Day 25 (PM) of Tranche 3 Phase 3 continues the cross-examination of Richard Walton (HN183), former Detective Inspector on the Steven Lawrence Review Team and later CO24, focused almost entirely on his 14 August 1998 meeting with undercover officer HN81 ("Windmill Tilter"), arranged by Bob Lambert. Counsel takes Walton line-by-line through Lambert's contemporaneous SDS file note, which Walton repeatedly calls "untrue" or "embellished", while he denies ever receiving Special Branch intelligence, taking notes, or telling anyone about the meeting. The session probes the Ellison Review's "spy in the Lawrence family camp" finding and HN81's reporting on Doreen and Neville Lawrence's private lives, before adjourning for the day with Walton due to return.
00:19:30 Genesis
00:19:36 [laughter] as well.
00:19:39 as well. Just don't read it.
00:19:47 [laughter]
00:19:50 Good afternoon. The hearing is about to resume, so please take your seats. No photographs, filming, or recording are allowed in the hearing room. Please ensure that all phones and other devices are switched to silent, including volume
00:20:01 are switched to silent, including volume controls or laptops. No food or drink except for water is to be consumed in the hearing room. Thank you.
00:29:09 Good afternoon everybody. This afternoon's proceedings are being transmitted on the live link, but only after a 15minute delay. Those with mobile telephones may use them to transmit what they hear in the hearing
00:29:20 transmit what they hear in the hearing room, but only after 15 minutes of elapse since the event that they're describing. They may not be used for recording or photography. Yes.
00:29:31 recording or photography. Yes. Mr. Walton, I'd like to now move to explore the meeting of the 14th of August 1998 with HN81. First of all, the genesis of the meeting. How is it that the meeting came
00:29:43 meeting. How is it that the meeting came about?
00:29:44 about? So, I I can't be certain how it came about. Um, I previously said to Mr. Ellison um that I'd met Bob Lambert. I know that Bob Lambert uh arranged the
00:29:55 know that Bob Lambert uh arranged the meeting. I can't be certain exactly um how it came about. Okay. When were you first made aware of the possibility of the meeting with H&81?
00:30:06 H&81? As best as I can tell. So around the week of around 10th, the week before the meeting. So that would be the 10th to 14th. Around that week.
00:30:18 to 14th. Around that week. So if you met on the 14th, so somewhere between the 7th and the 14th. Um I I think it was the same week. So it' be the I think Monday is the 10th.
00:30:31 Did you seek out the meeting or were you approached? No, I I I was approached. I can be certain of that. And who made first contact about that? Well, the only contact I can remember
00:30:42 Well, the only contact I can remember was with Bob Lambert. In your account to Mr. Ellison in October 2013, you refer to being contacted by Colin Black. If I could just take you to what
00:30:53 Black. If I could just take you to what you what you said in 2013 first, please. Uh, if I could bring up B56, that's MPS 0723183
00:31:03 0723183 at page 16, please.
00:31:21 And so yeah, sorry that's B56.
00:31:26 Thank you very much. So starting at line 15, uh
00:31:31 15, uh you are asked about Colin Black and you say um he was he's he was he's commander of special branch in 1998 according to this. Yes, he was. because he was acting commander of special branch 98. I recall
00:31:43 commander of special branch 98. I recall a conversation with him and I can't remember if it was in person or on the phone. I think that it was in person where he called me up. I remember something to the effect of you're on the Lawrence review team because I knew Colin because I'd worked extensively
00:31:55 Colin because I'd worked extensively with him in special branch. I had also he had also given me a commissioner's commendation for something I had done. He was the commander SOI at special branch. So then it was granted by the
00:32:07 branch. So then it was granted by the commissioner. That was Paul Condon's era. Colin said something to the effect of, "Well, you're on the Lawrence review team. We've got we've got some coverage, as you can imagine, on the periphery around the Lawrence family because we
00:32:19 around the Lawrence family because we are concerned about extremist groups infiltrating the Lawrence campaign and we are also concerned about extremism on the back of the Lawrence campaign driving public order." So he said we
00:32:30 driving public order." So he said we need a conduit to ensure that anything you pick up particularly from the SDS can be fed in to support your reinvestigation of Lawrence of Mensson and Ricky Real because again they were obviously similar cases because of race
00:32:42 obviously similar cases because of race issues as well as incompetency issues. We need to be absolutely certain that John Grieve got the whole story and the whole picture. And as you know, Richard, we've got good coverage.
00:32:53 we've got good coverage. And then overleaf on page 17
00:33:00 foot 15 says, "As uh as Colin basically said, look, we'll do it. It will not be on paperwork. It will be personal briefings to you." I said, "That's
00:33:11 briefings to you." I said, "That's fine." He said, "Can I be confident that anything will be passed to in passed into John Griev so that the Met can be assured that we have that coverage?"
00:33:23 This conversation that you recount to Mr. Ellison,
00:33:29 was that before or after you met HN81?
00:33:35 I can't be certain. Um
00:33:40 I think it might have been the conversation that led to the minute of the 14th of September. So this would been then therefore after the meeting,
00:33:51 therefore after the meeting, the minute that refers to ad hoc briefings, etc. But I can't be certain because I had over that period of time, John uh Colin Black was my commander.
00:34:02 John uh Colin Black was my commander. I'd had a conversation with him about moving to the Lawrence team. I'd had a conversation with him at some stage around moving from Lawrence team to CO24 because that would have been his decision. Um, but as regards this
00:34:15 decision. Um, but as regards this conversation, as remembered speaking to Mr. Ellison, I can't be certain when it was, but it's it now resonates much more with the minute he wrote on the 14th of the 9th.
00:34:26 minute he wrote on the 14th of the 9th. Now, if if that is so, that would be when you are you are more likely to have been in CO2 24. Is that is that right? Uh, oh yes. Um, in your account to Mr. Ellison, you
00:34:38 in your account to Mr. Ellison, you explain that Colin Black says you're on the Lawrence review team and that he knew you.
00:34:44 knew you. Yeah. I mean, was that in that earlier? Well, I'm trying to remember events obviously 16 years later in an interview where, you know, um,
00:34:56 where, you know, um, I'd had no predisclosure of of anything. So, I'm trying to give my best account to Mr. Ellison at that time. Um, I think it's important I say I can't be sure about when this conversation took place.
00:35:12 Although it is sometime after 1998 that you were seen by Mr. Ellison, it is now even further away. So, yes.
00:35:19 yes. Is it likely that is it more likely that that earlier account is accurate? I I have to be honest. I can't be certain about that. I don't want to mislead the inquiry.
00:35:32 So, I presume you also can't assist definitively as to whether the conversation with Mr. Black took place before or after you spoke to Bob Lambert about the meeting.
00:35:43 Um, I I can't remember if I spoke to Mr. Black before the meeting. Obviously, um, Mr. Black has referred to this. So as
00:35:54 Mr. Black has referred to this. So as NH58
00:35:56 NH58 I think who's also said he had a conversation with Colin Black before the meeting. As regards this conversation here, I can't be certain when it happened.
00:36:12 You said to to Ellison um on if we go to page 19 of the transcript at line 29
00:36:23 [clears throat]
00:36:25 I can't remember exactly.
00:36:31 Sorry, it's it's the the page before. So the PDF page 19 that I think that is folio page 18,
00:36:43 bottom of page folio page 18. I can't remember exactly who exactly prompted the meeting, but I think it might have come from their end. I think that it may have been that I bumped into Bob at some
00:36:54 have been that I bumped into Bob at some stage because Bob occasionally, of course, in his role as head of the unit was seen at the yard. Whoever was in charge of SDS would be floating around on the floors of Special Branch and at Scotland Yard doing the bridging between SDS. Yes.
00:37:05 SDS. Yes. And SA12.
00:37:08 And SA12. Again, does that assist with your recollection of how that meeting came apart? Was it a chance meeting with Bob Lambert? No, I I did caveat all of this with Mr. Ellison with words like I think
00:37:19 with Mr. Ellison with words like I think it might have been. And so I I don't want to speculate today when I'm not sure. Um
00:37:26 sure. Um uh I all I can be conf certain about is that Mr. Lambert arranged the meeting. It might the meeting up if I had bumped into the lift it might have been that
00:37:38 into the lift it might have been that was around the arrangement of the meeting but I I don't recall speaking to um I don't I don't know actually how it came about because there's a difference in caveing I don't remember exactly I I can't I
00:37:51 I don't remember exactly I I can't I don't I can't remember who exactly prompted the meeting with actually coming up with suggestion which you have a vague you have a broad understanding of how it came about. So, do you currently have no broad understanding of how this meeting came to be?
00:38:03 how this meeting came to be? All I can be certain of is I saw Lambert before the meeting. So, it wasn't at the meeting. I saw it him before the meeting at some stage when the meeting was arranged.
00:38:18 When you we've looked at the comment where Mr. Black uh may have said, "You on the Lawrence review team." Your account to miss your account to Mr. Ellison doesn't refer to you correcting
00:38:30 Ellison doesn't refer to you correcting him and saying, "Well, actually, now I'm on CO24 now. Do you know why you didn't make that correction?" Because I'm trying to remember something for the first time 16 years later. Um,
00:38:42 for the first time 16 years later. Um, and to be to be fair, um, I did stress to Mr. Ellison that, um, you know, I was transitioning from Lawrence Free Team to 24,
00:38:55 Lawrence Free Team to 24, but it's it was a long time ago even then.
00:39:00 While we have this document on screen, could we go to page 19, please? At line 14,
00:39:11 you say, I [snorts] do remember there were concerns around the Nation for Islam and the movement for justice. And those two groups then there was there was lots of concern that they were hijacking the Lawrence inquiry and a
00:39:23 hijacking the Lawrence inquiry and a genuine concern. That was in my time with the Lawrence review team. I think that even Paul Condon was worried that because we also felt because we felt also on the Lawrence review team that
00:39:34 also on the Lawrence review team that there was a lot of distortion going on in the public domain. Mhm.
00:39:38 Mhm. We felt that yes, effectively that potentially the media was being manipulated by some of our extremists for their purposes and as a result there was not accurate reporting in the papers about for instance all those three
00:39:50 about for instance all those three aspects corruption, incompetence and racism, particularly racism. We felt the Met was effectively being well the story was being distorted that there was not an accurate reflection of what was
00:40:02 an accurate reflection of what was happening in the inquiry. You say there that during your time on the Lawrence review team there were lots of concerns about Nation of Islam and movement for justice.
00:40:13 movement for justice. Uh what were the concerns within the Metropolitan Police Service that nature that the Nation of Islam and MFJ was seeking to as you say hijack the Lawrence inquiry?
00:40:25 Lawrence inquiry? Um well sir on the 29th of June as I'm sure the inquir is aware the Nation of Islam entered the chamber of the inquiry had to be suspended and a police officer was assaulted and later a member of
00:40:36 was assaulted and later a member of Nation Islam was convicted of that assault. So we were concerned about that. Um
00:40:41 that. Um but is that the same as hijacking the campaign or hijacking the inquiry? Well, I think bringing the inquiry to a standstill um when it had to be suspended through their presence, the
00:40:53 suspended through their presence, the physical presence, yes. Um with regards to movement for justice, um there were protests outside the inquiry that were quite fiferous. Um so yes, both those
00:41:06 quite fiferous. Um so yes, both those two organizations were I mean in in in the media actually it was sort of fairly well reported upon. And what was the feeling within the
00:41:17 And what was the feeling within the review team in terms of that in terms of hijack?
00:41:21 hijack? Um
00:41:23 Um well I think the report it's sort of public record that um there was media coverage on both um those groups as as I
00:41:34 coverage on both um those groups as as I as I remember. Indeed. But the inquiry continued. Yes.
00:41:39 Yes. Evidence continued to be heard. Yes. How is it hijacking? Uh
00:41:46 Uh well, if if be because the Nation of Islam
00:41:51 Islam um brought the inquiry to a standstill through the presence that that I mean that's a strong word hijacking but the inquiry was stopped. There was violence and the next day of course there was even more violence but
00:42:03 even more violence but but broadly it's lawful protest isn't it by groups like movement for justice. Uh, no. I don't think physical assault of a police officer in in a public inquiry is
00:42:15 police officer in in a public inquiry is is lawful protest. No, I don't. Um, as that's regards to Nation of Islam as regards movement for justice. Um, it was viciferous. Some of that might have been lawful process. Um,
00:42:28 have been lawful process. Um, uh, I don't know, you know, particularly whether we had saw any disruption in the inquiry from a movement for justice. And were those concerns shared widely within
00:42:39 were those concerns shared widely within the review team? Um well we were following the the inquiry on a daily basis because we were following the evidence. Um so the review team would discuss all these matters. Um
00:42:51 team would discuss all these matters. Um and of course they related to um yeah the fairness um proportionality. We were we were trying to be objective.
00:43:03 We were we were trying to be objective. We were asking ourselves challenging questions such as the ones you were asking. Is it is it lawful protest? Is it is you know is there do we need to be concerned about this? I I think there
00:43:14 concerned about this? I I think there was a um I think the Nation of Islam activity on the 29th of June was a I think it was a seminal moment and then obviously the next day was was a turning
00:43:25 obviously the next day was was a turning point in terms of concerns about violence and protest and disorder in and around the inquiry.
00:43:41 You mentioned um Paul Condon to Mr. Ellison
00:43:46 Ellison um and his his particular concerns. Was that something that you were basing on direct knowledge? No.
00:43:56 No. Was that something that came to you via your managers? Possibly. Um I don't recall but obviously um
00:44:07 obviously um Sir Paul condom was it was this was a national front page news story in most of the newspapers for some time around that period but
00:44:18 but so Paul Condon at the time as he was at the time being worried about the hijacking of the inquiry that seems like fairly specific knowledge is that that seems to have would that have been
00:44:30 that seems to have would that have been widely known at the
00:44:33 Sorry. What he would that he would be Paul Condon's concern about um groups hijacking the inquiry? Yes.
00:44:42 Yes. Would that be something that would have been public knowledge at that time or would that have come internally to you through channels in the middle? I I think it's public knowledge. Yes. Do you recall any of your managers
00:44:53 Do you recall any of your managers communicating to you particular thoughts of Lord Condom on the hijack point? No, I think um I think everybody was
00:45:04 No, I think um I think everybody was concerned
00:45:07 concerned about the the level of unrest particularly on those two days and what that meant for the future of the inquiry. Um that was the 29th and 30th of June. We obviously had another three
00:45:18 of June. We obviously had another three weeks of the inquiry till it went into recess on the 20th of July. Um, so there were legitimate concerns by by by everybody in the Lawrence review team and I'm sure by the senior management
00:45:30 and I'm sure by the senior management from Bob Quick and above up to the commissioner, but I can't speak for them because I I was again I was a sergeant at the time acting detective inspector. Acting inspector.
00:45:41 Acting inspector. Returning to the organizing of the meeting,
00:45:46 we believe that you spoke to Bob Lambert directly.
00:45:48 directly. Yes. In your witness statement, you say you can't be certain how the meeting originated and that you may have met and that previously you'd suggested it may have
00:45:59 previously you'd suggested it may have been after a meeting with Bob Lambert in the lift lobby at Scotland Yard. In your witness statement, to be fair to you, you say you cannot now recall that detail.
00:46:08 detail. Is that still the same today? Yes, the same has joged your memory on that.
00:46:12 that. No, I it's the same. I've tried to sort of think it through, but I can't I don't want to mislead the inquiry. Was that would that be usual to have been invited to a a meeting
00:46:24 been invited to a a meeting within an undercover officer on a on the basis of a chance meeting? Um it wasn't completely unusual for me. I I so I heard um Mr. Greavves comment on this yesterday where he said it was
00:46:36 on this yesterday where he said it was you know unusual. Um I was on Squad in uh 1990. I think it's the 31st of March 1990 when the pole tax riots happened and I was um on the right-wing extreme
00:46:49 and I was um on the right-wing extreme right-wing desk at the time and post the riots um because we were trying to identify those that had committed serious criminality. Um
00:47:00 Um I just going to there we will come back to the pole tac riots in due course. Okay. Um I would like to just continue for the moment uh with with this point about about the
00:47:13 uh with with this point about about the genesis of the meeting. Um back to the Ellison transcript if we may please. The beef 56 page 20 and line five.
00:47:30 Five.
00:47:33 And you say line five,
00:47:39 easy, I think that it might have been a chance meeting with Bob Lambert where he would have said I think that he might have said something like, well, if if it helps, do you want to would it
00:47:50 if it helps, do you want to would it help to meet the actual operative in the field?
00:47:52 field? Mhm. I think that it might be that. I think that I said, "Yes, Bob. I think that would help because it would allow me to contextualize what is actually going on out there because we're getting all sorts of feeds and to get a to speak
00:48:04 all sorts of feeds and to get a to speak to a person actually in the field would probably be as good as it gets." I think that it might have been him suggesting it, me accepting, and then from there it happened.
00:48:17 Do you Well, let's let's take it in stages. Did you know that Bob Lambert was the DI for the SDS?
00:48:26 I think I did. Yes. From your previous experience within special branch, were you were aware of the SDS as a unit? Yes.
00:48:38 We've heard quite a lot of evidence about the importance of maintaining the secrecy surrounding the SDS. But that the meeting that you're suggesting may have happened here seems to be quite an open discussion surrounding the units
00:48:51 open discussion surrounding the units and surrounding deployment of undercover officers. Does that strike you as unusual? [cough] Uh, no.
00:48:59 Uh, no. Was it the sort of thing that would have been discussed in the lobby at New Scotland Yard or would it need to be? Well, I think I would go back to the caveats I put the head of all these comments. I think it was I think it
00:49:10 comments. I think it was I think it might have been um um I I hoped that those caveats would would uh demonstrate that I was not certain about these matters trying to be helpful. So um I
00:49:23 matters trying to be helpful. So um I still can't be certain. But again, there's a caveat. There's a difference between a caveat saying I think I might have had a conversation with Bob Lambert. Yeah.
00:49:30 Yeah. And then as you seem to be doing here, setting out how that conversation played out.
00:49:36 out. That suggests a bit more knowledge, doesn't it? Uh, not really. No, I'm trying to remember 16 years later about how this meeting came about and I'm doing my best. Um, I'm not certain how it came about. Um, or when this
00:49:48 it came about. Um, or when this conversation happened. I know I had one conversation with Bob Lambert before the meeting. Uh, it could have been in respect of meeting, you know, the arrangements for the meeting.
00:50:02 Would Bob Lambert have known when you met that you were working on the Steven Lawrence review team at the time?
00:50:14 I'm not sure um Mr. Lambert would have known um he he probably would have see know me as working with the law team. Yes. But I don't think he would have made any distinction between that and
00:50:25 made any distinction between that and CO24. I don't think there's any knowledge actually in in special branch about this newly created unit CO2. Um it'd only been created obviously the end of July first week of August as we've
00:50:36 of July first week of August as we've discussed and so I doubt whether anyone in special branch would have known about CO2
00:50:44 CO2 but he would have known about Steven's review team. Yes.
00:50:47 Yes. And he would have known that you were on it.
00:50:49 it. Um
00:50:51 Um or was that something that you he known I've been involved in it? Yes. Yes. And that's obviously refers to that in his in his note which he'll go on to I'm sure.
00:50:59 I'm sure. Looking at this extract whilst it's still up
00:51:04 still up you said to Mr. Edison we have all sorts of feeds.
00:51:10 What were the other feeds that you were receiving in general terms?
00:51:21 I I can't recall. Sorry. um on that at all. Um I can't recall whether I'm talking from the Lawrence routine perspective. I don't think I am. Um
00:51:34 perspective. I don't think I am. Um I can't recall. Sorry. I asked you this morning about about the the people who were feeding into the Lawrence review team. Um and it was effectively officers and council. I
00:51:45 effectively officers and council. I asked whether there were external groups like focus groups for example. And you said you didn't I think you said you didn't know. No,
00:51:51 No, you didn't recall any. [snorts] Well, the only feeds we were getting were from the inquiry um from officers that were at the inquiry um who who are following
00:52:03 at the inquiry um who who are following it in person um if we're talking about the Lawrence review team um but but but no others. Was there a channel to bring intelligence to the Steven Lawrence review team? No, absolutely not. And I need to stress
00:52:15 No, absolutely not. And I need to stress that sir that there was there was no crossover between uh special branch intelligence and the Lawrence review team as as Mr. Quit articulated I think yesterday
00:52:28 yesterday I mean none whatsoever. Um so no no feedin from special branch intelligence of any type. Not that I am aware of and I think I would have known and I don't think Mr.
00:52:39 would have known and I don't think Mr. Quick I think he corroborated that as well.
00:52:42 well. There was no need to because of obviously our remmit was was had nothing to do with intelligence or needing intelligence because we were doing a forensic review of the the murder
00:52:53 forensic review of the the murder investigation and the inquiry. So there was no possible need for any intelligence. It wasn't it was not our remit or our role to to to use intelligence. That was entirely the remit of special branch under their
00:53:05 remit of special branch under their public order remit. When Mr. Lambert spoke to Operation Hurt and he describes you as a customer at the time. Uh for context, if we could
00:53:16 the time. Uh for context, if we could bring that up please. That's MPS072549
00:53:20 page three. And so that's B-55 in the bundle
00:53:32 [clears throat] and it's the large paragraph at the foot of the page for Mr. Lambert.
00:53:43 It speaks of you. Richard Walton was at that time one of us, one of us customers. I suppose he was a particular customer with particular requirements because he was working directly for the commissioner in relation to the Metropolitan Police response to the
00:53:54 Metropolitan Police response to the Steven Lawrence inquiry. And before talking about the um this particular file note, I also recall that Peter Francis his intelligence around the campaign was passed to Richard Walton for the same purpose. This is a file
00:54:07 for the same purpose. This is a file note where Richard has actually met with one of the field members and I didn't when I saw this I didn't sort of put a face as particular name that's used here but I can't say far was Mr. Lambert did
00:54:19 but I can't say far was Mr. Lambert did Mr. Lambert contact you about the meeting because you were already a recipient of SDS intelligence in your role at the Steven Lawrence review team? No. And so I can be categorical about this. I um Mr. Lambert has given
00:54:33 this. I um Mr. Lambert has given evidence that he thought I was the commissioner staff officer um to this inquiry which is clearly not true. Um and in regard to this I was never a customer um at all. Um I was not posted
00:54:46 customer um at all. Um I was not posted to the Lawrence review team uh in any capacity to deal with special branch. I was posted to the Lawrence review team because of a development um opportunity around my accelerate promotion and
00:54:57 around my accelerate promotion and course. Um I was not a conduit. I was not a customer. I received absolutely no intelligence from a special branch and I can be categorical about that. And and also in respect of Peter Francis, I can
00:55:10 also in respect of Peter Francis, I can also be clear on that too. Um I he says here I recall that Peter Francis intelligence was past Richard Walton. I received no intelligence from special from anyone let alone from Peter Francis
00:55:21 from anyone let alone from Peter Francis who I don't think I've ever met.
00:55:27 If we could return to paragraph 70 in your witness statement, please. That's UCPI 3751, uh, page 27, please.
00:55:48 You make the point at the beginning of the fourth line. In any event, the meeting would have likely have made sense to me given that I understood the evolving remitt of CO24 was at the time uh and the fact that I was in the
00:56:01 uh and the fact that I was in the process of transitioning into that team. Information about race issues and the nexus with public order threats would have been helpful in that context. I think your evidence a little earlier
00:56:12 I think your evidence a little earlier was that Bob Lambert wouldn't have known that you were moving to CO24. I I can't speak as to really what Bob Lambert knew or didn't know, I'm afraid. Well, I think I'm just thinking about
00:56:23 Well, I think I'm just thinking about the evidence you've just given this afternoon. Yeah, I think your suggestion was that nobody really knew what CO24 was at that time because it was form. That's correct. And obviously he the
00:56:34 That's correct. And obviously he the fact that he refers to me as a commissioner staff officer clearly demonstrates that he he didn't know what my role was
00:56:44 at that early stage. Did you know what your role was in CO24? I think you said earlier that you you thought you might have a role in intelligence within CO24 but ultimately you ended up working on
00:56:55 but ultimately you ended up working on opsp spectrum. That's correct. Yes.
00:57:02 In rel finally in relation to knowledge of your meeting um Sarah Thornton spoke about your meeting with H81 when she was interviewed by Mr. Ellison. Um, please could we bring up her transcript which
00:57:14 could we bring up her transcript which is MPS0721575.
00:57:17 So that's tab B60 and page 13 please.
00:57:38 Sorry, which line is this? Um, page 13, line 28, please.
00:57:47 It's so it's f it's the PDF page 13. So, it's at the bottom of the printed page 12, if that makes sense. Yeah.
00:57:55 Yeah. Line 28. Mr. Ellison, do you remember Richard Walton being a part of the review team? Miss Thornton. Yes, I do. And I mean, one of the superintendents came to see me last week
00:58:06 superintendents came to see me last week with the note of the Richard Walton SB meeting. So I So I still know Richard as Richard Walton as well. I was asked whether I was aware that Richard Walton had met with special branch and had I tasked him. I certainly hadn't tasked
00:58:18 tasked him. I certainly hadn't tasked him. Most certainly I was aware of it but my explanation of that is that Richard had been on special branch and I suspect it was a more self-tasked. It was more self-t.
00:58:31 So I think what we can take it is here that Miss Thornton was aware of your meeting with HN81.
00:58:42 Did you tell her about the meeting? Uh I don't recall speaking to Sarah Thorns about that meeting at all. I'm quite surprised to see that. Um I don't know whether she's
00:58:53 know whether she's is she referring to the actual meeting. I certainly which is referring I think to the note of the meeting
00:59:02 and and she's speculating on I think it was more self task than anything else speculation so I can't really add to what's there sorry in terms of self tasking was that something within your gift in your role
00:59:14 something within your gift in your role at the time no
00:59:15 no so you'd have to been ordered to go and do yes the the meeting with N81 was not my meeting um I there's an in this explanation that I went because I was
00:59:26 explanation that I went because I was asked to go. Um, it is clearly been authorized at a much higher level, you know, occup commander level. Um, I dutifully went along as as as you would.
00:59:45 When you uh agreed to meet HN81, who did you understand the meeting was to be with?
00:59:54 um Lambert and an an undercover officer
01:00:02 and as you understood it at the time that you got you went you decided to go what was the purpose of the meeting? The purpose was never explained to me.
01:00:13 The purpose was never explained to me. Um
01:00:15 Um obviously I was aware of the nexus between
01:00:21 between events around the public inquiry and the evolving remmit of CO24. Um I I knew then as I as I do now that the remmit of special branch around
01:00:32 the remmit of special branch around public disorder and gathering intelligence in relation to it. Um, so but it wasn't clear what the rem the reading was per se and I wasn't clear
01:00:43 reading was per se and I wasn't clear whether it was um me being briefed or me briefing because obviously I had the knowledge around institutional racism and
01:00:55 and you know the emerging role of CO24 etc. So there was an ambiguity around it. It was not clear what the meeting was for. If you didn't know what the meeting was for, why did you go? as as I said because I was asked to go
01:01:09 by Mr. Lambert by Mr. Lambert but I can't recall whether we had a discussion about who had authorized the meeting. Mr. Lambert talks about a more senior officer and
01:01:20 talks about a more senior officer and obviously um NH58 has referred to his conversation with OCU commander Colin Black before the meeting have conversation before the meeting but I wasn't aware um what the remit of the
01:01:33 wasn't aware um what the remit of the meeting was per se before I went to it in relation to
01:01:41 self-tasking. You've just explained that selftasking was was not something that you were entitled to do. No. Which of your managers authorized you to attend the meeting? Was it Mr. Quick or
01:01:53 attend the meeting? Was it Mr. Quick or Mr. Griev? Well, remember I'm on attachment from special branch at the time. So, um, Lambert is actually a more senior officer within special branch and
01:02:05 officer within special branch and [clears throat] now I was obviously transitioning from special branch Lawrence view team for CO2. Um, I was asked to attend a meeting and I attended it. So, but it's a more
01:02:16 I attended it. So, but it's a more senior officer with the inspecial branch if you like, but actually of the same rank really. Uh, well, I wasn't substantively inspector at that time.
01:02:28 inspector at that time. But would not Mr. Grieve or Mr. Quick want to know what you were doing with your time? Well, as I've um articulated, I moved on from Lawrence Review team. Um if the
01:02:41 from Lawrence Review team. Um if the meeting had been authorized OC level within special branch um then it was not my place to you know question about the meeting I was asked to attend.
01:02:53 about the meeting I was asked to attend. I attended. You knew the meeting was to be with a deployed u? Yes.
01:02:58 Yes. What did you know about that UCO before the meeting? Uh nothing. Did you know the field and focus of his deployment? No.
01:03:09 No. How was it again justifiable for you to go and spend time to go and see this officer if you didn't know the field and focus of his deployment because of the nexus between special
01:03:21 because of the nexus between special branch work and CO2 24 remmit
01:03:28 remmit but if you don't know what field the officer is in how do you know there's a nexus with because 1024 work well because he's clearly in he has to be in the field of public disorder
01:03:39 be in the field of public disorder because that is the only justification for an an UC undercover officer to be tasked by a special branch. So he had to have been involved in collecting intelligence, gathering intelligence
01:03:50 intelligence, gathering intelligence around public disorder. But public disorder generally is not the remit of CO24 was it? No. No special branch. But we the the the specific remitt of CO2 was at that
01:04:02 the specific remitt of CO2 was at that point in time was still evolving. Um you know you have overlaps between race crime. Um there were concerns about extreme right-wing activity in that part
01:04:14 extreme right-wing activity in that part of London around Plumstead. I know I know Mr. Griev was concerned about that. Um so I think he even referred to that in his evidence yesterday. But the coverage of the SDS was wider.
01:04:25 But the coverage of the SDS was wider. So for example, if it was into an environmental group for example, that would have no relevance to CO24, would it?
01:04:33 it? Uh it could only be a public disorder. So um that seemed to be a public disorder which needed to be in some way relevant to the work of CO24 or Steven Lawrence of
01:04:46 work of CO24 or Steven Lawrence of YouTube team. Yes. And I made the assumption that they wouldn't have asked me to have a meeting with them if it wasn't relevant. Is it likely they told you where the UCO
01:04:57 Is it likely they told you where the UCO was deployed to justify your time? Um
01:05:04 where he was deployed? forgive me. The the area into which he was deployed in order to justify your time to come out from Scotland young and meet somebody.
01:05:12 somebody. Uh it's possible. I don't recall being told the area of London he was deployed to. It I I I wouldn't want to be certain around that. They may have said that
01:05:25 around that. They may have said that Lambert may have said it's an EC in in that part of London. That's that's possible.
01:05:32 possible. and deployed into the into the groups related to to what? Well, again, I I it wasn't made clear to me before the meeting. Had you received any of the off presumably, therefore, you hadn't
01:05:44 presumably, therefore, you hadn't received any of the officers reporting before the meeting? Absolutely not. You didn't receive any sort of bundle of documents briefing you ahead? No. And and I can be certain about that. As a special branch officer, you
01:05:55 As a special branch officer, you presumably would have been entitled to have viewed those. You would have had s sufficient clearance to view an SDS report, would you? uh clearance obviously in terms of my vetting status.
01:06:07 obviously in terms of my vetting status. Um but access no I' that would have to been approved separately if if this is why I can be quite certain around the the fact I didn't see I have no memory whatsoever
01:06:18 didn't see I have no memory whatsoever I'm I'm certain I didn't see any intelligence from special during my time during this period from May to beyond later well well beyond
01:06:34 you've indicated that it was not a unique experience for you to meet a UCO and you'd done so on occasions before. We will look at uh some of your taskings
01:06:46 when you were detective constable a little bit later in in in this the questionings, but you say when you're questioned by the IPCC that it was not unusual for me
01:06:58 the IPCC that it was not unusual for me at the time to see an undercover officer. I mean, I had seen undercover officers during my time in the special branch as a detective council on several occasions. So this wasn't you know totally unique but when you said in that
01:07:09 totally unique but when you said in that interview at the at the time that suggests doesn't it that this is they were more contemporary. Yes that's not correct. I was I was referring back to my time on Squad in
01:07:23 referring back to my time on Squad in 1990.
01:07:24 1990. So that's not correct.
01:07:33 Were the Lawrence family or the Steven Lawrence family campaign mentioned before the meeting with H&81? No.
01:07:45 Your recollection to Mr. Ellison of the conversation with Mr. Black suggests, I think, that you were told by Mr. Black that they had coverage on the periphery around the Lawrence family. Now, I appreciate there's maybe a slight
01:07:57 appreciate there's maybe a slight discrepancy as to when that conversation took place. Yeah.
01:08:02 Yeah. But did you know that the UCO was deployed into a group involved with putting it neutrally, a group which if I put it neutally focused part of its energy on the Steven Lawrence inquiry
01:08:14 energy on the Steven Lawrence inquiry and the Lawrence family's campaign? So So this is an important point to get across the inquiry. I I'm certain that I didn't know before, during or after the
01:08:28 didn't know before, during or after the meeting with N81 what group he was deployed tasked to and gather intelligence against and that that becomes quite significant when you look at the write up by Mr. Lambert. I
01:08:41 look at the write up by Mr. Lambert. I remember if I could just sorry just finish. I I remember walking away from the meeting thinking I'm none the wiser on which group he's deployed in.
01:09:04 Had you known the scope of H&81's deployment prior to the meeting, would you still have continued to meet him? Uh, that's a hypothetical question I
01:09:15 Uh, that's a hypothetical question I can't um which I can't really answer. Um uh
01:09:20 uh well
01:09:21 well because I don't know what what what his coverage was and nor what his tasking was remitt or or the intelligence that he was gathering or against whom. Well, we will look a some of his
01:09:32 Well, we will look a some of his reporting in due course but he was connected to movement for justice. Yes. And they themselves were supporting uh the wider Lawrence campaign. I think that's fair a
01:09:44 Lawrence campaign. I think that's fair a fair summary. If you had known that, would you have attended the meeting? Uh, I
01:09:57 Well, if I was told that before the meeting,
01:09:59 meeting, yes,
01:10:00 yes, I'm not sure I can answer that. I I um it's it's a rather unnuance. I um you know I'm very aware of what uh
01:10:14 know I'm very aware of what uh the tasking of of an undercover officer what what what is fair and what is not fair um around proportionality. Um he he was as I understand it tasked against u
01:10:27 was as I understand it tasked against u or to gather intelligence relating to movement for justice. Um now if I'd known that beforehand um that is fine but it's not my
01:10:38 um that is fine but it's not my responsibility uh as someone attending a meeting to have to have any connection around it's I'm not responsible for the tasking I'm not that's the special part
01:10:49 not that's the special part but you but you knew that movement for justice and the Nation of Islam had been involved with v various dis aspects of disorder surrounding the inquiry so you're aware
01:11:00 surrounding the inquiry so you're aware of those groups. Yes.
01:11:02 Yes. If you had known that the officer was infiltrating movement for justice. Yes.
01:11:07 Yes. That must have given you some you must have had some knowledge behind which you could have used to form a view as to whether it was appropriate to attend. Well, as I said, I I didn't know what he
01:11:19 Well, as I said, I I didn't know what he was what group he was attached to. No, but we are working on a hypothetical as if you had known he was infiltrating MFJ. Would you have gone?
01:11:30 MFJ. Would you have gone? I I don't see there's any reason why I wouldn't have done I didn't know the extent of MFJ's activities. Obviously I've I've read and we as you we've talked about before um we'd seen in the
01:11:42 talked about before um we'd seen in the media that some of their protests etc. So [clears throat] that that would not stop me attending the meeting if it was movement for justice. And is that the same answer regard whether you were at as a matter of fact
01:11:55 whether you were at as a matter of fact at the time part of the Lawrence review team or CO24? Is it the same answer for both or would it be distinct? It's only relevant in respect of CO2.
01:12:06 It's only relevant in respect of CO2. There's there's um I don't think it's approp it wouldn't have been appropriate if I was the Lawrence review team to to to see an undercover officer deployed
01:12:17 to see an undercover officer deployed anyway. Um it it can only in my view it can only be appropriate in terms of a CO24 remitt and that that was in the forefront of my mind. I I remember that. I remember that it was my mindset was
01:12:30 I remember that it was my mindset was around the forthcoming challenges that we had with CO2 24 around disorder around racism around race crime um community confidence etc. Before
01:12:43 community confidence etc. Before deciding to accept covert information because you do obviously go to meet HN81. Before deciding to accept covert information, did you ask yourself whether it was necessary and proportionate to do so?
01:12:56 proportionate to do so? I think yes. I think you always do. Um whilst it wasn't routine to see an undercover officer, uh as I said, it wasn't something that I was unfamiliar
01:13:07 wasn't something that I was unfamiliar with. Um yes, you have to be you have to be aware of the remit, but I was confident that there was plenty of there was an emerging strong emerging nexus around um C 24 remmit and special branch
01:13:21 around um C 24 remmit and special branch intelligence gathering around public order remit. And how could you have made that assessment if you didn't know the group into which the officer is targeted?
01:13:28 targeted? Because I'm making the assumption that the undercover officer is can only be deployed around public order, public disorder, gathering of intelligence.
01:13:44 If you had been told that the intelligence might concern a lawful anti-racist organization, would that have changed your uh change your assessment as to whether it
01:13:55 change your assessment as to whether it was necessary and proportionate to meet the officer? Um
01:14:00 Um I
01:14:03 I well it it it the the remmit can only be proportionate and um correct if you know if it's a public
01:14:15 um correct if you know if it's a public order remit and it's around gathering in around public disorder. When you made the decision that you would attend, what had you hoped to learn from the UCO?
01:14:27 UCO? Well, I didn't know whether I was going to brief the officer or he was briefing me um at when I was told about the meeting.
01:14:36 meeting. Did it occur to you that it might be either or both? Um
01:14:42 Um yes.
01:14:43 yes. And if you were to receive that information, yeah,
01:14:46 yeah, what did you hope to learn? Well, we were again we were at right at the very very start of the creation of uh the racial violent crime task force.
01:14:57 uh the racial violent crime task force. We wanted to um get up and running very very quickly. Uh you know we would we wanted to resolve the issues that the Met was facing. Um so there was there
01:15:08 Met was facing. Um so there was there was an energy around that. You know there was we a sort of keeness to get started. Um, and obviously understanding the complexity of race crime, public orders, disorder issues, and the overlap
01:15:21 orders, disorder issues, and the overlap with special branch coverage I thought was appropriate and proportionate. That's why I went to the meeting.
01:15:31 Did you go with the intention to obtain information to help protect the reputation of the Metropolitan Police Service as it drafted the submissions to the McFersonen inquiry? No. And this had nothing to do with the
01:15:43 No. And this had nothing to do with the submissions as I I've said. Did you hope to obtain information to help protect the reputation of the service through your work in CO24? Uh it's not it was never about
01:15:54 Uh it's not it was never about protecting reputations. This is about um the the remit of C24 and the um um sentiment at that time was um we were
01:16:09 sentiment at that time was um we were keen to rectify the issues that had been identified in the inquiry. That was an honorable endeavor. We were facing up to the realities that we that had been
01:16:21 the realities that we that had been exposed in the inquiry. Uh and that that was what we were trying to do. Moving to the 14th of August and the meeting between uh you uh and HN81,
01:16:34 meeting between uh you uh and HN81, we understand that the the decision was taken to meet HN81 at Bob Lambert's home. Do you know why that location was chosen?
01:16:41 chosen? No. And I I was never it was never told to me that it was his home. I I still can't confirm that. I don't know if the inquiry can, but um it was never mentioned to me, sir, that that was his
01:16:53 mentioned to me, sir, that that was his house. I'm still not sure it was. But
01:17:00 keeping in mind that HN81 has the benefit of an order restricting his real name. When you met him at DI Lambert's home,
01:17:07 home, did you recognize H&81? No, I didn't. He's not somebody you'd come across elsewhere in special. Please, could we show Mr. Lambert's file note? That's MPS0728625.
01:17:20 So that's B35 of the bundle and it's at page 12 of that document.
01:17:45 Thank you very much. Um this is a file note drafted by Bob Lambert. If we look over over leaf, I think we can see it is uh signed by him BL18898.
01:17:59 Um, so he's there as the author and we can see it's submitted to the SDS. So goes to DCI HN58 and is circulated to the SDS Sergeant. So that's DSTD Greeny and War. That's TBG NW.
01:18:14 You say that this note was never shared with you.
01:18:19 with you. Is that right? Absolutely not. Sir, the first time I saw this file note was in um 2014 when Mr. Allison presented it to me in an
01:18:30 Mr. Allison presented it to me in an interview um rather um in the middle of an interview. It's the first time I'd seen it. I I was it was never circulated to me. I never had the opportunity to
01:18:41 to me. I never had the opportunity to correct it. And um it was written four days after the meeting, of course, as well. And I also took no notes of the meeting myself. Why didn't you take notes?
01:18:54 Uh, it's a good question. Uh, and with hindsight, I wish I had. Um, I I didn't know what the meeting was about. It was Lambert's meeting. It was special
01:19:05 Lambert's meeting. It was special branch's meeting. He took notes. He did the write up. Um, I I didn't take notes. I wish I had. Was there any operational reason why you wouldn't have taken notes?
01:19:17 wouldn't have taken notes? Uh, I don't think so. No, I could have taken notes. Yeah, I think when you spoke to the um IPCC, you suggest you may not have taken notes as CO24 would not sit within the route
01:19:29 as CO24 would not sit within the route of the transfer of intelligence. Do I take it that that was effectively a guess when you you asked by IPCC you you don't actually record the reason not to take notes?
01:19:40 take notes? Um, that that is true of course because um if I'm meeting an undercover um officer. I I'm aware that the intelligence is going up through um the
01:19:53 intelligence is going up through um the line command of special branch. So I'm aware that um that's the channel. Um I I'm not sure that's I'm not sure that's why I didn't take there was nothing really precluding me from taking notes,
01:20:05 really precluding me from taking notes, informal notes at least. Now you didn't take any notes during the meeting. Did you write it up after the meeting when you got back to the office, for example? Did you discuss the meeting with anyone
01:20:17 Did you discuss the meeting with anyone within the Steven Lord review team or CA24?
01:20:20 CA24? No, I didn't. I mean, this was a background as I saw it, a background meeting around public order um looking at the threats that we were going to be looking at in CO24 aligned to special
01:20:33 looking at in CO24 aligned to special branch coverage of the same kind of um threats and risks. If the contents weren't communicated to your superiors or colleagues on CO24
01:20:44 or colleagues on CO24 or on the SLRT, depending on the timing, yeah,
01:20:49 yeah, what was the purpose of you attending? How how how would what you learned help inform either of those units? Well, remember I I didn't know if the meeting was for me to brief them or for them to brief me when I went.
01:21:01 them to brief me when I went. Yes. So um but you obviously knew that after you've been to the meeting and you written up and circulated. Anything that was um shared with me I knew was was already in the uh the scope
01:21:14 knew was was already in the uh the scope of special branch to and it would go up the chain. It would inform public order threat assessments and and so on and so forth. Um there was nothing that uh I
01:21:25 forth. Um there was nothing that uh I took away from the meeting at all. So it was of no utility. I don't remember it being memorable at
01:21:36 I don't remember it being memorable at all. I I I'm afraid I I know there's a lot of attention on this meeting, but we'll come to the write up in a minute. Um
01:21:45 Um I I it was unre unmemorable for me. It was a pretty routine uh pretty ordinary exchange with an undercover officer. Um,
01:21:57 exchange with an undercover officer. Um, some of the things on this note I agree with and much of it I don't. Well, let's have a look at the note now then, shall we? The first paragraph, if we go back a page, please.
01:22:08 we go back a page, please. First paragraph starts, on Friday the 14th of August, I had a meeting with Windmill Tilter. So that's HN81's code name. And Richard Walton. Richard Walton is currently working on the Steven
01:22:19 is currently working on the Steven Lawrence review team. Was
01:22:23 Was that an accurate description of your posting at that time? Uh, well, we're talking about the 14th of August. No. When he gave his his evidence to this
01:22:34 When he gave his his evidence to this inquiry, Mr. Lambert was asked how he knew you were working for the review team. And his response was that, well, I'm sure he would have told me. Did you tell him?
01:22:43 tell him? I can't remember. Sorry. I I mean I would clearly we we would have I would have mentioned the Lawrence review team because that's what I've been working on for two months but so I wouldn't have held that back from him.
01:22:54 held that back from him. If we continue with that paragraph WT talked about the Lawrence inquiry from a movement for justice perspective and RW from [snorts] his it was a fascinating and valuable
01:23:05 it was a fascinating and valuable exchange of information concerning an issue which according to Richard Walton continues to dominate the commissioner's agenda on a daily basis. Was the issue dominating the commissioner's agenda,
01:23:16 dominating the commissioner's agenda, the Steven Lawrence inquiry? Yes, of course. Um, but as a I I'm not sure how I would know that it was actually dominating his agenda on a
01:23:28 actually dominating his agenda on a daily basis. Um, obviously, as we've discussed earlier, it was very um much an issue for the Met and the Commissioner at that time. But
01:23:40 Commissioner at that time. But and now Mr. Lambert in his note definitely describes that information as coming from you. Yeah. Well, I I let me be clear. Um, as far as I'm concerned, it was not a fascinating nor a valuable exchange of
01:23:52 fascinating nor a valuable exchange of information. Yeah. I think that's I think that's clear.
01:24:09 What information was given to you by HN81?
01:24:14 HN81? Because there's it's a discussion of an exchange, isn't there? Yeah. So, if you would you mind opening up the rest of the file note, please?
01:24:26 I think it might help to zoom in a little bit. Um so sir I I need to be very uh precise around this file note because of the interest in it and I I don't want to
01:24:37 interest in it and I I don't want to mislead the inquiry in any way at all. Um but the first three paragraphs are deeply problematic for me if can you permit me to go through line by line or
01:24:49 permit me to go through line by line or uh the f the first three lines the three or three paragraphs uh we we will go through them. You will. Okay.
01:24:55 Okay. But
01:24:56 But um
01:24:57 um let me go through. Do do you want me shall we go through them together? You can tell me if we're missing anything out.
01:25:01 out. Yeah.
01:25:02 Yeah. So we'll look at the we've looked at the first paragraph. Yes.
01:25:05 Yes. Second paragraph. Richard Walton thanked Windmill Tilta for his invaluable reporting on the subject in recent months. Now you addressed this in your statement paragraph 7A
01:25:16 statement paragraph 7A uh where you say the comment in the note suggested that I thanked N81 for his invaluable reporting on the subject in recent months was misleading as I had
01:25:27 recent months was misleading as I had not seen any reporting from HN from N81 nor did I have any awareness of his role or remmit. There was nothing for me to thank him for at that stage apart from taking on the difficult role of being an
01:25:39 taking on the difficult role of being an undercover officer. We'll look at the nuance of that comment, but as a general proposition, did you thank HN81?
01:25:50 did you thank HN81? Uh,
01:25:55 I might have uh said something to, you know, you're doing a different role, getting some encouraging words about an undercover being an undercover officer. Um,
01:26:05 Um, possibly. So just just thanks just in a general sense in relation to undertaking a challenging role. Yes. For special branch.
01:26:13 branch. Yes.
01:26:17 And I think we've already covered that you you didn't see you hadn't seen any of his reporting before the meeting or after
01:26:24 or after or after.
01:26:27 or after. Now Mr. Lambert in his evidence to the inquiry
01:26:31 inquiry said there was no doubt that you had had the benefit of the SDS reporting. Is he right? So he's profoundly wrong on that point.
01:26:44 And again, Di Lambert writes in his note that your thanks were for HN81's reporting on the subject. So again, can we assume the subject is I mean I think the suggestion here is
01:26:57 is I mean I think the suggestion here is that the subject would be the Steven Lawrence inquiry and the campaign surrounding it. Um sorry, which line is this? the which paragraph? Uh
01:27:06 Uh the first line of paragraph two invaluable reporting on the subject. So I'm just trying to establish yeah it it wasn't invaluable and in relation to the subject that that
01:27:17 and in relation to the subject that that is being talked about in that sentence that is presumably intended to be do do you read that as meaning the Steven Lawrence inquiry? Um
01:27:27 Um or the campaign surrounding it? Uh no um I I don't know actually. Um you you don't understand what the sub what what mis
01:27:41 and then on the subject in recent months. So presumably that would have been during your time on the Steven Lawrence review even if this day by this stage you're
01:27:52 even if this day by this stage you're moving to CO24 because before then which line is this sorry the same same sentence. Oh yeah. Um oh in recent months. Thank you.
01:28:08 Well it's just it's untrue. I'm sorry. She said that line is untrue.
01:28:16 So again so there nothing had come to you from the SDS. No.
01:28:22 No. Either immediately before this or in the months before. That's correct. Or after. Can you assist why Miss Can you assist why Mr. Lambert appears to be under the impression that you had received that information?
01:28:34 you had received that information? I would be speculating. Um, he knew I had come from special branch. Um, he may have been, this is speculation, but he may have been
01:28:46 speculation, but he may have been thinking that I was some kind of conduit in special branch that that's why I've been posting the Lawrence review team. That is not correct. and he is fundamentally wrong on this issue and it's it's just untrue that line.
01:28:59 it's it's just untrue that line. Continuing with the second paragraph, an in-depth discussion enabled him to increase his understanding of the Lawrence's relationship with the various campaigning groups like MFJ. This he
01:29:10 campaigning groups like MFJ. This he said would be of great value as he continued to prepare a draft submission to the inquiry on behalf of the commissioner. MFJ's future plans were also discussed at some length. So, we've got Mr. the
01:29:22 at some length. So, we've got Mr. the Lambert recording a discussion surrounding campaigning groups which we've already touched upon. Yeah.
01:29:28 Yeah. But presumably the discussion would have been around the groups which the MPS were concerned might hijack the campaign. Does No. Well, none of this is true. So all
01:29:39 No. Well, none of this is true. So all of that none of that paragraph is is truth.
01:29:44 truth. So there was no discussion around those groups. Uh I remember I remember uh some discussion around Nation of Islam Ruben for justice that's the limit of it and the group's relationship with the
01:29:56 and the group's relationship with the Lawrence.
01:29:57 Lawrence. No I don't remember that at all. um and uh [clears throat] great value not not true as we've said and of course um
01:30:08 true as we've said and of course um whilst I might have mentioned the submissions um and this is really important sir that um because this is a key finding of um the Ellison review where he said that not only was um N81
01:30:21 where he said that not only was um N81 aspire the Lawrence family camp but he also said that the meeting was convened in order that um to assist the draft after the submissions to the inquiry. Um, and he I'm presuming but m that Mr.
01:30:32 Um, and he I'm presuming but m that Mr. Ellison has got that finding from this paragraph. um because I've seen no other evidence in relation that would substantiate that that um uh finding
01:30:45 substantiate that that um uh finding and you and you take exception to the to the suggestion within absolutely the detail within for the reasons we discussed this morning sir that they I had finished my work on the draft submissions it would
01:30:57 work on the draft submissions it would never have been appropriate at all um for that um it was not appropriate I I would have known that at the time I did know that Um and it's again on behalf of
01:31:08 know that Um and it's again on behalf of commissioner it's clear embellishment it's untrue but drafting the submissions to the inquiry was your job or had been had been. Yes. And that would have been part of your
01:31:19 And that would have been part of your job at the review team but not at CA2 24.
01:31:22 24. Correct. Yes. And can I just make one further point about this please? Um the the final line movement for justice future plans were also discussed at some length is is
01:31:35 also discussed at some length is is fundamentally untrue because I know I came out of that meeting not knowing that the undercover officer was actually deployed in moving for justice. So
01:31:46 deployed in moving for justice. So whilst we there was a comment about Nation of Islam and moving for justice, MFJ's future plans were were definitely not discussed at least and and definitely not at any length, let alone some length.
01:31:59 length, let alone some length. But okay, so so you you you weren't aware that he was deployed into that group specifically, but you do recall getting intelligence about MFJ. No, I didn't receive any intelligence
01:32:10 No, I didn't receive any intelligence about MFJ. We there was discussion about MFJ and Nation of Islam there. sort of activities in and around the inquiry, you know, as in 29th and 30th of June. I'm just going back to your answer a
01:32:22 I'm just going back to your answer a minute ago. You say, sorry to move away from the microphone. Uh,
01:32:28 Uh, thank you. I came out of that meeting not knowing that the undercover officer was actually deployed in movement for justice. So whilst there was comment about Nation of Islam and movement for justice, movement
01:32:39 Islam and movement for justice, movement for justice future plans were definitely not discussed. And then you've just said that the movement for justice wasn't discussed. Am I the wrong end of the stick here? No, forgive me. I I'm trying to be
01:32:51 No, forgive me. I I'm trying to be clear, but um there was mention in the meeting about Nation of Islam moving for justice, but not in respect of any future plans because that would because I wouldn't he
01:33:02 because that would because I wouldn't he wouldn't be he didn't tell me what what organization he was in. So they were discussed as a topic. didn't understand him to be in those groups and there was no discussion of future plans. Correct. Yes.
01:33:21 I I take it again. I take it that again the comment that the information was of great value to you. You disagree with embellishment.
01:33:32 You say embellishment, but I just want to look at that. The embellishment suggests there's a grain of accuracy which is then being taken out of taken out of proportion, doesn't it? So, do
01:33:43 out of proportion, doesn't it? So, do you think this is cor this is broadly correct, but this is Bob and this phrase we've heard quite a lot in relation to SDS bigging himself up. Yes.
01:33:51 Yes. Or is it this is a fiction? There's a combination of both in these three paragraphs. Um, and I'm trying to really try to be careful about what I say in regards to what is untruth in my
01:34:02 say in regards to what is untruth in my view and what is embellishment. Um I do accept your point. Um the trouble with embellishment is that um there's sometimes a strand that might have been
01:34:13 sometimes a strand that might have been mentioned and I wouldn't want to deny that it came up a bit like the discussion around Nation of Islam movement for justice. Um but um so
01:34:24 movement for justice. Um but um so where I think it's untrue, I'm going to say it's untrue. If it's embellishment, then yes, there might have been a strand
01:34:49 So I think we we've established that you did receive information about the Nation of Islam and the MFJ. Do you recognize that there's a something of a contradiction in accepting covert evidence about anti-racist campaigns
01:35:02 evidence about anti-racist campaigns while helping the MPS answer allegations of institutional racism? No, because we were trying to address those issues. So, you know, we we um
01:35:13 those issues. So, you know, we we um CO24, as I said, we're very energized, um very open-minded um and um it was all about an anti-racist police service we were
01:35:24 anti-racist police service we were trying to create. Was receiving information which was from target from targeting black people who were alleging institutional racism itself a form of
01:35:36 institutional racism itself a form of discrimination? Uh well I I don't sort of recognize that. No,
01:35:47 we looked earlier at the Steven Lawrence review team meeting with council on the 3rd of August 1998 which addressed issues relating to the pitch and tone of the submissions. Yes. Was the meeting with HN81 intended
01:36:00 Yes. Was the meeting with HN81 intended to help the MPS understand the Lawrence family's position and campaign surrounding the inquiry to help with the pitch and tone of submissions? No, it had it had nothing to do with the
01:36:11 No, it had it had nothing to do with the Lawrence review team work or the submissions.
01:36:18 I'm going to move to the third paragraph, but I said I'd give you an opportunity to comment on anything in that second paragraph that No, I think we've covered the second one.
01:36:25 one. I'm grateful. Third one. Third paragraph. Richard Walton explained a lot of the behindthe-scenes politics involving the Home Office. It emerged that there is a great sensitivity around the Lawrence
01:36:37 great sensitivity around the Lawrence issue with both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister extremely concerned that the Metropolitan Police could end up with its credibility in the eyes of London's black community completely undermined.
01:36:49 undermined. What knowledge did you have at the time of the behindthe-scenes politics involving the Home Office? None that I can recall. I mean, I was a sergeant and none that I can recall. Um,
01:37:00 sergeant and none that I can recall. Um, obviously like everybody else, I was reading the newspapers and that's the extent of it. Do you recall speaking to HN81 about the concerns of the home secretary and prime minister?
01:37:12 minister? No, I don't.
01:37:15 Whether that was based on supposition or or public
01:37:19 or public I don't I don't uh remember um I don't want to be categorical around that. It could have come up, but I don't remember it coming up. I think there's been a suggestion in one of um HN81's accounts, and I don't have
01:37:31 of um HN81's accounts, and I don't have my fingers on his at the moment, that he came away with the impression that you may have worked for the Home Office. Yes, I saw that and I was uh sort of flabbergasted. Does that perhaps suggest that you may
01:37:44 Does that perhaps suggest that you may have mentioned the Home Office whilst you were speak when you met 81? Um I really couldn't say. Um, I was I was astonished that he said that because
01:37:56 was astonished that he said that because I cannot see why Lambert would have not have told his undercover officer that he was meeting with me and where I was from and what I was doing. So, I I really can't understand that at all.
01:38:09 can't understand that at all. I'm going to move to the um indented paragraphs below, but again, is there anything on paragraph three that you feel we haven't covered?
01:38:18 Uh, no. That's [clears throat] fine sir. Thank you.
01:38:24 you. Uh so if we now move to um paragraph numbered paragraph well heading one please. How to respond to the charge of institutionalized racism.
01:38:41 The term institutionalized racism as opposed to institutional racism. Would you have used the term institutionalized racism?
01:38:54 No, I would have used the term institutional racism.
01:39:01 This paragraph seems to be a reference to the suggestion made uh during the inquiry that the MPS was institutionally racist.
01:39:12 that the MPS was institutionally racist. Paragraph reads, "Here, the team seems to like seems likely to admit the essence of the charge. What is exercising their minds is merely the terminology to use. There is a preference for phrases like unconscious
01:39:24 preference for phrases like unconscious racism and a lack of understanding of black culture." The team realizes that, however, expressed such a frank admission of failure will shock many serving police officers who have thus
01:39:35 serving police officers who have thus far been fed a much more upbeat response to the inquiry in the job. So, Mr. Lambert's note describes the team's preferences for phrases or
01:39:47 team's preferences for phrases or terminology to be used. Uh, do you accept that that suggests the draft has yet has not yet crystallized into the final version yet?
01:39:59 final version yet? Um, no, I don't think so. Um, although this is the 14th of August, so obviously the submission hadn't been submitted yet. Um
01:40:12 submitted yet. Um um and this is clearly the position at the time. So this has come from me and the day before there had been discussions had there not about the content of this those submissions with
01:40:24 content of this those submissions with council.
01:40:25 council. Uh yes
01:40:26 Uh yes which you were present. Yes.
01:40:28 Yes. So the knowledge about how about what terminology to use the wording of the submission would presumably at this meeting have been fresh in your mind. Uh yes. Um
01:40:41 been fresh in your mind. Uh yes. Um is this what is recorded? Is this because have you passed that on to HN81 in this meeting and that's why it's in this note? Well, no, not specifically. I mean, this
01:40:52 Well, no, not specifically. I mean, this has come from me. Um this is me uh if you like briefing the undercover officer on the issues around unconscious racism um the concerns
01:41:04 unconscious racism um the concerns around our around culture and um and also the concerns around institutional racism
01:41:11 racism um that's not direct related to the submissions in any way. That's just um the position we were working on at the time. So I'm just passing on really
01:41:23 passing on really um those issues. If we look at your witness statement, please at paragraph 77. Yeah.
01:41:30 Yeah. Um maybe maybe worth pulling it up. UCPI 3751,
01:41:35 3751, page 33, please. Thank you very much. There is also reference in Bob Lambert's file note to three main areas that my team is considering. The file note suggests that
01:41:47 considering. The file note suggests that the three areas I discussed included the MPS's response to the charge of institutional racism. While I do not have my own minutes of the meeting to directly compare against Bob Lambert's notes, the reference to the change of
01:41:58 notes, the reference to the change of instit to the charge of institutional racism was as relevant to the remit of CO24 as it was to the work of the SLRT. Yes.
01:42:06 Yes. However, I accept the reference to the team in the first point is likely to be to the SLRT. And it appears from the note that I talked about the work of the SLRT and
01:42:18 talked about the work of the SLRT and their concerns. Mhm.
01:42:21 Mhm. So you acknowledge that the reference to the team in Mr. Lambert's file note is likely to mean Steven Law review team because you're talking about institutional racism. Yes.
01:42:33 institutional racism. Yes. Uh so does it follow that you also must accept that your attendance at the meeting was as a representative of that team? Uh, no.
01:42:45 Uh, no. Even in part? No.
01:42:48 No. Who gave you permission to discuss the workings of the Steven Lawrence review team with HN81 and DI Lambert? Um, well, the meeting was um approved at OKU commander level.
01:43:01 OKU commander level. That's not the question. I Who gave you permission to discuss the workings of the SLRT with them? That not necessar It's not quite the same thing, is it? Um well I was I'd moved on to CO24 but yes
01:43:14 well I was I'd moved on to CO24 but yes I was drawing on my experience from the Lawrence free team. I'm not not in any way denying that. Uh Mr. Quick's evidence yesterday was that the work of the SLRC was confidential. He had not given you permission to share
01:43:25 He had not given you permission to share the detail with other parts of the MPS and that you had no business in having those conversations. Well, he was speaking um I think in answer to I think a hypothetical question which was
01:43:38 a hypothetical question which was presenting me as a member of the Lawrence for team at the time. Um obviously I was I'd moved on to CO24 at the time of this meeting but you still knew you still knew the confidential information from the Steven
01:43:49 confidential information from the Steven lots of view team and you had attended a meeting as effectively part of the Steven lots of view team the day before. I don't think it's confidential information. It was widely talked about including in the broad sheets and the
01:44:00 including in the broad sheets and the press.
01:44:01 press. But the particular machinations of the review team in deciding how to phrase things and what is exercising it that must been confidential surely.
01:44:13 that must been confidential surely. Um well um I'm not I'm not sure it would be confidential to be honest. Um it was these matters were being discussed widely across the Met. Um it was it was
01:44:26 widely across the Met. Um it was it was nothing that was particularly sensitive. It was it was So you wouldn't accept the suggestion that you were sharing this information improperly and without the permission of your commanding officer?
01:44:37 your commanding officer? No, I wouldn't accept that.
01:44:43 When you say the reference the reference to the charge of institutional racism was as relevant to the remit of CO24 as it was to the work of SLRT.
01:44:54 Do you accept that this particular paragraph that we're looking at is in relation to your work on the Steven Lawrence review team and not in relation to CO24's
01:45:06 relation to CO24's work?
01:45:07 work? It's both. But
01:45:15 so for example when we say the phrase the team realizes that however expressed such a frank admission of failure will shock many serving police officers. That clearly wasn't the concern of CO24 was it? That is a reference to Steven
01:45:27 it? That is a reference to Steven Lawrence review team. Um actually it could be either and um it could be either.
01:45:37 I'm not actually sure which team I was referring to, but I'm, you know, could could actually be either. But this first paragraph under point one um obviously resonates more with my work in Lawrence
01:45:49 resonates more with my work in Lawrence Freing than it does on CO2,
01:46:00 please. Can we return to Mr. Lambert's file note? Thank you. That's MPS 728625.
01:46:33 Thank you very much. And page 12, please. Lower half.
01:46:45 I'm going to move on to paragraphs two and three. Did you have any comments on paragraph one that you wanted? No. No.
01:46:52 No. No. Thank you. So, paragraph two, how to handle the second stage of the public inquiry. Richard Walton explained that the commissioner plans to stage a series of public forums in the months ahead of
01:47:03 of public forums in the months ahead of which he will attend personally and set out the Met's position. One proposed venue was Lambeath Town Hall and Winill Tilta was able to advise Richard Walton of the vulnerability that such a meeting
01:47:14 of the vulnerability that such a meeting would have to disruption from MFJ and local black youth. As regards the second stage itself, there continue to be a daily discussions within Richard Walton's office as to the
01:47:25 within Richard Walton's office as to the best tactics to adopt. The question of the commissioner's resignation and that of his assistant Ian Johnson is regularly addressed. And then three, how to regain the
01:47:36 And then three, how to regain the confidence of the black community. Commander Griev is now in charge of post Lawrence black community relations and is clearly hoping to be able to draw a line under the affair and work towards
01:47:47 line under the affair and work towards uh work towards to a more positive relationship. Windmill Tilter was able to highlight the enormity of this task as regards sections of the black community in and around Brixton. He was
01:47:58 community in and around Brixton. He was also able to provide Richard Walton with some specific and positive information as regards those community groups who might be prepared to build bridges. When you spoke to Mr. Ellison about
01:48:10 When you spoke to Mr. Ellison about these paragraphs, Mhm.
01:48:13 Mhm. you said, "Yes, I remember talking to them about this. So these points one, two, and three, how to respond to institutional racism and how the second stage of the public inquiry and how to
01:48:24 stage of the public inquiry and how to regain the confidence of the black community, that is all correct. That would have come from me because of course, as I said, the thrust of my Lawrence review team role was absolutely those things. Now, in paragraph 77 of
01:48:37 those things. Now, in paragraph 77 of your witness statement, you now say the second and third of the main areas were clearly to do with the work of CO24. Why do you say now why do you say that
01:48:48 Why do you say now why do you say that those areas were clearly to do with the work of CO24? Um actually um throughout my interview with Mr. Ellison I stressed to him that he needed to check whether I was in the
01:48:59 he needed to check whether I was in the Lawrence review team or CO24 at different stages. Um it goes back to the chronology of the um you know the meetings and and what I was doing at the time. Um so uh uh you know I don't think
01:49:12 time. Um so uh uh you know I don't think there's any difference. It was I mean a long interview, Mr. Ellison, and um I you know I caveated accordingly everything I said. Do you accept that your accounts seem
01:49:24 Do you accept that your accounts seem contradictory on that point? Seems you're fairly emphatic when you speak to Mr. Edison in the excerpt I've just read out. Uh I don't think it's contradictory. I think you'd have to rather than taking
01:49:36 think you'd have to rather than taking an extract of the interview, I think you'd have to look read around it, you know, the other the [clears throat] other questions around this because it was a long interview. Um, it's obviously public record everything I said in that interview, but um I don't think there's
01:49:49 interview, but um I don't think there's contradictions actually and and interestingly um uh Mr. Ellison uh did make uh you know quite he was very critical of me for having a different
01:50:00 critical of me for having a different view or slightly different view. um my second interview is my first um I you know would respectfully say that he presented me this file note you know in
01:50:12 presented me this file note you know in the first meeting without any me having any opportunity to see it beforehand. Um and so I you know dutifully answered questions in relation to it quite
01:50:23 questions in relation to it quite rightly went away and reflected upon it and realized there were major errors in this file note. Um, so I I think the criticism is was unfair and and actually
01:50:34 criticism is was unfair and and actually interestingly the IPCC did a two-year investigation in alleged incon alleged differences between my accounts and actually found that there were none. So
01:50:45 actually found that there were none. So they looked at all the all the lengthy interview the two interviews I gave with Miss Ellison. And understood. I mean that's helpful context to to your explanation to Mr. Ellison. We're not trying to reopen any
01:50:57 Ellison. We're not trying to reopen any of either Ellison or the IPCC. What what we're looking at is the evidence which may have been provided at that earlier stage because it's fresher. But obviously when you the bits that we just
01:51:09 obviously when you the bits that we just looked at in Mr. Ellison in the interview with Mr. Ellison, it does seem that you're fairly emphatic and I think your evidence is that you you got you were ambushed to an extent on that with that document. But would it not have
01:51:20 that document. But would it not have been clear on the face of it what would have if if it was CO24 work that it would have been would you not have easily identified
01:51:31 would you not have easily identified which which which hat you were wearing if
01:51:34 if well it's it's interesting you use the word ambush because that's exactly what it felt like to be perfectly blunt um u I know Mr. Ellison had a challenging role with tight time frames, but um I
01:51:46 role with tight time frames, but um I don't believe the due process was followed. And I think that because of that um if you present you know a two-page file note to to a witness um 16
01:51:57 two-page file note to to a witness um 16 years after the event and expect you know authoritative responses to detailed questions many of which were put into to me as hypotheticals then um I I I I think it's entirely reasonable that for
01:52:09 think it's entirely reasonable that for me to give my best account the first meeting and then to go away and reflect upon this file note to try and check some of this stuff which I have done over the is and obviously now I'm much clearer even even looking at it again
01:52:22 clearer even even looking at it again this week I'm much more clearer than I was even 14 years 12 years ago in relation to the point in section two the first paragraphs of section two relating
01:52:34 first paragraphs of section two relating to uh the commissioner's intent to attend Lambbeath town hall the Steven Lawrence review team didn't have a specific public order remit did it
01:52:45 it no
01:52:46 no co24 before didn't have as uh yes it did it had an there was an overlap um it was emerging of course this is you know the 14th of August we didn't know precisely what the the rem
01:52:57 didn't know precisely what the the rem 24 was going to be at that stage but we knew there was an overlap between public order public disorder and and and race crime because obviously that's with with Steven's murder that's what what there was there
01:53:10 was there terrible race crime there doesn't appear to be any suggestion in this note in the So in these paragraphs I note that the there would be violent disorder. Um
01:53:23 Um uh no it doesn't that's true. But is it your is it your evidence that CO24 would have been concerned with more if I say run-of-the-mill public disorder.
01:53:33 disorder. Um dealing with more serious matters. We didn't know at the time CO2 um you know our focus was around race crime. Um yeah, this is obviously more
01:53:47 crime. Um yeah, this is obviously more around special branch responsibility. Um preparing threat assessments for public order branch to be able to police them. Well, I none of this this these two
01:54:00 Well, I none of this this these two paragraphs particularly jars with me, but I can't be 100% about these you know the discussion around lambda town hall etc etc. And of course that information if it's being
01:54:12 course that information if it's being passed to me I'm not going to do anything with it because it's not my question what was the purpose of you being told did you anything happen with that particular No that's why I didn't go away and do
01:54:23 No that's why I didn't go away and do anything with it because it this information that information goes up the chain of command within a special branch to inform public order policing.
01:54:34 to inform public order policing. Looking at paragraphs two and three again,
01:54:38 again, the [clears throat] suggest paragraph two with the suggestion there may be some disorder outside a town a meeting at a town hall. Yeah.
01:54:45 Yeah. And the intention to regain the confidence of the black community. Do you consider that those matters were sufficient to justify the use of a UCO
01:54:57 sufficient to justify the use of a UCO to spy on community groups for the purpose of assisting the MPS manage community relations? That's well out of my remitt. It was that's not my remit to do. Did you have a view? You said earlier
01:55:09 Did you have a view? You said earlier you were able to assess proportionality and necessity. I would be I'd need more than that before thinking it was justified.
01:55:23 You suggest in your witness statement at paragraph 77 that you don't think DI Lambert would have had a full understanding of the ins and outs of either the Steven Lawrence review team or CO24
01:55:35 or CO24 and you say or of my role at the time with either of them and it's possible that he conflated different aspects when writing down this file note a few days after the meeting.
01:55:46 after the meeting. What do you think that DI Lambert would not have understood the distinctions between the two teams? So why do why do you think the Lambert wouldn't have understood the distinction between the two teams? Well, I'm clearly speculating there, but
01:55:58 Well, I'm clearly speculating there, but um you know he described uh me in his evidence as the commissioner staff officer or or chief of staff. Clearly I wasn't. Um he's completely misunderstood
01:56:10 wasn't. Um he's completely misunderstood my role in the Lawrence review team. Um, so I, you know, it's it's very clear that he had no idea what my role was. Um,
01:56:21 Um, uh,
01:56:23 uh, he would certainly have no clue around the,
01:56:26 the, um, remitt of the Lawrence of the, um, CO24 because it was at 14th of August, it was, you know, at best two weeks old. Did you tell him you had moved or were
01:56:37 Did you tell him you had moved or were moving to CO2 from the Stevens review team?
01:56:39 team? Yeah. So, that's a good question and I don't know the answer to that. I'm sorry. It's not mentioned obviously, but I I don't know the answer to that. Can we take it that the fact that it isn't mentioned is indicative that you
01:56:51 isn't mentioned is indicative that you didn't tell him? Absolutely not. No, because I don't think anything on this file note can be taken as a gospel. So, I don't know if that's a good moment to rise for an afternoon break.
01:57:04 to rise for an afternoon break. Can I uh [clears throat] understand what you're saying about paragraphs 1, 2, and three? Do you accept [clears throat] that this
01:57:16 accurately represents uh what you said at the meeting? So, can I ask you, do you mean the numbered one? The numbered paragraphs. I'm just asking
01:57:27 The numbered paragraphs. I'm just asking about the numbered paragraphs. Those are my best um assessment of those three paragraphs is in generality those are areas that I would have conveyed to him.
01:57:39 areas that I would have conveyed to him. Um I can't account for how the words are written. Um and for some of the detail in there um but that's not this one, two and three certainly not come from
01:57:52 and three certainly not come from well bits of it have but but this is this is my area. This is the CO24 remmit. Um, we haven't come on yet to the last paragraph. I don't know if so if you're
01:58:03 paragraph. I don't know if so if you're going to cover that one or on the next page. Sorry. Sorry. We'll do that after the break. Okay. What I want to try and understand is whether what is set out here in
01:58:14 whether what is set out here in paragraphs 1, two, and three. Either accurately or more or less accurately represents uh something that you said at this meeting. So, I'd say more more or less accurately. Sir. Yes.
01:58:32 Thank you. Right. How long would you like? 10 minutes. 10 minutes then.
02:14:45 Uh if we could bring back the file note from Mr. Lambert please. That is MPS0728625. Fantastic. Thank you. And the next page
02:14:56 Fantastic. Thank you. And the next page please.
02:15:01 So this next page we have at the top the top box. Um
02:15:09 Richard Walton also explained how the home office was very sensitive about wider implications of the Lawrence case in particular the potential for rioting or disorder by sections of the black community in the wake of an
02:15:20 community in the wake of an irretrievable loss of confidence in the police. Allied to this was a concern about the damaging effects of sustained political pressure from hard-left and anti- police elements. First of all,
02:15:31 anti- police elements. First of all, again, we're seeing a reference to the Home Office.
02:15:36 Do you recall speaking about this aspect of Home Office concerns? Uh, absolutely not.
02:15:45 Looking at um the final sentence, allied to this was the concern about the damaging effects of sustained political pressure from hard-left and anti- police elements. Was that a concern that you
02:15:57 elements. Was that a concern that you had either in SLRT or in CO24 for political pressure from the left? No, it was not. [snorts]
02:16:08 No, it was not. [snorts] I I propose moving on from this document. Now, was there a further point you wanted to make on that paragraph?
02:16:16 No, I think you've covered it. Thank you. I'm grateful in your witness statement and you you've already spoken about it a little bit now and in response to the chair's questioning,
02:16:31 you talk about embellishment and and at paragraph 28 C of your witness statement, you
02:16:40 page 12.
02:16:48 Oh, apologies. It's H. Specifically in relation to the fourth 14th of August, 1998 meeting with N81. I was never shown by Mr. Ellison, the file note of 18th of
02:16:59 by Mr. Ellison, the file note of 18th of August drafted by Mr. Bob Lambert that set out his recollection of the meeting ahead of my first interview with Mr. Ellison.
02:17:08 Ellison. And just just for absolute clarity, you hadn't your complaint is you hadn't been given it before you were interviewed by Mr. Ellison for the first time and the first time you see it is in that interview with Mr. Edison. That is my recollection. Yes.
02:17:22 That is my recollection. Yes. When you were first shown this document, your comment is that you don't dispute anything in the file. Yes. [snorts] So it's fair to say that your initial impression was that this was an accurate document relating to a meeting you
02:17:33 document relating to a meeting you attend connected with your work on the Steven Law Review team. Is that a fair summary of Yes. again of your initial impression? I appreciate you slightly more nuance taken out. Yes.
02:17:46 Yes. In terms of detail of recollection,
02:17:52 could we look please at
02:17:58 what you specifically recall about that meeting?
02:18:02 meeting? Can we bring up HN81's witness statement in Operation Hearn? That's U36915.
02:18:14 And page three of that document, please.
02:18:26 Now, about halfway through that first paragraph,
02:18:34 If you could zoom. Thank you.
02:18:41 At the very top is it where it start the line starting my perception. [clears throat and cough] My perception my very faint memory of events is that I was asked to give my view on what the police could do to
02:18:52 view on what the police could do to improve its relationship with the black community. The only specific part that I have a recollection of talking about is the black churches because the group I had infiltrated was making great efforts to try to infiltrate black church groups in
02:19:05 try to infiltrate black church groups in order to try to get them to use their influence on the community to advocate non-ooperation with the police. As far as my group was concerned, non-ooperation was achievable but was
02:19:16 non-ooperation was achievable but was only a stage towards anti police action and ultimately public disorder and violence.
02:19:22 violence. I didn't seriously believe that my group was going to achieve its ambition of getting church members rioting towards revolution. But given that my group were trying, it seemed pertinent to suggest
02:19:33 trying, it seemed pertinent to suggest the police/home office should try to counter it.
02:19:41 You are asked about this by Mr. Ellison. If we could bring up your Ellison transcript. [snorts]
02:19:47 [snorts] um MPS 0723183
02:19:54 and page 31 of that document, please. Line five.
02:20:04 [clears throat]
02:20:06 Oh, sorry. If I if we could also um so this you asked about this document and then you say yes. So I was called to Bob Lambert's house to meet an individual I was told was an official from the home office. You're reading you're reading
02:20:17 office. You're reading you're reading the underlying document. Yes,
02:20:19 Yes, I've commented on that. This was a different This was the direction of Bob Lambert again commenting at official directing me to generic questions about the campaign. That is fine. Black community and black churches. I'm not
02:20:30 community and black churches. I'm not sure about black churches ever featuring at all.
02:20:32 at all. Yes,
02:20:33 Yes, Mr. Ellison. Was the black community generally of interest though. Well, we would not have referred to it as the black community. What we were concerned about was the movement for
02:20:45 concerned about was the movement for justice and the nation for Islam. Again, I don't think there is any, we weren't looking at the black community. We were only looking at the black community in terms of confidence, community confidence. The again reading to the
02:20:57 confidence. The again reading to the quotation, the official asked me generic questions about the campaigns of and then you coming back to your comment on it. I would not have asked about the black community or the black churches.
02:21:08 black community or the black churches. Now, that seems to be a little bit more specific recall of the interaction you have with Mr. Ellison off the back of a description of that
02:21:19 off the back of a description of that meeting, albeit not Mr. Lambert's note. Would you accept that is seems to be quite specific recall? Um
02:21:31 well I I can't um I'm not sure it's specific recall and I I I can't remember either way to be honest today or or then whether we talked about black committee or black
02:21:42 talked about black committee or black churches. I'm so we might have done um I can't recall. I' I've said that I would not have asked but I'm not sure I could be categorical
02:21:53 I'm not sure I could be categorical around that. So you suggesting that when you speak to Mr. Ellison about it. You're you're effectively hypothesizing in that interview. Yes.
02:22:00 Yes. You're not asserting based on a positive recall.
02:22:04 recall. Yes.
02:22:05 Yes. That you did not ask about that. Yes.
02:22:09 If we could go back to your um statement please at paragraph 74A. So UCPI Yeah. 3751 page 29 please. Paragraph 74A.
02:22:26 And again you say we've you consider the note to be an embellished version of the events to the extent you remember them.
02:22:36 Yes.
02:22:43 We've already covered the point that you make about thanking 1881. But in relation to the suggestion that the discussions enabled you to increase your understanding of the Lawrence's
02:22:54 your understanding of the Lawrence's relationship with the various campaigning groups or suggestion that it would be of value as you drafted your submission, you say that is incorrect. So is that incorrect or is that embellishment? That is incorrect.
02:23:11 How long did your meeting with HN81 last?
02:23:16 last? Uh I can't be sure sir. Um it uh I I don't want to mislead but my best recollection is an hour. An hour. Do you recall who spoke for
02:23:27 An hour. Do you recall who spoke for most of the meeting? Um
02:23:32 Um no I don't actually. It look if one looks at that note created by Bob Lamb. Yeah.
02:23:40 Yeah. The majority of the information included in that note appears to come from you. Correct.
02:23:45 Correct. Um
02:23:46 Um or always at least reported as coming from
02:23:49 from uh yes but yeah I'm not sure majority but yes some of it clearly has. Now Mr. Lambert when he was asked by the IPCC about that explained that that was because his colleagues to whom the
02:24:01 because his colleagues to whom the notice circulated in essence knew 8081 side of the story.
02:24:11 Do you recall any matters which were discussed and which are not recorded in this note? No.
02:24:27 Given that Mr. Lambert appears to focus on your contribution to the meeting in order to disseminate it to his team. Mhm.
02:24:37 Mhm. And in fact records very little information from HN81. Yeah.
02:24:41 Yeah. Can you suggest why he wouldn't have made a faithful record of your contribution if it was to be circulated to his managers and his sergeants? Um
02:24:52 to his managers and his sergeants? Um well I think obviously those points one two and three are I'm not sure it's how I would written it up but it's as we said so it's you that's clearly my contribution. Um it's it's the first
02:25:06 contribution. Um it's it's the first three paragraphs and the last paragraph which is his contribution and that's where we enter the realms of un a combination of untruth uh embellishment or overstatement which I
02:25:18 embellishment or overstatement which I hope I've made clear after the meeting. Did you discuss it with Mr. Quick? No.
02:25:26 No. Did you discuss it with Mr. Griev? I don't think so. When you spoke to the IPCC,
02:25:34 IPCC, uh, you suggested that the only person you may have spoken to about it was Mr. Griev.
02:25:39 Griev. Yeah.
02:25:40 Yeah. Can you now recall ever actually doing so?
02:25:42 so? I can't recall, sir. No. Yesterday, Mr. Griev told the inquiry he had absolutely no knowledge of this meeting and he was never briefed on the subject.
02:25:53 subject. Would that accord with what you would expect?
02:25:56 expect? Um well he was a deputy assistant commissioner. I was an ADI. So um if he didn't get the information from you from whom would he have got it?
02:26:08 you from whom would he have got it? Um well obviously we could come to it but the uh Colin Black established a a correspondence route between special branch and CO24.
02:26:21 route between special branch and CO24. Um
02:26:22 Um but why would that have been necessary if you were in CO24?
02:26:28 You have the information because
02:26:31 because if it was necessary for Mr. Grief to know surely you would have spoken to him.
02:26:35 him. Um no I think the the information will the correct channel is still through up through t special branch and then back into the right part of co 24. Um, which
02:26:49 into the right part of co 24. Um, which is why I met, you know, why it was not my place to to to pass on information from the meeting.
02:26:58 Well, why couldn't that have been done by a briefing note? Then why was a meeting necessary? Um, well, that's a matter for those who approved the meeting and authorized the meeting.
02:27:08 meeting. In his uh witness statement, Mr. Greavves says that from a review of the material in his pack, it seems that Richard Walton had one meeting with an SDS officer in August 1998.
02:27:19 SDS officer in August 1998. At this stage, he was part of Lawrence review team. I was not aware of this meeting at the time, and he did not tell me of it. I did not have any direct or indirect knowledge that Richard Walton had received a briefing.
02:27:30 had received a briefing. Yeah.
02:27:30 Yeah. Um, that reference, there is NPS0749658,
02:27:35 paragraph 32 on page 19. Yeah.
02:27:44 Do we take it, notwithstanding what you said about proper channels, do we take it that you came away from this meeting thinking it was not of utility to to CO24?
02:27:56 Um
02:28:03 I can't remember it being a particular utility to see to anything that I was doing to C24. No, not at that point in time. Um I can't remember it being of
02:28:15 time. Um I can't remember it being of any utility because it is difficult to understand how if it was useful, you wouldn't have mentioned it directly to the head of your unit. Uh well yes except there's a lot of ranks between me and him but but um
02:28:27 and him but but um but there's not a lot of people in the office at that time and you said it's just you and that's true. That's true. Um there was no utility from that meeting
02:28:38 there was no utility from that meeting to to be blunt.
02:28:42 In [clears throat] his evidence to the inquiry yesterday, Mr. Grieve said that he was not interested in any intelligence relevant to the MPS to to MPF's reputation as opposed to disorder
02:28:54 MPF's reputation as opposed to disorder or investigating crime. He was also clear in his evidence that he didn't need any covert sources telling him who was supporting the Lawren's and that if he wanted to know what Dr. Lawrence
02:29:05 he wanted to know what Dr. Lawrence thought, he would have gone and asked him.
02:29:08 him. He described the need to approach a secret source as totally unnecessary. Again,
02:29:19 what relevance would your meeting with 81 have had to Mr. Griev and his team? He he struggles to see the utility of it even in theory. Uh well, it was approved by special
02:29:30 Uh well, it was approved by special branch so um not by Mr. Grieve and Mr. Grieve was um obviously he couldn't remember me which um I think his time scales are also off but that's we've
02:29:42 scales are also off but that's we've covered
02:29:42 covered I think we've covered some yeah um so I it depends on how the question has been put to him um in terms of appropriateness um he's commenting I
02:29:54 appropriateness um he's commenting I think
02:29:55 think saying he wasn't known but of obviously he was he did also say I think in his evidence that he was concerned about extreme right-wing elements going forward in terms of coverage around um
02:30:06 forward in terms of coverage around um that part of London and the need for 224 to have um understanding of that. Um I as I understand it, he uh did have a
02:30:18 as I understand it, he uh did have a conversation with Colin Black around setting up the conduit so that relevant material from special branch that was relevant to CO24's remitt could be passed to C24. I wasn't aware of that
02:30:30 passed to C24. I wasn't aware of that correspondence route then. It wasn't wasn't didn't become in my remitt. Um but I I don't think it was illegitimate for
02:30:40 for um there to be a route from the special branch into CO24 because as I said earlier on I think there was a clear nexus between the remits of those two
02:30:51 nexus between the remits of those two departments and and legitimate for special branches reporting on public order disorder um to reach CO24 if there was an overlap
02:31:03 with this specific intelligence. wouldn't have been of use to CO24, would it? I think I think I think probably agreed on that. Just the word intelligence is strong. I
02:31:14 Just the word intelligence is strong. I don't think that it was intelligence. We would, as I said, it was a background meeting as far as I was concerned around the issues around public order in that part of London. And and [snorts] again, I I must I must
02:31:27 And and [snorts] again, I I must I must ask,
02:31:28 ask, was the reason it didn't make it to Mr. grieve because in fact it was sought with the intention of putting it towards your work on the Stevens review team.
02:31:39 your work on the Stevens review team. That's not correct. As you said, one officer who was aware of the meeting was Colin Black. If we could show you please MPS0720946. So that's B13 in the bundle.
02:31:52 So that's B13 in the bundle. And when we have it, page three, please.
02:32:35 Sorry, I may have given you the wrong number there. 0720946. Apologies.
02:32:50 Thank you. And page three, please.
02:32:57 Now, this document is an SDS intelligence update and uh its associated minute sheets. The minute sheets start at page two. Um, but I want to look want you to look
02:33:08 Um, but I want to look want you to look please at this minute here.
02:33:14 Um, and it is from Colin Black dated 14th of September 98 to Detective Superintendent S.
02:33:25 Superintendent S. These papers confirm that the 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
02:33:36 receives ad hoc off thereordcord briefings. I have reiterated to him that it is essential that knowledge of the operation goes no further. I would not want for him to receive anything on paper. And then he says, I have
02:33:48 paper. And then he says, I have established a correspondence route to DAC Grieve via DS McDow, formerly of SA12
02:33:55 SA12 and opened an SP file for copy correspondence with CO2. It would of course for to C squad to provide the bulk of that material. They will undoubtedly consult SDS as
02:34:06 will undoubtedly consult SDS as appropriate.
02:34:11 Is the focal crisis point of London referred to matters surrounding the Steven Lawrence inquiry? I think it must be.
02:34:22 I think it must be. Looking at the sentence about the briefing, it says, "I'm aware DI Walton of CO2 receives present tense ad hoc off thereord briefings plural."
02:34:34 thereord briefings plural." I understand you say that's not correct. Why is that? I think he's referring to the one briefing I'd had, the one and only briefing.
02:34:45 briefing. I only had one brief that was it was only one briefing with N81. Yes. So only one briefing with 81 and and no other briefings from the SDS during your time on the correct Lawrence
02:34:56 during your time on the correct Lawrence review team or CO24. Correct.
02:35:00 Correct. Are you able to assist us and appreciate it is difficult. But why Mr. Black suggested briefings in the plural if you had only had one briefing? I think that's just a phrase the way he's written the briefing though. I I I
02:35:12 he's written the briefing though. I I I don't think he's trying to be misleading or anything. I think he's, you know, it was one one briefing he may have cuz he's referring this is the 14th of September. The meeting I had with N81
02:35:23 of September. The meeting I had with N81 was 14th of August. It's a month later. Month later. Perhaps he's speculating. I've had more than one briefing. Colin Black states uh that he reiterated to you that it's essential the knowledge
02:35:35 to you that it's essential the knowledge of the operation goes no further. Yeah.
02:35:37 Yeah. Now, reiterate suggests that it was something that he spoke to you more than once about, doesn't it? Yes, it does. reconstruction of language.
02:35:44 language. Yes, it does. And uh I think as I alluded to earlier on, I can't be certain that this isn't the second meeting with Colin Black, but I I really not sure.
02:35:55 not sure. You know, we didn't have one before [clears throat] uh the 14th of August, a conversation then. I just can't be sure the with these two. But yes, you're right. He does imply
02:36:07 But yes, you're right. He does imply that. Do you do you accept that it looks or it is written in a way which suggests that Mr. Black is at pains to suppress the fact of the meeting?
02:36:18 of the meeting? Uh no, I think he's um obviously talking this operational security in terms of the knowledge of the STS operation. So that's what he's concerned about there. So were you aware at the time that it
02:36:30 So were you aware at the time that it was it would be treated with sensitivity? Yes, of course. Yeah.
02:36:41 I mean just to extrapolate a bit I mean obviously the whole SCS operation was classified secret so uh it needed the appropriate security around it
02:36:53 appropriate security around it if Mr. Black suggested he didn't want you to receive anything on paper is that was that something you were aware of that you weren't to receive anything on paper? Um I don't I don't remember that but obviously he's um
02:37:07 remember that but obviously he's um setting up the correspondence route and as I said I I wasn't in that chain at all and it wouldn't have been appropriate for you to be in that chain. It has to come up from the STS into their line management special branch and
02:37:19 their line management special branch and then be disseminated into the Met sometimes into public order and on this occasion into CO24. Did it concern you that this that you weren't part of the ordinary um intelligence chain?
02:37:32 ordinary um intelligence chain? Um
02:37:32 Um but that you seem to be being your meeting with HN81 seems to be being excluded from that. Um well, it's not because the file note went up and then be informed a special
02:37:46 went up and then be informed a special branch assessment which I'm sure you've you've seen. Um so that file note did was part of SB special ranch um coverage and it did go up the chain of command
02:37:57 and it did go up the chain of command and did inform subsequently a um an assessment.
02:38:04 The fact that there may have been an indication for you not to receive anything on paper. Did that ever cause you to query the appropriateness of the meeting?
02:38:14 meeting? Um
02:38:16 Um no. Um because this is post meeting. It it it is but it's talking about security measures in relation to the meeting, isn't it? Yeah.
02:38:26 Yeah. And what happens afterwards? Sure. Um but I haven't seen this briefing though. Obviously was no not part of the reason I accept that. Um I've only seen but but it suggests that you were told
02:38:38 but but it suggests that you were told that uh
02:38:41 that uh the knowledge of the operation goes no further.
02:38:44 further. Yes. And I have no reason to doubt that he he did say that of 80 of HN81's operation or of SDS operation. Uh I think uh I wouldn't I don't know.
02:38:55 Uh I think uh I wouldn't I don't know. Um could could be either or both.
02:39:00 So we five lines from the bottom of the minute. Mr. Black writes about the establishment of a correspondence route to Mr. grieve via DS McDow
02:39:12 to Mr. grieve via DS McDow and he as you said was a colleague of yours in so in CO24 and his role as I understand it was to run the intelligence unit. Yes.
02:39:23 Yes. You in the in the end didn't end up having a role in that cell. Is that right?
02:39:28 right? That's correct. Yeah.
02:39:35 Yeah. Just to be really clear with you, I didn't receive any intelligence from special branch throughout my entire time in the law review team. Throughout my entire time on C24 and beyond,
02:39:47 entire time on C24 and beyond, it wasn't my role. Yeah.
02:39:50 Yeah. When was it envisaged that a uh a particular path do you do you know when it was envisaged that a particular path of intelligence was going to be established?
02:40:01 established? No, I didn't didn't know. And um as I said to Mr. Ellison, I wasn't aware that this route had been set up. I've seen some some material from the file, CO24
02:40:14 some some material from the file, CO24 file, which I'm pretty sure confirms that I was not a part of it. I was never milited up to receive any of it. I think Barry McDall and DAC Grave were minuteed to see material,
02:40:26 DAC Grave were minuteed to see material, but I I never saw any and I didn't know about the correspondence. Very quickly after I started in CO24 within a matter of weeks I was tasked with the operation spectrum remmit which you know I that
02:40:39 spectrum remmit which you know I that became my focus. And did that take you away from receipt of intelligence? Yes. I received no intelligence. Yeah.
02:40:51 I think if we could scroll down to the minute of the 26th of September, which I
02:41:28 I don't have the reference. I I may come back to that. Let's leave that.
02:41:35 Uh please can we turn to page eight of this document, please?
02:41:50 This is um Mr. Lambert's September 1998 SDS intelligence update itself. If we look down to that third paragraph under extremist involvement in the
02:42:02 under extremist involvement in the Steven Lawrence campaign section,
02:42:06 we see it says, "In addition to providing valuable public order intelligence for C squad, windmill tips's unique insight into the behindthe-scenes machinations of the Lawrence campaign has also proved
02:42:19 Lawrence campaign has also proved invaluable to ADI Richard Walton, who's currently attached to the Steven Lawrence review team. At a recent SDS meeting, Wimble Tilter was able to give Adi Walton a firsthand briefing on the
02:42:30 Adi Walton a firsthand briefing on the case and offered 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 [snorts] of the Metropolitan Police's long-term strategy
02:42:41 Metropolitan Police's long-term strategy of seeking to rebuild damaged relations with the black community, Winfield was able to comment authoratively on [snorts] the enormity of the task generally and in his own local area, Brixton specifically.
02:42:54 Brixton specifically. So Mr. Lambert's note refers to H81's unique insight into the behind-the-scenes minations of the Lawrence campaign providing proving invaluable to you.
02:43:10 Do you recall his intelligence providing such information when you spoke?
02:43:17 spoke? No. And I I'm assuming I think correctly that this is all informed by the farm note.
02:43:28 So I take it that the information that you did receive was not invaluable to the work that you were doing. Absolutely not invaluable. Whether that was SLRT or CO2. Correct. Yeah.
02:43:41 Did you provide that glowing feedback that Mr. Lambert describes to you? No.
02:43:47 No. [clears throat]
02:43:49 And again, I asked you a similar question in relation to the underlying note, but in relation to this one, can you can you suggest why Mr. Lambert would include this information in his briefing if it
02:44:00 this information in his briefing if it was not true?
02:44:04 Um I I can only summize that um SDS was trying to impress their senior management in the in their intelligence
02:44:16 management in the in their intelligence gathering. Um I I'm grateful to Miss McGonogal. I I now have the reference I wish to go to. Could we show please MPS072486
02:44:33 on page four please?
02:44:43 And there we go. At the top is a a minute again to detect to detective superintendent C from Colin Black 26th of I think September 98. If
02:44:55 Black 26th of I think September 98. If at all possible, I would like to wish I would wish to see a flow of suitable material to DS McDow both tactical intelligence around the Lawrence inquiry and broader work on race crime. Please
02:45:06 and broader work on race crime. Please carry forward. So Colin Black by setting this up refers specifically to tactical intelligence surrounding the Lawrence inquiry
02:45:16 inquiry um
02:45:18 um and asking for a flow of suitable material.
02:45:23 I think that suggests doesn't it that Colin Black thought it would have be of utility to CO24 to have that intelligence surrounding Laurens's inquiry. Does would you agree from a
02:45:34 inquiry. Does would you agree from a reading of that document?
02:45:39 Yes, I think so. And as a member of CO24 at that time, would it in fact have been useful to you?
02:45:48 Um, it depends what the material was, of course. Um, we're talking about so broader work on race. I think we can both agree that would have been useful to
02:45:58 to CO24 specifically tactical intelligence around the Lawrence inquiry. Would that have been useful? Only in respect of um
02:46:10 Only in respect of um race crime. Um
02:46:15 I I it's very difficult with his phrasiology for me to comment on his minute to be honest. I don't want to be I appreciate that. But just in terms of the content of the flow of the suggested flow of
02:46:27 the flow of the suggested flow of intelligence, the direction to send your unit intelligence on Lawrence inquiry that
02:46:34 that I think that is fair that you can comment on that one way or another. Um yes and um in relation to yes the issues and the crossover of the nexus that we've discussed here
02:46:48 looking now to dissemination and use of the information.
02:46:55 You've already explained helpfully that you didn't speak to Mr. Griev or Mr. Quick about that meeting. I'd like to ask in general in in terms
02:47:07 ask in general in in terms was anything you learned from HN81 or DI Lambert communicated formally or informally either written or orally to your colleagues on the SLRT?
02:47:18 colleagues on the SLRT? No.
02:47:19 No. Your colleagues on CO24? I don't think so. What makes you pause there? Um,
02:47:31 just there may have been something that that informed our thinking around race crime um, from what I heard, but I can't remember anything. Uh, Sarah Thornton.
02:47:44 Uh, Sarah Thornton. Sarah Thornton? Yes.
02:47:46 Yes. Would Would you have communicated for me?
02:47:48 me? Oh, no, no, no, no. I had no connection with Sarah Thornton. I think you only met her a couple of times. MPS lawyers? No, no. council? No.
02:47:59 No. The commissioner? No.
02:48:02 No. Or any public order or intelligence desk?
02:48:04 desk? No. Again, it's not that was not my role.
02:48:07 role. So, effectively, anything that was learned stopped with you. Uh, yes. If I learned anything at all. Yes.
02:48:19 You suggested that the knowledge of the meeting didn't influence your work on the Steven Lawrence review team. And I appreciate that part of this part of this part of your answer may be that you
02:48:30 this part of your answer may be that you had moved to a degree or entirely away from that work. And it's a matter of the chair to unpick that. What contemporaneous safeguard prevented
02:48:42 What contemporaneous safeguard prevented covert intelligence about those challenging the MPS from informing its legal, reputational, or operational response to the Lawrence inquiry? What was there to stop it bleeding back into parts of the organization that ought not
02:48:54 parts of the organization that ought not to have that information? Um well I I had moved on from the submissions. My it comes back to our conversation earlier on where um my drafts had gone to Helen
02:49:05 on where um my drafts had gone to Helen Bull on the 7th. That was [snorts] my job done. The meeting was this meeting was on the 14th. Um uh yes you might come back and say what
02:49:16 uh yes you might come back and say what about the meeting on the 24th. I said nothing in that meeting. I can't really remember the detail around it. Um there was no um crossover at all.
02:49:27 was no um crossover at all. No crossover but no specific barriers. Um
02:49:36 well my ethical barriers but no distinct um we've heard the phrase sterile corridor between your knowledge and either the drafting or the inquiry. Um well as I said that
02:49:49 or the inquiry. Um well as I said that was all done and dusted from my point of view. Um you know I had moved on. Would you accept that where the MPS was itself under accusation as it was at the
02:50:01 itself under accusation as it was at the time of the McFersonen inquiry?
02:50:07 The use of the MPS's covertformational advantage over the family and its supporters engaged issues surrounding equality of arms and potentially concerns about privilege.
02:50:19 concerns about privilege. Um there was no mention of the Dorian or Neville Lawrence in the meeting. Um and as far as anyone can determine um N81 never met Dorian or Neville Lawrence or
02:50:31 never met Dorian or Neville Lawrence or ever spoke to them. But of the campaign more widely that information being fed back to the NPS was that in essence was that a fair was that an unfair advantage that the the
02:50:42 that an unfair advantage that the the MPS had?
02:50:43 MPS had? I can't comment on that. I mean that is a matter for the special branch and their chain of command and their their um they authorized N81's coverage and and his intelligence gathering. That's a
02:50:55 and his intelligence gathering. That's a matter for them.
02:51:03 You met 81 on the 4th of 14th of August and as we've discussed the MPS submissions to the inquiry were submitted in September 98 with oral submissions on the 18th of September.
02:51:15 submissions on the 18th of September. If we could bring up those um submissions please again. UCPI 3691.
02:51:27 And if we could please turn to page 21 which is the internal page 203. So that's on B12 of the bundle.
02:51:39 that's on B12 of the bundle. So this is the beginning of your chapter 19 issues of race. Yes. And it was one of the chapters that you you were the lead draft on. Yes.
02:51:51 If we turn on please to page 31.
02:51:59 And at the bottom of that page, we can see is that paragraph 31? Sorry. Uh
02:52:06 Sorry. Uh sorry, that's it's pageifi paragraph 53. This is page 31 of the document that we're looking at.
02:52:16 Thank you. That's very helpful to have them both up. And we can see here, paragraph 53, that 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
02:52:28 interest being taken in Steven's murder by community groups in the area. There is also some evidence of politically motivated groups influencing communication between police and the Lawrence family.
02:52:39 Lawrence family. So this paragraph in the submissions expressly refers to the involvement of politically motivated groups influencing communication between the police and the family.
02:52:49 family. So the involvement influence and effect of politically motivated groups on the Lawrence campaign was plainly a pertinent issue to your work on the Steven Lawrence
02:53:00 to your work on the Steven Lawrence review, wasn't it? Yes. The this is but this is evidence taken from the transcript. Um, but the topic itself, yeah,
02:53:10 yeah, put I'm going to park the park the evidence that's taken from the transcripts. Yeah.
02:53:14 Yeah. But the topic itself was of relevance to Steven L's review. Um,
02:53:29 because it is included in the report. Yeah. Yeah, it would be. You met
02:53:35 You met an officer who was involved with one of the politically motivated groups surrounding after this had been written though. Yeah.
02:53:44 Yeah. But you can't ei whatever the chronology you can't say that meeting H81 had no relevance to the Steven Lawrence review team role that you had performed and
02:53:56 team role that you had performed and perhaps were still performing. Uh I can actually. Yeah. So yeah I can. So you you you can say it had no no relevance. Sorry, asked the question again. Forgive me.
02:54:14 One of the points that you make in this submission is that there is evidence of politically motivated groups influencing influencing the Lawrence family. Yeah.
02:54:23 Yeah. You meet a member of a group who's surrounding surrounding the campaign. Yes. Correct. the
02:54:33 the the level of the the extent of what MFJ may or may not have been able to influence simulation to the Lawrenes is to an extent moot, isn't it? Because you don't know how influential they are
02:54:44 don't know how influential they are until you meet the officer. Um,
02:54:51 yes, I had no idea. Um, but remember, I don't even know that this officer was in M for justice. He never told me. But you discuss movement for justice and you discussion of Islam, don't you?
02:55:03 you discussion of Islam, don't you? Yes.
02:55:07 I take I think you've answered my next question already, but did that text come about before or after your meeting with HN81?
02:55:14 HN81? Before.
02:55:15 Before. Yeah. I mean, I I did write this. I remember writing it. Um I actually remember discussing with John Southerntherland whether it should go in, whether it's appropriate to go in. We were very concerned about um the
02:55:28 We were very concerned about um the Lawrence family. We didn't want to do anything inappropriate. Um we felt it was relevant. Um there are sensitive parts of the of of issues of race
02:55:39 parts of the of of issues of race chapter 19 where there was quite a lot of discussion about whether it should go in or not go in. This is one of those areas. But we felt that because it was um directly you know it was um from the
02:55:52 um directly you know it was um from the transcript we thought it was germaine to put to put it in.
02:55:59 Now,
02:56:03 would your meeting with H81 would the information you gleaned from that would that have tipped the balance one way or another
02:56:10 another if there was still you it is it is in even if you put it in the draft you've not gone to print have you? No, but I've I've finished. So, you could come back and say actually I've spoken to these chaps. There's not
02:56:21 I've spoken to these chaps. There's not there's not an issue we shouldn't even take that point. No, because it's um it's all all I'm doing here is um taking an extract from the um from the transcript
02:56:33 transcript um that you know just to evidence the point at par 53 but you know even then we put the caveat the lack of sensitivity of some police officers you know played may so we're
02:56:46 officers you know played may so we're being sensitive in how we address this issue. Um there is also some evidence of politically motivated groups influencing communication between police and Lawrence family. But I I think also well but well if so if we just look at that
02:56:58 but well if so if we just look at that the the foot of the page we've got the quotation from Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
02:57:02 Yes. At uh the inquiry. Yes.
02:57:06 Yes. And if you take a second to read that with hindsight. Yeah.
02:57:13 They said they were there for the family, but they were also there to highlight the RRA and they weren't taking the family's feelings into consideration. And effectively, they get their marching
02:57:25 And effectively, they get their marching orders, don't they? I think that's our evidence.
02:57:29 evidence. Yes. And we we were aware um that the Lawrenes did their utmost to deter and um um push away any political
02:57:41 um um push away any political influences. We were perfectly aware that they wanted justice for their son and that was their priority. There was a feeling within the MPS, wasn't there, that there was a risk of
02:57:52 wasn't there, that there was a risk of hijack?
02:57:56 Uh there was well as was reported and as we discussed this morning that there was um there were political there was political interference um and of course
02:58:07 political interference um and of course there was there were political groups who had committed violence. Yeah. So that's
02:58:13 So that's the paragraph 53 what you are saying is there is some evidence of politically motivated groups influencing communication between the police and the Lawrence family. Yes.
02:58:21 Yes. But Baroness Lawrence's evidence is effectively we weren't influenced by them. We had their support because they were useful. Um but uh but there were very she was
02:58:32 Um but uh but there were very she was clearly very completely alive to any attempts to influence. Yes. And I think that's a balanced view. I mean both putting it in that putting that quote in those two quotes in and then the paragraph I think that's
02:58:43 then the paragraph I think that's objective balanced and in not in any way um trying to undermine the Lawrence family at all. If we could look please at HN81's report
02:58:57 If we could look please at HN81's report of the 23rd of July 1998 please. That is MPS 0720946.
02:59:09 uh page 11 please. [snorts]
02:59:15 So here we have an intelligence report dated the 24th of July 98. It is uh the source of intelligence is windmill tilt. So that's UC that you met agent 81 titled Steven Lawrence campaign and this
02:59:29 titled Steven Lawrence campaign and this is an intelligence report from uh from an organizing meeting arranged by the Lawrence family support campaign on the 20th of July 98. The meetings attended by members of MFJ and the Nation of Islam as well as other
02:59:41 and the Nation of Islam as well as other supporters of the campaign and it's chaired by Mr. Grover of the South Hall Monitoring Project and Mr. Raymond of the New Monitoring Project. It turn it covers a number of topics and we'll come back to it a little later
02:59:53 back to it a little later but if we could look please at par page 13 in the first paragraph
03:00:04 sesh took this opportunity to explain his actions to the MFJ. He stated that the main problem facing the campaign was the refusal of both Neville and Dorian Lawrence to have anything to do with
03:00:15 Lawrence to have anything to do with other groups. They felt they had been badly treated from the outset by group such groups as the ANL, Gakara, and Anti-Racist Alliance, all of whom had tried to use the family. More recently, they had trouble from the Socialist
03:00:27 they had trouble from the Socialist Workers Party, who have supposedly been booking venues, including Hackne Empire, in the name of the Lawrence family campaign without the campaign group's knowledge or authority. In consequence, the family do not want
03:00:38 In consequence, the family do not want such meetings or rallies to take place at at all. And it is only by the efforts of Assad and Suresh, etc. that any unauthorized any authorized events have taken place. Now this report which is a
03:00:52 taken place. Now this report which is a little over a fortnight to 3 weeks a fortnite before you meet HN81 you see refers to ARRA as one of the groups that the family felt had treated
03:01:03 groups that the family felt had treated them badly. It also sets out that uh Dorian and Neville Lawrence were not interested in associating themselves with those groups.
03:01:15 groups. Given the proximity in time, is it likely that this is the material that would have been discussed when you spoke to HN81? Uh, no. I I've never seen this report before.
03:01:28 In chapter 19, we've looked at the quotation which you've included from Baroness Lawrence's evidence.
03:01:37 evidence. Yes. A and we we note that that does also refer to ARRA, doesn't it? Yes.
03:01:53 Was that inclusion prompted by your meeting? Was the inclusion of material from the inquiry talking about ARRA and the influence on the Lawrenes? There's no connection between these two
03:02:04 There's no connection between these two things at all. Um, as I said, we were um focused on what was going on in the quarry, the the um the transcript. Um, and and the first
03:02:17 the transcript. Um, and and the first murder investigation, there was no overlap. None of this none of this was relevant at all to the submission. And and we didn't see it, of course.
03:02:36 So, so the selection of that passage not specifically included as a result of your discussion with 81. Absolutely not. No. And the fact that it is in a note of is
03:02:47 And the fact that it is in a note of is note that topic is noted in an intelligence report of a UCO you meet three weeks late three weeks later is purely coincidental. Yes, it must be.
03:03:04 Please, can we turn to MPS
03:03:10 MPS 0728625
03:03:14 and page three, please? Um, forgive me. Before you ask questions arising out of that, I I want to ask something to do with the topic you've just raised. The report you've just been shown Yes.
03:03:26 The report you've just been shown Yes. shows as clearly that attempts were being made to influence the Lawrence campaign and to take it over for ulterior purposes and they failed.
03:03:40 ulterior purposes and they failed. Um your report uh
03:03:45 uh the passage you were referred to uh refers to some evidence of politically motivated groups interfering influencing communication between police and the Lawrence family and you cite two
03:03:59 Lawrence family and you cite two one instance of that and another relating to it. Yes.
03:04:03 Yes. Um, if you'd had an intelligence report such as, uh, the one we we've just seen on the screen, uh, clearly uh, reporting
03:04:14 on the screen, uh, clearly uh, reporting that there were attempts to influence the group and the campaign. What, if anything, would you have been able to do about it as regards putting it into the report? Uh, nothing, sir.
03:04:26 Uh, nothing, sir. Because there was no remit. Um, we were only
03:04:31 only uh in the submission we were only concerned about the transcript because it wasn't in the evidence before the the the the uh inquiry.
03:04:44 Yes, that's correct. So if not in the evidence before the inquiry,
03:04:49 inquiry, nothing in your submissions. That's correct, sir. Yeah. Thank you. So um yes, if we could if we could now go to uh document B35, that's
03:05:01 could now go to uh document B35, that's MPS0728625, please.
03:05:07 please. And page three of that document.
03:05:16 Thank you very much. [clears throat] This document is dated the 2nd of October 2001. It is a recommendation for commendation by um HM36 DCI Dell uh for
03:05:30 commendation by um HM36 DCI Dell uh for um HN81.
03:05:34 The last sentence of the first paragraph
03:05:39 and the first paragraph sets out various um aspects of H81's deployment. And the fi the final line is the response of the MPS to the McFersonen report was informed by his assessments.
03:05:53 report was informed by his assessments. And then if we could stay on the same page but look at the third bullet point please.
03:06:04 The provision of a perspective uh to those charged with formulating the MPS position on key strategic issues. He was thus thoroughly debriefed thoroughly by the Steven Lawrence Review team as it
03:06:16 the Steven Lawrence Review team as it considered how the MPS might regain the confidence of the black community, how it might assess the potential for disorder by sections of that community, and what might be consequences of
03:06:27 and what might be consequences of sustained political pressure on the MPS from hard-left and other groups not well disposed to the police. Now I appreciate that this is a document
03:06:38 Now I appreciate that this is a document written a few years after your meeting and written by DCI DAL. Let's start off with the basics. Is this a document you would have seen? Uh no.
03:06:48 Uh no. Do you accept that it is likely that the reference to HN81 being debriefed thoroughly by the Steven Lawrence review team is a reference to your meeting with HN81?
03:07:00 HN81? I couldn't say but possibly. But I mean you know the it's not true of the and it's an exaggeration is it? Yes it is.
03:07:16 Were you asked to contribute to the recommendation for accommodation? No I wasn't. No. Was it correct as Mr. Dell suggests that the MPS's response was informed by
03:07:29 the MPS's response was informed by HN81's assessments? Clearly not.
03:07:43 Uh it this document even 3 years or so after your meeting still refers to the debrief being with the Steven Lawrence review team. It appears
03:07:54 Steven Lawrence review team. It appears the impression remained with the SDS that it was with that team. Um was that correct? No.
03:08:07 I'm going to start. I'm going to look at propriety.
03:08:13 Please, could we bring up your witness statement
03:08:15 statement uh UCPI 3751? Thank you very much. Page 8 and paragraph 27, please.
03:08:29 In terms of my meeting with HN81, my position remains that I had no reason to believe that the meeting was inappropriate because, as far as I was aware, the meeting was relevant to my forward-looking work with CO24
03:08:41 forward-looking work with CO24 rather than my work with the SLRT. However, the erroneous erroneous spy in the Lawrence camp narrative was picked up extensively by the media and politically as a result of the Ellison
03:08:52 politically as a result of the Ellison report and in my view set in train a sequence of events that has required me to repeatedly profess my innocence over a period of over a decade fight to protect my reputation and at one point
03:09:04 protect my reputation and at one point protect my job by instructing lawyers. It has also meant that the truth about the meeting and HN81's role has been obscured.
03:09:15 You say you have no reason to believe the meeting was inappropriate as it related to your forwardlooking work, but would you accept it also related to your ongoing work at the Steven Lawrence
03:09:26 ongoing work at the Steven Lawrence review team too? No, I wouldn't accept that. Even if you're correct and you were uh part of CO24, would the meeting not
03:09:38 uh part of CO24, would the meeting not have been inappropriate given Mr. Gre's personal involvement giving evidence to the inquiry and his participation in submission focused meetings. No, it it was appropriate as regards the
03:09:49 No, it it was appropriate as regards the evolving remmit of C24.
03:09:53 Having had time to reflect and also to see the evidence that this inquiry has heard about HN81's deployment, do you still maintain that it was appropriate for you to meet H&81? I
03:10:05 appropriate for you to meet H&81? I maintain still so that um uh it was appropriate for me to attend it. I can't comment on the um the reporting of N81
03:10:16 comment on the um the reporting of N81 and the merit um justification for that or otherwise. Um you disagree in your statement with the characterization of 1881 as a spy in
03:10:28 the characterization of 1881 as a spy in the Lawrence camp. On what basis do you do so? Um well sir this was obviously a key
03:10:39 Um well sir this was obviously a key finding of the Lawrence review. Um there were two key findings in fact probably the most two most important key findings of the review I don't believe were true. Um this is the first one and the second
03:10:50 Um this is the first one and the second one we covered earlier on which is that the meeting was um convened in order to inform submissions. But as regards spying the Lawrence family camp it's actually that's the phrase that was used
03:11:01 actually that's the phrase that was used in Mr. in Mr. Ellison's review. Um, as I as as best I can understand, N81 was firstly not a spy. He was an undercover
03:11:12 firstly not a spy. He was an undercover officer tasked um I can't speak about the tasking, but he was a task police officer um into a uh into a group called Move for Justice. Um the phrase Lawrence
03:11:26 Move for Justice. Um the phrase Lawrence family camp um I don't believe is supported by the evidence and clearly so you will have seen significantly more than I have. Um but uh I think it's an
03:11:38 than I have. Um but uh I think it's an inappropriate phrase to use if I might be so blunt. Um, why? Well, I think I I don't I don't know where Well, the the Lawrenes were not
03:11:50 where Well, the the Lawrenes were not running a campsite as I best I understand. They were trying to achieve justice for their son and um N81 had not met Dorine or Neville Lawrence, as I
03:12:01 met Dorine or Neville Lawrence, as I understand, nor ever spoken to them. And this was this phrase was used um obviously as a key finding in the in the inquiry and was indeed picked up as as
03:12:12 inquiry and was indeed picked up as as you've read out there as a extensive by the media and by the home secretary referred to it the very next day in a in a in a uh statement she made. Um and it
03:12:24 a in a uh statement she made. Um and it did indeed set in train um a series of events where everyone assumed I think so if I say the public I think still believe um I I I think that this is the
03:12:37 believe um I I I think that this is the truth and I think it's very important that this inquiry um overturns this uh this this review finding. Um, in regard to specifics, um, we've not
03:12:50 in regard to specifics, um, we've not mentioned Operation Magma, but I'm I uh I believe that the Magma Gold Group, which you might speak to Commander um
03:13:01 which you might speak to Commander um Janet Williams next week, she chaired the gold group, a met in 2002 um to discuss allegations that have been made by Peter Francis that um the Met
03:13:12 made by Peter Francis that um the Met had deployed an undercover officer into the Lawrence family to smear them. That was thoroughly investigated, as I understand it, by NH53
03:13:23 understand it, by NH53 um in 2002 under the um jurisdiction of the gold group and found that he'd never been tasked uh along those lines. If I just pause you, pause you there.
03:13:35 If I just pause you, pause you there. Those are the conclusions of HN53. Yes.
03:13:39 Yes. Then detective inspector within this special demonstration squad. Yes.
03:13:45 Yes. So they are just they are effectively an internal conclusion by a unit itself under scrutiny within the Metropolitan Police.
03:13:54 Police. Yes. But I I understand you think it's important to set that context.
03:13:56 context. Yes, indeed. Um I accept that. But um I think it's important that the inquiry um publish that review. I think the investigation was extensive and the
03:14:07 investigation was extensive and the report that NH53 produced was extensive. Now, I didn't know um about the Magna Gold Group. Um I became aware of it after the Ellison review and um my legal
03:14:20 after the Ellison review and um my legal team wrote to the commissioner to um basically to point out that Mr. Ellison had clearly not received the MAGMA um paperwork um because it hadn't featured
03:14:32 paperwork um because it hadn't featured in Mr. Ellison's review. But but again, Mr. Ellison was there to draw his own conclusions, wasn't he? He he was there to look at the evidence and draw his conclusions.
03:14:43 draw his conclusions. Yes. But
03:14:43 Yes. But and not necessarily and I don't necessarily wish to speak for him, but again for clarity. Yeah.
03:14:49 Yeah. It's not necessarily Mr. Ellison to look at the conclusions of another when he is himself tasked with that review. Is he? Well, I think if the inquiry is um
03:15:00 Well, I think if the inquiry is um publishes this investigation, then I think it's for others to to judge and yourself to judge whether it was Germaine. Um uh it's my view and this is the view that um my legal team took when
03:15:13 the view that um my legal team took when they wrote to the commissioner that this material should have been disclosed to Mr. Allison. Now he was made aware of it by the Metropolitan Police um uh but and they the net the officers said that they
03:15:25 they the net the officers said that they would disclose it to him but then he either didn't have it disclosed to him which I think is what happened or he saw it but didn't refer to it in his review.
03:15:36 it but didn't refer to it in his review. I find it very would find it extraordinary that he wouldn't reference that material um if he hadn't seen it. So it's my contention that he almost
03:15:47 So it's my contention that he almost certainly hadn't contention that it was germaine to his review and that the findings of the Ellison review um uh were done um uh in the absence of very
03:16:00 were done um uh in the absence of very significant material. The other points I would make if I might just extend a bit more uh operation um well there was the findings of um of other reviews. Sorry
03:16:12 findings of um of other reviews. Sorry sorry with spec just so we're clear I'm wanting to get your intelligence not not on necessarily the overall survey of evidence that has happened at various points since 1998.
03:16:24 points since 1998. Yeah. but specifically on the description of the spy in the Lawrence camp narrative which you take exception to in your witness statement that I think you have explored there.
03:16:36 think you have explored there. Yes, I I
03:16:37 Yes, I I in relation to uh
03:16:42 uh a further question in relation to that if I may.
03:16:46 if I may. Do you disagree with the contention that reporting on groups around a justice campaign is intelligence about the campaign's political environment, its supporters, its allies, and its
03:16:57 supporters, its allies, and its perceived risks? I can't comment on that. But you take issue with there it being an issue with a spy in the Lawrence camp narrative L's family camp. But is it sorry in the Lawrence family
03:17:08 But is it sorry in the Lawrence family camp but is it not also
03:17:12 also uh is is in your view is it not as egregious to report upon effectively the the environment around that that family campaign. Well, if the reporting was and again I can't judge
03:17:25 reporting was and again I can't judge but in the inquiry here can judge but if the reporting was uh as per tasked around movement for justice and it was movement for justice activities that were being reported on then then then
03:17:38 were being reported on then then then that is justified. Um but you you will be better able s to judge than I will around um the proportionality of what
03:17:50 around um the proportionality of what was reported by that undercover officer. So you certainly draw a distinction between reporting on the the family and the family campaign and then the w the wider campaign. Yes. That is that fair.
03:18:02 wider campaign. Yes. That is that fair. Would you have met the UCO if you knew beforehand that they were a source close to the Lawrence family itself? Um
03:18:10 Um well
03:18:12 well that's a hypothetical question. I I I'm not able to judge what he was reporting on. So um
03:18:19 on. So um well if sorry let's put it this way too much.
03:18:23 too much. Yeah.
03:18:23 Yeah. But if you turned up at Bob Lambert's house you sat down with 81 and he says yes I I sit around I I you know I have tea with Dorian Lawrence every day and we discuss this case. Would you have got up and left?
03:18:35 case. Would you have got up and left? you know where's where's the trigger point at which you would have said this is a wholly inappropriate meeting well there's no justification for reporting on the Dorian and Neville
03:18:47 reporting on the Dorian and Neville Lawrence whatsoever but if they are an intimate if they were for example an intimate member of the family campaign if they're right in the hub
03:18:57 hub sorry the undercover officer if the undercover officer was right in the hub with meeting with the family and making decisions would that have been enough for you to say this is this is inappropriate. I shouldn't be here
03:19:09 inappropriate. I shouldn't be here in in those terms. Yes. But um I'm not able to judge him. But as it was your evidence was even having met H81. Yeah.
03:19:18 Yeah. You didn't know which group he was deployed into. That's correct. Albeit he was able to give information about MFJ and Nation of Islam. Uh well we talked about Nation of Islam
03:19:29 Uh well we talked about Nation of Islam MFJ. I'm not sure you gave any particular information about them.
03:19:42 If he had given you information that he was he was involved in the groups within the wider campaign surrounding the Lawrence inquiry, would you have considered that an inappropriate meeting?
03:19:54 meeting? Um
03:19:58 well it depends on his tasking what he's you know and what the you know there's lots of designations we've got
03:20:09 there's lots of designations we've got in relation the the word Lawrence has used
03:20:14 used um
03:20:14 um well can I ask you this? Yeah. Did when you sat down with H81 did you seek to understand what his tasking was? No. Why not? Uh because that wasn't relevant to to
03:20:26 Uh because that wasn't relevant to to what I thought the meeting was about. But if you didn't understand what the tasking was, how could you have effectively asked him and asked him to provide you all the information that
03:20:37 to provide you all the information that might have been pertinent to your work? Um well, again, I the risk of repetition I didn't know what the meeting was about. I
03:20:47 about. I But but but by the time you're there, you have an idea. Surely. Well, yes. And yes, a background briefing as as we described. Yeah. And you don't want to necessarily I'm sure you didn't want to sit there and
03:20:58 sure you didn't want to sit there and not contribute and not come away with something of utility to to you. Yes.
03:21:04 Yes. I'm just struggling to see how you could have done that if you didn't know the group into which he was deployed or at least the the the detail and therefore the access the detail the access to
03:21:15 the access the detail the access to detail that he had. No, he didn't have to tell me what group he was deployed to. They undercover officers never do. Um, and that wasn't a surprise to me, but I remember coming
03:21:26 surprise to me, but I remember coming away thinking I'm none the wiser as to what group he's actually in. Um, as as we've discussed, but what what in an overview, what were you aware that
03:21:37 in an overview, what were you aware that he he had been doing even if he didn't tell you the name of the group? How close was he to very, you know, the the wider alliance campaign? I had no idea whatsoever. Um, and
03:21:49 I had no idea whatsoever. Um, and obviously I've seen strands and bits from the inquiry, but um, at that time I had no idea. It seems, if I may, a slightly incurious approach for for a detective at a
03:22:00 approach for for a detective at a meeting like this. Well, uh,
03:22:04 Well, uh, so be it. None of us are perfect. So, I'm not trying to be glib. I'm just understand that you are someone who deals with intelligence. Yes.
03:22:11 Yes. Who obtains information that's relevant. Yes.
03:22:14 Yes. And and processes it and takes it forward. And it seems from your evidence today
03:22:19 today that that didn't happen. Is that fair? Uh yes. That well yes. I mean it wasn't a very significant meeting.
03:22:36 Please could we return to MPS 0720946 page 13
03:22:45 page 13 paragraph please.
03:23:02 Thank you very much. So here this is the report we looked at earlier from 1881. Yeah.
03:23:10 And here we can see the report is showing the Lawrence family's views. Uh and this is in relation to attendees at a a social event. Suresh further stated that the Lawrenes
03:23:22 Suresh further stated that the Lawrenes wanted Friday's social event to be just that and therefore did not want those whom they felt had insulted them to attend. This is reporting on the Lawrence family's views on a social
03:23:33 Lawrence family's views on a social event for the campaign supporters. Is that not reporting from the Lawrence camp?
03:23:42 camp? Um well
03:23:43 Um well firstly I mean I don't know whether I should be challenging the word camp but it seems an inappropriate report word to use in a formal report to the home secretary. That's my issue around the
03:23:54 secretary. That's my issue around the word camp. Um and and I take issue with the um the phrase spy in the Lawrence family camp. Um obviously I think that's accepted. I apologize. Maybe I should
03:24:06 accepted. I apologize. Maybe I should rephrase the question. But this is this is d this is from from the heart of the campaign, isn't it? And it is personal reporting in relation to the view of uh now Baroness Lawrence.
03:24:17 Baroness Lawrence. Well, of course I've never seen this before.
03:24:21 before. Um,
03:24:22 Um, but it does go, doesn't it, to the access that HN81 had at around the time that you met him? Um, I don't know when when was the report done?
03:24:33 report done? This is July. This is the end of July. I think 24th of July, 1998. Yeah. And sorry, your question is that what is
03:24:43 what is is this not reporting from the heart of the Lawrence campaign and on the Lawrence family? Um I I can't comment. I don't think it's fair to me for to comment on
03:24:56 for to comment on any of the intelligence [clears throat] that he's reported on because I've not seen it before and um you know it's it doesn't look right. Um it looks like
03:25:07 doesn't look right. Um it looks like it's beyond any remitt but it's I'm not sure I'm qualified to actually comment on this.
03:25:15 on this. Okay. Well, let let's I I'll try and take the next few questions as quickly as I can, but I do have a few more questions on this document. If we could look at the second paragraph,
03:25:27 look at the second paragraph, at the end of the fifth line, Suresh went on to explain that Dorian and Neville have in reality separated and that they only continued together as a front for the campaign. Dorian, in
03:25:38 a front for the campaign. Dorian, 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. [snorts] So, this is reporting personal
03:25:51 So, this is reporting personal information about Dorene and Neville Lawrence
03:25:54 Lawrence as well as reporting directly on the family campaign, isn't it? Um, it looks like that. Yes. Well, I mean, it looks like it. Yes, it does look like that. If you had known this was the type of
03:26:06 If you had known this was the type of reporting and type of access that H&81 had had
03:26:10 had had Yeah. at the time that you met him, would you still consider this an appropriate deployment and an appropriate meeting? Yeah, I'm I'm inclined to say yes, but it is a hypothetical question. So, in
03:26:21 it is a hypothetical question. So, in the context of everything, but um well, inclined to say yes, you you consider it would have still been No, I'm inclined to say yes. I would have been concerned about it and it would have affected me meeting him.
03:26:33 would have affected me meeting him. And just just out of fairness to you, I you've mentioned a couple of times that you haven't seen this document. It is in the document bundle that has been provided to you. Yes. No, what I meant sorry what I meant is um sorry um I have seen it from your
03:26:45 is um sorry um I have seen it from your disclosed rule now disclosure but I'd never seen it. No. Okay. Understood. You didn't see it at the time. Yeah.
03:26:50 Yeah. Yes. Quite understand that. Yeah.
03:27:04 putting to one side what you knew about the meeting uh what what you knew before the meeting I'm going to suggest to you that by the time you'd had the meeting that you knew
03:27:16 time you'd had the meeting that you knew there was a UCO in groups adjacent to the Lawrence campaign no
03:27:21 no surely that must have been the logical inference from what you did learn no
03:27:26 no given that you have accepted I think that the the information that's recorded in the in in Bob Lambert's note is an embellishment but it is of the truth.
03:27:38 but it is of the truth. No.
03:27:39 No. And do you accept there was information given of the Nation of Islam and MFJ and they are in that campaign surrounding um sorry no not not that either. As I
03:27:51 um sorry no not not that either. As I said um there was mention and talk about the Nation of Islam and the movement for justice. It could well just as easily have been me mentioning it rather than the uh the undercover officer. It was
03:28:02 the uh the undercover officer. It was not, you know, he was not passing on intelligence as such. Well, the difficulty is we don't know what he said and you can't remember. Uh, yes, quite because there's no contemporary note contemporaneous note of the other side
03:28:14 contemporaneous note of the other side of that conversation which which I think you accept must have happened. There must have been some information coming from the op the operative. Um, well, um, I presume you didn't go to meet him at
03:28:25 I presume you didn't go to meet him at Bob Lambert's house for you to talk at him for an hour and then and then go your own way. Um, well, first of all, I didn't know it was Bob Lambert's house. Sorry. Well, I don't think that's Yeah,
03:28:36 Sorry. Well, I don't think that's Yeah, but you you didn't you didn't go to meet the UCA in order for you for you to tell him to download your information to him. Um, I didn't know what um the purpose of
03:28:47 Um, I didn't know what um the purpose of the meeting was and whether it was for him to brief me or me to brief him or or both or or either. Uh,
03:28:54 Uh, did you not stop to think having been at the interview
03:29:01 I I think we've covered that that you didn't there were no there were no triggers going nothing that triggered you thinking this was inappropriate. Would you have been happy for details of your meeting to have been made known to William McFersonen at the time?
03:29:14 William McFersonen at the time? Um
03:29:16 Um would I have been happy? Um I wouldn't have a view on that. It was not my write up but um that's a matter of special. Would you have been happy for you
03:29:27 Would you have been happy for you details of the meeting to have been made known to the Lawrence family at the time?
03:29:31 time? Um,
03:29:34 Um, well, in terms of the meeting, there was nothing
03:29:37 nothing that would have in any way upset the the Lawrence family. Even as a presentational point, you you think it would still have been fine if
03:29:48 think it would still have been fine if Well, in terms of the as I understood the purpose of the meeting, yes. and after the meeting. Likewise. Yeah. I mean, I I literally walked away from this meeting. I mean,
03:29:59 walked away from this meeting. I mean, uh it just carried on a normal day. It was not of any import to me whatsoever. It it was a very, you know, short background me briefing. And it's
03:30:10 background me briefing. And it's astonishing and rather ironic that it's become uh you know so focused upon and you didn't you didn't when you met him think that uh Sir William McFersonen
03:30:21 him think that uh Sir William McFersonen ought to have been informed about HM1's deployment. No, I think it's really important I think that um to to say it in summary, I don't think there was anything wrong
03:30:32 don't think there was anything wrong with this meeting at all. I think the problem with this meeting is the write up of the meeting which is then informed um you know embellished and untruths
03:30:44 embellished and untruths then be going into further briefing notes and then also being used um and drawn upon by Mr. Allison who's, you know, seeing this as evidence. I can understand why he would do that. Um, if
03:30:57 understand why he would do that. Um, if but the difficulty with this briefing is only the write up. It's not actually the briefing. It's not actually the meeting itself. It's the write up of the meeting that's the problem.
03:31:19 Did you consider the potential disaster for police community relations had 1881 been exposed? Uh I no cuz it's not my meeting. It's not for me to consider [clears throat]
03:31:31 not for me to consider [clears throat] those things. But you didn't think this is a highly contentious issue. Potentially the focal point of the Metropolitan Police Service. No, it was an organ.
03:31:41 an organ. We have an undercover officer in that uh in in in that area in Brixton in justice camp in a justice campaign or at least
03:31:53 campaign or at least somewhere somewhere near to it.
03:31:58 Well, our sentiment and my sentiment was lordable. We we were trying to get ahead of the findings of the inquiry. I I obviously knew in particular the issues.
03:32:10 obviously knew in particular the issues. Um
03:32:12 Um uh we CO24 wanted to address those issues. Um this background briefing approved by special branch um was was
03:32:23 approved by special branch um was was what it was on the face of it of not great import. Um there were a lot of other things that were probably much more significant than this meeting. If I
03:32:34 more significant than this meeting. If I could take you uh finally this afternoon to your witness statement at UCPI 3751 and pages 18 and 19, paragraphs 44 and 45, please.
03:32:54 Thank you. Uh paragraph 44
03:33:00 says I had about half end of the fifth line of 44A says, "I had no reason to believe that the information was either sensitive or of
03:33:12 information was either sensitive or of questionable justification. I simply attended when requested what I considered to be a legitimate meeting with N81 on the 14th of August 1998. Beyond that, I did not have any access
03:33:23 Beyond that, I did not have any access to special branch files or intelligence throughout the time I was working on the Lawrence review team and later with CA24. It did not seem to be within my knowledge, power, or remit to report the
03:33:35 knowledge, power, or remit to report the existence of NHN81 further up the chain of command.
03:33:41 What did you mean by it that it not being within your knowledge, power, or remit to report the existence of 1881 further up the chain of command? Uh, I had nothing to do with his
03:33:52 Uh, I had nothing to do with his deployment. I mean, I I had no responsibility for um SDS or or his tasking. Um he was authorized obviously um by senior officers in the special
03:34:03 um by senior officers in the special branch. Um you know it was a matter for them. Um c could you have reported up had you had concerns about the deployment?
03:34:14 had concerns about the deployment? Uh yes if I'd had concerns and presumably you didn't do so because ultimately you considered at the time that there was no issue. Quite yes.
03:34:26 Quite yes. And I take it that remains your view today.
03:34:28 today. It does indeed. Yeah. So, is that a convenient moment to to leave it for the day? Certainly. I'm afraid it [clears throat] means you will have to return tomorrow to finish your evidence. Before we rise
03:34:39 to finish your evidence. Before we rise today,
03:34:41 today, may I ask you, I'm afraid, more questions about this meeting? Okay.
03:34:52 When you attended the meeting, you uh [snorts]
03:34:56 [snorts] had just finished your role as uh a draftsman of part of the MPS response uh in the McFersonen
03:35:08 MPS response uh in the McFersonen inquiry
03:35:10 inquiry and you had just taken up a new role setting up uh CO24.
03:35:22 You were asked
03:35:25 by an officer more senior than yourself, Mr. Lambert, uh to meet uh a special branch officer.
03:35:37 uh to meet uh a special branch officer. Correct.
03:35:38 Correct. Correct.
03:35:38 Correct. Thank you. Sorry. The nod of the head is not recorded on the transcript. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
03:35:51 You knew therefore in advance of the meeting that you were being asked to meet an intelligence gathering officer. That's correct.
03:36:04 What did you understand the purpose of the meeting to be before it started?
03:36:12 um as best I can rec recollect a background meeting um on issues relating to public disorder, public order um and some of
03:36:24 disorder, public order um and some of the issues that we were facing around race crime and the overlap and the nexus between the two. But I I wasn't um I also had in my mind, do they want me to brief on
03:36:36 do they want me to brief on institutional racism? Is do they want me to because that was something that I've been working on. Is that something they want to know about?
03:36:46 Why would an intelligence officer want you to brief him on institutional racism? Well, that was what was on my mind. So, that wasn't necessarily a rational
03:36:58 that wasn't necessarily a rational thought, but that's just um that's what I've been working on. and I wondered if they wanted a background briefing from me on on that issue.
03:37:18 When the meeting had taken place and you had spent an hour or so talking to the intelligence officer,
03:37:29 what conclusion did you draw about the purpose from his point of view of the meeting.
03:37:39 I don't think I drew any conclusion um from
03:37:48 from what he said.
03:37:52 You know, it's difficult for me to to judge what what he's been told and what he's
03:37:58 he's been told be told the purpose of the meeting is. So perhaps neither of us knew what the purpose of the meeting was.
03:38:08 Did you explain to him anything about institutional racism?
03:38:16 It certainly came up. [cough] I can't remember in what detail. Certainly came up.
03:38:27 And did he explain to you anything about the information, the intelligence that he was gathering?
03:38:43 Very little and
03:38:51 very little actually to be honest. Um, I can't be specific on that.
03:38:58 some I've got to be very careful I'm accurate on this, but some mention of the
03:39:08 the um unrest
03:39:12 that was coming out of the inquiry in terms of um coverage and
03:39:21 community tension high, you know, those kind of sentiments. not nothing specific. We did, as we've discussed, we did mention the political interference, Nation of Islam, Movement
03:39:33 interference, Nation of Islam, Movement for Justice. Um, but he wasn't very forthcoming. Um, particularly he probably didn't understand my remit.
03:39:44 understand my remit. Um, but I can't speak for him.
03:39:54 Thank you. That uh explains your understanding of what occurred. Uh we will resume I think tomorrow at 9:30 from what I believe to be the case.
03:40:06 9:30 from what I believe to be the case. I think we resume 9:30, but I think Mr. Walton resumes tomorrow afternoon. Yes, I'm I'm aware of that. I was about to explain Helen Steel is going to resume her evidence tomorrow and if I've
03:40:19 resume her evidence tomorrow and if I've understood the position correctly. She's going to resume at 9:30. Your conclusion will take place when she's finished. Okay, sir. Thank you. I'm sorry. I cannot tell you when that will be.
03:40:29 will be. That's fine. That's okay. Thank you.