Continuing evidence from HN10 "Bob Robinson" Robert Lambert on HN81's Brixton deployment and infiltration of the Movement for Justice (MFJ), and how that operation converged with the Stephen Lawrence campaign after the Lawrence Inquiry was announced. Counsel takes Lambert through HN81's reporting on the Lawrence family and affiliated groups — including intrusive detail on the Lawrences' marriage and social life — and his participation in the disturbance when the five murder suspects gave evidence, before probing a secret 1998 meeting at Lambert's home with DI Richard Walton, staff officer to the Commissioner, and an SDS briefing note praised by DCS Black. Lambert repeatedly cannot recall key details but makes a series of concessions that intelligence on the grieving family was gathered without any legitimate policing purpose and used to help defend the Commissioner.
00:30:21 Good afternoon everybody. Uh Mr. Lambert's evidence will continue uh this afternoon. Uh it will be uh transmitted over the live link but only after 15 minutes have elapsed [snorts]
00:30:33 minutes have elapsed [snorts] uh since the uh uh uh evidence being given. Uh those with mobile devices may use them to report what they hear in the hearing room, but only after 15 minutes
00:30:45 hearing room, but only after 15 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're describing. Uh they may not be used for recording or photography. Mr. Bar.
00:30:53 Bar. Thank you, sir. We're moving now, Mr. Lambert, to HN81's deployment. We know that he was initially deployed into the SWP
00:31:05 initially deployed into the SWP in Hammersmith and in Fulham and then he is uh redeployed. Could we look please at 247148.
00:31:18 This is a document which dates from the 24th of June 1997.
00:31:27 It's a note for file not produced by you about a meeting uh which we can see at paragraph one it appears you are not present at what I'd
00:31:39 appears you are not present at what I'd like to uh do is invite you to read paragraph one and my question to you will be notwithstanding that you weren't
00:31:50 will be notwithstanding that you weren't at this particular meeting does it fairly
00:31:55 fairly represent the thinking about the redeployment or redirection of HN81.
00:32:46 Yes, I think so. So, avoid RTS because DC boiling is covering that. But a roving public order brief in Brixham to provide an
00:33:00 brief in Brixham to provide an assessment of what is going on there. Why did the SDS want a roving officer to provide an assessment of what
00:33:12 officer to provide an assessment of what was going on in Brixton? Um I would think that um it was
00:33:23 um it was regarded as an initial step um in
00:33:31 RN81's deployment. It would not have been I think
00:33:37 think obviously by now it would be clear that that was not in and of itself a um a
00:33:48 a satisfactory or or um reasonable SDS
00:33:57 SDS deployment. So I would see this as an initial um first step to
00:34:07 to find single issue envirro groups and other anti-establishment campaign groups that he might then refine his focus upon.
00:34:18 refine his focus upon. Yes.
00:34:20 Yes. and he is being advised to make efforts to become involved as an LDMG supporter or activist with anti- police
00:34:31 supporter or activist with anti- police sentiments. Is LDMG the legal defense and monitoring group? I believe so. I think yeah. What was your understanding of what the
00:34:42 What was your understanding of what the legal defense and monitoring group did? Um I can't can't recall too much now. Um but in the
00:34:55 can't recall too much now. Um but in the name you know the name describes it I think pretty well. Kept an eye on police conduct in public order events. Yes.
00:35:03 Yes. And provided um non-expert legal assistance and advice to people who might be arrested. That sort of thing. Yes. Why would that be a particular
00:35:18 Yes. Why would that be a particular uh persona that HN81 ought to adopt? Anti- police LDMG supporter. Um
00:35:33 I think only um as a basis for establishing um the kind of credible
00:35:45 um the kind of credible um persona that he would need need to have
00:35:50 have and because the SDS was interested in anti- police campaigns
00:35:57 only to the extent event that uh extremist groups would um seek to be involved.
00:36:09 would um seek to be involved. So the suggestion is that he involves himself in a identifies with a group which is not an extremist group, identifies him with sentiments which are
00:36:21 identifies him with sentiments which are not politically not particularly political. Why why that as opposed to taking an interest the oldfashioned taking an interest in leftwing politics which had
00:36:33 interest in leftwing politics which had been the route in for generations of SDS officers.
00:36:37 officers. Well, I suppose this is the point I have to say, you know, I wasn't in this meeting. Um I'm not
00:36:48 I'm not trying to I don't know. Um, is this because it's Brixton and there's racial tension? Well, we you know, we'd have to ask the
00:37:01 Well, we you know, we'd have to ask the the people here at the meeting, but Well, you are part of SDS management and you must know why an officer under your supervision is being advised
00:37:12 supervision is being advised to portray himself as an LDMG supporter and anti- police sentiment. Is it because in Brixton you are interested in
00:37:25 because in Brixton you are interested in anti- police campaigns in in the context that I've described? Yes.
00:37:33 Yes. Because of the high levels of racial tension.
00:37:38 tension. Well, that is um yeah, that is the basis um for the interest of the target group that
00:37:50 interest of the target group that um HN81
00:37:56 um is be you know joins I whether this note it will goes on to talk about that I I'll find out but um This the problem
00:38:08 I I'll find out but um This the problem with that answer, Mr. Lambert, if I may suggest it to you, is that he doesn't have a target group at this stage. This is the precursor to
00:38:21 at this stage. This is the precursor to identifying a target group, isn't it? Yes.
00:38:24 Yes. And so my questions are focused on why is it when he's trying to locate a target group uh that he should portray himself as anti- police?
00:38:36 Well, it would obviously I think yeah, it would help for sure to be anti- police, but quite why this specific
00:38:46 specific suggestion about the LDMG um it,
00:38:53 um it, you know, obviously it um it came up. I don't remember that at all. Um but I obviously would have done at the time. I I
00:39:06 at the time. I I okay let we can there is more specific to come so we can look at that now if we take that document down please and have 72865
00:39:21 par uh page 22 please
00:39:27 and if we could have that expanded this is a document created it would appear by HN 58 8 your DCI and it's entitled targeting strategy.
00:39:39 and it's entitled targeting strategy. The goal now um just over a month after this is July 28th month after the last document is to penetrate
00:39:50 penetrate the LDMG.
00:39:55 Give yourself give you a moment to look at that.
00:40:16 Yes, thank you. So there appears to be a suggestion that from Brixton 81 can get involved with LGM and that is
00:40:27 81 can get involved with LGM and that is going to provide intelligence AC about a range of events across the United Kingdom.
00:40:33 Kingdom. Yes.
00:40:34 Yes. Does that strike ring a bell? Um, I honestly don't recall LDMG, but um, but I'm reading it and um,
00:40:47 but um, but I'm reading it and um, except that was obviously the case.
00:40:53 Why Brixton if the object is to collect intelligence around the United Kingdom?
00:41:03 Um I think in point four uh explore and report on local campaigns issues in the Brixton
00:41:14 local campaigns issues in the Brixton area. I think it would also have been a consideration um in respect of other contemporary
00:41:27 um in respect of other contemporary field officers. um where they were based, the geography um Brixham was probably a good area to
00:41:41 um Brixham was probably a good area to complement other um officers reporting. Would it be fair to say that the focus was Brixton and intelligence about the wider United Kingdom would be regarded
00:41:53 wider United Kingdom would be regarded as a bonus?
00:41:57 Um yeah maybe I don't know for sure
00:42:04 how we can take that document down now can I take it that again you would have been in close touch with 81 you would have been talking to him a great deal and you would have had a good understanding of what he was doing
00:42:17 understanding of what he was doing abs absolutely but it I did note from that that we're we are at the a point now where the we actually for the first the SDS for the first time actually has
00:42:29 the SDS for the first time actually has cover officers uh the three um the three sergeants at least I think I think I s I think I saw that
00:42:40 I think I s I think I saw that yeah May May 97 you've gone up to three sergeants
00:42:43 sergeants yeah and um so yes there was a reduction uh in I suppose in my
00:42:56 uh in I suppose in my dayto-day
00:42:58 dayto-day uh interaction with them. But you would still have known had a good idea. Oh, of course. Yes. Yes.
00:43:10 We see various references to HN81 having dealings with movement against the monarchy, movement for justice and London class war. uh you would have been
00:43:22 London class war. uh you would have been aware that he was floating around all three of those organizations at this stage.
00:43:28 stage. Yes. Yes.
00:43:30 Yes. Yes. What happened in the July of 1997, the same month as the document we've just uh been looking at is a Steven Lawrence inquiry
00:43:41 Lawrence inquiry is announced. I asked you some questions on Monday about how important the campaign was in general terms when you were joining the
00:43:52 general terms when you were joining the SDS. I want you now to cast your mind to the point in time where the inquiry itself is announced. How significant an
00:44:03 itself is announced. How significant an event was it that the campaign had generated sufficient momentum to have led to a statutory public inquiry?
00:44:16 Well, it yes, it um the SDS focus would have been on our target groups. That's not answering my question. How
00:44:27 That's not answering my question. How important an event was it for the Metropolitan Police Service that this campaign had got to public inquiry level right for the not the SDS but for the
00:44:40 right for the not the SDS but for the we'll come to that in a moment for the S MPS well yes I would have been aware of how important it was for sure for the MPS and for the commissioner
00:44:53 for the MPS and for the commissioner yes
00:44:55 yes in terms of 81's deployment. You've [snorts] said that you don't really recall the LDMG.
00:45:06 really recall the LDMG. There isn't very much reporting on the LDMG.
00:45:10 LDMG. Might the announcement of the Lawrence inquiry be a reason why 81 does not in fact
00:45:21 81 does not in fact get into the LDMG in any depth but instead focuses on the movement for justice.
00:45:34 I can't recall um it
00:45:40 it the movement the movement for justice um probably
00:45:50 probably other other field officers um I other field officers would probably have helped us as managers on developing
00:46:03 have helped us as managers on developing um RN81's
00:46:07 um RN81's deployment and movement for justice would the the targeting it may well have include included reference to the
00:46:21 include included reference to the inquiry but only if um only if our understanding was that um that the movement for justice
00:46:32 that the movement for justice um was going to be uh active in consequence of it. And does the Steven Lawrence inquiry
00:46:45 And does the Steven Lawrence inquiry explain not only why we don't see HN81 pursuing the LDMG with any vigor, but also why we see him not pursuing class
00:46:57 also why we see him not pursuing class London class war and movement against the monarchy in any detail. No, I don't. So I I don't think it follows. Um I mean I don't think class
00:47:08 follows. Um I mean I don't think class war would have been compatible with movement for justice. That's my point. A choice is being made, isn't it? And the choice is focus on MFJ.
00:47:20 MFJ. Yes. But but to what extent the Steven Lawrence campaign and the inquiry was um was part of that, I think it's
00:47:32 was um was part of that, I think it's hard. It wouldn't have been the sole factor by any means. You have some corporate knowledge of MFJ through Peter Francis's infiltration of
00:47:43 through Peter Francis's infiltration of its predecessor, [clears throat] the Ginsway Anti-Fascist Group, haven't you?
00:47:47 you? Yes. Yes.
00:47:50 Yes. Yes. Are you talking to HN81 about the announcement of the inquiry and its significance? was
00:48:00 was are you did you talk to HN81 about the announcement of the inquiry and its significance? Well, I expect we did. Um, I can't say where and when, but I'm I'm
00:48:13 I can't say where and when, but I'm I'm sure that would have been part of our regular
00:48:17 regular discussions. And would at least some of those conversations have involved HN58? Um,
00:48:26 Um, yes of Yes, of course. Yeah. I'm going to go through a series of reports now. Can we start with MPS301098,
00:48:37 MPS301098, please?
00:48:41 This is a report from May 1998, the 18th of May.
00:48:50 [snorts]
00:48:54 I think it's right that this is the first report by HN81 which which refers to the Steven Lawrence campaign. Not.
00:49:02 Not. Well, if there was an earlier one, I've missed it, sir. Yes, [laughter] we both missed it. Yes. Yes.
00:49:08 Yes. It's um about a forthcoming event on the 23rd of May, uh 1998, [clears throat] organized by AFA.
00:49:22 Um Have
00:49:25 Have we got the right reporter? No, I don't I don't think Well, that was not sure.
00:49:29 not sure. Touchy subject. That's not the right one. That's not the right one. I'm looking for the 18th of May. We'll come back to that when we've got the reference. Can we have MPS30
00:49:42 we have MPS30 treble 13, please?
00:49:49 Uh this is uh June. It's the information obtained on the 1st of June 1998. And this is uh on
00:50:01 the 1st of June 1998. And this is uh on the movement for justice and the Steven Lawrence inquiry. I'll give you a moment just to look at the um text of that
00:50:13 just to look at the um text of that report.
00:51:02 Um, yes, thank you. Um, can I take it for this and other reports, it is more likely than not that it will have crossed your desk and you will have seen it.
00:51:13 will have seen it. Yes.
00:51:14 Yes. Andor you will have discussed the events. um with HN81 directly. Yes.
00:51:22 Yes. Uh we see from this report that MFJ wants to become more involved in the Steven Lawrence campaign. It wants a demonstration with media coverage and it
00:51:34 demonstration with media coverage and it wants to work with the family. But if that doesn't happen, it will follow its own course anyway. Uh a couple of propositions for you. None of the
00:51:45 propositions for you. None of the activity described here is unlawful, is it?
00:51:49 it? No. And uh in so far as there is a reference relevant to public order, it's in the negative in the sense it says MFJ do not intend causing trouble on the 2nd
00:52:02 do not intend causing trouble on the 2nd of June, but will act peacefully in order to build a mass movement. Yes. If [snorts] we take that down now and have MPS30's treble 17.
00:52:19 Uh this is the 3rd of June 1998
00:52:25 and we see again it is from 81 entitled the Steven Lawrence Campaign. And I'll give you a moment to read the content.
00:52:52 Yes. Thank you. I would just like to explore at this stage your understanding of
00:53:01 of how campaigning was organized on behalf of Steven Lawrence. First of all, did you appreciate that there was a difference between the
00:53:14 that there was a difference between the Steven Laurens family campaign and the Lawrence family support group? I'm sure that I did at the time um but I
00:53:28 I'm sure that I did at the time um but I I can't recall now.
00:53:34 Did you understand there to be an inner circle of the family and their immediate adviserss people like Imran Khn and
00:53:45 adviserss people like Imran Khn and Suresh Grover? Um
00:53:50 Um it's very difficult to say exactly you know what understanding I had or and um colleagues in the management team had um
00:54:05 colleagues in the management team had um at that time.
00:54:10 What did you understand by the reporting that MFJ felt they could influence the emphasis of the campaign
00:54:21 campaign that the MFJ I'm looking at the end of this report so attended by members of MFJ who now feel they can influence the emphasis of the campaign. What did you understand by
00:54:32 campaign. What did you understand by that? Um
00:54:38 well that that they had um a tow hold um and an opportunity
00:54:50 an opportunity to an opportunity to be involved and influence um I suppose influence according to their their objective. ives
00:55:03 according to their their objective. ives which we would have had a fair amount of knowledge of uh between us. Um not only previous reporting of our own but
00:55:17 previous reporting of our own but probably
00:55:19 probably from other sources too. If I've understood your evidence to date correctly, you are extremely interested as a unit in how much influence MFJ
00:55:33 as a unit in how much influence MFJ have on the Lawrence family. Yes. [snorts] And presumably that would have been something you were questioning HN81
00:55:44 something you were questioning HN81 about quite closely. Yes.
00:55:50 Yes. What was your understanding as to where MFJ was in relation to the family itself?
00:56:00 itself? Um
00:56:02 Um well, outside of the family, outside of the inner circle that you've described, um
00:56:13 um a
00:56:17 group an essentially um an extremist group looking to um
00:56:28 looking in its way to infiltrate and influence the campaign.
00:56:36 If we can take that down now, um, we've solved the mystery of the wrong reference. Could we have MPS301089
00:56:46 up, please? That accords with my reference as well.
00:56:54 18th of May 1998, one of HN81's report entitled Movement for Justice. It's quite a long report,
00:57:06 for Justice. It's quite a long report, but I'm interested in the the fifth paragraph down.
00:57:15 [clears throat]
00:57:38 Yes, thank you. So, reporting on MFJ's intentions visav the Steven Lawrence family and uh their campaigning ambitions, that
00:57:50 and uh their campaigning ambitions, that is to say MFJ's campaigning ambitions. This is exactly the sort of intelligence that you wanted. HN81 together, wasn't it?
00:58:01 it? Yes.
00:58:03 Yes. On the face of it though, all entirely legitimate activity. Yes.
00:58:08 Yes. And is this evidence of uh the importance emerging importance of the Lawrence inquiry to the SDS at this
00:58:21 the Lawrence inquiry to the SDS at this point in time? Well, it's certainly evidence of our understanding that the MFJ was um
00:58:33 was um a proper legitimate target for us and for our relatively new uh field officer.
00:58:44 uh field officer. they,
00:58:46 they, you know, the MFJ, what they were interested in would determine our interest. if if the uh MFJ were, you know, less interested
00:59:01 uh MFJ were, you know, less interested or not interested in the Steven Lawrence campaign,
00:59:05 campaign, um
00:59:07 um then, you know, we'd have our target would have um
00:59:15 well, you know, would not have been able to report on it. They are interested in the Steven Lawrence inquiry. So are you. Yes.
00:59:27 Yes. [snorts]
00:59:28 [snorts] By this stage, the inquiries hearings have started and we see that there is already discussion of which we'll see a lot more of when the five suspects will be
00:59:40 of when the five suspects will be attending to give evidence. That was a day that you were going to be particularly interested in, wasn't it? Yes.
00:59:51 If we could take that down now and go to MPS30
00:59:55 MPS30 1120.
01:00:00 Uh this is the 4th of June 1998. If we look at the main paragraph of text first of all please.
01:00:14 And we see this is a rally and there is a speaker from uh the Steven Lawrence campaign.
01:00:29 MFJ are present. Is it fair to say that the views they're recorded as expressing there are all entirely legitimate?
01:00:39 Uh what was the actual question? I'm sorry that the views that MFJ are recorded as expressing there are all entirely legitimate. Yes. Yes. Oh yes. If
01:00:51 Yes. Yes. Oh yes. If we could go to the first paragraph of the source comments.
01:00:59 MFJ hopes to press the campaign group towards a much wider inquiry into police racism. resulted in a new leaflet being produced which will be handed out at the RTS event on in Brixham on Saturday the
01:01:11 RTS event on in Brixham on Saturday the 6th of June. Again, all perfectly lawful.
01:01:14 lawful. Yes.
01:01:16 Yes. Next paragraph.
01:01:20 Intent on working with the Lawrence family campaign rather than attempting to take it over. For anyone who knew anything about what
01:01:31 For anyone who knew anything about what was going on, it would be fanciful to suggest that MFJ could take over the Steven Lawrence family campaign, wouldn't it? Of course. Yes. The Lawrenes were their own people
01:01:44 The Lawrenes were their own people and they had uh the support of Mr. Grover and Mr. Khn. And I think by by the date of this report uh 4698
01:01:57 report uh 4698 would have been Uh absolutely clear. No question of MFJ getting right up to the family and influencing them directly.
01:02:07 directly. No.
01:02:10 No. Nevertheless, the reporting continues. Yes.
01:02:14 Yes. Why? When that was clear, did the reporting continue? Well, because uh MFJ was still in um
01:02:25 Well, because uh MFJ was still in um you know, [clears throat] a pretty good position from their perspective, I think, um
01:02:31 think, um because the Steven Lawrence inquiry was a very big deal for the Metropolitan Police Service. Well, well, just with the MFJ's perspective, um, you know, I
01:02:44 the MFJ's perspective, um, you know, I think we might read from other source reporting that how, um, you know, they felt that this issue, like other
01:02:56 like other justice campaigns which we've looked at, um, you know, it it it's good for their recruiting drive and their profile. Well, it it they had
01:03:10 and their profile. Well, it it they had as long as they could be, you know, take part and offer support, um it it would um you know, be very worthwhile.
01:03:21 you know, be very worthwhile. Can we take that down and have MPS30 1129, please?
01:03:31 [snorts] This report is titled not MF not the movement for justice but the Laurens family support group information obtained on the 11th of June from HN81.
01:03:46 obtained on the 11th of June from HN81. If we look at the first two paragraphs, please
01:04:18 Yes, thank you. So, this is a report on the family support group, a meeting which it had held at which one of the inner circle, Mr. Grover, had been explaining to the
01:04:31 Mr. Grover, had been explaining to the wider group arrangements for the days in which it was then thought the suspects would give evidence. Yes.
01:04:39 Yes. And that he was communicating uh plainly that there had been cooperation with the inquiry and a demonstration was to be allowed. Yes.
01:04:51 Yes. All entirely lawful. Yes.
01:04:55 Yes. And showing a high level of cooperation with the inquiry. Yes.
01:05:00 Yes. Can [snorts] we go to paragraph three?
01:05:21 So the focus there is on the mood of those who were attending this meeting and there is particular reference to a number of women. No evidence there about
01:05:32 number of women. No evidence there about whether they're connected to MFJ or not. No,
01:05:37 No, they're simply people who've attended a meeting of the Lawrence family support group.
01:05:45 [snorts] You're interested here, aren't you, in how the Lawrence Family Support Groups uh members and supporters are going to behave, aren't you?
01:05:57 behave, aren't you? Um,
01:05:59 Um, well, our our officer is clearly there. I can only imagine that he was there because his target group, members of his
01:06:10 because his target group, members of his target group were there. Um, and that
01:06:16 that that doesn't answer the question. You are interested, aren't you, in how members of the Lawrence family support group are behaving. we provide this report and if we uh when
01:06:29 we provide this report and if we uh when we as and when we get feedback from it then we discover um whether it's of interest or not but generally as we
01:06:40 of interest or not but generally as we already know from other areas um the field officer will report on meetings Mr. Lambert, would the SDS be interested
01:06:51 Mr. Lambert, would the SDS be interested in intelligence to the effect that the people at the meeting were hostile and rowdy and were making it known that they
01:07:02 rowdy and were making it known that they would not allow themselves to be searched or accept any police presence when the suspects gave evidence to the Lawrence inquiry?
01:07:14 Lawrence inquiry? Well, yeah, forgive me. I expect um we we would have taken the view when this report was in draft form taken the view that it may well be of interest.
01:07:27 that it may well be of interest. Can we go to the next paragraph please?
01:07:36 Give you a moment to look at it.
01:08:00 Yes, thank you. And if we could look at the rest of the page and running over leaf
01:08:30 What we're seeing there is the officer reporting in some detail
01:08:40 information about what it is thought might happen within the inquiry hearing room itself on the day that the Five, accuse, give evidence, isn't it?
01:08:51 accuse, give evidence, isn't it? Yes.
01:08:52 Yes. And offering an opinion about the public order risks arising from that. The references to MFJ
01:09:05 The references to MFJ and ANL are rather cursory, aren't they? Yes.
01:09:10 Yes. And they're certainly not the focus of the report. No. The focus of the report is on the Lawrence family support group and the potential for disorder when the five
01:09:22 potential for disorder when the five suspects give evidence. Yes.
01:09:28 Did you uh welcome this intelligence? Um
01:09:35 Um I'm sure
01:09:37 I'm sure I'm sure we received it. um
01:09:43 you know in a no I think we just received it in along with many other reports in a you know in a professional way. Um well I'm asking
01:09:56 professional way. Um well I'm asking that question because it is a report on the Lawrence family support group rather than MFJ. Was there any problem with that from your perspective? Um not that I can recall.
01:10:08 Um not that I can recall. Did you set any boundaries for HN 81 in his reporting of what was going on relating to the Lawrence inquiry?
01:10:21 relating to the Lawrence inquiry? Only in so far as he should um stick with his target group. Um and that clearly that there's
01:10:33 Um and that clearly that there's obviously evidence of that here.
01:10:38 by reporting on the Lawrence family support group having been attending its meeting.
01:10:46 meeting. HN81 is in one sense of the word a spy in the Lawrence camp, isn't he? Um,
01:10:57 no, I don't think that's fair. Um, this is the camp of supporters, isn't it?
01:11:04 it? I say again, it's the this is the camp of supporters of the Lawrence family, isn't it? But he, you know, if you if you picture
01:11:16 But he, you know, if you if you picture it, um, he was visibly there as a member of MFJ. Everyone, everyone, it's still the Lawrence camp, isn't it? whatever group he's attending with, he
01:11:29 whatever group he's attending with, he is attending meetings supporting the Steven Lawrence campaign, isn't he? He Well, that if that's what his group are doing
01:11:40 are doing and he's
01:11:41 and he's and he did not have he did not have I'm I'm fairly sure that he would not have had instructions. Do not go
01:11:50 Do not go to this meeting this meeting of the Lawrence family support group. you know, do not go with your target group. But I mean, he would remember. Well, no, maybe
01:12:01 mean, he would remember. Well, no, maybe perhaps he wouldn't. I But and and I certainly don't remember, but I don't think it was at all. Um
01:12:11 Um I can't think of circumstances where well deal I'm sorry, let me come back specifically. Uh others
01:12:22 back specifically. Uh others others may have a a clearer recollection, but I do not remember him being
01:12:31 being instructed to steer clear of this, you know, this support group. As long as he as long as he stuck to his tasking,
01:12:45 as long as he stuck to his tasking, um I'm sure we we would have So he has become a spy in the Lawrence camp and has not been told that he can't do
01:12:57 and has not been told that he can't do that.
01:12:59 that. Well, I I certainly didn't see it in those terms at the time. But that is what's happened, isn't it? I well looking at it now I I still don't you know I I still struggle to see it in
01:13:11 you know I I still struggle to see it in those terms. Did you consider at the time the propriety of permitting such reporting? I'm sure that we did um and we were
01:13:26 I'm sure that we did um and we were you know let I mean this report was read by um
01:13:35 um you know pe uh people officers in special branch who could quite easily have told us that we shouldn't be directing our officer
01:13:47 shouldn't be directing our officer there. We never were. I quite I quite accept that nobody told you not to uh if that's what it amounts to. Did you consider the wisdom of having a spy in
01:13:58 consider the wisdom of having a spy in the Lawrence camp?
01:14:03 Um well I
01:14:09 yes I think we would at no point would we would we have wanted uh at no point would we have wanted to do anything
01:14:20 do anything that might um be perceived in that way. Um you know so why did you do it? Well, you're
01:14:31 so why did you do it? Well, you're perceiving it in that way. I I honestly I'm I can be sure that we didn't at the time.
01:14:39 time. Well, my question was consider the wisdom of it. Are you saying you didn't consider the wisdom of it at the time or you did and thought it was wise?
01:14:49 We Yes. Um yes, we thought it was Well, we thought it was justified. As we've seen, H&81 is giving advice on
01:15:00 As we've seen, H&81 is giving advice on how to prevent disorder within the hearing room. What was done with that advice?
01:15:08 advice? That
01:15:11 That um that would have been up to um the people that we disseminated our reporting to. It was out of our hands, wasn't it? Did the SDS
01:15:23 out of our hands, wasn't it? Did the SDS have any direct contact with the Steven Lawrence inquiry? No.
01:15:30 No. Did Special Branch, to your knowledge? Um, not to my knowledge. Did anyone within the Metropolitan Police Service relay this intelligence
01:15:43 Police Service relay this intelligence or any part of it to the Steven Lawrence inquiry?
01:15:48 inquiry? Well, that I I don't know. Do [clears throat] you know whether it was used by the Metropolitan Police Service in any way other than having been filed?
01:16:01 been filed? I I can't uh can't imagine that C Squad would not have disseminated it. Um whether
01:16:14 have disseminated it. Um whether you know in what way I mean obviously public order pleasing. Um so a sanitized
01:16:25 a sanitized risk assessment by um a special branch sanitized risk assessment going to public order policing in the usual way.
01:16:38 [snorts] Can we have MPS30 11:34 please?
01:16:46 12th of June 1998. Uh an HN81 report on the S an S SWP organized public meeting uh entitled the Lawrence family support group. I'll give
01:17:00 Lawrence family support group. I'll give you perhaps we should just have paragraph one up first.
01:17:14 Again, as we've seen with some of the other reports in relation to racial justice campaigns, there is reporting on the demographic makeup of those attending
01:17:26 demographic makeup of those attending here, predominantly young and black with about twice as many females as males. Why is it that those demographics are being recorded
01:17:37 being recorded as as previously? Um because this was pretty standard special branch practice
01:17:49 special branch practice uh over over many years where a racial where there was a racial issue.
01:17:56 issue. No, not just that. If you if if you think um
01:18:02 think um race identities were um always used in in the Metropolitan Police, you know, IC1, IC2, IC3. It was
01:18:13 Police, you know, IC1, IC2, IC3. It was What's the relevance for public order purposes? Well, it was just the um
01:18:22 um the the the reporting
01:18:26 reporting of of its day in special branch C squad and then um SDS contributing to that. And we see as in
01:18:38 contributing to that. And we see as in other reports various speakers from other
01:18:43 other black justice campaigns were speaking and a member of parliament. All of that is recorded. Yes.
01:18:51 Yes. Can we go to paragraph two?
01:18:56 We see in paragraph two Mr. Grover's opinions about the inquiry. are his utterances and opinions are
01:19:09 are his utterances and opinions are recorded there, aren't they?
01:19:19 Yes. What was the relevance of recording the utterances and opinions of Mr. Grover?
01:19:30 Grover? It's a meeting report, isn't it? It's just a report that gives um detail of what was being said by whom.
01:19:42 whom. No more, no less. And as we if we go to paragraph four,
01:19:51 weman Bennett's denunciation of the inquiry
01:19:56 inquiry and the police
01:20:00 views he was entitled to hold. It was
01:20:04 It was views he was entitled to hold. Of course. Yes. None of these speakers advocating violence or disorder? No. Well, not that we've seen. No
01:20:16 No. Well, not that we've seen. No overleaf
01:20:18 overleaf in the source comment
01:20:24 does record that the mood was very angry and that if similar numbers attempt attended on the following Monday, there would be potential for severe public disorder. Again, as far as you're aware,
01:20:36 disorder. Again, as far as you're aware, was that shared in any way with the inquiry?
01:20:41 inquiry? um
01:20:43 um not well I wouldn't have been this is the frust frustrating thing I at the time I wouldn't I would not have known I would have known and as I can recall now
01:20:55 would have known and as I can recall now the the dissemination up to the point of public order policing beyond that I I wouldn't have expected to know but
01:21:07 wouldn't have expected to know but we've heard some evidence that there was a unit A7 which may have had a successor by this time uh which was a unit interested in police accountability and anti- police campaigning. Do you know
01:21:19 anti- police campaigning. Do you know whether HN81's reporting uh was or any of it was sent to A7? A
01:21:30 A A7.
01:21:31 A7. I wouldn't I not to my knowledge, but it I I don't know. The attendance of the five suspects at the inquiry was obviously going to be a very emotive day, wasn't it?
01:21:43 very emotive day, wasn't it? Yes.
01:21:44 Yes. Uh but this was a public meeting. Yes. And it didn't need an undercover police officer, did it, to tell you that there might be disorder on the day that
01:21:57 there might be disorder on the day that the five suspects uh presented themselves at the Lawrence inquiry? No, but it it um it did need a Well, no, I'll leave it
01:22:09 it did need a Well, no, I'll leave it there. If we go to MPS30 1147,
01:22:19 another of 81's reports, 25th of June, 1998,
01:22:24 1998, NMP
01:22:25 NMP meeting about the Steven Lawrence inquiry. So, another meeting about uh the inquiry organized by an anti-racist group. And again, we'll see in the first
01:22:37 group. And again, we'll see in the first paragraph uh speakers including the bereieved relatives from black and Asian justice campaigns. That's right, isn't it? Yes. Yes.
01:22:48 Yes. Yes. Uh
01:22:50 Uh you can have a moment to look at paragraphs two and three which record the atmosphere as more emotional than fiery. But the question is again, all of
01:23:01 fiery. But the question is again, all of the content recorded here is of lawful activity, isn't it? Yes.
01:23:07 Yes. And if we go to page two
01:23:13 and we look at paragraphs one and two, see [snorts] some uh details about the speakers,
01:23:23 speakers, including a speaker from MFJ. Uh, I'll give you a moment to look at it. Uh, but my question of you will be that the Tropski speaker from the floor
01:23:35 that the Tropski speaker from the floor got nowhere.
01:23:54 Yes, thank you. And that was a not untypical reaction of justice campaigns, was it? They were grateful for the support, but they weren't interested in
01:24:05 support, but they weren't interested in extremist politics. That's correct. And if we look at paragraphs three and four
01:24:18 and uh the report moves on to the case of Ricky Real and the MFJ's thinking
01:24:29 of Ricky Real and the MFJ's thinking about the Ricky Real campaign. pain
01:24:39 in particular. It's talking about their efforts to leaflet. The questions once you've had a moment to look at it is there's nothing very surprising about what's recorded here.
01:24:53 surprising about what's recorded here. Nor did you need a UCO to tell you because they were making their views very publicly known, weren't they? Yes.
01:25:03 Yes. But um
01:25:06 But um the officer's deployment um
01:25:12 um as as you know I think it's clear from this that
01:25:17 this that you know he's monitoring the MFJ um
01:25:23 um and his only his only interest is because they're there hoovering up because he's there. Yes.
01:25:34 Yes. Could we take that down now and have MPS30149?
01:25:44 This is a report dated the 26th of June 1998. Again, HN81. Uh this entitled Steven Lawrence inquiry stewards
01:25:55 stewards meeting. Um I'll give you uh a moment to look at this.
01:26:29 Yes. Thank you. So by this stage you've got an undercover police officer attending
01:26:38 the stewarding group meeting ahead of the appearance of the five suspects at the Steven Lawrence inquiry. Yeah.
01:26:48 Yeah. And it is clear from what is being said that neither Mr. Grover nor the Lawrenes are seeking any
01:27:00 Grover nor the Lawrenes are seeking any disorder at all. That's correct. But the officer is observing that seat allocation within the inquiry might
01:27:12 allocation within the inquiry might become contentious. Yes.
01:27:16 Yes. again. Are you able to help us with whether that intelligence made its way either to uniform police or to the inquiry?
01:27:27 inquiry? No, I can't um help directly.
01:27:33 What was the point of recording this sort of detail if it wasn't going to be used to assist the inquiry? I think it's the final sentence
01:27:46 I think it's the final sentence in terms of their tactics. Read the accused. MF MFJ are quite happy to let the five enter the hearing and be questioned, but see their exit as the
01:27:57 questioned, but see their exit as the perfect chance to meet out some summary justice. And um you know, there you have it really after Well, Mr. Lad, I can quite see the
01:28:08 Well, Mr. Lad, I can quite see the policing value in that the sentence you've just read out. But my question is, do you know what was done with that? Well, I I can make a safe assumption that that would have been disseminated
01:28:23 that that would have been disseminated uh in the right way. Um source protection to the public order branch, you know, via C squad in in the usual
01:28:34 you know, via C squad in in the usual way. It's it's public order intelligence. the um and
01:28:42 and you know um very useful. Did you ask HN81 what sort of justice um MFJ were
01:28:54 HN81 what sort of justice um MFJ were thinking of meeting out?
01:28:59 Um I'm sure we would have discussed that with him at the time. I I can't recall now. If you go over the page and look at the source comment,
01:29:24 how seriously did you take this intelligence about a threat to to public order?
01:29:33 Well, we we took we understood it to be reliable. Um we would have check obviously
01:29:42 obviously um you know we would have discussed it um with HN 81 um and um
01:29:55 um and um you know we would have been confident about its authenticity and its potential value. This is 3 days before the day in
01:30:07 This is 3 days before the day in question. Can you recall whether anything was done to expedite the dissemination of this intelligence?
01:30:15 I can be confident that it received the expedition that it needed. Did you get any response to the provision of this intelligence? I'm sure I expect that we did. Um I'd
01:30:27 I'm sure I expect that we did. Um I'd be, you know, can you recall what it was? either either at the very least um a verbal uh piece of feedback or
01:30:40 uh piece of feedback or um increasingly at this period in time we had
01:30:45 we had act you know feedback forms but um it would have been clear to us how useful it would have been. Do you know if it was acted upon at all?
01:30:58 Do you know if it was acted upon at all? Well, one, um, we would have had a pretty clear idea at the time. I can't say now. I'm asking that question because it
01:31:09 I'm asking that question because it doesn't appear to have been any change in the arrangements for the five suspects to enter and leave Hannibal House by the front exit.
01:31:23 Hannibal House by the front exit. Um
01:31:25 Um well the you see yeah it's um it may well have been acted upon um
01:31:38 I don't know could we take that down now and could we go to MPS30 1154
01:31:46 1154 we're going to the 30th of June now the day after the suspects appeared appeared at the Steven Lawrence inquiry.
01:31:57 inquiry. Um, presumably you would have been aware of the disturbance that in fact took place.
01:32:04 place. Yes.
01:32:05 Yes. And you would have spoken to HN81. Would have spoken to HN81. Yes. And you would have known that he'd been one of the MFJ activists taking part in
01:32:19 one of the MFJ activists taking part in that disturbance. Yes.
01:32:23 And did you know generally that he had been closely involved following the inquiry?
01:32:32 inquiry? Um closely involved in following following the inquiry to the extent that he'd been into the hearing room. Um, I'm sure I'm sure we would have been if that was the case, we would have been u aware
01:32:46 was the case, we would have been u aware at the time. This was a a this was a significant event, wasn't it? Yes. If we could have paragraph three and four, please.
01:33:22 Dr. Lawrence acted very credibly, very credibly on that day, didn't he? Yes, of course. With remarkable dignity in very difficult and emotive circumstances.
01:33:33 difficult and emotive circumstances. That's correct. There's no question of MFJ controlling him, is there? Certainly not. Quite the reverse. Quite the reverse.
01:33:45 Quite the reverse. Were you receiving intelligence from HN81
01:33:51 HN81 during the course of the day? I'm sorry that I can't recall um if you were to the extent
01:34:03 were to the extent that you can potentially check with my colleagues if I you know and in particular his sort of handler at the time or cover
01:34:17 his sort of handler at the time or cover officer. Um if the you know there may well have been updates but generally you know when field officers were
01:34:29 you know when field officers were involved
01:34:30 involved to this group uh to this extent they you know they just had to stick with their group and
01:34:38 group and wouldn't be able to report to us until much later. Did you consider whether or not it was wise to permit HN81 to attend this
01:34:50 wise to permit HN81 to attend this demonstration?
01:34:53 Um, I can't recall it, but we there would have been time to have have that discussion. He he
01:35:05 to have have that discussion. He he certainly went there um with our support. And in a nutshell, why did you allow that?
01:35:15 that? Um
01:35:17 Um because of the uh value of his um
01:35:26 um reporting.
01:35:30 [snorts] Dr. Lawrence takes particular exception to an undercover police officer having participated in the rowdy demonstration
01:35:41 in the rowdy demonstration that he had to calm down. That's an entirely understandable sentiment, isn't it?
01:35:51 it? It is. And what you know I I would I would only hope that if he was able to um
01:36:02 receive an account of what the officer's objectives were and how at no point in time was the officer
01:36:16 how at no point in time was the officer working
01:36:18 working against the family. um that then that might um
01:36:26 um help him to come to terms with it. If we have page two, please
01:36:36 paragraphs five and six, the fifth and sixth paragraphs.
01:37:12 [snorts]
01:37:25 Yes, thank you. So, it appears that some summary justice as predicted was indeed meed out. Yes.
01:37:34 Yes. But relatively minor in terms of severity.
01:37:38 severity. Um,
01:37:40 Um, yes.
01:37:42 yes. and SDS intelligence doesn't appear to have prevented or reduced it. Well, I wonder um if I don't it's hard
01:37:53 Well, I wonder um if I don't it's hard to say, isn't it, whether it could have been it could easily have been a lot worse. Maybe, you know, we'd have to think about the the level of uh police
01:38:05 think about the the level of uh police deployment that may the the level of policing may well have been increased. um in in view of our contribution to the
01:38:17 um in in view of our contribution to the risk assessment and all this disorder much against the wishes of Dr. Lawrence. Um,
01:38:28 Um, and if
01:38:30 and if if, as seems likely, uh, RN81's intelligence contributed to, um, increased policing and helped to
01:38:43 um, increased policing and helped to reduce the um,
01:38:47 um, Mr. How how can you assert that when HN81's advice was what MFJ was seeking was a reaction and what they would most like to see was riot police there.
01:39:02 like to see was riot police there. Well, exactly. But um you know local local policing
01:39:13 local policing doesn't have to be uh huge huge numbers of riot officers. And when it was obvious to anybody that this could be a flash point, you didn't need the SDS to tell uniform police
01:39:26 need the SDS to tell uniform police that, did you?
01:39:32 Had it been known that HN81 was an undercover police officer in the midst of the protesters, that would only have exacerbated the problems on the
01:39:43 have exacerbated the problems on the day, wouldn't it? It would.
01:39:47 Can we look at the penultimate paragraph on page two, please?
01:39:56 Would
01:40:08 appear that HN81's reporting is not to the effect that the SDS has saved the day. It's to the effect that Dr. Lawrence saved the day, isn't it?
01:40:20 Lawrence saved the day, isn't it? Yes. Um, yes, very much so. That last phrase, it is clear that the family themselves do not want any confrontation with the police other than
01:40:34 confrontation with the police other than on political grounds. Now, I have taken you to a number of reports where it is abundantly clear that the Lawrenes did not want any trouble.
01:40:46 not want any trouble. Would it be fair to say it had always been obvious that that was the family's position? it would and was the real concern of the SDS that
01:40:57 and was the real concern of the SDS that because this was a racial issue, it was potentially politic potentially particularly explosive.
01:41:11 [snorts] I think that would have been for the MPS. Our focus was on what our operatives target group were doing. It was a small
01:41:23 target group were doing. It was a small contribution, but it it may well, we don't know. I don't know today. It may well have played um an a part. It's not in any way a
01:41:37 um an a part. It's not in any way a major part in the way that of course Neville Lawrence's was. Um, I don't, you know, there's a big difference, I think, between
01:41:46 between our role and the role of the MPS. You're interested because this is a potentially incendurary public order
01:41:59 potentially incendurary public order issue, isn't it? We're interested because our officer's target group is interested. We know it's Are you really saying you're not interested in it because it's a
01:42:10 interested in it because it's a potentially explosive public order issue?
01:42:13 issue? Um, but only if we if we did not have an officer deployed in the uh MFJ, we
01:42:25 officer deployed in the uh MFJ, we wouldn't be there. And it's important from a police reputational perspective, isn't it? We'll be coming to a lot more on that theme. Sure, we we would have been aware of that, but that wasn't our concern.
01:42:38 of that, but that wasn't our concern. Was the racial dimension a particular reason for paying attention to the stance of the Lawrence family? Do forgive me. Can can you just was the racial dimension a particular
01:42:51 was the racial dimension a particular reason for paying attention to the stance of the Lawrence family? only to the extent that it was a factor for the movement for justice.
01:43:12 Why was their reporting on the stands of the grieving family of a murdered son?
01:43:25 because um
01:43:29 um because our officers target group were interested in it. They were there. He was there and he's reporting on it.
01:43:40 was there and he's reporting on it. It's completely inappropriate, isn't it? Well,
01:43:45 Well, we would have had to be the SDS would have had to be directed accordingly. um that's you know way above our pay grade.
01:43:57 that's you know way above our pay grade. We understood we had every reason to believe that um RN81's targeting strategy which was perfectly
01:44:08 targeting strategy which was perfectly clear and the reporting's perfectly clear um that it was not only approved but valued.
01:44:19 not only approved but valued. We're going to come on to a lot more reporting about the Lawrence family. Here it's being said it's clear that the family themselves do not want any confrontation with the police other than
01:44:33 confrontation with the police other than on political grounds.
01:44:39 Why did reporting on the Lawrence family family continue when it was clear that their only beef with the Metropolitan Police Service was on, as it is
01:44:52 Police Service was on, as it is described here, political grounds.
01:44:58 Um,
01:45:08 I don't quite I can't quite see the connection. Why did it continue? I don't Why Why is there further reporting on the Lawrence family when it's clear that
01:45:20 the Lawrence family when it's clear that their issue, as described here, is on political grounds and no other ground? Um,
01:45:28 Um, No, I I still can't see the connection, I'm afraid. Maybe we'll look at some more reports and I can come back to that issue. But in the meantime, the phrase political
01:45:39 in the meantime, the phrase political grounds
01:45:42 grounds is what is meant by confrontation on political grounds.
01:45:51 [sighs]
01:45:57 I think it confirms what we've already seen that um that um the the Lawrence family um
01:46:08 um you know want want to um well
01:46:14 um well you know
01:46:18 they're in pursuit of um justice for their son and and we can see that they find
01:46:29 we can see that they find any confrontation um you know unhelpful. So, can I be clear? The grieving family of a murdered
01:46:42 family of a murdered son [snorts] is regarded as confronting the Metropolitan Police Service politically because they have criticized the quality
01:46:57 because they have criticized the quality of the murder investigation and alleged that it was tainted with racism.
01:47:07 racism. Um, oh gosh, forgive me. There's there's a lot there. I It makes sense to me, but I can't quite see what the question is for me. Um,
01:47:18 see what the question is for me. Um, the question for you, this is a report made by an undercover police officer on under your management. Yes. on your watch. Your unit is filing a report
01:47:33 watch. Your unit is filing a report which describes that quest for justice as a political confrontation of the MPS,
01:47:45 of the MPS, doesn't it? I don't
01:47:48 I don't but I'm sorry I'm struggling with this. Um,
01:47:51 Um, it's revelatory, isn't it, of attitudes within the SDS towards the Lawrence family. They are
01:48:02 towards the Lawrence family. They are seen
01:48:04 seen as politically confronting the MPS because they have had the tmerity to challenge
01:48:13 challenge the quality of the murder investigation and allege that it was tainted with racism.
01:48:22 I can't see any, you know,
01:48:27 you know, um conflict here that um it's um
01:48:35 you know, there's there campaigning is legitimate.
01:48:42 Um and they don't want confrontational with the police. Um and other than on political grounds, well, that's all that's just part of their campaign,
01:48:53 that's just part of their campaign, isn't it? For goodness sake. Um you know, they're campaigning legitimately,
01:49:03 politically, um they want justice for their son. Uh there's the inquiry taking place.
01:49:13 place. They are damaging the reputation of the Metropolitan Police Service and you want to keep tabs of them because they are doing so. No, I I'm sorry. That is really not that
01:49:26 No, I I'm sorry. That is really not that was not the case. I'm sorry. Can we take that down now, please? And can we have MPS30 1181?
01:49:40 [snorts] This is the 16th of July, 1998. Another of HN81's reports, this time entitled The Movement for Justice.
01:49:51 The Movement for Justice. The report starts, "There appears to be divisions within the Lawrence family as to how to progress the campaign. Neville Lawrence
01:50:03 progress the campaign. Neville Lawrence maintains a tight control and is of the view that nothing should be done to antagonize the authorities prior to the inquiry publishing its findings. As part
01:50:14 inquiry publishing its findings. As part one is due to end and part two will not start until September. This approach appears to be too cautious for members of the support groups SMG and NMP, let alone the fringe elements such as
01:50:28 alone the fringe elements such as MFJ.
01:50:30 MFJ. [snorts]
01:50:30 [snorts] So despite the title being MFJ, the report immediately opens with the stance of the Lawrence family and Dr.
01:50:43 stance of the Lawrence family and Dr. Lawrence in particular, doesn't it? Yes.
01:50:48 Yes. [snorts]
01:50:49 [snorts] If we go to the penultimate paragraph on the first page,
01:51:04 see more on the differences of opinion within the campaign.
01:51:12 campaign. Your officer is reporting on the machinations of the wider Steven Lawrence campaign, isn't he?
01:51:24 Yes. From his Yes. Yes. From his target group's perspective. Yeah. And if we look at the last paragraph,
01:51:45 [clears throat] more of the same, but with a particular emphasis on Dr. Lawrence.
01:51:56 Dr. Lawrence. Yes.
01:51:59 If [snorts] we go to page two, paragraph one.
01:52:11 I'll give you a moment, but the question is going to be, we see that MFJ is going to press ahead with demonstrations come what may.
01:52:30 Yes, thank you. And from a public order perspective, the second sub par the second paragraph, the only reference to a specific demonstration is one which is assessed
01:52:41 demonstration is one which is assessed as likely to be peaceful.
01:52:45 Yes. [snorts]
01:52:50 If we could have MPS 12 triple01212 please.
01:53:03 This is a report of the 23rd of July 1998
01:53:09 1998 uh entitled Steven Laurens campaign. Uh if we look at the first paragraph just to orientate you as to what this was about.
01:53:26 Yes. Thank you. So this is a meeting of the campaign but the Lawrenes are not present. Could [snorts] we go to page three paragraph
01:53:37 [snorts] we go to page three paragraph one please?
01:53:46 give you a moment to read it. But the question is, this is further evidence, isn't it, that the Lawrenes are entirely independent and don't want to have anything to do with groups like MFJ?
01:53:58 anything to do with groups like MFJ? Yes, correct. Paragraph two, please. Particularly the second half of it.
01:54:24 Yes, thank you. So, part of that paragraph includes reporting about the state of the Lawrence's marriage, doesn't it? Suresh went on to explain that Dorene
01:54:36 Suresh went on to explain that Dorene and Neville have in reality separated that they only continued together as a front for the campaign. Yes.
01:54:45 Yes. Highly personal data about the state of their marriage? Yes.
01:54:50 Yes. So any proper policing purpose for reporting that? No. I think that um today it's easy to see that that should
01:55:03 today it's easy to see that that should have been
01:55:04 have been um edited out. Uh but at the time both the field officer and the
01:55:15 both the field officer and the reporting officer um
01:55:19 um included it just on the basis I think that as we've seen um these
01:55:28 these um reports
01:55:32 um they weren't well they did include these aspects of um um personal
01:55:43 um personal behavior. It's easy to see now that this shouldn't have happened, but it did on a, you know, on a regular basis.
01:55:56 on a, you know, on a regular basis. Because that paragraph goes on then to record the specific positions of each of Dorine and Neville
01:56:07 and Neville Lawrence
01:56:09 Lawrence about how best to further their justice campaign,
01:56:17 campaign, doesn't it? Yes.
01:56:18 Yes. in circumstances where the Metropolitan Police already knew that the hallmark of their campaign was dignified legitimate campaigning.
01:56:29 campaigning. Yes.
01:56:32 Is the reason for this material staying in the report? Not because of some failure to recognize it was inappropriate, but because the MPS was
01:56:46 inappropriate, but because the MPS was actively interested in the position of the Lawrenes and their ability to pursue their
01:56:57 their political campaign, as it was perceived, against the Metropolitan Police Service. I think I can be sure that that wasn't the case for us on the SDS.
01:57:10 the case for us on the SDS. No. Um, I can be sure it's highly relevant to the potency of their campaign for justice uh that there
01:57:21 their campaign for justice uh that there are tensions in the marriage, isn't it? Um,
01:57:29 Um, I don't believe that was a consideration for us.
01:57:38 Can we have page three, paragraph three, please? I think same page just uh paragraph three, please.
01:57:50 And then the reporting descends into detail as to who the Lawrenes are said to have wanted and not wanted at a
01:58:05 said to have wanted and not wanted at a social event on that Friday. Whether or not I it is uh accurate, would you agree that reporting on who
01:58:18 would you agree that reporting on who the bererieved family of a murdered son wanted or did not want at a social event is a very long way from any legitimate
01:58:29 is a very long way from any legitimate policing purpose. [clears throat] Um,
01:58:55 well, yes, I'd have to accept that today. But you know once again at the time
01:59:02 time um it was understood to be
01:59:07 to be um
01:59:10 um
01:59:14 acceptable reporting.
01:59:18 So would that be a convenient? Certainly. We'll break for quarter of now.
02:17:35 Thank you, sir. Mr. Mr. We're moving now to the meeting which occurred, we understand, in your back garden uh between
02:17:46 back garden uh between uh Detective Inspector Walton, HN81 and yourself on the 14th of August 1998.
02:17:56 1998. If we could have up 728625, please.
02:18:16 page 12, please. This is tab B249. Sir, this is your note of the 18th of August about that meeting
02:18:27 of the 18th of August about that meeting on the 14th of August. If we could look first of [clears throat] all at the first three paragraphs,
02:18:38 first three paragraphs, your account of that meeting
02:19:13 Yes, thank you. Then could we look at the top of the next page, please?
02:19:36 Yes, thank you. And then if we can look at the plaudits at the end. Um, written in manuscript by HN58.
02:19:52 Yes. Um we'll go back to the detail in a moment and we can we'll need this document again but if you take it down for the moment
02:20:03 for the moment some preliminary questions. How did this meeting come about? [clears throat] um at the request of senior um special
02:20:15 um at the request of senior um special branch management who
02:20:20 who um I can't remember who I know that um um
02:20:29 um I know that I was asked to
02:20:33 to um set up the meeting. When you say senior managers, do you mean managers outside the SDS? Yes.
02:20:44 Yes. At what level? Um,
02:20:48 Um, I can't recall. And in what terms were you asked to set up this meeting to um
02:21:04 to set up a meeting with the three the three of us as as it took place. um that I I had no
02:21:16 that I I had no impetus.
02:21:18 impetus. I had no um personal impetus. Uh I mean professional uh I did not this set this meeting up. I was asked to set it up
02:21:30 meeting up. I was asked to set it up um and I did with you know the at the request of and with support of my managers.
02:21:41 support of my managers. Why
02:21:44 were you to have this meeting? What was the purpose as communicated to you? Um
02:21:54 Um that it
02:21:57 that it that it could be or I think it was intended
02:22:02 intended um to be useful for um Richard Walton.
02:22:13 [snorts] Did HN 58 know that this meeting was going to take place? HN81
02:22:21 HN81 HN 58
02:22:23 HN 58 Oh, 58
02:22:24 Oh, 58 DCI. Well, I'm I'm sure I'm sure he would have been. Yes, it must have been. Absolutely sure. Unless he was on holiday or some such. I I don't know.
02:22:39 And did Superintendent Black know? I'm sure that he did. Sure that he did. Well, all right. No, I can't.
02:22:54 Okay. I can't today say that. I'm sure that is your chain of command, isn't it? Um I don't recall precisely.
02:23:08 Mr. Walton's written evidence to this inquiry. He has a recollection of meeting you by a lift in central office and you proposing the
02:23:20 in central office and you proposing the meeting.
02:23:22 meeting. Did that happen? I don't recall I don't recall that happening. I'm sure I would have met him to discuss it. Um and I if I if where
02:23:35 to discuss it. Um and I if I if where wherever I did meet him or speak to him, it was at the request of my senior management and um and it f it flowed
02:23:47 management and um and it f it flowed from there. Can you recall now how you got in touch with or whether which way around it was? Did you get in touch with Walton or did he get in touch with you?
02:24:00 Walton or did he get in touch with you? I don't recall. Was there a preliminary meeting before the meeting in your garden? Um, I can't recall.
02:24:15 Did you have any prior knowledge of Detective Inspector Walton? Yes.
02:24:24 Yes. How did you know Detective Inspector Walton?
02:24:27 Walton? I knew him as a special branch colleague. Um, not particularly well, but I certainly knew him.
02:24:40 certainly knew him. Did you know what he was doing at the time of your meeting? Pretty much. Yes. And what was that? um working
02:24:52 um working uh directly for the commissioner in what capacity? Um I can't remember the exact
02:25:04 remember the exact terms but um I know I recall that it was you know in regard to preparation
02:25:15 you know in regard to preparation for
02:25:16 for or in regard to um the commissioner's response to the uh inquiry. Why did you meet in your back garden?
02:25:30 Why did you meet in your back garden? Well, forgive me. I I should have said earlier it wasn't actually in my back garden, but that seems to have it doesn't really matter. It was um
02:25:41 doesn't really matter. It was um indoors.
02:25:42 indoors. Where where was it? At your address. At my address, but I don't recall ever going into the garden, but whatever.
02:25:49 whatever. Why did it uh take place at your home? Yes. Why? Yes. Well, that would have, you know, it couldn't take it couldn't take place at
02:26:02 couldn't take it couldn't take place at New Scotland Yard, which is where Richard Walton was based. It couldn't take place um where I was uh based. Um
02:26:14 uh based. Um and um it was you know not uncommon um to to have to use um home address in that in those
02:26:26 to use um home address in that in those circumstances. Could we have the document back up please? 728 625. [snorts] And could we have uh page 12 paragraph 1 please?
02:26:46 So, it records there that uh Detective Inspector Walton was currently working with the Steven Lawrence review team.
02:26:58 with the Steven Lawrence review team. How did you know that? Um,
02:27:06 well, I'm sure he would have told me. What did he say that he was doing with that team? Um,
02:27:18 Um, I can't recall today.
02:27:23 Says that 81 talked about the Lawrence inquiry from an MFJ perspective. Detective Inspector Walton from his.
02:27:35 Detective Inspector Walton from his. What did HN81 say
02:27:40 say about the Steven Lawrence inquiry from the MFJ perspective? Um
02:27:48 Um would have given uh an upto-date intelligence picture based on his reporting. It's, you know, some of which we've just been looking
02:27:59 some of which we've just been looking at, but at this date, um,
02:28:05 um, I can't recall precisely what the MFJ perspective would have looked like, but um,
02:28:17 but um, that was, um, that would have been his input.
02:28:22 input. What did Walton say about the Steven Lawrence inquiry?
02:28:29 I can't recall anything really beyond what I've
02:28:34 what I've written here. I mean, [clears throat] I perhaps should add that I think my best recollections of this
02:28:45 I think my best recollections of this meeting are almost certainly contained in the transcript to a long interview I gave
02:28:56 gave um
02:28:58 um around about 2014 the I think IO IOPC I mean and I would have had a better recollection then
02:29:11 recollection then and it was a very detailed um interview today I'm not really able to add much above what's written
02:29:24 able to add much above what's written here.
02:29:25 here. Why was it fascinating?
02:29:29 Um
02:29:34 well I think it I would have said that because
02:29:39 because um
02:29:40 um you know two very contrasting perspectives. The sort you know staff officer perspective on the one hand and
02:29:53 officer perspective on the one hand and the
02:29:55 the field officer perspective. for sort of a street perspective and then you know the the sort of commissioner um commissioners staff officers
02:30:06 commissioners staff officers perspective. I mean very you know interesting. Why was it a valuable exchange of information?
02:30:18 information? Um
02:30:21 Um well I think that was my understanding at the time. Um when when the meeting concluded it it um
02:30:33 when when the meeting concluded it it um I think that's that's what was expressed by [clears throat] whom? Well, but um by
02:30:44 Well, but um by um Richard Walton um
02:30:49 um myself, I mean from um the field office perspective um I can't speak um directly.
02:31:01 I can't speak um directly. Was it to what was it? Did Detective Inspector Walton explain why it was valuable to him?
02:31:18 I'm sure I'm sure he he did. Um I can't remember in what terms.
02:31:30 Was it valuable to the SDS in the sense that Detective Inspector Walton was able to communicate to you what was of interest
02:31:42 communicate to you what was of interest to the commissioner? um
02:31:55 not um not valuable in in the same same sense I don't think
02:32:06 in in the same same sense I don't think in what sense was it valuable to the SDS I think
02:32:12 I think it was of interest to be aware unusual, you know, but just to be aware of um
02:32:20 of um the um
02:32:23 the um you know, this was um I suppose um [clears throat]
02:32:30 an occasion where the commissioner is concerned about violent disorder
02:32:42 violent disorder and
02:32:44 and You know, you it was interesting for the SDS to know that that he had that
02:32:57 that that he had that interest.
02:32:59 interest. The Steven Lawrence review team are making submissions to the Steven Lawrence inquiry, which is an inquiry about a criminal
02:33:11 which is an inquiry about a criminal investigation into a murder and uh issue allied issues of racism as well as corruption. Yes.
02:33:20 Yes. What relevance has public disorder to that?
02:33:26 that? And beg your pardon. What relevance does public disorder have to those issues? Well, I I think I mention it in my note here, don't I? The
02:33:38 here, don't I? The Well, we'll get on to the the sub paragraphs in a moment. Yeah. But primaasi something that's valuable to a team that is talking uh to an inquiry
02:33:50 that is talking uh to an inquiry communicating with an inquiry about a murder investigation and its failings isn't immediately connected with public disorder is it? No.
02:34:03 when you described it as fascinating and valuable, can I just be clear, was it really fascinating and valuable or is this an exaggeration?
02:34:14 this an exaggeration? Um,
02:34:17 Um, I think it was Well, again, look, it's very difficult from this distance. Um but um
02:34:29 it it it might be come a little bit easier for me when we go back to the serious
02:34:37 serious public order concern that um
02:34:43 that um that's that's that's mentioned. In what terms did detective inspector Walton describe the Steven Lawrence inquiry is dominating the commissioner's agenda on
02:34:56 dominating the commissioner's agenda on a daily basis. Um
02:35:06 I can't recall the um terms. No. Could we have paragraph two please?
02:35:35 [snorts] The first sentence there, Richard Walton thanked Windmill Tilta for his invaluable reporting on the subject in recent months. Yes,
02:35:45 Yes, it appears implicit from that sentence that Detective Inspector Walton had had the benefit of HN81's
02:35:56 the benefit of HN81's reporting on the subject of the Steven Lawrence inquiry in then recent months. Is that right? Yes. and and that also
02:36:08 Yes. and and that also helps to answer the earlier question about you know how and why the meeting was set up. How had HN81's
02:36:19 How had HN81's reporting been communicated to the Steven Lawrence review team? Um, it could only
02:36:32 Um, it could only I don't know uh directly. All I know is that the SDS reporting um RN81s included it um
02:36:46 um RN81s included it um left our office in the way that you're familiar with. Um it went to our If I can if I can just stop you there.
02:36:57 If I can if I can just stop you there. I'm taking it. There's no doubt that Walton had had the benefit of the reporting. Can I also take it from your answer that you didn't give it to
02:37:09 your answer that you didn't give it to him personally? That's correct.
02:37:16 An in-depth discussion enabled him to increase his understanding of the Lawren's relationship with the various campaign groups like MFJ.
02:37:28 campaign groups like MFJ. This he said would be of great value as he continued to prepare a draft submission to the inquiry on behalf of the commissioner.
02:37:39 the commissioner. An indepth discussion. How long did this meeting take? Um
02:37:53 um I it's difficult to say I one hour two hours and when you record an indepth discussion is it right to say that there
02:38:07 discussion is it right to say that there was deep discussion between Walton and HN81
02:38:14 HN81 about the Lawren's relation relationships with multiple campaigning groups.
02:38:26 Um yeah, I I've no reason to um think that that's that's inaccurate.
02:38:39 that's inaccurate. So presumably if Walton has already seen the reporting then they were diving deeper than the contents of the written reports
02:38:52 contents of the written reports into the relationship between the Lawrenes
02:38:56 Lawrenes and the various groups we've seen HN81 reported on. I don't think that um I don't think that RN 81
02:39:09 I don't think that RN 81 would have been able to do that. I think um
02:39:14 um uh there was just really a focus on his you know his perspective. Um, which really
02:39:27 really it's one thing receiving a sort of sanitized intelligence report and then it's another thing to meet the
02:39:40 and then it's another thing to meet the officer and you know I think just to get the get the feel um of if you like a a street perspective that would have
02:39:51 a street perspective that would have been greatly valued, I'm sure. But that amounts to going into more detail than the written report, doesn't it?
02:39:59 it? It does. It does. I Yes, um
02:40:05 great value as he continued to prepare a draft submission to the inquiry. Are you confident that that is factually
02:40:16 Are you confident that that is factually correct?
02:40:19 correct? Um
02:40:21 Um I
02:40:26 I have no reason to doubt it because there seem to be two possibilities in broad terms. Either Detective Inspector Walton did say to you it would be great of great value to
02:40:39 you it would be great of great value to him as he continued to prepare a draft submission or you have um made it up to make the SDS sound good
02:40:53 made it up to make the SDS sound good which is it former Mr. Walton's evidence to the inquiry, we understand, in its written form, is to the effect that he had effectively
02:41:05 the effect that he had effectively completed drafting by the time he met uh unh.
02:41:11 unh. And he says he made no further alterations to the draft. Would it be right to understand that that's completely contrary to the impression he gave you at the time?
02:41:25 impression he gave you at the time? that yes that would be wouldn't it?
02:41:32 MFJ's future plans were also discussed at some lengths. Why was Walton interested in MFJ's future plans?
02:41:43 interested in MFJ's future plans? um because of the um public order interest which he knew. He knew that um
02:41:55 He knew that um he knew that he was meeting an undercover operative um very who could help him
02:42:07 could help him um in his work understand. I mean, you know, the way that um groups such as the MFJ might
02:42:19 might seek to capitalize on um
02:42:25 um community tension, volatile situations in the way that we've seen. And
02:42:34 And you know to hear about it from that
02:42:39 that uh perspective would um I think you know he he found it helpful. Um I I I mean that there's I know we're going
02:42:51 I mean that there's I know we're going to come on to it but there would have been a
02:42:53 been a if we're going to come on to it we we'll sure we deal with that in in due course. Before we do that and move on from this paragraph a couple more questions. The first is if Walton has had the benefit
02:43:05 first is if Walton has had the benefit of 81's reporting, are you able to help us with if with whether he'd had the benefit of other relevant SDS reporting?
02:43:16 benefit of other relevant SDS reporting? And you will recall that we went through some of Detective Constable Jenner's reporting on the subject. Do you know if that reached him? Um, I don't I Well, I don't recall. No.
02:43:28 Um, I don't I Well, I don't recall. No. [snorts]
02:43:28 [snorts] Uh,
02:43:30 Uh, did Walton say anything about the racial and violent crime task force? Um,
02:43:43 I can't recall now. I I think I may may have made some reference to it in this note. Did he say anything to the effect of that was going to be his next job?
02:43:56 that was going to be his next job? Oh, I see. Um again I can't recall was movement for justice regarded as perpetrating racial crime
02:44:09 um
02:44:17 in what what sort of context and I'm asking you would movement what would what you believed MFJ was doing fall within the definition of racial
02:44:29 fall within the definition of racial crime?
02:44:31 crime? Not at I don't think so at that time. If we go to the third paragraph, please.
02:44:46 Detective Inspector Walton explained a lot of the behind the scenes politics involving the Home Office. It emerged that there is a great sensitivity around the Lawrence issue with both the home
02:44:57 the Lawrence issue with both the home secretary and the prime minister extremely concerned that the Metropolitan Police could end up with its credibility in the eyes of London's black community completely undermined.
02:45:11 black community completely undermined. Walton explained the three main areas that his team is addressing. Now before we go to those uh areas, was any of this
02:45:24 we go to those uh areas, was any of this news to you?
02:45:28 Um
02:45:32 news certainly it was
02:45:38 it was um
02:45:41 um you know it was sort of well above my uh job description. It was a different very different perspective for me and um so it was
02:45:55 for me and um so it was you know it was interesting to hear about this um you know level of concern.
02:46:06 about this um you know level of concern. Did Detective Inspector Walton give you to understand what level of access he had to base his assertions upon?
02:46:20 Uh, no. I I don't Well, I don't recall that he did. I I just took it I understood his role as being
02:46:32 understood his role as being some like like a staff officer close working closely with the commissioner. In what terms
02:46:43 In what terms uh did he describe the home officers sensitivities?
02:46:50 I can't recall today. In what terms did he describe the prime minister's concerns?
02:47:04 Well, above just as reported, anything beyond that I can't add. If we could zoom out and look at the
02:47:18 If we could zoom out and look at the subparagraphs now, please. There are three of them. If we have all three blown up,
02:47:26 blown up, we'll have them all blown up so you can see them all. Uh, but I'm interested in the middle one.
02:47:35 It says in the middle one that the question of the commissioner's resignation and that of his assistant Ian Johnson is regularly addressed.
02:47:46 Ian Johnson is regularly addressed. Haven't quite picked that up. I'll give you Oh, got it now. Yeah, I'll give you a moment. I um
02:47:54 did you regard what you were doing in arranging this meeting and facilitating the exchange of information as helping
02:48:06 the exchange of information as helping to save the commissioner? I honestly did not have that um thought in my head at all. And you're portraying the meeting as
02:48:17 And you're portraying the meeting as being of great value in circumstances where the commissioner's job is on the line, aren't you?
02:48:28 aren't you? Um, [snorts] well, yes, that's part of it. Yeah.
02:48:35 How important did you think this meeting was?
02:48:42 Um,
02:48:48 I didn't think it was um um
02:48:56 I don't think it was more than what I've sought to describe at the time. um a focus, you know,
02:49:07 Richard Walton's got a a remmit and he's come out to meet a field officer who can help him with
02:49:18 a field officer who can help him with what is a probably a a small part of his remit. I and I I don't think he was sharing these um
02:49:32 I I don't think he was sharing these um um these pieces of information about his job. I don't think he was sharing that
02:49:43 sharing that um for any to either to have any impact on our
02:49:50 on our our job
02:49:56 In terms of the utility of this meeting, we can see these three topics set out and we can all read what they say.
02:50:07 and we can all read what they say. Is there anything that you wish to add having been present as to how this
02:50:18 having been present as to how this meeting assisted? First of all, Detective Inspector Walton,
02:50:25 Walton, not that I can call to mind. No. And the SDS? No.
02:50:32 No. Could [snorts] we go over the page to the top of page 13, please?
02:50:57 The last sentence there, a lie to this was a concern about the damaging effects of sustained political pressure from hardleft and anti- police elements.
02:51:13 That would include groups such as MFJ, wouldn't it? Yes.
02:51:20 Yes. Would sustained political pressure from anti- police elements also include the Lawrence family? Um,
02:51:30 Um, not the family. Well, we've seen the report describing them as wanting to pursue a political campaign against the
02:51:42 against the Metropolitan Police Service. Are you sure [snorts] that isn't what was meant? Um,
02:51:49 Um, I can be reasonably sure. Reasonably sure. Why the qualification? only because of the
02:52:00 only because of the uh distance between then and now I would have been clearer. Um
02:52:10 Um isn't the reality that at this time the atmosphere was febrile?
02:52:24 Yes. And it was Febal because the Metropolitan Police Service had been accused of institutional racism.
02:52:35 accused of institutional racism. Yes.
02:52:37 Yes. And as you found out at this meeting, it seemed very likely that that criticism was going to be made out. You're nodding for the transcripts.
02:52:49 You're nodding for the transcripts. Sorry. I I Yes. I I should ask just um could you just repeat the last Sorry. Yeah. From the document we've just seen, the first paragraph of those three sub paragraphs, you'd just been told that it
02:53:02 paragraphs, you'd just been told that it was very likely that that criticism was going to be made out. Yes. Yes.
02:53:06 Yes. Yes. Put another way, Sir William McFersonen was going to find the Met institutionally racist. There was a concern that there might be rioting and disorder. Yes.
02:53:17 Yes. By black people. Yes.
02:53:23 And uh that was the reason why Metropolitan Police was so interested in
02:53:34 Metropolitan Police was so interested in the Lawrence campaign.
02:53:38 It I can't talk to that. I can explain why Richard Walton came to speak to RN81.
02:53:49 Walton came to speak to RN81. Um and it was a small but hopefully helpful part of um you know what he was interested in and so interested in the Lawrence
02:54:02 and so interested in the Lawrence family's interactions with left-wing groups.
02:54:07 groups. Well, even obviously at this meeting he would have come he would if nothing else he would have come to understand that groups like MFJ
02:54:18 groups like MFJ um were outside of and had no direct influence. Not really answering my question. It's why
02:54:28 why the police were so interested in the Lawrence family and their dealings with left-wing groups, isn't it? um
02:54:41 that was that you know I couldn't speak to that then I I you know all of this this whole meeting um
02:54:50 um you know I could only um contribute or even just facilitate the you know the perspective from RN81
02:55:04 Um, and I listened to everything here that I've I've mentioned. I'm sure there was a lot more, but and I was aware of the
02:55:17 a lot more, but and I was aware of the um, you know, some of the the the concern, but um, I can't go beyond that. [snorts]
02:55:28 [snorts] At the time, did you consider the Metropolitan Police Service to be institutionally racist? I can't really honestly recall
02:55:41 I can't really honestly recall uh whether I put my mind to that question at the time of this meeting. What was your reaction to learning that
02:55:52 What was your reaction to learning that the likely outcome of the Steven Lawrence inquiry was going to be a finding of institutional racism against the Metropolitan Police Service? I can't recall today honestly.
02:56:05 I can't recall today honestly. It's quite quite a significant thing, isn't it?
02:56:08 isn't it? Well, of course, and I would have had obviously I would have had a view. Um but um
02:56:18 it's difficult to um for me to say now. Did you speak to HN58 after the meeting?
02:56:30 I have no real recollection. I I I I don't I think um
02:56:38 um I think obviously I would have done but I can't call it to mind. Can you recall if not precisely then in broad terms the
02:56:49 if not precisely then in broad terms the gist of what you would have communicated to him
02:56:53 to him after the meeting? Yes.
02:56:56 Yes. Not really. No. Would you have communicated to HN58 uh just how important um
02:57:07 um events were to the home secretary and the prime minister?
02:57:13 Well, he was, you know, he was present at this meeting, HN58.
02:57:18 HN58. Oh, I beg your pardon. Um well, yeah, HN58. Well, he's he's um your DCI at the time. Well, he's he's he gets my
02:57:29 gets my Yeah, he gets a note note.
02:57:30 note. And what I'm asking is did you speak to him about it as well? Oh my god. Um I'm sure I would have done but
02:57:38 but and can you recall what the discussion amounted to? I can't. No.
02:57:46 Can we take that down now? And can we go to 720946
02:57:51 to 720946 tab B241, sir? Over
02:57:59 to the next page. This is a minute sheet showing HN58 sending a briefing note which you are
02:58:10 sending a briefing note which you are said to have prepared um about extreme left-wing involvement in the Steven Lawrence campaign and it's going to superintendent Black through
02:58:21 going to superintendent Black through the Superintendent of Squad.
02:58:30 Can we go to page eight, please?
02:58:38 This is the briefing note in question. SDS intelligence update, September 1998, extremist involvement in the Steven
02:58:49 extremist involvement in the Steven Lawren campaign. Could we have the first paragraph expanded, please? Do you recall producing this briefing note? I I don't recall it, but uh I can see it's
02:59:02 don't recall it, but uh I can see it's clearly my my um briefing note. I'll give you a moment to read that first paragraph.
02:59:31 Yes, thank you. Talks about the largely successful attempts by MFJ to gain influence within the Steven Lawrence campaign.
02:59:46 the Steven Lawrence campaign. But we've seen from the reporting that we've been through that they don't appear to have had influence at all with the inner circle, the Steven Lawrence
02:59:57 the inner circle, the Steven Lawrence family campaign, did they? No. No. No. No. We've seen that they were involved with the Lawrence family support group, but rejected by the Lawrenes.
03:00:09 rejected by the Lawrenes. That's correct. this uh report exaggerates the success of MFJ, doesn't it?
03:00:20 success of MFJ, doesn't it? I think it um refer I'm referring to the Steven Lawrence campaign in general terms. It obviously
03:00:30 obviously um would have been it would have been better
03:00:35 better um to have explained um that they did not have influence uh within the actual family in a circle.
03:00:46 uh within the actual family in a circle. But that wouldn't have looked quite so good for the SDS, would it? That wouldn't have looked quite so good for the SDS. Um
03:00:56 Um well,
03:00:59 well, okay. I I can't say now more than I have.
03:01:03 have. Can we go to the second paragraph?
03:01:22 While the Lawrence family have sought to prevent extremist activists from taking over the campaign, they hadn't just sought to prevent, had they? They had prevented.
03:01:33 prevented. Yes.
03:01:34 Yes. So again, this rather understates the reality, doesn't it? it um well pos yes yes it may be the case but um but at least it does
03:01:48 um but at least it does clarify what I said in the first paragraph
03:01:52 paragraph in your favor on the question of granular detail uh is what follows is that you actually attach two reports
03:02:03 two reports to this briefing now don't you as we see two recent reports s are attached both to give a flavor of his ongoing in-depth commentary and to indicate the potential
03:02:14 commentary and to indicate the potential for further extremist activity in relation to the second stage. Yes.
03:02:18 Yes. Um amongst those two one of those two reports is the one we looked at earlier which includes the report of the separation of the Lawrenes.
03:02:30 separation of the Lawrenes. Right. Did you choose that? Um because it included uh such detailed information about uh the Lawrence family campaign.
03:02:43 about uh the Lawrence family campaign. I'm I'm sure that I wouldn't have selected it for that reason.
03:02:51 Could [snorts] we look at sub paragraph the next paragraph? Paragraph three.
03:03:07 And here you are broadcasting. Um, for those that is going to be disseminated to the fact of the meeting with
03:03:19 with Does that stand for acting detective inspector Walton? Um,
03:03:24 Um, forgive me. I'm I'm just
03:03:32 think I'm just focusing on the commissioner would be ill advised to attend a public forum. Yes, we saw a reference to that in the
03:03:43 Yes, we saw a reference to that in the the meeting note. Yeah.
03:03:46 Yeah. Um but I'm I'm asking a very pedantic question. Does the ADI stand for acting detective inspector Walton? Oh. Um,
03:03:58 Oh. Um, adm
03:04:00 adm yes, I can see that. I can't recall now. Um, but that would have that was obviously my understanding at the time.
03:04:13 And we see essentially you are trumpeting two features of SDS intelligence. one public order and the other quite separately the
03:04:25 order and the other quite separately the unique insight into the behind the scenes machinations of the Lawrence campaign.
03:04:33 campaign. Yes.
03:04:34 Yes. So can I take it from that that you were regarding what the SDS was doing as pursuing two distinct strands?
03:04:45 Um I'm I'm expressing it as two distinct strings. Obviously at the time it was simply
03:04:53 simply um the um officer um
03:04:59 um a uh the officer undercover officer you know being able to cover um the machinations that we see
03:05:10 um the machinations that we see reported. from his group's um his group's perspective. Can we go to page nine, paragraph two, please?
03:05:54 Yes, thank you. So here we're moving on to the campaigning that was being done by SDV Real Ricky Real's mother to try
03:06:05 by SDV Real Ricky Real's mother to try and establish what happened to her son who was found dead in the river tempames.
03:06:11 tempames. Yes.
03:06:15 and it's being described as planning that the MFJ were planning to assist her in mounting a largecale
03:06:26 to assist her in mounting a largecale campaign against the police. So can I take it that the police perspective on what Sukdev Real was doing by wanting to know whether the
03:06:40 doing by wanting to know whether the police uh had behaved competently in response to her son's disappearance and whether it had been influenced by racism
03:06:51 whether it had been influenced by racism was regarded as a campaign against the police.
03:06:57 police. Um
03:06:59 Um I can only um
03:07:04 um see it from our perspective. Movement for Justice were um
03:07:13 were um uh seeking um to
03:07:18 um to get get involved in campaigns that were, you know, legitimately um justice campaigns as we looked at yesterday um in other parts of London.
03:07:32 yesterday um in other parts of London. Um,
03:07:33 Um, [snorts] it's it's exactly the same here and it's perceived as anti- police, isn't it?
03:07:40 isn't it? I think it's a lazy term and but it was often ob um that was at the time that might would have been
03:07:51 might would have been would have been said. Um, and what you want to emphasize, it goes on, is the extent to which the case has the potential to cause police embarrassment
03:08:03 embarrassment on the same scale as the Lawrence case. Yes, that's um so from your point of view, it's here we go again.
03:08:16 go again. Well, it's worth um worth pointing out, isn't it?
03:08:21 isn't it? more damage to the police's reputation. Yes.
03:08:28 On an issue of racism within the police. Yes. But I don't think there's any sort of impact on the SDS's,
03:08:42 of impact on the SDS's, you know, um neutrality on this. We're just as always reporting what we find. in our target groups.
03:08:53 in our target groups. Well, you say neutrality, but you had used the intelligence gained about the Steven Lawrence campaign, including that about the groups
03:09:06 including that about the groups surrounding the Lawrenes to brief a man who was drafting the submissions to defend the commissioner in the Steven Lawrence inquiry. That's
03:09:20 in the Steven Lawrence inquiry. That's not neutral, is it? Um, that's how I I think how I understood it at the time. That's using the intelligence to defend
03:09:32 That's using the intelligence to defend the police, isn't it?
03:09:37 Well, I think it's No, I think it was enabling
03:09:42 enabling um enabling the police to understand uh the situation. on the ground. Some I mean the the Richard Walton's got
03:09:56 mean the the Richard Walton's got he's got a job to do. Um we have helped him perhaps hopefully in a in a particular area to uh understand his
03:10:07 particular area to uh understand his brief. We haven't done anything to change
03:10:11 change um the situation um that the commission is facing. [snorts]
03:10:20 [snorts] another anti- police campaign and you conclude that HN81 will be ideally positioned to monitor important developments in the months ahead. Can I
03:10:32 developments in the months ahead. Can I take it from that that you anticipated HN81
03:10:36 HN81 doing exactly the same as he had in relation to the Lawrence campaign with the campaign being run by Mrs. Real?
03:10:47 the campaign being run by Mrs. Real? Yes. Uh in you know Yes. in a word. Yeah.
03:10:55 And he was ideally positioned, wasn't he?
03:11:00 he? He was. Did you say? Yes. Yes. He'd driven Mrs. Real home from a meeting with MFJ, hadn't he? Well, I don't recall that.
03:11:14 Well, I don't recall that. Are you able to say whether he did or he didn't tell you that he'd done that? Um,
03:11:23 Um, I'm a I'm sorry. I don't recall I don't recall that. Um,
03:11:32 and what we're talking about is spying directly on relations between a grieving family critical of the police and a small group of political
03:11:44 and a small group of political activists, aren't we? Indeed. Yes. And you felt that was excellent work? Um,
03:11:54 Um, I mean, what are you basing that on? Anything? I have no recollection. no recollection of it. Well, the way you're writing this up and the fact you're doing it,
03:12:06 and the fact you're doing it, I think there's, you know, there's a huge distance between what I'm saying here and what um the undercover officer
03:12:18 here and what um the undercover officer did subsequent subsequent to this report.
03:12:23 report. I I have no recollection um of him
03:12:29 um of him telling me that he'd driven. Um
03:12:35 Um I was pitching my question more widely. You thought HN81's work in relation to Steven Lawrence campaign and in relation to the Ricky Real campaign was excellent
03:12:47 to the Ricky Real campaign was excellent work.
03:12:49 work. Yes.
03:12:54 Can we have the third paragraph on this page, please?
03:13:05 A new SDS source, Apple Source, that's HN60,
03:13:10 HN60, is now well placed to report additionally on the involvement of the SWPL
03:13:16 SWPL in the second phase of the Lawrence inquiry and the civil rights march in October. Lacking the key personal contacts enjoyed by MFJ, the SWP can
03:13:27 contacts enjoyed by MFJ, the SWP can nonetheless bless be relied upon to add its stridident voice to the corrupt racist police bandwagon and significant numbers to related demonstrations. So
03:13:39 numbers to related demonstrations. So essentially you're trumpeting here that you the SDS has got another source who's covering [clears throat] the SWP and ANL in relation to the Lawrence related matters.
03:13:50 matters. Yes.
03:13:51 Yes. Uh you describe them as lacking the key personal contacts enjoyed by the MFJ, but since we know the MFJ
03:14:03 but since we know the MFJ had not been able to get into the inner circle, that's something of an exaggeration, isn't it? Well, um I don't I'm not saying
03:14:15 Well, um I don't I'm not saying contact with the family. I sure I'm sure
03:14:22 So the um
03:14:30 lacking the key personal contacts enjoyed by MFJ. Yeah, I can't recall today what they precisely were, but they I think it must be clear
03:14:43 I think it must be clear um from what we've seen that the MFJ did not enjoy any close personal contacts with um with the family and the inner
03:14:55 with um with the family and the inner circle. We to the contrary.
03:15:00 What did you mean by corrupt racist police bandwagon? um probably seeking
03:15:11 seeking to describe um groups like MFJ, SWP, ANL
03:15:22 SWP, ANL um who
03:15:25 um who were perhaps not not primarily if at all concerned with justice, but um concerned to be involved in
03:15:39 but um concerned to be involved in protest.
03:15:43 You saying you cynically thought they didn't believe in the causes they were supporting? Um
03:15:51 Um not in the same not in in a not in the same way that the actual family campaigns were.
03:16:02 actual family campaigns were. Could we have paragraph four, please?
03:16:17 [snorts] You're explaining the need to protect your sources, but then you go on to say that regular reporting to C squad and additional discrete briefings to acting
03:16:30 additional discrete briefings to acting de detective inspector Walton when necessary. Can you help us with whether there were further discrete briefings to Walton?
03:16:40 Walton? Um,
03:16:41 Um, well, not by me, that's for sure. You were just about to leave the SDS at this stage, weren't you? Yes, but yes, but um Yeah. Did anyone ever tell you whether there'd
03:16:52 Did anyone ever tell you whether there'd been any more? No.
03:16:57 No. [snorts]
03:16:59 [snorts] Were you aware that it was Detective Chief Superintendent Black who had asked for this briefing? That was I aware that
03:17:10 That was I aware that it was DCS Black who'd asked for this briefing.
03:17:15 briefing. Um I I'm I'm not sure. I mean, I've never been able to recall uh precisely who where where the request
03:17:28 uh precisely who where where the request came from. Can we have a look at 720946, please? It's tab B241.
03:18:07 720 946.
03:18:12 946. That's what we're looking at at the moment.
03:18:16 moment. Page three, please. That's right. It's a minute sheet. It's a minute sheet to this briefing note. Page three is a minute from
03:18:29 Page three is a minute from Detective Chief Superintendent Black to Detective Superintendent S. So I fully appreciate this doesn't in this exchange directly doesn't involve you, but I would like you to read it, please.
03:19:10 Yes, thank you. [snorts] So, you can see that uh DCS Black's re reaction to your paper was very favorable.
03:19:21 favorable. Yes. and describing the SDS as well positioned at the focal crisis points of policing
03:19:28 policing in London. Was that positive feedback relayed to you? Um
03:19:36 Um [clears throat] I'm sure yes I'm sure it would have been I I can't recall. Can you recall any positive feedback from anyone else in the chain of
03:19:48 from anyone else in the chain of command?
03:19:49 command? Uh, uh, no, no.
03:19:55 Can we take that down now and go to 7, sorry, 728 620. This is tab B175, sir.
03:20:12 This is the SDS. It's a draft a partial draft of the annual report for 1997 1998.
03:20:23 1998. Are you able to assist us with whether you played any part in drafting this? Um what this morning I think we talked about the
03:20:34 about the dates the reports were like likely to have been um published. Is it
03:20:43 Is it can you recall this? Isn't this is a is this is there a date on this report when it's being on this draft? This is it's an annual report. It's it's
03:20:54 This is it's an annual report. It's it's draft it's a it's in it's seriously incomplete. Right. Right. For the uh year 1997 1998.
03:21:04 1998. So that would be the year ending in I'm just wondering early April 198 which part I've forgotten quite you know how how much of each year is in it is
03:21:17 much of each year is in it is it's a financial year so financial year so up to about March April April and