John Webb (HN120), a detective sergeant in the SDS back office from 1992 to 1997, gives evidence about SDS management structures, the unit's surveillance of the Stephen Lawrence family campaign and other black justice campaigns, and its awareness of undercover officers' deceitful sexual relationships with activists, including the Tradecraft Manual's guidance on 'fleeting disastrous relationships' and his own failure to report HN1's admitted affair with Denise Fuller.
00:17:32 Good afternoon everybody. Uh this afternoon's proceedings are going to be transmitted on the live link but only after a 15minute delay. Those with
00:17:43 after a 15minute delay. Those with mobile devices may use them to report what they hear in the hearing room, but only after 15 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're reporting. They may not be used for photography or
00:17:54 may not be used for photography or recording. Yes. May the witness be sworn, please. Thank you. Please stand. Please repeat after me. I do solemnly I do solemnly sincerely and truly
00:18:05 sincerely and truly sincerely and truly declare and affirm declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth sh will be the truth the whole truth the whole truth and nothing but and nothing but the truth
00:18:16 and nothing but the truth you
00:18:19 you Thank you sir um Mr. Webb could you give your full name please? Uh yes, John Webb. Um Mr. Web, you've provided a witness statement to the inquiry dated the 25th
00:18:31 statement to the inquiry dated the 25th of June uh 2024. It's at MPS 0749549 at tab A1 of the bundle. [snorts]
00:18:41 [snorts] Um that's the front page. Um can we go to the last page please? Did you sign um the signatures redacted but did you sign that on the 25th of
00:18:53 but did you sign that on the 25th of June in 2024? Yes, I did. And is the contents of that statement true to the best of your knowledge and belief? It is.
00:19:00 It is. Um I understand there are some small corrections, factual corrections that you'd like to make. And we'll just do that now quickly. Um at paragraph 75 on page 24,
00:19:12 page 24, um the word Lambert appears and you say that that's a typo and you were actually discussing Bob Macintosh. Is that right? I believe so. Yes.
00:19:23 I believe so. Yes. At paragraph 96 uh at pages 31 to 32, you say that you've since um the provision of this statement recalled that there was an account held, but you
00:19:35 that there was an account held, but you can't recall how the account was opened or by whom, but you can recall the name of the bank. Is that right? That's correct. Yes. Paragraph 276B
00:19:46 Paragraph 276B of page 119, the word archives should read activities. Is that right? Correct. Yes. Are all of Are those all the corrections that you want to make to that statement?
00:19:58 that you want to make to that statement? As far as I can remember, yes. Yes. Thank you. Um, you were a detective sergeant in the SDS from June 1992 to September 1997. Is that right?
00:20:10 September 1997. Is that right? I can't remember the exact leaving date, but it was certainly June 92 to probably um summertime in 97.
00:20:21 um summertime in 97. Um we certainly know uh that you were there in July from some of the documentation. Um and we know uh that there is a request and authorization for
00:20:34 there is a request and authorization for travel for you and HN14 Jim Boiling dated the 23rd of September 1997. Does that suggest that you were there? Yes, it does. September 97. Thank you.
00:20:47 Yes, it does. September 97. Thank you. Um, in 199 1982, you were approached by Detective Chief Inspector HN86 to join the SDS and you decided against it and you say in your witness statement
00:21:00 it and you say in your witness statement of paragraph 10, page three, that you didn't feel the role was for you. Um, do you know why HN86 approached you at that time?
00:21:10 time? I think, uh, he approached quite a few people. Um uh whether it was a genuine approach or just sounding out uh expressions of interest, I'm not entirely sure, but um
00:21:23 interest, I'm not entirely sure, but um I was an established special branch officer and uh we did know each other. Why did you feel the role was not for you at that time? Why why did you turn it down?
00:21:33 it down? Um I just my private life was important to me then. Um and it still is. So it wouldn't have suited me at that time. I see. In 1992,
00:21:46 I see. In 1992, HN29,
00:21:47 HN29, Detective Sergeant Dave Carson, who was a DS in the SDS at the time, approached you to discuss the SDS with you. And by this time, you'd spent 12 years in special branch. When HN29,
00:22:01 special branch. When HN29, uh, DS Carson left the SDS, his role was offered to you, um, which you accepted. Yes. Is that right? Yes. [snorts] Um do you know why at that time um HN29 approached you?
00:22:13 approached you? Um because I was due to move on anyway and um we both felt that a job swap would be um ideal for both of us. Did he give you um an outline
00:22:26 Did he give you um an outline understanding of what the SDS did at that time? Uh not specifically, but I was already aware as as an established special branch officer aware of what the unit did.
00:22:35 did. What was that awareness? What was your understanding? That it was basically a an infiltration operation to um gather intelligence on public order matters. Where did you gain that understanding
00:22:47 Where did you gain that understanding from?
00:22:47 from? It was just general general special branch knowledge. And so you agreed to join the SDS at that time. Um was there a specific reason for that or it was just a new
00:22:59 reason for that or it was just a new posting?
00:23:00 posting? It was time for a new posting and it was available at the time and it worked for everybody. When you joined the SDS, the most senior officer in the unit was DCI HN86,
00:23:12 officer in the unit was DCI HN86, supported by Detective Inspector HN67. Is that right? Correct. Yes. And uh HN86 was then succeeded by HN 216
00:23:24 And uh HN86 was then succeeded by HN 216 DCI Keith Edmonson and later by DCIHN58. and DI HN67 was succeeded by HN10 DI Bob Lambert who we've just been hearing
00:23:35 Lambert who we've just been hearing evidence from about his time as a manager.
00:23:38 manager. And you explain in your statement at paragraph 67, page 20, that it was the DCI who was the one in charge of the SDS and the DI was their second in command
00:23:49 and the DI was their second in command and it was the DI who set the targeting strategy for the UCOs which was approved by a commander. Is that right? Yes, that's correct. U you say that you had daily interactions with the
00:24:00 had daily interactions with the detective chief inspector in the SD SDS office and I just want to ask you about those interactions and the two different DCIs that you served under. [snorts] Um you say in your statement that you found
00:24:13 you say in your statement that you found um HN216 DCI Edmonson to have a different approach to HN86. In what way was his approach different? His approach was much more um
00:24:24 His approach was much more um discursive. he was more open to discussing what was going on. He sought out opinions whereas um his predecessor was less inclined to do that. I see you describe HN86 in your witness
00:24:39 I see you describe HN86 in your witness statement, paragraph 73A, page 22. And in what way was he rigid? Uh he he was not open to any sort of um discussion or even suggestion about the
00:24:51 discussion or even suggestion about the way things might work better. Was there an impression that the UCOs at the time were scared of him? No.
00:24:59 No. Uh, [clears throat] in comparison, you describe DCI Edmonson as more affable yet more indecisive and that he came across as naive. Um, can you expand on
00:25:11 across as naive. Um, can you expand on the ways in which he was more indecisive than H&86? Yes, he was he was not a a man to um
00:25:22 Yes, he was he was not a a man to um make very firm decisions. Um he would often explore an argument uh discuss all aspects of an issue before coming down on one side or another and sometimes
00:25:35 on one side or another and sometimes um not really coming down on either side. So it was quite hard to know exactly what direction he was giving to anyone.
00:25:48 he was giving to anyone. What about Di Lambert? Was he a decisive manager?
00:25:51 manager? He was more decisive but also very inclusive. Um in what way was DCI Edmonson naive? um he often expressed disbelief
00:26:04 um he often expressed disbelief in
00:26:06 in in things which were clearly going on at the time. He often expressed his own um perplexed that he was perplexed by
00:26:19 perplexed that he was perplexed by certain things which were happening such as
00:26:22 such as um or just general things which were going on in the world at that time. He would he would give an impression that he was that events would take him by surprise and people would say things
00:26:33 surprise and people would say things that he really didn't believe.
00:26:39 Did DCI Edmonson command the same level of respect from the UCOs as as either HN86 or DI Lambert? I can't really sort
00:26:50 HN86 or DI Lambert? I can't really sort of speak for the individual officers about how they felt about him, but I would say
00:26:57 would say the position he held gave him the same level of of respect that he was he was the man in charge. Um, so yes, they they did he was viewed
00:27:08 Um, so yes, they they did he was viewed with a level of respect by the UCOs. Do you think the fact that DCI Edmonson had not previously been a UCO and DIambert had uh made any difference?
00:27:22 DIambert had uh made any difference? Uh it didn't make a difference to me. Uh but to the UCOs's it probably did make a difference. Was Di Lambert regarded by the UCOs as
00:27:33 Was Di Lambert regarded by the UCOs as the go-to person for anything operational or any issue they had in the field?
00:27:38 field? I would say so. Yes. to the exclusion of DCI Edmonson. Um, not necessarily the exclusion, but he would be the first
00:27:49 he would be the first um the first sort of protocol point of contact,
00:27:53 contact, but
00:27:56 but that was
00:27:58 that was that was not in itself unusual and I don't think it was a reflection on DCI Edmonson.
00:28:03 Edmonson. Did DI Lambert therefore exert more influence over the ECOS than DCI Edmonson?
00:28:10 Edmonson? Again,
00:28:12 Again, I can't say I can't speak for the UCOs's, but I my opinion would be yes, he was a more influential figure because of his past experience and his his his nature.
00:28:26 and his his his nature. Um, and in in what ways did his nature and his past experience influence the ECOS in their deployment? I think his past experience he there was
00:28:37 past experience he there was almost a sort of legend built around him as a very long-erving undercover officer and
00:28:45 and he did
00:28:47 he did portray to the UCOs in in meetings with them that I was that I saw that he did have an empathy with their situation uh and what they were going through and
00:28:59 uh and what they were going through and he would always be open to um discussion He would always propose ideas to talk about um but he would steer you towards
00:29:11 about um but he would steer you towards the course of action that he really wanted.
00:29:14 wanted. What was the working relationship between DCI Edmonson and DI Lambert like what was the dynamic between them? It was pretty casual but that wasn't unusual for special branch generally. It
00:29:26 unusual for special branch generally. It was a um they shared an office, they made each other cups of tea. Uh it was a close working relationship. Um
00:29:38 Um and that's really all I can recall of it.
00:29:41 it. And in terms of the management and supervision of the UCOs, um how how did that break down as between the DCI and the DI? What were
00:29:52 between the DCI and the DI? What were they both doing practically speaking in terms of supervising the UCOs in the field?
00:29:58 field? Again, I wasn't present at every encounter with between them and the UCOs, but those that I did that I was aware of, um, they would generally operate together.
00:30:10 operate together. Um, like Bob would be the first point port of contact, the first point of contact. Um, but Keith would always I mean DI Edmonson would always be someone to who
00:30:23 Edmonson would always be someone to who would be part of the the conversation and would be the eventual decision maker.
00:30:30 You served as a detective sergeant in the SDS um during your time there. You in your witness statement say that you don't think that your role could be
00:30:41 don't think that your role could be defined as one of manager. Why is that? uh I wasn't responsible for um the direct supervision or management of any of the of the officers
00:30:52 of the of the officers um some of whom were actually senior to me in in terms of rank. Um my position in the STS was the intelligence processor. So I managed
00:31:04 the intelligence processor. So I managed the intelligence maybe but I didn't manage any of the people. Um you describe yourself at um paragraph 69 of your statement pages 20 to 21 as the reports man is that right
00:31:16 the reports man is that right and that you had an intelligence role and as you say were intelligence processor did you see that you had any type of supervisory or monitoring role
00:31:27 type of supervisory or monitoring role of the UCOs in their deployments? Uh both both of the DS's in the back office were um in regular contact with the field officers when they they called
00:31:39 the field officers when they they called in twice a day and they would speak to one of us
00:31:43 one of us uh first and they would raise any issues that that or anything that might be of interest or anything that was um pressing which we would then refer to
00:31:54 pressing which we would then refer to either Di Lambert or DCI Edmonson depending on who was there mostly.
00:32:03 And so you consider the manager role or management would have been the DCI and the DI
00:32:12 the DI and it was primarily the detective inspector who was managing the UCOs in the field. I would say that's correct. Yes. But you had daily contact with the UCOs so you knew what they were doing.
00:32:24 so you knew what they were doing. Yes.
00:32:25 Yes. Um, and as you've said, any particular issue, whether that was something positive or negative, you would pass on to your direct line manager, the DI, who would involve the DCI as necessary. Is
00:32:38 would involve the DCI as necessary. Is that picture you're painting? Whoever was there at that time.
00:32:44 time. So, it could be either of them. And it's we were it's a small unit. We were busy doing things and often one or other of them was not there. So it' be whoever
00:32:55 them was not there. So it' be whoever was there would be referred to where UCOs's were detective constables. So a more junior rank than you. Did you see that the nature of the rank
00:33:06 see that the nature of the rank structure of itself meant that you were in a managerial position over them or not?
00:33:12 not? No, I didn't. In in special branch rank was sort of secondary to role really. Um, in relation to DI Lambert's role as your manager, um, did he supervise you?
00:33:26 your manager, um, did he supervise you? Uh, yes, in in his way. Yes. How did he do that? Um, again, it was through regular we were in daily contact. We we worked in the same two offices. Um,
00:33:39 the same two offices. Um, we worked very closely together and we we'd known each other quite a long time. Um yeah, there was never any doubt in my mind that that he was the boss, my boss.
00:33:51 mind that that he was the boss, my boss. Um
00:33:53 Um and that was an understanding we have. We didn't need to have any sort of um
00:33:59 um structured approach to managing and man being managed. So it was all quite informal. Yes.
00:34:07 Yes. Done through discussion. Yeah. Um, did D. Lambert make clear his expectations of you as the DS in your particular role in the SDS or not? Uh, not explicitly, but but through
00:34:20 Uh, not explicitly, but but through implication. Yes. And how did he do that? By implication. Through implication. Again, we we had a very um relaxed and discursive relationship. And mostly it
00:34:33 discursive relationship. And mostly it would be on the quality of the work that I was doing. the the intelligence processing and report writing. Um,
00:34:45 Um, it did actually evolve over time into a
00:34:51 you would seek my opinion on on matters more.
00:34:55 more. um
00:34:57 um for example, well I guess and I'm I'm sure we'll come to it later but the the uh the whole issue of um identification identities used by the field officers
00:35:09 used by the field officers we would we discussed ways to to change that.
00:35:13 that. Yes, thank you. Um and what sort of relationship um did you have with the UCOs you were receiving intelligence from then in those daily uh contacts and the weekly meetings? What was the
00:35:25 the weekly meetings? What was the dynamic between you and them? Uh, from my perspective, um, they understood that I had a responsibility
00:35:36 understood that I had a responsibility to turn their product into usable intelligence. Um,
00:35:42 Um, some of them regarded me as a friend, others less so. Um, but that's it was to me it was just human nature. Some people you get on better with than others. But
00:35:54 you get on better with than others. But we had a working relationship.
00:35:58 And in terms of um DCI Edmonson's managerial relationship with you, did he make clear what his expectations of your role and of you as a as a DS in the SDS
00:36:11 role and of you as a as a DS in the SDS were or not? Not explicitly, but
00:36:17 this isn't going to be very help, but in a more sort of generalized way. Um,
00:36:22 Um, again, I I was a very experienced special branch officer, so I did understand how the systems worked and I didn't really need to be
00:36:34 and I didn't really need to be um directed in how to use those systems, intelligence systems and intelligence methods.
00:36:41 methods. And in terms of the standards that UCOs were expected to meet, how were those standards being communicated to UCOs by management in the SDS and how were they
00:36:53 management in the SDS and how were they those standards being monitored as to whether they were being met or not? I don't think I can really offer too much of an opinion on that because those
00:37:05 much of an opinion on that because those the the more senior officers had onetoone or oneto discussions with the UCOs on a very regular basis which I was not privy to. Um there was no need for
00:37:17 not privy to. Um there was no need for me to be involved in those discussions. So I don't know what sort of communication took place between them or if any directives were issued or anything like that but I was not aware
00:37:28 anything like that but I was not aware of any.
00:37:30 of any. Um HN52
00:37:33 Um HN52 who is detective sergeant um Bernard Greeny um mentions in his witness statement sir it's MPS0749 291 paragraph 24 page 8 which is in Mr.
00:37:47 291 paragraph 24 page 8 which is in Mr. Greenies bundle tab A1. Um that and he's the the DS who came directly after you into replaced you effectively. Is that right?
00:37:57 right? We we over overlapped briefly but yes. Yeah. Um and he he said in his witness statement that each DS handled three or four UCOs as well as carrying
00:38:08 three or four UCOs as well as carrying out other administrative and support tasks that were allocated to you. Um, was that a change in the system from when you were a DS or did you also
00:38:19 when you were a DS or did you also understand that you were quote unquote handling certain UCOs? I don't think I was ever a handler of any designated or any particular
00:38:31 any designated or any particular officer. Um, so no, it was something that came after me.
00:38:37 me. And in terms of the phrase cover officer, um did you understand that you ever acted as any particular UCO's cover officer at any time? On occasions, yes. Um when an officer
00:38:50 On occasions, yes. Um when an officer was a UCO was going to be in a situation which could possibly require some sort of intervention. It was customary for or it became
00:39:01 It was customary for or it became customary for one of the office staff to be in the vicinity to provide um top cover if you like if anything went wrong.
00:39:12 anything went wrong. So it was in relation to very particular instances, particular operational circumstances. Yes. It wasn't a particular individual. It was generally and it wasn't um it wasn't in relation
00:39:24 and it wasn't um it wasn't in relation to any particular um individual as a standard across the whole of their deployment. No, it wasn't. No. No. Um at paragraph 165, page 60 of your
00:39:36 Um at paragraph 165, page 60 of your witness statement, you say there was a general sense among UCOs that their deployments had a sanctity that should not be disturbed. Um,
00:39:48 Um, what did you mean by that? Um,
00:39:52 Um, let me just refresh my memory here. You say they believe what the SDS did was important, not just for today, but for the future. Yeah.
00:40:00 Yeah. With hindsight, I think there may have been an element of UCOs not wanting to be seen to be finding things challenging, knowing that the outcome of this would probably be a termination of their deployment for their own safety.
00:40:11 their deployment for their own safety. Yes, I think on both counts that's right. the there was an ethos in the SDS that um
00:40:20 that um the long-term
00:40:25 sustainability of undercover deployments often against the same targets was a very important factor that um an officer working in a particular field would not want to mess
00:40:38 particular field would not want to mess things up for anyone who followed them. So
00:40:42 So any sort of exposure disclosure of an undercover operation was deemed as a as a bad thing. Um
00:40:54 a as a bad thing. Um but also the officers in as individuals they built their own their own operations and they were very very important to the individuals concerned.
00:41:05 important to the individuals concerned. Did did the sanctity of their deployments not being disturbed entail a rather hands-off approach from management? They just let the ECOs get on with what they were doing.
00:41:17 on with what they were doing. Again, I I wasn't I wasn't a manager in respect of their conduct or behavior. Um,
00:41:26 Um, but
00:41:28 but I would say that there by definition there has to be a sort of hands-off approach because you can't be on top of what an individual is doing at all times
00:41:39 what an individual is doing at all times if
00:41:41 if if they're not anywhere near you. Um, these were the days before mobile communications and and that sort of thing. So the ability to oversee
00:41:52 thing. So the ability to oversee what a UCO was doing were was a very very different um situation than it would be today. And you give the reason um here for this situation that UCOs
00:42:04 um here for this situation that UCOs effectively didn't want to admit to struggling in any way as it may risk ending their deployment. Knowing what we know now, would you accept that it was also obviously because they were misbehaving and didn't want to get
00:42:16 misbehaving and didn't want to get caught?
00:42:17 caught? I don't I don't think so. Um the fact that the only sanction we had or that could really be imposed on someone you can't supervise on a close
00:42:28 someone you can't supervise on a close basis is you remove them from the situation that's causing them stress or or is posing a risk to them or to anyone else. Um,
00:42:40 else. Um, I I don't think for the vast majority that I that I knew,
00:42:47 knew, I don't think ability to misbehave was any sort of um motivation for them. Um, we'll come in more detail later on
00:42:58 Um, we'll come in more detail later on to the number of deceitful sexual relationships we know of during the time of your tenure as a DS in the SDS. But um, given the misconduct of UCOs, which has since been exposed, do you accept
00:43:11 has since been exposed, do you accept that there were any failings from the management team in terms of the supervision of of UCOs from your level or above you? I don't think there are failings of
00:43:22 I don't think there are failings of supervision as such um given what was available at the time to supervise people who were not anywhere near you. Um
00:43:37 I think perhaps the way the recruitment and selection process evolved over time made the likelihood uh of a misbehaving officer
00:43:49 likelihood uh of a misbehaving officer getting into that position where they could when they were an undercover officer. Um I think the risk of that reduced over time.
00:44:01 Um, did you receive any training at all related to dealing with undercover work before you started work on the SDS? Not specifically, no.
00:44:12 Not specifically, no. Um, so other than your experience in special branch already, you learned everything about your role and the nature of what you needed to do as a DS in the SDS on the job.
00:44:25 in the SDS on the job. Pretty much. Yes. Yes. And would that have been both from other detective sergeants and those above you, particularly Di Lambert, who had been a former UCO?
00:44:36 former UCO? Um,
00:44:38 Um, probably yes. Um, but special branch was a different sort of branch to belong to. you tended to have much more
00:44:49 you tended to have much more conversation with people of different levels of experience and you almost learned from each other almost through osmosis through any sort of directed training or
00:45:01 through any sort of directed training or instruction. Thank you. Had you received any training at all on the sex discrimination act? I would have done. Yes. Um do you know when? I can't remember when that would have been but it was
00:45:12 when that would have been but it was part of the general uh sort of requirement for the non-cobt officers at the time. I think we all had to go through a a set of training courses and
00:45:26 through a a set of training courses and in various aspects. Yes. And do you recall the training uh particularly on the sex discrimination act?
00:45:33 act? Not not from this distance? No. Had you received any training on the race relations act? Again, the answer would have been yes, I would have done.
00:45:44 Uh, again, do do you recall when in relation to your time at the SDS? I can't recall if I attended anything while I was actually at the SDS, but
00:45:55 while I was actually at the SDS, but during my time in special branch, these it came up periodically. And had you received any particular training on racial awareness? That was part of the the whole racial element at
00:46:09 part of the the whole racial element at the time. Yes. Yes. And do you think you received that training in special branch or before or both?
00:46:15 both? It would have been while I was in special branch, but it wasn't administered by special branch. There were external bodies and trainers brought in to run courses not just for us but for everyone.
00:46:27 us but for everyone. Thank you. Uh, in your witness statement at paragraph 223 at page 95, you say, "The only racism or sexism I witnessed while on the SDS was from
00:46:38 witnessed while on the SDS was from people in target groups, demonstrations or protests. I did not witness any from the UCOs nor from anyone else in the SDS." And I just want to clarify with
00:46:49 SDS." And I just want to clarify with you when you refer to people in target groups, demonstrations or protests without identifying any particular individual, who are you talking about there?
00:47:00 there? Um I was talking really about attitudes within the target groups. Um some of whom had very had different attitudes towards um towards race in particular.
00:47:12 um towards race in particular. Um which type of groups? Um,
00:47:21 I don't really think that I can answer that
00:47:26 that at this stage. Um certainly some of the anti-racist groups had very clear um
00:47:36 um clear attitudes towards race but
00:47:42 but some of the other groups were either a bit more ambiguous about it.
00:47:48 about it. And h how did you come to observe racism in that context?
00:47:55 really through through secondhand really. Um through UCOs's Yeah.
00:48:03 Yeah. Um from their reporting from their reporting and conversations. Yes. And would you have written up those reports
00:48:10 reports if if it was most of the time? Yes, I would. Yes. And what would have been a reason not to either I wasn't there? We worked a a system where we covered weekends. So um
00:48:23 system where we covered weekends. So um one week
00:48:25 one week you do Friday and Saturday, the following week you would have Friday off. [snorts] So, and since we met UCOs's on a Thursday, if I wasn't in on the Friday, often it went it failed to
00:48:38 the Friday, often it went it failed to someone else to actually do any reporting that was felt necessary at the time.
00:48:43 time. So, it wasn't that that sort of material was filtered out of reporting in any way.
00:48:48 way. No. Um, I'll come back to dealing with your time in the SDS, but I'd just like to go back to when you joined the MPS in the first place. That was in November 1976,
00:48:59 1976, wasn't it? Yes.
00:49:00 Yes. You were a unformed officer until you joined special branch as a constable in May 1980. Is that right? Um, [snorts] in 1976, um, in terms of racism and race
00:49:11 um, in terms of racism and race discrimination, the world was a very place, very different place to how it is today. Would you agree? It was. Yes. Yes. And there was more widespread overt racism within society.
00:49:23 widespread overt racism within society. Would you agree with that? I think so. Yes. Yes. Um indeed throughout the 1970s, 1980s and into the 1990s, there were a number of racist attacks in London, for
00:49:34 of racist attacks in London, for example.
00:49:34 example. There were and there were some very major um racist demonstrations certainly by farright groups at the time um the National Front, etc. marching through Lewisham and um and the the riots in um
00:49:48 Lewisham and um and the the riots in um in Houndslow and South Hall. Um in terms of the Metropolitan Police Service, um racial diversity amongst the officers when you joined, it was less
00:50:01 officers when you joined, it was less diverse than it would would be considered today. Very much so. Yes. Um there was a lack of diversity particularly among more senior officers in the MPS at that time. I think when I joined the police service in 1976, it
00:50:14 joined the police service in 1976, it was it was very unusual to see um officers of any level of different ethnic origins. And um over time there were also issues
00:50:25 And um over time there were also issues within the MPS with disproportionate stop and search of young black men that caused issues in communities. Is that right?
00:50:31 right? Uh as it was reported that way. Yes. Um, was there a sense in the MPS that um, black people, particularly young black men, were more likely to be seen as
00:50:42 men, were more likely to be seen as criminals um, or violent? Again, I can't speak for everyone else, but from my own experience as a uniformed officer, it depended very
00:50:53 uniformed officer, it depended very largely on which area you were pleasing. So in the areas where I was deployed as a uniform officer that it wasn't um the
00:51:04 a uniform officer that it wasn't um the ethnic diversity wasn't that huge. Um and most of our attention went to the the wrongdoers in our particular area who tended to be sort of young white people. Um but it wasn't
00:51:17 people. Um but it wasn't disproportionate. It was proportionate to what was going on in the area. And there are other parts of London where it would have been very different by just the sheer nature of how those those areas are.
00:51:28 areas are. Um, h how well equipped do you think you were at the time to spot racism? I was a very young person from a different part of the country and
00:51:41 a different part of the country and I was aware of racial issues. Um, whether it's relevant or not, I was actually brought up in Africa. Um, and I was very familiar with with different
00:51:52 was very familiar with with different cultures from a very early age. And I don't think that ever it had no negative influence on me whatsoever. Um, and yes, it was,
00:52:05 whatsoever. Um, and yes, it was, as you said before, it was a very different time. Did you have an understanding um, for example, of the difference between conscious and subconscious racism? Uh that definition came a bit later when um
00:52:18 that definition came a bit later when um and it was part of the subsequent training that sort of unconscious bias became um very much spoken about and more widely known and understood. Did you have an understanding of the
00:52:30 Did you have an understanding of the difference between direct and indirect discrimination? Yes.
00:52:35 Yes. Did you have an understanding of racial stereotypes? Yes.
00:52:40 Yes. What was that understanding that it that it happens? Uh Again, it's a form of both conscious and unconscious bias that we make assumptions on how people look. Um, and it's it doesn't
00:52:52 people look. Um, and it's it doesn't just have to be race, but race is the obvious one. But you you make the same unconscious bias about judging someone by how they dress, for example. And I
00:53:03 by how they dress, for example. And I found, as an example, the attitudes of people towards me when I was in uniform were very, very different to how they were towards me when I wasn't in uniform, just because of what I was
00:53:15 uniform, just because of what I was wearing at the time. Um, during your time in uniform, um, had you, uh, any knowledge of any one making any complaints about racism within the NPS?
00:53:28 NPS? It was a long time ago and I don't remember any specific instances in special branch. In special branch I don't recall any instances of of complaints of racism
00:53:39 instances of of complaints of racism amongst fellow officers at all and in the SDS. I would never never saw any evidence of any I never was I was never aware of any complaints about racism within the unit and it was
00:53:51 about racism within the unit and it was never a matter of discussion. How likely were are you to have remembered? I think if there was overt racism within the unit, I probably would remember
00:54:02 the unit, I probably would remember um only overt racism or any other form of racism. Racism that I was aware of. Um that wasn't tied to someone's actual deployment where sometimes some opinions
00:54:15 deployment where sometimes some opinions had to be expressed which they didn't necessarily hold themselves. Um, does a lack of complaints indicate a tolerance of racism within the police at the time?
00:54:26 the time? Again, I it's it's a very broad area and I I'm not really that qualified. I worked in a very small part of the police. It wasn't general policing and I wasn't in in regular contact with
00:54:39 wasn't in in regular contact with general policing at that time. So, I can't really say. Uh, you joined special branch in May 1980. Again, still culturally very long
00:54:50 1980. Again, still culturally very long way from where we are today. Would you agree?
00:54:53 agree? Um,
00:54:55 Um, did you witness any of your special branch colleagues um doing or saying anything racist at all? Um, no. Uh, in fact, often the opposite
00:55:06 Um, no. Uh, in fact, often the opposite because of the nature of the the subject matter areas that we that we worked in, we had response. Like for one example, I was um working on Middle Eastern issues
00:55:18 was um working on Middle Eastern issues for a long time. So I was in very regular contact with all kinds of Middle Eastern communities throughout London. And we had other other teams looking at Asian matters and Caribbean matters. And
00:55:32 Asian matters and Caribbean matters. And what that actually in general was a much deeper understanding of issues affecting those particular ethnic groups. So probably the opposite of racism. Was
00:55:43 probably the opposite of racism. Was there a contrast between your experience in uniform and your experience in special branch? Again, it was a long time ago and I I'm wasn't giving it any specific thought, but yes, I think there was the
00:55:55 but yes, I think there was the So, had you witnessed any [clears throat] of your uniformed colleagues do or say anything racist during your time in uniform? [clears throat] I probably did. Yes.
00:56:06 I probably did. Yes. Um, why do you think there's the contrast between the two? I think because of the it almost the nature of people who were
00:56:17 almost the nature of people who were attracted to special branch intelligence work.
00:56:21 work. Um
00:56:23 Um it was a very small team within quite a large service and thinking about it as I have been it tended to attract more thoughtful people
00:56:36 tended to attract more thoughtful people to special branch certainly when I joined.
00:56:39 joined. In your time at special branch before the SDS, there was some uh work on E squad. Is that right? Did did that involve um the SEK community? I wasn't working on the SEK community,
00:56:51 I wasn't working on the SEK community, but I worked on the Middle East on ES squad. Yes. But I was aware of work in the in the seek community. And you were never aware of any racist comments on in either uh context?
00:57:04 comments on in either uh context? Not that I would. And sometimes there terms were used. Um so the example the the seek and Indian desk were known as the Browns for example. Um but I don't think there was any sort
00:57:15 Um but I don't think there was any sort of derogatory context of that. Um you also worked on the um Irish terrorism unit and the terrorism research unit. Were there any prejudice comments made about Irish people during
00:57:27 comments made about Irish people during that time? Not that I was aware of. No. Um, was there a feeling um, in the time you worked in special branch that justice campaigns might be manipulated by groups from the far-left political
00:57:39 by groups from the far-left political sphere?
00:57:41 sphere? Yes, quite a lot. Yes. And that was one of the things it was important to look out for. It was because um, from the SDS context or special branch generally? Special branch generally before your
00:57:52 Special branch generally before your time in the SDS. Yes. I I think um involvement of any activist group in a in whatever cause was current was always a was always a
00:58:03 was current was always a was always a possibility of escalation in terms of disorder and subversion. So what did you understand these groups to be doing in terms of manipulation?
00:58:17 to be doing in terms of manipulation? Um stirring up hatred, stirring up um antagonistic feelings. um either within community groups or against community groups
00:58:28 against community groups and special branch would want to be alert to that very much so. Yes. In order to do what exactly? uh in order to help um help with policing plans
00:58:39 to help um help with policing plans uh to provide information and intelligence to um through our reporting methods and and channels up to government level that these issues were
00:58:50 government level that these issues were were actually live and current and and who was who was behind them. Coming back to your time with the SDS then um your statement at paragraph 20
00:59:02 then um your statement at paragraph 20 223 page 95 you say you didn't witness any racism or sexism from UCOs nor from anyone else in the SDS and at paragraph 273
00:59:13 273 uh pages 116 to 117 you say for the avoidance of doubt at no time in the SDS did I hear any racist language whether in connection with Steven Lawrence's murder or otherwise by UCO's staff or
00:59:25 murder or otherwise by UCO's staff or managers including HN86 and Bob Potter. I just want to ask you a little bit more about your time in the SDS and those statements please. Um so you didn't witness any racist
00:59:38 Um so you didn't witness any racist jokes, banter or stereotyping at all whilst in the S from anyone including UCOs or managers. Is that right? As far as I can recall that that is
00:59:49 As far as I can recall that that is correct. Um yes.
00:59:53 yes. Um, were there ever um racist jokes told at SDS social gatherings?
01:00:04 I can't I can't think of examples, but it's possible that flippant remarks might have been made that could be construed as racist
01:00:15 made that could be construed as racist or sexist. But whether they were intended that way or not, I don't know. By who? Again, I can't I can't put specific names to to who was behind them, but again, it tended to relate to
01:00:27 them, but again, it tended to relate to the the areas in which the individuals were immersed. Some from UCOs. Yes, from UCOs. Yeah. Um ever from management? No, not that I recall. No. Were racial slurs ever used?
01:00:43 It's again, it's hard to know what what a racial slur is. Um any type of derogatory language connected to race. Not that I can recall now.
01:00:54 Not that I can recall now. Um, you were serving in the SDS when Steven Lawrence was murdered in 1993. Is that right? Correct. Um, the family held a press conference on the 4th of May 1993 to the effect
01:01:05 on the 4th of May 1993 to the effect that not enough was being done. They met Nelson Mandela two days later. Suspects were arrested in May or June 1993. Two were charged and then charges were dropped on the 29th of July 1993.
01:01:18 were dropped on the 29th of July 1993. just to remind you a little of some of the chronology from that year. Um, can you remember the reaction within the SDS um when those events occurred?
01:01:29 um when those events occurred? I think when Steven Lawrence was murdered, it was it was seen as something shocking that should never have happened. Um,
01:01:38 Um, but I think what shocked what shocked me and I think my colleagues at the time was the the really abysmal investigative response at the time by the police. And was that talked about within the
01:01:50 And was that talked about within the SDS?
01:01:51 SDS? It would have been, I'm sure. Yes. And in special branch more widely. Uh, probably. Yes. Um, at paragraph 268, page 115 of your
01:02:03 Um, at paragraph 268, page 115 of your witness statement, you state that you are sure that comments such as, "Has anyone heard anything in the immediate aftermath of Steven Lawrence's murder were made?" That it was discussed in the weekly meetings. Is that right?
01:02:15 weekly meetings. Is that right? As far as I recall, yes. Yes. And when a manager asked deployed officers, "Has anyone heard anything?" Do you agree that that was capable of being understood as a request to obtain
01:02:27 being understood as a request to obtain and report intelligence?
01:02:31 I think it would it was an invitation to report any intelligence they had. I don't think it was a tasking request as such.
01:02:39 such. Um what instructions if any were given to UCOs in the field as a result of those discussions in the weekly meetings by managers either by you or by anyone above you?
01:02:52 Sorry, can you repeat the question? What instructions, if any, um, were being given to the UCOs who were deployed in the field as a result of those discussions in the weekly
01:03:04 those discussions in the weekly meetings, either by the DS's or by anyone above you. I'm not I can't recall any specific instructions, but because of the the level of interest in the Steven
01:03:17 the level of interest in the Steven Lawrence case and the subsequent involvement [clears throat] of activist groups in
01:03:24 groups in um in trying to elevate the cause. There was a clear public order interest in knowing what was going on around the um
01:03:35 the um around the issue really. So there would have been a requirement whether it was specifically stated um to gather as much intelligence about
01:03:46 um to gather as much intelligence about the public order implications uh following on from the Steven Lawrence murder
01:03:51 murder and was an express distinction drawn between information about public disorder on the one hand and information about the Lawrence family and the campaign on the other? I was never aware of any instruction
01:04:03 I was never aware of any instruction issued in relation to the Lawrence family.
01:04:07 family. um the campaign, including not to report on them. Again, I'm I'm not I'm not aware of any instruction one way or the other, but I was c I never certainly never saw any
01:04:18 was c I never certainly never saw any instruction to report on the Steven Lawrence family. Were officers told not to report private, personal, or irrelevant information concerning the Lawrence
01:04:30 information concerning the Lawrence family or the campaign? They may. I don't think there was any ever any instruction not to report something. Um,
01:04:41 something. Um, in some ways the UCO's initial handwritten reports were a way of venting. Um, some of the material was not uh suitable for onward reporting as
01:04:54 uh suitable for onward reporting as intelligence. Um, but I don't think there was any instruction to do not report something if you hear it. Did that create a risk that officers would indeed report
01:05:06 that officers would indeed report whatever they heard about the family personally and their campaign? Again, I I can't recall anything relating to the family itself apart from um public order matters surrounding the
01:05:18 um public order matters surrounding the campaign.
01:05:21 campaign. um
01:05:23 um and any sort of public statements that that members of the family might have made, but nothing uh private about the family. Do you recall intelligence reports
01:05:35 Do you recall intelligence reports prepared by either HN43 Peter Francis, HN78 Trevor Morris or HN123
01:05:44 HN123 which related to the Steven Lawrence family campaign within a public order context in the 1993 1994 era? Uh I can't think of specific but yes there very much would have been a lot of
01:05:57 there very much would have been a lot of reporting about the campaign. And would they at least some of them have been edited and collected by you? Yes, very much so. Do you know what happened to those reports?
01:06:07 reports? Uh they would have been with with something as as broad-based or involving so many parties as the Steven Lawrence campaign and activities around it. Um I
01:06:18 campaign and activities around it. Um I would quite often take information from various UCOs and compile them into one composite report which would then go to the relevant desk back at special branch
01:06:30 the relevant desk back at special branch for onward transmission to the public order branch or uh security service and whoever whoever the chief superintendent of responsible for that area activity
01:06:41 of responsible for that area activity decided it was to go to. Um, if information had been passed from the Lawrence family liaison officers, would that have been entered into the SDS and special branch systems?
01:06:53 special branch systems? I was never aware of any information coming from the family liaison officers, but would it have been entered if it had been?
01:06:59 been? Uh,
01:07:01 Uh, I don't think so, but I don't know. Um,
01:07:09 did you ever hear uh any SDS or special branch officer mention Dwayne Brooks at all?
01:07:16 all? Yes, Dwayne Brooks was mentioned. Yes. Was anything uh derogatory or racist said about him? No, it was just normally his involvement in in public activities around the
01:07:28 in in public activities around the campaign.
01:07:29 campaign. Did you ever hear anyone pronounce his first name very slowly? Not specifically known. Did you ever hear anyone say that he was a coward for running away?
01:07:40 a coward for running away? No.
01:07:42 No. Um, while you were in the SDS uh as a DS, did the SDS accept that the murder of Steven Lawrence and the attack on Mr. Brooks were indeed racist attacks? As far as I recall, yes, very much so. I
01:07:54 As far as I recall, yes, very much so. I certainly felt it was a racist attack. Um,
01:07:59 Um, HN43 Peter Francis has given evidence that he was asked to identify Mr. Brooks in footage of the May 1993 demonstration against the BNP in Welling. Were you
01:08:10 against the BNP in Welling. Were you aware of that at the time? Probably. Yes. And do you know why he was asked to do that?
01:08:17 that? It was fairly common practice to try and identify individuals involved in public disorder. Whether I'm not saying Dwayne Brooks was involved in public disorder because I don't remember
01:08:29 because I don't remember um but identifying participants was a normal is regular daily business legitimate part of the work of the SDS. Yes.
01:08:39 Yes. And [clears throat] other parts of special branch as well I'm saying. Um do you recall having meetings with Peter Francis regarding Dwayne Brooks or the Lawrence family yourself? I certainly remember having meetings with
01:08:50 certainly remember having meetings with Peter Francis on a regular basis whether it's specific and and obviously the the whole Lawrence campaign and the murder was was the big story of the time. So
01:09:02 was was the big story of the time. So yes, we would have done um what was your understanding of the significance of the Lawrence case to the Metropolitan Police Service particularly and its reputation?
01:09:15 It wasn't at the top of my mind at the time. Um, what was at the top of my mind at the time was the public order implications surrounding the campaign and um and its
01:09:28 surrounding the campaign and um and its effect on public order in London. So there was a sense that the case was particularly emotive with the capacity to spark public disorder. Yes, it was. and whether
01:09:39 Yes, it was. and whether the impact on the police service itself. I had a personal view that the police did not come out of it with any sort of um
01:09:49 um any sort of glory whatsoever. I thought it was very badly handled. Um you talked about in your time in special branch there being a feeling that um justice campaigns were being manipulated by the far left. Was that
01:10:01 manipulated by the far left. Was that also the feeling during your time in the SDS that there was a feeling that black justice campaigns were being manipulated for political ends by the far-left? Yes.
01:10:11 Yes. Including the Steven Lawrence campaign? Yes.
01:10:14 Yes. Uh and others? Yes.
01:10:17 Yes. Um were was that DI Lambert and DCI Edmonson's view also? As far as I know, yes. Yes. Um Detective Chief Superintendent Potter
01:10:30 Um Detective Chief Superintendent Potter Was he in your chain of command? He was the detective chief superintendent of CE S squad
01:10:36 S squad for a while. Yes. Yes. Um, how well did you know him? Um, I knew him reasonably well and we I'd worked he was my first inspector the
01:10:47 I'd worked he was my first inspector the airport when I joined special branch. So, we did know each other and had done for some time. Had you ever known him to make casually sexist remarks in the office? um
01:11:01 in the early days of knowing him not at all. Uh I do think he had some issues probably a bit later on where he often said things which were in injudicious including sexist remarks probably not that I'm not
01:11:14 probably not that I'm not and what about I wouldn't be surprised. And what about racist remarks? Again he was behaving quite irrationally for a while. So I wouldn't I wouldn't have been overly surprised. Had you ever
01:11:26 have been overly surprised. Had you ever heard the nickname Potty Bob indicating that he had a potty mouth? Uh, not that's not the interpretation I put on it, but I thought it was because he was a bit um irrational sometimes.
01:11:41 he was a bit um irrational sometimes. Um, at paragraph 78, page 25 of your statement, you say that um, Superintendent Bob Potter played an active role in the SDS. In what way did
01:11:52 active role in the SDS. In what way did he play um an active role in the SDS? He would come along to to meetings probably more often than other people of his rank his level. Um during my time
01:12:04 his rank his level. Um during my time there he was a more regular attender of meetings and he did spend time with the individual officers. You also mentioned in your statement that he provided social talk and
01:12:15 that he provided social talk and encouragement to the SDSUs at weekly meetings. um in in what way did he specifically provide social talk and encouragement to them? Um just by merely showing up in his
01:12:28 Um just by merely showing up in his personality was quite effevescent. Um and
01:12:33 Um and again in special branch if you've been in there for any length of time you start to first names are quite usual and people used to like it when Bob Potter came along and they'd chat talk
01:12:47 Potter came along and they'd chat talk um and he was generally quite supportive and quite um affable towards the officers. Um the inquiries received evidence that there was an incident at a
01:12:58 evidence that there was an incident at a bingo hall in Batisy involving a significant racial outburst by him against members of the public which set in course the chain of events to him going off sick and then being medically
01:13:10 going off sick and then being medically retired eventually in June or July 1994. Um he went off on sick leave in November 1993. Did you hear about that at the time when it happened?
01:13:21 time when it happened? Not that I recall now. Are you sure about that? I can't be sure, but I don't think I was aware.
01:13:27 aware. Mr. Francis's evidence to this inquiry was to the effect that news of this dramatic incident spread like wildfire. Um, a detective chief superintendent had
01:13:39 Um, a detective chief superintendent had effectively been caught publicly overtly racially abusing members of the public. Is it really your evidence it wasn't part of SDS and special branch gossip? People were aware that Bob Potter had
01:13:52 People were aware that Bob Potter had issues.
01:13:53 issues. I I have no personal recollection of this incident or any conversation about it. And
01:13:59 it. And so you can't help us with whether the incident happened when he was on his way home from an SDS social event. I I can't I can't say. I'm sorry.
01:14:11 Uh HN86, uh before you joined the SDS, was he ever in your chain of command? Um,
01:14:20 Um, not that I recall. No. So, you got to know him when you were in the SDS initially and he was your detective chief inspector. Well, we knew each other by sight and to say hello to, but not because he was my
01:14:34 say hello to, but not because he was my in my chain of command or anything. And he left in April 1994. So, that's about a year and 10 months after you joined.
01:14:42 joined. Um, what was his um reputation? Did did he treat everyone equally? As far as I'm aware, yes, he was he was very fair. Were you ever aware of any tension
01:14:53 Were you ever aware of any tension between him and HN78 uh Trevor Morris? I was never aware of any tension between them.
01:14:59 them. There was a perception that such tension might be related to race. Were you aware of that?
01:15:04 of that? No.
01:15:05 No. Um did he treat Trevor Morris the same as the other UCOs so far as you could see?
01:15:10 see? As far as I could see, yes. Um, what were his views about the far-left's relationship with the black community? Uh, he never said anything to me about
01:15:21 Uh, he never said anything to me about it,
01:15:22 it, but presumably he signed up to the view generally in the SDS that the black community was being exploited by the far left.
01:15:30 left. Yes. And and not just the black community, but all kinds of issues were being exploited by the far left. Did he think they were inciting um the black community, black justice campaigns to disorder?
01:15:41 campaigns to disorder? Um, I can't say if he thought that or not. Um,
01:15:46 not. Um, using them for their own ends. I think they were using them for their own ends. Not necessarily to uh incite disorder, but I don't think they would have been too sad if there was disorder. Um, leading them,
01:15:59 Um, leading them, uh, not leading, but provoking from the sidelines. Mr. Francis has given evidence to the effect that HN86 used crude racist slurs such as calling black people monkeys.
01:16:11 such as calling black people monkeys. Did you ever hear him refer to black people like that? No.
01:16:15 No. Or being led by rings through their noses?
01:16:18 noses? No.
01:16:19 No. Um, did you ever hear him say that Iran Khan was leading the Lawrence campaign? Not that I recall. No. Did he ever say that he felt the far-left were organizing the black
01:16:30 far-left were organizing the black community? I don't I don't recall them ever saying they organized the black community and that it was the s the job of the SDS to stop that from happening. I don't that's not I don't recall that.
01:16:43 I don't that's not I don't recall that. Did you ever hear anything to the effect that HN86 was prone to using racist language?
01:16:48 language? No, I've never I never had any experience of him using racist language. Did you ever hear him express the view that it would have been better if Dwayne Brooks and not Steven Lawrence had been murdered?
01:16:58 murdered? I never heard that at all. No.
01:17:05 Um, in relation to Steven Lawrence, then there was an inquest which was halted in December 1993 and there was a private prosecution brought by the family of those suspected
01:17:18 brought by the family of those suspected of murdering Steven Lawrence and there was a fair amount of publicity about the collapse of that prosecution. Do you recall that at the time? Yes, I do. Yes. And was that the subject of discussion in the SDS? It would have been. Yes.
01:17:31 in the SDS? It would have been. Yes. Do you recall what was said? Not at this distance. No. And was the unit still keeping tabs on those left-wing groups that might wish to influence the Steven Lawrence campaign?
01:17:40 campaign? Very much so. Yes. Yes. Um, and was there any discussion of those groups and their activities in relation to the Steven Lawrence campaign?
01:17:48 campaign? In relation to the campaign and and events and activities organized around it then? Yes. So the SDS was seeking intelligence about revolutionary groups
01:17:59 intelligence about revolutionary groups interested in the Lawrence family. Yes. But not just because they were interested in the Lawrence family. Uh was the SDS interested in who from those groups were in contact with the
01:18:10 those groups were in contact with the family? How and why? Um
01:18:16 Um I think the fair answer is yes. Um because we like to know who was active. um who the leading lights were in various organizations
01:18:27 various organizations and the SDS would have been interested in what the family's reaction and response was to those groups. Is that right?
01:18:34 right? Um I think it would have been of secondary interest to see how effective this this manipulation
01:18:45 manipulation was in relation to the Lawrenes themselves. Fair to say yes. Was the SDS interested in what sort of people the Lawrenes were?
01:18:53 were? No, not to my knowledge. No. Wouldn't that have been relevant to how amunable the Lawrenes were to influence from those revolutionary groups? I don't
01:19:05 I don't I don't think so. But the SDS was interested in anything about the Lawrenes which would strengthen or weaken their campaign? No, it's not the campaign. It is the the public order activity that was being
01:19:17 public order activity that was being provoked around the campaign that was the the was driving the interest not the campaign itself and for those UCOs who were well positioned to report on the Lawrenes and
01:19:29 positioned to report on the Lawrenes and their campaign this was something which they should be seeking to report on wasn't it
01:19:33 wasn't it the as I said the activity around the campaign especially the public uh potential for public disorder yes did you discuss the Steven Lawrence campaign in any one-to-one meetings with
01:19:45 campaign in any one-to-one meetings with any particular UCO? Um, not that I can recall, but I wouldn't be surprised if I did. HN43 says he was given a list of uh by
01:19:56 HN43 says he was given a list of uh by HN86 of people who were known to have gone into the Lawrence family home in the aftermath of the murder that he should look into. Did he ever discuss such a list with you? No.
01:20:08 No. Um, or who was getting close to the Lawrence family? I don't recall him saying that. He certainly didn't say it to me.
01:20:17 to me. You say in your witness statement at paragraph 273, page 116, that you do not think it's true that Peter Francis was tasked without obtaining it with
01:20:28 tasked without obtaining it with obtaining information that could be used to determine undermine Steven Lawrence's family. Um, why not? Why why do you not think that's true? because I was not aware of any requirement to gather
01:20:40 aware of any requirement to gather intelligence on the aims and and motivation of the Lawrence family per se. It's um like I said, the the interest that we
01:20:51 like I said, the the interest that we had was
01:20:54 had was the public order uh implications around the campaign, not the campaign itself. Might you simply not have been aware of such a tasking? It's entirely possible,
01:21:07 such a tasking? It's entirely possible, but I don't think there was any such tasking.
01:21:12 tasking. Uh, in February 1997, there was um the inquest verdict, which predictably found uh that Steven had been unlawfully killed by racist murderers, and the Davenly Mail newspaper famously printed
01:21:25 Davenly Mail newspaper famously printed the headline, "Murderers the following day." Did that cause conversation in the SDS back office? It probably would have done, but I don't recall it specifically. Was there an acceptance that the inquest verdict was
01:21:37 acceptance that the inquest verdict was correct?
01:21:38 correct? I I believe so. Yes. Um, had there been conversation up to this point as to whether or not Steven Lawrence and indeed Dwayne Brooks had been wholly innocent?
01:21:51 been wholly innocent? Uh, that was my general understanding that that that was the the view that was held and that was the view that was correct.
01:21:58 correct. In March 97, the police complaints authority launched an investigation and went on to conclude that there had been failings in the investigation of Steven's murder. Um, can you recall that
01:22:09 Steven's murder. Um, can you recall that conclusion being the subject of conversation in the SDS back office? I can't recall, but again, I would not have been at all surprised if it had been a topic of conversation. And in July 1997, the Steven Lawrence
01:22:22 And in July 1997, the Steven Lawrence inquiry was announced. Do you recall any sort of views that were expressed about that?
01:22:28 that? Not within the SCS specifically. No. Um, or about the Home Secretary Jack Straw's attitude towards the police. I don't think that was that was never a topic of conversation that I was aware
01:22:39 topic of conversation that I was aware of.
01:22:41 of. Do you recall there being any particular difference in approach to the Steven Lawrence campaign as compared to any other justice campaigns? No, apart from the fact it was a much higher profile campaign.
01:22:52 higher profile campaign. And what was the significance of that? because of the the attraction the attractiveness of the campaign towards uh disruptive leftwing elements.
01:23:03 uh disruptive leftwing elements. Um you state at uh paragraph 266 page 114 of your witness statement that the SDS didn't target the family but that collateral intelligence on the campaign
01:23:16 collateral intelligence on the campaign was incidental to the public order reporting on groups you were who were using the campaign for their own ends. And then at paragraph 267, I wish to be very clear that there was
01:23:28 I wish to be very clear that there was no SDS targeting of the Lawrence family and any SDS intelligence was in order to prevent disorder or to protect the Lawrence family. Um what threat to the Lawrence family did you understand um
01:23:40 Lawrence family did you understand um SDS intelligence was intended to address? any any adverse attention the family might get from um right-wing targets or
01:23:52 get from um right-wing targets or right-wing activists or racist activists? Um and what action, if any, was taken as a result of that intelligence to protect the Lawrence family as a result of the
01:24:04 the Lawrence family as a result of the SDS reporting? As with all SDS reporting, it went through special branch channels and it would have ended up with if the policing response was required, it would have
01:24:15 response was required, it would have ended up with the correct part of the police to to deliver that response. So, it was not something that we we just we generated the intelligence. We didn't necessarily control what happened as a
01:24:27 necessarily control what happened as a result of it. Um, would you accept that the effect of such reporting was to subject those supporting the Lawrence family to covert monitoring rather than any specific
01:24:39 monitoring rather than any specific identifiable protection to the family themselves? I don't I don't think there was any covert monitoring of family members or people close to the family other than as
01:24:50 people close to the family other than as I said in relation to the public order context.
01:24:54 context. If if intelligence was collateral intelligence on the Lawrence uh campaign being incidental to the public order reporting on groups who were using the campaign for their own ends, why was
01:25:07 campaign for their own ends, why was that collateral intelligence not um sanitized or edited out of the intelligence and merely the groups uh you were concerned about reported upon? Because as as with a a lot of special
01:25:18 Because as as with a a lot of special branch reporting, there was at that time a lot of collateral information was was gathered and generally recorded. It was the the way things were done then. Um
01:25:29 the the way things were done then. Um you'd if you if you came across intelligence without necessarily going looking for it, it wouldn't necessarily make it any less valuable because you hadn't specifically gone looking for it. And we served both special branch, the
01:25:42 And we served both special branch, the police service generally, the security service, all manner of different agencies interested in implications of what was happening on the streets. Um, it was never as
01:25:55 it was never as cut and dried as just reporting on person A doing something on a specific day. there was always more to it and there was more history. Part of special
01:26:06 there was more history. Part of special branch reporting on certainly on long-term activists and long and long-term groups was how those groups evolve and how the people within them evolve to either different levels of
01:26:17 evolve to either different levels of activity, different levels of violence or going off um or calming down and going somewhere else. We we we'd like to keep track of
01:26:29 else. We we we'd like to keep track of all manner of activists who posed who fell within the remit of either being subversive targets or potential um sources of public disorder or terrorism or violence or anything. In your
01:26:42 or violence or anything. In your statement at um paragraphs 266 to 267, you appear to accept that the SDS was interested in who was driving the Steven Lawrence campaign and the direction it
01:26:53 Lawrence campaign and the direction it was going and that that reporting um received um encouraging feedback. Isn't it an artificial distinction to make a distinction between collateral
01:27:04 make a distinction between collateral intelligence being gathered on the family and its campaign and them actually being targeted? It may seem artificial, but I think certainly the parts that I was involved
01:27:16 certainly the parts that I was involved in,
01:27:18 in, I was not
01:27:20 I was not really that interested in what members of the family were doing particularly, but they were being reported upon, weren't they? Some reporting was going in about them, but I was not aware of anything um that
01:27:33 but I was not aware of anything um that would be regarded as private information about the family. It was normally about um activities that they may or may not be involved in to do with any public
01:27:44 be involved in to do with any public activities the campaign was undertaking. Do you accept that obtaining intelligence about who was driving the campaign and the direction of the campaign itself involved monitoring the
01:27:55 campaign itself involved monitoring the campaign itself? Um
01:27:58 Um put like that I suppose yes it would have happened but again um it is the direction uh and normally who else is in the direction tends to suggest it is being
01:28:11 direction tends to suggest it is being driven by someone uh not necessarily the family themselves but by people who wish to influence the campaign or or agitate around it in some way.
01:28:22 way. So you still maintain that there was a public order purpose in intelligence about who was driving the campaign or its direction that the SDS was collecting? I'd say absolutely. Yes. Um and and who within
01:28:35 absolutely. Yes. Um and and who within the SDS or special branch at what sort of level was it decided that that was an appropriate subject for SDS reporting? Uh because it was the predominant public
01:28:46 Uh because it was the predominant public order interest topic of the time. Uh I don't think any we didn't need any particular instruction from any individual. It was part of what we did. But why was
01:28:59 It was part of what we did. But why was the question of who was driving the campaign and the direction of its uh in the circumstances being asked at all? I mean, this is this is a grieving family of a murdered son, isn't it? Isn't this
01:29:10 of a murdered son, isn't it? Isn't this completely disproportionate to use a UCO to monitor and report on the family's attitude?
01:29:20 I don't think that a UCO was deployed to report on the family's attitude. It was again the
01:29:27 again the um and I don't believe it was disproportionate given the level of public order interest around the topic at the time. It was the big ticket
01:29:39 at the time. It was the big ticket issue.
01:29:40 issue. At the time it was the most predominant um subject of of demonstrations and meetings and and fairly significant
01:29:51 meetings and and fairly significant public disorder came out of it. Which particular desks or customers were interested in intelligence on the Steven Lawrence campaign or any other particular black
01:30:03 campaign or any other particular black justice campaign? The initial desk the initial squad would have been would have been C squad which they dealt with the domestic extremism. They would have been the first protocol. What they chose to do with it afterwards
01:30:15 What they chose to do with it afterwards um
01:30:17 um and who it was disseminated to and in what form was really I don't know what happened to it after that. Um you mentioned um at paragraph 267
01:30:28 mentioned um at paragraph 267 pages 114 to 115 encouraging feedback that was received and you say that it was received through special branch from commanders whose responsibility it was
01:30:39 commanders whose responsibility it was to provide uniform policing. Is that right?
01:30:41 right? Correct. Yes. And um
01:30:45 And um without going into too much detail um how many commanders roughly is that one commander or several? it would have gone higher than commanders. Um, public order
01:30:56 higher than commanders. Um, public order was dealt with by what at the time was referred to as TO20 tech the territorial operations department. So they're seeing their hierarchy which went through I
01:31:07 their hierarchy which went through I think there was an assistant commissioner in charge of territorial operations. uh whoever that was at the time would have probably been aware as would her own detective um deputy assistant
01:31:19 own detective um deputy assistant commissioner in charge of special branch and his boss. And was this oneoff feedback or was feedback being received on on an ongoing basis?
01:31:28 basis? More or less on an ongoing basis. And what precisely was being encouraged? What were they pleased about? just a general appreciation that that we were able to provide quite comprehensive
01:31:41 were able to provide quite comprehensive um forecasts of potential disorder and was the effect of that encouraging feedback to encourage encourage further reporting connected to the Lawrence
01:31:53 reporting connected to the Lawrence campaign.
01:31:55 campaign. I can't it's it all I can say is that there was no the tasking of the ECOS in respect of the the Steven Lawrence and
01:32:06 respect of the the Steven Lawrence and the family did not change. Um but as always I suppose if if a customer expresses um
01:32:18 um interest in or appreciation of the value of any particular line of reporting there is an implicit encouragement to provide more of it. Um was it clear to those in the SDS at
01:32:30 Um was it clear to those in the SDS at the time that the Lawrence family themselves didn't want any confrontation with the police other than on political grounds?
01:32:40 They were peaceful. I think the Lawrence family definitely were were peaceful. It was the people around them who weren't necessarily so peaceful.
01:32:49 peaceful. And in relation to the family and their campaign, um that had always been the case and it was obvious at the time, wasn't it? I I believe so.
01:33:00 I I believe so. Um was the concern was there concern that because this was a racial issue, it was potentially particularly explosive? Yes, I think so. Um, from a public order perspective,
01:33:11 Um, from a public order perspective, yes.
01:33:12 yes. Um, and a police reputational perspective potentially very embarrassing for the Metropolitan Police.
01:33:19 Police. It it it proved to be very embarrassing, but that wasn't our consideration at the time.
01:33:24 time. And was that racial dimension a reason for paying particular attention to the Lawrenes and their campaign? Only in relation to the potential for public disorder? Yes. Um, in what ways did you understand the
01:33:36 Um, in what ways did you understand the Lawrenes to be confronting the the Metropolitan Police politically? I was not aware of them confronting the police politically. They challenged the um the way that
01:33:49 They challenged the um the way that their son's murder had been investigated, didn't they? They they Yes. But I don't think that was political. That was uh and they challenged it on the basis of their race.
01:34:00 their race. Um,
01:34:02 Um, if you say so. I wasn't partic that wasn't a top of my consideration at the time.
01:34:07 time. Wasn't that one of the reasons they were being reported on that they'd had the tearity to challenge the MPS and and how they had conducted that investigation in
01:34:18 they had conducted that investigation in a racist manner. That might be an interpretation, but it's not one that I recognize. Um,
01:34:25 Um, and such a challenge would be very damaging to the Metropolitan Police's reputation as you say it was. It was but again going back to the time my focus and my interest was just
01:34:38 my focus and my interest was just collecting and generating the reports needed to please the issues surrounding the campaign the public disorder around the campaign. So are you are you is your evidence are
01:34:50 So are you are you is your evidence are are you saying that reputational damage on a racial ground wasn't a reason the SDS was taking an interest in the Lawrence family's actions? It wasn't a reason that I was in any way aware of at
01:35:02 reason that I was in any way aware of at the time
01:35:04 the time because that would be incredibly intrusive, wouldn't it? And reporting with no proper policing purpose, I believe so. Yes. Thank you, sir. Is that a convenient
01:35:15 Thank you, sir. Is that a convenient moment? I'm about to move on to another topic.
01:35:17 topic. Certainly. Um 15 minutes. We'll rise for 15 minutes. Thank you, sir.
01:54:14 Thank you, sir. Um, Mr. Web, before we move on um to different justice campaigns, I'm just asked to um make clear um that when I asked you a question about a comment made about
01:54:25 question about a comment made about Dwayne Brooks and whether you'd heard it about him being a coward and having run away, I think you said you you hadn't heard anything like that. Is that right? I didn't remember. I I may well have
01:54:36 I didn't remember. I I may well have done that. But what I'm asked to make clear is that that would have been completely unfounded and unjustified and the inference was that it was racist, not that he was in fact a coward and had run
01:54:47 that he was in fact a coward and had run away. So I make that clear, sir. Just for the record. Um
01:54:53 Um [clears throat] in relation to um HN78 DS Morris, um we know that he was moved to Tottenham in January 1995. Um, was he moved there because the Joy
01:55:06 Um, was he moved there because the Joy Gardner justice campaign was hoting up at that time? When you say moved to Tottenham, what he'd previously been deployed in the SWP elsewhere in London and he was moved from Fulham, I think it was, um, to to
01:55:19 from Fulham, I think it was, um, to to North London to the SWP branch in Tottenham. Were you aware of that at the time? Uh I I forget now exactly where he was, but um he may well always have been at
01:55:30 he may well always have been at Tottenham since since I was I don't know.
01:55:32 know. He was certainly moved from Fulham to Tottenham. Yeah.
01:55:36 Yeah. Do you recall that? I don't know. Um so you're not aware if that was because at that time the Joy Gardner justice campaign was heating up?
01:55:48 justice campaign was heating up? I wasn't aware that his move had anything to do with that, but I wouldn't be surprised. And it was it wasn't unusual if certainly someone deployed in the SWP if a particular branch was sort of dying on
01:56:00 a particular branch was sort of dying on its feet that they might go somewhere a bit more interesting bit more lively. Um and if Pulham doesn't wasn't doing it then yes he could have moved somewhere
01:56:12 then yes he could have moved somewhere else
01:56:13 else and that was because of the racial tensions that some of these campaigns in North London possibly but in the coverage of the SWP was about not just involvement in in sort of racial and and justice campaigns
01:56:25 sort of racial and and justice campaigns but their involvement in just about everything. So you normally tried to put someone in a branch that was more active than a branch that wasn't.
01:56:38 than a branch that wasn't. Thank you. Um want to ask you about some of the reporting um on some of these other justice campaigns. Um could we look at please UCPI
01:56:51 look at please UCPI 50 33349.
01:56:54 50 33349. Um this uh is not in HN120's bundle but is in HN216's. Um I think Mr. Webb, you've seen this for the first time today.
01:57:06 for the first time today. Just just this afternoon. Yes. Um are you aware of whether this is one of the reports that you would have written up? It could well have been, but I have no recollection of it. Thank you. Um it records um a meeting on
01:57:19 Thank you. Um it records um a meeting on the 16th of February 1995 of the National Assembly Against Racism and that MP the MPs were planning to speak and the Labour Party had attended. Um
01:57:31 and the Labour Party had attended. Um would you agree that this was uh in an entirely lawful protest? Yes, but not at all uncommon for special branch to cover political meetings. Um this report is certainly not about
01:57:43 Um this report is certainly not about public disorder, is it? Um,
01:57:47 Um, it's a meeting about anti-racism at which MPs are speaking, the Labour Party was attending, various family members of justice campaigns were attending and it was to keep an eye on them to see if the
01:57:59 was to keep an eye on them to see if the SWP could influence them. Was that the reason for the reporting? I would say looking at this particular report, it is more it's a a more general special branch interest than purely SDS
01:58:11 special branch interest than purely SDS public order interest. But the particular interest here is keeping tabs on anti-racism. Would you agree?
01:58:21 agree? It would in keeping tabs on leftwing activists. Yes. In campaigns related to anti-racism in whatever they were doing. I I think most of them at the at the time it was
01:58:32 most of them at the at the time it was pretty common practice for the special branch to cover a whole variety of public meetings and monitor things from um as much what was being said if it was
01:58:43 um as much what was being said if it was subversive or or or damaging in any way. It was part of everyday business of special branch to cover these this sort of meeting. It wouldn't necessarily been about a particular
01:58:54 particular um justice group if it was a publicized meeting
01:58:59 meeting um that could involve political activism that was within the general special branch remmed if it was if it could be classified as in any way subversive or
01:59:10 classified as in any way subversive or involving people who are involved in subversion. It was legitimate special branch business to go along to these meetings and report on them. If if an SDS officer happened to have been there
01:59:22 SDS officer happened to have been there and submitted a report, it's entirely possible they would have done, but it would have been from a a more general special branch interest than a public order interest. Thank you. Um, if we could look then
01:59:34 Thank you. Um, if we could look then please at MPS07409,
01:59:39 [snorts] page two. Again, this sir isn't in Mr. Web's bundle, but it is in HN15s. And again, I think you've seen this today, but not before. Yeah.
01:59:49 Yeah. Um, this report's attributed to HN15DC Mark Jenner. Again, could this have been one of your reports that you wrote up from his intelligence?
02:00:00 intelligence? Uh, it's possible. I don't recall it. If it wasn't yours, would you have been likely to see it in any event, or would it have gone from whoever was reporting
02:00:11 it have gone from whoever was reporting it straight to the DI or DCI? If I wasn't there, if I hadn't actually written it myself, then the chances are that I wouldn't see it at all unless it came back or unless it was flagged up of
02:00:24 came back or unless it was flagged up of being something I might be interested in.
02:00:26 in. I see.
02:00:27 I see. Um, but I don't recall this one and I could well have written it, but I don't know.
02:00:31 know. Um, we see that DCI Edmonson signs it off, so we know he saw it. Yeah. Um, this report is on Celia Stubs, who's described as the common law widow of Blair Peach, who
02:00:43 of Blair Peach, who had been killed on an anti-racist demonstration at the hands of the police. Were you aware of that? Yes.
02:00:50 Yes. And um that was a particularly um emotive case for that reason. Yes.
02:00:56 Yes. Um what was the significance of her particular involvement in anti- police activities? I don't recall at this um at this stage, but she was, as it says here, she was a
02:01:07 but she was, as it says here, she was a veteran leftwing activist. Um
02:01:13 interest in her own right as as much to do with Blair Peach. What did you consider the um SDS interest to be in anti- police activity?
02:01:26 interest to be in anti- police activity? Again, purely from the public order perspective. And was anti police activity a phrase in general use in the SDS?
02:01:34 SDS? Uh, not to my knowledge, no. Anti- police activity, would you accept, involves uh criticism of the police? I wouldn't think criticism counts as
02:01:46 I wouldn't think criticism counts as anti police activity. No. What does count as anti police activity? uh from a special branch interest and uh SDS interest. It would been if there is uh a public order situation where the
02:01:58 uh a public order situation where the police are as much a target for violence as as any other cause. So it's more active opposition to police and policing
02:02:12 active opposition to police and policing than um than criticism or complaints. This report [clears throat] notes that she was a regular contributor to the advice sessions and the hackne anti-fascist collective self-defense
02:02:24 anti-fascist collective self-defense classes. There's nothing contained in this report that suggests she's doing anything unlawful or anything to threaten public disorder, is there? Nothing at all, Matt. Thank you. Um
02:02:38 on um page one there's a minute sheet which says that this report is going to be copied to the security service. Yeah.
02:02:48 Yeah. Do you what's your understanding as to why the security service needed to know about Celia Stub's involvement in community politics in Hackne? uh the security service had and may still still
02:03:01 security service had and may still still have um responsibility to the government to look after national security and protect it from a whole range of issues. one of which is um subversive behavior.
02:03:12 one of which is um subversive behavior. Um and CDI stubs would have been of interest because of her her left-wing background generally as a possible subversive candidate and the security
02:03:23 subversive candidate and the security service was routinely copied in not just this but in most special branch reporting. Thank you. We can take that down now. Thank you. Um the Brian Douglas
02:03:35 Thank you. Um the Brian Douglas campaign. Um, did you hear um, Peter Francis or indeed any other UCO talking about the Brian Douglas campaign um, in your time at the SDS?
02:03:47 your time at the SDS? I don't recall specifically, but I would not be at all surprised. Um, was there discussion in the SDS office um, involving potentially HN15,
02:03:59 office um, involving potentially HN15, Mark Jenner, HN78, Trevor Morris, or Peter Francis about, um, forthcoming demonstrations organized by the Brian Douglas campaign? Almost. Yes. It's very possible. Yes.
02:04:12 Almost. Yes. It's very possible. Yes. And
02:04:14 And were people discussing um in common with other types of groups that left-wing groups the potential for disorder at those marches in support of black justice campaigns?
02:04:25 black justice campaigns? Was that the interest?
02:04:29 Can we just look please at a couple of reports briefly? Um MPS 0245152. Again sir this isn't in Mr. webs bundle
02:04:40 Again sir this isn't in Mr. webs bundle but is in HN15s.
02:04:44 [clears throat]
02:04:48 This is a report about the preparations for the uh Brian Douglas march on the se 10th of June 1995 and it's a preemptive report on the 2nd of June based on the information given by HN15 DC Jenner. Um
02:05:03 information given by HN15 DC Jenner. Um looking at this report now do you think this is one of yours that you would have written up? It's quite possible. Yes. Um but you don't recall I don't recall many one way or the other. Um
02:05:16 other. Um if the we can look at the first two paragraphs. Um what's recorded here is that the Brian Douglas campaign was capable of pushing back on socialist workers parties demands. In other words, capable of asserting their own will over
02:05:29 capable of asserting their own will over their own campaign. Do you see that? Would you agree that that was correct? Yes. Very. Yes. I'd agree that's correct. Yes. And it records that Donald Douglas, Brian's brother, very
02:05:40 Douglas, Brian's brother, very competently chaired the meeting. He was perfectly capable of running that campaign and resisting any left-wing influence, wasn't he? I believe so. Yes.
02:05:52 I believe so. Yes. Um, and is it fair to say that it was accepted the Douglas family were completely against violence of any sort in relation to these demonstrations? I would agree with that. Yes. Um, wanted peaceful protest only.
02:06:05 Um, wanted peaceful protest only. Yes.
02:06:08 Um, it's recorded um over the page in the source comments.
02:06:18 The number of non-political, but I rate black youths who turn up on the day could be a critical factor. What's the significance of them being black youths?
02:06:29 black youths? because I as I recall at the time there were um in the sort of South London area there were quite a lot of spontaneous outbursts of public disorder where a lot
02:06:40 outbursts of public disorder where a lot of the participants were um were just that they were I rate members of local communities and often they were black.
02:06:50 black. They were seen as volatile and angry capable of causing public disorder. They had been seen to do that on many occasions. Not all of them by any means, but um there was always a greater
02:07:01 but um there was always a greater possibility in um in large ethnic areas that violence could erupt um because of many many underlying tensions. And
02:07:13 many many underlying tensions. And would you accept that identifying black youth as potential sources of public disorder as volatile, angry, and irate is a racial stereotype?
02:07:24 is a racial stereotype? I'm I wouldn't say it's a racial stereotype. Um I would say this is probably a fairly well-informed um position based on experience at the
02:07:36 um position based on experience at the time about what could happen. Why is there a need to identify them by race though? Uh, it may not have been entirely necessary, but um
02:07:48 um I can't I I can't remember if I do write it or not, but um there's no real reason why that phrase should be in there.
02:08:02 Knowing that an undercover police officer was reporting on their campaign would have done nothing to ease any distrust of those campaigns of the
02:08:13 distrust of those campaigns of the police, would it? I don't think so. No.
02:08:18 Um, can we look please briefly at MPS0245187?
02:08:25 And again, this isn't in Mr. Web's bundle ser is in HM15s. Again, Mr. Web, I think you've seen this for the first time today. Yeah.
02:08:34 Yeah. This is the report about the march itself.
02:08:37 itself. Again, do you have any recollection of whether this is a report you wrote? I don't recall, but it could well be.
02:08:47 Um, is it fair to say that as a result of this report that um, the family and the stewards deserved credit for their conduct of the march on the day and that
02:08:59 conduct of the march on the day and that they were urging entirely peaceful protest, nonviolence?
02:09:09 Yes. Yeah. Um
02:09:13 Um there's an assertion that there were elements expecting trouble um and who were willing to join in and that again they were young black youths. Is there
02:09:24 they were young black youths. Is there anything
02:09:26 anything um further to suggest and substantiate that assertion other than what's in these two reports?
02:09:34 The only thing I can think of uh given the location and the atmosphere at the time is that there would always be
02:09:45 time is that there would always be um
02:09:47 um the likelihood of spontaneous disorder triggered by something else was always present.
02:09:54 present. And
02:09:56 And in that particular part of London, it's more often than more likely that it would be young young black people, especially men, who would be hanging around waiting to do it. It would be a
02:10:09 around waiting to do it. It would be a different story alto together in in another part of London. Thank you.
02:10:20 Um, can we go to the source comment, please?
02:10:24 please? at the bottom of the page, bottom [snorts] of page one, I think
02:10:33 it discusses militant labor and the turnout and it says in an attempt to cash in on the issue um ML is organizing public meetings on the Douglas case and there was a leaflet mentioned um the
02:10:46 there was a leaflet mentioned um the phrase in an attempt to cash in on the issue. Um, on what basis did you understand their activity to be described as cashing in? In the same way that a lot of um,
02:11:00 In the same way that a lot of um, leftwing groups like the SWP and militant labor, they were always out for publicity and recruitment and and and new new members. Um
02:11:12 Um that's why they they often just rode on the coattails of of um major issues. They would always have a representation at almost any public order or public
02:11:23 at almost any public order or public demonstration and be there just in case. Um,
02:11:28 Um, well, it might be said that they what they were doing was in accordance with their own sincerely held political beliefs and the belief that racism is an evil and the police force were an oppressive agent of the state. Aren't
02:11:41 oppressive agent of the state. Aren't those views there entitled to hold and protest?
02:11:44 protest? They're entitled to hold them. Whether they're accurate or not is a different different matter. Doesn't this portray a very cynical and jaded attitude of the SDS towards these
02:11:55 jaded attitude of the SDS towards these groups?
02:11:56 groups? I don't think cynical and jaded. I think probably um informed and based on experience. And what was the reason that black justice campaigns couldn't just be left
02:12:07 justice campaigns couldn't just be left alone to deal with the far-left by themselves given previous reporting about the competency with which these meetings were held and run and the campaigns run? I would say that the SDS
02:12:20 campaigns run? I would say that the SDS interest in various leftwing groups was a long-term issue based on um knowledge and experience of the involvement of those groups in other public order issues over a significant
02:12:32 public order issues over a significant period of time. um
02:12:35 um reporting about one particular event or incident does not necessarily mean that coverage of the group overall is of is not valid or
02:12:46 the group overall is of is not valid or of interest. So
02:12:51 was this view of of leftwing groups cashing in or riding on the coattails as you've described it today, was that a view that was widely accepted within the SDS and special branch?
02:13:03 SDS and special branch? Generally speaking, yes.
02:13:08 And it's still your view that the presence of numbers of black youth increase the risk of public disorder in this instance? It's geographically specific. I think if
02:13:19 It's geographically specific. I think if there are areas where there are predominantly ethnic um communities, it's more likely that ethnic communities would be involved in any spontaneous violence in different parts of London
02:13:32 violence in different parts of London with different sort of ethnic setups. It would not necessarily be um it would be large numbers of youths. The fact that it was in um that part of London where
02:13:44 it was in um that part of London where there is a large um AfroCaribbean community, it's more likely that they would be involved in it. Again, whether the word black belongs in this, I don't know. Um,
02:13:59 black belongs in this, I don't know. Um, was there a sense in in this era in the in the 1990s that there was a rising tide of black activism, a number of justice campaigns going on, some of them
02:14:10 justice campaigns going on, some of them very high-profile, and that that rising tide of black activism needed to be monitored for public order purposes. I think any tide of activism needs to be monitored for public order purposes. It
02:14:21 monitored for public order purposes. It wasn't restricted to u black justice campaigns. Um there are plenty of other activities going on which were equally monitored. Um thank you. Can we go to MPS 0245170
02:14:37 please? Again sir this isn't in Mr. Web's bundle but is in Mark Metaf's bundle. And again I think you've seen this for the first time today Mr. Webb. Yeah. This is a report of DC HN78 Trevor
02:14:50 Yeah. This is a report of DC HN78 Trevor Morris of the 9th of June 1995 about the Brian Douglas campaign. Um, again, do you recall could could this have been written up by you?
02:15:01 written up by you? It could have been. I don't I have no recollection of it. Um, it records a meeting of many different political groups about forthcoming demonstrations. It does make reference to the possibility of disorder
02:15:13 reference to the possibility of disorder and it makes clear that the organizers, the Douglas family want a peaceful demonstration in particular at the source comment. Would you agree with that?
02:15:23 that? I would agree with it. I can't I can't dispute it. Was any consideration given to the proportionality of reporting on a peaceful family justice campaign? You've you've said a number of times that the
02:15:34 you've said a number of times that the policing value was in relation to public disorder, but did anyone give consideration to the fact that that reward may be coming at too high a cost in terms of the intrusion into these
02:15:47 in terms of the intrusion into these peaceful family campaigns. The coverage really was of the the larger left-wing activist groups, not the campaigns themselves.
02:15:58 not the campaigns themselves. uh and in this case if it would have been the the involvement of the left that was the matter of interest not the actual individual campaign itself
02:16:09 campaign itself but the campaigns themselves are being reported on aren't they their strategies their internal workings the direction of travel
02:16:17 travel and was there was any um consideration given to the proportionality of doing that
02:16:22 that as I said the proportionality was coverage of the the the umbrella groups, not the actual campaigns themselves. And I would regard reporting on individual campaigns as, as
02:16:35 reporting on individual campaigns as, as I said before, collateral reporting, collateral intelligence, not the primary driving object. Uh in in of it as of itself, the activities of one campaign
02:16:46 itself, the activities of one campaign group or one justice campaign would not warrant the deployment of an undercover officer. But an undercover officer deployed in a wider group which happened to be involved in that
02:16:58 to be involved in that um is proportional and justifiable I think.
02:17:02 think. Was any consideration given to the possible consequences of it being discovered that HN78 Trevor Morris was there at these campaign events undercover? A black officer undercover.
02:17:16 undercover? A black officer undercover. Was consideration given to the possible consequences of that discovery at the time?
02:17:20 time? It would have been. Yes. but in in a much wider context as well, not specific to that particular event or or meeting. Because isn't an additional concern that if it was discovered that the MPS was
02:17:32 if it was discovered that the MPS was using a black undercover officer to report undercover on black justice campaigns that it may have caused the very type of disorder you were concerned to prevent.
02:17:43 to prevent. If he had been deployed specifically against black justice campaigns, then yes.
02:17:46 yes. But he was there reporting on them, wasn't he? He was. but as as as part as under as part of his uh infiltration of the socialist workers party.
02:18:01 Uh if we could look at please MPS0245218
02:18:07 again. So this isn't in Mr. Web's bundle but is in HN216's bundle. This is a report on the Joy Gardner campaign of the 23rd of June 1995 and it reports on a meeting to
02:18:19 1995 and it reports on a meeting to protest the verdict in the trial. Um DS Morris um here in the second paragraph on page one reports on the racial mix,
02:18:31 on page one reports on the racial mix, age and social class of the of the people who attended that they were aged 30 plus um from the black middle classes. Um why is he reporting that
02:18:42 classes. Um why is he reporting that kind of information? To be frank, I don't know why he's reporting that. Um I don't recognize because they can't that demographic can't be of concern from a public order
02:18:54 can't be of concern from a public order perspective. I I don't recall this particular report. Um
02:18:58 Um Trevor Morris may well had his own opinions about um different attitudes within the black community. As you say, he was a black off is a he is a black person and was a black officer.
02:19:09 person and was a black officer. Doesn't doesn't this report paint a picture of the interest of the SDS being in the strength of the justice campaign itself per se?
02:19:20 itself per se? I I do not recognize this report. I'm not sure if I wrote it or not. I don't think it likely that I did. Um so I can't really
02:19:32 so I can't really But the interest the interest in the campaign itself is because race is an incendiary issue, isn't it? It would have been at the time. Yes. Um,
02:19:43 Um, can we look please at MPS07LE241
02:19:48 please? Again that's not in um HN120's bundle sir but it is in HN14's bundle. Um
02:19:58 Um this is a report on the socialist uh workers party. It's about a meeting on the 8th of July 1995 called Meeting Racism and Resistance in Britain Today.
02:20:10 Racism and Resistance in Britain Today. Um Mr. Edmonson's name is on the bottom of it, so he certainly saw it. Do you recall whether this might have been written by you? It's um again HN78 Trevor Morris attended the meeting.
02:20:23 Trevor Morris attended the meeting. It's possible, but I don't recall it. Um this is a a meeting at which Bernie Grant MP spoke. Why was the SDS interested in a politician's speech?
02:20:35 interested in a politician's speech? Special branch generally reported part of its its working practice at the time was to report on a a wide range of different meetings. Um,
02:20:46 different meetings. Um, and where
02:20:48 and where a politician made any sort of public statements there, they were legitimately recorded as public statements made by a public figure in a public place. Was the interest here that he was an elected
02:20:59 interest here that he was an elected politician of some reputation locally giving a talk about a racial justice campaign which could be incendury? I believe looking at this particular
02:21:10 I believe looking at this particular report the the interest is that it was a socialist workers party headline event um and it's just reporting what was said on it. It says it was part of the weeklong Marxism 95 series of meetings.
02:21:23 weeklong Marxism 95 series of meetings. So Marxisms were annual um pro series of programs put on by the socialist workers party every year and they always entailed a very wide range of of
02:21:36 entailed a very wide range of of different topics and obviously if an SWP member who was an SDS officer would go along to them would have to go along to them as part of their their cover and
02:21:49 them as part of their their cover and why would they need to report this particular type of speech unless it's to do with the fact that race is an incendurary issue and the reporting on those campaigns per se are of interest
02:22:01 those campaigns per se are of interest to the SDS. As I said, it's because it was special branch practice and and Trevor Morris was a special branch officer. Uh it was customary for special branch officers to report on public meetings where public
02:22:14 report on public meetings where public figures said things in public. Um
02:22:17 Um there was no guidance in the SDS, I don't think, about reporting on elected officials. Is that right? Um
02:22:25 Um the the guidance that I think I'm aware of would be uh limited to what they said in in public to public statements made by politicians. And where did you get that guidance
02:22:36 And where did you get that guidance from? Was it formal written guidance or from discussion? It was probably something that I learned on my initial special branch course back in the early 1980s. I I would imagine.
02:22:49 Thank you. But there were a lot of public figures attended a lot of meetings and it was regarded as quite legitimate to report on what they said. uh with elected politicians. Many of
02:23:00 uh with elected politicians. Many of them had been of interest before they became elected politicians and um
02:23:08 and um it's really in this case involvement with an SWP sponsored event that would have been the matter of interest and anything that was said um
02:23:21 anything that was said um that could would be a legitimate interest to the security service or special branch in general. Thank you. Can we look at please MPS0246190
02:23:31 again? So this isn't in Mr. Web's bundle but is in HN43's bundle. This is another report on the Brian Douglas campaign and is um a report of the 29th of April
02:23:44 is um a report of the 29th of April 1996.
02:23:46 1996. Um again do you have any recollection of whether it was you who wrote up this report?
02:23:51 report? I don't recall. I I I could well have done. Um, this concerns a picket outside CPS uh headquarters of some 20 people or so, then a picket at the police station
02:24:02 so, then a picket at the police station was publicly advertised. Uh, it's clearly a report on a black justice campaign. Uh, no criminality is described. Public disorder was considered unlikely. We see from um the
02:24:15 considered unlikely. We see from um the middle of the page and there was minimal Troskyist uh involvement. Um, would you agree with that? I would agree with that. Yes. Yes. Um this isn't justified reporting, is
02:24:27 Um this isn't justified reporting, is it? That this is a small um picket of peacefully uh a peaceful vigil protesting someone's
02:24:38 uh a peaceful vigil protesting someone's death at the hands of the police. Why was this justified? I think again I don't recall writing it but I would I would justify a report of this nature as uh being of
02:24:51 this nature as uh being of of use to uniform policing to know that there the likelihood of disorder was minimal to prevent an over overreaction when they saw a bunch of protesters outside the CPS and was proportionally proportionality
02:25:04 and was proportionally proportionality considered in relation to the reporting on this type of small peaceful family event. Again, it was pretty common place that small small events did get reported on as almost like a barometer of the uh
02:25:18 on as almost like a barometer of the uh the behavior of any particular group of people or any particular type. It helps
02:25:26 It helps um
02:25:26 um sorry,
02:25:27 sorry, it helps the police to to gauge their response appropriately. We know that HN43 also attended a small candle lit vigil outside Kennington Police Station at which Mr. Douglas's
02:25:40 Police Station at which Mr. Douglas's family were present. Um, again, small peaceful vigils protesting the death of a family member. That's extremely intrusive reporting, isn't it? Uh, it it would be in would be intrusive
02:25:53 Uh, it it would be in would be intrusive if it wasn't in a public place um in a public setting. Um, thank you. That can be taken down. um in relation to um DC HN81
02:26:07 um in relation to um DC HN81 whose cover name was David Hagen, his deployment was redirected towards Brixton
02:26:13 Brixton uh in 1997. He was redirected from the SWP
02:26:18 SWP um to uh movement for justice and LDMG, the legal defense monitoring group. Were you aware of that at the time? Um
02:26:29 you aware of that at the time? Um I don't recall at this stage if I was but I I would probably be aware of some at some stage. Perhaps I can help you with a document then. MPS0247148
02:26:40 and it's at tab B 251 of the bundle. So you will have seen this before although I appreciate your your um bundle contains a number of documents in it. Um, this is your note. We can see from
02:26:52 Um, this is your note. We can see from your initials at the bottom of the page, JW. And it was written on the 24th of June, 1997. And it records a meeting um between HN81
02:27:06 And it records a meeting um between HN81 U Kath Edmonson and BG Bernard Greeny. Mhm.
02:27:11 Mhm. Um, and
02:27:13 Um, and part of this says, "We outlined the general target as a roving public order brief to include singleissue invirro groups, not RTS and and other
02:27:24 groups, not RTS and and other anti-establishment campaign groups. In addition, he should make efforts to become involved as an LDMG supporter stroke activist with anti- police sentiments." Do you recall that?
02:27:36 sentiments." Do you recall that? I don't recall it, but I'm not saying I didn't write it. Um, do you think that fairly reflected his redeployment? I would say so. Yes. Yes.
02:27:48 I would say so. Yes. Yes. Why did the SDS want a roving UCO to report in Brixton? Was it because they were interested in anti- police campaigns there and Brixton
02:27:59 anti- police campaigns there and Brixton because it's a a source of racial tension?
02:28:03 tension? It was probably because Brixton had more general activity going on based based on that locality.
02:28:14 based on that locality. Um, as it does say here, it was a roving brief.
02:28:18 brief. Um,
02:28:21 Um, so it would have been what was happening in that particular area where [snorts] whereas wherever he was before there was no
02:28:26 no and what was happening in that particular area was racial tension. Well, it was it was more than just racial tension. There was a lot of um
02:28:38 alternative information, intern alternative um activism going on in the Brixton area, not just racial. It was very big with
02:28:49 not just racial. It was very big with the um animal rights and um the anti-Nazi league was based in Brixton. There was a lot of general activity in that area. It was paragraph three of your note. Um, it
02:29:01 paragraph three of your note. Um, it records that the move movement for justice was exclusively black. What was the significance of that?
02:29:12 I can't remember at this stage. Um, but it does say discovery of active groups in Brixton including green peace and movement for justice. um
02:29:23 and movement for justice. um whether I felt the need to to state that it was exclusively back whereas the others were not necessarily um it may have had some significance in terms of how
02:29:35 terms of how likely it was to be able to infiltrate that group. Um, but I really don't I can't recall at this stage. Were assumptions being made about the
02:29:46 Were assumptions being made about the likely levels of public disorder in an exclusively black activist group as compared with any other activist group? No, because other activist groups are being targeted in the same exactly the same way.
02:29:57 same way. Did movement for justice interest in the Lawrence campaign and the McFersonson inquiry form part of the targeting decision for H&81? uh I don't recall at this stage and it
02:30:09 uh I don't recall at this stage and it may well have had some influence but only in the broader public order context and was any consideration given to the likely level of intrusion into the lives of bereieved families and justice
02:30:20 of bereieved families and justice campaigners which was likely to be caused by his deployment into movement for justice. Uh again I say it wasn't exclusively within the movement for justice. It was a much broader tasking than that not
02:30:31 a much broader tasking than that not just that particular group. Um, could we look at MPS 40422,
02:30:38 40422, please? Um, this isn't in Mr. Web's bundle, sir, but it is in HN81's bundle. This is a report of HN81 dated the 23rd
02:30:49 This is a report of HN81 dated the 23rd of June, 1997 on movement for justice. It describes um four members distributing leaflets and they are identified by their race. um why would
02:31:02 identified by their race. um why would identifying four people's um members of movement for justice distributing leaflets
02:31:09 leaflets um be significant? I can't say because I I I was never familiar with this style of reporting and with the use of um code names for undercover officers. I don't recognize
02:31:21 undercover officers. I don't recognize this report. I don't think I have ever seen
02:31:25 seen at the time I never saw any similar reports where um officers designations were given as current to names like windmill tilt. So you don't think this is one of yours?
02:31:37 So you don't think this is one of yours? I'm almost certain. Um the report contains this um phrase. Those distributing the leaflet, one white male, two black males, and a black female, concentrated their efforts
02:31:48 female, concentrated their efforts solely on colored passers by. H81 denies that he would have used the word colored in his report, and he said his reporting was provided verbally to his DS handler,
02:32:01 was provided verbally to his DS handler, who would have chosen what to include in the report. You don't think that you were his DS handler that he's referring to here in relation to this report? I'm certain I wasn't.
02:32:13 I'm certain I wasn't. Um,
02:32:15 Um, it would you have used the word colored? I think it's very unlikely.
02:32:23 But as I said, I I don't recognize this report. It certainly didn't I never wrote any reports in this format. Thank you. That can be taken down. Thank you.
02:32:33 you. I want to um move on to a different topic um please. The tradecraftraft manual.
02:32:43 manual. Um Mr. Lambert uh has given evidence that he was involved uh in the preparation of this manual. He instructed to uh Dc Kohl's uh or DS
02:32:55 instructed to uh Dc Kohl's uh or DS Kohl's I think he was at the time to write it after his deployment and Mr. Lambert the DI at the time reviewed and commented on the text before it was
02:33:06 commented on the text before it was finalized. Um, were you involved in the preparation of the tradecraftraft manual at all?
02:33:12 at all? No.
02:33:15 No. Um, were you aware that it was being prepared at the time in 1995? I don't recall being it uh it being raised. I was certainly not involved in it at all.
02:33:26 it at all. Do you think you read it in 1995? I may well have done, but I don't recall. Would you have asked or encouraged UCOs's um either new recruits
02:33:37 encouraged UCOs's um either new recruits or those already in the deployed um would you have asked or encouraged them to read it? I wouldn't have encouraged it in always before
02:33:47 before um
02:33:49 um before Bob Lambert asked for this document to be created. It was always a very informal arrangement in the one of the back offices where previous undercover officers could
02:34:02 previous undercover officers could record war stories and their experiences, but it was always in a very disorganized ad hoc form. And there was a file in the in their bit of the back office which was known as the
02:34:13 office which was known as the tradecraftraft manual, but it wasn't an organized or structured thing at all. It was just a collection of anecdotes and as I said war stories. This is something different though, isn't it? At this stage.
02:34:25 isn't it? At this stage. I I believe it is but I was not party to it being created and I don't have any strong recollection of it. Um, you certainly would have read it in early 1996, wouldn't you? Because you
02:34:37 early 1996, wouldn't you? Because you were involved in updating it. I have no recollection of that, don't you?
02:34:42 you? Perhaps we can just look at a document then. MPS0527598.
02:34:48 It's at tab B 118 of the bundles uh
02:34:55 and page two please. Um this records um that the author the original author of um the document that is the tradecraft
02:35:08 um the document that is the tradecraft um manual that was DC DS Kohl's in February 1995. Um, it records an update with your initials next to it. March 1996 update rebackground research parah 3.1.
02:35:22 rebackground research parah 3.1. Do you have any recollection of making that update? No, but again, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a contribution about a particular style of background research. And if you were making an update to one
02:35:34 And if you were making an update to one part of the manual, would you have read its entirety? Uh, it's possible, but I don't recall. Um the contents um of the manual uh
02:35:46 Um the contents um of the manual uh represent that could be taken down now. Thank you. The contents of the manual represented um advice that was going to be made available to UCOs on deployment. Would you agree with that?
02:35:57 you agree with that? Again, I don't know. Well, if we just look at the introduction um to the document then MPS0527597,
02:36:07 it's at tab B15, sir, of your bundle. And the introduction on page five at paragraph 1.1
02:36:18 at paragraph 1.1 says this. This manual of tradecraft for the special demonstration squad is designed both for new members of the squad and also as a guide to best practice for members of the squad during
02:36:29 practice for members of the squad during their posting. Is that your understanding of what this um iteration of the manual was designed to do? Again, I I I don't recall being
02:36:41 to do? Again, I I I don't recall being involved in this creation of this document at all. Um, if that's what they say it was for, then I can't argue with it, but I don't recall.
02:36:52 Um, can we look please at [clears throat] pages 27 to 28, paragraph 5.6.3.
02:37:07 This is a section in a section entitled at 5.6 sexual liaison
02:37:16 liaison and 5.6.3 6.3 says, "While you may try to avoid any sexual encounter, there may come a time when your lack of interest may become suspicious. In these circumstances, you can either try to introduce an appropriate male or female
02:37:28 introduce an appropriate male or female from your own relations or friends to meet the wearies on a few occasions or ask the office if they can find an ex SDS operative to fill such a role. Both options are fraught with difficulty, and
02:37:39 options are fraught with difficulty, and you must make your own mind up about how to proceed. If you have no other option but to become involved with a weary, you should try to have fleeting disastrous relationships with individuals who are not important to your sources of
02:37:51 not important to your sources of information. One cannot be involved with a re weary in a relationship for any period of time without risking serious consequences. Um Mr. Lambert accepted that the text on
02:38:04 Um Mr. Lambert accepted that the text on sexual relationships in the tradecraftraft manual doesn't state that sexual relationships are prohibited. Do you agree? Again, I I I don't recall seeing this particular wording before.
02:38:17 seeing this particular wording before. Um certainly not at the time. Um but I agree. It doesn't say there are sexually encounters are prohibited. It doesn't say that.
02:38:25 say that. It doesn't prohibit long-term sexual relationships, does it? It doesn't prohibit those. No. It merely cautions the reader as to the consequences, serious consequences, if
02:38:36 consequences, serious consequences, if it was to be with a weary and activist. That's right. That's what the document says. Yes. And the section stating if you have no other option but to become involved with a weiri, you should try to have fleeting
02:38:48 a weiri, you should try to have fleeting disastrous relationships. Rather suggest sexual relationships were indeed permitted. Doesn't it? I don't think I don't think it says they're permitted. I don't think this is an instructional document or any part of
02:39:01 an instructional document or any part of I wouldn't recognize it as any sort of operational instruction to anyone. Why not when it's described as a guide to best practice for members of the squad during their posting?
02:39:12 squad during their posting? I don't know. I I did not write it. I did not was not a party to it being being written. I may have contributed bits to it from other documents. I I don't know. But I had no input into this
02:39:25 don't know. But I had no input into this particular part. Uh and I wouldn't have had. It's implicit in this paragraph that UCO a UCIO's cover shouldn't be broken in order to avoid a sexual relationship, isn't it?
02:39:36 relationship, isn't it? That's what it says. Yes. And um it's implicit that you can do it if you have to if it's really necessary. That's what it says. And I don't agree with it, but that's what it says. Um to enable the mission to continue
02:39:49 Um to enable the mission to continue essentially. As I said, that's that's what it says. Yes.
02:39:51 Yes. Um it also prioritizes information gathering. Would you agree? Again, that is what this document says. And it encourages shorter sexual relationships with people who are not
02:40:02 relationships with people who are not activists. Again, all I can say is that's what it says. I don't endorse any of it. And and it encourages the UCO to deliberately manipulate the relationship
02:40:13 deliberately manipulate the relationship to ensure it's fleeting and disastrous. Again, that that's what this document says. Yes. And again, would you agree the concern expressed in this advice about sexual relationships is as to the
02:40:24 about sexual relationships is as to the consequences to the UCO or the SDS and not the act of the relationship itself, the deceit or any impact on the person in the relationship with the UCO? Again, all I can say is that that that's
02:40:35 Again, all I can say is that that that's what this this wording implies, but I have no knowledge of it and I'm certainly not party to it and I don't agree with it. You would agree it's completely immoral.
02:40:47 You would agree it's completely immoral. I would say that it's not um
02:40:51 um was not responsible and I yes morality is a is a a very subjective issue but I would say that um it's wrong it's wrong I would say yes it's wrong um
02:41:04 I would say yes it's wrong um [clears throat] was anyone in the back office to your knowledge looking at this issue through a moral prism not to my knowledge again I I was I had no input into this document or or this
02:41:17 no input into this document or or this topic at all. It was never something that was raised while I was there or not with me.
02:41:30 Um how how do you think it did come then to pass for guidance as to best practice in the light of its contents at this section?
02:41:41 section? I don't know.
02:41:48 Um, did you ever consider the propriety of this type of advice at the time? Again, I was not aware of this type of advice being in existence at the time.
02:41:59 advice being in existence at the time. It contains completely inappropriate advice.
02:42:02 advice. Looking at it, yes, I think it is inappropriate and that would have been known at the time,
02:42:07 time, but not to me. As I said, I'm not aware of this document in this despite the fact that it was in circulation during your tenure as a DS in the SDS back office as best guidance
02:42:19 in the SDS back office as best guidance as to best practice to UCOs. Are you saying you're unaware of an official management sanctioned given DI Lambert approved it? You were unaware that that
02:42:30 approved it? You were unaware that that was guidance as to best practice in the field. When I first joined the STS, I became aware of the handwritten manuscript
02:42:41 manuscript file known as the tradecraftraft manual. I don't have any recollection of the formalized version. I don't think I've ever seen it in its full form. Why
02:42:52 ever seen it in its full form. Why wouldn't you have seen it if it was being promulgated as guidance to UCOs's deployed in the field while you were an SDS detective sergeant as management
02:43:04 SDS detective sergeant as management guidance as to best practice because
02:43:08 because firstly I I was not an undercover officer. The the development of undercover officers was done in in a different part of the office.
02:43:18 office. Um, and to be to be frank, my job was busy enough as it was just trying to process the intelligence that was flowing through the unit, which was on
02:43:29 flowing through the unit, which was on occasions extremely copious. So,
02:43:33 So, if this document was in existence, I wouldn't say it was being promulgated or in circulation. It may have been kept in part of the back office which undercover officers may well have referred to but I
02:43:47 officers may well have referred to but I personally was not aware of it and I never I never referred to it. Were sexual relationships seen by the SDS as being justified due to the importance of the work they were carrying out.
02:43:59 carrying out. I don't recognize that um that sentiment at all. Um, in practice, UCOs's appear to have thought that they should manage sexual relations in their undercover identity
02:44:11 relations in their undercover identity as they saw fit. Some saw it as inevitable and not breaking cover was seen as paramount. Would you agree with that?
02:44:18 that? I wouldn't agree with it. All I'd say was that the whole issue of sexual relationships was not a topic of general conversation and it was certainly nothing that I was privy to or aware of
02:44:31 nothing that I was privy to or aware of at the time. it wasn't generally spoken about. Um, during the time you were a DS in the SDS, the UCOs were predominantly male,
02:44:42 SDS, the UCOs were predominantly male, weren't they? Predominantly, yes. And and that meant that the sexually deceived person was therefore most likely to be a woman. And indeed, we know that the overwhelming majority were
02:44:53 know that the overwhelming majority were women. Um, this guidance completely ignores their bodily autonomy, emotions, and well-being, doesn't it? Um, I can't comment because I I was
02:45:04 Um, I can't comment because I I was never a party to building this guidance. I never referred to this guidance. The issue of sexual relationships was was not one of a topic of general discussion or conversation. But would you accept that that's what it
02:45:16 But would you accept that that's what it does do?
02:45:20 I would say judging by this wording, it is as you describe it. It's not uh
02:45:27 and given it's been approved by it represents a degree of sexism and misogyny on the part of those who had seen it and approved it. Would you agree
02:45:38 seen it and approved it. Would you agree with that? I I I don't agree with that because I I would have to read it um fully and at length and and consider it before I came to that conclusion. Yeah.
02:45:49 to that conclusion. Yeah. You don't accept that permitting sexual relationships of any form by deceit in an undercover identity is sexist or misogynistic.
02:46:01 sexist or misogynistic. No, it's that's I do accept that it's to do that is sexist and misogynistic and and and as you said wrong. Um but from this distance at at the time I
02:46:14 but from this distance at at the time I was not aware of it being an issue. I've become aware since, but I was not aware at the time that it was an issue. It would have encouraged those who read it to behave completely inappropriately,
02:46:26 it to behave completely inappropriately, wouldn't it? I don't think it encourages it, but it doesn't prohibit it. And it should have expressly and positively a prohibited, shouldn't it? Uh it I don't think it would have been a
02:46:37 Uh it I don't think it would have been a meaningful prohibition if it did because the officers when they were out on their own obviously had to um behave as they saw fit and I think
02:46:48 um behave as they saw fit and I think any prohibition doesn't necessarily make it not happen. Um HN2 DS Andy Kohl's is credibly alleged to have instigated a sexual
02:46:59 alleged to have instigated a sexual relationship with Jessica Cipher. Um he denies such a relationship existed. Were you aware of any allegation that he was involved in a sexual relationship during
02:47:11 involved in a sexual relationship during his deployment when you were an SDS detective sergeant? No.
02:47:15 No. Um, this section written by DS Coohl's after the end of his deployment raises the question, doesn't it, of whether he had entered into a sexual relationship in his undercover identity.
02:47:28 in his undercover identity. It raises the question. Yes. So anyone who had read it should have have had been concerned to explore that question with him, shouldn't they?
02:47:39 shouldn't they? Um, it would depend on how they read it and what weight they put on it. Well, wouldn't it wouldn't it have been the case that
02:47:50 wouldn't it have been the case that someone particularly if it was someone in management as we know Di Lambert was when he approved this um wouldn't this question that whether he was
02:48:02 this question that whether he was writing this because he had had personal experience of what he was writing about have been caused to to be raised and therefore explored with him.
02:48:13 therefore explored with him. Had I been in Bob Lambert's position, that would have been my interpretation, but but I wasn't, and I can't say what he was thinking or what he should have done.
02:48:23 done. Do you know if DCI Edmonson read this at the time that Mr. Lambert approved it? I don't know. Um, did you ever inquire with um DS
02:48:34 Um, did you ever inquire with um DS Kohl's um whether he had entered into a sexual relationship in his undercover identity, whether fleeting and disastrous or otherwise? No, I would. I never inquire. never asked.
02:48:47 Um if no one had asked him about that um whether they had read this or not, would you agree that that um admits of a completely hands-off attitude on the
02:48:58 completely hands-off attitude on the part of those in the SDS office to this particular issue? I don't think it was a hands-off issue. And from my perspective, I was not aware it was an issue because it was never
02:49:09 it was an issue because it was never spoken about. And obviously I was busy doing my job and what went on when the officers left the meetings
02:49:21 officers left the meetings um I already had no knowledge of and no control over. Um so it wasn't a hands-off approach as far as I could see. It was something that that wasn't raised as an issue. was the reality that
02:49:33 raised as an issue. was the reality that it just didn't matter to anyone in the SDS back office um whether UCOs were in sexual relationships or not. What mattered was the job they were doing.
02:49:44 mattered was the job they were doing. I wouldn't say it didn't matter, but I'd say it was not from my perspective it was it was never an issue. It was never raised as an issue. Um
02:49:58 you state um at paragraph 340 page 143 of your witness statement that the effect on young women of older male UCOs deliberately befriending and gaining
02:50:09 deliberately befriending and gaining their trust was not to my knowledge ever consid considered. It should have been shouldn't it given the contents of what we've just looked at in the tradecraftraft manual.
02:50:20 at in the tradecraftraft manual. I I believe yes in the in that context yes it should have been uh addressed but I'd never seen that before. Um you say at paragraph 30 340B at page
02:50:33 Um you say at paragraph 30 340B at page 143 that with hindsight I can see that a lot lot of the activists in some of the groups targeted could have been vulnerable. For example, there were lots of young people in the animal rights movement who were susceptible to
02:50:44 movement who were susceptible to pressure or suggestion from the older or more committed activists. Wasn't the risk also that young women activists were vulnerable to older UCOs or indeed to UCOs of whatever age?
02:50:57 to UCOs of whatever age? I if they were vulnerable they were vulnerable to anyone whether they're UCOs or or other activists and they were vulnerable to deceitful sexual relationships with UCOs in their cover identities that we know happened
02:51:10 cover identities that we know happened during the time you were a DS. Yes. And I didn't have knowledge at the time but yes from from this perspective. Yes.
02:51:19 Yes. Why didn't you mention that risk here alongside the risk um from other activists? I don't know. You trying to distance yourself from
02:51:30 You trying to distance yourself from knowledge of sexual relationships in the SDS during this time? I had no knowledge of sexual activities during the SDS during my time there. I've only learned of it since. But the
02:51:41 I've only learned of it since. But the vulnerability of young women was a foreseeable risk at the time of these deployments being chosen and targeted, wasn't it? [clears throat] I can't say it was a
02:51:54 I can't say it was a a definitive factor, but and again from this perspective, yes, it it would it should have been a factor, but it wasn't at the time.
02:52:05 but it wasn't at the time. Um, part of the assessment of candidates for recruitment for the SDS considered how easily an officer could blend into their target groups and not be not present as a stereotypical police
02:52:16 present as a stereotypical police officer, you say in paragraph 18, page six of your witness statement. Part of that would entail forming close personal relationships with activists, wouldn't it?
02:52:24 it? Yes. And didn't that by its very nature nature create a foreseeable risk of inappropriate sexual relationships particularly with vulnerable young women in certain fields of activism?
02:52:35 in certain fields of activism? I can't say it did because I was never personally in that position but um but we know they happened. I know it happened now. I didn't know at the time, but a
02:52:46 the time, but a vulnerability to involvement in sexual activity, unwanted sexual activity is is an everpresent risk in almost any occupation.
02:52:57 occupation. Um,
02:52:59 Um, but yeah, I'm not I'm not defending undercover officers in engaging in sexual conduct. I'm just saying I was not aware of it at the time and I don't think it was a major consideration at
02:53:12 think it was a major consideration at the time.
02:53:13 the time. At paragraph 342, pages 146 to 147 of your witness statement, you say that you recognize that it was a theoretical possibility that a UCO would have a could have a
02:53:24 that a UCO would have a could have a relationship with someone in their cover identity. Doesn't that understate the position? Wasn't it appreciated that they were a real risk?
02:53:35 I I so understand by what I said in in my witness statement that u in rest it should have been the fact that to be an infil to infiltrate an organization made
02:53:48 infil to infiltrate an organization made up of long-term activists. You do have to develop personal relationships with them and they have personal relationships with each other. That's normally [snorts] why they're in the same group of people. So
02:54:00 they're in the same group of people. So it would not be possible to do that unless you formed some sort of personal relationship. I I wouldn't necessarily say that by definition that has to include a sexual relationship. But it was appreciated as a real risk,
02:54:12 But it was appreciated as a real risk, wasn't it? Because particularly given what was in the trade craft manual that we've just looked at. That represents a real risk, doesn't it? Again, with the tradecraftraft manual,
02:54:23 Again, with the tradecraftraft manual, it's not something that I was familiar with or referred to at the time. And DI Lambert would certainly have appreciated the risk, wouldn't he? Because he had sexual relationships in his undercover identity.
02:54:34 his undercover identity. I found out afterwards. Yes. Um but at the time he knew when he was a DIY Yeah.
02:54:39 DIY Yeah. He knew that's what he had done. He Yes. He must have done. Yes. Um, in your witness statement at paragraph 339 at page 142,
02:54:51 at page 142, um, you say, um, I you did not give any advice or guidance to any of the undercover officers in relation to sexual relationships in their cover identities. And you also did not think
02:55:03 identities. And you also did not think that this was something the UCOs needed advice or guidance on. It is and was obvious that sexual relations whilst in their cover identities was something that that should have been avoided. Um
02:55:16 that that should have been avoided. Um why do you say that the need to avoid sexual relationships undercover was obvious?
02:55:22 obvious? It would have been obvious to me. Did you give conscious consideration to it at the time? Not that I recall. No.
02:55:33 Not that I recall. No. Um, you say with the exception of HN1, you were not aware of any other UCOs either being in a sexual relationship or having a child as a result of any sexual relationship during their deployments at
02:55:44 relationship during their deployments at the time you were at DS in the SDS. That's correct. And towards the end of HN1's deployment, you became aware that the former had been in a sexual relationship in his cover identity. Um, I'm going to come
02:55:56 cover identity. Um, I'm going to come back to HM1 in a moment, but how closely did you inquire into what the UCOs were doing in this regard? I didn't when I found out about HN1, it was at the very end of of his deployment
02:56:08 was at the very end of of his deployment and it was during a um a post operational I'll come to that in just a moment. Okay. But no, I didn't because I was not aware of it happening with anyone else
02:56:19 aware of it happening with anyone else at that time. I was not aware of it happening. How how closely were you monitoring how UCOs were behaving towards those they targeted? Um I personally wasn't monitoring them
02:56:30 Um I personally wasn't monitoring them at all and was anyone uh if there was any monitoring done it was any secondhand because the the officers themselves were um acting on their own initiative and own vition most
02:56:42 their own initiative and own vition most of the time. There's no way they could be supervised or monitored um in any meaningful way given the nature of their undercover deployments. So, how was how was any supervision
02:56:54 So, how was how was any supervision being exercised over their behavior towards their target groups and in particular vulnerable young women? Uh,
02:57:03 Uh, is the answer that it wasn't? I can only assume that anything of that nature would have been a matter between the DI and the undercover officers. Do you think there was an expectation
02:57:14 Do you think there was an expectation from SDS management above you that you should highlight any concerning behavior that became evident either in a UCO's raw intelligence reports or during daily phone calls or twice weekly meetings
02:57:26 phone calls or twice weekly meetings with them? I think it would be an expectation that anything startling should be brought to light. Yes. And a sexual relationship, a deceitful sexual relationship whilst undercover would be pretty startling, wouldn't it?
02:57:38 would be pretty startling, wouldn't it? It would be if that ever came to light. Um because you've recognized and accepted that you accepted that you recognized at the time that there was a theoretical possibility that a UCO could
02:57:50 theoretical possibility that a UCO could have a relationship with someone in their cover identity. What were you doing to satisfy yourself that such a theoretical possibility didn't in fact occur?
02:57:59 occur? I don't think I was doing trying to do anything theoretical at that time. I was in it was an incredibly busy job anyway and
02:58:09 and I didn't have the time
02:58:14 to spend on theoretical explorations. So was mitigation of the risk of such a sexual relationship whether theoretical or real ever considered by you at the
02:58:27 or real ever considered by you at the time with management above you? Because I was unaware that these sexual activity was going on. was not a consideration for me. I was more concerned about threats to the officers themselves from their target groups.
02:58:40 themselves from their target groups. Um, could we just look please at a document MPS0722421.
02:58:49 This is a note of your operation hear. And if we could look at page four, please. It's at tab B 284 of the bundle sir.
02:58:59 sir. And under the heading relationships in the middle of the page, it says Mr. Web was not aware of any formal guidance and it was left up to the individual. Any such rule would have been uninforcable.
02:59:12 such rule would have been uninforcable. It um just pausing there. What do you mean by any such rule would have been uninforcable there? I think as I mentioned before, if you prohibit something, it doesn't mean to say it's not going to happen. I see. Um it goes on, it also depended
02:59:26 I see. Um it goes on, it also depended on what group was being infiltrated. sexual contact would have been more prevalent in the animal rights group groups. Was that something that was recognized at the time? No, I think this is my reflection after
02:59:37 No, I think this is my reflection after the event. You said management would have been aware but it was not really spoken about. That rather suggests that at least some level of management was aware at the time but just chose not to speak
02:59:49 at the time but just chose not to speak about it. Would you agree? Um, again, I I'm I didn't write this verbatim myself. It's a record of a conversation that someone else had with me. Um,
03:00:01 me. Um, it may have been an opinion I had at the time, but as I said, there was the topic was never spoken about. It wasn't a general topic of conversation and as I said, there's no bragging in the offices about
03:00:13 about uh it it goes on as you say, there was no bragging in the offices about these matters. Mr. Webb knows Bob Lambert, John Dyn, and Jim Boiling very well and is aware of the allegations made against them. He sees it as an inevitable
03:00:26 them. He sees it as an inevitable consequence of 40 years of SDS deployments. Did you view sexual relationships with activists as an inevitable part of being deployed as a UCO? I may have on reflection when when this
03:00:39 I may have on reflection when when this interview took place um several years after the event. Looking back, it may well have been given the the nature of the close personal relationships and the number of
03:00:51 personal relationships and the number of officers who have been deployed over 40 years um that it's possible that one or two that it may have happened and
03:01:02 two that it may have happened and numerically statistically it may well have been inevitable but um if I had that opinion it was very much after the event.
03:01:10 event. Um,
03:01:12 Um, DI Lambert was your DI for um, a considerable portion of your time while you were DS in the SDS. We know he had had sexual relationships um, when he was
03:01:23 had sexual relationships um, when he was a UCO and indeed fathered a child. Um, what effect do you think he had on the culture of the SDS as DI in terms of of this issue?
03:01:34 of this issue? Um,
03:01:36 Um, I don't know what effect he had on the undercover officers. As I said, it was not an issue that was um, raised or current as far as I was concerned.
03:01:48 current as far as I was concerned. Um, had he ever given you any cause to suspect that he'd engaged in sexual relations in his undercover identity and fathered a child? No.
03:01:56 No. Um,
03:01:58 Um, had you ever heard any rumors of a former C former UCO fathering a child at all? No.
03:02:04 all? No. Um, when you joined the SDS, HN67 was the DI, were youware aware of any rumor that he had slept with an activist? No.
03:02:12 No. Or that he had fathered a child? No.
03:02:17 No. Um,
03:02:19 Um, like to ask you about HN5, John Dyn, please. Um, what exactly did you know during the course of the mid 1990s when you were a DS in the SDS about Helen
03:02:32 you were a DS in the SDS about Helen Steel's search for him? Um, I knew she had been looking for him and I knew she found out where he lived. And
03:02:43 And was it considered um that the the efforts that she and the extent of the efforts that she had gone to and was willing to go to to try to find him raised any suspicion that she'd
03:02:56 find him raised any suspicion that she'd been in a sexual relationship with him? Uh,
03:02:59 Uh, it didn't raise any suspicions with me? No.
03:03:01 No. Why not?
03:03:03 Why not? Um [clears throat and snorts]
03:03:06 because he didn't I I wasn't thinking about
03:03:09 about uh past officers having sexual relationships or even current ones. What was their discussion about the extent of the efforts she had gone to and was willing to go to to find him um
03:03:20 and was willing to go to to find him um in the SDS office between you and anyone else? I think the discussion focused on how tenacious she'd been and how um how effectively she had been at
03:03:32 um how effectively she had been at finding him. It's something that we we we thought was a very um capable piece of work that she did. And no discussions about the motive for doing so.
03:03:43 doing so. No. Despite the fact that Bob Lambert had known her when he was an undercover officer, we never had any discussion with him about the reason she was going to such efforts to try to find this
03:03:55 to such efforts to try to find this particular He never came. It just we assumed it was just because she had actually uncovered the identity of a former undercover police officer.
03:04:07 Um
03:04:12 uh could we uh move on to um the Chitty paper please? It's MPS0726956
03:04:22 dated May 1994 at page 28 at paragraphs 3.5 to 3.7 please. Um this paper
03:04:35 please. Um this paper um came about because of um issues that had arisen in Mr. Chitt's deployment and afterwards when he had gone back into his undercover identity. Um DI Lambert
03:04:49 his undercover identity. Um DI Lambert observations in this paper about DS Chitty's sexual activities in the field show that by May 1994 Di Lambert certainly knew that he was
03:05:00 Di Lambert certainly knew that he was not the only officer to have conducted himself in this way in the field and DS Chitty had done so. Um, in your witness statement at paragraph 178, paragraph F,
03:05:11 statement at paragraph 178, paragraph F, page 68,
03:05:13 page 68, um, you say you don't recall if you read this paper at the time, but you think you would have seen it. Is that right? Uh,
03:05:22 Uh, yes. I I think I would have seen it. Um, I should have seen it. I didn't I don't recall seeing it. U, I was very aware of the whole Chitty saga.
03:05:33 Chitty saga. It was important, wasn't it? because it was a threat to the operational security.
03:05:37 security. It was a major threat. Um but I certainly didn't read this and if I did it wasn't any any great detail. This paper refers in in this paper DI
03:05:49 This paper refers in in this paper DI Lambert refers both euphemistically at page 19 paragraph 2.12 and explicitly um here um to DS Chitty having had
03:06:00 um here um to DS Chitty having had sexual relationships in his undercover identity and to his forming a particularly close attachment attachment to a woman called Lizzy. Do you remember um reading that or appreciating that DS
03:06:13 um reading that or appreciating that DS Chitty had had sexual relationships while he was undercover? No.
03:06:18 No. Um h had you read this, what would your reaction have been? Um
03:06:27 Um I don't know what it what it might have been. It's um I know the whole the whole Chitty saga was a was of itself quite shocking.
03:06:38 was of itself quite shocking. because of what he he was doing then, not what he had done previously. Do you agree that reading this would have expressly put you on notice of a real risk of sexual relationships in undercover deployments because it
03:06:50 undercover deployments because it positively detailed that he had had them?
03:06:52 them? It would have told me that that Chitty had had a sexual relationship. That's what it would have told me. Thank you. Um, we know that HN78 Trevor Morris admitted to sexual relationship
03:07:05 Morris admitted to sexual relationship with B a cipher and a one night stand with Jenny a cipher in his cover identity immediately before ending his deployment. Were you ever aware of his relationship with either be or his one
03:07:16 relationship with either be or his one night stand with Jenny? No. Um I want to look then at um HN1 Matt Raina and his relationship with Denise who was also known as Liz Fuller.
03:07:29 Denise who was also known as Liz Fuller. Yeah.
03:07:30 Yeah. Um we you referred to it earlier. I think you would have been in receipt of some reporting on her from HN1 and have processed it. Would you agree with that? Yes. Yes.
03:07:42 Yes. Yes. Um,
03:07:44 Um, HN1 has given evidence that everyone within the SDS knew about his relationship with Denise Fuller and he had initially raised the issue of over overtures from her with Di Lambert and
03:07:57 overtures from her with Di Lambert and in particular because he didn't anticipate Di Lambert telling him to desist because he would have understood the difficulties of that kind of work. Um, Mr. Lambert um denies that. Um he
03:08:12 Um, Mr. Lambert um denies that. Um he HN1 also claims that you would have known about his sexual relationship um with Liz Fuller at the time. And sir, just for your reference, that's Matt Rainer's witness statement at
03:08:23 Rainer's witness statement at NPS0748095,
03:08:26 paragraphs 481 B and C at page 217. Did you know about HN1's relationship with Liz Fuller at the time? No.
03:08:37 No. Are you sure about that? I'm sure the first I heard of it was when you told me himself at the end of his deployment after his deployment had actually finished. You you accept that you became aware of
03:08:49 You you accept that you became aware of his relationship um at the int intelligence debrief which took place in Bordeaux at the end of his deployment. Is that right? [snorts] Um so that would have been sometime in November towards the end of November
03:09:01 November towards the end of November 1996.
03:09:03 1996. Yes.
03:09:04 Yes. Um, was it just you that traveled to do to Bordeaux to debrief him? As far as I know, yes, as far as I recall.
03:09:10 recall. And why was it necessary to do it in Bordeaux?
03:09:13 Bordeaux? Because it was part of his exit strategy. He was uh relocating first of all to Bordeaux and then moving on somewhere else. Um and rather than him he had people visiting him from his
03:09:25 he had people visiting him from his target groups in Bordeaux and we thought it was rather it would be easier and uh less intrusive less disruptive for him if I traveled to Bordeaux and actually
03:09:36 if I traveled to Bordeaux and actually did the debrief there. Um you deal with this at paragraph 362 page 153 of your um witness statement where you say that um he told you about
03:09:48 where you say that um he told you about the relationship. Do you recall exactly what he told you about the relationship? Not not verbatim, but I know it was in conversation he raised it and said that he'd had an affair with Liz Fuller for
03:10:01 he'd had an affair with Liz Fuller for Did he tell you the nature of the relationship in terms of its seriousness? No.
03:10:07 No. Um, did he tell you the length of time which it went on? No.
03:10:10 No. Did he tell you whether um they had lived together or not? No.
03:10:16 No. Um, did you ask? No.
03:10:19 No. What was your reaction to this information? I was surprised. Um, I knew him reasonably well and
03:10:31 I knew him reasonably well and I didn't think it was the sort of thing that he would do. Um, but um, it was no, I was surprised but nothing more. In your witness statement, you say, "I
03:10:42 In your witness statement, you say, "I did not do anything with this information as I did not think it was relevant to the purpose of the debrief, which was about the animal rights field. I did not think this affected the intelligence HN1 had gathered because
03:10:53 intelligence HN1 had gathered because this was about the animal rights movement's aims, intentions, and strategies. As I recall, Liz Fuller was not a main source for this intelligence. So, you didn't do anything. You didn't
03:11:04 So, you didn't do anything. You didn't tell anyone else." No,
03:11:06 No, not anyone above you in the chain of command in the SDS. Um,
03:11:11 Um, and the reason you give was you didn't think the the relationship affected the intelligence that he had gathered. Um,
03:11:20 Um, it didn't matter that he had been in a deceitful sexual relationship in the field. What mattered was the success of the operation and the security of the SDS. Is that fair? No, not I mean
03:11:31 No, not I mean I wouldn't agree with that. I think in the context of my trip to Bordeaux to do the debrief, it was about uh being able to paint an intelligence picture of the animal rights movement, the militant end
03:11:44 animal rights movement, the militant end of the animal rights movement throughout the UK.
03:11:47 the UK. Um, and it's about its future direction and future likely tactics and strategies rather than about any specific individuals.
03:11:58 individuals. um since HM1 was on his he had effectively finished in the field um I did not think
03:12:09 in the field um I did not think surprised I was I did not think it was particularly relevant I may well have discussed it after the event with Bob Lambert but I don't recall doing so but whether the intelligence he had gathered was affected or not or whatever
03:12:22 gathered was affected or not or whatever direction of deployments in the future in the animal rights field is hardly the point is it the point was that a UCO had deceived a woman into a sexual relationship in his undercover identity
03:12:34 relationship in his undercover identity and that was wrong. Yes, it was. Um the level of deception involved I I can't comment on. Um apart from obviously there must have been some deception
03:12:45 deception and this was a serious issue with his conduct, wasn't it? As a police officer, it could be seen as such. Yes. Well, did you consider his conduct to
03:12:56 Well, did you consider his conduct to have been appropriate and acceptable? Uh, I didn't think it was up to me to make a judgment on what he was doing at the time. But you didn't tell anyone else so that
03:13:08 But you didn't tell anyone else so that they could make a judgment. Did you? I may well have mentioned it to Bob, but I'm not entirely sure. It's a long time ago.
03:13:14 ago. Did you consider whether what he had done amounted to a disciplinary offense? I didn't consider that at the time. No. Did you consider whether what he had done amounted to a torchious offense?
03:13:26 done amounted to a torchious offense? The tort of deceit, misfeasance in public office? I didn't consider that. Um, did you consider the legality of what he had done? I didn't consider that.
03:13:37 I didn't consider that. Did you consider whether what he had done was morally wrong? I I consider I did consider it at a later stage um after the allegations
03:13:48 later stage um after the allegations about the SDS in general became more widely known. Didn't you as a DS detective sergeant in the Metropolitan Police have a responsibility or an
03:13:59 Police have a responsibility or an obligation to report it formally up the chain of command? Um
03:14:06 Um you could say that but he was actually senior to me in rank. Um, so yeah, I I could have done um but I didn't.
03:14:17 but I didn't. Did you give any consideration to Denise Fuller and how she may have been impacted?
03:14:23 impacted? No.
03:14:24 No. Why not?
03:14:26 Why not? Because
03:14:29 Because I didn't at the time. I just I can't I don't know why exactly. Um I was surprised when
03:14:38 H1 made the the disclosure to me and it wasn't
03:14:44 wasn't a big dramatic disclosure. It just came out in in conversation. Doesn't that reveal an attitude of misogyny towards women? It didn't at the time. No.
03:14:55 It didn't at the time. No. Um, did you give any consideration to the operational security of the SDS? No. the possible compromise of HN1 or the SDS should Liz Fuller, Denise
03:15:06 the SDS should Liz Fuller, Denise Fuller, find out that HN1 was a UCO. It wasn't my consideration at the time. No,
03:15:12 No, because you would have been aware by that time of the issue with DS Chitty and with Helen Steel making inquiries about John Dyn, wouldn't you? I wasn't aware there was any sort of sexual connotation to that at all.
03:15:24 sexual connotation to that at all. If an officer had admitted to a criminal act that were not strictly relevant to the debrief, would you have similarly not taken any action in those circumstances? Uh, I don't think I would have taken the
03:15:36 Uh, I don't think I would have taken the same action though. If it was an admission of criminal activity, then I think I would have referred it to someone else. So, what is it about a deceptive sexual relationship by a UCO
03:15:49 deceptive sexual relationship by a UCO undercover that meant that taking no action was acceptable? What's the difference? Whether it's acceptable or not, it's it's what I did at the time. And the
03:16:01 it's what I did at the time. And the legality or otherwise of that particular relationship was not something that I given a huge amount of thought to at the time.
03:16:08 time. Did this cause you to change your thinking that sexual relationships were not considered or recognized as a realistic risk, but merely a theoretical one at the time? Did you consider that?
03:16:20 one at the time? Did you consider that? At the time, it was the only sexual relationship that I was aware of at all. Um, so no, it didn't make me think there was some systemic issue. It should have done, shouldn't it? It
03:16:31 It should have done, shouldn't it? It should have prompted an inquiry. Um,
03:16:36 I think it's an arguable point whether it should have done. If one incident is enough to make one change an approach or or or base a whole manner of thinking
03:16:47 or or base a whole manner of thinking on, I don't know. Well, did you give any consideration at all at the time to the need to inquire of other UCOs deployed during your time at the as DS at the SDS
03:16:59 during your time at the as DS at the SDS as to whether they had entered into sexual relationships in their undercover identities? It's not something that that uh occurred to me at the time. No, because in November 1996, that would
03:17:10 because in November 1996, that would have been HN43, HN26, HN15, HN14, and HN81. the first four of whom have admitted to sexual relationships whilst deployed.
03:17:23 whilst deployed. Um, wasn't it important to investigate whether those officers were at risk or were in fact having sexual relationships in their undercover identity? I had no knowledge that they were at the
03:17:34 I had no knowledge that they were at the time.
03:17:35 time. But shouldn't you have investigated given you did now know that HN1 had I knew that HN1 had told me he had had one relationship. I didn't know about any
03:17:44 any knew about DS Chitty. I didn't know if there was any sexual connotation with Chitty at all. Was any consideration given at all to mitigating the risk of what had happened
03:17:55 mitigating the risk of what had happened to HN1 with Denise Fuller happening to another deployed UCO? It's not something that I gave consideration to at the time.
03:18:09 Um, at paragraph 76, page 25 of your witness statement, you say, "I do not think these could have been prevented, as in sexual relationships, by a different style of management. Fundamentally, a UCO cannot be
03:18:20 Fundamentally, a UCO cannot be supervised at all times. There has to be be a degree of trust. That just doesn't hold up in the circumstances where there was positive knowledge of a relationship having occurred, does it?" As I said, I had knowledge of one
03:18:32 As I said, I had knowledge of one officer admitting to me that he had one relationship. You completely abdicated your responsibility in relation to HM1. You didn't do anything about it. I'll admit, I guess I I maybe should
03:18:44 I'll admit, I guess I I maybe should have done something, but I didn't do that. And at this distance, there's nothing I can do about that. HN26,
03:18:52 HN26, we now know that she had a sexual relationship with Thomas Frampton, also known as Joe Tex or Tax. um a member of
03:19:03 known as Joe Tex or Tax. um a member of a Londonbased ALF cell when she was in her undercover identity. Um did you know about that at the time? No.
03:19:12 No. If you had done, would you have raised it with your DI or DCI? Theoretically, yes, I probably would. Even though you didn't when you found out about HM1, h1 was had finished his deployment. I
03:19:26 h1 was had finished his deployment. I presumed everything was finished. And uh as I said, I may well have raised it in conversation with with Bob Lambert at a later date, but I can't recall at this stage. There's some evidence from um
03:19:37 stage. There's some evidence from um HN26 ex-husband that after about two and a half years into her deployment, her deployment starting in November 1994,
03:19:48 deployment starting in November 1994, making that time around May 1997 um that um she changed and that she became completely absorbed by her role and there was very little separation
03:19:59 and there was very little separation from pretend and reality and the two seemed to swap place. she wasn't really HN26 anymore and spent longer and longer away from home. Um, did you notice those
03:20:10 away from home. Um, did you notice those same changes in HN 26 that her ex-husband noticed at around this time in May onwards from 1997? Not specifically, but it it was
03:20:24 Not specifically, but it it was almost part of the course that as an officer developed more relationships and not not necessarily sexual relations, but more relationships with their target groups, they became more confident
03:20:36 groups, they became more confident and more comfortable in that role. Um, I didn't notice it particularly with with this officer you're talking about. Um, did did it cause you to consider a risk
03:20:47 did did it cause you to consider a risk that she was in a sexual relationship with an activist? No, didn't. Um, was she traveling outside the MPS area with her activist group and staying overnight with them? Presumably, yes.
03:20:59 Presumably, yes. And did that not give you cause to explore with her the nature of the sleeping arrangements and how close she had in fact become to a member of her activist group? No, she only ever raised
03:21:11 activist group? No, she only ever raised one overnight issue when she said she positively rebutted any sort of not a
03:21:20 it was a situation a circumstance um of a nonsexual nature but would have involved taking clothes off and she explained in a meeting I think quite
03:21:32 explained in a meeting I think quite jokingly that she'd resisted that very vigorously but otherwise it was it was never raised and
03:21:39 and To be fair, she and I never had that sort of closer relationship workwise. Um, HN15 DC Mark Jenner, did you ever
03:21:51 Um, HN15 DC Mark Jenner, did you ever see the sketch made by [snorts] DC Jenner of the floor plan of Allison's flat at the time would have been around the beginning of of 1996?
03:22:02 the beginning of of 1996? Not to my knowledge. No. Um
03:22:11 Mark Jenner deliberately misrepresented in that sketch um that he was in a a shared living arrangement rather than the truth which was the fact that he was
03:22:23 the truth which was the fact that he was cohabiting with um Allison at the time as a couple. Were you aware of that at the time?
03:22:30 the time? No.
03:22:33 Um during his um evidence to the inquiry, Mr. Jenner was asked about a file note produced by DI Bob Lambert and forwarded to HN58U,
03:22:46 forwarded to HN58U, um DS War and DS Greeny. Um before we look at that file note, I just want to ask you about the two which precede it which are yours.
03:22:58 precede it which are yours. um MPS0247193.
03:23:02 It's at tab uh B256 of the bundle. We don't need to go to it, but this is a file note of the 25th of July 1997, and it concerns the person we're calling
03:23:15 and it concerns the person we're calling Jamie
03:23:16 Jamie um approaching HN15 regarding um a criminal action. and you uh noted um the SDS interest in that. Do you recall
03:23:28 SDS interest in that. Do you recall that?
03:23:30 that? I don't recall that specifically now. Um it's your note. Do you accept you wrote it? We can look at it. Um there's there's then um a further note uh written by you. It's at
03:23:43 note uh written by you. It's at NPS0749473
03:23:46 at tab B 145 of the bundle dated the 5th of August 1997 and at page 21 it's your note names the conspirators which include Jamie and
03:23:58 conspirators which include Jamie and HM15. It details the type of action proposed and states at the end that dealing with the product of his involvement in other words in the criminal enterprise will be difficult.
03:24:09 criminal enterprise will be difficult. Do you recall why you thought it was going to be difficult to deal with the product of his involvement? I can't remember the specific circumstances, but obviously if he went beyond the bounds of the accepted role
03:24:20 beyond the bounds of the accepted role of a participating informant, it would have been problematic. So it was to do with the his his participation in a criminal action probably. Yes. Um, we then get to uh the note by uh DI
03:24:36 Um, we then get to uh the note by uh DI Lambert of um
03:24:42 MPS0749325
03:24:45 at tab B 258.
03:24:49 [clears throat] This um file note has
03:24:57 we can bring this one up. It's at it's at pages one and two. Um this is a file note written by DI Lambert which you received according to the distribution list at the bottom of
03:25:08 the distribution list at the bottom of page two.
03:25:10 page two. Um
03:25:13 Um this file note purports to make a case for a change in Jenna's living arrangements in that he had gone from staying on his own in a bedset to
03:25:24 staying on his own in a bedset to sharing a large house with activists. uh which he describes as as friends. Um that wouldn't have been accurate, would it? A large house when we know the floor
03:25:36 it? A large house when we know the floor plan of Allison's flat where he was in fact living was a two-bedroom flat. Would you agree with that? I have no recollection of this at all. And if I was on the list, I don't recall seeing it. Um I'm certainly not familiar
03:25:49 seeing it. Um I'm certainly not familiar with the use of um the code name used here.
03:25:54 here. Um, so I don't recognize it and if I was put on the list, I don't recall ever seeing it. And I was never aware that uh he changed his living arrangements.
03:26:05 he changed his living arrangements. The problem that arose from this change in um living arrangements arose in reality because he was living cohabiting
03:26:16 reality because he was living cohabiting as a couple with Allison. and the nature of this um criminal enterprise and his involvement in it may have involved surveillance of him and
03:26:27 have involved surveillance of him and Jamie which would have revealed to those outside the SDS conducting such surveillance that he was in fact living in a relationship um with Allison. Were
03:26:38 in a relationship um with Allison. Were you aware of that at the time? No, I as I said I was not aware that he had moved in with Allison at all.
03:26:51 Um, that would have been a problem, wouldn't it? That a relationship, an undercover officer in a in a long-term
03:27:02 undercover officer in a in a long-term cohabiting relationship as a couple with an activist being revealed outside the SDS would have left the SDS with considerable difficulties, wouldn't it? I think it would. Yes. Yes.
03:27:14 I think it would. Yes. Yes. um and that would be something they would be concerned um to conceal from those outside the SDS.
03:27:23 SDS. Um whether that be the primary consideration, I can't say. As I said, I wasn't aware of any of this particular issue. And traditionally, um STS undercover officers lived on
03:27:36 um STS undercover officers lived on their own. And that was always to my mind the the practice that you always got a place on your own for the very reason that you needed to preserve some sort of balanced life with with
03:27:47 some sort of balanced life with with home.
03:27:48 home. A paragraph seven sorry a paragraph seven of this note it it records that um DC Jenner was very keen to promote what he was doing as a viable alternative.
03:27:59 he was doing as a viable alternative. And in the middle of paragraph 7, it says the effectively a discussion with Di Lambert that indeed the SDS has um past experience of operatives successfully living with wearies exactly
03:28:11 successfully living with wearies exactly as he was doing now and a little couple of lines on we discussed this at some length.
03:28:17 length. Um were you aware of any discussions between DI Lambeath and DC Jenner about the merits of of living with activists whilst deployed undercover? No, I
03:28:29 whilst deployed undercover? No, I wasn't. No. Would you have been concerned about about that? Had I known about it, I probably would have been concerned, but I didn't know about it.
03:28:38 about it. Um, do you know who Di Lambert was referring to in terms of those past operatives? No.
03:29:01 Um that can be taken down now. Thank you.
03:29:05 you. Um at MPS074810
03:29:10 0 it's a tab B210 of the bundle. Sir, this is a note by um Bob Lambert submitted to Mr. son regarding a meeting
03:29:21 submitted to Mr. son regarding a meeting with HN14 Jim Boiling on the uh and the note is the 27th of August 1996 where it's recorded that um
03:29:32 where it's recorded that um Mr. Boiling's wife was leaving him. Did you know about that at the time? I think I was aware but I can't remember the details. Did you consider um that that may have
03:29:44 Did you consider um that that may have represented an increased risk of sexual misconduct by Mr. boiling whilst deployed?
03:29:50 deployed? No, that wasn't I didn't uh it wasn't the first thing that occurred to me. I knew I'd met I also knew him and I've met his wife and I wasn't surprised
03:30:01 um regarding his relationship with Rosa. That would have occurred after you'd left the SDS and so you may not have known about it at the time as you say in
03:30:12 known about it at the time as you say in your witness statement and you didn't. Um, you say though at paragraph 374 at pages 157 to 158 regarding this relationship that you may have learned
03:30:24 relationship that you may have learned of Boiling's relationships and children in a private discussion with either HN1 or Bob Lambert after you left the SDS. Um, do you recall any of the
03:30:35 Um, do you recall any of the circumstances of that discussion and how it came about? Yes, I think HN1 had come to visit us. Um my wife and I, we lived outside London and he'd come down um and he told
03:30:47 London and he'd come down um and he told me in the car. Um what was your reaction? Yeah, I was very surprised. Um um did you tell anyone?
03:30:59 um did you tell anyone? Well, I've left the SDS by then and um so had HN1 and
03:31:06 and um
03:31:09 um as I recall the nature of what he told me, it was already well known to um the hierarchy, the special arch hierarchy and the SDS hierarchy. So you
03:31:20 hierarchy and the SDS hierarchy. So you didn't consider you had any responsibility to do anything about it because you'd left the SDS and also because the SDS I I believed as I recall they already knew about it and
03:31:31 I recall they already knew about it and were doing something about it.
03:31:35 Um [snorts and clears throat] in his live evidence to the inquiry that can be taken down. Thank you. Um, HN16 said that he incorporated a backstory involving sexual assault into his legend
03:31:48 involving sexual assault into his legend with you. Um, could he be right about that?
03:31:57 Uh, I don't recall that. No. Um, do do you think he's wrong or do you think he's right and you just don't recall it? It could be either. I'm sorry.
03:32:09 It could be either. I'm sorry. Um,
03:32:14 if it was to be suggested that the incorporation of sexual assault into a legend was done to create an opportunity to end deceitful sexual relationships, what would you say to that?
03:32:25 what would you say to that? Uh, it's a hypothesis that that I've not heard before and I I wouldn't know how to respond to that.
03:32:36 Um, so looking back over your time uh in the SDS as a detective sergeant, h how do you explain your being oblivious to
03:32:47 do you explain your being oblivious to the various different UCOs um who engaged in sexual misconduct under your tenure? I play it by first of all the fact that
03:32:58 I play it by first of all the fact that my role there was pretty much office-based and I was busy processing a vast amount of intelligence on a regular basis. My interaction with the individuals
03:33:09 individuals um was fleeting and periodic. Um I had no supervisory responsibility for their their actual performance.
03:33:21 for their their actual performance. um
03:33:25 it was never mentioned. It wasn't a topic of conversation. Uh there's no way I would have known um
03:33:33 um without actively seeking that information by asking them outright had it been an issue of concern to me at the time. But as I said, I knew nothing at all about
03:33:45 as I said, I knew nothing at all about any sexual relationships in SDS until uh HN1 told me about his. Um, so I wasn't aware it was an issue
03:33:56 Um, so I wasn't aware it was an issue and I wasn't aware because I was very busy doing other things.
03:34:04 Um, a completely different topic and I am conscious of the time, sir. Um, do you recall um a police attack on protesters at Ear's Court in January
03:34:15 protesters at Ear's Court in January 1994
03:34:17 1994 where what's come to be known as the Red Express
03:34:21 Express train plan was put into effect where activists were taken onto a train that was redirected into Els Court. I was aware of an incident of that type. Um, I thought it was football related
03:34:33 Um, I thought it was football related but it could be wrong. Were you present in viewing the CCTV of the incident in the control room? Not to my knowledge. No. Um, did you later remark to Mr. Francis,
03:34:45 Um, did you later remark to Mr. Francis, who had been involved, well done for surviving? I don't recall making that comment. Do you understand the extent to which the policing response to uh that protest
03:34:56 the policing response to uh that protest was influenced by HN43's reporting? I don't recall that. Um, do you have any response to the evidence of Lois Austin,
03:35:07 response to the evidence of Lois Austin, Lewis, Alex Oarde, and HN43 that the policing response was unprovoked and horrific on the day? No. Again, my my recollection of the incident and
03:35:19 incident and was
03:35:21 was again I this I thought it was football related, but it may have been something that that was done on a regular basis with unruly football supporters being shipped to the other end of London on a
03:35:33 shipped to the other end of London on a train that didn't stop anywhere. Do you have any comment on the proposition that exaggerated SDS intelligence contributed to a police response which included attacking protesters? No, I don't.
03:35:53 So I am conscious of the time. I know the stenographers haven't um had a break in a while and we do still have rule tens and the possibility of re-examination to um contend with. Do
03:36:04 re-examination to um contend with. Do you mind if we take a break now and I consider whether I'm finished or not? And we can also deal with rule 10 in the break. Um, is 10 minutes long enough? It is 10 minutes.
03:36:15 It is 10 minutes. Thank you, sir.
03:56:43 Thank you, sir, and thank you for the time. Um, Mr. Web, I just have one follow-up um question, please, before finishing. Um, and it's in relation to what you were saying just before the break about um Mr. Boiling and the
03:56:57 break about um Mr. Boiling and the conversation you had regarding his um relationship with um Rosa and his children. which was you think either with HN1 or Bob Lambert after you had
03:57:09 with HN1 or Bob Lambert after you had left the SDS and in the answer um as to why you didn't um do anything about that or tell anyone specifically about that you said it was already well known to the hierarchy the special branch
03:57:22 the hierarchy the special branch hierarchy and the SDS hierarchy and I'd like to please ask you for your best recollection of who it was in the SDS knew about it at that time in the SDS hierarchy uh
03:57:35 hierarchy uh I'm trying I was thinking about when the conversation took place and it was certainly well after um I'd left SDS. Um I'm not sure who would have been the DCI at the
03:57:48 would have been the DCI at the [clears throat] time. Um can you help place the date of the conversation? It must have been
03:57:58 1998. 1998.
03:58:00 1998. Yeah.
03:58:01 Yeah. And do you remember beginning, middle, end. No. And HM1 was in the back of my car. We were driving along and he said, "Have you heard whatever?" And just told me.
03:58:13 you heard whatever?" And just told me. Um, but when you were referring to the SDS hierarchy, knowing you were referring to what the DI and the DCI and the
03:58:20 the I don't and it was an assumption because of who who it was who was telling me would also long departed the SDS. And when you said that it was known to the
03:58:31 when you said that it was known to the special branch hierarchy, who would you have been referring to? Whether in terms of
03:58:36 of again I think I'd left special branch by then. I think I was at uh I was somewhere else. Um so I don't know who in special branch would have been aware but I knew it was from the way it was
03:58:47 but I knew it was from the way it was communicated to me that it was it wasn't a sort of hot off the press thing. It was something that was widely relatively widely known. I see. Thank you very much. Sir, those
03:58:58 I see. Thank you very much. Sir, those are all my questions. Thank you. I don't propose to ask any further questions of rule 10 and I understand there's no re-examination by Mr. Sanders. So, um, the witness is finished.
03:59:09 the witness is finished. Thank you. That event, your evidence is completed. Thank you. Thank you for coming. Um, and I very very strongly doubt that I will need to ask you to come back again.
03:59:20 ask you to come back again. Thank you. Then, um, I will rise now. Uh there is a matter I have to deal with in this room once it's been cleared. Thank you, sir.