Continuation of the cross-examination of Keith Edmondson (HN216), a former SDS detective chief inspector, on Day 6 (PM) of Tranche 3 Phase 3. Counsel probes his knowledge of and responsibility for undercover officers' sexual relationships with women in their target groups (DS Andy Coles, HN1 Bob Lambert, DC Mark Jenner, HN26 Christine Green, DC Jim Boyling), the SDS tradecraft manual's guidance on 'fleeting' sexual contact, welfare support for officers and their spouses, and the SDS's reporting in relation to the Stephen Lawrence justice campaign and its lawyer Michael Mansfield QC.
00:32:08 Good afternoon everybody. Uh this afternoon's proceedings apart from a short uh private session at the end will be transmitted on the live link after a 15minute delay. Uh those with mobile
00:32:20 15minute delay. Uh 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 recording. Yes,
00:32:32 used for photography or recording. Yes, semigra
00:32:36 Mr. Edmonson, we we left before the lunch on the trade craft manual. Um, if we can have that back up on screen, please. The reference is uh MPS0527597,
00:32:54 first page, please.
00:33:01 This is the cover sheet and the table of contents you saw flash up there. It's a 44 page manual written around about 1995 at least available from that time. It's
00:33:13 at least available from that time. It's a significant piece of training for undercover officers. And if we can turn to the uh I think it's page five
00:33:25 turn to the uh I think it's page five please.
00:33:27 please. The first page of the text. The first paragraph says that this manual of tradecraft for the special demonstration squad is
00:33:38 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 their posting. So it's not something that should have been available just for the new people who were joining the SDS,
00:33:50 the new people who were joining the SDS, but also for those who were in the course of their deployment, a a reference piece of material. Um would you say that that was significant in terms of training or
00:34:02 significant in terms of training or guidance for the officers? Without having a chance to read it all now, could I just give me a few moments just to
00:34:12 just to Yes, of course. Thank you.
00:34:51 You may well have got to it already, but you can see about halfway down paragraph 1.1, it says that each organization of interest has its own particular problems
00:35:02 interest has its own particular problems which are dealt with in greater depth under the relevant group headings, but it must be remembered that each officer is a separate individual whose own character determines his or her proper approach to
00:35:13 determines his or her proper approach to a specific issue. Again, putting this burden on the officer themselves to sort out whatever issue it is they're facing. Um, it won't be possible to read the whole 44page document today, but would
00:35:25 whole 44page document today, but would it help you to go back to the contents page so you can see the sort of uh guidance that's provided in this document? Could you just bear with me one moment, please? Yeah.
00:35:44 Okay, thank you. If by all means go back to the
00:35:54 you can see that it addresses issues that an officer might face right from the very start of first being introduced to the back office.
00:36:07 We can see that it's section five maintenance that addresses sexual liaison at 5.6. Just above that is a section on
00:36:18 at 5.6. Just above that is a section on alcohol and drugs. Okay. So again, that's something that you recognize that officers would have to deal with during the course of their deployment or might have to deal with at least. Did you? Quite possible. Yes.
00:36:31 Quite possible. Yes. Did you recognize that your officers were
00:36:34 were drinking alcohol during the course of their deployment and taking drugs as well?
00:36:40 well? I'm sure they were drinking alcohol at some stage at some level. Um, what about drugs? Did they come to you with those sorts of concerns? No,
00:36:50 No, they never came to you with any concerns about taking drugs. I I don't I don't recall that happening. Sorry.
00:37:00 Did they come to you with concerns about having to consume alcohol and the toll that might might take on them during the course of their deployment? No.
00:37:14 Over the page then
00:37:25 we can see the other areas.
00:37:31 that this manual addresses right to the point of withdrawal and then after care. Sorry, could you enlarge it slightly, please? Yeah.
00:38:00 Okay, I'm down to 7.9.
00:38:04 We can just scroll up then so we can see the end part. Part part eight is to do with withdrawal and part nine after care.
00:38:15 So, a relatively comprehensive [clears throat] document addressing the SDS practice and guidance. Um, a
00:38:27 SDS practice and guidance. Um, a significant uh piece of training material, would you say, that was created during the course of your management? So, it would appear to be. Yes.
00:38:39 So, it would appear to be. Yes. Are you able to are you able to say, forgive me if you've already said, but when was this written? We think about 1995.
00:38:46 1995. Oh, okay.
00:38:48 Oh, okay. So about it in the year after you were Yeah.
00:38:51 Yeah. Uh first engaged as manager. Within my first year. Yes. Um is it right to say then that you didn't make a point of reading this document?
00:39:05 No. I I can only tell you that had that been written like that then I'm I'm sure I would have written I can't believe I would not have have read it. You can't believe you would not have
00:39:16 You can't believe you would not have read it.
00:39:17 read it. So in all likelihood you would have read this tradecraftraft manual would you? It would be wrong of me not to have done.
00:39:26 done. [clears throat]
00:39:29 So do you accept then that actually you probably did read it and read part five that addresses the issue of sexual
00:39:40 that addresses the issue of sexual liaison but it didn't strike you as important enough to stick in your mind or for you to do anything [clears throat] more about it.
00:39:51 Can I say you I'm saying that I must have read it because it was written. Do you know I don't recall the tradecraftraft manual in this way but it
00:40:02 tradecraftraft manual in this way but it it must be right that I must have read it.
00:40:05 it. I think your evidence just before lunch was that if you had read it it would have struck you. You you would have noticed it and and thought it was wrong. I would like to think so. Yes.
00:40:18 The fact that you don't seem to recollect it. Is it because it didn't strike you as anything important? Nothing really to be too concerned about.
00:40:30 about. No, I I I think that would be wrong to say that the trade craft manual must almost be a bible for them. So, I can't believe that that's right for you to to
00:40:43 believe that that's right for you to to suggest that I didn't think any of it was important. specifically the bit on sexual liaison and the fact that your officers may have to engage in sex
00:40:54 officers may have to engage in sex whilst undercover. Was that something that you simply didn't care enough about to think it was anything worth addressing in any more detail?
00:41:06 detail? I would be wrong to say I didn't care about it, but I have said about this before. I I I don't remember this I don't remember this being in the way
00:41:17 I don't remember this being in the way that you're describing it. I must have read it because I can't that would be wrong of me not to have read it. It would be wrong to suggest that I hadn't taken any out of it that was important
00:41:29 taken any out of it that was important and it would be wrong to say that I hadn't thought that the item regarding sex
00:41:37 sex wasn't important. I can't tell you now how I dealt with that. I really can't.
00:41:48 Did this document go higher up than you? Uh we know that we've seen documents where [clears throat] training is a real issue to be addressed by the ACA ACSO
00:42:00 by the ACA ACSO um uh uh DAC oper uh security operations. Did John Howley have sight of this document?
00:42:11 I'm not going to say he did. I genuinely do not know how far up the chain this would have gone. I I don't believe it would have just stayed in our office. I
00:42:22 would have just stayed in our office. I think it would have been discussed. This is sitting here today. I can't think that it would not have been discussed
00:42:31 discussed discussed at those sorts of meetings that you had in relation to training and policy creation.
00:42:41 You may I say you you're making it very formalized and I don't I don't recognize that [clears throat] way of of us discussing things. I'm thinking back to
00:42:52 discussing things. I'm thinking back to the document I referred you to before where we looked at um the material with uh DAC howley um
00:43:05 um uh it was behind tab B45 the note that was sent up to the ACSO I can bring it back up for you if you like um 073597
00:43:19 Seven.
00:43:27 Uh, next page, please.
00:43:43 to do with the performance measures and I think it's on the next page where it talked about the specific things you would talk about at that meeting. So there was a meeting that was held on at the 10th of July 1992 and there were
00:43:55 the 10th of July 1992 and there were various people there talking about the SDS squad performance indicators training policy guidelines and SDS uh deployment outside the Metropolitan Police District. Did these sorts of
00:44:07 Police District. Did these sorts of meetings happen during the course of your management as well with senior managers?
00:44:14 managers? It can't have been [clears throat] unless you're suggesting matters like this were dealt with in the corridor, quick, you know, discussions like that. Surely there was something
00:44:25 like that. Surely there was something more formal like this with your senior managers to discuss matters like training within the SDS. Is that right? I understand the way you're putting it, but I just have no recollection of that
00:44:38 but I just have no recollection of that type of meeting. And it is not to say it didn't take place. I just do not recollect that being the case. I'm sorry. That's okay. I know we're talking about matters that happened a long time ago in
00:44:49 matters that happened a long time ago in the 90s. Is it likely that they did happen and you simply can't recall them now?
00:44:57 I cannot think that we didn't have that type of discussion. At what level? I wouldn't like to say no. And it's likely is it that something like the trade craft manual would have
00:45:09 like the trade craft manual would have been raised in a meeting or would have at least been sent up to your senior managers for them to see it. As I say, I do not recall it happening,
00:45:20 As I say, I do not recall it happening, but
00:45:22 but it just seems quite logical to me that such meetings, if they had taken place, everything would have been brought together like that. Thank you.
00:45:41 In terms of um DS Kohl's and his deployment, can I refer you to your own witness statement? It's at page 141 of your statement, paragraph 226.
00:46:02 It's up on screen for you if that's help more helpful. Thank you.
00:46:21 In the rule nine request that was sent to you by the inquiry, you were asked about
00:46:26 about your knowledge of DS Cole sharing beds with activists during the course of his deployment. and and you were referred to paragraph 51 of his witness statement and you rightly say that paragraph 51 actually addresses his cover
00:46:38 actually addresses his cover accommodation and if we can go to DS Kohl's witness statement please it's at UCPI 35074
00:46:53 at page 19 paragraph 51. So, this is the paragraph you were referred to, okay,
00:46:59 okay, that addresses cover accommodation. And you're right, that that first paragraph looks at his cover accommodation. Um, two places that he refers to. And you can see about halfway down there, just
00:47:11 can see about halfway down there, just past the redacted box, both single occupancy. is actually if you'd have read the next paragraph, if you'd have carried on to look at paragraph 52, [snorts]
00:47:23 look at paragraph 52, [snorts] please, we can see here that he says, "I did on occasions stay away from my cover address when in my undercover role and lists different places that he would
00:47:34 lists different places that he would stay, staying overnight with fellow ALF people, and sometimes they would stay with me. I also had a sleeping bag in my van and slept overnight on in that on occasions. I slept at a tent in
00:47:46 occasions. I slept at a tent in Glastonbury. On occasions, I stayed in squats because some of my group lived in squats. I did on occasion share a bed with others, usually if there was only one bed.
00:47:57 one bed. Um,
00:47:59 Um, obviously you would have had to have turned the page to see those words share a bed, but now that it's in front of you, what do you say about that? About DS Cole sharing a bed with activists.
00:48:12 DS Cole sharing a bed with activists. Did you know about that?
00:48:16 The answer to that you that last question is no. Now you're asking me what do I think about this? May I say the the lifestyle that many of
00:48:27 May I say the the lifestyle that many of them had would on occasion have meant that something like this would have happened. All he's I believe I'm right. All he's saying is that other than or as
00:48:39 All he's saying is that other than or as well as having a sleeping bag, uh they slept in a tent, stayed in squats, and share a bed with others. That that does not surprise me. They had
00:48:50 That that does not surprise me. They had such weird ways of living. It's their lifestyle. And and we're asking our officers to be part of that lifestyle. Otherwise, they
00:49:01 part of that lifestyle. Otherwise, they they would not have been as successful as they were. And as part of that lifestyle that you envisaged, could you see that sharing a bed with people on
00:49:14 see that sharing a bed with people on occasions [clears throat] would lead to sex?
00:49:18 sex? It's not a giant leap, is it, to make that assumption. You could make that assumption, but there is nothing here that says that did happen. And I and I did not know that
00:49:30 happen. And I and I did not know that Andy Coohl's was having sexual relations with anybody. So did you see it as a risk? Oh gosh.
00:49:44 Not in the way that you were describing. No, I don't see that as a risk. It he's if you go I go through it again. sleeping bag on in his van, in a tent,
00:49:56 sleeping bag on in his van, in a tent, in squats, sharing a bed. It was part of their lifestyle. I will not say that then that would lead onto sexual activity. Sorry, I don't accept that.
00:50:07 activity. Sorry, I don't accept that. It's like it could happen, but it was it there's nothing here to suggest that that is the case. and you didn't feel it incumbent upon
00:50:18 and you didn't feel it incumbent upon you as a manager to say look you might have to do this but there's a boundary you mustn't engage in this way
00:50:29 no no I that that would the way that you've put it no there was no no comment about that I just I just accept and will always have accepted that because of
00:50:41 always have accepted that because of their lifestyle they they had such odd ways of living and sharing a bed with somebody
00:50:48 somebody is is just that. Did you ask yourself if sex takes place? Forgive me. I I I just don't know what you're trying to get me to say here.
00:50:59 you're trying to get me to say here. I'm trying to tell you exactly how I feel even now. This is this isn't to say there's going to be a sexual contact. I mean, he doesn't actually say he could have been sharing a bed with a man for
00:51:11 have been sharing a bed with a man for all I know. Did you ask him? Did you ask Did you ask DS if he was having sex with No, I did not. I I Why not?
00:51:21 It was It wasn't something that I had thought about. I'm sorry. That's all I can tell you at the moment. So, you do accept that you you knew he would be uh uh sleeping with others
00:51:33 would be uh uh sleeping with others [clears throat] in tents at sharing beds, but you didn't actually think that he he might engage in a sexual relationship. It didn't cross your mind. Is that for evidence?
00:51:43 evidence? Okay, that's Yes, that is it. Uh,
00:51:49 Uh, did you ask him where he stayed when he went out of the Metropolitan Police District? Did you ask him about sleeping arrangements? personally. No.
00:52:15 Um, had you found out that he was uh having a sexual relationship with anybody? If he had admitted that to you,
00:52:28 anybody? If he had admitted that to you, what would have been your response?
00:52:39 I think I would have I think I I would have cautioned him that this would this and it has been said elsewhere, this could lead to to
00:52:51 said elsewhere, this could lead to to some really difficult issues for the SDS operation. Um,
00:52:59 Um, so that that would be one part of it. Um,
00:53:03 Um, would that have been your primary concern, the SDS operation? I was just going to say as well, I know that obviously what you're thinking is what about the individual that he was
00:53:14 what about the individual that he was sleeping with? Yes, that would have been somewhere in my mind, but mostly it's to do with
00:53:22 do with what was what he was doing. um correct thing to be doing. Did he do it because he felt that that's the way I that he had to engage in the lifestyle?
00:53:36 had to engage in the lifestyle? But be we've talked about this, haven't we, about there being some written um regulation and then with with um some
00:53:47 um regulation and then with with um some issues that if he were caught there would be some uh he would be taken off the unit, for instance. So, no, I I I didn't ask him if he was
00:53:59 So, no, I I I didn't ask him if he was sharing a bed for sexual purposes. [clears throat] And I go back to what we did talk about earlier, if he had said yes. And I thought it was serious enough. But
00:54:11 thought it was serious enough. But you're asking me now something I'm thinking about now, not what I was thinking then. So, I'm telling you now, listening to what I've heard in the past and what I've read.
00:54:24 heard in the past and what I've read. Yes, I'd like to think if it were now and that's what I'm saying. I would say this, you cannot continue like this. A, and this is an issue I appreciate for
00:54:37 A, and this is an issue I appreciate for a lot of people. What about the person you were involved with who may have wanted this to happen anyway because that happened quite a lot, so I'm told. but also uh the dangers to the
00:54:49 but also uh the dangers to the operation. I I think we would have had to have had a lot of conversation about whether he could continue doing that knowing that he was
00:55:00 knowing that he was having [clears throat] sexual relationships and we would probably this is I'm thinking now probably have had to say you can't continue your operation like this we need to bring you off but bringing him
00:55:12 need to bring you off but bringing him off as I said towards the end of the morning bringing him or anybody off because of that sexual um activity is not something that happens overnight
00:55:23 is not something that happens overnight because of the and you understand that's why I'm thinking the operational security of of STS because it would lead to such well where's so and so gone what and then
00:55:36 where's so and so gone what and then trace perhaps an effort to try and trace him down and then find the something very odd about it hence causing an issue for the safety and security of the whole
00:55:47 for the safety and security of the whole [snorts] of the SDS operation and yes that was predominantly in my mind and I accept that totally. The
00:55:56 The person who alleges uh HN2 [clears throat] had a relationship with her is somebody we're calling Jessica. She was a a young 19-year-old woman who
00:56:07 She was a a young 19-year-old woman who had uh just left home and she finds herself
00:56:14 herself being pursued by this officer HN2, a a an undercover police officer, a a a sergeant in the Metropolitan Police
00:56:27 sergeant in the Metropolitan Police using cover to advance a a sexual relationship with her. Do you have any sense that she may not
00:56:39 Do you have any sense that she may not have had the information available to her to make an informed consent about who she was sleeping with and what was happening to her in that there was an
00:56:51 happening to her in that there was an undercover spy in her midst and she was being deceived in that way. Do you have any sense of uh responsibility towards protecting her from that type of
00:57:02 protecting her from that type of behavior as an institution as the Metropolitan Police?
00:57:10 Well, I'm absolutely certain that the Metropolitan Police uh and that includes the whole of SP and SDS would would have not have wanted that to happen. But
00:57:21 not have wanted that to happen. But forgive me here. You've said um had she known and been apprised of the information then she would not have gone ahead with the the um sexual activity
00:57:33 ahead with the the um sexual activity because she would not have wanted to be involved with an undercover officer. Well, that that is absolutely right. You're right to say that. She wouldn't have done. she she didn't know and he
00:57:44 have done. she she didn't know and he didn't pretend to say that he was he never admitted to being a a police officer. He said he was well presumably he said he was one of the the
00:57:57 presumably he said he was one of the the members of the organization. So yes, she's she she I'm assuming she took part willingly in in any activity on the understanding
00:58:09 in any activity on the understanding that she knew who the man was and what what her involvement with him would be and his involvement in the organization. I don't quite see what else I how else I
00:58:21 I don't quite see what else I how else I can answer that to you. I it is it your um thinking that so long as the women didn't find out that they were being deceived then there wouldn't have been a
00:58:32 deceived then there wouldn't have been a problem.
00:58:37 I think I go back to again we there was never a written instruction that they shouldn't have been involved. I accept that. Um, I'm also saying that there would on
00:58:50 Um, I'm also saying that there would on no occasion at all would I have countenanced any uh sexual relationships merely to try and
00:59:01 sexual relationships merely to try and get closer and involved within an organization. I do accept that perhaps officers thought that it would do their their um
00:59:12 thought that it would do their their um activity and their involvement give some credibility to it by being close to somebody else. But that's not what SDS was instructing its people to
00:59:24 what SDS was instructing its people to do. Absolutely not. Can I ask you about um Bob Lambert's evidence in relation to HN1? So this is somebody HM1 is somebody I think you
00:59:35 somebody HM1 is somebody I think you were had a good relationship with. Is that right? That's very true. Yes. Uh Bob Lambert's witness statement is at UCPI 36956
00:59:47 page 109.
00:59:55 This is 36956
00:59:59 page 109 paragraph 190.
01:00:08 And if I can give you a moment just to read that page. Is that large enough for you?
01:00:14 you? Needs to come down slightly to stop please.
01:00:18 please. Just a little larger if you would.
01:00:27 Thank you. Excellent.
01:00:45 How far do you want me to read down? If you can read that page, please to the bottom.
01:00:49 bottom. Bear with me then, please. Thank you.
01:01:21 All
01:01:34 [clears throat]
01:01:49 right. I I've read that. If I can draw your attention to the bit just past the quotes about halfway down, he says, "I am sure he did not tell me
01:02:01 he says, "I am sure he did not tell me that he was involved in a sexual relationship and I am sure that I did not say anything to encourage him to engage in a sexual relationship." Do you see that?
01:02:11 see that? I do. Thank you. But further down he said I accept I may have told him that this could be some sort of a test and I may have said that
01:02:22 sort of a test and I may have said that he would have to resolve this himself in a way to ensure no suspicion arose as to his true identity
01:02:32 whilst not being explicit as to having a sexual relationship there. Do you see how that could well have been interpreted by HN1
01:02:43 interpreted by HN1 who says that Bob Lambert
01:02:49 was aware of him being in a sexual relationship
01:02:57 and that Bob Lambert advised him in a way that encouraged him to engage in a sexual relationship with her.
01:03:07 I can I can see it. So what are you actually asking of me?
01:03:14 Did Bob Lambert ever tell you that HN1 was in a relationship? All right. Let me tell you very clearly and I you've referred to what I what I
01:03:25 and I you've referred to what I what I believe was a a close association with HN1. I I knew absolutely nothing about HN1's
01:03:35 HN1's uh commitment to I believe it's Denise Fuller. Absolutely nothing. I visited HN1 at at his home. Um I I had every
01:03:49 HN1 at at his home. Um I I had every reason to believe that his family life was as as one would have hoped it be it would be for everybody hopefully. But uh and I can tell you now um and I it may
01:04:03 and I can tell you now um and I it may well even be in my statement. I did not learn of anything to do with HM1 and his sexual activity until
01:04:14 HM1 and his sexual activity until I mean probably 10 years or so later, I can't remember. But I having been told about it, I'll tell you quite openly I was quite devastated. devastated for him
01:04:26 was quite devastated. devastated for him and for his wife who I had met quite a few times. So I I can only tell you I knew nothing whatsoever about HN1's activity or and I can't comment on
01:04:39 HN1's activity or and I can't comment on what Bob has told him because I was or not told him because it's a bit ambiguous. Anyway, in his evidence last Monday, Bob Lambert said that HN1 did not tell me about a
01:04:52 said that HN1 did not tell me about a sexual relationship. E DCI Edmonson and I that was our approach not to encourage sexual relationships. We did not ask. I did not really
01:05:05 We did not ask. I did not really address. I knew what the risks were. My responsibility was operational security and I neglected this issue. and he agreed to CTI's suggestion to him
01:05:16 and he agreed to CTI's suggestion to him that was it a matter of the ends justified the means and he said yes well I don't I have a lot of lot of respect for what
01:05:28 I have a lot of lot of respect for what Bob did as an undercover officer and the support that he gave me in the office um but I don't think I agree with what he's just said there I have to say well that's what I was going to ask you
01:05:40 well that's what I was going to ask you was it a matter of you and Bob simply not asking
01:05:45 I don't remember this sort of conversation. That's the problem. Like if if I mean it's it's almost as if you're telling me or Bob is telling you
01:05:56 you're telling me or Bob is telling you he's told me about the relationship and I I just do I still to this day can tell you that I was never told about it. So
01:06:07 you that I was never told about it. So this is all supposition in many respects. I I would never have countenanced openly certainly officers having that relationship.
01:06:21 officers having that relationship. I can understand why sorry to merely to get uh better evidence. I know why I having listened to some of them I can see why they felt that it was an
01:06:32 see why they felt that it was an opportunity to get really deep undercover and be accepted and their credibility to rise within the organization. But it was never something that I would
01:06:43 But it was never something that I would ever have countenanced in in in respect to this or any other operation.
01:06:51 When Bob Lambert said Edmonson and I that was our approach not to encourage sexual relationships, we did not ask. Do you do you agree that was your
01:07:02 Do you do you agree that was your approach? You wouldn't encourage it, but you didn't ask about it. It was something that would not be a topic. Yes, I I understand what you're saying. I definitely go first part no
01:07:14 I definitely go first part no encouragement ever whatsoever unfortunately may be right to say I didn't make deeper inquiries of officers about their activity. I I will I can see
01:07:26 about their activity. I I will I can see that that that's probably the case. Was that neglectful oversight or was that a conscious decision? We're not going to go there. We'll let them make up their own minds what they need to do
01:07:37 up their own minds what they need to do for their operation. Well, it it was it was an oversight and and
01:07:45 and I I can see now that I can I should probably have made more of that area of of of management, but no, it certainly wasn't
01:07:59 management, but no, it certainly wasn't neglect neglected. Bob Lambert said in his evidence he said my responsibility was operational security and I neglected this issue in respect of your area of
01:08:11 this issue in respect of your area of responsibility was that administrative and you also neglected well I I would say I shared that responsibility that Bob had and I'm afraid yes I I I agree I should have
01:08:25 afraid yes I I I agree I should have made more of that type of um management activity. Were you also of the mindset that the ends justified the means? No.
01:08:36 No. What? In what way? No, I don't I don't I'm trying to I'm trying to get to understand what you are actually asking of me. No, I I do not think I would have countenanced any of this activity purely because it meant
01:08:49 this activity purely because it meant that they were getting closer to their organization. What about um as in HM15's evidence that it was quite comfortable? He didn't want
01:09:00 it was quite comfortable? He didn't want to live in a in a flat on his own. He quite liked living with somebody. He was getting sex. He was getting a comfortable uh home life undercover. What about that? Was that something that
01:09:12 What about that? Was that something that you would
01:09:14 you would uh respect or or countenance because it was a a relationship? It was human feelings. Is that No, I I did I'll stay again. Well, you
01:09:25 No, I I did I'll stay again. Well, you haven't asked me, but I'm going to say I did not know about that activity and I have to say I I would not have counted as that. That So, you wouldn't have sitting here today in any I couldn't have accepted that.
01:09:39 in any I couldn't have accepted that. Do do you uh say you would have countenanced sex undercover in any context for any reason? No, I would not have countenance them.
01:09:52 No, I would not have countenance them. Um, in relation to HM15, he was in a relationship with a woman we're calling Allison from 1995 to 2000 and living with her for at least four years.
01:10:04 with her for at least four years. Um,
01:10:08 if we can have a part of his witness statement, please. is at UCPI 35283,
01:10:19 page 21,
01:10:29 paragraph 4, 44.4 down at the bottom. I told SDS managers I was moving cover. I told them I would be moving into premises owned by Allison. I recall Di
01:10:40 premises owned by Allison. I recall Di Lambert asking other officers to check with me that I knew what I was doing to other field officers spoke to me. The concern was that I was immersing myself
01:10:51 concern was that I was immersing myself even more with my targets and thus would have even less time to spend at home.
01:10:58 Um, when Officer Jenner moved to Allison's house, were you mindful of the fact that
01:11:09 house, were you mindful of the fact that he was moving with somebody else, moving with a target?
01:11:16 I don't recall any of this. I really do not recall this.
01:11:24 In your statement at paragraph 242
01:11:41 uh paragraph uh 242 I'm sorry I haven't noted the page of it. You say that you noted paragraph 44.4 four of Jenna's statement
01:11:53 statement and you note that he does not state that he told managers he was moving in with Allison
01:12:00 Allison and the inquiry's rule nine question incorrectly paraphrases this although I recall nothing of this Allison may have been his landlady
01:12:11 been his landlady for all that we knew if that was the phrase he used
01:12:17 that it's paragraph four uh uh two uh 242.
01:12:37 Okay, I'm I can see it. What are saying? What are you asking of? So, um having read paragraph 44.4 of Mr. Jenna statements who say that well he didn't actually say he was moving in with Allison. It may have been that she
01:12:49 with Allison. It may have been that she was the land lady. Is this just something that you have thought of in making your statement for these purposes? Or do you have a recollection that there was a thought
01:13:00 recollection that there was a thought that this Alice this person that he was uh uh the house he was moving to was simply owned by the person that we are calling Allison?
01:13:12 calling Allison? Did you have a sense that, oh, this this this woman that he's referring to, it's probably the land lady? Did you think that at the time or is this just something that you've thought of for the purposes of making your witness
01:13:23 purposes of making your witness statement? Okay. Yeah, I I I will reiterate that I don't recall this [snorts] having seen this the move the the report that he was
01:13:35 the move the the report that he was moving. Um, but I'm looking at it now and I can only read what what I can see there. I did not I suppose I'm saying I thought that
01:13:47 not I suppose I'm saying I thought that um
01:13:49 um that um Mr. Jenner was moving in to premises where the land lady was Allison.
01:13:56 Allison. That's all I can think of at the moment because had I I'm sure that had I said or had I realized that Allison was
01:14:07 or had I realized that Allison was somebody who he was very closely [snorts] aligning with and I'm sure the conversation would would have been along the lines of this is not this is not how it should work but this is hindsight.
01:14:19 it should work but this is hindsight. Was there a conversation about him moving house? Forgive me, I don't remember.
01:14:24 remember. Earlier in your evidence, you said that you would be very aware of uh you know, if an officer is moving house during the course of his deployment, you would want to make sure that that property was suitable.
01:14:36 that that property was suitable. No, I didn't say suitable. So, appropriate because that's what the police try and used to do. I said I would think we would note where the where the uh where the property was and that the area was
01:14:48 the property was and that the area was one that uh he would be relatively safe in. I think that's what I was trying to indicate to you. So,
01:14:55 So, what about the property itself? Would you have made any inquiries about the property itself? I don't believe so. Would you have run any checks on the accommodation to see who was living
01:15:06 accommodation to see who was living there?
01:15:07 there? If you recall this morning, I think what I said was that within within the context of his legend, somebody would have just had a look at a
01:15:19 somebody would have just had a look at a look at that. I say look at the address would have checked the address against records all sorts of records to see that if there was anything out that would
01:15:30 if there was anything out that would cause him some operational difficulties and by doing that would you have known who was registered as living at the property?
01:15:41 I should imagine that would be right. Yes, I can see. So you would have known through that that Allison lived at the property. That was her primary address. I and again I I can see why you're
01:15:52 I and again I I can see why you're saying this and yes I can I can see that now but I'm going on what this I'm going on what Jenna's statement had given and what Bob
01:16:05 Jenna's statement had given and what Bob has said and what I can recall. Were you aware that two other field officers spoke to Mr. Jenner about No, I'm not. I again I I think somewhere
01:16:16 No, I'm not. I again I I think somewhere I just read have I not that that he was told to speak to others and see what they thought about it. I don't recall that whatsoever. Do you think you probably would have been involved in a a serious
01:16:31 been involved in a a serious uh conversation about this issue given the unusual nature of this move?
01:16:43 possibly, but I genuinely don't remember this.
01:16:53 And would you have had any concerns about the operational security of the SDS if uh officer Jenna was moving in with one of his target group?
01:17:06 moving in with one of his target group? May I say it does depend on the circumstances at the time and what he had told us um what engagement I had with that. Um I
01:17:17 um what engagement I had with that. Um I I can see there and as I've said earlier there could be operational issues but I sitting here today I don't recall any more than I'm trying to help you with
01:17:29 more than I'm trying to help you with and I don't want to start making things up either. I'm I'm really trying to keep it to what I genuinely can remember. I I entirely understand how you have no
01:17:42 I I entirely understand how you have no recollection of it because it was so long ago. Given the importance of it, is it likely that you would have had conversations around this and that uh you would have spoken to officer Jenner
01:17:55 you would have spoken to officer Jenner about exactly what he is doing knowing full well that he was moving in with Allison. I may I may not have done I might have done um but it would be clear
01:18:06 might have done um but it would be clear here that he's discussed it with Bob and Bob has has offered him some advice. I I don't know what I don't know what else I I my
01:18:18 I don't know what else I I my involvement was with this.
01:18:23 Uh he was living with Allison for about four years. um or more. Can it really be that it escaped
01:18:37 Can it really be that it escaped your notice and Bob Lambert's notice that that was his domestic living arrangement? I'm telling you now, in all honesty, I was unaware of this living arrangement
01:18:49 was unaware of this living arrangement in this way that you're now describing it.
01:18:54 it. And is that because you failed to ask?
01:19:03 Well, it could well be that I I didn't ask. I have to say, but I can't with all of respect I cannot remember.
01:19:16 But I'd like to be able to tell you that I saw this and thought, "My goodness, this can't happen because it would it would bring major issues for him in his
01:19:28 would bring major issues for him in his own life." Um, but I thought I just cannot remember any of this. And as I say, I I'm not prepared to try and make up
01:19:40 up some sort of story that I did know or didn't know. I can't remember it. Did you know that DC Jenner was attending family weddings? No, I don't.
01:19:51 No, I don't. The mother and stepbrother of uh uh Allison, a funeral sitting here today. No, I do not remember that. If there were if there was something that
01:20:02 was something that Mr. Jenner had reported, then of course I would have I would have seen it. But again, I go back Sydney here today. I don't remember any of that. He attended Christmases. He was in the
01:20:13 He attended Christmases. He was in the last photos and videos of Allison's grandma before she died. Intimate family events where this undercover officer is in the photographs and the videos and of course the memories of those important
01:20:27 course the memories of those important family events. It's it's easy to recognize, isn't it, how difficult that must be to look back on those times of one's life and and it be tainted by the
01:20:39 one's life and and it be tainted by the involvement of an undercover officer. Do you accept that? I'm not denying that at all. Yes. Um,
01:20:49 Um, you say at paragraph 244 of your witness statement,
01:20:58 if we can bring that up, please. It's at page 154, paragraph uh 244A.
01:21:09 It's unlikely he would need authorization to attend a social event. Much though it sounds distasteful that to those who are subject to covert surveillance, attending social events is necessary to maintain an undercover
01:21:20 necessary to maintain an undercover operation. And clearly DC Jenner went further than I understood him to be doing at the time if he was introduced to Allison's family as a partner rather than a friend.
01:21:31 as a partner rather than a friend. Um
01:21:34 Um Allison wasn't under surveillance and her family wasn't under surveillance. So although you say it sounds distasteful, that can in no way be part of an undercover operation, can it?
01:21:48 of an undercover operation, can it? So what what can't be part of? Well, you say that um although it sounds distasteful to those who are subject to covert surveillance, attending social
01:21:59 covert surveillance, attending social events is necessary to maintain an undercover operation. That can no way be true of Allison and her family, can it? It was not necessary for them
01:22:12 It was not necessary for them to be surveiled for purposes of his undercover operation. Big point. It wasn't necessary for them, but I can see here what has been said. Jenna went further than I understood him
01:22:24 Jenna went further than I understood him to be doing. Um, that's all I can tell you on that. It it was it's it's nothing to do with her family and whatever event this was. Um, but Mr. Jenner obviously
01:22:39 this was. Um, but Mr. Jenner obviously thought that it was something that would help him maintain his cover in the operations that he was conducting. Um
01:22:51 Um had you asked him about what he was doing during these weekends and these uh times when he was at these social events?
01:23:02 Did you ask him what he was doing during the course of his operation? Sorry again, but sitting here I don't remember that. I don't recall asking him what he would have done. I perhaps even
01:23:14 what he would have done. I perhaps even will say that I could just accept that he'd been on a social event and therefore
01:23:20 therefore understood that while it went further than I would have necessarily wanted um it was part of maintaining his cover. Oh, but when you say he you would have
01:23:33 Oh, but when you say he you would have spoken to him about going on a social event, you're saying you were aware of him going on social events. No, no, I'm not saying that. Okay.
01:23:39 Okay. No, I'm saying that um if he'd been on a social event, it's quite like we would have said, "What was it?"
01:23:46 it?" Yeah,
01:23:46 Yeah, that would probably nothing more. And and I think we would have said that in relation to the fact that we understood um he would he probably would have said
01:23:57 um he would he probably would have said oh I was with Allison as as you're saying and we would have accepted that as being part of his undercover maintaining his undercover role. So, are
01:24:09 maintaining his undercover role. So, are you suggesting that DC Jenner said, "Um, I went on a social event. It was a wedding. I went with Allison and you wouldn't have thought any more of that."
01:24:21 wouldn't have thought any more of that." No, I again I don't remember any of this anyway as I'm saying to you. Um, so I can't tell you know what my reaction would have been had it been something as personal as that. It does I
01:24:34 something as personal as that. It does I I do think it says it does sound somewhat distasteful. I can see that. But
01:24:39 But and had he told I didn't know about it, so I can't go back and say I would have said to him, had he told you about these events, is it reasonable to think that you might
01:24:50 it reasonable to think that you might have started suspecting that he was in a relationship with Allison? Forgive me, you're asking me something I can't really answer. Had he required authorization to go on these events,
01:25:04 authorization to go on these events, would that have at least shown to you what he was doing and you'd have had more of an oversight of his deployment?
01:25:15 If he'd asked authorization authorization, we might have said, "What was it?" But even if he'd have said, "Oh, it's a social event." We would have just I I believe and as I say I'm
01:25:26 just I I believe and as I say I'm sitting here today trying to give you an honest answer. I'm I suspect we perhaps would have to ourselves said okay it's a social event. It's not really SDS work
01:25:38 social event. It's not really SDS work per se. We're not we're not in any way penetrating the family in any way. But this enables Mark Jenner to maintain
01:25:51 this enables Mark Jenner to maintain cover that he considers necessary to conduct his undercover operation. But you would have been penetrating that family in that way, wouldn't you? In
01:26:02 family in that way, wouldn't you? In that he is there at these intimate social events. Do you do you see how that is very intrusive? I disagree. He's not penetrating the family at all.
01:26:13 He he is there during the course of their most intimate family occasions. Okay.
01:26:20 Okay. Do you see anything wrong at all in that?
01:26:22 that? I said it's distasteful. An undercover operation. I mean, I can I can understand it now being sounding it sounds distasteful. It's a private family event and perhaps
01:26:34 It's a private family event and perhaps he's he's using that perhaps even more than perhaps he should to try and maintain his cover. Should there have been more intrusive
01:26:47 Should there have been more intrusive management and monitoring of Mr. Jenner's operation?
01:26:55 I'm going to say no. I I don't believe there should have been any more than we already
01:27:01 already um undertook when I go back to what you do understand we did. I believe it's when we spoke to them on twice a week or find out what they were doing. So I
01:27:12 find out what they were doing. So I think there is we were constantly talking to them about what their activity was. DC Jenner's operation went way beyond
01:27:23 DC Jenner's operation went way beyond the reach
01:27:25 the reach of the role of an SDS officer, didn't it?
01:27:29 it? It could be in what way? In the way that he moved in with a woman, was sleeping in her bed for four to five years. He was infiltrating her her most intimate family occasions.
01:27:43 her most intimate family occasions. That's way beyond what could be expected of an undercover officer in Britain in the 1990s, isn't it? I would accept that the way you've put that. Yes. Your officer was out of control, wasn't
01:27:54 Your officer was out of control, wasn't he?
01:27:59 Without us without us then knowing what he was doing in that respect. Yes. What went wrong? Was it a management fault?
01:28:16 Well, I have said this previous to other questions. I do sometimes try and think back what
01:28:24 back what what we perhaps could have done more in relation to this, but I suppose um should we have asked more about his
01:28:37 more about his role beyond um but I never saw a role beyond his uh undercover role. Um, perhaps I don't know how to answer you in all honesty.
01:28:50 know how to answer you in all honesty. He
01:28:53 He should I I don't know. I'm trying to think what more I could have done to have learned more about his activity
01:29:04 more about his activity beyond his surveillance uh his his penetration of the of the group.
01:29:15 You don't see that you could have done any more than you did.
01:29:26 I'm going to say again in hindsight perhaps
01:29:30 perhaps we could have taken every every officer on on a regular basis meet meet with them and go through [clears throat] um step by step each
01:29:43 [clears throat] um step by step each part of their activity. Now that we didn't do that in wasn't that the purpose of the weekly meetings?
01:29:50 meetings? No. Well, yes, of course it was, but not not not as deeply as you seem to be indicating that I should have done. No, those those we did our best on those two weekly meetings to understand what each
01:30:03 weekly meetings to understand what each of the officers was doing. What about the daily phone calls? Did they not tell you I'm at a wedding today with Allison or, you know, I don't I'm fitting the kitchen at Allison's
01:30:15 I'm fitting the kitchen at Allison's house or
01:30:16 house or No, I don't. I'm on holiday. Yeah, I mean Vietnam or the conversation. How how is how is it that you didn't understand what your officers were doing during the course of their operations?
01:30:29 during the course of their operations? Because it's impossible to keep um 100% knowledge of what an undercover officer is doing. We we're not there sitting alongside
01:30:40 We we're not there sitting alongside them. We have to trust what they tell us and we have to understand that what they're doing is the correct thing towards the the work or the the task that
01:30:52 the the work or the the task that they've been given. You don't have to trust what they tell you, do you? Because there are multiple ways in which you can monitor the activities of your officers who are
01:31:03 activities of your officers who are being paid to do a job that involves [clears throat] highly intrusive uh uh uh activities in relation to members of the public. For one, you could monitor their phones. They had
01:31:17 could monitor their phones. They had mobile phones, didn't they? Oh, no, they didn't in the 1990s. That's my mistake. Um I think they they Sorry. No, they they didn't at that time.
01:31:27 time. They didn't. They had pages. They started to get them. They did start to get them. So, I know what you mean. Uh you could monitor the use of their passport. Did you ever check passports?
01:31:40 passport. Did you ever check passports? I don't believe I did. Uh mobile uh uh not mobile phones, telephone uh logs. You could identify who they were calling on a regular basis?
01:31:50 basis? No, I don't recall we ever did that. But there are ways in which to monitor the operations of your officers, aren't there?
01:32:02 there? There would be ways, but I think we would have to consider or start to believe that the officers were acting that we had understanding that the officers were acting improperly or
01:32:15 officers were acting improperly or against the against the sort of regulations. What regulations existed but which were very few I have to say. If these officers felt that their operations were were
01:32:27 felt that their operations were were being closely supervised. That would have gone some way, wouldn't it, to to prevent them from misbehaving on duty.
01:32:39 Many, many companies do that, don't they? They check how their terminals are being used. You can't surf the internet whilst working at New Scotland Yard, for instance. This is normal procedure for a
01:32:51 instance. This is normal procedure for a lot of businesses. But we didn't do that.
01:32:55 that. And is it because you didn't think it mattered?
01:33:02 I'm going to say to you, we didn't do it because we didn't have the information that anything like this was going on. But why did you have to wait for
01:33:13 But why did you have to wait for something to go wrong before you started supervising? Because, well, with all due respect, that's not how we worked.
01:33:31 Um,
01:33:36 sorry, forgive me. I know you've stopped your train of thought as well, but I I know even now um that when whenever
01:33:48 know even now um that when whenever there's an occasion to look at a particular individual, the amount of of work that and this is mostly in the
01:33:59 of work that and this is mostly in the criminal context. much of the work around trying to um and to review telephones is an enormous amount of work. It's not an easy thing.
01:34:10 amount of work. It's not an easy thing. So I
01:34:12 So I I I it's not something that I think we would have contemplated doing. I I will admit that. But there's a huge amount I don't I I hope you do understand there's
01:34:23 don't I I hope you do understand there's a huge amount of work goes into any criminal investigation where it's necessary to produce CCTV where it's necessary to produce forensic where it's necessary to produce telephone
01:34:35 necessary to produce telephone compensation if computers have to be seized. These things take months and you're you're intimating that I should be doing this on a on a regular basis
01:34:47 be doing this on a on a regular basis with how many of our officers we've got 10 12 no sorry we we trusted what they were doing and understood that and they
01:34:58 were doing and understood that and they were providing intelligence and that's how we worked.
01:35:06 In hindsight, was it wrong to trust them and give them free reign in their operations?
01:35:17 I don't think it was wrong to to trust them. After all, they were they were professional police officers who have taken
01:35:29 should be acting like police officers but in a very very special role. No, I don't think it's wrong to trust them.
01:35:37 I'd like to ask you about reliance on spouses. Um, in tranch 2, the inquiry saw evidence that a preference for a stable home life developed into a policy
01:35:49 stable home life developed into a policy that single officers will be considered as recruits only in wholly exceptional circumstances.
01:35:57 Um were you a aware and did you carry on that policy when you were a manager that an officer a new recruit had to be in a stable family uh uh uh environment
01:36:10 stable family uh uh uh environment situation? My understanding is that that that's what we were trying always to introduce. Yes. And that was seen as an anchor in real life.
01:36:20 life. Well, one of the anchors we'd hoped. Yes.
01:36:24 Yes. Peter Francis has said that he found the undercover role quite isolating and that he had his you know badge uh you know couldn't carry a warrant card unable to
01:36:35 couldn't carry a warrant card unable to socialize with other police officers effectively told that don't think like a police officer. Imag forget you're a police officer.
01:36:48 Is that how your undercover officers were told to behave? forget this police officer life, you are now going to become your alter ego, your uh pseudonym
01:37:00 become your alter ego, your uh pseudonym if you like. Interestingly, somewhere um in some of the documents I've seen on something that there I believe there's been an
01:37:11 that there I believe there's been an emphasis on saying to people, yes, you are going to have to try and live and alter ego, but actually always remember that you are a police officer.
01:37:22 that you are a police officer. So Peter Frances may have dis may disagree as I believe he you told me he does but my I'm sure I have seen this somewhere that there is always this
01:37:34 somewhere that there is always this reminding people that they are police officers
01:37:38 officers and that's a difficult thing I think when you've given you're asking them to have alter egos. Was there a sense that some of the rules for officers didn't apply? That the SDS
01:37:51 for officers didn't apply? That the SDS off officers were operating in a gray area?
01:37:56 area? I don't understand what you mean by a gray area. As far as I know, they all all um
01:38:03 all um regulations [clears throat] relating to the police relate to them. I but I don't quite know what you mean by a gray area in that once they become operational
01:38:15 in that once they become operational they can conduct themselves in a way that involved low-level crime um and
01:38:24 um and that sort of thing. So what would normally apply to a normal police officer on duty doesn't necessarily apply to an SDS officer
01:38:36 apply to an SDS officer of no certainly there was some areas where police officers undercover officers may have had to um
01:38:47 undercover officers may have had to um act in a way which was probably on the edge of of legality probably. But again, we're talking we're talking low-level
01:38:59 we're talking we're talking low-level um fly posting perhaps something like that. But all of that is done to enable them to to run their operations safely. If we didn't if they didn't have
01:39:11 safely. If we didn't if they didn't have that ability to do some of these things, we wouldn't have had undercover officers.
01:39:19 officers. Some officers appear to have taken their identity, their cover identity on board almost 100%. We have DC Jenner who gave his evidence uh last at the end of last year saying
01:39:32 uh last at the end of last year saying that he believed almost believing he was Mark Cassidy and he was doing what he thought Mark Cassidy would do in situations. One gets the sense that it's almost like method acting. um that they're then
01:39:45 method acting. um that they're then forgetting their real selves whilst they're operational in the field. So we know that DC Mark Jenner traveled on holiday as Mark Cassidy using his cover
01:39:58 holiday as Mark Cassidy using his cover passport on a personal holiday with Allison as his partner. It's becoming an integral part of her wider family as we've
01:40:09 we've described becoming completely absorbed by his operation. Um
01:40:18 Um equally there's a similar situation with HN26
01:40:23 HN26 if I can take you to B uh tab B 360. So it's MPS072 8243
01:40:35 page two. It's an operational Hearn uh interview with HN26's ex-husband. It's the last paragraph, please.
01:40:48 It's the last paragraph, please. Oh, sorry. On page Oh, yeah. Page two. Yeah, that's right.
01:40:58 and her ex-husband explained that um N26 appeared to handle the pressure well. He stated that after 2 and a half years, N26 changed. She became completely
01:41:09 N26 changed. She became completely absorbed by her role and there was very little separation from pret pretend and reality. The two seemed to swap place. She wasn't really HN26 anymore and spent longer and longer away from home. And
01:41:20 longer and longer away from home. And when she did come home, she was exhausted. and he explained how their relationship became non-existent and that six months before she came out of the field, she told him that she was in a relationship with somebody called Joe,
01:41:32 a relationship with somebody called Joe, who we understand to be Joe Tex or Thomas Frampton, and that he was a member of her target group,
01:41:40 group, and she'd revealed to him that she was an undercover officer.
01:41:46 Um we also heard evidence from HN18 just before the Easter break this year that um he said I would say that I was
01:41:58 um he said I would say that I was clearly had probably lost sense of who I was or who I had previously been as a police officer. I think the lines had become blurred if not lost.
01:42:11 Did you understand that to be a risk as their manager that they might just become completely consumed by their operation and believe they were their
01:42:22 operation and believe they were their alter ego when in the field?
01:42:27 No, but I'm just going to ask you, you show me these. You've mentioned HN18
01:42:35 HN18 18.
01:42:40 Okay. Um, so I don't recognize that name. No, I I apologize.
01:42:50 So I don't and and 26 when Christine Green Okay. When when was when was this report about?
01:42:59 about? Uh, sorry. When did her husband get spoken to and say about these things? What I'm forgive me I suppose what if I can help you um
01:43:11 can help you um I yes I I recall 26 but I don't know that I recall 26 being
01:43:22 but I don't know that I recall 26 being in this frame of mind while I was there. So if you go on to ask me, well would you not have noticed it? I don't know when she started to be like this without
01:43:34 when she started to be like this without reference to what her husband is saying. So referring to what her husband was saying, she started her deployment mid 1994.
01:43:41 1994. Okay.
01:43:42 Okay. So two and a half years in. We're looking at the end of 1996. So it was during the course of your management because you Okay. Thank you. You were there until July 97. July 7.
01:43:53 You were there until July 97. July 7. Yes.
01:43:58 So my question is what was in place to rein them in? We've got a spouse as an anchor in reality, but what else? What did you
01:44:09 reality, but what else? What did you provide
01:44:11 provide as a management team?
01:44:17 We've talked about the twice weekly meetings. We've talked about the mentoring scheme. talked about the family of SDS officers
01:44:29 talked about the family of SDS officers who and one of them would have been her I believe her contact. We we endeavored to meet I believe once
01:44:40 We we endeavored to meet I believe once a year
01:44:41 a year for um
01:44:44 for um for a family event. Normally I if I remember back it was around Christmas time it was when we tried to bring
01:44:55 tried to bring spouses partners together mostly spouses don't think we just had partners but spouses and partners all together um and we
01:45:08 um and we as part of bringing them them back to a a policing homogeneous group we also did occasionally have days away. They were
01:45:20 occasionally have days away. They were very few but but again to bring them back into this living together as police officers not but maybe that's not how they felt. So that's what we tried to
01:45:31 they felt. So that's what we tried to do. We have one of the uh wives who's given evidence to this inquiry s which was DC Jenner's ex-wife and and um she
01:45:42 was DC Jenner's ex-wife and and um she was shocked at Mark Jenner's evidence that he used his personal annual leave to travel with Allison on holiday. Um,
01:45:53 Um, were you aware of Mark Jenner going off on weekends away with Allison during the course of his deployment?
01:46:04 No. Um,
01:46:12 were you aware of any undercover officers using their operational covers for private purposes for holidays, for weekends away? Um, for any other reason?
01:46:24 Um, for any other reason? For private? Yeah.
01:46:26 Yeah. No, for no, not at all.
01:46:31 How would you know if you're not checking their passport? If you're not checking petrol receipts and things like that, if you're not if you're not monitoring and surveilling their
01:46:42 monitoring and surveilling their operation in any way, but in that respect, we wouldn't know. So, effectively, they had free reign to use their cover identities in whatever
01:46:54 use their cover identities in whatever way they sought to use them. And you wouldn't have known if if they'd used them in the way that you're describing. I don't know how we
01:47:06 you're describing. I don't know how we could have known.
01:47:12 Um,
01:47:19 is it right that after the weekly meetings at the safe houses, you would often go to the pub afterwards and have chats, general chats about normal life events?
01:47:30 events? Yes, some some would go to a local pub. um chatting with Mark Jenner, would you ever have reason to ask him about Christmas, New Year's, holidays, that
01:47:41 Christmas, New Year's, holidays, that sort of thing? if that had been part of general conversation. I mean, I don't recall specific conversations with officers about things like that, but that you you
01:47:54 about things like that, but that you you yourself described it as being a way of just people having general chats without talking specific operational activity that had already been conducted during
01:48:05 that had already been conducted during the afternoon's activity. And then it was just a chance to get together as a as a group of police officers and just talk about
01:48:16 police officers and just talk about themselves and then go up and not everybody would come either. It was you and I certainly when I first started mostly we would we
01:48:27 when I first started mostly we would we would be there depending where we were meeting as well. some officers felt that that particular pub on that day or that period I don't want to go there because I
01:48:38 I I suppose my point is a level of some curiosity about private lives of your officers might have helped trigger some suspicion that things aren't quite right.
01:48:49 right. Would that be fair to say? It's it's fair to say that that would have been the case. But I'm I'm also telling you I had no You talk about Mark Jenner. I had no reason to think that
01:49:00 Jenner. I had no reason to think that Mark was not spending most of his time at home. I didn't realize how involved he'd become with Allison. Conversations with S might have helped with that. For instance, at the
01:49:12 with that. For instance, at the Christmas dues that you're talking about, asking s how her Christmas was or New Year or how her holiday was uh over the summer, she might have just
01:49:23 uh over the summer, she might have just said, you know, responded in a way which would make you realize that actually Mark Jenner was away somewhere else, which and you didn't realize. Do you see how that might have led you to have some
01:49:35 might have led you to have some understanding of what Mark Jenner was up to? If if that's the way the the the conversation had gone, I can in hindsight I can now say I can see what you're you're suggesting.
01:49:47 you're you're suggesting. And in fact is the reality that it was best not spoken about because you didn't want to ask and you didn't want to threaten the golden rule of operational
01:49:59 threaten the golden rule of operational security for the SDS. Was it an intentional emission or was it just a an oversight? Right. I will say definitely there were never an an intention to have avoided
01:50:12 never an an intention to have avoided that type of conversation. It was not an oversight. It it just was never an intention to avoid anything like that. It was in fact was one of our ways of trying to bring
01:50:24 trying to bring and get a feel for what was going on.
01:50:30 her utility to the SDS as a supporting and loving wife uh was quite important for you, wasn't it? In terms of providing that stable home life, that's what the foundation of some of
01:50:43 that's what the foundation of some of our recruitment is about. Yes. Was there a recognized need to keep spouses in the dark so that they didn't
01:50:54 spouses in the dark so that they didn't that that support wasn't jeopardized? No. Absolutely. so that it didn't cause problems in the marriage. No, I disagree with that. I really do disagree with that.
01:51:05 I really do disagree with that. Did the SDS operational security eclipse all other concerns, including concerns for the spouses of the officers? May I say I I do disagree with that. I I
01:51:18 May I say I I do disagree with that. I I I would have put family life first. Then why wasn't there more support for the spouses? because it seems that they didn't have an awful lot of support or
01:51:30 didn't have an awful lot of support or mentorship themselves. Okay, that that's true as I understand it now. I did think that we paid some attention. Um maybe not as rigorous in
01:51:41 attention. Um maybe not as rigorous in that as we should have been, but my recollection is that we did our we did visit one or other of us would visit a a
01:51:52 visit one or other of us would visit a a family
01:51:54 family at least once if not twice a year together with all the other things that we try to do to the party. So that's not part of it. I'm talking about going to visit the home. Now I believe one or two
01:52:08 visit the home. Now I believe one or two People are saying that they don't feel that happened. I I felt that we did. When you say you felt that you did, was there any formalized record? No, we never kept over I again I I just
01:52:22 No, we never kept over I again I I just recall that very recently. No, there was no um chart or box kept of and dates of where we visited. As far as I suppose, I certainly didn't keep any. But I did I
01:52:34 certainly didn't keep any. But I did I did think that we I'm I'm disappointed to think that families or spouses felt that way. Um we did offer um
01:52:46 um recollection is if they were ever concerned about anything that that they would they were given a telephone number and contact of people. Um
01:52:59 Um but the burden was on them again to raise any issue. It wasn't as if you were asking and checking in with them regularly. Okay. I don't I don't think we would I don't recall going and saying, "Are you
01:53:11 don't recall going and saying, "Are you are you okay? Is your husband having sex elsewhere?" No, certainly not. We were there to to give support to them particularly when we knew that they were
01:53:23 particularly when we knew that they were many nights away, which is unusual for a family. I understand that. You suggest in your witness statement that HM1 admitted to say that spouses were invited for afternoon tea to the SDS
01:53:35 invited for afternoon tea to the SDS safe house. Um was that something that was offered uh to spouses? Well, when I because there's a number of other people S and uh HM43 who say no that was never
01:53:46 S and uh HM43 who say no that was never offered.
01:53:47 offered. Okay. When I when I joined um I realized that the importance of the family and and wanted to ensure that the
01:53:58 family and and wanted to ensure that the spouses felt that they have somewhere that they could contact and I thought we just took it just slight step further um
01:54:10 just took it just slight step further um invited them to
01:54:14 to afternoon tea in our our safe house office where they could come and meet us as the managers. That's all of us,
01:54:26 us as the managers. That's all of us, all the sergeants. So they would know they to get a feel for what what that was h what was happening on excuse me on our side of things. Now it wasn't always that successful
01:54:38 that successful that I do know. But um how many times did you offer that? Well, I thought thinking back I thought thought I'd offered it at every occasion, but I believe you're telling
01:54:50 occasion, but I believe you're telling me that some spouse he or she said they hadn't had that offer. Now, that wrongly, but it it might have been
01:55:02 wrongly, but it it might have been allowed to say her name. I think you've mentioned it. 1826. Yeah, 1826. Yeah, she has anonymity. It might have been her her spouse. Okay. But
01:55:13 Okay. But that may I say that's because you might think that's incorrect now but that might that was because I think um he was a police officer. He understood
01:55:24 he was a police officer. He understood policing a lot better and he met us knew us as police officers. So I if I didn't invite him I probably felt comfortable that he knew was would be able to
01:55:36 that he knew was would be able to contact us. the the the people I uh uh referred to, it's HN43 and and his wife and um s Jenna's wife.
01:55:48 and um s Jenna's wife. They weren't invited. If they say not then I can't gain say that because um in terms of I don't sorry 43 uh Peter Francis.
01:55:59 uh Peter Francis. Oh right. Well, no, because he'd he'd started
01:56:05 started um before he went out in the in the um field before. I see. So, so I was starting it from all those just beginning. Yeah. But we did I know that
01:56:16 beginning. Yeah. But we did I know that we visited Mrs. Frances or I or Bob did visit Mrs. Frances on probably more occasions.
01:56:29 uh HN16 James Thompson was recruited to the SDS in June 1996. And I just want to ask you about these exceptional circumstances where officers
01:56:41 exceptional circumstances where officers who didn't have a stable home life might be recruited to the SDS. Um, were you aware that when he was recruited, his
01:56:52 aware that when he was recruited, his marriage had broken down in December 1990 and been separated for 2 years and then divorced in 1993. He'd met his partner in July 1991 and
01:57:03 He'd met his partner in July 1991 and moved in with her from 94. So he had been living with his then partner for about a year and a half. Did was that seen as a stable enough
01:57:16 Did was that seen as a stable enough background for him to be employed and recruited in the SDS? In terms of chronology, I'm sure it probably would have been as a result of having met him and his then partner.
01:57:30 having met him and his then partner. Um,
01:57:34 Peter Francis says that his evidence was that uh his DCI, which was H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H HNH6 and his DI HN67
01:57:44 DI HN67 were aware that he wasn't particularly happy at home. And despite that knowledge, there appears to be no concerns regarding the stability of his home life and the impact that undercover
01:57:57 home life and the impact that undercover work would have on that. Did you ask Peter Francis about his home life in terms of a continuing welfare responsibility?
01:58:08 I was never aware of of what you have just said the previous managers had found out. So I had no reason to
01:58:19 had found out. So I had no reason to think there was anything wrong in what in Peter Francis's family life. So I don't I wouldn't specifically have
01:58:31 So I don't I wouldn't specifically have said to him on the basis of anything else
01:58:35 else separately, well what about your home life? It's not very good. I wouldn't have said that because I I and as I say we did we we did go to Mrs.
01:58:46 and as I say we did we we did go to Mrs. Francis and I think we we asked her about I don't know if Francis was there at the time. I don't think he was. I think I might ask you some questions
01:58:58 think I might ask you some questions about that when we come to welfare a little bit later on. Um Jim Boiling, HN14, he was recruited at the start of 1995 and his wife of eight years left
01:59:09 1995 and his wife of eight years left him uh less than a year into his deployment. It took about 18 months before he told you about that separation.
01:59:20 about that separation. Um, and that was 18 months after you'd assessed him as having a happy and stable marriage. Um, can you say what went through your mind when you found
01:59:32 went through your mind when you found that out and why it was that he hadn't told you at the time when she left him in January 1996? Let me go back to what I said about
01:59:43 Let me go back to what I said about trying to meet up with uh spouses, partners.
01:59:49 partners. Uh during the officer's time within the field, I got to the stage. I I hadn't been to Jim's
02:00:01 been to Jim's wife and spoke to him. I've actually seen it. He somewhere he's told Bob this, Bob Lambert. But at the same time I recall a conversation with Jim Boiling
02:00:15 I recall a conversation with Jim Boiling to say Jim um it's got to that stage in effect um I want to come round and say you know visit you see how things are
02:00:26 you know visit you see how things are see your wife is okay that's what in my mind
02:00:30 mind and it was at that point that Jim then apologized and said look I'm sorry I know I should have told you but my wife and I have separated did and then we had this discussion. Now do
02:00:42 and then we had this discussion. Now do you want me to go on about this because it's quite lengthy in a way in terms of it might it might be time for a break now then and then we can go into the detail about that um sir if now is convenient time. Certainly. We'll um
02:00:55 convenient time. Certainly. We'll um break for 15 minutes.
02:18:43 Mr. Edmonson, just before the break, we were talking about Jim Boiling and the separation uh uh from his wife. And just to flag that Jim Boing did give evidence of the clear impact that separation had
02:18:56 of the clear impact that separation had on him and his deployment as he said to you that he had nobody to go home to. So he just got into the habit of living full-time at his cover address and then
02:19:07 full-time at his cover address and then just going home occasionally to sort of check the post or whatever. And that's the the transcript from Jim Boing's evidence to this uh inquiry back in February of this year. Um so as as we
02:19:20 February of this year. Um so as as we said his wife had left him in January 96 and he told you and Bob Lambert in the August of that year and I think that there is a note it might it might help
02:19:31 there is a note it might it might help you to have the note on screen when because I know you're going to explain what happened at that meeting on the 14th of August 1996. It's behind tab B271.
02:19:42 tab B271. It's MPS074810
02:19:46 0. [clears throat] [cough]
02:20:01 And that that might just help you.
02:20:06 [snorts]
02:20:47 And is it right that despite the obvious welfare concerns about that your decision was to retain him anyway as a UCO because his work wasn't affected by
02:20:59 UCO because his work wasn't affected by it?
02:21:03 That's part of the reason for keeping him there. Yes. Um certainly we'd had no indication all the way from January through to August. Well, I can
02:21:15 January through to August. Well, I can see the dates are only brought to my attention here. But having spoken to Jim, of course, I was surprised at what had happened and
02:21:26 was surprised at what had happened and very disappointed on his behalf that such a thing should have happened. There was there was a consideration as to whether um given what we had
02:21:38 to whether um given what we had previously thought of not having the anchor that he perhaps should come out of the field. But I was persuaded by those in the in the office because of
02:21:51 by those in the in the office because of his extremely uh good work and by those supporting him in the field that I should allow him to stay on.
02:22:04 I should allow him to stay on. I I I will just say I just noticed that I explained the situation to Ed. Um and that paragraph I I I'm sure I
02:22:15 Um and that paragraph I I I'm sure I would have explained that to I believe that's the superintendent. Is that Eric Docker? Oh, thank you. Um, so that was that was in my mind at the time that should he
02:22:27 in my mind at the time that should he stay, should he come off and the the reason around keeping him on was yes, nothing to do with operational security. It was it was to do with the
02:22:39 security. It was it was to do with the quality of his um activity, his penetration into the group, the quality of the evidence that he or the intelligence that he was producing.
02:22:52 intelligence that he was producing. And then and I think I wrote it somewhere. I
02:22:57 I I called it the the family of SDS. And I thought that that would be strong enough around him to give him the support that
02:23:09 around him to give him the support that of course he would have needed. Now, so that I hope sets the scene for you as to why I made that final decision. Were you aware that he was spending
02:23:21 Were you aware that he was spending nearly all of his time in the field? No.
02:23:26 No. You know, that's the first I've heard is you saying that to me. Should I have known? I think you may be asking that later. So I'll give you the chance perhaps
02:23:37 perhaps with different ways. I don't know talking to him day by day as we did every day and then meeting him. Um, I think we were still satisfied that he
02:23:48 think we were still satisfied that he was coping uh
02:23:50 uh and not knowing, sorry, forgive me, not knowing that it would appear that he was spending more and more time um in his undercover persona.
02:24:02 um in his undercover persona. And Eric Docker flags in this final paragraph that his welfare should be carefully monitored. And I hope I've just indicated that that's what had been our intention and that's what we tried.
02:24:14 that's what we tried. Turning to MPS 0748 100. Is that Yes, sorry. Um, uh, page 35 of this note, please.
02:24:36 [clears throat]
02:24:43 Can we see the last paragraph, please? So, this is a this is a note again. It's um a Bob Lambert file note copied to you if you need to see your uh initials. I
02:24:56 if you need to see your uh initials. I think it's it's on that page somewhere. It's a note of the 21st of April, 1997. So, we're a few months uh further down the line now. And he says, Bob Lambert
02:25:08 the line now. And he says, Bob Lambert says, 'I put forward an idea for the future when he moves from East Dolich. He does not rent again. He spends half his time living with the wearies and extracts himself for much longer periods on the basis of work or contacts outside
02:25:21 on the basis of work or contacts outside London. He could be offered an allowance in lie of rent. He can certainly see an offer of accommodation coming up from the Brixton EF RTS group at some stage, perhaps when they take over a co-op
02:25:33 perhaps when they take over a co-op living or work spa uh place.
02:25:38 Um, we agreed that such a scenario would have to be carefully managed and might only be feasible for a short period. But within months then of you finding out about his wife leaving him, is it a a
02:25:50 about his wife leaving him, is it a a serious consideration that you and Bob Lambert have about him being allowed to live with his target group.
02:26:04 Given the way that that's describes it, it yes, it looks like he is living with or close to his target group, but at the same time, I think what Bob is putting into place is, as you see there, that
02:26:17 into place is, as you see there, that he's he's trying to to see that he can live part of his life away from from the target group and for much longer periods and using the basis of work and
02:26:28 and using the basis of work and contracts. So I think that's what I can read into that that yes, you're right. It looks like he's in with a target group, but in place to help him is to
02:26:42 group, but in place to help him is to have that time away. But this is almost like a ship being allowed to sail off without an anchor, isn't it? at this stage because he doesn't have his wife and his home to go
02:26:56 doesn't have his wife and his home to go back to. You're allowing him to be
02:27:00 him to be pretty much completely absorbed by his group.
02:27:04 group. Was that a sense that you had at the time?
02:27:08 time? And again, I'll go back to No, it's not. And I'll say why again because now I do think probably wrongly now but I will say at the time I put a great
02:27:20 I will say at the time I put a great reliance on the fact that we had that mentoring scheme. He had the officers around him supporting supporting him as well as us on a twice weekly basis. Can
02:27:32 well as us on a twice weekly basis. Can I just
02:27:32 I just I would I would have hoped that we would have been able to glean from that time with him that things that things were perhaps not the way um going ahead the
02:27:44 perhaps not the way um going ahead the way they should and that with further consideration about his working relationship. But go back as well Bob Bob was trying to say that he he gets away from his group over quite extended
02:27:57 away from his group over quite extended period by the look of it.
02:28:05 Um it's around uh this time in April 1997.
02:28:11 1997. In fact, just after he's started a sexual relationship with Monica, which started around the 11th of April, 97, because it started around the Never Mind the Ballots
02:28:23 the Ballots um uh uh demonstration, which was the 9th of uh sorry, the 9th of April 97. So you can see just literally a couple of weeks later this
02:28:35 literally a couple of weeks later this note is is prepared in relation to moving in with uh or or moving with his uh group.
02:28:43 uh group. Were you aware that he had started? Sorry.
02:28:46 Sorry. Is there something to show me? Um uh
02:28:52 Um uh no
02:28:54 no it's just a matter of record that the never mind the ballots uh demonstration I think the date was the 9th of April 1997
02:29:03 1997 and that's when we understand he started a sexual relationship with a woman we're calling Monica which lasted for about six months. Were you aware of that relationship? No. I'm just going to ask you when so
02:29:15 No. I'm just going to ask you when so though although he says that that April when when did we get to know that that was happening? We get to find out about it through the course of this inquiry. But I'm asking you
02:29:26 you when did all right so who would have known that he was having that relationship? Uh he would have obviously known and then the question is whether you knew about it.
02:29:37 about it. Okay. No, I did not know. Okay. Um and and so that didn't uh feed into any decision making around whether he should be allowed to uh uh uh move in
02:29:49 he should be allowed to uh uh uh move in with his target group at all. No.
02:29:51 No. And you had no understanding of that relationship happening uh in in the context of his wife having left him uh a year or so previously? None whatsoever.
02:30:03 None whatsoever. Um turning to page 36 of this document, please.
02:30:14 [clears throat]
02:30:18 We can see in the penultimate paragraph here
02:30:26 [snorts] um that uh Boiling is Jim Boiling is anxious to know if he might feature in an investigation surrounding the attempted murder of police officers.
02:30:38 the attempted murder of police officers. at Saturday's demonstration by an RTS driver of a s sorry attempted murder of police officers at Saturday's demonstration by an RTS driver of a sound system
02:30:50 sound system privacy truck HM14 was involved in hiring the vehicle in question and urgent leaison via T009 is in hand
02:31:02 um his weies expect him to be arrested and questioned so he's raising this issue with you about whether he could be implicated in an attempted murder of a police officer.
02:31:14 police officer. Do you recall that being an issue with Jim Boing around the same time? No, I don't. Would that would be a fairly serious uh issue to be dealing with, wouldn't
02:31:26 uh issue to be dealing with, wouldn't it?
02:31:26 it? Yes.
02:31:27 Yes. And we can see that you're copied into this note in April 1997. Can you remember dealing with that at all? No, I don't.
02:31:38 Is this a situation where you have an an op operative undercover officer who's out of control at this stage?
02:31:51 I would definitely say no.
02:31:55 Then no.
02:32:00 You say that you regret your decision to retain uh Mr. boiling in the field. You say because of the outcome and the effect that this has had on DC Boiling's
02:32:11 effect that this has had on DC Boiling's life and those he came into contact with um in terms of DC boiling, do you see him as being the victim in in these
02:32:22 him as being the victim in in these events?
02:32:28 I'm not quite certain what you're you're asking me there really, but I will I may if I may just say this. Um, I knew
02:32:39 if I may just say this. Um, I knew nothing about Jim Boing's activities beyond July 97. I knew nothing about um all the
02:32:52 July 97. I knew nothing about um all the the relationships that he'd started.
02:32:58 I can't remember exactly when I found out about them. It was obviously something to do with the inquiry, but I would like to say quite clearly and openly I do regret very much not having
02:33:11 openly I do regret very much not having moved
02:33:12 moved Jim Bowling from SDS. Not because I felt operational security, not because of the fact that he because in fact he
02:33:24 of the fact that he because in fact he was doing extremely good job. In hindsight, I was really saddened to see what had happened to him and his life and indeed
02:33:37 happened to him and his life and indeed the the
02:33:39 the the well the lady that he married and I believe children that he had. Now had I had I moved him in when it when we first thought about this none of this would have happened
02:33:51 this none of this would have happened and I will say quite clearly openly having heard about this I whoever I was speaking to and I can't remember who it was whether it was part of the legal
02:34:03 was whether it was part of the legal team part of the police team I asked if I could get a message to Jim or meet Jim and and apologize to him personally
02:34:14 and and apologize to him personally because service was just so sad and saddened to hear about what how his life had moved on and how he'd been dismissed from the police service
02:34:27 from the police service and and what about the the women then that he had relationships with well how do you feel about I said his wife but the same thing none of that would have happened had I moved
02:34:38 of that would have happened had I moved him
02:34:39 him in reality what was the value if any of a policy requiring a stable loving family home life. Did that simply serve to cause greater destruction to more
02:34:51 to cause greater destruction to more people?
02:34:57 That had been a policy for quite some time. I believe it at the beginning of SDS officers might have been single and gone on to but on
02:35:08 have been single and gone on to but on onto the unit but the policy was I don't I wouldn't say it was hard and fast but it was one that we tended to adhere to and if and if in this case
02:35:20 to adhere to and if and if in this case indeed he was married or had a partner when he was taken on to the unit what happened afterwards um change the the context of how we were
02:35:33 um change the the context of how we were trying to deal with him. But no,
02:35:37 no, it doesn't it doesn't lessen the fact that we do think people should have or should have had some anchor to go to. But I repeat what I've said. I
02:35:49 what I've said. I probably quite wrongly now think that that anchor was the unit around him and his friendships and and so the unit itself, the SDS unit
02:36:00 and and so the unit itself, the SDS unit itself should have served as that anchor rather than relying on unsuspecting, unwitting family members at home. Is that at home or at
02:36:12 Is that at home or at at home a spouse and family? Yeah. Well, no. wife had he had his spouse, I think things would have moved differently. Do you because there there are plenty of
02:36:24 Do you because there there are plenty of the officers who did have that supportive wife at home, s being one of them, but it doesn't appear to have made a difference in in uh DC Jenner's case.
02:36:38 I'm afraid I Yes, it's an argument that you're putting, but I'm afraid I can't answer for what Mr. Jenner did. relying solely on a spouse
02:36:52 relying solely on a spouse is unfair on that spouse and their and their families, isn't it? I, you know, I I disagree as an anchor. I I disagree with that. A and in fact they were blindly supporting
02:37:05 they were blindly supporting their partners in entering the SDS as a a UCO because they weren't given sufficient evidence about uh what the ECO deployment involved.
02:37:17 uh what the ECO deployment involved. Would you would you agree with No, not agree. In terms of the the information that the wives of officers were given, do you think that they were
02:37:28 were given, do you think that they were given sufficient evidence to be or sufficient information to be able to uh uh uh consciously support their husbands in the role that they were uh
02:37:41 husbands in the role that they were uh deployed into. the time I was there and the and the times I met people, families, I I believed I was giving the information that was necessary to
02:37:53 information that was necessary to support them and give them uh or make let them have the ability to make the judgment of their own. I know I do know from your previous uh
02:38:05 I know I do know from your previous uh questions to me today did we touch on the fact that there might have been um sexual indiscretions? I don't believe that that came up in our
02:38:17 I don't believe that that came up in our discussions with the wives. So if that's what you're taking from it, then maybe that was a mistake. But I I at the time I genuinely thought that we
02:38:29 at the time I genuinely thought that we were giving them [clears throat] what they needed to to know to be able to support their husbands or and partners.
02:38:37 partners. Can I ask you about support role players? You say at paragraph 215 of your witness statement that support role players were under general consideration.
02:38:48 consideration. Uh did that reflect a recognition of the risk of sexual relationships undercover? the fact that you were generally considering whether officers needed this support role player to come in and
02:39:00 support role player to come in and provide uh uh a role within their deployment.
02:39:08 Whatever. Forgive me because I can't remember exactly what what this was about, but um it's nothing to do with sex and sexual indiscretion. This is
02:39:20 sex and sexual indiscretion. This is just yet another layer of support from people, I think is what we're saying, by people who who understand the um the SDS
02:39:31 people who who understand the um the SDS role.
02:39:39 So I went right let's go back because what does I'm uncertain what what is meant by my rule question asks support role player
02:39:53 is does that go back to that issue where somebody had said could I have a could I have somebody from SB to come and be my friend for the day is that is that what you're trying to ask of me
02:40:04 ask of me that's the sort of thing it's it's referring to um the trade craft if that helps. So, um the
02:40:15 helps. So, um the trade craft manual says that if you need to it it may be that you can ask back office for help or um have a fleeting disastrous
02:40:27 or um have a fleeting disastrous relationship. Can you recall whether anybody did ask you for uh help in that way? Okay. No, no, I don't I don't recall that being the case. Was that I'm not saying they didn't, but
02:40:39 Was that I'm not saying they didn't, but I I do not remember somebody saying, "Can I have somebody meet me?" No, may I I if I I don't want to jump ahead and I come mean I believe Mark Jenner
02:40:51 and I come mean I believe Mark Jenner used a an old school friend uh when he was away on a meeting uh on an activity and this he happened to come across his school friend
02:41:03 school friend using him in that respect and carried on a conversation. He So that was somebody uh as a support role player for Mark on that one
02:41:16 role player for Mark on that one occasion that I was aware of. Do you recall HN78DS Trevor Morris using a civilian member of his family as a support role player? No, I don't. Not at all.
02:41:28 No, I don't. Not at all. Um he actually names HN86 your predecessor as somebody that said to him, "You'll have to sort it out yourself." Do you remember anything in relation to that? I know you weren't
02:41:40 relation to that? I know you weren't there at the time, but you don't. Not at all. You haven't received that information. That's not I would I would like to think that's not how I would act. I I I don't
02:41:51 that's not how I would act. I I I don't believe I would just say to somebody, you sort it out. It's I may not have had the actual uh way of sorting it out, but I don't think I would just say over to you.
02:42:02 you. Um
02:42:04 Um were support role players something that were was discussed at all uh amongst managers as something that would be helpful for UCOs.
02:42:20 I can't remember but I it it it might have crossed our bows at some stage to say well that's been suggested what do you think and I it it would have been banded around as to how secure would
02:42:34 banded around as to how secure would that have been I can see all sorts of reasons against it as well. Sorry, just to clarify, I did suggest to you that Trevor Morris said that asked HN86 for a support role player and it was HN86 that
02:42:47 support role player and it was HN86 that said sort it out yourself. But in fact, his evidence is that he said that to either you or HN86, but your evidence remains the same that you wouldn't have said those words.
02:42:59 Um, you say you thought dimly of one senior officer
03:11:14 First of all, can we have up please um the
03:11:20 document there and can you go back please to what I think is page 27 on the there and there you the paragraph 5.6
03:11:31 there and there you the paragraph 5.6 and could you uh put the continuation of paragraph 5.6 on page 28 on the same page and then blow up five paragraph 5.6 so that
03:11:45 blow up five paragraph 5.6 so that there's it's that on and nothing else.
03:11:52 [clears throat] and over the page.
03:12:01 [snorts]
03:12:11 If you could possibly make it so that we can read the whole of it in one go, [clears throat] that would be very helpful.
03:12:49 There's another one or two lines.
03:13:06 That's it.
03:14:01 That's the best you can do. Is it is that Can you read that? I can actually. Thank you. Take your time, as much time as you want to to read paragraph 5.6.
03:15:40 Thank you sir.
03:15:44 I want to ask you about answers you've given in relation to this part of the tradecraftraft manual. Is there any other part of the tradecraftraft manual that you need to see before I start to ask you about that?
03:15:56 ask you about that? I think not. No. Then can we have up now your witness statement please which is MPS0749544
03:16:06 open at page 13.
03:16:13 [snorts]
03:16:16 It's on the screen if but by all means look at it in print if you prefer to do that.
03:16:27 [snorts]
03:16:31 Look on the screen.
03:16:35 This is paragraph 185E of your witness statement. Yes.
03:16:44 Yes. And you refer to the document we've just been looking at, MPS 0527597,
03:16:51 which is the tradecraftraft manual. Okay. Thank you. And you say uh in the second sentence, I can positively say that I have never read this document
03:17:02 that I have never read this document before. I'm sure I would have remembered
03:17:16 in your evidence. You said that you must uh have found the trade craft manual useful. You must have read it, but you don't remember doing so.
03:17:32 Okay, sir. Yes. The two answers are not consistent. One says you can positively remember. You can positively say you've never read the document before. And the second says
03:17:43 the document before. And the second says uh you must have read it but you can't remember doing so.
03:17:51 I I would say that it's my second answer the one today which is probably the one I it's very difficult. So, I
03:18:04 I it's very difficult. So, I I recall there being, as I've said, I recall there being a tradecraftraft manual, but when I was shown that part of the
03:18:19 but when I was shown that part of the the manual, um, when I was have making my statement,
03:18:28 I I I would say what I said there is absolutely right. I as I was when I was asked about it and I was making my statement I I don't believe I I'm saying
03:18:39 statement I I don't believe I I'm saying there I don't believe I did I I'd seen it before. I think what I'm trying to do is is say, well, because it was a document
03:18:53 is say, well, because it was a document available, [clears throat] it seems it seems I I must have seen it, but I don't recall seeing it. Do you see the difference between I do
03:19:05 Do you see the difference between I do asserting as you do in your witness statement, you could positively say you've never read it before and saying, "I can't remember whether or not I have.
03:19:20 I can see the difference in in what you've said, but I I can only say to you again in all honesty when when I was making the statement and and I was and I was shown that document from
03:19:34 was shown that document from I think it's well I know who it's from. I think um I I think at the time when I was making the statement I had no recollection of
03:19:45 the statement I had no recollection of it at all. Now sitting here today I'm thinking well would that have been the case? Surely as the manager as part
03:19:57 the case? Surely as the manager as part of the trade craft someone had presented something like that surely I would have would have taken that responsibility to make sure I was up to date with
03:20:08 make sure I was up to date with everything that was being put. So I'm sorry that's a bit of an ambiguous response to you but I I don't know what else to say. Well,
03:20:19 Well, I think the question is fairly simple. The advice given in paragraph 5.6 is nothing short of disgraceful, isn't it?
03:20:33 nothing short of disgraceful, isn't it? The the the thing about particularly the thing about having a fleeting um
03:20:43 um moment with somebody that is wrong. Yes. That is wrong. And had you read it as the incoming detective chief inspector, you would
03:20:55 detective chief inspector, you would surely have done something about it. Had I read it, I'm I would I feel I feel I would not just have allowed it to stay like that.
03:21:07 like that. That's all I That's all I can say.
03:21:12 I think, you know, you're right. That's it's not something I I could would have allowed to have to have continued without having some recourse to discussion.
03:21:24 discussion. Put bluntly, there are only three possibilities. One, you did read it and left it in and let others read it after you. Two, you didn't read it.
03:21:41 And three, you didn't take it in.
03:21:56 So I'm I'm going to say again
03:22:01 again I at the time I made my statement I I and I know I've used the word positively but I certainly at the time I made the
03:22:12 but I certainly at the time I made the statement I did not recall reading it. But having now had an opportunity more than once to have had that document
03:22:24 than once to have had that document shown me,
03:22:25 shown me, I find it difficult to think that I would not as the manager incoming not have read as much as I possibly could around
03:22:36 around the whole of the SDS operation. So I'm it I find it difficult now sitting here to say that actually I must you know I don't don't find it I must I
03:22:47 you know I don't don't find it I must I must have read it if it was available to me and if I had seen it in that way I'm sure I would have queried that that latter bit which I agree with you is not
03:22:59 latter bit which I agree with you is not something that should have been written.
03:23:03 I think that's about as far as we can take it.
03:23:06 take it. Yes.
03:23:08 Yes. Thank you sir.
03:23:13 Want to move on to the topic of racism. Um
03:23:19 at your witness statement paragraph page 235
03:23:27 paragraph 401 you talk about the Steven Lawrence campaign.
03:23:34 campaign. [clears throat]
03:23:38 And we can see moving to sorry no not that not that not that bit sorry from the Steven Lawrence campaign onwards I want to take you to uh page
03:23:50 onwards I want to take you to uh page 237
03:23:53 paragraph 44B.
03:23:58 You say you can't specifically recall any conversations with anybody at work about the murder or the subsequent inquiry into it. So Steven Lawrence, young man of 18 who had been murdered by
03:24:11 young man of 18 who had been murdered by white racist youth in London in April 1993,
03:24:17 1993, uh was killed at the time when you were in CE squad, it seems. Do you recall that event?
03:24:26 So you say I was in CE squad. I think it seems to be that you were in CE squad. You were the DCI in CE squad at that stage as we established earlier in the evidence about the types of
03:24:37 in the evidence about the types of information and reports you were getting from animal rights uh reporting from SDS.
03:24:47 Do you remember that in context that about a year before you joined the SDS as manager Steven Steven Lawrence was murdered? Of
03:24:58 course, I [snorts] recall the incident [clears throat] because it was national news and the fallout, the conversations that may have been had within the
03:25:09 may have been had within the Metropolitan Police. You don't specifically recall any conversations you were having about that?
03:25:21 No, I I I can't recall that. And I'm still They're wondering whether actually I was on CE squad. I know we've talked about it and I can't remember. [snorts] Okay.
03:25:31 Okay. When I was on
03:25:35 I can't it would be good for me to know the the date
03:25:44 date that Steven Lawrence was murdered and whether you'll now ask me whether conversations on that day or thereabouts. Well, he was murdered. He was murdered
03:25:56 Well, he was murdered. He was murdered on the 22nd of April, 1993. Um, and what I'm asking you about is subsequent to that, were there conversations about
03:26:07 conversations about Steven Lawrence's murder and then the campaign that quickly established itself after that to seek justice for Steven. Right. I don't recall any conversations
03:26:21 Right. I don't recall any conversations like that but and would help me to know whether I was C squad or B squad.
03:26:32 C squad or B squad. I think you were CE squad. I know you keep saying this but okay but I don't Anyway, I do not recall specifically having conversations
03:26:44 conversations about the murder. It appears to be around the time that you were receiving um information about animal rights demonstrations and that
03:26:55 animal rights demonstrations and that sort of thing when you were
03:27:00 and the London Boots Action Group were receiving reports about that. Okay. That around that time. If it's around that time, that's Yeah. Okay. That doesn't jog your memory.
03:27:12 Okay. That doesn't jog your memory. No, it doesn't.
03:27:16 Um, you say in paragraph 404C, I cannot say that I had any understanding as to the SDS role specifically in relation to the Steven
03:27:27 specifically in relation to the Steven Lawrence justice campaign and the McFersonen inquiry. I cannot recall when that campaign started. So, the campaign would have started very shortly after
03:27:39 would have started very shortly after Steven was murdered. The McFersonen inquiry was only announced properly in July 1997. So that's the the month that you left
03:27:49 you left the SDS and you retired at that point, I think, didn't you? That's correct. Um, so I'm not going to ask you questions about the McFersonen inquiry, but what I would like to ask you questions about is the campaign and the
03:28:02 questions about is the campaign and the reporting that touched on the campaign through the SDS. Were you receiving reports
03:28:09 reports in CE S squad about the campaign? And as customer to the SDS, were you interested in that campaign?
03:28:23 I don't recall receiving them, but I I I I must say I suspect I would have received there would have been something across my desk, but I think in relation
03:28:34 across my desk, but I think in relation to the Steven Lawrence campaign itself, our role would have been no more than identifying
03:28:45 identifying any issues that would have arisen from the campaign that would have affected uh public order within London. I don't see any other part that we would have had in
03:28:57 any other part that we would have had in that.
03:28:58 that. Do you recall putting in requests to HN86 or HN67 to get more information about the campaign?
03:29:06 campaign? No, I don't. No, I certainly don't. Peter Francis suggests that he was asked specifically by HN86 to get information
03:29:19 specifically by HN86 to get information about the campaign and uh the people involved in that campaign. He says at paragraph 245 of his witness statement, he was asked to find any information
03:29:30 he was asked to find any information that is true but which could portray the campaign or the family in a negative light or even destroy the campaign. It could have been anything. Radical, left-wing political affiliations, drug
03:29:41 left-wing political affiliations, drug use, an unhappy family home. Were those the sorts of things the type of reporting that you might have expected from SDS?
03:29:56 Let me say quite categorically, absolutely and utterly no. This is again another fantasy from that man. I it's
03:30:09 another fantasy from that man. I it's extraordinary and I I do recall um I can refer to an opern statement that I made long before I was involved in long after I came off
03:30:22 I was involved in long after I came off of SDS. the there was some talk and I think this is what this is alluding to of smearing the the Steven Lawrence
03:30:33 of smearing the the Steven Lawrence campaign, the Steven Lawrence family. I I find the use of that word utterly aborant. It was absolutely we I would never have allowed that.
03:30:44 never have allowed that. I would never have asked anybody. And I actually said in my statement as well that I I felt that the very senior officers and I was referring I think to
03:30:56 officers and I was referring I think to commander Black. I I said in my mind they were too honorable to have been asking people to smear a family who'd lost a son. Now uh
03:31:11 family who'd lost a son. Now uh subsequently I know that there are concerns and were concerns raised by the Lawrence family and I can understand why about the the investigation of the
03:31:22 about the the investigation of the murder.
03:31:24 murder. I can and and they they were questions asked of us by us of our own colleagues what happened in that investigation. But I categorically none of this would
03:31:37 But I categorically none of this would have been something that an SDS officer would have been asked to do. Now I don't think that Mr. Francis is saying that I was asking him, but I do not believe
03:31:49 was asking him, but I do not believe that even 86 would have asked that question and that would not have come down from anybody. Mr. Francis has qualified what he meant by the word smear. It's not to make up
03:32:01 by the word smear. It's not to make up information about somebody, but it is to report
03:32:06 report a a fact as as seen by an undercover officer and put it in reports. Now earlier in your evidence you said the type of reporting that uh included
03:32:19 type of reporting that uh included information about somebody's abusive history
03:32:24 history uh very very personal details about people is the sort of information that would be included within special branch reports. And your evidence was that it was just anything that people uh
03:32:35 was just anything that people uh hoovered up that that would be put into special branch reporting. That was the type of information that you would expect to see is that sort of information that Mr.
03:32:47 is that sort of information that Mr. Francis talks about, you know, drug use, left-wing radical political affiliations, unhappy home life, the sort of thing, putting aside the fact
03:32:59 sort of thing, putting aside the fact that it was to do with the Lawrenes, is it the sort of thing you would expect to see in special branch reporting?
03:33:06 Unfortunately, I think that we're talking about two different things here. The Steven Lawrence campaign and the Lawrence family would never have been target the Steven Lawrence campaign
03:33:19 target the Steven Lawrence campaign campaign might have been something we'd have looked at but the Lawrence family itself we would well I'm saying I would never have countenanced that uh
03:33:31 never have countenanced that uh intrusion into the family campaign is different in respect that the campaign and
03:33:41 and um in involve other organizations, other left particularly left-wing groups who want perhaps to use that campaign as
03:33:52 want perhaps to use that campaign as they do for many other campaigns to ferment ferment trouble on the streets of London, not the family itself. That would have been anathema. I'm sorry. So,
03:34:04 would have been anathema. I'm sorry. So, what are you saying distinguished the Lawrence family from other persons involved in campaigns? Why was their private life, as you say, so sacred and
03:34:16 private life, as you say, so sacred and not others? When when we were when we talked this morning about that, we were not talking about people um who were not involved in some way. And I mean by that actively
03:34:28 some way. And I mean by that actively involved in some way. The people we were talking about were activists of a of a type who who it would have been useful to have information about the Lawrence
03:34:40 to have information about the Lawrence family and were not considered in well by me
03:34:46 by me or and I would hope the rest of SD SB to be activist involved in uh such um
03:34:57 be activist involved in uh such um anti-activity. They were a family grieving their son and wanting to get some uh a justice, some understanding of
03:35:09 some uh a justice, some understanding of the investigation, what went wrong within that investigation? Two distinct things in my mind.
03:35:16 mind. And are you saying that was recognized at the time that the Lawrence family were not seen as people campaigning in an anti- police campaign?
03:35:28 an anti- police campaign? I've ne this is the first time I've ever even
03:35:33 even put that to me. I' I've never considered them to have been anything other than a grieving family who quite rightly wanted to find out what had happened to their
03:35:44 to find out what had happened to their son and the investigation around it. And I think you've you've probably heard other officers say that there's a lot of con lot of concern with within police
03:35:55 con lot of concern with within police quarters about the the the investigation itself, but we have no knowledge of it, just the the rumors about concerns about it.
03:36:03 it. When you were a manager of the SDS, did you instruct your undercover officers not to report on the family, their personal lives, or the family campaign?
03:36:16 personal lives, or the family campaign? I'm not I am definitely saying I would I would never have asked them to um infiltrate the family in any way. I do
03:36:28 infiltrate the family in any way. I do acknowledge that the campaign is something, as I just said just a few moments ago, the campaign is something that might attract those who would wish to use the campaign
03:36:40 to use the campaign um for it for their own political ends or to ferment street activity, not the family. Family to me family was sacrianked. So had you seen any
03:36:52 sacrianked. So had you seen any reporting on uh uh Neville Lawrence or Dorene Lawrence, you would have raised that, would you? If if those reports were coming uh through into the SDS.
03:37:05 were coming uh through into the SDS. [cough]
03:37:06 [cough] I [clears throat] I would I would have queried why um we would have such um reporting, but I think there was some report I saw that
03:37:17 I think there was some report I saw that indicated that there was a problem for the family. itself within the family. Now, I I don't really know why that was was put through if that's what happened
03:37:29 was put through if that's what happened because it's it's that's purely family business. It didn't affect that did not affect SDS in any way. What about uh Neville Lawrence uh
03:37:41 What about uh Neville Lawrence uh speaking at an event? Why would that be important to report on what he was saying?
03:37:47 saying? Well, again, it's it wasn't targeting Mr. Lawrence. It was looking at any of the information around the campaign itself, which might have been of use to
03:38:01 itself, which might have been of use to us in relation to who else was taking part and using the campaign. Uh, final question in relation to this topic and then I think um we're going to
03:38:13 topic and then I think um we're going to go into private session. reporting on the family lawyer, Michael Mansfield, Kings uh Queens Council at the time. Was spying on their lawyer something that was considered or discussed amongst
03:38:26 that was considered or discussed amongst the UCOs?
03:38:27 the UCOs? Not at all. Not at all. Were you aware of Mr. Mansfield being perceived and branded as the devil incarnate?
03:38:37 Not in those terms. Most certainly not. Mr. Mansfield's a renowned uh lawyer. We all we all know the areas in which he works and we have
03:38:48 the areas in which he works and we have to respect those areas but the devil incarnate absolutely not. Was he seen as a subversive amongst the SDS or the wider MPS?
03:39:01 Absolutely not. Can you help us with the registry file on Mr. Mansfield? Um the inquiry understands that the the file on Mr. Mansfield was destroyed at some point.
03:39:13 Mansfield was destroyed at some point. you able to help us with No, not
03:39:15 No, not how or why that might have happened? No.
03:39:19 No. Um, do you know in what circumstances a reg registry file might be destroyed? No, I don't. Um,
03:39:30 Um, so those are the questions that I have in open today. Then you want [clears throat] me to rise while the room is set up again as for private hearing? Yes.