be too

02:10:18 September that early August would be too early?

02:10:20 early? I think I think I think that much of the work was done by then. Um, we, you know, a lot of drafting had been done by early August. To the extent to which we'd

02:10:32 August. To the extent to which we'd assembled a full draft, I couldn't be sure. Clearly from some of the meetings we've seen, Yeah.

02:10:40 Yeah. Um, it it would suggest I would say that most likely it was the end of August rather than the beginning. Thank you. Um, so those are all the

02:10:51 Thank you. Um, so those are all the questions I have. Um I believe we've received all the rule tens and I've incorporated into them into my questioning thus far. It may be worth rising very briefly just to satisfy

02:11:02 rising very briefly just to satisfy ourselves that there's nothing certainly I'll do that. And um is there likely to be any re-examination? No. Thank you. So uh in that event um while you're taking

02:11:14 uh in that event um while you're taking instructions on that, can the room perhaps be set up for our next witness? Indeed.

02:11:22 Indeed. And we'll take 10 minutes to do that. Is that all right? I'll rise for 10 minutes.

02:26:48 Yes. Uh sir, I can confirm there are no additional rule terms. In which case, your evidence is now concluded. Thank you for coming to the inquiry and giving it. Um I know it's not straightforward to try and remember

02:27:00 not straightforward to try and remember these events all those years ago, but I'm grateful to you for doing so. Thank you. Thank you. I will now rise for a couple of minutes to let the room be set up for the next witness.

02:34:52 Yes.

02:34:57 Just repeat the words after me. I swear by Almighty God I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the truth

02:35:06 the truth the whole truth. and nothing but the truth. Just take a second.

02:35:13 Mr. Walton, thank you very much for attending to assist the inquiry with your evidence today. Uh my questions today are intended to be short and simple that they're not always. Um if you have any difficulty understanding my

02:35:25 you have any difficulty understanding my questions or you'd like me to repeat or rephrase, please do say at any time. Um, there will not be a break before lunch as I understand it, but if you need one,

02:35:36 as I understand it, but if you need one, please feel free to ask for one. And may I ask that you keep your voice up in any answers that you give so that the transcribers can hear you. You've provided a witness statement to this

02:35:47 provided a witness statement to this inquiry. Um, please can we bring up that is it. That's uh for the transcript UCPI 37511

02:35:56 37511 A1 in the bundle. This is a statement dated the 23rd of May 2025.

02:36:02 May 2025. And if we could turn to page 55, please. Uh, sorry, back of it. 54. My apologies. Uh, there is a signature block that's redacted out. But is that a document

02:36:15 redacted out. But is that a document that you have signed? Yes, it is. Are there any corrections you wish to make to this statement? No.

02:36:22 No. And can you confirm that therefore the statement is true to the best of your knowledge and belief? Yes, it is. And that you're happy for that to stand as your evidence-in-chief to this inquiry?

02:36:31 inquiry? Absolutely. So, I'd ask that be admitted as Mr. Walton's evidence and chief. Mr. Walton, you joined the MPS uh in January 1986,

02:36:42 you joined the MPS uh in January 1986, initially posted [clears throat] to Paddington Green for 3 years. Is that right?

02:36:47 right? Yes, that's correct. Uh you then moved to special branch in April 1989 as a detective constable. That's correct. And between 1989 in 1995 you worked in

02:36:58 And between 1989 in 1995 you worked in various parts of special branch including ports B squad and C squad. Yes, that's correct. In 1997,

02:37:08 In 1997, you were posted as a detective sergeant to special branch uh to two area special branch liaison and were then subsequently appointed as the investigation officer of uh an

02:37:20 investigation officer of uh an investigation into a former MI6 intelligence officer Richard Tomlinson. Is that right? That's correct. Yeah. Now, according to the MPS personnel records, which we may go to later, the inquiry understands that it's likely to

02:37:31 inquiry understands that it's likely to have been at some point between January and March 1997. Does that sound about right in terms of your chronology? Sorry. In terms of the investigation official for secret well the move back to special branch.

02:37:42 well the move back to special branch. Uh yes I I mean I can't be precise around that but that seems about right. Uh while in that posting I understand you completed phase one of the

02:37:54 you completed phase one of the accelerated promotion course. That's correct. In October 1997 between October and December. Um, and that you then returned to your duties in special branch. Is that right?

02:38:05 that right? Yes, that's correct. And was that to continue Mr. Tomlinson's case?

02:38:09 case? No. For other duties? No, that was No, that was u finished by then. It was the Tomlinson case was finished upon his conviction which I think was

02:38:22 upon his conviction which I think was October November 1997. But obviously it' be a public record. He pleaded guilty. So you went back to special branch as as as two area liaison or was it in a different role? No, after that um uh I was still part of

02:38:37 No, after that um uh I was still part of the two area team but there was some mopping up to do after the case before I was posted then to the Lawrence review team in May 1998. Yes. So so you then moved to the Steven

02:38:48 Yes. So so you then moved to the Steven Lawrence review team and then subsequently to the racial and violent crimes task force co24. We'll turn we'll come back to the dates of those moves in due course, but you agree the sequence.

02:38:59 agree the sequence. Yes. Yes, indeed. Following your time in CO24, you served in a variety of increasingly senior roles within the Metropolitan Police Service, culminating in your appointment as the head of MPS counterterrorism

02:39:12 as the head of MPS counterterrorism command SO15. That's correct. In the rank of commander. Yes. Correct. And you retired from the Metropolitan Police Service on the 20th of January 2016. Exactly 30 years service.

02:39:23 2016. Exactly 30 years service. Yes, correct. Winding back the clock then to 1998.

02:39:30 When did you first hear about the Steven Lawrence review team?

02:39:37 I suppose not at its uh inception um

02:39:45 um but when I was appointed to it and I can't be precise about how I was appointed to it. Um I think in your statement you you suggest it may have been May 1998. Does that does that tell?

02:39:56 that does that tell? Yes.

02:39:57 Yes. And how did your appointment to the review team come about? My best recollection is a conversation with the OCA commander who was then Colin Black.

02:40:09 Colin Black. Obviously special branch would have been aware at that time that I would be moving on uh because with the phasing of the acceler promotion course um you you

02:40:21 the acceler promotion course um you you know you I would not have been staying in in special branch so it was a question of where he could be posted to next. The Lawrence review team had just started I think at that time. Um and I

02:40:34 started I think at that time. Um and I was late in on it. I think I think it started around April and I joined it around May I think. And do you know uh why in particular you were selected for that role?

02:40:45 were selected for that role? Did you apply for it or were you selected?

02:40:48 selected? Well I was appointed really uh in that role. Um as you I think heard yesterday sir um from Mr. quicks evidence they were looking for um a certain type of

02:41:00 were looking for um a certain type of individual young objective um individuals or certainly off officers who had were freeth thinking I think that's what uh Mr. Quick said yesterday

02:41:12 that's what uh Mr. Quick said yesterday um a large number of the 8 to 10 officers were on the accelerate promotion course at different stages including I think Nick Fgrave uh and potentially Mr. quick himself.

02:41:26 uh and potentially Mr. quick himself. Um, and the role of the Steven Lawrence review team, um, we understand was to take an objective view of the evidence to advise and formulate the MPS response

02:41:38 to advise and formulate the MPS response to

02:41:38 to Yes, it was. And as you heard yesterday, sir, it was a very narrow brief in one sense because it was looking at the evidence that had been heard in the

02:41:49 evidence that had been heard in the first inquiry um and examining the uh material from the first murder investigation and trying to determine whether there

02:42:02 and trying to determine whether there was uh evidence of corruption, incompetence, andor racism. Uh Mr. quick described the the team's remmit yesterday is to examine the evidence that the inquiry was hearing

02:42:13 evidence that the inquiry was hearing and to comment on that and make suggestions or recommendations on how the Met might respond to it. Does that Yes, that's correct then. And you also had the benefit of the input of council as part of SLRT.

02:42:26 input of council as part of SLRT. Yes, but obviously I I was a junior officer even on the team. Um but laterally and I know you covered this uh yesterday. So with the those

02:42:37 this uh yesterday. So with the those meetings in August with the Mets legal council I was in I participated in some of those meetings. Yeah we we'll go through those into course.

02:42:46 course. Um I think you've indicated about 8 to 10 people on the team headed by Mr. Quick. Yes. And Nick Fgrave was the inspector and his deputy.

02:43:00 Had you worked with any of the other officers on that team before? Um, I think I knew John Sutherland. I think I knew Nick Hefgrave. Um, I don't think I knew Mr. Quicker

02:43:13 Um, I don't think I knew Mr. Quicker that time. That was my first time be working with him as far as I can remember.

02:43:17 remember. So, in addition to the resource from the team, the input from council, was there was there any other stakeholder input, if I can put it that way, did you consult focus groups or was it entirely

02:43:28 consult focus groups or was it entirely internal in how you formulated your response? as as I recall it was entirely internal and actually quite narrow in terms of

02:43:40 and actually quite narrow in terms of that. We we were we were confined to those two areas which was the the the wealth of investigative material from the first murder investigation and the reviews of the murder investigation and

02:43:53 reviews of the murder investigation and then the material the transcript from the inquiry. There was no other, as far as I can remember, there was no other material obviously in terms of my issues of race, which you'll come on to in a minute. Um, no doubt. Um,

02:44:07 minute. Um, no doubt. Um, I was digging into academia and and other sources, but open sources, not sources within the Met to explore the issues of institutional racism and other other matters.

02:44:20 other matters. Did you have any role within that team in keeping the commissioner aware of the interest uh in the Steven Lawrence inquiry by particular groups? Absolutely not sir. And you again you

02:44:33 Absolutely not sir. And you again you will come on to this point I'm sure um but Mr. Lambert has referred to me in his evidence I understand as he thought I was the commissioner's staff officer but clearly that was not the case. Um I

02:44:47 but clearly that was not the case. Um I was the commission staff officer of a later commissioner when I was a chief superintendent but at this stage um I was a relatively junior officer on that team and had no contact with the

02:44:58 team and had no contact with the commissioner save for the meetings the meeting we'll talk about later. Yeah. Could could we show you please uh document B4 in the bundle NPS0749500.

02:45:18 Thank you very much. Um this is uh the cover of a of a note analyzing press coverage. Um and if we could look at page two please. I think that'll give us

02:45:29 page two please. I think that'll give us the heading. Yep. Reporting. And this is reporting uh press reporting on the Steven Lawrence public inquiry. And page three, please. This is the body of a briefing note

02:45:41 This is the body of a briefing note about press coverage on what's described as the extreme left-wing and black press.

02:45:50 If we go back to uh page one and the minute sheet, please, we can see there is a minute by detective superintendent black.

02:46:02 It's a little difficult to read, I think.

02:46:10 Yes. But if you look down at the So, it's a manuscript. Man, please.

02:46:21 And about halfway along the second row of texts, I think it's a little difficult to read, so I'll read it out. There is no doubt that the inquiry is going to influence police work for a

02:46:32 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 his information. Now, do I take it that as a member of the review team, it was not your

02:46:44 the review team, it was not your impression that it was the responsibility of the review team to update the commissioner on those matters?

02:46:52 matters? Well, I think that from the evidence of Mr. quit yesterday. Um, unless I'm mistaken, I think he said that he'd he had had contact with the commissioner at

02:47:03 had had contact with the commissioner at various times, uh, informing the commissioner of how the review team was getting on. Um, the only sort of connection with the commissioner and the review team was through Mr. Quick and

02:47:15 review team was through Mr. Quick and then into the assistant commissioner who was either Ian Johnson or Dennis O'Connor. I think there's a rotation around that, but mostly Dennis Dennis O' Conor at the end. Um, but the only person that was said, you

02:47:28 but the only person that was said, you know, seeing the commissioner would have been Mr. Quick, Mr. Okconor, or Mr. Johnson.

02:47:37 Uh, before considering your specific role on the SLRT, uh, was your posting to that team your only posting at the time or did you have other responsibilities? That was my only uh, responsibility,

02:47:50 That was my only uh, responsibility, sir. And in fact it was a very intense period of two months. We worked very long hours and we had a very uh important role to do. Um and it was

02:48:02 important role to do. Um and it was quite a taxing time for the team as Mr. Quick articulated yesterday. Mr. [snorts] Quick yesterday uh said so I think it's folio 192 lines 1 to5 that

02:48:13 I think it's folio 192 lines 1 to5 that you quite often went back to special branch to do your day job. Um, is that correct or was Mr. Quick mistaken? I'm not quite sure. It was it was put in

02:48:26 I'm not quite sure. It was it was put in those terms. Um, I think he said that officers from the uh team had their often went back to their sort of home environments. Um, I don't actually

02:48:37 environments. Um, I don't actually remember going back to special branch over those two months at all. Well, I don't want to put the question on a false premise. it may be sensible to bring that um transcript up if it is

02:48:49 to bring that um transcript up if it is available. Um so I think that's at folio 192 of yesterday's evidence. [clears throat]

02:49:41 Take my

02:50:29 Come on. Come on.

02:50:55 Um, I think that reference will be from the combined PM.

02:51:07 Maybe it doesn't matter. Perhaps we'll we'll come back to that. I I mean, I can still answer the question. I I I have no recollection of going back to the special branch during that time.

02:51:18 to the special branch during that time. Of course, I may well have done um for matters of, you know, mopping up the the official secret investigation I've been involved in or one or two other things.

02:51:30 involved in or one or two other things. Basically my memory is we the team were focused a very uh in a very um concentrated way um in in a very small

02:51:41 concentrated way um in in a very small office um dealing with a very large task and that was what I was doing basically. Understood. So so you were very much not riding two horses. It was your absolutely not your main concern.

02:51:52 absolutely not your main concern. Yes. That's right. That's correct. If we could now um look at your uh witness statement so we can examine your specific role in the review team. Please could we have um Mr. Walton's witness

02:52:04 could we have um Mr. Walton's witness statement U3751 at page 17 please showing paragraphs 42

02:52:28 Thank you very much. So you explain in that in the first line that different officers were tasked with examining different aspects of the initial murder investigation of Steven Lawrence Eugrion, incompetence and racism as you

02:52:40 Eugrion, incompetence and racism as you you explained a little earlier. and you say uh the next sentence on the third line that you were asked to look at issues relating to racism and the investigation of racist crime and that

02:52:52 investigation of racist crime and that you were given a very specific remitt to write two chapters of the MPS's response to part one of the Lawrence inquiry report. Now I understand we understand that the the two chapters of the report you were asked to write were chapter 15

02:53:05 you were asked to write were chapter 15 on race and chapter 15 issues of race. 19.

02:53:10 19. Sorry, you're quite right. 19.

02:53:15 Do you know why you were tasked to produce those specific chapters? Uh, no. Mr. Quick mentioned yesterday he thought I might have had some um

02:53:26 thought I might have had some um knowledge or have been involved in research around race prior to the this this uh appointment. I don't I don't think that's correct actually.

02:53:37 think that's correct actually. Yeah. So you you didn't have any particular experience or expertise to qualify you for that task. Not not to say you were unqualified, but there was no particular reason for you. No. Um John, the two of the other

02:53:48 No. Um John, the two of the other sergeants were given uh the other two issues, RA uh incompetence uh uh and corruption.

02:53:59 And be leading up to that, had you done any work specializing in issues relating to racism or the investigation of racist crime?

02:54:08 crime? No, I don't think I had. Um, obviously I had experience of being an officer, a constable in Paddington Green, but apart from that, no. and perhaps that perhaps it falls away

02:54:21 and perhaps that perhaps it falls away on the given the evidence yesterday. But do do you think do you know whether it was intentional that you didn't have that particular particular experience and that you were there to look at it with fresh eyes? Well, I think Mr. Quick wanted all of us

02:54:34 Well, I think Mr. Quick wanted all of us to look at all the issues with fresh eyes. We were very aware that uh you know of what the Metron police was facing and race was one of the three

02:54:45 was facing and race was one of the three issues. Um I think it was yesterday's evidence there was um suggestion that the Met at that start the start of the launch routine thought that mostly this was

02:54:57 routine thought that mostly this was around incompetence and not around race and corruption whereas very quickly our research was showing that actually all three were of concern. By this time in 1998 what was your

02:55:09 By this time in 1998 what was your personal experience of racism within the Metropolitan Police Service? 1998. Um well,

02:55:18 well, of course, um there were examples of racist behavior, but I think I wouldn't be able to recall any particular example of overt racist

02:55:29 any particular example of overt racist behavior. Then we obviously get into unconscious racis racism and cultural insensitivities and stereotyping etc. which you know we can talk about. I can

02:55:40 which you know we can talk about. I can talk at length on on some of that because that was the issues. Those were the issues we're looking at in in uh chapter 19. Um nothing nothing particular

02:55:51 nothing nothing particular that springs to mind. And and and when you so when you joined in 1986, you were you aware of any overt racism by police officers?

02:56:02 I don't think overt racism. I think more overt sexism. uh when I started in ' 86 um misogyny yes concerning levels of that um we hadn't at that point got

02:56:16 that um we hadn't at that point got equality in terms of women officers being selected you know with parity with men and and having equality in terms of progression uh my my suggestion would be that it was

02:56:27 uh my my suggestion would be that it was more less around race actually but it depends which part of London you were working in of course and prior to your work on the Lawrence inquiry Were were you aware of the more

02:56:38 inquiry Were were you aware of the more subtle forms of racism such as as we say the institutional racism? Um I don't know. I wasn't definitely wasn't aware of the concept of institutional racism. That was a concept

02:56:49 institutional racism. That was a concept that was introduced I think in to the country for the first time by Robin Oakley during the inquiry.

02:57:02 Um, returning to your contribution to to the uh report proper, uh, Mr. Quick said in his statement that he can't rule out that you contributed to other parts of the submissions. Do do you uh if we

02:57:14 the submissions. Do do you uh if we could um bring up his his witness statement, I mean, I can be categorical about that. I I only worked on 15 and 19 and race, and that was more than enough, I can tell you.

02:57:26 tell you. Um, if we could just bring bring up that that extract from Mr. Mr. quick statement if if I may. Um that's M74963

02:57:35 page 16 please and paragraph 65.

02:57:53 You've already answered my anticipated question. Well, my my question about whether you contributed to other parts of the submission, but I wanted to just ask you about the the last um three lines of that paragraph. His

02:58:05 um three lines of that paragraph. His ability to impose any particular narrative on the document was as a result of the process virtually non-existent. Do you agree with that?

02:58:16 I think what he's saying there is that um

02:58:21 um anything that was written by the the leads for those three areas um incompetence, racism, corruption um went through a kind of editing process Nick

02:58:33 through a kind of editing process Nick Frave and himself Mr. Quick before then going up the chain. Um so I I'm not I think it's non-existence is a bit bit strong because um

02:58:47 is a bit bit strong because um obviously I did the work on chapter 19 which was quite a it was quite a significant issue you

02:58:58 it was quite a significant issue you know in the inquiry. Um, so I I produced obviously the the early drafts on that. It was subject to a lot of revision of course and a lot of

02:59:10 a lot of revision of course and a lot of commentary by senior officers. Um, I think virtually non-existent. It's a little strong. So is it fair to say that you were able to influ uh assert your your views uh

02:59:22 to influ uh assert your your views uh within your particular chapters, but you couldn't steer the whole ship? Well, they weren't they weren't my views. um

02:59:31 views. um uh we were trying to be objective and I think we achieved that um in particularly in relation to chapter 19 um

02:59:41 um you know we were being steered um but we're also being quite challenging amongst ourselves but also to some of the senior officers that we came in contact with and as Mr. Quick

02:59:53 contact with and as Mr. Quick articulated yesterday, some of that was quite uncomfortable. Um, uh, the notion of institutional racism was, as I said, was introduced, I think, into the country through this one paper

03:00:04 into the country through this one paper that Robin Oakley, uh, submitted to the inquiry and it became a seminal paper. The inquiry took on board that paper and obviously my issues of race chapter had

03:00:17 obviously my issues of race chapter had to [clears throat] come to a position on that. Um, you know, I had my own views, but we we were trying to be objective around this and impartial.

03:00:30 around this and impartial. CO24,

03:00:31 CO24, we'll examine, as I say, the timeline of your move from the review team to CO24. But first, I'd like to explore what that CO2 role and specialism was.

03:00:42 CO2 role and specialism was. Uh so CO24 uh was the racial crime and violent uh uh racial and violent crimes task force led by deputy assistant commissioner grief. Correct.

03:00:54 commissioner grief. Correct. Correct. It was also known as CO2 or racial environment crime task force. Those two sort of designations. It was the same unit. Yes. And it was a new unit. Yes.

03:01:05 Yes. Do you recall why it was set up? Well, yes, it was set up um because uh there were concerns that what was being exposed in the part one

03:01:16 what was being exposed in the part one of the inquiry needed there were serious issues that needed being to be addressed by by the service. Um and that was understood across the service. Um not

03:01:28 understood across the service. Um not you know at all all ranks. Um but in particular there was al there was also a need to understand some of the things that were coming out through the inquiry um and and to verify as well some of the

03:01:43 um and and to verify as well some of the uh the propositions that were being put to us through the inquiry and we wanted to be to make sure they were factually correct.

03:01:50 correct. If we could show you please MPS072486

03:01:55 at page 141 please. This is a document which sets out the stated aim of the racial violent crime task force.

03:02:15 Thank you. And under the R aim [clears throat] to ensure that racial and violence crime is recognized, investigated thoroughly to agreed quality standards and reviewed objectively to enable lessons to be learned. I think yesterday Mr. Grieve

03:02:27 learned. I think yesterday Mr. Grieve agreed that those were in essence the aims of of of the task force. Um does that accord with your recollection at the time?

03:02:37 the time? Yes, I helped to um inform this this draft action plan. Um this is version six. I I don't know how many versions we had and I don't know when it was

03:02:48 had and I don't know when it was actually put into into policy if you like. Um but of course at this point in time

03:02:55 time um that that was our aim and I think Mr. Grieve in his statement said that you the team was focused on the effective investigation of racist and other hate crimes uh critical

03:03:08 and other hate crimes uh critical incident management within the MPS formation of independent advisory groups development of trained family liaison officers and the development of strategic and community partnerships. Is there anything you would want to add to

03:03:19 there anything you would want to add to that? Uh

03:03:21 that? Uh no, all I'd say is that um obviously it started the unit in early August and this is you know a month or so on. Um it

03:03:32 this is you know a month or so on. Um it was a during those four or five six weeks um it was a slightly moving feast as to what the remmit was. Um and I think various things various um responsibilities were being added to it.

03:03:45 responsibilities were being added to it. Um I don't know when for instance the reinvestigation of the Laurance Merling in inquiry became part of it. I think that was later later on actually. I'm not even sure it was in this version six

03:03:57 not even sure it was in this version six action plan. So so you obviously contributed to the action plan but what was your specific role within that unit when you joined? Well there wasn't a unit um at the beginning. Um so uh if we look at a

03:04:10 beginning. Um so uh if we look at a little bit of timeline um

03:04:14 um uh support condon and John grieve I think on the 1st of August. [clears throat] Yeah if if it helps we will we will come to the timeline really very shortly but I just wanted to understand in terms of

03:04:26 I just wanted to understand in terms of your past in terms of what you were doing as your dayto-day. So initially you get there and it's in its infancy is that right? Uh it was an empty office. Who's there with you at that point? I remember meeting Barry McDall in an

03:04:38 remember meeting Barry McDall in an empty office and having a discussion around purchasing a a photo photocopying machine. Okay. You know, it was it didn't exist. Um so

03:04:49 You know, it was it didn't exist. Um so we had to start from scratch. So you're some of the you're one of the very first people in the unit. Yes. But I I was distracted away because I had annual leave for about two two and a half weeks. Um and that leave

03:05:02 a half weeks. Um and that leave I've not been able to determine that unfortunately. Um so there is there is a a gap. I moved house in in um early September. So either side of that I think probably

03:05:16 [clears throat]

03:05:20 um did the unit itself as opposed to uh DAC grieve have any direct role in the Met's participation in the McFersonen inquiry?

03:05:30 inquiry? I don't think so.

03:05:34 And I can I just say I was the only member of the Lawrence food team to stay on and join CO2 24 and no one else did. So I carried the learning from the

03:05:46 So I carried the learning from the Lawrence food team into CO24. You just said stay on to join. Yes. Did you view it as very much finishing at Lawrence review team and then feeding into CO24?

03:05:57 into CO24? Yes. Um there was and I've used this comment obviously in the in the statement there a short transition period

03:06:04 period but [clears throat] um and I don't know if you're going to cover it but there's a handwritten minute dated the 10th yes of August we will cover that. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Um

03:06:18 was there any overlap in your duties between those two units? Well, would you like me to go through the timeline or We'll come to the timeline, but just in terms of what you are being asked to do.

03:06:30 terms of what you are being asked to do. No, as far as if we think of it as a job description almost. Well, there was no job description when I started CO24 because um there was no role uh so no one had a job description

03:06:42 role uh so no one had a job description except um John Griev from the commissioner. Um, so we had to create job descriptions and roles. Um, and sorry, what was the like, forgive me,

03:06:54 sorry, what was the like, forgive me, what was the question? Well, I was just I was just trying to ascertain if you were to if you appreciate it may not have actually been a job description, but if you were to have

03:07:01 have what was my role, you know, were there were there points that were both applicable to both roles? Were the duties that was equally applicable to one of the other or were they discreet?

03:07:12 they discreet? John Griev wanted, I think he alluded to this yesterday, wanted to set up an intelligence capability within CO24 because he wanted to understand um race crime in in in more depth in

03:07:24 um race crime in in in more depth in terms of statistics and metrics so we could start to address the challenges. Um so one of the early um his early aspirations was to create an intelligence unit. Barry McDall who is

03:07:37 intelligence unit. Barry McDall who is another detective sergeant who I've just mentioned him. He and I both worked together in special branch before. So we had an intelligence background. Um I um

03:07:49 had an intelligence background. Um I um in terms of my role when I first started in CO24

03:07:53 in CO24 um I think I might have been leaning towards being part of that intelligence unit. It quickly became that I was given another responsibility which was operation spectrum which was which uh I

03:08:06 operation spectrum which was which uh I mean John Greavves didn't remember this yesterday but um which was to devise a menu of tactical options strategic and tactical options for tackling race crime.

03:08:16 crime. I think you've described as a toolkit isn't it?

03:08:18 isn't it? A tool kit. Yes. And I was very proud of that um work and that was launched across the Met in February I think 1999. Um, so, uh, I didn't end up having a

03:08:31 Um, so, uh, I didn't end up having a role around intelligence. Barry McDall took that on and I didn't do that in the end.

03:08:36 end. Are you able to help us with the timeline of when it became apparent that you weren't going to be involved in the intelligence cell?

03:08:43 cell? No, but quite quite early on. Um, I can't be precise. Sorry. Well, as we work through the timeline, if it become if it jumps out to you, please do say. So, let's let's start

03:08:54 please do say. So, let's let's start looking at at the timeline. Um, Mr. Griev has said in his statements inquiry that he was approached by uh, Commissioner uh, Condon in mid July 1998

03:09:06 Commissioner uh, Condon in mid July 1998 about the role. Mhm.

03:09:08 Mhm. And if we bring up UCPI 37509, page one,

03:09:18 we can see that it was announced in the media. Yes. uh that he would be uh heading up a new racial and violent crime task force

03:09:30 new racial and violent crime task force in the MPS. And if we look at the top of that document, we can see that's dated Saturday, August the 1st, 1998. Yes,

03:09:39 Yes, Mr. Griev

03:09:43 25A, we don't need to go to it. uh con and in his oral evidence yesterday confirmed that he was appointed to start formally on the 3rd of August 1998

03:09:56 on the 3rd of August 1998 and that the unit was formally established 3 days later on the 6th of August

03:10:03 August as far as those accord do those accord with your understanding of the timeline? Yes, but like me he was in transition um from a role as head of counterterrorism and of course

03:10:15 counterterrorism and of course as you can see from this BBC news um he has approved a he's either been involved with Mr. Kondon uh in a press uh conference or or he's given a a um a

03:10:30 conference or or he's given a a um a press statement uh which you see at the bottom of that that page. So he had started in the week before the 3rd. Obviously formally formally um the

03:10:41 Obviously formally formally um the racial violent crime task force was I think the start date was actually the sixth.

03:10:44 sixth. Yes.

03:10:45 Yes. So the third is the Monday. I think this is the previous week. Yeah. So so I think we're all all on I think so. Yes. Yes. If we could now start exploring the

03:10:56 If we could now start exploring the timing of your move from the review team to CO24, please. Uh, could we show your witness statement at page four, paragraphs 12 and 13?

03:11:13 It's a UCPI 3751,

03:11:22 page 4, paragraphs 12 and 13, please.

03:11:31 [clears throat]

03:11:34 So you say at the end of page 12, I completed my work on the response by early August 1998. Now we heard this morning from Mr. Griev that maybe the response was not sub not finalized quite

03:11:46 response was not sub not finalized quite then and we will come we'll go through that in due course. And at paragraph 30, my recollection is that I then started working on the racial and violent crime task force in August 1998. I do not

03:11:57 task force in August 1998. I do not recall the exact date I stopped my work with the SLRT and started work with CO24.

03:12:03 CO24. I recall that I started transitioning into the latter role in August and in any case well before the 5th of October.

03:12:16 What do you mean when you say you started transitioning into your role in CO24? You've alluded to that a little bit this morning already, but if you could explain what that means in practical terms to you.

03:12:27 practical terms to you. Well, that was starting with Barry McDow, I think Dave Field, uh the early officers in the unit. Um setting up the unit. Um

03:12:40 unit. Um working on the remitt uh as you've shown. Um yeah, transitioning in into that that unit. I I should say that there was a lot of energy at this time.

03:12:51 there was a lot of energy at this time. Obviously, John Griev had been appointed. He was a charismatic, wellrespected police leader, former head of counterterrorism, you know. So he was as a very uh good appointment for this

03:13:03 as a very uh good appointment for this role and he brought instant energy in terms of you know we we need to get moving on this very fast and we and so there was a lot of energy around early

03:13:15 there was a lot of energy around early August um to resolve and address the issues that we had picked up uh in from the that the inquiry had picked up and that we had picked up as well for you to

03:13:26 that we had picked up as well for you to yeah given the distinct roles that you had between the two units in the teams. How practically how was it possible to to to at this stage be riding two horses?

03:13:37 horses? Uh well, it's only a matter of days and if if I may be permitted to go through those days. We will.

03:13:43 We will. Um I I um I think this is the mistake if I might say that Mr. Ellison made in and it's very important though that um there's an understanding of personnel records. Um, and I have included with my

03:13:56 records. Um, and I have included with my statement um, an email that was sent um, by the deputy head of professional standards to Mr. Ellison in I think February um, 1998. You might want to get

03:14:07 February um, 1998. You might want to get it up, but that was pointing out to him that um, when officers move um, I mean I wasn't formally appointed as a detective inspector till the 5th of October. that that was under the accelerated promotion

03:14:20 that was under the accelerated promotion course scheme which was a home office scheme not a force scheme. Um so in terms of chronology um I we have the first of August um m sorry Mr. Mr. W I

03:14:34 first of August um m sorry Mr. Mr. W I am going to take you through that chronology in due course that the document which Mr. W is referring to is B65. We will we will come to that in due course and I think it might make more sense to consider it

03:14:45 sense to consider it as you wish. Yes. At this and and you will have every opportunity to to supplement anything I may miss out. Okay.

03:14:50 Okay. In due course. Um

03:14:54 Um in terms of that transition period,

03:14:58 where were you based?

03:15:02 Where was were both roles based at Scotland Yard? Yes, the I can't remember the floor that the Lawrence free team was on. It was a different floor to the

03:15:13 was on. It was a different floor to the racial and violent crime task force. Um, a few floors up, I think. Um, but in terms of, you know, you ask riding two horses. Um that does that does then

03:15:24 horses. Um that does that does then bring us to the exact dates around the chronology because well the pivot point for me it's really important that the inquiry understands this was um the 7th of August so on the

03:15:37 this was um the 7th of August so on the 6th of August I received notification from the home office uh and again I've submitted this in my evidence um do you wish to me to continue sorry we we we will come to we will come to

03:15:49 we we we will come to we will come to that understand maybe I'll I'll come back to these questions if we've established the correct

03:16:00 but as a general recollection at the time you moved to CO24 is it right and or or entered your transition is it right that work on the

03:16:12 transition is it right that work on the MPS submissions were still ongoing work was still going as you heard yesterday on the submissions right up until they were submitted on the 18th September my work on the submission my

03:16:25 September my work on the submission my drafts was completed on the 7th of August which is when there was a meeting which was discussed yesterday um

03:16:36 um in page 250 of the Ellison review he he refers to um there will be the meeting agreed that there will be a further uh

03:16:48 agreed that there will be a further uh uh iteration of um the race submissioned but not by Richard Walton. Now I didn't finish um those papers 15

03:17:00 Now I didn't finish um those papers 15 and 19. I handed them to Helen B who was I think was she was referred to as detective superintendent. I think she's a was a detective inspector at the time but Helen had a background in proofreading and she I gave her my

03:17:13 proofreading and she I gave her my submissions. So that's that is a that is slightly down the line. Let's look let's look at the let's start with the 3rd of August and then we'll very quickly get to the 7th. Okay.

03:17:22 Okay. 3rd of August. Uh if we could bring up document B7 that's MPS074960

03:17:31 and these should be the minutes of the meeting on the 3rd of August 1998. Mhm.

03:17:36 Mhm. Thank you very much. And if we look that at the list of attendees we can see you there. Second from bottom. You're present as is Mr. Quick and Mr. Grieve, you are described there as acting

03:17:48 you are described there as acting detective inspector Walton. So for clarity at that stage you are acting detective inspector. Correct. Yes. But I mean yes as shown it's pretty

03:17:59 Yes. But I mean yes as shown it's pretty arbitrary. Well it's it's it's important isn't it Mr. Walton because in in various accounts you you are pains to stress that you are a sergeant. But but it's quite clear certainly in this context you are regarded as [clears throat] an

03:18:10 you are regarded as [clears throat] an acting detective inspector. Yes. But it's it's not clear on which hat I'm wearing at this day if this is the 7th.

03:18:17 the 7th. But in CO24, you were a substantive inspector, weren't you? Only with effect from the 5th of October.

03:18:23 October. And your previous role, the investigation of Mr. Tomlinson, you had been an acting detective. Correct. So yes.

03:18:30 yes. Although you I appreciate you hold the substantive rank of sergeant at this time.

03:18:34 time. Yeah. you had for maybe a year or so maybe longer acted as an attack act acting detective inspector. Uh only only starting when um I

03:18:46 Uh only only starting when um I undertook the investigation official secret investigation.

03:18:53 So if we uh zoom out please. Now the there is no contribution from you recorded to this meeting. M um I don't suppose you at this distance

03:19:04 um I don't suppose you at this distance you recall whether you made any contribution on the 3rd of August or not.

03:19:08 not. I I don't recall making a contribution obviously I was the most junior officer in the room and if we could uh look please in at the discussion section under the heading

03:19:19 discussion section under the heading under the B first BQ heading uh so Mr. Quick's contribution and his explanation that we see there

03:19:30 that the meeting is to address issues of pitch and tone of the Mets submissions. Would you agree that those are pretty fundamental issues for a written submission to public inquiry?

03:19:43 submission to public inquiry? Yes, of course. Yes. Pitch and tone permeate the entire document, don't they? They do. So, you cannot have a draft

03:19:54 They do. So, you cannot have a draft which is near finishing until you've agreed your pitch and tone. [snorts]

03:20:00 [snorts] Well, well, the submissions weren't finished clearly. Yeah.

03:20:10 Um just whilst we have this document up please if you could look at the foot of page two and the final bullet point there's

03:20:18 there's a note um in relation to contribution by Mr. Griev. Mhm.

03:20:24 Mhm. Where he suggests um hiring an independent consultant to conduct an ethical audit of the document. Um do you remember what that suggestion was about?

03:20:35 remember what that suggestion was about? I don't actually. I'm sorry. No. Do you recall that happening? I don't recall it happening. Was it a concern of the review team that

03:20:47 Was it a concern of the review team that the submissions were produced to high ethical standards? No. Uh the review team were very confident of our ethical standards throughout.

03:20:58 So just so so just so we're clear, it was a concern that No, no, there was there was no concern. I think this is um

03:21:11 I think this is um John

03:21:11 John so if I may rephrase the question and I may be leading you down a wrong line. Was it the intention that the submissions would be produced to high ethical standard? Oh, of course. Yes, of course. Sorry.

03:21:24 Oh, of course. Yes, of course. Sorry. And was that a conscious intention at the time?

03:21:28 the time? Yes. and and this the Lawrence view team I was working with some of the finest officers I've ever worked with and and obviously they've all gone on to great things subsequently.

03:21:39 things subsequently. If we could now turn to the 7th of August um there is a further re meeting of the review team um and the parts of that note which are not subject to legal professional privilege are reproduced in

03:21:51 professional privilege are reproduced in the witness statement of Mr. Giles. If we could bring that up please. MPS0749705

03:21:58 page 3 paragraph 4. So this is B77 in Mr. Walton's bundle.

03:22:19 Thank you very much.

03:22:23 So we can see that again you're recorded as an attendee and there's the entry for ADI Walton halfway down the list. If we look at paragraph five of Mr. J's statement he records the meeting was

03:22:35 statement he records the meeting was opened 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 discussion, Superintendent Thornton and Superintendent Quick gave their views on the part one submissions. AC Johnson

03:22:48 the part one submissions. AC Johnson provided detail as to the commissioner's views.

03:22:51 views. Now I understand from your witness statement that you don't recall this meeting and you don't recall contributing in any substantive way. Is that correct? And that that is still

03:23:02 Is that correct? And that that is still so today.

03:23:04 so today. Yes.

03:23:06 Yes. I understand just and purely um for completeness I understand when you spoke to uh Mr. Ellison and and Miss Morgan,

03:23:18 Morgan, it was suggested that that you you had um

03:23:27 a minor minor contribution. You made a minor contribution in relation to supplying documents, but nothing more than that. If that's what's recorded, then yes.

03:23:42 But again, it does seem that There's a discussion about content and style. So again, this drafting is very much under way as the 7th of August.

03:23:54 much under way as the 7th of August. What is your best recollection? And I know you've touched on this a little. What's your best recollection of the stage of drafting at that point? So my my best recollection around the 7th of August is that my work on the

03:24:07 7th of August is that my work on the submissions for 15 and 19 was basically finished. And uh I think it's at that point I handed over my submissions to the eye Helen B who was going to be

03:24:18 the eye Helen B who was going to be proofreading. That's not to say that subsequently there couldn't have been some tweaking of those chapters but it wouldn't have been by me. And just so I understand uh the role of of DI Ball. Um

03:24:32 of DI Ball. Um you said she had experience in proofreading. Yes. Was she asked to deal with the document as a proofreader or was she taking or was she taking a more editorial role? Was she also a less

03:24:44 editorial role? Was she also a less editorial role, a more substantial role? Uh proofreader definitely because she was qualified as a proofreader and had been a a teacher before she joined the service. So even though the document is

03:24:57 service. So even though the document is being proof read the the a proof the job of a proofreader is to correct obvious errors and and to flag for example flag issues which may need further revision presumably by you as the author of the

03:25:09 presumably by you as the author of the uh once I gave uh my work across to Helen B I I didn't have any impact on it again afterwards and she she would be able to confirm this um my my job was

03:25:20 able to confirm this um my my job was basically done and now obviously I did turn up to the meeting on the 13th I think it is. Um um but again I had no contribution. I think it's important to say that I because I was the uh original

03:25:34 say that I because I was the uh original author of the issues of race paper which was such a contentious issue and such a important issue. I was as despite being

03:25:45 important issue. I was as despite being a junior officer, I was invited into some of these significant meetings with senior officers because they wanted to ask me potentially questions about that one issue of institutional racism. I was

03:25:58 one issue of institutional racism. I was like the go-to person on that because of the academic um side of of the the uh the term and and the the Robin Oakley

03:26:09 the term and and the the Robin Oakley paper and my analysis of uh institutional racism in that chapter. So I that was I think the reason why I was in the subsequent meetings. But once I

03:26:23 in the subsequent meetings. But once I handed over my submissions and Helen will be able to verify this I'm sure. um uh my job was done on on the submissions.

03:26:34 But again, I come back to my point which is that if fundamental issues such as pitch and tone are not resolved, it surely can't be right that you had no further input with your draft. That be

03:26:47 further input with your draft. That be what that's the case. Um certain of it. Moving on a few days in time to the 13th of August. Uh there were two meetings of the Steven Lawrence review team. One at um 8:00 in the morning and one at 9:30

03:26:59 um 8:00 in the morning and one at 9:30 in the morning. You're not present at the 8:00, but you are at the 9:30. We'll look at the 8:00 nonetheless, please. Um if we could look at Mr. Jars's statement, please over on

03:27:11 at Mr. Jars's statement, please over on to page four, paragraph 7, please. And again, we see a list of attendees.

03:27:21 Um, as I say, you're not you're not there, but there's senior officers. Uh, and there's members from the solicitor's department and council. And also, DS Southerntherland was from

03:27:34 And also, DS Southerntherland was from um, Miss Crook's team. He was the Lawrence Fut.

03:27:40 If we look at what's recorded in Mr. Jars's note. Um, page four, please. First paragraph on the page. [snorts]

03:27:52 Recommendation for the format of the submission. New Scotland Yard team product to be used as the basis, then edited and modified by council AC Johnson.

03:28:03 AC Johnson. And then,

03:28:06 And then, if we could zoom back out, please.

03:28:15 So that is a reference back to the meeting.

03:28:17 meeting. Sorry, you're quite right. Sorry. I page four should be page four.

03:28:31 Oh, sorry. It's my mistake. Page six.

03:28:44 That's it. There we go. Uh, race NSY submissions X and council need only add a small factual input. EG RU the racial incident unit at Plumstead. And that's a comment from

03:28:57 Plumstead. And that's a comment from council. Now, if we could bring up the finished submission. So, this this is a this is a suggestion that's made on the 13th of August. If we could then bring up the finished submissions, please. That's UCPI 36911

03:29:11 and page 8

03:29:22 on that page under 15.1 and then again at 15.2 brackets one we're seeing references to that racial incidence unit.

03:29:33 Yes. It would seem that those have made it into the draft. Were were there references to that unit before this date?

03:29:44 I can't be certain. I'm sorry. Um would it

03:29:48 it I know that I wouldn't have that final adjustment wouldn't have been me that made that that I didn't I wasn't holding the pen as it were at that time. So

03:29:59 were at that time. So in terms of the addition I Is it is it your evidence that that you it didn't come back to you to add in It definitely didn't come back to me to add. That's a minor almost a proofread

03:30:10 add. That's a minor almost a proofread correction. Well, there's I think a fairly substantial treatment of of that unit within your chapter.

03:30:19 chapter. Um

03:30:20 Um no, I don't think it refers to the whole chapter. I think it just refers to the title, I think. Not sure. This this is I had written this. This is

03:30:31 This this is I had written this. This is all stuff I had written. So one, two, three. That that was me in the early drafts. So that hasn't gone in. So it's not a substantial addition of a topic.

03:30:41 topic. No, not at all. No, it it is more minor as as I think it's just literally the almost the the acronym or or the the actual name. But this that's that didn't go in

03:30:52 name. But this that's that didn't go in that I wrote that very early on. It's virtually the first thing we looked at was the racial in incident unit. And um in your witness statement, you you rely on the on the comment by

03:31:03 you rely on the on the comment by council that the submission is excellent. Yes.

03:31:06 Yes. In support of of your contention that uh the work on your sections didn't require further work. Correct.

03:31:14 Correct. Or input from you after you provide them provided them to the team in early August.

03:31:20 August. Correct. I I I don't think there was much adjustment at all. There was a bit of proof reading from Helen B in terms of you know grammar language but I don't

03:31:31 of you know grammar language but I don't think the chapters 15 and 19 changed in any meaningful way after I passed them on to Helen which is around the 7th on the 7th

03:31:52 feed. Could could I would you permit me please? I mean I just that point I made earlier on to the because the uh Hugh Isles

03:32:04 because the uh Hugh Isles uh summary taking out the legal privilege um doesn't appear to include that sentence that I referred to earlier on which Mr. Ellison did um which is again I say page

03:32:17 Ellison did um which is again I say page 250 of his report where he talks about the meeting agreed to um have a sort of final submission of the race paper um on

03:32:28 final submission of the race paper um on by the 14th of August but not by Richard Walton. Now I think that's a reference to they wanted Helen's proof reading to be done by the 14th but it's important to note that I think so

03:32:46 I'm not sure the inquiry's seen seen that as such obviously it's in the review

03:32:51 review if we go back to Mr. Charles's note and this this may be where where your where your points may have been were were included.

03:33:03 were included. Uh Mr. Jars's um sorry Mr. J's witness statement

03:33:08 statement uh 0749705

03:33:11 page 6 paragraph 10 please

03:33:24 MPS 0749705 Five.

03:33:39 It was the document we had up before this one. Thank you very much. And paragraph 10, please.

03:33:55 This is then that then follows a discussion in the meeting about an issue about the issue of race as an issue and a theme. During the course of this discussion, Jason Beer notes that the NSY team race paper is very good. DAC

03:34:09 NSY team race paper is very good. DAC Griev Acor and Superintendent Quick make comments in relation to relevant evidence concerning race. AC Johnson comments that in term of prior in terms of prioritizing the preparation of the written submissions, the racism issue,

03:34:20 written submissions, the racism issue, how to present it needs to be resolved first.

03:34:24 first. So again, it looks like the draft is draft is considered good, but there are fundamental issues that need to be added and your evidence as I understand it is if they were added, it was not by you. I

03:34:35 if they were added, it was not by you. I I don't think I could agree to say that that there were fundamental issues to be added at this time. I think there were lots of observations and comments from senior officers. Um we were engaged with

03:34:46 senior officers. Um we were engaged with legal counsel around how this the final tweaks on these documents were going to be uh u done. Um as Mr. Quick said yesterday I think that

03:34:58 as Mr. Quick said yesterday I think that um the the submissions were the the later drafts of the submissions were ready at the end of July actually. Um and these were engagements with legal

03:35:10 and these were engagements with legal council around final tweaks. But

03:35:16 But given the centrality of race to uh Sir William McFerson's inquiry, yeah,

03:35:24 yeah, how one is going to present the what is described here as the racism issue and it needing resolution. Yeah.

03:35:32 Yeah. uh before as part of the written submissions that has to be considered as fundamental, doesn't it? I I don't think you'll find that there were any changes, substantial changes at

03:35:43 were any changes, substantial changes at all to my issues of RA paper other than um proof readings, sir. Um at this time, everyone had a view. Um and a lot of senior officers had views. Um

03:35:55 senior officers had views. Um ultimately, it was the commissioner's submission to the inquiry. Um, moving forward an hour and a half to the 9:30 meeting.

03:36:06 the 9:30 meeting. Um, that is covered on in Mr. Jaza's witness statement on page seven

03:36:13 and at paragraph 12 when we get there. Thank you very much. We can see that you are present along with Superintendent Quick, dear Southerntherland, uh, and council.

03:36:26 Southerntherland, uh, and council. In your witness statement, you say that this paragraph

03:36:33 on the face, you speak to this paragraph and you say, "On the face of it, I agree that this indicates that I had still not completely cut ties with the SLRT at that point, but my recollection is that work on all substantive

03:36:46 that work on all substantive respects had been completed and I had started to shift my attention to CO24." Yes. And I and I I reiterate to you so that the pivot for that was the meeting

03:36:57 that the pivot for that was the meeting of the 7th because it followed um me being informed that I would be um substantive inspector um on the 6th um when

03:37:08 when shall I go into that now? We we'll come to that in just a second. Um but given that this is this is the day before you meet HN81. Sure.

03:37:21 Sure. Would you accept that this note gives the impression and your attendance at this meeting that you are still very much working for Mr. Quick and the Steven Lawrence review team at that time?

03:37:30 time? No, I don't think it does. Um I I don't remember the meeting. Um and as I reiterate um I had finished my

03:37:42 and as I reiterate um I had finished my submissions, my work on the submissions at this. So, so you don't accept that on the face of it, you being listed as an attendee with other SLRT members, with council that this doesn't suggest that

03:37:53 council that this doesn't suggest that you're part of that team at that time? Of course. Yes. I'm you it's a transition period but I'm I think just to stress that my my work on the submissions was done but like I said to you with when we got into the meetings

03:38:05 you with when we got into the meetings with my attendance at these meetings with council was more about um we need Richard Walton there because he's written the issues of race and can talk to us about institutional racism should we need to talk about that. I have no

03:38:17 we need to talk about that. I have no recollection of the meeting though at all.

03:38:21 all. But even in and of itself that is that is a contribution to the team isn't it? Well by attendance yes of course attendance being a resource being someone who can speak authoritatively.

03:38:32 someone who can speak authoritatively. Yes. Yes.

03:38:33 Yes. Yes. And you continue as we will see throughout I think August to to attend. Uh I think there's only one meeting I

03:38:44 Uh I think there's only one meeting I I've attend I attend after the 14th which is the meeting that the commission on the 24th. Yeah.

03:38:51 Yeah. So this was my last meeting in respect of anything to do with the submissions. If we could bring up now please UCPI 36893.

03:39:02 36893. So this is B2 in the bundle and this is an extract from your personnel file. If we could go to page seven of that document please.

03:39:19 [clears throat] So if we look at the top of that page, we can see there's a memorandum dated the 6th of August 1998. Just wait for that to be enlarged. Thank you very much.

03:39:31 This is a memorandum dated the 6th of August from P10 Branch Regency Street. Uh who are P10? Um this is the acceleration uh promotion

03:39:44 Um this is the acceleration uh promotion course team of the Met I think and that is sent to um so area personnel manager uh concerning your eligibility for promotion to inspector. Can you just

03:39:56 for promotion to inspector. Can you just give us the background of this memo? I think it's you I think you suggested it was where you were informed you promoted to substantive inspector or would be it. It's yes it's confirming that I am

03:40:07 It's yes it's confirming that I am eligible to be promoted. um to substantive inspector with effect from the 5th of October because that was the time of the inspector's course at Bram Hill um for the accelerator promotion

03:40:21 Hill um for the accelerator promotion uh scheme

03:40:23 uh scheme I don't think we actually have the the letter

03:40:26 letter no

03:40:27 no behind this but that's your recollection was it

03:40:30 was it yes I remember being informed um at this time obviously it's a seminal date because it's the start of the racial violent crime task force Um, for me this is very important because I'm waiting on this decision.

03:40:43 because I'm waiting on this decision. Um, you'll note to the the handwritten words at the bottom overseer, Mr. Griev. Mr. Griev didn't remember yesterday, but he was my overseer. Um, everybody on the

03:40:54 he was my overseer. Um, everybody on the APC scheme had an overseer at ACPRO rank and Mr. Griev was mine as as a as a form of mentor. Is that right? Or as a as a supervisor? Yeah, he didn't stay for very long uh because he became my line manager. But

03:41:06 because he became my line manager. But at this time he was my So he if and obviously when you go to the handwritten annotations below um there's reference to the special branch personnel talking

03:41:17 to the special branch personnel talking to um Mr. Quick Bob Quick and myself. Yeah, let's do that now. Let's look at the first minute please.

03:41:27 The first manuscript minute.

03:41:34 And here it says, "Das Walton, currently on Lawrence inquiry, spoke to Bob Quick, detective superintendent and Richard Walton. Original intention to transfer to two area, but Mr. Griev wants him to stay and join the new race hate unit

03:41:47 stay and join the new race hate unit under Mr. Okconor uh S area or five area.

03:41:51 area. Five area

03:41:51 Five area AC CO2.

03:41:53 AC CO2. Yeah.

03:41:54 Yeah. So we can see very much saying at that as at the date of this minute, you're on the Lawrence inquiry.

03:42:03 inquiry. Yes. obviously pinning you there and agree the wording uh Mr. Griev wants him to stay. Yes. And obviously the word stay is important because um this confirmed um I

03:42:18 important because um this confirmed um I I did have a conversation with this at some stage in these few days um as well. He was my overseer so and obviously he had to agree you know he wanted me to stay.

03:42:29 stay. Yeah. And in terms of him wanting you to stay it

03:42:33 stay it One reading of that is that he would like you to stay but a decision hasn't been made. Is it is it your best recollection that around this time that decision is made?

03:42:44 decision is made? He he made it. Yes. Perhaps we can also bring up if we keep this if we could keep this document on the screen please. But also bring up alongside it UCPI 36907.

03:42:59 Whilst we're getting that, um, it appears, thank you very, thank you very much. If we could look at those,

03:43:08 those, I don't know whether we can enhance both side by side, but if we could enhance the the the handwritten text, although these are ostensibly similar, the hole punch on the file is in a

03:43:21 the hole punch on the file is in a slightly different position. I think we've zoomed in. Yeah, that's perfect. Thank you very much. So the docu if we could yeah on the left hand side we can see we

03:43:33 side we can see we the date is obscured we can see the eight for the month we can see some strikes but it can't make out can't really make out the the detail there on the one on

03:43:45 out the the detail there on the one on the right hand side we can see there is a one in the 10's column if that makes sense

03:43:53 sense and we can see the eight. So given that we

03:43:58 we that the minute below is the 19th of August does it it must follow that this minute is somewhere between the 10th and the 18th or the 19th.

03:44:09 the 18th or the 19th. Does

03:44:11 Does that time window between the 10th and the 18th

03:44:16 does that sit with you in terms of a decision being made for you to to go to CO24? Yes. I've always read that as the 10th of August for that first annotated

03:44:30 of August for that first annotated note.

03:44:31 note. And is it your position that a decision has been taken by the time of this minute on the 10th? Yes.

03:44:39 Yes. Um I should say that so the um if you were on the accelerate promotion course um you weren't actually really subject to um

03:44:50 to um the your moves were um actually a national issue in terms of the the home office scheme. Um so the force itself um had a lot of flexibility around where

03:45:02 had a lot of flexibility around where you were. So you weren't subject to the normal selection procedures or whatever. So um this is how John uh Mr. Quick assembled his team so rapidly because it it was several individuals on the scheme

03:45:13 it was several individuals on the scheme and this John Grieve as my overseer would have known that um he could just basically select me and keep me on before I was going off to to to another

03:45:24 before I was going off to to to another development post. So with an eye on national schemes not always being the most agile of creatures, are is your suggestion that being part of that

03:45:35 suggestion that being part of that scheme meant actually the move could happen quicker than had you been applying

03:45:40 applying yes through metals or or would it have taken longer? No, it could it was in the same way I was moved to the Lawrence review team in days. Um, I could be removed moved

03:45:53 in days. Um, I could be removed moved from the Lawrence team to CO2 24 in days as well.

03:45:56 as well. And just so I understand that, did with your status on the APC, did that make you more mobile? Yes, it did.

03:46:12 So, we'll come back to in in detail the meeting that you had with HN81, David Hagen, but that that takes place on the 14th of August.

03:46:24 Uh, sticking with the documents we have in relation to the review team, if we could go back to Mr. Giles's statement.

03:46:38 Actually, sorry, my my error. If [snorts] we could go to MPS0749661

03:46:50 and page two and now this is the minutes of the meeting with the commissioner and the part one submission team. You mentioned this a little bit earlier that you you feel you may have been there as e either as someone on the APC

03:47:05 there as e either as someone on the APC being put in front of somebody senior or as as part of your um expert on the basis of your expertise on race.

03:47:13 on race. I think it would have been my expertise on on race but very much there as part of the SLRT uh for this meeting. Yes. It's described

03:47:24 uh for this meeting. Yes. It's described there as the submission team, isn't it? Yes. I don't remember the meeting at all actually, I'm afraid. You don't recall it even though it must it must have been quite unusual for you

03:47:35 it must have been quite unusual for you to have had a meeting with the commissioner at that stage. Yes.

03:47:39 Yes. But I I vaguely remember that it was a very short meeting um and the commissioner condom was giving his view on the on on matters. Um obviously uh

03:47:53 on the on on matters. Um obviously uh Sarah Thornton is present in that meeting as well as Bob Quick and Nick Fgra.

03:47:58 Fgra. Yeah. How is it you recall that it was a short meeting? You you you did just say in your answer that you don't recall the meeting at all. Well well trying to work out what that duration is based on.

03:48:10 duration is based on. It's actually based on on these notes actually

03:48:13 actually on the minute. Yeah.

03:48:14 Yeah. Which quite brief I think it's not it's not a proper minuteed meeting.

03:48:25 But if we again I mean I I I I think we have your evidence on this but it does again look like there are points which need to be quite substantial points that need to be resolved in relation to the drafting talking about not easily

03:48:36 drafting talking about not easily navigable commentary luxurious but needs reduction things that are being identified as missing. Again, it's a description of a draft

03:48:47 description of a draft in construction, isn't it? It's it's it's actually was was not at this stage. Um, and I think Mr. Quick covered this off yesterday. Um, I I I

03:49:00 covered this off yesterday. Um, I I I not aware of any changes to the drafts after this meeting. I I don't think there were any substantive changes to the drafts after this meeting, but only

03:49:11 the drafts after this meeting, but only Mr. will be able to tell you on that. Um,

03:49:13 Um, and so it's effectively the last time you you remember seeing the draft was the 7th of August. Yes.

03:49:18 Yes. And then it's over to Helen B. Yes. And and um even looking at the um submission today, sir. Um it looks chapters 15 to 19 look almost identical

03:49:29 chapters 15 to 19 look almost identical to what I submitted to Helen B bar um grammar grammatical changes proofreading issues but substantively I don't think that either 15 or 19 changed at all

03:49:41 that either 15 or 19 changed at all despite the discussions and the debates around some of these issues it was obviously an is the final decision was was Jeremy Gonerz with the commissioner

03:49:52 was Jeremy Gonerz with the commissioner as to what actually went through on the very very final days and and to complete the timeline, the submissions were submitted to the inquiry and all submissions made 18th of

03:50:03 inquiry and all submissions made 18th of September 1998. If we could bring up your statement at at page 37, that's UCPI 3751 again,

03:50:14 UCPI 3751 again, paragraph 85.

03:50:25 And you explain there by this point I'd finished my already finished my work on drafting the two chapters of the submission that I had been tasked with.

03:50:36 submission that I had been tasked with. The wider SNRT would still have been progressing work on the submission and it had not been formalized at the time of these meetings. The work was only completed when the submissions were handed in on the 18th of September 1998.

03:50:49 handed in on the 18th of September 1998. Yes. And obviously Mr. Quick alluded to this yesterday, so that it took a week or more to have them printed and etc. and delivered to the inquiry. Um, moving now to October 1998.

03:51:04 Um, moving now to October 1998. I'd just like to seek your comment on your manager's recollection of the timing of your move. If I could please. Um, first, Mr. Quick's recollection in his statement of paragraph 88 is this.

03:51:16 his statement of paragraph 88 is this. I'm not sure we need to bring it up, but we can. and it's NPS074963 at page 21 paragraph 88 and he says there was a period of transition where he had a foot in both teams and I'm

03:51:28 he had a foot in both teams and I'm confident that ADI Walton continued to engage with the Lawrence review team up until the document was finalized which was in very late August 1998 or early September 1998 and I think this morning his evidence was that the document was

03:51:40 his evidence was that the document was not finalized until late late August.

03:51:45 Um well if you're asking me um continue to engage the Lawrence review team around the submissions. No. Um as I said once I handed the submission my

03:51:57 once I handed the submission my submissions to Helen B my my job was done and I didn't I don't recall any uh being involved in the submissions thereafter. Um [snorts] of course the the [clears throat]

03:52:08 of course the the [clears throat] submissions the wireless submissions were worked on right up until printing. Um, but I wasn't involved in that. And Mr. Greavves recollection, his witness statement, which is MPS0749658

03:52:24 and page 16, paragraphs 25D and 26, please.

03:52:29 please. Sorry, would you forgive me? Just one point in terms of your last question. Obviously, I did have that period of annual leave as well, which I mentioned, which

03:52:38 which was a period of two or three weeks. um which would have been I think we moved house around the middle of September. So I don't remember being around when the

03:52:49 I don't remember being around when the submissions were actually delivered or even the week or so before

03:52:55 you moved house during your period of annual leave. Yes. Yes. Yes. I think did you say earlier that you the weeks you two weeks holiday either side

03:53:06 weeks you two weeks holiday either side of the move? Was that No, I can't be certain. Sorry. I can't be certain of how I did try and find out only yesterday actually what I I don't want to put words into your mouth that's not what you I'm just trying to say to you that there

03:53:17 I'm just trying to say to you that there was a period of leave when I wasn't around and that included um prior to the submission going in. Um if we look at Mr. Gre's recollection we have that that up there now. Thank

03:53:28 we have that that up there now. Thank you very much. Richard Walton joined my team in October 1998 because he was an experienced intelligence officer and I was working on formulating an intelligenceled response to hate crime. He had also shown an interest in

03:53:39 He had also shown an interest in policing racist crime. And then 26, Richard Walton was not part of the RVCTF at the time Paul Condon made the submission in September 1998. Now, in

03:53:51 submission in September 1998. Now, in his evidence uh yesterday, Mr. Griev said that he had limited recall of who you were were until he spoke to Mark Ellison and has no reason to disagree with with your account if you joined his

03:54:03 with with your account if you joined his team earlier than the dates in your transfer file. But do you have any comment on Mr. Griev at least in his written evidence suggesting it was a later transfer?

03:54:14 later transfer? He's just wrong. So I think it's I mean we're all trying to remember events 28 years ago. Um um obviously you will have seen a minute by Colin Black in I think it's 15th of September which refers to

03:54:26 it's 15th of September which refers to me as DI Walton of CO24. So I I clearly started a lot earlier than October. I think Mr. Grieve is going on the HR record of my promotion to inspector when

03:54:37 record of my promotion to inspector when he talks about October 1998. Yes. We'll look at those in just a minute for for completeness before we leave this topic.

03:54:47 [clears throat] Um

03:54:51 and if first of all if we could bring up uh UCPI 36893 at page 8 please.

03:55:07 There should be a manuscript note and I think this is the the next page on from the minutes we looked at in relation to your your promotion memorandum. 9th of October 1998 DS Walton transfer

03:55:19 9th of October 1998 DS Walton transfer to CO24

03:55:21 to CO24 51098 as inspector send file to room 506 New Scotland Yard. So as at the 9th of October, your transfer date to CO24 is being stated as

03:55:32 transfer date to CO24 is being stated as the 5th of October 98. Now this appears to be the most contemporary record we have of your transfer. That but I I take it that you disagree that that is accurate.

03:55:43 accurate. No, that's the formal date of my promotion to inspector on the 5th of October. But obviously it doesn't represent in any way my physical activities in terms of the work I've

03:55:55 activities in terms of the work I've been doing. This is just um a formal for financial records um and um HR records. And so yes, as I said, my APC inspector

03:56:07 And so yes, as I said, my APC inspector scheme started on the 5th of October and I was only substantively an inspector on that date, 5th of October, which was the start of the APC course at Bramill. Um we just look at two two more

03:56:18 Um we just look at two two more documents on this. Maybe maybe three, but certainly two. um UCPI 36914, which is your police transfer form.

03:56:31 which is your police transfer form. And at page one, if we look down that column of the postings in the second table on the page, we can see CO24

03:56:42 we can see CO24 from 1st of October 1998 to um 18th of April 1999. So again, a slightly different date yet again.

03:56:51 again. Yes. Can I explain this is very important so that I make this point. These police transfer forms shouldn't actually even be in the HR files. Um they are forms almost templates that are

03:57:02 they are forms almost templates that are given to officers before they do their appraise before you have your appraisal and you are asked to fill it out yourself without reference to your HR record. So you in in the matter of

03:57:13 record. So you in in the matter of minutes you have to type out or write out um where you've been and what you you've done. in in generality really these dates look quite specific but I would have filled this out or typed this

03:57:24 would have filled this out or typed this out from my recollection they always going to be inaccurate um and they actually shouldn't be on your HR file and an HR manager would be able to tell you that confirm that because this is not not the only one that's inaccurate

03:57:36 not not the only one that's inaccurate there's another one that's hand we'll come to that next but but um but this is this is the document that you created and you created it some years later presumably I have no idea when I created it but um

03:57:47 I have no idea when I created it but um as I said you the officers themselves fill these out um in minutes before you have your appraisal with with because the appraisals are about where can we send you next and what what what what

03:57:58 send you next and what what what what development um have you had and where can your development go next. They're not formal HR forms. So, if we could bring up uh document B1 again, that's UCPI 36892

03:58:09 again, that's UCPI 36892 um at page one, please.

03:58:15 And this is a career management transfer form. And again, if we look at that second table. Yeah. And this this is I filled this out. It's my handwriting. Um wildly inaccurate. Um but you've got five minutes to fill it out. So obviously I I

03:58:28 minutes to fill it out. So obviously I I my recollection of when I started where it's it's more about the role you had and what you did and where you've been, not about those exact dates. It's an informal form actually. I don't

03:58:39 It's an informal form actually. I don't think this one's even signed, so I don't know when it was filled out. So this is but this is your handwriting. presuming is your recollection of those dates. And I appreciate that you can make an error, but this is this has come directly from you.

03:58:50 directly from you. Yes, it has. Yes, it has. But it's not somebody in the HR saying this is

03:58:54 is No, but it's obviously wrong. I mean, I don't know when this was signed or when I filled this format out. I don't think it's dated. But it's um scroll out, please.

03:59:08 Don't know if there's a We can go over leaf. See if that assists. don't post

03:59:14 and again

03:59:18 that's it. So yeah doesn't it's so it's not signed not dated um and obviously I regret I mean if you know now having been faced with this that I didn't ask for my personal file but it's

03:59:30 didn't ask for my personal file but it's it's not it's not an HR formal record. Yeah, if we go back to page one then please [cough]

03:59:47 so that but it does look

03:59:51 as if it the CO24 is the most recent posting there. So it's presumably your a document you must have been filling in. Yes. um

04:00:00 Yes. um possibly to move out of CO24 to your next post. In fact, it does say present OCU CO2.

04:00:07 OCU CO2. It's difficult to tell to be honest um this far back um because I Yeah, even that um designation DI intelligence is not actually correct. So, I don't know

04:00:18 not actually correct. So, I don't know when I filled this out. But on this document, if you look at the boxes in the top top box, yeah,

04:00:24 yeah, second row, second from right, date of promotion, we've got that as the 5th of October.

04:00:30 October. That's true. Yeah. So, the linking between CO24 and the promotion appears to be Mhm.

04:00:38 Mhm. Um, desperate. They're not the same dates, are they? No. No.

04:00:45 No. No. I mean, I don't think anyone is saying that you joined CO24 in December 98. No. And like I said, these I really wouldn't want you to spend too much long too long on this because they're they're

04:00:56 too long on this because they're they're sort of performers that you sketch out. I know it's inaccurate and obviously I regret that not getting it accurate, but it's um it's not a formal HR form. It was used for um discussion with your

04:01:08 was used for um discussion with your line manager about where you go next. Well, you will be pleased. I have only one more document on this topic uh which is if we could go to UCPI 37508

04:01:19 is if we could go to UCPI 37508 page one that is um B65 in the bundle sir.

04:01:22 sir. Right

04:01:25 Right now this is from um temporary detective superintendent Chris Robson. Yes. And um this is because during my interviews for Mr. Ellison I repeatedly

04:01:39 interviews for Mr. Ellison I repeatedly said asked him to look at my personnel file for whatever reason whether it's time constraint I don't know but he didn't consult my personnel file it um I've had to work out my you know my

04:01:51 I've had to work out my you know my dates etc and to kind of investigate where I was when subsequently because I knew that um u that he he was wrong in terms of his um findings um in relation

04:02:05 terms of his um findings um in relation to this and Uh, I knew that the meeting I had with H N81 had nothing to do with the Lawrence view team. It's taken a long time for me to look at the evidence and obviously you have the um the time

04:02:18 and obviously you have the um the time and the um uh thoroughess to to make sure you get this right. But this um is an interesting uh email from Chris Robson because Mr. Ellison asked Robson

04:02:31 Robson because Mr. Ellison asked Robson to to provide my promotion date to Mr. Ellison, which was the 5th of October, of course, as we've discussed. And Chris Robson has sent this email to inform Mr.

04:02:42 Robson has sent this email to inform Mr. Ellison that um you cannot rely on the 5th of October being the date of his physical move to C24. And I think it's I can't articulate it any better than these four points here.

04:02:53 these four points here. Well, if I could just explore it. Yes. I think maybe two or three quick points. First of all, this document is sent in February 2014. Yes. It is a document that is sent in effectively in response to you receiving

04:03:04 effectively in response to you receiving a notice of potential criticism by Mr. Ellison.

04:03:07 Ellison. Uh I didn't I didn't know that but yes well I think I think that is I'm sure you'll be reexamination if I'm if I'm wrong.

04:03:14 wrong. I have nothing to to dispute that. No. Uh the point it makes here is as you quite rightly say paragraph two records are obviously the subject of human error and relying on the input as accuracy.

04:03:26 and relying on the input as accuracy. You you've spoken to that. Paragraph three, they showed transferred dates in terms of financial handover rather than physical movement.

04:03:37 You suggested that what those records show are in fact the dates that you your best recollection of when you moved, not financial handover dates.

04:03:49 financial handover dates. No, if I misunderstood that. Uh, well the obviously the HR files is I mean what can you rely on? You could certainly rely on the annotations from HR managers such as the ones you had up

04:04:01 HR managers such as the ones you had up just now because um the obviously we we're not sure about the exact date the 10th of of August but you can rely on those um because that's when the financial handover happens um

04:04:15 when the financial handover happens um you you certainly can't rely on um my sort of sketching before on that other form um which again as I said shouldn't have been on the on the file. So it are

04:04:27 have been on the on the file. So it are are you suggesting that the comment that is being made in paragraph 3 relates to the the note by SA12 personnel that we saw for the 9th of October in UCPI

04:04:38 saw for the 9th of October in UCPI 36893.

04:04:40 36893. Yes, she's Yes. Financial handover. Exactly. So that refers to what she talked about financial handover. Yeah. the the financial movement of the the

04:04:51 the the financial movement of the the post of sergeant to CO24 whatever

04:05:05 sir I'm conscious of the time I'm a little short but I'm about to start a new topic and I wonder whether it may be prudent to rise for a slightly early lunch and come back a little early rather than giving us a substantial topic Um, that

04:05:18 giving us a substantial topic Um, that makes sense to me. I hope it makes sense to you.

04:05:21 to you. Sure, sir. Thank you. Right. Uh, we'll resume at 10 to 2. Grateful.