Third day of evidence from HN10 "Bob Robinson" Robert Lambert, the SDS detective inspector who managed undercover officers Mark Jenner (HN15) and Jim Boiling (HN14). Counsel presses him at length on whether he knew about, and helped conceal, Jenner's cohabiting sexual relationship with "Allison" behind a fabricated cover story, before turning to Boiling's multiple deceitful undercover relationships, his infiltration of Reclaim the Streets, and the SDS's handling of Operation Gant. Lambert repeatedly denies detailed knowledge but makes a series of late concessions, ultimately admitting that a "colossal breach" of SDS rules went unreported for years.
00:36:36 Good morning everybody. Uh this is the third day of Mr. Lambert's evidence. Uh as usual it will be transmitted over the live link but after a 15inut 15 minute delay. Those with mobile
00:36:50 15 minute delay. Those with mobile devices may use them to transmit what they hear in the hearing room, but again only after 15 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're describing. They may not be used for recording or
00:37:02 may not be used for recording or photography. Mr. Bar,
00:37:05 Mr. Bar, thank you, sir. Mr. Lambert, we're now moving to the question of Detective Constable Jenner's long-term sexual relationship with the
00:37:18 long-term sexual relationship with the woman we are calling Allison. The evidence we have received is that Detective Constable Jenner formed a sexual relationship with
00:37:30 formed a sexual relationship with Allison very early on in his deployment. And there came a time in February 1996 when he moved into her flat with her.
00:37:43 when he moved into her flat with her. We further heard evidence uh that before he did so he spoke to three of his undercover colleagues. One of those three he says was HN1.
00:37:58 One of those three he says was HN1. Uh the other two are wholly anonymous officers who we are not going to refer to even by nominal in this open hearing.
00:38:10 to even by nominal in this open hearing. Mr. Jenna's evidence is that at least one of those officers came to speak to you
00:38:18 you about the proposal that he should cohabit
00:38:25 cohabit with activists.
00:38:29 Do you recall without me identifying anyone other than HN1 anyone coming to speak to you because
00:38:41 because Detective Constable Jenner had said to them he was contemplating moving in? No.
00:38:53 Might it have happened? I think um my well no it might not have happened um in those terms.
00:39:08 What is your rec first recollection of knowing that detective constable Jenner was going to cohabit with Allison?
00:39:21 cohabit with Allison? I don't think I ever had any knowledge of him uh cohabiting um with Allison.
00:39:32 um with Allison. Could we have up please 749 473?
00:39:45 This is tab B209 sir.
00:39:53 Could we have page 12 please?
00:40:02 This is part of document documents relating to DC Jenner. The start of that file there was a document which has uh Allison's address and we see it again on
00:40:15 Allison's address and we see it again on this page. At this page is a floor plan with Allison's address saying it was a ground floor rear flat and from the existence
00:40:30 floor rear flat and from the existence of both a mobile and pager number. Uh this is can be dated to sometime after
00:40:41 this is can be dated to sometime after Jenna has moved into Allison's flat. Do you recall this document? I don't recall it, but I have been shown it um in in the course of preparations
00:40:56 it um in in the course of preparations for this inquiry. And did the SDS at this time keep details on file of the living arrangements of its undercover police officers?
00:41:05 officers? Um, not that I not that I recall. I would
00:41:11 would I'm not sure you know what what purpose this had. I'm not sure what um
00:41:22 not sure what um what date attaches to it. Um, one I can I have speculated I think on possible
00:41:34 possible uses for it, but um I'll I'll wait to be guided by you. Am I understanding your evidence correctly that holding a floor pal plan
00:41:47 correctly that holding a floor pal plan on file was not standard practice?
00:41:52 Well, not not to the best of my recollection.
00:41:59 The inquiry has received evidence to the effect
00:42:05 effect uh that this floor plan is a fiction. Uh
00:42:10 Uh that it is a fiction.
00:42:12 fiction. Fiction. Uh, it is labeled as if this was a property of multiple occupation with three rooms, a bathroom, and a
00:42:23 with three rooms, a bathroom, and a communal kitchen. Inquiry has received evidence that in fact room one was the living room of Allison's two-bedroom flat. Room two was
00:42:37 Allison's two-bedroom flat. Room two was the main bedroom. There was a bathroom, a kitchen, and a small second bedroom labeled room three here.
00:42:49 here. Thank you. Yeah. Well, do you know who drew this plan? Um, no, I don't.
00:43:02 Um, no, I don't. Detective Constable Jenner's evidence was that it was almost certainly him. Do you have any reason to doubt that? No.
00:43:16 You did know, didn't you, where Detective Constable Jenner was living because the address is on SDS documents. Oh, yes. I I knew um I knew about
00:43:31 Oh, yes. I I knew um I knew about a a move um to this address and I think whether I certainly I've seen reporting
00:43:42 whether I certainly I've seen reporting on it from the time which I I can uh remember.
00:43:48 remember. Um
00:43:53 Mr. Jenner's evidence to this inquiry is that you knew that he was living with Allison and was in a sexual relationship with
00:44:05 and was in a sexual relationship with her and that you knew that this document was a fiction. Well, all all
00:44:16 Well, all all did you Let me ask you a question at a time.
00:44:19 time. Yeah.
00:44:20 Yeah. Is it right in fact as Detective Constable Jenner has told us that you did know from an early stage
00:44:32 us that you did know from an early stage that he was living with Allison? No.
00:44:38 No. In a sexual relationship? No. And that this document was deliberately drafted so as to not leave a written
00:44:51 so as to not leave a written trail
00:44:53 trail admitting that he was in a sexual relationship living in a two-bedroom flat with Allison. No.
00:45:05 No. Did you ask DC Jenner who he was living with? Um, my recollection is that I knew he
00:45:16 Um, my recollection is that I knew he was moving in that he was moving into a some multiple occupancy um flat share or a house
00:45:28 occupancy um flat share or a house share.
00:45:30 share. um
00:45:32 um that the that the landlord um I think that the landlord or the you know the owner um was one of his um
00:45:46 um was one of his um one of his associates and yes I think I knew it was a uh a woman um
00:45:58 um but I was under the impression that there were other um other occupants. I'm sure that I I think I at some point I think I write
00:46:12 I think I at some point I think I write about that um in notes that I've been shown.
00:46:18 shown. Did you My question was did you ask him who he was living with? Well, there you know I certainly he provided
00:46:29 you know I certainly he provided information. Did you ask him who he was living with? I can't recall now. Wouldn't it be an important fact for you as his manager to know?
00:46:42 as his manager to know? Well, of course.
00:46:48 I would like to be clear. Are you saying that you would have asked him? Um
00:47:00 Um well I can't recall that but um whether he you know he may have obviously he would he would have volunteered information um and I would I would have
00:47:13 information um and I would I would have received it whether it resulted whether it came from a question I don't know told you what Mr. the gist of Mr.
00:47:24 told you what Mr. the gist of Mr. Jenner's evidence to this inquiry. I would like to know whether your recollection is he lied to you about who he was living with or not.
00:47:36 or not. Um
00:47:40 well in ter? No, I don't. Um
00:47:45 Um I don't see [snorts]
00:47:49 [snorts] I don't well I don't know uh is it li whether
00:47:55 whether I can't really comment on that. Um certainly
00:48:01 certainly I was not told either directly by him or indirectly um that he was involved in a uh sexual relationship
00:48:14 uh sexual relationship um
00:48:16 um with um
00:48:19 with um with a a fellow occupant. Did you know that he was living with Allison in a two-bedroom flat?
00:48:32 Allison in a two-bedroom flat? I I knew that Well, yes. I think I knew that um they were in in the same um accommodation. It's not quite my question. Did you know
00:48:45 It's not quite my question. Did you know he was living with Allison in a two-bedroom flat? Well, I can't recall today. Um,
00:48:58 no. Um,
00:49:02 I I can't recall the the layout of the flat. Um
00:49:10 and all I can see here is um
00:49:15 um obviously you know um a different a different layout communal kitchen that I mean that was certainly the impression that I had. So your evidence is that by
00:49:29 that I had. So your evidence is that by drawing this diagram, Jenner has actively deceived you. Um
00:49:41 well, [clears throat] I can't say that specifically about this diagram. I don't know when it was written down. I don't know um at what point and for what
00:49:53 know um at what point and for what purpose it was um produced. You see, Mr. Jenner's evidence is that he only trusted certain people with the actuality.
00:50:04 actuality. The three undercover officers he spoke to and you
00:50:13 he would have every reason to trust you, wouldn't you? Wouldn't he? Because of your undercover experience. Um,
00:50:23 Um, no. I don't accept that.
00:50:28 And you were the man, the go-to man on the unit to deal with difficult issues, weren't you? Um,
00:50:39 Um, well, I accept um I accept that generally. You have been very careful in your evidence so far to stop short of accusing Mr. Jenner of lying. It's the
00:50:53 accusing Mr. Jenner of lying. It's the reality that is because you did know full well that he was living with Allison, cohabiting in a two-bedroom flat.
00:51:04 flat. No.
00:51:06 No. In a sexual relationship? No, that's not quite right.
00:51:14 Can we take that document down now, please?
00:51:19 please? Can we go to 749325?
00:51:29 Uh, this is a document from sometime later. It's dated the 31st of July 1997. It's about um, Detective Constable
00:51:41 It's about um, Detective Constable Jenner with his code name at the top of the page. The background, you may recall, is that he had been approached
00:51:54 recall, is that he had been approached by an activist we are calling Jamie. We've added Jaime to the cipher list if you need to refresh your memory as to who Jaime really was.
00:52:05 who Jaime really was. uh with a view to joining a small cell to plan
00:52:12 to plan serious direct action
00:52:19 and there had been a meeting of the cells members but no concrete plan had emerged. Do you recall getting to that stage of affairs?
00:52:31 stage of affairs? Only by being [clears throat] um well only from reading this I don't have an actual memory of it. The position is
00:52:43 The position is that yet again an officer in the SDS appears to have got themselves into a position where they may be invited to
00:52:55 position where they may be invited to participate in a significant criminal conspiracy. Yes. and your strategy would be the same as it was with HN26 and with HN1.
00:53:09 as it was with HN26 and with HN1. Namely, you were pleased about that, but you needed to be careful how you proceeded in order to be able to gain relevant intelligence.
00:53:21 relevant intelligence. Yes.
00:53:23 Yes. Uh, and that you knew that one of the things that might happen if Detective Constable Jenner became
00:53:34 if Detective Constable Jenner became involved in a conspiracy is that you may have to call in other police assets such as surveillance teams.
00:53:45 teams. Um, yes.
00:53:47 Um, yes. In much the same way as occurred when you were deployed and there was surveillance on Clark and Shepherd. Yes.
00:53:58 And this presents a problem, doesn't it? Yes.
00:54:04 Yes. And in the case of Detective Constable Jenner, a particular problem is that he is cohabiting in a two-bedroom flat with
00:54:19 is cohabiting in a two-bedroom flat with Allison.
00:54:21 Allison. Um well that's not that wouldn't have been the a problem that I was um factoring in
00:54:32 factoring in um at at this time. Just the two of them in this two-bedroom flat.
00:54:39 flat. That was not my that was not my understanding at all. And you and Detective Constable Jenner spoke about
00:54:51 Detective Constable Jenner spoke about how he should proceed given Jaime's approach,
00:54:56 approach, including
00:54:57 including the challenges that arose as a result of his living arrangement and sexual relationship. No.
00:55:08 No. [snorts] give you a moment to look at at the document if you want to see it all. If you tell me you've read this and are familiar with it, we can go straight to a paragraph by paragraph analysis.
00:55:20 a paragraph by paragraph analysis. Um, yes, do that. Yeah, if we have paragraph two, please.
00:55:40 So that is just outlining essentially the classic approach the SDS would take in this sort of situation, isn't it? Well,
00:55:50 Well, in general, in general terms, um disruption covers
00:55:58 covers many options, I'm sure. Yeah, it's saying for example, disruption. Another another option would be to try and secure a conviction as had happened
00:56:10 and secure a conviction as had happened in the past. But again, but just the the the idea of disruption itself um it's not just I think obvious not just one tactic.
00:56:20 tactic. Understood. Can we look at uh paragraphs 3 to five please? Immediately after discussing the conspiracy
00:56:31 conspiracy we move uh to accommodation. I'll give you a moment to refresh your memory. Oh, sorry. Where do you want me to three? Just to look at all all three of
00:56:42 three? Just to look at all all three of these paragraphs, please. [clears throat]
00:57:36 Yes, thank you. Right, let's start with paragraph three.
00:57:44 This describes a change in living arrangements and it says in a nutshell, he now shares the premises, a large house originally
00:57:56 the premises, a large house originally split into several bedsits with friends. What was the basis for saying that? Well, that would have been that was clearly my understanding at that time.
00:58:09 clearly my understanding at that time. Well, was it because you had a floor plan showing a single rear of house flat? Well, I'm not I mean, I'm not sure that
00:58:20 Well, I'm not I mean, I'm not sure that I necessarily had that floor plan um prior to this. I I And the truth was Jenna was living with
00:58:31 And the truth was Jenna was living with Allison in a two-bedroom flat. Well, I understand that now. But what I understood at the time, I mean, the only
00:58:42 understood at the time, I mean, the only thing I can be pretty clear about is what my understanding was at the the date that I wrote this note. Where did you get your understanding
00:58:53 Where did you get your understanding from?
00:58:54 from? I would have obviously got it from um from the officer. So, if the truth is that Jenner is living in a two-bedroom flat with
00:59:07 living in a two-bedroom flat with Allison,
00:59:09 Allison, are you saying that he lied to you um
00:59:15 um and told you he was living in a house of multiple occupation? Um yes. Yes. Um I'm I'm not saying anything beyond
00:59:27 I'm I'm not saying anything beyond really what's in here. this paragraph three. a large house originally split into several beds sits with friends including most notably
00:59:39 including most notably um
00:59:41 um and then the three and and I again I just call into question the quite where that floor plan when and where
00:59:52 when and where we pinned it down to 1996 from the fact he has both a mobile phone and a pager I
00:59:59 pager I say again
01:00:01 say again My understanding of the evidence was we pinned it down to 1996 from the fact he had both a pager and a mobile telephone. Well, okay. But purpose I mean
01:00:15 um no, I'll leave it. I don't know. I just you know I'm I'm just unsure uh about the t the play uh the time and the purpose
01:00:27 the purpose for that note.
01:00:30 Understood. Understood. He says
01:00:36 you knew the true position yet you are writing down that he is living with specific
01:00:44 specific anarchist activists and there are three names which we are keeping private. Where did you get those names from? Oh, I could only really have have got
01:00:57 Oh, I could only really have have got them from um um from the officer uh Mark Mark Jenner. Well, he wasn't living with those three people. So, are you asserting now that
01:01:09 people. So, are you asserting now that he lied to you? Well, I don't want to make that assertion uh because I you know I can't recall but that see that
01:01:20 recall but that see that I uh sitting here this morning I can't think of any any other explanation. Um, oh,
01:01:32 oh, all the details originally supplied by the operative remain accurate, including details of the landlord. Um,
01:01:43 Um, the landlord was Allison that who was sh.
01:01:47 sh. I'm not sure that I ever whether I ever knew um well, yeah, sure. I knew that the
01:01:58 um well, yeah, sure. I knew that the landlord referred to and Allison as I know now. Um I I recall that I understood her that she was had some
01:02:11 I understood her that she was had some connection to you know was an activist then.
01:02:16 then. Um
01:02:18 Um it says again anarchist activist which seems to be harking back to the documents that we saw from the beginning of the deployment which wrongly characterize the nature of the pe of the
01:02:32 characterize the nature of the pe of the majority of the people that DC Jenner actually interacted with. Yes, I
01:02:40 Yes, I that seems to have been a mistake of yours. Are you again perpetuating records, asserting connections with anarchism when in fact
01:02:54 connections with anarchism when in fact DC Jenner is working mainly with people who are not? Um, I would have been able to answer that clearly at the time. I'm sure I
01:03:07 that clearly at the time. I'm sure I would have understood it to be um accurate or you know reasonably accurate. I can't help today by the summer of 1997 when this document is
01:03:21 summer of 1997 when this document is generated approximately 2 years into Jenna's deployment. You would have seen a lot of his reporting and you would have spoken to him a great deal about his deployment, wouldn't you?
01:03:32 his deployment, wouldn't you? Yes. you would have known full well that he predominantly was not mixing with activists with anarchist activists.
01:03:42 Um I don't know and it doesn't matter in this document because it's a fiction because it
01:03:53 because it this whole section is a fiction. No. Well, no. I I don't accept that.
01:04:03 All the details originally supplied by the operative remain accurate,
01:04:10 accurate, including details of the landlord and rent. Well, the landlord and rent most certainly had not changed. The other details, namely, it was a flat
01:04:21 The other details, namely, it was a flat had changed because you're writing here, it's a large house. Again, that discrepancy didn't matter to you because this was all just a fiction.
01:04:32 you because this was all just a fiction. No, I don't accept that.
01:04:37 Happy to receive a combined amount of rent from a group of friends. You are portraying DC Jenner
01:04:49 DC Jenner and three activists living together in a large house paying combined rent to the landlord.
01:05:01 combined rent to the landlord. Yes.
01:05:05 A landlord that you knew was living in the premises as well.
01:05:13 Yes, if further people had moved in and the rent was being divided, a combined amount of rent, there would have been a
01:05:26 amount of rent, there would have been a change to how much rent Mr. Jenner was paying, wouldn't there? Uh, yes.
01:05:36 And that would have been recorded in the financial records, wouldn't it? Um quite quite um probably almost certainly. Yes.
01:05:51 Touchy subject still enjoys the space and privacy of his own room in the house, but is able to share the communal facilities, eating, drinking, TV, etc. with a group of likeminded friends.
01:06:07 That analysis simply doesn't fit with the geography of a two-bedroom rear of house flat, does it?
01:06:19 rear of house flat, does it? No, it doesn't.
01:06:27 I come back to did you get this information specifically from Detective Constable Jenner or is he right in his evidence to
01:06:39 Jenner or is he right in his evidence to the inquiry that this was inaccurate and it was a fiction that you contrived so that you did not have to record the
01:06:52 so that you did not have to record the truth.
01:06:54 truth. Well, no, I don't accept that.
01:07:00 And then if we move to paragraph 4 and
01:07:07 and essentially it is recording uh that the arrangement, the accommodation arrangement is working very well for Jenna, very good for his
01:07:19 very well for Jenna, very good for his credibility. That's one point that arises from that paragraph, isn't it? Pardon? Sorry. It's good for his credibility. Yes. Yes.
01:07:29 Yes. Yes. With Jamie. Yes.
01:07:33 Yes. And it's also good for him personally in how he is arranging his life. Yes.
01:07:43 And it's right, isn't it, that Detective Constable Jenner did find living with Allison good for his cover and very convenient for him.
01:07:56 convenient for him. Well, I can't comment on that really. and having set up a fictional cover to his living arrangement, you are here moving closer
01:08:10 arrangement, you are here moving closer to the truth and recording the true benefits of living with Allison, aren't you?
01:08:17 you? But that was not my understanding at the time.
01:08:22 time. And if we look at paragraph five, that is more of the same, isn't it?
01:08:34 These living the living arrangement is working out very well. Yes.
01:08:41 Yes. And then if we look at the very bottom of paragraph five, he said he could not contemplate going back to living on his own in a bedsit. Returning to the context of this
01:08:53 Returning to the context of this document,
01:08:55 document, namely the conspiracy he'd been invited to join and the likely police action that might need to follow.
01:09:06 that might need to follow. Uh
01:09:08 Uh Jenner is making absolutely clear that he doesn't want to move out, isn't he? Yes.
01:09:16 Yes. And that leaves a difficulty, doesn't it?
01:09:21 it? Not well at the time. I'm um No, I I don't know. I don't think um
01:09:31 um can we go to Well, before I go that why why would
01:09:37 why would that be recorded if it was not an important fact that he wasn't going to move out?
01:09:47 Uh I I I've slightly sorry I've slightly lost the thread. Um why would you record
01:09:58 why would you record uh the sentence at the end of that paragraph? He said he could not contemplate going back to living on his own in a bedsit. Um
01:10:10 Um well, this is just recording, isn't it? reporting
01:10:14 reporting um
01:10:16 um you know that I'm make I'm obviously addressing the issue of um
01:10:25 um um
01:10:27 um you know the the change and um the issue of um undercover officers on their own in a
01:10:38 um undercover officers on their own in a bedsit and as and reporting ing his at the time what I understood to be his view on it. So it was would be of
01:10:49 view on it. So it was would be of interest um to the my you know my boss the DCI and and the others reading it
01:11:01 and and the others reading it was it really a reflection of the fact that this arrangement was working out so well that it wouldn't be a good idea to change it but you are going to have to
01:11:12 change it but you are going to have to tell people outside the SDS that uh a fiction, namely that Jenner was living in a house of multiple
01:11:24 was living in a house of multiple occupation with other people so as not to have to disclose the truth which he was living in a sexual relationship with
01:11:35 was living in a sexual relationship with Allison.
01:11:36 Allison. No, that no, [clears throat] I'm sure that wasn't the case. Could we go over the page to seven and eight? Sorry, if you wanted to add more, please do. No. to paragraphs seven and eight, please.
01:11:51 The intervening paragraph was about Detective Constable Jenner's home life, but returning to seven and 8,
01:12:19 Yes. Thank you. First of all, you're explaining to him that it was not he was not the first field officer to arrive at the
01:12:30 field officer to arrive at the conclusion uh that living uh with an activist uh was a good idea. without naming. I don't want you to
01:12:42 without naming. I don't want you to mention even the nominal of any closed officer.
01:12:46 officer. Uh if it's an open officer, you can do so.
01:12:51 so. Who were you referring to?
01:12:55 Um
01:12:59 I'm [clears throat] not the first to arrive at this conclusion. Um, it's only about the issue of living alone, isn't it, that
01:13:10 issue of living alone, isn't it, that I'm addressing here in paragraph 7? Can you tell us the examples that you were thinking of?
01:13:19 Um
01:13:28 well the the the first one um to come to mind um is John Dyn who had lived with Helen Steel.
01:13:40 who had lived with Helen Steel. Um well to to my knowledge lived in um sort of multiple occupancy
01:13:52 I think in the squatting community. Um
01:13:57 Um I'm sure
01:14:01 I'm trying I think there might be HN87
01:14:06 HN87 87 um Oops.
01:14:38 We may have to come back to that. Yeah, sorry. It's not on your side.
01:14:46 Goes on. The SDS had past experience of operatives successfully living with wearies exactly as he's doing now. Nonetheless, there are there were obvious ways in which shared accommodation did place an added burden
01:14:57 accommodation did place an added burden of responsibility and pressure on a field officer. We discussed this at some length. Can I take that at fa face value that you discussed Jenner's living
01:15:08 that you discussed Jenner's living arrangements with him and their consequences with him at some length? Yes.
01:15:14 Yes. And I want to be clear on your evidence. Are you saying that this conversation was an exercise in practiced deceit by
01:15:25 was an exercise in practiced deceit by DC Jenner in that he conducted it without telling you the truth was he was living in a sexual relationship with Allison?
01:15:35 Allison? Or was it a discussion in which as a trusted manager he disclosed the full truth to you?
01:15:47 truth to you? of course. Well, I can't remember today. I think at the very least it would be something
01:15:57 something um
01:15:59 um something neither of the two uh options that you put to me. I think at the very least it would have been a discussion about
01:16:13 a discussion about what it was. Um at least um
01:16:18 um the
01:16:21 the you know the difference between living on your own in a bedsit and living um with others.
01:16:33 the burden of responsibility and pressures discussed at some length. You haven't answered my question. Did
01:16:45 Did Jenna deceive you by concealing the truth from you or was he frank with you about his living arrangements?
01:16:58 about his living arrangements? Well, obviously not um [clears throat] no, not as in not as frank as I uh took it to be at the time. I can see
01:17:09 uh took it to be at the time. I can see that now. Um but the um just um
01:17:19 the added burden um burden I mean I think you know the there could be quite a lengthy discussion
01:17:30 could be quite a lengthy discussion about
01:17:32 about you know the the psychological burden involved here irrespective of whether Uh um I'm not
01:17:43 irrespective of whether Uh um I'm not being told, not being given the full picture in regard to the actual uh accommodation arrangements and of course the sexual relationship with
01:17:54 course the sexual relationship with Allison. But nevertheless, there'd still be um
01:18:00 be um a mut there would have been my appreciation of the uh the added burden that he was under. There would there would have been
01:18:12 under. There would there would have been no
01:18:13 no no doubt about that. Going back to the paragraph, we didn't need didn't bring it up. Going back to the paragraph about his supposed new
01:18:26 the paragraph about his supposed new housemates, if there had been a significant change in Jenna's living arrangement, you would have expected him to tell you about it when
01:18:38 expected him to tell you about it when it occurred, wouldn't you? Yes.
01:18:43 Yes. And it would have been recorded when it occurred, wouldn't it? Yes.
01:18:50 Yes. Why is it then that it doesn't get a mention until a document uh which starts off with the real subject matter uh which is uh Jaime's conspiracy.
01:19:05 Um well that's yeah I can't I can't quite account well I can't account for that today. Um
01:19:16 today. Um but clearly my understanding at the time I wrote this that it was um it was you know a recent a recent
01:19:28 um it was you know a recent a recent move. Um
01:19:30 move. Um when did the change in living arrangements occur? I can't recall.
01:19:42 Do you recall any sense of surprise that Mr. Jenner's living arrangements had changed so dramatically?
01:19:54 I'm sorry. Do you remember any sense of surprise learning that Jenner's living arrangements had changed so dramatically? No, I can't recall. Can you recall admonishing him for not
01:20:07 Can you recall admonishing him for not telling you earlier? Well, that you know I I can't presuppose that um
01:20:15 that um um that I hadn't known.
01:20:25 Goes on to say he felt it was wrong that field officers should be given guidance which tended to preclude this option, something he had found to be a significant step forward.
01:20:39 What is referred to? What is meant by this option of
01:20:48 of living in shared accommodation?
01:20:53 But it had been done before by the SDS, hadn't it, as is recorded. Um yes, but only I think it was not the um
01:21:04 yes, but only I think it was not the um it certainly wasn't standard practice or or even common practice. It was but it was a you know it was obviously an important um discussion point at the
01:21:17 important um discussion point at the time.
01:21:20 time. What is different here even for the SDS is an officer embarking upon a long-term
01:21:32 is an officer embarking upon a long-term sexual relationship cohabiting.
01:21:37 That's what's new, isn't it? You are being told
01:21:43 that he wants to maintain this long-term cohabitation. No, that's not No, that certainly is not the case.
01:21:52 the case. I thanked him for his frankness. What had he been frank about? Um,
01:21:59 Um, well, the matters that I report on,
01:22:06 well, on the face of the document, he'd been anything but frank because there had been a dramatic change in his living arrangements, which you'd only just learned about.
01:22:18 learned about. Um I can't I can't accept that that well I don't know today it doesn't follow that that was the case was his frankness is that you'd had a
01:22:32 was his frankness is that you'd had a clear discussion about how you were going to take forward work relating to Jamie and the conspiracy um having cleared the air about his
01:22:44 um having cleared the air about his living arrangements and decided that he was going to continue living with Allison and you were going to record that he was living in a house of multiple occupation.
01:22:56 multiple occupation. No, I don't believe that was the case. Agreed to discuss the matter with HN58.
01:23:09 Did you discuss the matter with HN58? Well, I'm sure that I did. Um, I can't recall today unless I'm
01:23:20 recall today unless I'm shown um
01:23:23 shown um reporting. What did you tell HN58 about DC Jenner's living arrangements?
01:23:35 about DC Jenner's living arrangements? Um what's um what's in this what's in this report um together with any other
01:23:48 any other um matters that he perhaps was aware of any other documentation at at the time
01:23:57 the time it has been known since 1996 since February 1996 that Jenna is living at Allison's
01:24:08 that Jenna is living at Allison's property.
01:24:10 property. Why is there a need to discuss with HN58 anything at all about Jenna's living arrangements in the
01:24:21 Jenna's living arrangements in the summer of 1997? Um,
01:24:26 Um, well, it's difficult to um difficult to answer that now. I can't recall
01:24:34 recall um uncertain about the um the dates involved, but um I take your point.
01:24:46 involved, but um I take your point. It's because of the infiltration of Jaime's conspiracy and the risk that the truth about Jenna's living arrangement
01:24:58 truth about Jenna's living arrangement will become known to a wider range of people. Isn't it? No, I really don't think that is the case.
01:25:07 case. Were you full and frank with HN58 about Jenna's living arrangements? What was the question, please? Were you full and frank with HN58
01:25:19 Were you full and frank with HN58 about Jenna's living arrangements? I'm sure that I would have been. Did you tell HN58 that Jenna was living with Allison in a
01:25:32 that Jenna was living with Allison in a sexual relationship? No.
01:25:37 No. Can we take this document down now, please?
01:25:42 Then we have 527833
01:25:51 page two.
01:25:54 And if we could have that expanded please.
01:25:58 please. This is an authority for travel. It's dated it's dated the 6th of January. Um it's ret appears to be retrospective. It's about a trip to Cumbria and North
01:26:11 It's about a trip to Cumbria and North Umbrea between the 29th of December 1996 and the 4th of January 97 for meetings and bears your name and
01:26:25 and bears your name and the by then detective well Edmonson's name I think on behalf of is he an acting detective superintendent by that stage
01:26:38 In fact, we know that this was a trip that DC Jenner took with Allison, a holiday in the course of their sexual
01:26:50 holiday in the course of their sexual relationship to the Lake District over the New Year period.
01:26:58 Can you help us with how this trip came to be authorized?
01:27:09 No, I can't uh recall it. No,
01:27:17 you have made the application for an authority. So presumably you have spoken to Jenner about it. Yes,
01:27:31 there are basically a couple of possibilities. One is by this stage you know full well that
01:27:39 that Jenna is in a sexual relationship with Allison and Jenna has told you the truth and you are seeking uh to
01:27:50 and you are seeking uh to get an authorization for Jenna retrospectively for something that should never have been authorized. or the other is that he tells you he's
01:28:02 or the other is that he tells you he's told you some lies as a result of which you have applied for authorization of his trip. Can you help us? Which one of those was it?
01:28:14 those was it? Well, it would appear to be the latter. You say appear to be. Was it? Well, today I Yes. Um, all I can do is read what's in front of me. Um,
01:28:29 read what's in front of me. Um, I have no recollection of it, but that would seem to be um as well as you say only two
01:28:41 um as well as you say only two possible um contexts. be curious for the Colin Roach Center based in North London to be holding
01:28:53 based in North London to be holding meetings in Cumbria and North Umbrea over a period of several days covering New Year, wouldn't it? Um it might on the face of it, it might
01:29:08 Um it might on the face of it, it might Yes, it would appear so. But I think um um you know this is a sort of brief retrospective application. There was
01:29:19 retrospective application. There was always management I think always had the understanding that um um group activity um there was always a a combination of
01:29:32 um there was always a a combination of um well I think you know work in the sense that we're activists um working working around the clock really on their
01:29:45 working around the clock really on their campaigns and combining it with um with social um activity. So um that's that's all that would that's what it conveys to me.
01:29:58 what it conveys to me. Did you subject this application to any critical scrutiny and ask Jenner about it?
01:30:06 it? I'm begg.
01:30:07 I'm begg. Did you subject this application to any critical scrutiny and ask Jenna about it?
01:30:15 it? Well, I'm [clears throat] I would expect so I can't recall today, but I would have been familiar familiar with
01:30:27 familiar familiar with um by then with him as other officers um traveling with their close within their close circle.
01:30:42 their close within their close circle. um and combining
01:30:46 you know work in the sense of campaign discussions and social activity um it wouldn't have been anything
01:30:58 been anything more than that. So maybe on reflection um whether whether or not um
01:31:11 whether or not um okay well what what I'm the point is that I genuinely did not know at that point uh at any point there that um he was in
01:31:23 uh at any point there that um he was in a sexual relationship with Allison. But um
01:31:29 But um he may well have been with a group. I don't I don't know. Would it be fair to say that if you did not know, you did not care. You were
01:31:40 not know, you did not care. You were just waving through these authorizations and not asking questions. Um again, well, you know, there have to be a case-bycase judgment. Um and I I
01:31:53 be a case-bycase judgment. Um and I I what can I say today? I can't recall but I would have been you know very familiar with
01:32:00 with um
01:32:02 um that scenario. I'm just sort trying to stick to your question about you know what seems unlikely Cumbria North Umbrea
01:32:13 what seems unlikely Cumbria North Umbrea in you know over the New Year period in I think at the time it wouldn't have been unusual it would have been understood that there'd be
01:32:25 understood that there'd be friendship issues um social
01:32:30 um social you know social issues that were involved involved in the trip. But this was at the very least this was part of an officer maintaining cover with his
01:32:43 an officer maintaining cover with his target group key people. Um I think I can stop you there. Can we take that document down now and have 37924 please?
01:33:06 This is a page from Allison's diary. Uh it is graphically headed holiday from hell. It is about a holiday she went on
01:33:21 hell. It is about a holiday she went on with Detective Constable Jenner between the 3 and the 18th of August 1997.
01:33:32 If we could go to page two please.
01:33:44 You will see there various references to Mark um being very unwell with pneumonia and being admitted to and then
01:33:55 and being admitted to and then discharged from holiday from hospital.
01:34:03 Did DC Jenner tell you he was going to Israel?
01:34:09 Israel? No.
01:34:10 No. Did he tell you he was going with Allison?
01:34:13 Allison? No.
01:34:17 Is it right that you found out that he had gone to Israel? Is it right that you found subsequently found out that he had gone to Israel?
01:34:28 had gone to Israel? Um, not not that I can recall. And is it right that you found out that he had been to Israel with Allison?
01:34:39 he had been to Israel with Allison? Not that I can recall.
01:34:44 Mr. Jenner's evidence to this inquiry was that when he returned home, he confided in a colleague what had happened. Uh, and that colleague told you
01:34:59 Uh, and that colleague told you and you pass back the message that Jenna could have told you the truth. Did that happen? I think perhaps I've read that um
01:35:11 I think perhaps I've read that um recently. No, I I I don't recall that at all.
01:35:15 all. Did anything like that happen? Not to the best of my recollection. Might it have happened? I don't think so.
01:35:27 I don't think so. Can we take that down now, please? Can we have a 527802?
01:35:38 And if we could have the text expanded.
01:35:44 This is another request for authority. In this case, it's made by HN58 for DC Jenner and you to travel to
01:35:55 DC Jenner and you to travel to Amsterdam. Um, it's for the purposes of a CRC trip for an anti-fascist benefit is the
01:36:09 trip for an anti-fascist benefit is the the justification that's given.
01:36:14 If we go over the page,
01:36:20 see the details. Thank you. I'll give you a moment to look at that.
01:36:49 Yes. Thank you. Did you go to Amsterdam? Yes.
01:36:53 Yes. Between Friday the 24th and Sunday the 26th of October. I think Well, I have a recollection of um traveling to Amsterdam. I'm sure this
01:37:05 um traveling to Amsterdam. I'm sure this is the the context. The curiosity with this document, Mr. Lambert,
01:37:14 Lambert, is the evidence of Mark Metaf and that of Allison is they do not recall any trip to Amsterdam with the Colin Roach Center.
01:37:30 Amsterdam with the Colin Roach Center. However, Allison's evidence to us is that she did go to Amsterdam with Mr. Jenner and two friends a month
01:37:42 with Mr. Jenner and two friends a month later on the 28th of November 1997 for a short break.
01:37:53 Mr. Jenna's evidence to the inquiry was there was was to the same effect. There was no official CRC trip to Amsterdam as
01:38:06 was no official CRC trip to Amsterdam as claimed on the authorization uh form. He says he told you that he was going to Amsterdam on a mini break with
01:38:18 going to Amsterdam on a mini break with Allison and two others. Did DC Jenner tell you that he was going to Amsterdam on a mini break with
01:38:30 to Amsterdam on a mini break with Allison and two others? No.
01:38:35 No. Mr. Jenner's evidence was that you quote put it up so he could get a ride on the back of it. In other words, he is
01:38:47 on the back of it. In other words, he is accusing you of fraudulently arranging uh a jolly for yourself to Amsterdam. Is that true?
01:38:58 Is that true? No.
01:39:00 No. Can you help us with what happened when you went to Amsterdam? Starting with was Mr. Jenner in Amsterdam at the same time
01:39:11 Mr. Jenner in Amsterdam at the same time as you?
01:39:14 Um yes. Um
01:39:20 um my recollection is um of
01:39:28 um of um being
01:39:31 um being um
01:39:33 um being in a hotel room in Amsterdam. um available for
01:39:42 for any emergency uh contact in in the usual usual way. Um
01:39:51 Um I don't recall I I don't recall there being any contact um from Mark Jenner. Um
01:40:05 the Well, I'll leave it there. Um did you travel separately to Jenna or not?
01:40:13 not? Oh, of course. Um he would always travel um
01:40:19 um separately for sure. If there was no contact with him whilst you were there, how do you know that he went?
01:40:30 Um
01:40:35 well um I can't recall today um the Yeah, I don't know um what happened.
01:40:46 the Yeah, I don't know um what happened. Um
01:40:46 Um would there have been paperwork for flights and so forth? Yes.
01:40:51 Yes. And who would have processed those? Would you have seen them?
01:40:57 Um not necessarily. I I can't recall today.
01:41:02 today. Did you discuss what had happened when you got back from Amsterdam with Detective Constable Jenner? I'm sure I would have done.
01:41:14 I'm sure I would have done. What did he tell you? I can't recall precisely. And I I think it was um
01:41:24 it was um the kind of event where they um combined group work and
01:41:35 group work and social activity. Do you have an actual recollection of him telling you that? No.
01:41:54 Can we take that document down now, please?
01:42:00 Is it right that you had contact with S at SDS social events during the course of DC Jenner's deployment?
01:42:13 of DC Jenner's deployment? Um,
01:42:16 Um, not that I can recall.
01:42:21 She would presumably have been invited to
01:42:25 to things like the SDS Christmas party. Yes. Yes.
01:42:31 Yes. Yes. Did you conceal from S
01:42:36 from S her husband sexual relationship with Allison?
01:42:42 Not knowingly.
01:42:48 Can we have up please MPS309531?
01:42:52 It's tap B247 please.
01:43:00 We're moving forward in time here. Um to post the deployment. This is a file note which you were shown for the purposes of
01:43:11 which you were shown for the purposes of making your witness statement. I'll give you a moment to refresh your memory.
01:43:42 Yes, thank you. Um,
01:43:47 Um, it would be perfectly expected, wouldn't it, for Terry to call you because you had been
01:43:58 you because you had been Jenna's detective inspector?
01:44:03 Um, not really. Uh, having what what year is this?
01:44:11 this? It's
01:44:11 It's diff. It's not it's not dated with a year, but it is likely to have been following the end of uh the deployment and so probably two 2000.
01:44:24 and so probably two 2000. Yeah. Yeah. Well, um,
01:44:32 yeah, I don't I don't recall it, but I can understand it's possible that he was able
01:44:41 was able to contact me. Um, but it's seems unusual
01:44:47 unusual that he didn't contact the office.
01:44:53 [snorts] And was it unusual because it was Allison who was calling and that Terry wanted to tell you uh that Allison was
01:45:05 wanted to tell you uh that Allison was calling
01:45:07 calling as opposed to any subsequent manager in the SDS. [snorts]
01:45:16 [snorts] Well, um what was the question precisely? You said it was unusual. I said, "Was it unusual?" Because it was Allison who had called.
01:45:26 called. And because it was Allison who had called, Terry felt he better tell you. I don't know. I I don't think so. And then you passed it on to the office.
01:45:38 And then you passed it on to the office. Yes. Yes. Well, reading this, that's what it says. Yeah. Can we take that down now? Uh, please. going to move to
01:45:51 down now? Uh, please. going to move to Detective Constable Boiling's deployment. Detective [snorts] Constable Boiling described you as a fixer of problems within the SDS and that the dynamic
01:46:04 within the SDS and that the dynamic between you and DCI Edmonson was that you were much more handson. He says he remembers having regular meetings with you discussing potential
01:46:16 meetings with you discussing potential scenarios where future areas of interest might be where there was a customer requirement for intelligence whereas DCI Edmonson he describes as more of an
01:46:29 Edmonson he describes as more of an overall administrator. Is that a fair characterization of how you worked and the division of responsibility between you and DCI
01:46:41 responsibility between you and DCI Edmonson?
01:46:43 Edmonson? I think largely um that that was my role. Um but yeah, I I worked very closely with DCI
01:46:55 yeah, I I worked very closely with DCI Edmonson and at times um because of the very small office team um obviously at times he
01:47:06 office team um obviously at times he would sort of take on my role and and vice versa. I'm going to move now to operation Gant.
01:47:20 I'm going to move now to operation Gant. Maybe relevant background to remind you that on the 9th of February 1996, the provisional IRA bombed South K in the
01:47:31 provisional IRA bombed South K in the Docklands. Do you remember that? Yes.
01:47:33 Yes. Outrage.
01:47:36 Outrage. Uh, could we have up please 245949?
01:47:50 This is an internal file note bearing your initials. the 16th of February. In other words, a week after the
01:48:02 other words, a week after the IRA
01:48:04 IRA attack.
01:48:06 attack. If we start with the second paragraph, please, so we can keep this in chronological order. In respect of the intelligence case put together expertly
01:48:17 intelligence case put together expertly by DC, then we've redacted the constable's name. HN14 was able to discuss the matter fully with him at a meeting on Monday the 12th of February.
01:48:29 meeting on Monday the 12th of February. This was very productive and reassuring for the officer. We understand that is to say that Detective Constable Boiling has spoken to another detective
01:48:41 has spoken to another detective constable in SO13 about operation Gant. Are we understanding that correctly? I [clears throat] I don't know. It seems odd, doesn't it? Um,
01:48:54 HN 14 is um
01:48:57 14 is um boiling.
01:48:58 boiling. Boiling. Yeah. Was able to discuss.
01:49:05 If you wish to answer after you've seen more of the document, that's fine. Okay. Yeah. Let's look at the first paragraph. This appears to be you saying that you
01:49:17 This appears to be you saying that you discussed the current position yesterday i.e. that would have been on the 15th of February with boiling and outline the current position vizo 13 are not
01:49:31 current position vizo 13 are not actively investigating the case at present and in the wake of Pyra's relaunch campaign in London have no plans to do so unless further devices
01:49:43 plans to do so unless further devices are sent to targets then it goes on um I'll let you read that for yourself.
01:49:53 [snorts] It's clear from what it goes on to say that you had been in contact with SO3 and you didn't want them at that stage
01:50:04 and you didn't want them at that stage conducting any searches or arrests. Yes. But um and essentially as it's written here, because of the IRA
01:50:15 as it's written here, because of the IRA bombing and higher priorities, the SO13 file was going to gather dust. Um
01:50:25 Um yes, it whether the contact with SO3 was direct or through um a a special branch intermediary. Um
01:50:37 um a a special branch intermediary. Um but got it. Got the picture. Yeah. Understood. If and when it is reopened, I will ensure the same conditions apply. That means no searches or arrests.
01:50:49 That means no searches or arrests. Yes.
01:50:49 Yes. To protect your officer. Yes.
01:50:52 Yes. As the investigating officer, the illustrious and we've anonymized that officer said to me in the it's at the central office lift in answer to my unasked question. ALF? Who's ALF? I've
01:51:05 unasked question. ALF? Who's ALF? I've got bigger fish to fry now. I think probably. Yeah, Alf. You know who's ALF? All right. Thank you. So, he was making a a joke in bad taste and essentially
01:51:17 a a joke in bad taste and essentially communicating to you that the IRA work was of much higher priority. Yes.
01:51:24 Yes. Does that help you with whether or not the contact between you and SO3 was direct? Well, at that point, I suppose. Um, but yeah, sure.
01:51:36 Um, but yeah, sure. But the message is loud and clear. Um, Operation Gant is on hold. Yes.
01:51:43 Yes. Was the operation resumed to your knowledge? Um, I can't recall now. I obviously would have been aware at the time.
01:51:54 would have been aware at the time. Can we now take that document down now and have up 728967
01:52:02 your tab B145. Sir, this is the special demonstration squad annual report for 1995 to 1996. If we could go to page nine, please.
01:52:21 and animal rights and environmental extremism. Uh we can take it uh can we that as it being the 1995 1996 annual report that's
01:52:33 being the 1995 1996 annual report that's following the financial year 95 to96 isn't it?
01:52:37 isn't it? I think so. Yes. So it will have been written after February 1996. Uh yes.
01:52:47 Uh this is is signed by the DCI. Did you assist writing the section on animal rights?
01:52:58 animal rights? Um well I may have done I think generally
01:53:04 generally the DCI wrote it up. I if it um sometimes the you know the intelligence reporting sergeant would assist as well.
01:53:21 If you didn't write it, would you have read it?
01:53:25 read it? Uh yes, I would. Could we look at the third paragraph down on the page, please?
01:53:36 Give you a moment to read that, but it's the second half of the paragraph I'm most interested in.
01:53:59 Yes. Thank you. This document is going to be circulated up the chain of command, isn't it? Yes.
01:54:07 Yes. It's the SDS's opportunity to market itself to higher authority. Yes.
01:54:13 Yes. And we see that uh phrases such as unparalleled success appear in this uh paragraph. And that's not untypical of
01:54:24 paragraph. And that's not untypical of the language of annual reports, is it? In a separate case, SDS intelligence has produced a strong indication that a previously little known activist in East
01:54:36 previously little known activist in East London is responsible for a series of small IEDs. This
01:54:43 This lead is being investigated under the opaces of operation grant. This lead is being investigated. That wasn't true by the time this document was written, was
01:54:55 the time this document was written, was it?
01:54:57 it? um difficult to recall um but I take your point about the dates um
01:55:10 you know difficult today to be certain though I don't know what the explanation is an exaggeration an example of an exaggeration in an SDS annual report to
01:55:21 exaggeration in an SDS annual report to make the SDS's work sound more important than it actually was it's possible but you know we at the time
01:55:32 time it may you know it may have been accurate.
01:55:37 accurate. If we take that down now please can we go to it's a UCPI number 38277.
01:55:47 Do you recall Detective Constable Boiling being arrested at Good Easter or in the vicinity of Good Easter
01:56:01 in 1996?
01:56:16 I beg you pardon. I should have said Detective Constable Boiling being present at a a sabotage of the Good Easter hunt at which other people were arrested.
01:56:27 people were arrested. Yes. Yes.
01:56:31 Do you recall that happening? I don't recall, but I I I do recall that. Um
01:56:40 that. Um well, when I read this, it, you know, comes back to mind. Yeah. There's been a hunt
01:56:49 an an intention to sabotage a hunt at Good Easter on the 10th of February 1996. Before that could happen, a number of people have been arrested um in the presence of Detective
01:57:02 um in the presence of Detective Constable Boiling acting in his undercover identity. This document is a solicitor Michael Schwarz writing to Detective Constable
01:57:14 Schwarz writing to Detective Constable Boiling in his cover identity seeking his assistance as a witness uh in the defense of those criminal
01:57:25 in the defense of those criminal charges.
01:57:27 charges. Were you aware uh that
01:57:31 uh that this approach had been made of DC boiling?
01:57:37 boiling? I I could have been um at the time I I have no
01:57:42 have no clear recollection. I'm sure if I was there'd be some at the time there would have been you know reporting on it. I don't know if there will be. Is this something you
01:57:55 if there will be. Is this something you would have expected DC boiling to tell you?
01:57:59 you? Yes, for sure. If we could have up now 38278, please.
01:58:09 This is a telephone attendance note made by uh well someone at uh the firm of solicitors concerned. It says records that he'd called in and
01:58:22 It says records that he'd called in and will be delighted to act as a witness. Uh providing a mobile telephone number on which to call. Can you recall whether or not you authorized
01:58:34 authorized Boiling to volunteer to be a witness? I can't recall today. No. Can you recall whether anyone else authorized Boiling to be a witness?
01:58:45 authorized Boiling to be a witness? No.
01:58:47 No. Uh given SDS methodology, would you have expected to have authorized Boiling to be a witness if he had asked?
01:58:59 be a witness if he had asked? Um well, yes, I would have expected that um you know, we'd have we'd have wanted to know and then decide the way forward.
01:59:10 to know and then decide the way forward. Yeah,
01:59:15 that's not quite an answer to my question. Is it likely the answer would have been yes, maintain, keep your cover,
01:59:22 cover, say that you will cooperate. Yes.
01:59:26 Yes. Can we take that down now, please? UCPI number 38274.
01:59:36 This is an unsigned witness statement which the solicitors state that they took uh from DC boiling in his cover
01:59:49 uh from DC boiling in his cover identity. Were you aware that Mr. Sutton uh in that being his cover identity had cooperated to the extent of providing an
02:00:02 cooperated to the extent of providing an account to the solicitors? Um, [clears throat]
02:00:10 may I just can I read through it? Yes, please. [clears throat]
02:00:25 [snorts]
02:00:29 If you indicate when you're ready to go over to the page and you can see see the rest of it.
02:00:43 Yes, thank you. Can you recall whether you knew that Boiling had provided an account to the solicitors? I can't recall.
02:00:54 I can't recall. Can you recall whether Boiling said whether or not he'd provided an account to the solicitors? No.
02:01:06 Can you recall whether you gave Boiling any advice as to what he should say if he gave an account to the solicitors?
02:01:17 he gave an account to the solicitors? No.
02:01:18 No. What would your advice have been to Boiling um if he had sought it as to what he should say if providing an account to solicitors?
02:01:31 account to solicitors? Um
02:01:33 Um it's it's virtually impossible to say today. I'd have been clearer [clears throat] clear at the time. Um
02:01:44 so given I don't you know it would it would depend on um you know on on all a whole range of
02:01:56 you know on on all a whole range of considerations I'm sure at the time which I I find you know difficult to call to mind. Could you very briefly explain what you
02:02:07 Could you very briefly explain what you think the options would have been that you would have considered before advising?
02:02:15 Um well on the one hand the need to um maintain cover but in terms of
02:02:25 terms of um on the o opposite hand it or in relation to that um the option of um avoiding
02:02:37 um avoiding this course of action here um you know constructing um constructing a plausible
02:02:51 um constructing a plausible reason why he could not um attend court. Um you know some my question was focused on what he should say happened.
02:03:07 [clears throat] Well, I mean, um, it's obviously to be
02:03:13 to be accur accurate accurate,
02:03:17 accurate, um, in in
02:03:19 um, in in his account,
02:03:24 the whole truth or selective. I think um well a accurate um
02:03:36 well a accurate um for sure
02:03:39 for sure doesn't quite answer my question. The whole truth or selective?
02:03:48 I I don't quite understand the question or I can't quite apply it here, but yes, you know the whole truth, I'm sure, except for his real identity.
02:03:59 except for his real identity. I'm sorry. Yes. Well, of Yes. Sorry. Yeah.
02:04:04 Yeah. Do you know whether or not Boiling attended either the court or in the vicinity of the court on the day of the
02:04:15 vicinity of the court on the day of the trial?
02:04:17 trial? Um I don't recall. I'm sure I would have expected to have a clear um understanding
02:04:28 um understanding at the time. There were not just criminal proceedings, there were also civil proceedings arising from this incident
02:04:39 proceedings arising from this incident because ultimately claims were made against the commissioner. Were you aware of that?
02:04:47 Um, again, I I'm sure I would have been at the time. Uh, would it would it be right to think that the commissioner's lawyers, for reasons of operational security, would
02:04:59 reasons of operational security, would not have been told that an undercover police officer was present when the arrests took place? Um, I can't be certain.
02:05:10 Um, I can't be certain. Um,
02:05:12 Um, but pro, you know, I guess that's probable. I don't recall probable that they wouldn't have been told.
02:05:19 told. Yes.
02:05:20 Yes. So would that be a convenient moment to take the morning break? Yes. Before we do, I would like to deal briefly with a topic that has been
02:05:32 briefly with a topic that has been canvased this morning.
02:05:39 Jenna HN15 his living arrangements. Yes.
02:05:44 Yes. Um,
02:05:47 Um, it was not unprecedented but was unusual for an undercover officer to reside with an activist on a long-term basis.
02:05:58 an activist on a long-term basis. Yes.
02:06:01 Yes. You were in charge of the welfare and uh deployment arrangements for undercover officers.
02:06:10 officers. Yes.
02:06:17 There is a document which was shown to you describing the living arrangements o of Jenna in the in Allison's flat. Um we
02:06:29 of Jenna in the in Allison's flat. Um we don't know from the document precisely when that was
02:06:36 included in the SDS records but it's been recovered from the SDS records. So, uh, do you accept that it must have been there when you were in operational
02:06:48 there when you were in operational charge?
02:06:49 charge? Yes.
02:06:57 It follows, I think, that you must have known uh that uh he was sharing accommodation with an activist
02:07:11 um well with a group of activists. We'll come on to the group of activists later, but at the time of the uh plan
02:07:22 later, but at the time of the uh plan uh it it's a plan of a small uh one story
02:07:31 bit of accommodation if you like a flat is not
02:07:39 Yeah, I can't be certain, sir. I I did I don't think I had a clear picture that he was
02:07:50 picture that he was um living with a single activist um in
02:07:59 um in in a flat. I don't think I did. Now if I'd you know I obviously it seems that I should have seen that plan at the time
02:08:10 should have seen that plan at the time um and I should have uh studied it. I don't I can't I can't recall it but put one side for a moment the plan.
02:08:22 put one side for a moment the plan. Yeah.
02:08:22 Yeah. Um what I'm concerned about is your knowledge of and discussion with Jenna. uh about his living arrangements.
02:08:34 Jenna. uh about his living arrangements. Yes,
02:08:35 Yes, you you must uh surely have um asked him to tell you in sufficient detail so that you could understand what they were what they were.
02:08:46 they were. Indeed. Yes. And you know today my
02:08:53 my you know my genuine recollection um prior to the report where I talk about the change
02:09:05 about the change um
02:09:07 um you know my genuine recollection is of him um
02:09:12 him um having an occupancy that there was a a landlord. I think I knew it was a a female landlord. I think I understood it to be someone he knew. Um,
02:09:31 you know, I did not I didn't subject it obviously to the kind of scrutiny that obvious I should have done or how
02:09:43 obvious I should have done or how um a different DI might have done. I I that's my general that's my general recollection that um
02:09:55 recollection that um he was he had an activist landlord um yes in a [clears throat] small
02:10:05 you know small area um I did not picture at any point I did not picture him cohabiting
02:10:16 not picture him cohabiting with a woman. Um, and even, you know, certainly not, um,
02:10:25 um, a sexual relationship. By the time we get to the uh next and long document in which the cell is described
02:10:37 cell is described and uh his um living with in a larger building a large number of activists. Um that was at the time of the
02:10:49 Um that was at the time of the changeover between uh DCI Edmonson and DCI HN58,
02:10:56 DCI HN58, was it not? I don't recall. I'm I'm Yes. The date of changeover is the 1st of July and the document is July. Yes. Yes.
02:11:06 Yes. Yes. And you were going to tell HN58 about the arrangements described. Right. Yes. Yes. They were very different from those which had previously been described to
02:11:18 which had previously been described to you, were they not? Um, yes. Yes. Did you ask what had changed?
02:11:28 Well, yes. I mean, uh, yes, indeed. Um, the answer. Well, what I describe, um, uh,
02:11:39 uh, why did you not then put in the document that the arrangements had changed? Well, I think I do. Um, no, not from living in his own
02:11:50 Um, no, not from living in his own bedsit, but from living in a flat with an act, a female activist and living in a house with a larger number of
02:12:01 a house with a larger number of activists. That was a change, wasn't it? Yes.
02:12:08 Yes. Then why not describe the change in the document?
02:12:12 document? Um I can't I can't well I think I can explain it now in the sense that that was a document um for the purpose
02:12:24 um for the purpose um an operational purpose. I'm sure that the um the actual accommodation w would have been um reported
02:12:37 w would have been um reported separately.
02:12:43 Sorry, I don't understand that. What do you mean that um that it would have been um dealt with separately?
02:12:56 um dealt with separately? Um the whole the accommodation uh issue
02:13:04 uh issue by whom?
02:13:06 by whom? Um
02:13:09 it could have been me. It could have been one of the sergeants. I don't know.
02:13:24 I would like you, if you wouldn't mind, reflecting uh upon precisely what you did know or believe to be the case about Jenna's
02:13:36 believe to be the case about Jenna's living arrangements. I won't ask for an immediate answer, but it's a topic to which we may return when we reach the end of your evidence. But I
02:13:48 we reach the end of your evidence. But I would ask you to reflect on it, please. Thank you. And it's important that I have the truth.
02:13:56 Then we'll break for quarter of an hour.
02:34:16 Mr. B. Thank you, sir. Uh Mr. Lambert, we're going to move now to Mr. Boiling's reporting on uh reclaim the streets. Uh we have recovered a great deal of
02:34:28 Uh we have recovered a great deal of reporting uh on reclaim the streets by detective constable uh boiling for example about a protest on the M41
02:34:40 example about a protest on the M41 protest in Liverpool, an action that was interrupted on the Dartford Bridge, uh the March for Social Justice, uh
02:34:51 uh the March for Social Justice, uh demonstration in Bristol and so on. Can I take it that you were well aware of DC Boiling's infiltration of reclaim the streets?
02:35:02 streets? Yes.
02:35:02 Yes. And you [clears throat] were aware uh that he had reached the stage where he was a member of the core organizing group.
02:35:11 group. Yes.
02:35:12 Yes. And that resulted in a great deal of precise accurate intelligence about RTS's intentions. Yes.
02:35:25 Yes. I want to specifically pick up on the March for Social Justice uh which occurred on the 12th of April 1997
02:35:35 1997 shortly before the um general election in that year sometimes
02:35:43 sometimes also allied with the never mind the ballots protest. It's right, isn't it, uh, that DC Boiling reported on detailed plans to
02:35:56 DC Boiling reported on detailed plans to take over a building on Martian Street. Um,
02:36:02 Um, uh, a partly occupied government building. That's right. Yes, I recall that. Yeah. And the disclosed route of the march was going
02:36:13 disclosed route of the march was going to involve crossing Lambbeath Bridge, turning right with an ultimate destination of Trfalga Square, but RTS were planning
02:36:24 of Trfalga Square, but RTS were planning to break off, go up Horsery Road onto Marshham Street and occupy the building. Yes.
02:36:33 from his position within the core organizing group. Uh, Boiling produced a detailed running commentary on plans,
02:36:44 a detailed running commentary on plans, didn't he? Indeed. Yes. Can we look at some of that? First, MPS 40250.
02:36:53 This is a report of the 20th of March. If we could have page two, please.
02:37:05 And if we look at the source comment, [snorts]
02:37:19 that would be Detective Constable Boiling's comment, wouldn't it? Yes, it would be. So his advice, if I'm understanding it correctly, from within the core organizing group is to the
02:37:32 the core organizing group is to the effect of whatever you do, don't indulge in any last minute disruption or seizure of equipment because it will insense them and you
02:37:44 because it will insense them and you will have serious public order problems on your hands. Yes.
02:37:49 Yes. If we could take that down now please and have MPS 40270. This is a report on the 3 of April. So 9
02:38:01 This is a report on the 3 of April. So 9 days before the event. This has got very detailed reporting on planning including a plan to go their
02:38:14 planning including a plan to go their fallback tactics to go to Trafalga Square.
02:38:18 Square. Could we look at page two?
02:38:22 The penultimate comment.
02:38:30 No fallback plans. RTS is committed to taking the DOE building. If the police line at Lambeath Bridge cannot be breached, RTS activists will lead participants to the building down to tight side streets. If [snorts] the
02:38:42 tight side streets. If [snorts] the building cannot be taken, the spare sound system will be started up in Trafalga Square and the crowd will rampage through Westminster to get there. If this too is thwarted, a riot
02:38:54 there. If this too is thwarted, a riot can be virtually guaranteed. What RTS will not be able to tolerate is a day on which nothing happens. If police prevent them from carrying out their plans, RTS will want
02:39:06 carrying out their plans, RTS will want to show their followers that it costs the police dearly. So despite saying there are no fallback plans, there plainly was one which was Trafalga Square.
02:39:16 Square. Yes.
02:39:16 Yes. But again, even more emphatically, the advice from the man on the ground with his
02:39:23 his in the center of things is whatever you do, don't disrupt your plans because you will get a worse result. Yes.
02:39:32 Yes. Can we have page three, please, in the source comment?
02:39:41 [clears throat and snorts]
02:39:51 If anything, that's even more emphatic to the same effect, isn't it? Yes. Yeah. Take that down, please. Mps 40279.
02:40:06 And uh this is the ninth uh information obtained on the 9th. It's about um some of the
02:40:17 of the uh leaflets that are going to be uh produced and it's also about a plan to break the police line at Horse Ferry Road. If we go to page two, please.
02:40:33 Road. If we go to page two, please. And if we go to the handler's comment,
02:40:41 the handler this time as opposed to the source, would that be one of the detective sergeants? I think so. Yes. But very much the message, the SDS message, very much the same, consistent
02:40:55 message, very much the same, consistent over these various reports. Yes, do not thwart their plans. Presumably, you would have been aware of all of this uh intelligence coming in.
02:41:08 all of this uh intelligence coming in. I would. Yeah. And this is going to be quite a big demonstration, isn't it? It is.
02:41:14 It is. And this is quite a troubling plan. Yes.
02:41:18 Yes. One of the bigger deals for the SDS. Yes,
02:41:26 we have heard evidence that on the day uh
02:41:35 uh the police a decision had been taken on to allow the march to go to Trafalga Square on the day but to prevent the occupation of Marshham Street in
02:41:49 occupation of Marshham Street in particular. That led to very heavy policing at Horsfrey Road and in the result the demonstrators were not able to get through and were not able to
02:42:01 to get through and were not able to occupy the building. Is it your recollection that the building was not occupied?
02:42:05 occupied? Yes.
02:42:07 Yes. We heard some evidence about how that decision came to be made. What is your recollection of who made the decision that contrary to
02:42:22 the decision that contrary to Boiling's advice and the handlers's opinion,
02:42:28 opinion, the
02:42:29 the police should stop the occupation of the building?
02:42:38 Yeah, I I don't recall the um the detail. Um obviously
02:42:47 obviously the
02:42:49 the um Jim Boiling's intelligence is being fed through to C Squad in in the usual way. Um and then
02:43:00 C Squad in in the usual way. Um and then C Squad are compiling um a threat assessment that goes to the public order branch.
02:43:11 that goes to the public order branch. Um
02:43:14 Um I don't recall the what the factors were that the um public order chief
02:43:25 um public order chief was having to um deal with.
02:43:32 Are you able to help us with whether or not the home secretary, who at the time was Michael Howard, was aware of
02:43:43 was Michael Howard, was aware of plans for the demonstration and consulted about how to deal with it? I think I probably was aware of of high level interest. Well, I would have been
02:43:56 level interest. Well, I would have been aware at the time and I think more recently I'm may have been reminded of that from reading. Detective Constable Boiling's evidence was that he was given
02:44:08 Boiling's evidence was that he was given to understand that it was the home secretary who had said he did not want the building on Marsham Street to be occupied.
02:44:19 occupied. Do you know anything? I mean I have a a vague recollection of of that. If Yeah. If not the the identification of the home
02:44:32 the the identification of the home secretary but you know the home office. Can you help us at all in fleshing out any of the detail of that?
02:44:43 any of the detail of that? Um I can't. No. And presumably for a decision to have been taken that flatly contradicted the SDS's
02:44:54 contradicted the SDS's advice would have been memorable. Uh well up to a point, but not um not necessarily that surprising given that
02:45:09 necessarily that surprising given that you know the the police operation has got to take in a much wider range of considerations. Um
02:45:20 considerations. Um and um
02:45:23 and um but but yes obviously disappoint you know disappointment And in the result there was some disorder at the end of
02:45:34 disorder at the end of the uh event in Trafalga Square, wasn't there?
02:45:39 there? Yes.
02:45:42 Yes. Can we take this document down now please? And can we have up 247160 tab B205? Sir, this is [snorts] the 199697
02:45:53 this is [snorts] the 199697 annual report. bears DCI Edmonson's name.
02:45:59 name. Can I ask again by this stage is there any difference in the extent and nature of your contribution to the no
02:46:07 no annual reporting? Just as said yeah could we have page five please
02:46:18 paragraph 4.2 two. I'm going to invite you to read the first five lines.
02:46:40 Now looking at what it says about the event we have just been exploring the phrase accurate SDS intelligence of
02:46:51 the phrase accurate SDS intelligence of RTS plans to disrupt the event and to occupy a government building is all factually correct isn't it? Yes.
02:47:00 Yes. Um but it goes on gainfully employed on the day enabling serious disorder and embarrassment to be avoided. Well, that's not quite true, is it? It was the
02:47:12 that's not quite true, is it? It was the advice was ignored and there was some disorder. Yes. But yes, indeed. It would be fair to say though that the
02:47:24 It would be fair to say though that the embarrassment of a government building being occupied was avoided. Yes. Yes. And the intelligence was used as far as you understand it right up to
02:47:35 as far as you understand it right up to Michael Howard to enable an informed decision to be made. Yes.
02:47:41 Yes. So would you accept a degree of embellishment uh in this uh report albeit to a matter on which it
02:47:53 report albeit to a matter on which it can fairly be said the SDS did provide intelligence of significant policing value?
02:47:59 value? Yes.
02:48:01 Yes. Could
02:48:03 Could we have up please 722649?
02:48:11 If we go over one page, this is a statement under caution given by detective constable boiling in
02:48:23 given by detective constable boiling in 2012 as we understand it for the purposes of disciplinary proceedings. If we could have page three, please
02:48:42 paragraph three.
02:48:48 I'll invite you to read it. But I'm particularly interested in the second half of this paragraph and to the reference to a letter of appreciation
02:49:00 reference to a letter of appreciation from
02:49:02 from subsequent home secretary Jack Straw. Four.
02:49:16 [snorts] [clears throat]
02:49:20 Can you help us with whether or not the SDS received a letter of appreciation from Jack Straw? whether it was sent
02:49:31 from Jack Straw? whether it was sent directly or reached the SDS indirectly through the police chain of command. Um
02:49:40 Um I I can't recall it specifically. Um I would expect I would expect that that is correct. When you say you would expect it's
02:49:53 When you say you would expect it's correct.
02:49:55 correct. If you can't recall, can you help us why you think it would be correct? Well, number one would be that um that
02:50:07 Well, number one would be that um that Jim Boiling I think would be bound bound to remember it and I don't think he would um he would um
02:50:19 he would um invent it. Um, do you have any independent recollection to assist the inquiry to determine whether or not this is true?
02:50:30 whether or not this is true? I don't. No. And would it follow that you're not able to help the inquiry as to what any such letter of appreciation might have been
02:50:41 letter of appreciation might have been about?
02:50:42 about? No.
02:50:44 No. [snorts]
02:50:45 [snorts] Could we take that down, please? [clears throat]
02:50:51 Detective Constable Boiling conducted three deceitful sexual relationships uh whilst he was undercover.
02:51:02 undercover. Uh the first such relationship was with a woman we are calling Monica. [snorts]
02:51:09 [snorts] We understand that relationship to have taken place between April 1996 and about November 1997
02:51:22 and that it started on the night of the March for Social Justice.
02:51:34 the March for Social Justice. Did Detective Constable Boiling say anything to you about his sexual relationship with Monica? No.
02:51:45 No. Did he allude to it in any way? Um,
02:51:51 Um, not No, not that I can recall. Did you become aware that he was having a sexual relationship with Monica in any
02:52:05 a sexual relationship with Monica in any other way? No.
02:52:08 No. For example, through other sources of reporting on RTS? No.
02:52:15 No. Did you take any steps to ask Detective Constable Boiling whether or not uh he was involved in a
02:52:28 whether or not uh he was involved in a sexual relationship undercover? No.
02:52:35 Detective Constable Boiling's second deceitful sexual relationship in his undercover identity was with a woman we are calling Ruth.
02:52:46 are calling Ruth. It took place, as far as we understand it, between November 1997 to July or August 1999.
02:52:57 Did [snorts] Detective Constable Boiling say anything to you about that sexual relationship? No.
02:53:05 No. Or allude to it? No. [snorts] Did you become aware in any other way of that relationship? No.
02:53:14 No. Are you sure? Um, yes, I'm reasonably sure. Did you take any steps at that stage in Detective Constable Boiling's deployment
02:53:26 Detective Constable Boiling's deployment to ascertain whether or not he was indulging in sexual activity undercover? Not that I can recall.
02:53:36 [snorts] Both Detective Constable Francis and HN1 have told the inquiry that they knew that Detective Constable Boiling was
02:53:47 that Detective Constable Boiling was having sex in his undercover identity and that he had told them that managers were aware.
02:54:00 Are you sure you were not aware? Yes, I am. Might you have been? I don't think so.
02:54:13 The third sexual deception practiced by Detective Constable Boiling was on a woman we are calling Rosa.
02:54:26 woman we are calling Rosa. It started after you had left the SDS.
02:54:33 the SDS. We believe around about 23rd of November 1999.
02:54:40 There came a time after Detective Constable Boiling had exfiltrated when he met
02:54:52 when he met Rosa
02:54:54 Rosa in Kingston upon Tames on the 5th of November 2001.
02:55:05 And we know that he reestablished his sexual relationship with Rosa at that stage and it's well known they went on
02:55:17 stage and it's well known they went on to get married and they had children.
02:55:23 Detective Constable Boiling's evidence to this inquiry is that he consulted you about resuming his sexual relationship
02:55:37 about resuming his sexual relationship with Rosa. [snorts]
02:55:41 [snorts] Did you meet Detective Constable Boiling and speak on that subject? Um, [clears throat] no I don't recall that.
02:55:56 Presumably it would have been a very memorable event. Yes.
02:56:05 My question is wide enough to cover meeting to discuss Rosa
02:56:13 in any circumstances around the time either before or after
02:56:23 they got back together in 2001. I know you went to see them in 2007 and I will be coming to that. But at any other time did you meet Boiling
02:56:35 did you meet Boiling in circumstances where you knew that he was resuming or thinking about resuming or had resumed a sexual relationship with Rosa.
02:56:49 Certainly when the um when that sexual relationship resumed I I became aware I it's I'm it's
02:57:02 resumed I I became aware I it's I'm it's difficult to um be certain about the the actual timing. The only
02:57:14 the only clarity I have is of speaking to him when we were working together.
02:57:26 together. I mean not not 2007 I think much earlier I think we it would have been around 2002. So quite soon after
02:57:40 2002. So quite soon after the this encounter in um in Kingston um
02:57:48 um and then
02:57:51 and then yeah he he described um the situation very fully and um and clearly.
02:58:01 clearly. Can you recall when in 2002?
02:58:06 Um if no I can't recall but it it would I mean the the date there would be a a date
02:58:17 the the date there would be a a date when he joined the same unit as me. Um I think that was you know around
02:58:28 you know around 2002. Um but I can't soon after he joined the unit. probably. I Yeah. Is this a Muslim contact unit?
02:58:40 Is this a Muslim contact unit? Yes.
02:58:42 Yes. Where were you when he told you? Um pro um I think in a just in an office um office context.
02:58:54 um office context. Were you alone or was anybody else present?
02:58:57 present? Oh well, I can't remember, but I imagine it would have I think almost certainly it would have been the two of us. And when [snorts] you say he described the state of the situation very fully to
02:59:10 the state of the situation very fully to you, could you explain what he said to you?
02:59:15 you? Um
02:59:19 [clears throat]
02:59:21 well, it was um you know, it was that he he recounted what had happened, how she had um
02:59:34 what had happened, how she had um tracked him down. Um and um
02:59:40 Um and um they
02:59:43 they it seemed
02:59:46 it seemed it it seemed a bit um coincidental, but but I suppose it it you know it was one of those things he the way he described it I
02:59:58 things he the way he described it I think was that she she met him in a library in perhaps it was in Kingston I think. Um
03:00:07 think. Um and um and that all you know almost immediately they they um got back together. Um now
03:00:19 they they um got back together. Um now I'm actually
03:00:23 thinking maybe well it's difficult with memory. I mean at some po I don't know whether we have
03:00:34 at some po I don't know whether we have a date for the the time when I I um I I visit him and Rosa. I don't
03:00:45 I um I I visit him and Rosa. I don't you visit him and Rosa with Sergeant Webb in 2007. Um not web but another um war is it? Forgive me.
03:00:56 is it? Forgive me. Yeah. Yeah. Is that as late as 2007? 17th of January 2007. And you're quite right, it's Sergeant War.
03:01:07 Um so it's difficult to be sure um
03:01:15 um you know how much I learned but certainly within the um Muslim contact um
03:01:25 um period that's when I learned from him directly about his relationship with Rosa which very very quickly
03:01:38 very quickly um resulted in them being getting married
03:01:42 married and having children. Who initiated the conversation?
03:01:50 I'm sure that um I don't recall, but I'm sure that Jim Boiling did. Why did he initiate it?
03:02:01 Why did he initiate it? Um
03:02:07 the only clarity I have is at the point where the point where um DS DS war and myself went to
03:02:20 where um DS DS war and myself went to see them was when they had um they had received um some particular
03:02:31 medical information that pro prompted the welfare visit. That's a 2007 visit. What I'm driving out is why did Detective Constable Boiling
03:02:44 Detective Constable Boiling choose to tell you about what he was doing with Rosa in 2002?
03:02:53 2002? Um, probably. Well, again, I don't want to speculate. I I can't be certain but he certainly felt he was able to
03:03:05 but he certainly felt he was able to share that information with you. Yes.
03:03:08 Yes. Was he seeking any advice from you?
03:03:15 Um,
03:03:18 no, not beyond the sort of practicalities, I suppose, because um at whatever
03:03:29 because um at whatever at whatever point when he he was living in a
03:03:33 in a particular lo location that um um meant
03:03:39 um meant had an impact on um his
03:03:45 um his his um
03:03:48 his um um
03:03:49 um if you like working routine I don't want you to mention any other place geographic place specifically but
03:04:01 place geographic place specifically but our understanding is at that time he is living in Kingston upon temps or somewhere very much in that vicinity. Yeah. Well, then is that right?
03:04:13 is that right? um
03:04:15 um initially, but I think at the point of this
03:04:20 this when I when he first told me I I'm sure that he was living outside um outside London and
03:04:32 and you know probably wanted me to be aware of that
03:04:38 of that that he and Rosa were cohabiting. Um they were, you know, committed to each other that
03:04:51 you know, committed to each other that um that she knew who he um really was. Um and um
03:05:03 Um and um that
03:05:05 that you know and that they were embarking on um
03:05:10 um uh married life. I think married living together
03:05:16 together they had children by that point or any had they had any children at that point? This is I'm sorry to be very vague about it. I obviously come
03:05:26 come the visit with DS war of course then I actually saw from yeah I I will come to that in due course but when he when he tells you in this conversation which you think is about
03:05:38 conversation which you think is about 200
03:05:39 200 this is where I'm I apologize but I've got you know I've got no I can't be certain about about dates um going back to what he told you from the
03:05:51 going back to what he told you from the account you've given It was implicit that he had been in a sexual relationship with Rosa during his deployment. You use the phrase back together.
03:06:02 together. Oh, so what was your last comment? On the basis of your evidence. Yes.
03:06:09 Yes. It's implicit from what he told you that he was telling you he had been in a relationship during his deployment. I think yes. Yes. I Oh, yes. Definitely.
03:06:21 I think yes. Yes. I Oh, yes. Definitely. Yes.
03:06:25 How how well let me put it perfectly neutally. Was this the first occasion on which you learned that Boiling had had
03:06:37 which you learned that Boiling had had any sexual relationship undercover? Yes.
03:06:46 And since Detective Constable Boiling's account is that he had he sought you out for advice around the time that he got
03:06:58 for advice around the time that he got back together with Rosa. Does it follow from your evidence that you do not think he is correct about that?
03:07:09 that? Um
03:07:15 yeah well yes I think there's [snorts] my recollection obviously it appears to be come later a bit later
03:07:29 it appears to be come later a bit later um
03:07:32 when we're you know when we're working together that's what I can recall
03:07:39 When Boiling makes these disclosures to you, what do you think? What do I think? Yeah.
03:07:50 Yeah. Well, I obviously very, you know, very um surprised. Um but um
03:08:00 but um I think
03:08:02 I think I think I can recall that he wanted to
03:08:09 wanted to reassure me that um that um Rosa was um
03:08:19 um completely um was that she was aware um of his background. that seemed quite
03:08:32 um of his background. that seemed quite um
03:08:33 um quite you know an incredible thing. Um
03:08:39 Um but um
03:08:42 but um yeah, I would I would have um
03:08:47 I think it was um you know this this um they were they were together and he was telling me
03:09:01 and he was telling me what did you say to him? [laughter] Um
03:09:06 Um well I I think I was in listening mode. I
03:09:12 I you know
03:09:14 you know I can't recall uh what I actually said.
03:09:19 Um if you can't recall what you actually said, can you help us with at least the gist or the thrust of what you actually said to him? No, I I don't think I can.
03:09:32 No, I I don't think I can. Did you tell him to stop? Um,
03:09:37 Um, I think it it seemed to me that um um there that didn't seem to be an option.
03:09:47 option. Did you tell him that what he had done was ill advised? Um
03:09:55 Um I
03:09:57 I I again I don't want to speculate. I probably
03:10:01 probably but I would have I think felt
03:10:06 felt that um it was a you know a done deal.
03:10:14 Did you discuss the operational security of the SDS with him in the light of his conduct?
03:10:20 conduct? Um
03:10:22 Um I think um I well I can't recall today. Is it likely that you did?
03:10:34 I'm sure it's likely. Yes. This is the most colossal breach of the golden rule, isn't it? Uh, yes.
03:10:47 Uh, yes. Were you not little more than surprised, but also deeply concerned? Um, yeah, pro. Yes, probably.
03:11:01 Mr. Boiling, would I be right was in your chain of command at this stage? Yes.
03:11:08 Yes. Did you take any formal action? Um,
03:11:18 I can't recall today.
03:11:23 It's quite a significant decision you had to make, isn't it? to do about the fact that one of your subordinates has just admitted to
03:11:34 subordinates has just admitted to sexually deceiving a woman undercover and to have got back together with her, disclosed to her that he was an undercover police officer and um
03:11:49 undercover police officer and um making a new life with her. Can you really not remember what you did whether or not you decided to take this up through any formal channel
03:12:00 up through any formal channel not to take this whether you decided whether or not to take it up through a formal channel to a formal through a formal channel.
03:12:11 through a formal channel. Um
03:12:14 Um the only I think the only action that I would have thought about was um discussing it with SDS managers.
03:12:26 discussing it with SDS managers. Can I take it from that answer that you did not initiate any formal action against Detective Constable Boiling? Correct.
03:12:35 Correct. Did you tell anyone in your chain of command in the Muslim contact unit? Um,
03:12:46 I almost certainly did, but at what point I don't know. And
03:12:52 And who did you tell in the Muslim contact unit?
03:12:57 unit? Um, I can't recall today. Can by
03:13:03 Can by reference to post Who would you have told?
03:13:10 Um,
03:13:18 I can't recall.
03:13:24 Would there have been any operational security reason not to tell anybody within the Muslim contact unit? Well, it wouldn't have been um
03:13:36 wouldn't have been um wouldn't have been on I don't think that would have been a consideration. Can you give me a yes or no answer to this one? Were there any former SDS
03:13:47 this one? Were there any former SDS officers or managers higher than you in the Muslim contact unit at that time? Um, no. Not uh I don't think so.
03:14:01 Did you contact anybody in the SDS or formally of the SDS following Boiling's disclosures to you?
03:14:13 following Boiling's disclosures to you? Um
03:14:18 I honest well I don't I can't recall but um
03:14:23 um at some point um at some point I I did but I um
03:14:33 um being very careful about anonymity please and if you need to just write it down who did you contact
03:14:43 Um,
03:14:51 I don't have a I don't have a clear recollection, I'm afraid. Um,
03:15:00 did boiling tell you whether or not the unit already knew? Um
03:15:14 yes, I think well I can't recall what he told me. I I think I certainly
03:15:23 um became aware of some SDS management knowledge involvement. Um
03:15:34 knowledge involvement. Um when did you become so aware? I can't I can't pin it down, I'm afraid. What management involvement did you become aware of?
03:15:45 become aware of? Well, I suppose the um
03:15:49 um the issue of um Rosa
03:15:56 um Rosa um
03:15:58 um trying to, you know, tracking him down. Um
03:16:04 Um um
03:16:07 um when you say the issue of Rosa tracking him down, what do you mean by that, please?
03:16:14 please? I don't I can't specify it. Uh now I think
03:16:21 think um
03:16:23 um I think there was some awareness of um of Rose's efforts to to find him.
03:16:36 of Rose's efforts to to find him. Were you aware at the time she was trying to locate Boiling that he was doing so?
03:16:45 doing so? [snorts]
03:16:46 [snorts] Were you aware at the time that Rosa was trying to locate Boiling that she was doing so?
03:16:56 doing so? I can't recall.
03:17:01 Presumably they came they will have come a time at which you will have discussed this remarkable occurrence relationship and its resumption with
03:17:14 relationship and its resumption with fellow SDS managers past or present. Yes, but the specifically the the management uh team
03:17:31 Did they know that Rosa was trying to find boiling?
03:17:42 Um
03:17:46 I can't recall. Did they know that Rosa was a woman who Boiling had sexually deceived undercover?
03:17:59 undercover? Um,
03:18:02 I can't recall.
03:18:08 When you say you can't recall, is that because it's a sort of detail that wouldn't have been particularly important one way or the other given the way the SDS operated?
03:18:21 way the SDS operated? Forgive me. I said, "Is the reason you can't recall because it wouldn't have mattered very much one way or the other given the way the SDS operated?"
03:18:33 given the way the SDS operated?" No, I think it's just the um
03:18:39 um no just difficult um recalling that's all. We started on Monday with the Chitty affair, which as we established
03:18:52 which as we established ended up with Mike Blake being able to continue his liaison with Lizzy because it seemed like the least risky thing to do. We're
03:19:06 like the least risky thing to do. We're in the same position with Boiling, are we? that it was decided to let the relationship continue because it was the least risky thing to do.
03:19:19 least risky thing to do. No, I don't. I think it's um I think it's quite different. Well, in what ways is the risk picture different other than Rosa already knows?
03:19:33 different other than Rosa already knows? You presumably don't want to do anything to upset the boat and cause either Boiling or Rosa to go public.
03:19:44 Boiling or Rosa to go public. Yes, I I Yes, I accept that. So, I suppose
03:19:49 suppose that would have been um going through my mind. I'm sure. Um I do think that um
03:20:00 um
03:20:04 I do think that I was presented though with a wholly different kind of scenario. This this was a
03:20:16 kind of scenario. This this was a um a very committed relationship. Um it it was it had
03:20:27 it it was it had you know it that's what it was when I was first told whenever whenever precisely
03:20:34 precisely that was um it was um
03:20:42 it was the only um possible
03:20:49 uh security a problem
03:20:54 a problem for the SDS would would arise if um
03:21:03 if the relationship um broke down. Um but uh I guess when
03:21:15 but uh I guess when um DS war and I when we paid a visit uh to
03:21:24 to Jim Boiling and Rosa
03:21:28 and Rosa whichever year that was um
03:21:36 you know we were we were both able to make that judgment. We obviously we were we were exposing ourselves
03:21:48 we were exposing ourselves um
03:21:50 um to Rosa.
03:21:54 to Rosa. um not without not without risk and only the most
03:21:59 the most severe or serious kind of um issue which we were there which we were there for to offer. Can I just can I just stop stop you
03:22:11 Can I just can I just stop stop you there? You say exposing yourselves to Rosa.
03:22:16 Rosa. Can I take it from that answer that Rosa knew that you were a former SDS undercover police officer?
03:22:27 undercover police officer? Um,
03:22:30 well, not necessarily. Uh, but certainly Well, what do you mean by expose yourself then? Well, it there was there was that clear potential. She knew who,
03:22:43 potential. She knew who, you know, Jim Boiling had disclosed. He told he said he said to me um that he had
03:22:55 um that he had um told Rosa um who he was and and um did he say to you he told Rosa who you were?
03:23:07 you he told Rosa who you were? Um
03:23:09 Um no. No, I he can I come back to you said expo you and Sergeant War were exposing yourselves by going to see her. Can I take it from that that one way or another she knew
03:23:22 that that one way or another she knew that you were ex SDS as was Sergeant Wart. there was an obvious risk uh that she
03:23:34 there was an obvious risk uh that she might
03:23:36 might uh might know that or that she might subsequently find out. Um it doesn't really matter. The the the the risk
03:23:47 really matter. The the the the risk issue is is would have been obviously apparent to both DS and and myself. Um the only um
03:24:04 the only um successful outcome in terms of
03:24:11 of um you know security of of the STS um
03:24:19 STS um was um
03:24:22 was um in
03:24:24 in supporting Jim Boiling. and Rosa at at this particular time of um great
03:24:35 at this particular time of um great need. Let's move on then to 2007. Can we have up 748895 please?
03:24:56 And if we have page two, please. This is a welfare report about Detective Constable Boiling. It's dated the 3rd of March,
03:25:07 March, 2007.
03:25:09 2007. It's described as an update of the welfare situation and [snorts] it starts um saying on the 17th of January 2007 in company with
03:25:21 17th of January 2007 in company with detective inspector Lambert I visited Jim Boiling and family at their home address.
03:25:29 address. Can we start off first of all with the backdrop? If this is an update, can you help us in broad terms with the background
03:25:41 background that led up to this visit in January 2007?
03:25:47 2007? Very very shortly before the 17th of January,
03:25:53 January, um I received a phone call from uh Jim Boing. um
03:26:02 um explaining uh a serious uh problem and um
03:26:16 you know first and foremost he he was you know he was sharing it with me but it was obviously I mean for the benefit of this inquiry um the fact that he was
03:26:30 of this inquiry um the fact that he was ringing me up. Um, one evening I I was at home. Um, you know, it it demonstrates that
03:26:42 that I knew that he felt able uh to ring me and talk about um this issue. So by that stage
03:26:55 um this issue. So by that stage I know [snorts] that he Rosa um
03:27:01 um he and Rosa and and their family this is that they're married they're together they've obviously been living together
03:27:12 they've obviously been living together for quite a long time. Um given the location, um Jim was able to work effectively and as you'd expect
03:27:25 work effectively and as you'd expect extremely
03:27:26 extremely well in his current role with me. and the fact just you know by virtue of
03:27:37 the fact just you know by virtue of the location he we were able to adjust his
03:27:43 his working hours. Um yeah I think we've perhaps wandered a little way from the question. I just wanted I wanted to know about the runup. So it it arrive this meeting arises because he's raised a welfare concern
03:27:55 because he's raised a welfare concern with you.
03:27:56 with you. Yes. shortly before and you go with Sergeant War. Did Sergeant War already know that Boiling
03:28:08 Sergeant War already know that Boiling was living with um a woman he had had a sexual relationship with whilst undercover? Um
03:28:19 Um well
03:28:21 well um I don't probably not. I don't know that he had much or any prior knowledge. I can't recall. But certainly
03:28:32 I can't recall. But certainly um we went he he and I went to that meeting with that full full knowledge. Yeah.
03:28:42 Yeah. In the intervening five years or thereabouts, between 2002, as best you can recall it, when he first disclosed to you, and 2007 when you go to see him
03:28:55 to you, and 2007 when you go to see him for the welfare report, uh would it be right to say you'd continued to work together?
03:29:01 together? Yes.
03:29:03 Yes. And seen a lot of one another? Yes.
03:29:08 Yes. and talked about one another's personal lives.
03:29:11 lives. Yes.
03:29:12 Yes. Including him talking to you about Rosa getting married, having children. Yes.
03:29:23 Whose decision is it to uh conduct this welfare visit? Is it yours? Yes. [snorts] Who else knows? Does your do your superiors know that you are going to see
03:29:37 superiors know that you are going to see a former undercover police officer who is living with a woman he uh first got involved with whilst undercover? Um
03:29:48 Um I can't recall. It's quite an important detail. Can you
03:29:55 Can you do your best to help us with it? Yeah.
03:29:59 Yeah. Um,
03:30:01 Um, no. Well, this I have no no recollection of um informing
03:30:11 my you know my senior management above [snorts] only obviously um the fact that we were
03:30:22 obviously um the fact that we were carrying out an important welfare visit but I don't they um but I would not disclosed um
03:30:35 disclosed um to my
03:30:38 to my management um the identity or background of Rosa for reasons of the operational security of the SDS. Yes,
03:30:52 of the SDS. Yes, [snorts]
03:30:53 [snorts] obviously one purpose of the visit was welfare of Boiling and his family. Was another reason for the visit to
03:31:06 Was another reason for the visit to assess whether there was any further change to the risk to the operational security of the SDS? Well, it would obviously it would provide that
03:31:17 obviously it would provide that opportunity, but um you know that that it the the visit only happened it was not would never I don't
03:31:28 happened it was not would never I don't think it would have been contemplated but it was just the particular uh context that prompted the welfare visit. Presumably, if you had gleaned
03:31:39 visit. Presumably, if you had gleaned anything material to the operational security of the SDS, you would have considered acting upon it. Yes.
03:31:47 Yes. Did you glean anything uh material to the operational security of the SDS in this visit? Um
03:31:57 not well nothing that comes to mind immediately. I I think generally um
03:32:08 generally I think we had a so we had what can we say a a positive impression about the
03:32:21 impression about the um
03:32:24 them them as as a couple. Um I get I think probably it was despite the circumstances it was reassuring
03:32:36 reassuring uh to see them um in their home uh as as a you know a truly um committed couple. Did you
03:32:47 truly um committed couple. Did you report the fact of the visit and update the state of affairs to the SDS management of the time?
03:32:58 to the SDS management of the time? Um
03:32:59 Um I'm I'm honestly not sure. Um I'm you know I would have done it at some stage.
03:33:12 some stage. Um
03:33:12 Um well you say that Mr. Lambert, but by the start of 2007, yes,
03:33:19 yes, new brooms have started to arrive in the SDS, haven't they? Yes. Yes, that's true. Were they people with whom you were going to share this sort of detail?
03:33:31 going to share this sort of detail? Um,
03:33:36 you know, I would have Yeah, I would have um been taking that sort of thing into account. I Does that mean you did not tell the new
03:33:49 Does that mean you did not tell the new brooms at the SDS because you were concerned what their reaction might have been?
03:33:57 It Yeah. I um I've never put my mind to this, but I I I can't recall immediately.
03:34:10 recall immediately. We appear to have reached a stage where your evidence is that you know that Detective Constable Boiling is living with a woman who he had
03:34:22 with a woman who he had sexually [snorts] deceived but has now declared himself to the um to the woman concerned. Did
03:34:35 to the um to the woman concerned. Did you explore with Boiling at any time what he'd said to Rosa about the unit and under undercover police
03:34:46 the unit and under undercover police tactics? And for obvious reasons, I do not want any precise details, but in general terms, had you explored that
03:34:57 general terms, had you explored that subject with him?
03:35:01 Ye. Yes, I think I I would have done in a in [clears throat] you know in in conversation and um I think he he sought to well he did yes I can remember he
03:35:14 to well he did yes I can remember he sought to reassure me that um you know he handled it um well and that um you know that I did not
03:35:29 well and that um you know that I did not I did not need to uh worried um about any you know about any risks um
03:35:40 about any you know about any risks um that I think that he would would I think he said that Rosa was um you know no longer no longer involved
03:35:51 you know no longer no longer involved with
03:35:54 with [snorts] activist circles. Did you explore with him what he had told Rosa? And in particular, did you glean from Boiling that he had told Rosa anything that he should not have done?
03:36:08 that he should not have done? I would have done. I can't remember the details. I remember that he sought to reassure me, but clearly I was aware
03:36:19 reassure me, but clearly I was aware that it, you know, it was um it was a risk. Um um [snorts] are we in the position in 2007
03:36:34 are we in the position in 2007 you know what's happening with Boiling and Rosa?
03:36:39 and Rosa? You have not told the higher chain of command within the Muslim contact unit. You have not told the new present management of the SDS.
03:36:52 management of the SDS. Um quite um quite possibly um yes or no. Well, I I can't be certain in
03:37:03 yes or no. Well, I I can't be certain in terms of yes, my you know, my present management. Um
03:37:11 Um [snorts]
03:37:12 [snorts] but um I have no clear recollection. So I I I'm
03:37:18 I I I'm And you'd not any superior from the historic SDS chain of command? No, not that I can call. you had taken it upon yourself to
03:37:29 call. you had taken it upon yourself to keep this all hush hush. I think that's um you know that's certainly
03:37:36 certainly possible.
03:37:38 possible. It's more than possible, isn't it? It's what you did. Well, it may well be. I I'm Yeah,
03:37:45 Yeah, that was a very serious dereliction of duty, wasn't it? Um it may well be. I um It was, wasn't it?
03:37:56 It was, wasn't it? I'm not sure why not.
03:37:58 why not. Well, I obviously at the time I thought I thought I was doing the right thing. That's not my question. You are a
03:38:09 That's not my question. You are a detective inspector in a hierarchical organization. You are choosing to keep to yourself highly relevant information about operational security and professional
03:38:21 operational security and professional conduct. You should have reported those matters, shouldn't you? Yes, I probably should. So, is that an appropriate time to break for lunch? Certainly. Uh, we'll resume if we can,
03:38:34 Certainly. Uh, we'll resume if we can, please, at or immediately after 2:00.