Keith Edmondson (HN216), former Detective Chief Inspector and manager of the Special Demonstration Squad from 1994, is questioned about SDS reporting on the Stephen Lawrence, Joy Gardner and Justice for Brian Douglas campaigns, allegations of racism within the unit, the deployment of black officer Trevor Morris (HN78), undercover officers misleading courts, and the sexual relationships formed by officers such as Mike Chitty. Edmondson repeatedly denies personal knowledge of racism or wrongdoing while making a series of narrower admissions about institutional practice.
00:45:35 Please sit down.
00:45:38 Good morning everybody. Uh today's evidence will be uh live streamed with a 15minute delay. Those with mobile devices may use them to report what they hear in the hearing room, but only after
00:45:50 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 recording or photography. Yes.
00:46:02 Yesterday um I was asking you about the note believed to be prepared by uh HN2 Andy Kohl's uh and um in in the tradecraftraft
00:46:14 uh and um in in the tradecraftraft manual.
00:46:15 manual. Yes. And um I think it's right that uh everybody should be reminded that that was done during your uh time as TCI in
00:46:26 was done during your uh time as TCI in 1995 and not before you started. Um, and I want to give you the opportunity of uh reflecting and answering again if you want to uh whether or not you think you
00:46:37 want to uh whether or not you think you read it uh or or uh didn't or what your answer is about its contents.
00:46:53 It [snorts] it would seem to me that anything that was written during my tenure
00:47:00 tenure Yeah.
00:47:00 Yeah. I I'd be surprised if I hadn't seen it. Now, I think you indicated there was a an anomaly between that and me saying I hadn't seen it.
00:47:11 hadn't seen it. Yeah. Um, certainly as presented to me at the beginning of my statement taking, I genuinely did not recall having seen
00:47:23 I genuinely did not recall having seen it. I think what I was trying to say to you yesterday and in answer to you this morning is that it would seem unlike genuinely did
00:47:34 that it would seem unlike genuinely did not remember seeing it, but it seems unlikely for me. I'd be disappointed if I hadn't during my time read anything that came across.
00:47:45 that came across. Yes.
00:47:45 Yes. My desk.
00:47:47 My desk. If you had seen it and had absorbed its contents,
00:47:53 contents, what would you have done about it? And I think you're probably highlighting the the
00:48:00 the the statement that Andy Coohl's had made about having some um I forget I forget what the wording is but it it
00:48:12 but it it having a disastrous relationship defing relationship. Um again sir
00:48:20 again sir in I'm now answering that question today trying to put my head back to then um I can't say that I reacted to that. I
00:48:31 can't say that I reacted to that. I genuinely can't can't remember any of that but if you were to if I were to see that today and of course this is hindsight isn't it? Um I would perhaps
00:48:43 hindsight isn't it? Um I would perhaps have taken I would take some issue about what is meant what does he really mean by that uh disastrous what does he mean to have some
00:48:56 to have some try to tried to have some sort of close relationship but make certainly it doesn't work I I can't read now what was in his mind so the answer I think is that you may
00:49:10 so the answer I think is that you may well have read is that if you had read it, you did not do anything about it. That would appear to be the case. I have to say yes.
00:49:21 to say yes. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, sir. Can I draw your attention to the annual report of 1993?
00:49:32 report of 1993? It's behind tab B75, MPS0722654,
00:49:38 please. So this will be the annual report that was drafted by HN86, your predecessor, in the run-up to you joining as manager in the April of 1994.
00:49:54 And would this be a document that you would read in preparation for taking over management?
00:50:03 So yes,
00:50:07 page 22 of the document, please.
00:50:14 Paragraph 2.1 talks about the Steven Lawrence murder. And I'll just give you a moment to read that paragraph.
00:50:53 Thank you. Although it doesn't say it here, was it recognized at the time of this report that this was a racist murder?
00:51:04 So this is going on for a year after his death.
00:51:10 death. I
00:51:10 I I can only say I assume that is what it's it's trying to say perhaps. And did special branch see that as a racist murder? I would have thought.
00:51:21 I would have thought. Is that your recollection? I would have thought so. It describes an increasingly violent campaign against racist aggression which commenced after the murder of Steven
00:51:33 commenced after the murder of Steven Lawrence.
00:51:35 Lawrence. Thank you. Now, it's obviously a very significant uh part of the operations of SDS at the time under HN86's management. Um, but
00:51:46 time under HN86's management. Um, but when you read this, did you take it that HN86 was talking about uh the Steven Lawrence campaign that started after Steven Lawrence's death,
00:51:59 started after Steven Lawrence's death, or was he talking about the wider campaign against racism? Can you recall what what he was suggesting was becoming an increasingly violent campaign against racist racist aggression?
00:52:19 I think it I don't think it's specifically just reading it here. I I don't think it's specifically identified with the Steven Lawrence
00:52:30 identified with the Steven Lawrence campaign. I think as it says increasingly violent campaign against racist aggression which certainly commenced that probably
00:52:43 which certainly commenced that probably the Steven Lawrence murder was a catalyst for the for the increased violently violent campaigning
00:52:53 was it can you can you recall at all what your understanding was taking over management of the SDS at the time There's a suggestion that there's an increasingly violent campaign against
00:53:04 increasingly violent campaign against racist aggression. What was it that you were trying then to manage with your UCOs? What were they targeted towards to report on?
00:53:18 This would have been standard SDS
00:53:23 SDS activity in relation to any of the extremist groups that would use not only the Steven Lawrence
00:53:34 the Steven Lawrence issue, but any other issues that might be arising to to ferment or to use their those that campaign and other other
00:53:46 those that campaign and other other campaigns as a as a means of attracting greater influence to their own groups and in some cases in the extreme cases
00:53:58 and in some cases in the extreme cases by fermenting violent disorder on the streets. We know that there had been campaigns for a long time prior to Steven Lawrence's death by organizations like
00:54:11 Lawrence's death by organizations like the Anti-Nazi League, um the ARRA, Y, the Youth Against Racism in Europe, and we've heard evidence from people like Lois Austin in the course of this
00:54:23 like Lois Austin in the course of this tranch, um who'd [clears throat] been campaigning for years against racist attacks in the area. Um, but it doesn't seem like this note or this report is
00:54:35 seem like this note or this report is relating to uh organizations as such that have been campaigning uh nonviolently for years in relation to Steven Lawrence. It looks
00:54:46 relation to Steven Lawrence. It looks like it's relating to the campaign itself, the Steven Lawrence campaign, because it says that it was a bandwagon which attracted all the major left-wing groups. It does look like this
00:54:59 groups. It does look like this paragraph itself is focused on the Steven Lawrence campaign and describing that as an increasingly violent
00:55:10 that as an increasingly violent campaign.
00:55:13 campaign. Is that reflective of your understanding of the Steven Lawrence campaign when you took over management?
00:55:21 Would you say that's a fair description first, a fair interpretation of that paragraph?
00:55:30 You're asking me actually I have to say to make a comment on a report that I didn't write um and my understanding
00:55:43 um and my understanding would have been I think
00:55:47 would have been that
00:55:52 there was always the propensity for anti-fascists groups
00:55:58 groups to forement some form of activity probably against the BNP itself. But our our sole task has has always been to ensure that we
00:56:11 has has always been to ensure that we get enough intelligence to prevent some of the activities the the activities of violence on the streets. I'm sorry I'm a little trying
00:56:25 streets. I'm sorry I'm a little trying to work out what you're trying to ask of me. Anyway, we we've heard lots of evidence about the Steven Lawrence campaign and including from Baroness Lawrence herself that the campaign was not violent in any
00:56:39 that the campaign was not violent in any way. In fact, they demanded that uh those groups that were supporting them did not promote violence and they steered away from any groups that they thought that would cause disorder. Uh
00:56:51 thought that would cause disorder. Uh the Steven Lawrence family were not at Welling. Um and there's no suggestion at all that the family or their campaign was violent. The question I'm asking is
00:57:05 was violent. The question I'm asking is ultimately is this paragraph misrepresenting the Steven Lawrence campaign in the annual report of the SDS? I don't read that it in in read it in
00:57:17 I don't read that it in in read it in that way. I really don't. I just I For me, I just see that what it's saying is and you've indicated and and I will agree that the actual
00:57:28 and I will agree that the actual campaign and particularly to run by the family was never intended in any way to become violent. It was a
00:57:40 in any way to become violent. It was a campaign to get justice as we talked yesterday about u what had happened to Steven Lawrence and those involved and what the police
00:57:53 and those involved and what the police had done about the investigation. That's that's what we'd always thought I'd always thought and I believe SDS had always thought that's what the campaign was about. But I I will always go back
00:58:06 was about. But I I will always go back to our our raise on debt is to ensure that irrespective of how irrespective of how um peaceful
00:58:17 irrespective of how um peaceful the Lawrence family were towards having a campaign like this, the fact remains that other left-wing, extreme leftwing
00:58:28 left-wing, extreme leftwing organizations would have used that campaign campaign as they've done with many other campaigns to gain um some notoriety for themselves, some
00:58:41 um some notoriety for themselves, some additional support for themselves and if necessary to to ferment some form of activity and it was marked as it says
00:58:52 activity and it was marked as it says here by a riot in Welling in May. I will reiterate this is not targeted against the campaign
00:59:04 against the campaign about and the family. It's all those around it who would misuse it.
00:59:12 Um would there be any incentive to represent the campaign in this increasingly violent uh uh way
00:59:24 increasingly violent uh uh way because it would provide a reason then for the SDS to be reporting on it. It would bring it within the SDS remit.
00:59:35 It's not the campaign. It's any activity that we can see taking place on the streets which would start to cause um serious public disorder.
00:59:46 to cause um serious public disorder. That's our responsibility to try and gain that intelligence. Was there any suggestion that a campaign that was fighting for uh uh uh black
00:59:58 that was fighting for uh uh uh black rights, black people uh involved in it, it was a black family justice campaign that was in any way more of a threat of public disorder uh than it was in
01:00:09 public disorder uh than it was in reality.
01:00:10 reality. It was a misrepresentation. Don't think it's a misrepresentation. I think there is always a concern that certain campaigns will attract people
01:00:21 certain campaigns will attract people who are are wanting to misuse the campaign. However lawful the campaign itself and justified, there will be people who will misuse it. And that was that has always been as far
01:00:33 And that was that has always been as far as I'm aware the role of SDS and special branch to gain intelligence to to help hopefully prevent serious disorder on
01:00:44 hopefully prevent serious disorder on the streets. Were you aware at the time of taking over management that uh there were any corporate concerns in the Met Police Service about the
01:00:57 the Met Police Service about the Lawrence campaign regarding the potential for reputational damage?
01:01:04 No, not not in the way that No, definitely not. But I'm sure as previously heard and I tend to accept there was
01:01:15 heard and I tend to accept there was there was a concern even amongst police officers that Mrs. Lawrence or Baroness Lawrence now had highlighted her concerns about the the poor investigation of the crime and
01:01:28 the poor investigation of the crime and that's that's the sort of conversation if anything would have been I would have been involved in or heard not saying I was involved in conversation but we
01:01:39 was involved in conversation but we would have it would have been something passed passing comment almost I suspect can't remember very specifically but yes when when we hear from Mrs. Lawrence,
01:01:50 when when we hear from Mrs. Lawrence, her concerns. Certain, you know, some police officers think, "Wow, I wonder what did go on. How how well investigated was the murder?"
01:02:04 Were you aware of any pressure on HN86 or Chief Superintendent Bob Potter from senior managers to provide intelligence about the campaign?
01:02:15 about the campaign? No, I was not aware. Was there any pressure on you when you took over? Absolutely not. Was it still seen as a significant part of the SDS operation, the the Steven
01:02:26 of the SDS operation, the the Steven Lawrence campaign and the support groups around it? If forgive me, it is a while ago now, but I I'm still come back to what I said. If there was an opportunity for if
01:02:39 said. If there was an opportunity for if there was something happening about the campaign supporting the campaign there that that would have been an opportunity for those people who decide to misuse the campaign. So then we would have
01:02:52 the campaign. So then we would have still taken an interest. Yes. But we weren't as far as far far as I can recall or not recall I can say never asked to to um target the campaign itself.
01:03:07 to um target the campaign itself. Did Peter Francis ever speak to you about any tasking concerns around the Lawrence uh campaign? No.
01:03:16 No. you you'll be aware of Peter Franc's allegations about racist language being used by people within the SDS and in particular HN86 using racist tropes such as the monkeys
01:03:29 using racist tropes such as the monkeys are organizing uh being led by the rings in their noses referring it seems to the involvement of an experienced solicitor Iran Khan now Kings Council
01:03:40 Kings Council did you ever hear racist language being used in the SDS in particular with regard to the Steven Lawrence campaign or those involved in it?
01:03:51 campaign or those involved in it? Emphatically, no. Did you hear any racist language being used in the wider special branch? No. We No. Did you ever hear a racist language
01:04:03 Did you ever hear a racist language being used or derogatory language being used in relation to Dwayne Brooks who was Steven's friend who was there on the night of the attack and and he was attacked by the group as well.
01:04:15 attacked by the group as well. emphatically known.
01:04:22 As we touched upon yesterday, you were a close family friend of Bob Potter. Um,
01:04:30 Um, were you aware around that time, October 1993, of a racist incident that he was involved in which led to his retirement from special branch?
01:04:43 I I did say yesterday and I I'll I'll repeat Bob Potter um was a family friend over t over time.
01:04:54 um was a family friend over t over time. Um,
01:04:56 Um, and I am somewhat disappointed now that this inquiry continues to bring up the fact that somebody who was so ill and
01:05:07 fact that somebody who was so ill and has subsequently died um in accusing him of some racist activity. Now, so that's that's how that's my stance about Bob Potter.
01:05:19 that's my stance about Bob Potter. And also I I feel for his family because every time this comes up, it must be something else them to think about their you know husband, father. However, let me also say um you ask me about did I
01:05:33 me also say um you ask me about did I hear about it? I heard there had been an incident. Yes, of course I did. And I heard that he'd gone into a club. I can't remember exactly what
01:05:44 a club. I can't remember exactly what what was told, but I'd heard about it. and you know deeply saddened by it. Had you heard him using racist language
01:05:55 Had you heard him using racist language yourself in special branch? No, not not like not racist language. No, not at all. Um the illness that he had, was it something that caused him to use racist language?
01:06:06 language? Forgive me. I I've not heard him use racist language, but it he was very ill towards the end. I I had he been suffering for some time
01:06:18 had he been suffering for some time before that incident in October 1993.
01:06:25 Look, I Bob was a very brilliant type of character. He was quite a leader actually.
01:06:33 actually. May I say was a leader not only professionally at work, but he was a great leader on the rugby field as well. He was a great [clears throat] guy in that respect. So um at what point being
01:06:45 that respect. So um at what point being a friend as well at what point would I have started to see any deterioration in his health and I I'm uncertain when I
01:06:56 his health and I I'm uncertain when I because I'm not a medical person. How would I did I notice some changes? He went on a course to Quantico, I believe, um, and came back
01:07:09 believe, um, and came back um, even more oied up about his work and his activity as a senior officer. I don't know if that was where I saw a change,
01:07:21 change, but
01:07:21 but had you ever heard of the ter the the the name that was apparently used for him, Potty Bob, and how did you interpret that? Well, I have heard that
01:07:32 interpret that? Well, I have heard that expression. Now, again, forgive me. I don't know that I heard that expression uh while I was serving with him or after
01:07:43 uh while I was serving with him or after he'd left or whether I've heard that expression here. Um
01:07:49 Um but it depends what what is meant by potty. you know, to my mind, um, someone perhaps has has has some sort of, um,
01:08:00 perhaps has has has some sort of, um, mental illness perhaps. I don't quite because I think someone's suggesting it means he has some sort referred to as potty mouth, like it's a a use of bad
01:08:13 potty mouth, like it's a a use of bad language. I my interpretation on hearing that was that he would he was being identified as somebody who was really very unwell.
01:08:25 very unwell. The allegation that Peter Francis makes is that paragraph 161 of his statement to this inquiry. He says he was known as Potty Bob for having a potty mouth but also for being mentally unstable. When
01:08:38 also for being mentally unstable. When he came to the SDS meetings he behaved like he was one of the lads. He would drink a lot and always very loud and and was always very loud and indulged in casual racism and sexism.
01:08:52 casual racism and sexism. Knowing what you know about Mr. Potter, do you consider that it might be true, whatever the cause, that he used racist language or sexist language
01:09:03 language or sexist language in the work environment? I'm going to say not in my presence. I can't I cannot account for what Peter Francis is is saying. Um you know my
01:09:15 Francis is is saying. Um you know my view of him.
01:09:21 Trevor Morris is somebody that you managed for a time. Uh
01:09:29 Uh he says at paragraph 23 of his witness statement that he experienced numerous incidents of racism as a police constable both from the public and within the Met. He was a black officer,
01:09:41 within the Met. He was a black officer, wasn't he? Yes, he was.
01:09:46 I'd like to look please at uh his witness statement. UCPI 35076
01:09:57 page 110 please. It's about his reporting on justice campaigns. And you've addressed this at paragraph 400 of your witness statement. I think
01:10:09 400 of your witness statement. I think you've seen these extracts and some of his reports.
01:10:22 Are you going to be showing me something? I think so. In in fact, we perhaps don't need to go to uh uh H78's witness statement, but if I can take you to
01:10:34 statement, but if I can take you to this, this is where he talks about uh uh the different reports that he made in relation to justice campaigns. It's right, isn't it, that there were numerous reports on justice campaigns
01:10:48 numerous reports on justice campaigns from HN78
01:10:51 from HN78 in the time that you were his manager. I suspect that's probably correct. I mean,
01:10:59 if we can go to one of those, MPS0245170.
01:11:05 It's a report dated the 9th of June 95.
01:11:20 And if you can scroll down to the bottom, please.
01:11:26 It says superintendent at the bottom and it's a special branch report. Is this the sort of report that you would draft for special branch or feed into?
01:11:38 for special branch or feed into? Could you get them to enlarge it, please? Yes, of course. Can we enlarge it, please? Uh, the first page. The first page.
01:11:50 We can see it's the a special branch report from the 9th of June 95. It's in relation to the Justice for Brian Douglas campaign. He was a black man who died in custody after police
01:12:02 man who died in custody after police batterns were used. And at paragraph one we can see in relation to the campaign this at this meeting on the 7th of June about 60 people were present. Says half
01:12:15 about 60 people were present. Says half of them were black and each speaker concentrated on the theme of increased police harassment and violence
01:12:25 violence and on the need to continue campaigns for justice after they had fallen out of immediate public attention.
01:12:33 Paragraph two goes on
01:12:41 to note the the race of the participants
01:12:46 [snorts]
01:12:51 at the meeting and in the source comment.
01:12:55 comment. Sorry, could I just Sorry.
01:13:00 Okay.
01:13:09 [snorts] Okay, read that. Thank you. Thank you. And then in the source comment,
01:13:18 there's reference to a radical black element.
01:13:26 The fact that being perceived a fact that anti police has become an anti-white issue
01:13:41 and that members were part of a militant black community. Is it fair to say that race is clearly a topic of discussion at the meeting itself? But why note the race of the
01:13:55 itself? But why note the race of the participants, the the speakers at the meeting? Why was the race of the people so important to the report?
01:14:07 I think I indicated yesterday in relation to special branch reporting um anything that takes place say at a meeting or at a demonstration.
01:14:19 meeting or at a demonstration. It helps to build up an intelligence picture and helps to um perhaps give some sort of judgment as to what might
01:14:30 some sort of judgment as to what might be happening on the streets later. I think this is just the way that special branch has always reported things I believe quite properly
01:14:42 reported things I believe quite properly and go back. It gives this indication of what's happening in our society. And to what extent did the race of the campaigners affect the threat assessment of public disorder?
01:14:56 Does it not Can we just go back slightly because does it not indicate that there are some
01:15:04 are some radical black elements involved
01:15:09 involved and that
01:15:12 and that this is now not just an anti- police but hasn't become an anti-white issue. Well, if the if the police are out on demonstrations or just in their
01:15:24 on demonstrations or just in their communities, they I [snorts] would hope that this gives the sort of community background the or understanding of what they might be
01:15:36 or understanding of what they might be faced if they if they if they come across say some young uh radical in this case black elements, but there could be other elements We heard evidence from Lois Austin last
01:15:49 We heard evidence from Lois Austin last at the end of last year about this concept of anti- police campaigns and how that was represented in the SDS reports and her evidence about that and I'm summarizing it was that they weren't
01:16:02 I'm summarizing it was that they weren't anti police campaigns, they were anti police harassment campaigns. So, the fact that in those areas in in South London, police were particularly picking
01:16:13 London, police were particularly picking up on on black uh uh people on the streets, stops and searches uh were being disproportionately targeted towards black members of the community.
01:16:24 towards black members of the community. So this the way that it's presented as an anti- police campaign, would you accept that uh at least Lois Austin's evidence was that they weren't against
01:16:35 evidence was that they weren't against police, they were against bad policing?
01:16:40 I didn't I I didn't have access or haven't seen anything that Lois Austin has said about that, but all I can read is what is here. Not just anti- police,
01:16:51 is what is here. Not just anti- police, but anti-white. It could well be that there are some concerns about policing on the streets and being in receipt of these sorry being in receipt of those reports that
01:17:04 being in receipt of those reports that there's a a a contingent a large contingent in the community that are anti police, would that make the police uh uh fear those those campaigns that they're anti police?
01:17:17 campaigns that they're anti police? I
01:17:17 I I wouldn't have said I appreciate what it does say there. I wouldn't have said the police would have feared them. It the purpose of reporting in this way and
01:17:28 the purpose of reporting in this way and I'll repeat it. The purpose to report on things in this way is to give those who are responsible for policing an hopefully [snorts] an overview and understanding of what
01:17:42 an overview and understanding of what they might be faced on during a particular demonstration or in a particular area of of of [snorts]
01:17:49 [snorts] uh of London. Could this potentially lead to overzealous policing of such campaigns and demonstrations and marches because the police would they be told
01:18:00 because the police would they be told that these people are anti police? Could that lead to more public disorder because of the police reaction to these campaigns?
01:18:12 I'm sorry. you I I just don't I see what you're trying to say, but I I go back to what I've said. All All this I mean, right, all this is is going back is to
01:18:26 right, all this is is going back is to give the overview of of a community of a type of demonstration of an area. Now if that information is discussed beyond SDS
01:18:40 that information is discussed beyond SDS I I I can't tell I can't answer your question.
01:18:45 question. You have you have no control of what happens to this information once it leaves leaves the SDS. Does it indeed not? But I would like to think that it and go back again. I'd like to think that it
01:18:56 back again. I'd like to think that it gives the police an understanding of what they might be faced and then perhaps have a way of dealing with it. Peter Francis gave evidence in his
01:19:07 Peter Francis gave evidence in his witness statement at paragraph 155 that he felt conflicted about spying on black justice groups. Um, and he said that he
01:19:18 justice groups. Um, and he said that he told you and Robu Bob Lambert in response to discussions about public order concerns following the death of Brian Douglas and Wayne Douglas that the police should, and I quote, stop
01:19:30 police should, and I quote, stop killing black people," end quote. Do you do you recall that happening? Do you have any recollection of something like that being said to you and or Bob Lambert?
01:19:42 and or Bob Lambert? I most certainly do not. No recollection whatsoever of that. Do you recall him raising concerns about spying on black justice groups?
01:19:53 spying on black justice groups? Not at all. Can I ask you about Joy the Joy Gardner campaign?
01:19:58 campaign? Okay.
01:19:59 Okay. Um not long after you took up your post in the SDS, uh the deployment of Trevor Morris changed and he moved to Tottenham in January 1995.
01:20:12 January 1995. And this was around the time that the criminal proceedings against the police officers who killed Joy Gardner commenced. So Joy Gardner was the woman
01:20:23 commenced. So Joy Gardner was the woman who was being detained for immigration removal purposes and she was detained at the end of July 1993. Um and she died at the very beginning of
01:20:35 Um and she died at the very beginning of August 1993. Um, and if you recall, she was bound um with quite uh barbaric uh equipment in order to restrain her and and and and um
01:20:48 order to restrain her and and and and um uh Baron Cond Condon came out and and uh said that those restraints should never have been used by the police in the way that they were. Do you recall that
01:21:00 that they were. Do you recall that incident?
01:21:01 incident? I'm I'm aware as as any ordinary person would have been. I was aware of it in the press. Yes.
01:21:11 Um and so were you aware was it a big part of the SDS um uh focus when those police officers that were responsible for her death uh were tried
01:21:25 responsible for her death uh were tried and it went to trial up in uh uh uh Tottenham
01:21:33 around January 1995. Do you recall that happening? And there were demonstrations, weren't there, about those police officers? I'm reminded now of I don't recall, but
01:21:44 I'm reminded now of I don't recall, but I am reminded now of of that.
01:21:49 Uh was part of the decision to redirect HN78 Trevor Morris to Tottenham because of that uh trial.
01:22:01 I can't answer that in terms of I because I don't know that what the reason was but um would you have been you'd have redirected him would you? I'd have been part of that decision I'm
01:22:13 I'd have been part of that decision I'm I'm sure with Bob and and other you know yes Bob and myself but what I'm thinking is that
01:22:22 is that go back to what I keep saying about the the role of SDS if it if it's thought that certain areas or or campaigns even
01:22:33 that certain areas or or campaigns even or protest would would likely to cause public disorder and that's that's why Trevor would have
01:22:44 and that's that's why Trevor would have been um asked to try and relocate and it's clear isn't it that there was a lot of ill feeling about how Joy Gardner had
01:22:56 of ill feeling about how Joy Gardner had been dealt with in her subsequent death and I I truly understand why elements in in society would be very concerned about it.
01:23:07 about it. But then we have to find out what what would be the response on the streets. The the Justice for Joy campaign um was obviously very active around that time.
01:23:19 obviously very active around that time. Was it recognized that the that that campaign was not violent?
01:23:28 I can take you to some reports if that will help. Yeah, I if you're if you're able to show me a report which says that the campaign wasn't violent, then I would certainly
01:23:39 wasn't violent, then I would certainly understand that. You sitting here today, I can't remember that. You say, but I accept what you're saying if there is a a document. Uh you say as as you've
01:23:50 is a a document. Uh you say as as you've mentioned before in your witness statement at paragraphs 233 to 234 you say that the concern was that although the campaigns might be legitimate others might seek to use them for disorder.
01:24:02 might seek to use them for disorder. It's that sense isn't it that there may be other elements that may use the campaign
01:24:10 campaign as a reason to create disorder. You you've put that far more eloquently than I've tried to this morning. Yes, that's exactly what the I think SDS are about vote. In terms of summarizing your evidence in
01:24:22 In terms of summarizing your evidence in relation to that, are there echoes of that
01:24:27 that in the evidence we've heard about the Steven Lawrence campaign that the campaign needed protecting? Was there a sense of that? Is that how you were approaching this? That the campaign needed protecting from political groups
01:24:39 needed protecting from political groups that might try to exploit it? I wouldn't have used that term of protecting, but certainly I did and I have said, haven't I, this morning that it was the the the
01:24:51 I, this morning that it was the the the use of a legitimate campaign by other other groups who want to ferment is problems on the streets.
01:25:02 problems on the streets. The evidence of Baroness Lawrence and Dr. Lawrence was that they could manage their own campaign. they didn't need protecting by SDS undercover officers and that they managed to quell disorder
01:25:15 and that they managed to quell disorder themselves as part of the campaign. So do you accept that a UCO in the midst of a campaign does not help to protect the
01:25:26 a campaign does not help to protect the campaign?
01:25:28 campaign? Do you accept that in principle?
01:25:32 Well, I understand that Aroness Lawrence has said that they could cope, I think, with with the campaign, but no, I don't I don't really accept that um
01:25:45 I don't I don't really accept that um that it would be wrong to put an SDS officer close to those someone some of the groups are trying to ferment trouble. I mean, Baroness Lawrence may have been successful. I can't remember
01:25:57 have been successful. I can't remember but Baroness Lawrence may have been successful in trying to keep some of the the protesters away from the campaign itself.
01:26:07 itself. But we still had a responsibility to know if there were other groups or whether were groups who were wanting to in some way get themselves involved in the campaign to cause problems on the
01:26:20 the campaign to cause problems on the streets of London. Can I ask you about um MPS 0245
01:26:31 218 is behind tab B156.
01:26:40 This is a special branch report dated the 23rd of June 1995 and the report is on a meeting about the Joy Gardner police verdict. So this is the verdict
01:26:51 police verdict. So this is the verdict that came out in relation to the police officers that were involved in the restraint of Miss Gardner.
01:27:00 And if we can enlarge paragraph one, please
01:27:24 We can see that what the meeting was about and and why it had been called and paragraph two onwards.
01:27:34 What we can see if we can highlight the whole of that is that several people spoke at this meeting and there's a short synopsis of what each of those
01:27:45 short synopsis of what each of those speakers talked about and how they were feeling and what they were thinking. Um I don't propose that we read all of it now but you can get the general gist of
01:27:56 now but you can get the general gist of it. Um,
01:28:11 if we go on to page two, please,
01:28:17 you can see that it lists several people who spoke
01:28:23 who spoke at this meeting.
01:28:38 It notes the race, age, class, uh, and the the language that is used to talk about their politics and their interpretation of what has happened.
01:28:50 interpretation of what has happened. page three, please, because I do want to take you to uh MNA Simpson's entry and Bernie Grant, the MP after her. So, MNA Simpson being Joy Gardner's mother, it
01:29:02 Simpson being Joy Gardner's mother, it sets out in some detail what her thinking was in relation uh to uh the whole event.
01:29:16 A truly personal speech to Joy Gardner's mother.
01:29:22 by by George Gardner's mother. Sorry.
01:29:40 And would you accept that? That is reporting
02:12:06 Mr. Edmonson, just before the break, you were talking about how you raised HN78's concerns with DAC Howley. Do you want to just finish the point that you were making?
02:12:17 making? I think I'd actually come to the end of that. That was literally what I did. Thank you. Took it direct to Mr. Howley. And do you know what ever came of that? Did you follow up with it with DAC? Howley?
02:12:30 follow up with it with DAC? Howley? No, I didn't follow up with Mr. Howley. Uh,
02:12:38 is it right that you considered those as the current racial tensions at the time? Did you recognize those as racial racial tensions in the community?
02:12:51 tensions in the community? I'm sure I would have would have done. And um do you recall HN78 when he came to the end of his deployment that he he
02:13:02 to the end of his deployment that he he wrote a a note uh he says it in anticipation of his exfiltration to pass on his experience and learning from his time in the field. And that was that a a
02:13:15 time in the field. And that was that a a report that you you tuck up and and uh passed up to your senior officers?
02:13:23 I don't know. You you don't recall we are we still talking about HN78?
02:13:32 Yes. His name?
02:13:33 His name? Trevor Morris. Sorry, forgive me. Yep. Okay. Sorry. Um I can I can show you um the note. is MPS0245303.
02:13:44 It wasn't actually in the pack that was provided to you. Um it was in H78's pack, but it may be something that you recognize. Okay. Okay.
02:13:58 So, it's a note by HN78
02:14:03 that he thinks he probably prepared in anticipation of his exfiltration. And it sets out um uh some of his experiences.
02:14:36 He says in his witness statement that the report shows a signed off by the superintendent and I cannot say whether this is a straight lift off my draft or whether it has been rewritten by the
02:14:48 whether it has been rewritten by the author. I just wonder whether you can help us as to who that author might be if you're able to to to say it might be that you need to see the top of the page again.
02:15:04 Is this the sort of special branch report that would be authored by you or one of the DS's in the SDS? Very normally that would have been
02:15:16 Very normally that would have been written up. somewhat surprised actually because I [clears throat] thought it had come direct
02:15:23 direct been written by Trevor, but it looks it looks here as a probably was written up as a final report by
02:15:36 written up as a final report by I mean, forgive me probably probably John Webb because as you've heard John did most of the the writing and that's the sort of thing that would
02:15:47 and that's the sort of thing that would be passed up into special branch to the superintendent. Is it I would like to think that that was the case. I think this is a I
02:15:58 case. I think this is a I can't remember reading it at the time, but having read it now, I think it's an excellent report. I think it's I think it's really important. As I'm sitting here now looking at this,
02:16:10 As I'm sitting here now looking at this, I'm thinking this is quite a significant report coming from an officer who understands because of his his racial
02:16:21 understands because of his his racial background. He understands what people in the community who are like him are feeling and they're not this perhaps the same feelings that people like me would
02:16:33 same feelings that people like me would have had the understanding of. I I've read it more than once now and I do think,
02:16:39 think, you know, great credit to Trevor for pulling that together and and whoever supported him in writing it up. And do you have any sense of what likely
02:16:51 And do you have any sense of what likely would have happened to this report? How high up this would have gone? Is this something that would have gone back to DAC Howley or to the commissioner? Can you help us with that? I I truly wouldn't can't really help you
02:17:03 I I truly wouldn't can't really help you at all with that. We heard evidence uh earlier in this tranch by Karen Doyle who was somebody that was involved with um uh movement for justice and she said that um there
02:17:16 for justice and she said that um there were plenty of black people who were queuing up to advise the police in terms of how policing affected the black community. Did did the the Met Police
02:17:27 community. Did did the the Met Police really need an undercover officer to inform them of how policing might affect the black community in that way? Were there less intrusive means of
02:17:39 Were there less intrusive means of getting that information to the the police?
02:17:44 police? Although I'm pleased to hear that there were other methods that they had, but I would certainly endorse everything that the SDS were doing in in this respect as well. I I I have no problem as a manager
02:17:58 well. I I I have no problem as a manager seeing that, thinking that we had an officer who was providing what I can really consider to be a valuable insight and hopefully supporting other areas of
02:18:09 and hopefully supporting other areas of the police service. Did it warrant, in your view, the collateral intrusion on those campaigns upon which he was reporting?
02:18:21 I'm I'm good to say yes.
02:18:29 Can you see the effect that it has had on those people who were reported on and the upset it has caused? Because knowing that there was an undercover officer in their midst is
02:18:41 undercover officer in their midst is deeply upsetting.
02:18:45 And was it really was it really worth having this officer in the midst of a a a campaign group in order to get this sort of information?
02:18:56 sort of information? Again, I'm going to say yes.
02:19:01 Can I go back please to 1993 when Joy Gardner was killed? Um, at the time I suggest you were in CE squad. So
02:19:13 time I suggest you were in CE squad. So this is the the the the month almost a year before you were engaged as manager in the SDS. Um, do you recall being involved in the
02:19:25 Um, do you recall being involved in the reporting around Joy Gardner's death or will it help if I take you to the special branch file? Please. Yes. Um, can we have up please MPS0749776.
02:19:43 So this is before your time as manager in the SDS [clears throat] and it's a a special branch file that was opened in relation to the Joy Gardner memorial campaign and
02:19:56 to the Joy Gardner memorial campaign and the just justice for Joy Gardner campaign
02:20:00 campaign in the days after her death in 1993. Can you can you see that? Do you need that enlarged a bit? [clears throat]
02:20:11 [snorts] If I take you to page 173, please
02:20:24 uh handwritten notes at the bottom.
02:20:36 Do you see on the uh top right we've got the chief superintendent of CE is aware and number two DCI Edmonson referred
02:20:48 and is it your handwriting on the left DI blank aware SB to note and PA on SWP
02:20:59 DI blank aware SB to note and PA on SWP file
02:21:01 file special branch [clears throat] CE 5th of August 93 three. Would that be your I I think it is. Yes. Yes. So, is it right that you were the DCI in
02:21:12 So, is it right that you were the DCI in special branch CE squad in the days following uh Joy Gardner's death in August 1993? Is that fair to to seemingly? Yes. Yes.
02:21:24 to seemingly? Yes. Yes. Thank you. And page 168, please. Paragraph two.
02:21:39 We can see here that it's um a note [clears throat] about a threat assessment. So this is a memorandum on the 5th of August 93
02:21:51 memorandum on the 5th of August 93 um
02:21:53 um from the commander to the chief superintendent of CE squad.
02:22:04 uh in anticipation of a a march or a protest on the 7th of August 1993. So in two days time there will be um a a protest over Joy Gardner's death. May an
02:22:17 protest over Joy Gardner's death. May an urgent threat assessment be provided for this event. Do you see that? I see it at the bottom. Thank you. If that can be taken reduced down want to stay in this this file
02:22:31 and um page 165 to 166 please.
02:22:41 We can see that this is the special branch threat assessment in relation to that protest on the 7th of August 1993
02:22:50 and it appears to have been authored by you
02:22:55 you acting up as the superintendent in special branch on the 5th of August 1993. that very day you write the threat assessment in relation to that protest
02:23:09 assessment in relation to that protest of the Joy Joy Gardner Fund. Is that is that right?
02:23:17 I I'd be I would be quite surprised if I had been the author of this.
02:23:30 I know it. I know it doesn't indicate an author.
02:23:36 Sorry, it does it does indicate an author.
02:23:39 author. You Well,
02:23:40 You Well, yeah.
02:23:41 yeah. Okay. But I don't I don't recall writing this report. I'd be I would be surprised if I had.
02:23:49 if I had. You would be surprised if I would. Why is that? because I had other officers who would have provided that threat assessment. Could you
02:23:59 Could you I might have I might have put my name to it afterwards, but forgive me, I don't recall writing the report. So, it may be that you had an inspector or a DS who would write the threat
02:24:10 or a DS who would write the threat assessment based on the information that was known at the time. You would sign that off and that would go back to uh senior officers in special branch. would
02:24:21 senior officers in special branch. would is that right?
02:24:25 That's normally the route. I can't tell just from this what what would have happened because I'm signing there as the superintendent
02:24:37 signing there as the superintendent and normally and I know you you've all seen it but then normally there's a minute sheet or something which then indicates onward transmission. I mean, there's no no reason to be to
02:24:49 I mean, there's no no reason to be to ask for a threat assessment and then not forward it to the customer. Just looking at paragraph two, there's
02:25:01 Just looking at paragraph two, there's reference to Bernie Grant's MP suggesting that local indicators are best place uh best placed um
02:25:11 um to to record tensions.
02:25:19 What does it mean by that? is that local police officers would be best placed to assess the situation or and obviously it's a while since I I was
02:25:30 and obviously it's a while since I I was involved in policing in this respect but I would like to think that at every police station there would been some form of local community liaison and I
02:25:43 form of local community liaison and I think that's what this is referring to. So they would be a source of information for special branch. Um we can see that in paragraph three
02:25:55 Um we can see that in paragraph three the groups likely to attend the protest are listed there.
02:26:05 It is expected that about uh
02:26:09 uh oh sorry this is in relation to an event that had already happened. So in in 2 days after her death, there was a a small protest outside Horny Police Station where 30 to 40 people were in
02:26:21 Station where 30 to 40 people were in attendance both from the SWP, the ARRA and the WP and uh CAM, the campaign against militarism.
02:26:35 [snorts]
02:26:38 And then uh going on to page sorry paragraph four. Could you just stop for a moment? Yes.
02:26:45 Yes. Only because I'm trying to because this is a report isn't it? This is a threat assessment. Yes.
02:26:52 Yes. Excuse me. I'm just trying and you just showed me the
02:26:58 the um this paragraph three. I'm trying to see what relevance three has got to a threat assessment. So can I just read that again?
02:27:09 that again? Yes, of course. Essentially, I think it's just that there there has already been a hastily uh arranged protest.
02:27:23 [clears throat] Oh, I see. But yes, we're we're indicating in the threat center there has been a previous um activity supporting the the campaign.
02:27:35 um activity supporting the the campaign. Yeah, I get it now. Sorry. And then it was anticipated that there'd be one in another couple of days. Um
02:27:40 Um which would give an indication what to could give an indication of what to expect.
02:27:45 expect. And and the groups who have indicated an interest in the protest that is to come include Y
02:27:53 include Y and the Hackne Community Defense Association. Okay. And it's noted none of the groups who will be present has the ability or desire to cause widespread disorder. Although they will
02:28:04 widespread disorder. Although they will be noisy and aggressive in tone throughout. These groups will total approximately 400 to 500 pro protesters. Um so it was known then at the time that
02:28:16 Um so it was known then at the time that these groups the Y and HCDA didn't have the ability or desire to cause widespread disorder. That's right, isn't it?
02:28:27 That's right, isn't it? That's what it's indicating there. Yes. And then all it does go on, doesn't it, to say they will be noisy and aggressive in tone throughout. But a protest being aggressive, a
02:28:39 But a protest being aggressive, a protest being aggressive is part of the course in large part, isn't it?
02:28:45 isn't it? Well, that may be the case, but the threat assessment should actually offer that information anyway. This is what the the indication this is what the purpose of a threat assessment is. It gives it holistic view. So yeah.
02:29:00 gives it holistic view. So yeah. Is is it right though that noting that Y and HCDA
02:29:07 and HCDA are not organizations that are likely to cause widespread disorder that was known by you before you took management of the SDS. Is that fair to say?
02:29:29 Sorry, let me just read this again because trying to get it to context because you've asked me about um
02:29:37 um my understanding of Y and I thought that they were
02:29:44 a group that were prepared to cause public disorders. order. Although I appreciate what it's saying. They've expressed interest here.
02:29:57 That That's what it's saying. They've just expressed an interest. That's right. None of the groups who will be present.
02:30:04 Okay. So, if it's saying that those groups are the ones being present, it's saying that I I appreciate what it's saying that they had the ability or desire on this occasion. I put that word in or the words in to cause widespread
02:30:16 in or the words in to cause widespread disorder.
02:30:19 disorder. Yes,
02:30:19 Yes, but but I'm sorry you you if that if Youth Against Racism if that's the first indication I've had of of them and I can't remember that would indicate from
02:30:31 can't remember that would indicate from that that they ability or desire not to cause disorder but noise and aggressive that that they don't have the ability or
02:30:42 that that they don't have the ability or ability or desire to cause widespread disorder.
02:30:47 disorder. It certainly says that and that is in the month before Peter Francis is deployed who who ultimately uh infiltrates Yre.
02:31:03 who who ultimately uh infiltrates Yre. Is that right? It was known by special branch that Yre were not in a position to be causing widespread disorder even before Peter Francis infiltrated them. Is that right?
02:31:16 infiltrated them. Is that right? saying here I actually can't be certain here because um it's certainly saying that the y and it mentions the others it said none of the groups who presumably
02:31:28 said none of the groups who presumably it means none of those none of the three mentioned who will be present has ability or desire to cause widespread disorder. Well, I could only
02:31:39 widespread disorder. Well, I could only go over what that threat assessment said at that time about that group, but it but I didn't because I wasn't I wasn't on SDS and I don't know what SDS
02:31:51 wasn't on SDS and I don't know what SDS thinking was around because it certainly we'll have to come on to that perhaps later but yes I have to accept what you're saying there for the moment and HN15 who deployed under your
02:32:05 and HN15 who deployed under your management into HCDA did you not think back to this assessment and think well HCDA are a group who doesn't have the ability or desire to cause widespread disorder why
02:32:18 desire to cause widespread disorder why were you deploying HM15 into that organization
02:32:28 doesn't say this occasion
02:32:34 sorry
02:32:39 [snorts]
02:32:42 Well, you you'll have to forgive me here. I'm I'm I'm I understand what that threat assessment says in I think 1993,
02:32:53 threat assessment says in I think 1993, but I don't know what else um was in the in the minds of STS
02:33:02 STS and at that time and certainly by the time I moved into um
02:33:11 um into uh SDS Yes, the it certainly could only have been something which [snorts] said that we needed to have somebody monitoring this
02:33:24 needed to have somebody monitoring this or this organization or whichever organization he was pointed to to learn about the potential for public disorder.
02:33:36 about the potential for public disorder. There two things for me there. Looking at paragraph seven, please. You can see these groups see this event as the latest opportunity to protest
02:33:47 as the latest opportunity to protest against the establishment in general and the police service in particular as part of their individual ongoing campaigns on racial issues. None of these groups with the exception of those highlighted would
02:33:59 the exception of those highlighted would have any desire to turn this unfortunate event into a core celeb for widespread disorder. The situation continues to be closely monitored and any developments will be communicated immediately.
02:34:13 In terms of those groups that are highlighted, are those the ones in paragraph five? It may be that we need to reduce that and highlight the uh the whole page.
02:34:35 So, it's suggesting that maybe anarchists. Okay.
02:34:39 Okay. Or Panther UK might be looking to to use it as a vehicle, but not Y, not HCDA.
02:34:50 not Y, not HCDA. Is that is that fair? That's that's what that report is indicating. Yes.
02:35:01 was the reason that these groups were targeted, in particular Yre and HCDA, because of their links to black justice campaigns and not because of their
02:35:14 campaigns and not because of their capacity for public disorder.
02:35:21 I can only say at the time I moved into SDS that was my understanding that there was that potential that they offered. I know that says there but that was the threat assessment for that demonstration
02:35:33 threat assessment for that demonstration or that march. That doesn't necessarily follow that that would have been what they were like all the time. And obviously someone has made the decision
02:35:44 obviously someone has made the decision that that they they do have that potential.
02:35:51 Can I ask you about page 169, please? It's an evening standard article dated the 6th of August 1993.
02:36:04 So this is uh just uh uh three days after Joy died
02:36:19 and the article in the evening standard the day after your threat assessment or whoever wrote the threat assessment with your name at the bottom of it. Yeah.
02:36:26 Yeah. Uh uh was drafted. Did special branch pass any information about the Joy Gardner campaign and the threat of SWP protests to the press?
02:36:39 threat of SWP protests to the press? To the press? Yeah, absolutely not. Do you know why this uh article would be contained within the
02:36:50 uh article would be contained within the special branch file? Merely because it makes reference to SWP.
02:36:58 Was the communication around the joy gardener campaign a two-way traffic between uh CES SDS and further up the chain? Were you
02:37:12 SDS and further up the chain? Were you communicating both with HN86 in SDS and your senior officers up the chain? How far and if so, how far did that go?
02:37:27 [snorts] I don't recall this. I don't recall that twoing and throwing as you're putting it.
02:37:37 Uh Baron Condon in his Ellison interview said that um and I can bring that up. It's use CPI 3255 page 20
02:37:59 page 20 lines 6 to9
02:38:06 says that August was a very tense and I remember there was an Evening Standard editorial that said the feeling was that London was hours away from major riots. So the Joy Gardner case had far more significance and prominence at that
02:38:18 significance and prominence at that point of the year than tragically Steven's death. Referring to Steven Lawrence, were you aware at that point of the significance of Joy Gardner's
02:38:29 of the significance of Joy Gardner's death and the interest that that had for the commissioner?
02:38:43 I'd be surprised if you um as an SP officer that I wouldn't have been aware of the importance of the the death. Yes.
02:38:54 of the importance of the the death. Yes. Because it it caused a lot of constonation within the the local community. I understand that. So, was there pressure coming from above
02:39:05 So, was there pressure coming from above in relation to getting information about the Joy Gardner campaign? No, I forgive me here. I've I've not said that. I I think you're just asking
02:39:16 said that. I I think you're just asking me was the pressure. I certainly there was no pressure on me to get intelligence about the campaign. There
02:39:27 intelligence about the campaign. There there would have definitely been pressure
02:39:30 pressure on on special branch and perhaps I hope SDS to obtain intelligence about the possibility of groups using the campaign
02:39:42 possibility of groups using the campaign to ferment serious public disorder. Can we go back please to that special branch report to page 109?
02:39:59 Um, it was MPS0749776.
02:40:19 Page 109, please.
02:40:26 Oh, sorry. Um we can see here the date is the 5th of October 93 now and it's a report about a vigil
02:40:37 report about a vigil held in memory of uh Joy Gardner about 40 participants including Bernie Grant MP again uh reporting his
02:40:49 reporting his involvement in the campaign. No arrests, no disorder. Taking that down, please. Can you see at the bottom?
02:41:01 the bottom? We've got um your name number one, bullet point number one, DCI Edmonson, aware, and I
02:41:12 number one, DCI Edmonson, aware, and I think then that's your writing as to who should see it. Signed off with your initials, SBCE, on the 5th of the 10th, 93.
02:41:23 the 5th of the 10th, 93. Yeah, that's that's my writing. Yes. Is that right? So, uh you're you're looking at this report on the vigil and sending that on. Why send that on?
02:41:35 and sending that on. Why send that on? What what public order value did that have given that there was no arrest, no disorder? It's purely the family vigil or a a vigil for joy. whoever wanted to
02:41:47 or a a vigil for joy. whoever wanted to attend
02:41:48 attend a very sensitive personal event.
02:41:57 Why was that forwarded?
02:42:04 Well, it's a it's an event on the streets. It's a it may have been a peaceful event, but it's still something that took place. SB always report on or
02:42:15 that took place. SB always report on or tries to report on such things. Um I've sent it through to number three. Um I think that's well it says 86. I've sent it through to 86. This is this is
02:42:27 it through to 86. This is this is background information for him and SDS to see to know to understand get a feeling for what's going on. And this is all part of SB work. Why did SB need to
02:42:40 all part of SB work. Why did SB need to have a feeling and know the the details of the vigil? It's got no public order value at all at this stage. This this particular vigil by this by
02:42:54 This this particular vigil by this by reading it now. Um didn't cause any public order issues as reported. But it I think it's important from an SB perspective to have an understanding of
02:43:06 perspective to have an understanding of what's going on on the streets of London. And if that includes a relatively peaceful uh or a peaceful picket that or vigil, that's fine. But
02:43:18 picket that or vigil, that's fine. But it's just it's background work. This is intelligence work. I'm sorry. This is this is what we try to to bring together a picture of what's going on within
02:43:30 a picture of what's going on within London. and and there were no boundaries to that.
02:43:36 Well, you'll have to you'll have to say you'll have to provide something that says to me, oh, why did you do that? Where's the boundary here? This is Can we have a look at page 101, please?
02:43:57 This is a report dated the uh 17th of the 12th. It's a telephone message that has come in your name down at the bottom again signed off
02:44:08 name down at the bottom again signed off on the 20th of the 12th 93. And we can see that it's in relation if we can highlight the text of the report. is in relation to the funeral that took
02:44:19 is in relation to the funeral that took place of Joy Gardner. Approximately 120 mourners present again including Bernie Grant MP various other
02:44:30 including Bernie Grant MP various other people.
02:44:33 people. No disorder.
02:44:37 Surely that does not have any public order implications and should not find its way onto a special branch report. Is that not something that's crossed the
02:44:48 that not something that's crossed the boundary
02:44:51 boundary from an special branch perspective? I would say no. All all that for me there looking at that now is this is a it tying together all the loose ends around
02:45:03 tying together all the loose ends around a particular issue. Um and that's all it does. It's it's not trying to implicate [clears throat] anybody in any wrongdoing. It's just again special
02:45:15 wrongdoing. It's just again special branch background information tying together events regarding this the the joy gardener issue. Uh Peter Francis in
02:45:26 joy gardener issue. Uh Peter Francis in his witness statement um I don't need to bring it up but for reference it's paragraph 514 says in respect of information that could have been used to smear a justice
02:45:37 could have been used to smear a justice campaign
02:45:38 campaign um I gave the example of Joy Gardner to Ellison during my interview as this was the example given to me by HN86 when tasking me to report on the Lawrence family campaign. Joy Gardner
02:45:51 Lawrence family campaign. Joy Gardner was killed by the police and had no criminal record whatsoever. However, within the SDS, it was picked up that she had been very violent to her boyfriend. That information was filtered out, including to the media and featured
02:46:03 out, including to the media and featured in a number of news reports. and he goes on at paragraph 975, "During one of our car journeys when I was still in the back office, I asked HN86 to give me an example of the kind
02:46:16 HN86 to give me an example of the kind of information I was expected to report about the Lawrence family campaign. He gave me the example of Joy Gardner, as I explained at paragraph 514.
02:46:30 Is it realistic that Peter Francis was in fact asked to get whatever information he could find on the campaign? Because there were no
02:46:41 campaign? Because there were no boundaries as to what information would be useful for special branch in painting the picture of the people involved in the campaigns that were of such interest
02:46:52 the campaigns that were of such interest to the Metropolitan Police in 1993, 1994.
02:46:58 1994. Well, firstly, let me say I find it reprehensible that again he's used that word of smearing. In my time and my recollection with senior colleagues, there was never ever
02:47:11 senior colleagues, there was never ever an intention to smear, use of that term, smear anybody. I have already indicated that because there uh
02:47:22 already indicated that because there uh campaigns that may produce some issues in relation to public order and it would have been the part responsibility of special branch to
02:47:34 part responsibility of special branch to obtain information just to provide background knowledge of how to progress should that be necessary. But I really find it reprehensible that he continues
02:47:46 find it reprehensible that he continues to use words like rep uh smearing. That's never ever heard never crossed my my mind.
02:47:53 my mind. To be fair to to Peter Francis though he he's qualified what smear means and it's not making things up. It is just collecting information any information. And I think in your evidence you have accepted that there are no boundaries.
02:48:05 accepted that there are no boundaries. Any information would make its way onto a special branch report. There are
02:48:12 There are is he right in that? Certainly some of the reporting that you've shown me that would have gone on to I think would have gone on to SB records.
02:48:22 records. What would be the effect of any negative information about uh the Lawrence family?
02:48:30 family? Had it been uh uh uh reported, would that have remained on file?
02:48:43 I I think there may I'd be surprised if something like negative about the f well there wasn't negative about the family
02:48:55 there wasn't negative about the family but comments around perhaps things that have been happening might might have might have got onto a record but it's it's never the I keep
02:49:09 record but it's it's never the I keep saying this, there's never the intention to to find anything derogatory which would help smear people like the Lawren's as an example
02:49:21 people like the Lawren's as an example or even Joy Gardner.
02:49:32 Can I ask you about the uh Ibrahim SE memorial, please? It's behind tab MPS024 61 02.
02:49:46 This is in relation to the Ibraham memorial campaign march and pick it on the 23rd of March 1996. So this is a report during the course of your tenure
02:50:00 report during the course of your tenure as manager of the SDS. It's a march from Forest Gate to Ilford Police Station. Ibrahim say had been unlawfully killed by police on the on the 16th of March
02:50:14 by police on the on the 16th of March 1996
02:50:15 1996 when officers restrained him and sprayed him with CS spray at police station. Do you recall that event and the campaign that followed?
02:50:26 that followed? I'm afraid I don't. No, I don't recall that at all. Do you recall authoring this report or is this something that might have been authored by a DS or
02:50:38 might have been authored by a DS or an officer in the back office and you'd have put your name to it? I'll give you a moment to to read it if I may.
02:50:48 if I may. In fact, could it first page just slightly larger for me? Yes,
02:50:54 Yes, please.
02:51:59 I've read that page. Thank you. Um, can we have the next page up? There is another part to it.
02:52:54 Thank you. Can we see that in in the source comment? No disorder. No as a result of police restraint and effective stewarding. Um no disorder to report.
02:53:06 stewarding. Um no disorder to report. Can I draw your attention though to the beginning of this report because it's effectively a detailed description of a peaceful march where speeches are made
02:53:17 peaceful march where speeches are made and the race, religion, and political identities of attendees are reported on. Why would that detail be important?
02:53:31 I look upon this as as just what I've said in few times now. This is special branch reporting and and has been for you many years. Paragraph three says that the black
02:53:43 Paragraph three says that the black power salute was given with some healing.
02:53:47 healing. The theme at this point was that police police were murderers and that say was just worn on a growing list of black victims of police brutality. The suggestion that it's a theme denotes
02:54:00 The suggestion that it's a theme denotes perhaps some either sarcasm or disbelief. It's it's not a theme. It's a a serious issue that people are protesting about. In terms of
02:54:12 people are protesting about. In terms of the language that's being used, was it not really believed that they had a legitimate reason to be angry and protesting at what was happening?
02:54:23 protesting at what was happening? What's the sense? Why use words like the theme of the the march?
02:54:32 Give me this is just the author's use of of language. It may not it may not not be the best use of a of a word but I I would have read that and
02:54:44 word but I I would have read that and thought that's I I don't think theme is wrong to say that looking at that uh report
02:54:54 report again I will just reiterate this is special branch reporting um of an event that took place and and
02:55:05 um of an event that took place and and what um what we should be aware of within the community. Does it denote in any way that there is no police racism? That's what protesters
02:55:17 no police racism? That's what protesters are complaining about. But this this theme of [snorts] police being murderers or you know police in the wider sense of police being racist, it's not believed
02:55:29 police being racist, it's not believed by police. It's not believed by the people who are writing up the reports. Was that true? But the
02:55:37 But the in in the 1990s police officers Are you saying that the police officers who wrote the report do not think the police were murderers? Yeah.
02:55:47 Yeah. Well, I I probably agree with that. I don't think the police thought of themselves as murderers and the police wouldn't think of themselves as racist.
02:55:59 Again, probably probably not. But what's what's important out of this? It's not what the police are thinking, it's what the community is thinking. And by
02:56:10 the community is thinking. And by providing intelligence around what the community is thinking, I would hope that that would uh go some way to um
02:56:21 that would uh go some way to um supporting the police and how they deal with things. And I think it's quite clear at the end where the source is saying because the police acted with restraint even though one officer was
02:56:33 restraint even though one officer was abused merely because he was black and bottle was thrown but it still said the police were restrained. I'm sorry. I I I I think what you're
02:56:44 I'm sorry. I I I I think what you're trying to indicate is wrong. Um, in your witness statement, paragraph 112, you say you didn't witness any racism or sexism whilst in the SDS,
02:56:56 sexism whilst in the SDS, is that potentially because you were a white male and any racism or sexism was a blind spot for you?
02:57:10 I again, no. No, I I I would say not. I just,
02:57:15 just, you know, obviously I'm I'm a a white white chap. I'm not going to get abused by white people. Of course I'm not. But I did not also
02:57:26 I did not also see or hear any comment, racially motivated comments within the SDS. Not at all. I mean, Tre Trevor was what
02:57:39 Not at all. I mean, Tre Trevor was what a really good egg. He was somebody that we we got on. He was one of our good officers, one of our respected officers. I'm sorry. I I just think you're trying
02:57:50 I'm sorry. I I just think you're trying to say that there was this racism within STS and I'm categorically saying I've never experienced any of that within while the time I was there.
02:58:01 while the time I was there. Do you recognize that it's not uh in terms of institutional racism is not just about how the individual black person is treated, but also about the
02:58:12 person is treated, but also about the decisions that are made to focus on black justice campaigns and report on them, seeing them as a potential threat. Was that something that you considered
02:58:23 Was that something that you considered at the time?
02:58:26 Well, I did not consider that it was institutionally wrong to um provide intelligence on any campaigns irrespective of what they were about.
02:58:38 irrespective of what they were about. That was again the SB SB stroke SDS role. It's it's it's not institutionally um motivated in any way.
02:58:51 um motivated in any way. Mr. Edmonson, I want to move on more to um some of the other areas of deployments during the course of your uh uh management tenure. Um, can I ask
02:59:03 uh management tenure. Um, can I ask please that tab B76 MPS0527239
02:59:11 is brought up please
02:59:15 page two.
02:59:21 This I think is a presentation that you give to commander ops Donald Buchanan at the time. It may may help if we go to the
02:59:32 time. It may may help if we go to the bottom of the page to see your name.
02:59:44 It's quite it's quite a long document. Effectively it's it's your presentation to uh Mr. Buchanan about the potential recruits that are coming in that are coming into the SDS. And we can see that
02:59:55 coming into the SDS. And we can see that you've signed it off at the bottom. Um
02:59:59 Um you're proposing three candidates. Uh it includes HN26, DC Jenner, and DC Boiling.
03:00:11 DC Jenner, and DC Boiling. And we can see up at the top in the the note,
03:00:16 note, the minute of the note is that it's addressed to acting chief superintendent HN33
03:00:30 uh through the acting superintendent HN41
03:00:39 who is in open Actually, he's an open officer. Matthew Dyier. Dwire. Do you remember him? Yes. Sorry. Yeah. I don't I know Matt Der.
03:00:50 Der. So So was that this the the um normal course of events that um it was the commander Robs, Mr. Buchanan, who would have the final say in terms of who was going to be recruited to the SDS and
03:01:02 going to be recruited to the SDS and these other officers would see exactly the type of person that was being recruited as part of the process.
03:01:11 That that seems to be the way that we conducted this. Yes. How much input did they actually give in practice
03:01:23 in terms of SDS recruitment and targeting of those officers?
03:01:31 Right. Sorry. Who who are you referring to?
03:01:34 to? Mr. Buchanan in particular, but also any of the other senior officers. The Mr. Dwire. Mr. Dwire. Yeah. Um and the um acting uh chief superintendent HN307
03:01:47 superintendent HN307 who is a a closed officer. Could I just Well, yes, of course. Yeah. He's not a closed officer, but he has anonymity.
03:02:17 Right. Okay. [snorts]
03:02:23 I I I think I know who that is. I'm just So what? Forgive me again. Go over. What are you actually asking of me here? I mean this is yeah in terms of recruitment how
03:02:35 yeah in terms of recruitment how involved were those senior officers
03:02:57 in terms of are you talking about in terms of their of the presentation that I of determining whether they're suitable for SDS. Yeah. Is that is that the extent of it?
03:03:08 Yeah. Is that is that the extent of it? You would present the proposed new recruits and they would say yay or nay, but that essentially was the extent of it.
03:03:19 the extent of it. They they would I'm sure they would have offered some comment. I I can't think they they wouldn't have done but at some stage or and perhaps then they would have
03:03:29 have if if they had disagreed and we would perhaps have to rethink it but I think really looking at this I'm trying to get behind what you're you're asking me um you know preparations are made uh we've
03:03:43 you know preparations are made uh we've done all the background work on on the chaps they've been interviewed and all the things that go on within the office and then a decision is made to offer
03:03:57 and then a decision is made to offer a number of people one two three up the chain to more senior people who will ask questions of us I'm sure and I'm I'm
03:04:08 questions of us I'm sure and I'm I'm really don't recall this happening and I know that it must have done because I I I see I've said I've submitted a report to the commander however I don't recall doing this but it will have happened and
03:04:21 doing this but it will have happened and I'm sure each of them knowing them would have would have asked what they consider to be pertinent questions and I'm sure if they had have agreed with that then we'd have put the presentation to Mr.
03:04:33 we'd have put the presentation to Mr. Buchanan and then I suspect that would be the final decision and how much say if any would they have in terms of the targeting of these
03:04:44 in terms of the targeting of these officers?
03:04:46 officers? No, targeting is slightly different because
03:04:51 because um
03:04:53 um I'm targeting is to do with the what the requirement is on any of the the squads and the squads would be offering their
03:05:06 and the squads would be offering their well their requirement. Do you have we we' be interested in this area of activity. Are you able to support that? So that's that's what the targeting as I
03:05:18 So that's that's what the targeting as I remember it would be about. Okay. So targeting much more contained within the SDS and you would be liazing with the desks before deciding where it would
03:05:29 the desks before deciding where it would be again all all targeting would have had to been for a squad would have had to come eventually from the chief superintendent of the squad would have agreed but that would have been
03:05:40 agreed but that would have been something each of the each of like B squad if they'd had a requirement their desks would have put their heads together and they'd have gone up to their boss and their boss to our boss
03:05:52 their boss and their boss to our boss and then back down to us saying B squad has a a requirement for um a targeting in this organization. Are you able to provide that intelligence for us?
03:06:05 provide that intelligence for us? And if [snorts] it was accepted then we would then have to see whether we had somebody that we could point towards that organization. Okay. And when you're saying it goes up
03:06:16 Okay. And when you're saying it goes up to their boss and their boss, what level of
03:06:19 of it would in terms of the the decision to what requirement was would go up to the chief superintendent of the squad. I see. Yeah. And they they they would make this would agree um with advice from all their
03:06:32 agree um with advice from all their their teams what what is required within the squad. The chief superintendent agrees or not. But if he agrees, I'm sure that then gets discussed. It may
03:06:43 sure that then gets discussed. It may have be discussed at what the most senior meetings that they had. You know, chiefs of superintendent and commanders would have I listen this is off the top of our head now but probably uh weekly
03:06:54 of our head now but probably uh weekly meetings to discuss various things but generally speaking there'd be quite a bit of input and knowledge about where people were being deployed the the UCOs in the SDS.
03:07:06 in the SDS. Yes, I would in my time certainly. Yes. [snorts]
03:07:13 [snorts] Um, in terms of then your role in meeting with the officer before they deployed to make sure that they were content, they knew what they
03:07:24 they were content, they knew what they were getting themselves in for and the spouses. Did you tend to go to the the homes and meet with uh the wives and husband of of those officers that were
03:07:35 husband of of those officers that were deployed? My recollection is that I did on each of those officers that had been put forward while I was, you know, from when I started. Do you recall specifically whether you
03:07:47 Do you recall specifically whether you went to meet Mark Jenner and his wife at their home before he was deployed? Because her evidence is that she remembers Bob Lambert, but she doesn't recall that you attended. I I have to say um if that's the case, I
03:07:59 I I have to say um if that's the case, I don't have that recollection. What what I've just said to you earlier was I thought thought it was part of my role to go to each of the spouses prior to
03:08:11 to go to each of the spouses prior to deployment. But if she's saying she doesn't remember, maybe on that occasion I didn't. But in Bob Lambert's evidence last week, he said it was a deliberate decision not to
03:08:22 said it was a deliberate decision not to raise the issue of sex at that interview and that in hindsight it was wrong. Is that your position as well that you chose not to raise the issue of sex at
03:08:34 chose not to raise the issue of sex at these preliminary meetings with the officer and their spouse? I think it's right to say that I we probably
03:08:45 probably because each each individual meeting is different but I think it's probably right to say that we we touched on everything
03:08:56 everything but not specifically on the on sexual activity. That's probably right. But we tried to outline as much as we could about the pressures
03:09:09 about the pressures without actually referring to to sex. I I think Bob's probably right on that. Um
03:09:17 Um and so and you you just said and I will agree with what you just said although you've probably forgotten but um yeah we you know thinking back 30 years later
03:09:28 you know thinking back 30 years later yes
03:09:30 yes some of that should have been discussed as well.
03:09:34 as well. S Mr. Jenner's wife, ex-wife, says that she felt duped in hindsight, that she didn't have sufficient evidence or sufficient information to be able to
03:09:45 sufficient information to be able to give an informed decision as to whether she wanted to support her husband going into the SDS as an an undercover officer.
03:09:52 officer. Rob Lambert in his evidence last week accepted that in effect he had duped um s do you also accept that those spouses
03:10:03 s do you also accept that those spouses were not given sufficient evidence to be able to make an informed decision and were in effect duped into being an anchor.
03:10:12 anchor. I'm well you you I was told but you've just told me that I wasn't at Mrs. Jenna's meeting. So, I can't say whether Bob duped her. I would never have
03:10:26 Bob duped her. I would never have intended
03:10:27 intended in any of my discussions with them and done anything to dup them. That's absolutely not. That I refut.
03:10:38 absolutely not. That I refut. However, I will acknowledge from my recollection that we we probably should have touched on the possibilities that they would have come across some
03:10:49 that they would have come across some sort of sexual um pressures and yeah, we probably didn't touch on that, but I I from my own
03:11:03 touch on that, but I I from my own knowledge and that of course is knowledge I've gleaned And by talking to SDS officers in the field, I would have given all the spouses as much as I
03:11:15 given all the spouses as much as I possibly could.
03:11:19 And [clears throat] because of these undercover operations impacting in the way that it did on spouses, predominantly in in relation to women,
03:11:31 predominantly in in relation to women, they were more negatively impacted. Do you recognize that that is a form of misogyny in that that failure by a mission to provide information to
03:11:43 by a mission to provide information to the women that would be able to give allow them to have a a more informed uh decision-m process.
03:11:54 uh decision-m process. It was misogynistic in in the in the way that it impacted negatively upon them. Forgive me. I don't recognize that terminology in relation to how I dealt
03:12:06 terminology in relation to how I dealt with any of the any of the the spouses. Obviously, the partner there were some were were men partners as well, but I know that's not misogynistic, but no, I
03:12:19 know that's not misogynistic, but no, I I I would never have approached it in a in a misogynistic way.
03:12:26 way. Although not by intent, do you recognize that by omission they have been negatively impacted?
03:12:40 I don't I can't really say that I agree with what you're saying there. I the whole of the operation probably negatively impacted on them in some way.
03:12:58 Um,
03:13:01 can I move on to HN1 and his attendance at court? It's behind tab B78 MPS 0526756.
03:13:32 This is a report of the 22nd of April 1994.
03:13:39 And we can see in the first paragraph
03:13:44 HN1 appeared at the magistrate's court.
03:13:52 and it suggested that importantly he did not breach current SDS policy guidelines regarding participation in crime. We looked at those yesterday. Yes.
03:14:02 Yes. Um and part of that was appearing at magistrate's court as a defense witness. Uh, is it right that in fact it h because he attended court in his
03:14:15 because he attended court in his undercover identity, he was in fact breaching the SDS guidelines in that he was misleading the court.
03:14:29 I've I've had to think long and hard about this because I know it was raised with me. I I now will say I do not consider that the court was misled
03:14:41 consider that the court was misled because in my mind the court was dealing with an offense. It had a named or named people in front of it. It dealt with those people in the
03:14:54 of it. It dealt with those people in the names it was given and the court dealt with with those people in the way that the court decided to. I do not consider that by giving by using his old um cover
03:15:10 that by giving by using his old um cover name is actually misleading the court. That that was uh that was the approach was it of the SDS under your management that attending court in any capacity
03:15:23 that attending court in any capacity under uh false identity was not misleading the court. Again, I would say that every case would be dealt with independently. We would have to give
03:15:34 independently. We would have to give careful thought to it. But in in relation to this case that you showing me here, I I still don't think I I I do
03:15:45 me here, I I still don't think I I I do disagree. I do not think we were misleading the court merely because a different name was used. Do you accept that that is contrary to the SDS policy guidelines on
03:15:57 the SDS policy guidelines on participation in crime? But it that doesn't relate to me to my mind. It didn't relate to SDS arrest being arrested and and appearing
03:16:09 arrest being arrested and and appearing at court. And that's what that's what I believed at the time. They were the SDS guidelines though, weren't they? No, weren't they? I think you were talking about general special brand
03:16:20 talking about general special brand guidelines, were they not? I think they were SDS guidelines. Um,
03:16:33 [clears throat] bring those up and I I'll get the reference for you and we'll have a look at them again. Um
03:16:41 Um we can see at page um
03:16:47 11.
03:16:50 [cough and clears throat]
03:16:55 HN1 also attended court in his cover name in November.
03:17:10 and uh he acted as a defense witness for a leading animal liberation front activist LTD.
03:17:22 Um so that's in relation to the this particular um uh appearance and then on Thursday the 9th of November the same officer say HM1 will be attending Bishop
03:17:33 officer say HM1 will be attending Bishop Oakland Magistrate's Court to answer a summons alleging threatening behavior during the course of a demonstration against Grouse shooting on the 12th of August 1995. So that's in relation to his own uh defense case.
03:17:48 his own uh defense case. So in on two separate occasions in two separate courts, he was appearing as a defense witness for LTD and then he was also appearing in his own capacity charges against him
03:18:02 own capacity charges against him um in Bishop Oakland Magistrate's Court. In both cases, this paragraph three, the officer has been suitably advised as to his course of conduct and reminded of the relevant guidelines.
03:18:15 the relevant guidelines. Um,
03:18:24 page three, going back to page three. Now this is a a composite of different uh reports in relation to the same uh court appearances.
03:18:36 appearances. But at paragraph 4.1
03:19:02 Sorry. Maybe the page just before.
03:19:13 No, next page.
03:19:25 Sorry, it's it's a different document. It's a related document. Apology. Uh uh it's B170
03:19:32 it's B170 MPS 0526755,
03:19:36 please.
03:19:40 This is in relation to the section five um charge that was against HN1, page three, please.
03:19:52 in relation to events up in North Yorkshire.
03:19:57 And we can see here
03:20:03 that it's reported that all defendants will be jointly represented by a sympathetic lawyer with a view to pleading not guilty. In terms of reporting the intention of
03:20:15 In terms of reporting the intention of his codefendants, was there any concern that you had about reporting of LPP material or information?
03:20:38 Not not in this case. No. um for paragraph four. How did I read that? Sorry, that's what I mean. Just reading that. Okay. The the defendant's intentions as
03:20:51 Okay. The the defendant's intentions as to how to plead would not strike you as the information taken by a lawyer for the purposes of uh a criminal case. Well, this it's the defendants who are
03:21:04 Well, this it's the defendants who are who are deciding to plead not guilty.
03:21:09 So it doesn't strike you as something that shouldn't be making its way into a special branch report. Even now it doesn't. Um, paragraph 4.2, please. It says, "In the circumstances, it's recommended that
03:21:21 the circumstances, it's recommended that he proceeds with a view to entering a plea of not guilty at the appropriate time."
03:21:27 time." Pleading guilty. Entering a plea of not guilty.
03:21:34 You talk about four. Sorry. Last last sentence. Sorry, let me read on then, please.
03:21:54 All right. Sorry. Now I read it. Thank you. Sorry. Sorry. Yes. Um I can see what part you were reading. The intention was, as his manager, to allow him to continue
03:22:07 as his manager, to allow him to continue with a course of proceedings, plead not guilty at the appropriate time and effectively let the proceedings take their course. Is that right? It would certainly be the case there by
03:22:18 It would certainly be the case there by looking at that. Yes. No concerns then that HM1 was misleading the court in that way. Not in that respect. No. In terms of the guidelines, um, I have the reference
03:22:30 guidelines, um, I have the reference now. It's
03:22:31 now. It's okay.
03:22:31 okay. MPS0748350
03:22:36 behind tab B79.
03:22:45 So the title is the SDS policy guidelines regarding participation in crime
03:22:51 crime and it's um, does that need to be enlarged?
03:22:55 enlarged? Please, because I can't read that.
03:22:59 Thank you.
03:23:28 And it's over the page. Page two. I'm down to B at the moment. Okay.
03:23:32 Okay. Okay. Thank you. Over the page.
03:23:38 So, so firstly effect the officer shouldn't really becoming involved in in crime unless it's absolutely essential
03:23:52 and it's bullet point E. At no time will an SDS officer commit himself or herself to a course to mislead a court. So I suggest that that is exactly what
03:24:05 So I suggest that that is exactly what HN1 was doing. And that could include appearing on behalf of a defendant as a witness. So not only appearing as a defendant himself, but also appearing as a
03:24:17 himself, but also appearing as a a witness for a defendant. Do you accept that the action that he was advised to take was contrary to SDS policy?
03:24:28 take was contrary to SDS policy? By by the look of that, the SI is against that particular E.
03:24:34 It could include appearing on behalf. Yep. Thank you. And so why wasn't policy followed in relation to your officers attending court?
03:24:46 your officers attending court? But which which court we are referring to?
03:24:50 to? In e in either situation that HM1 found himself in either at the magistrates as a defendant himself or as a defense witness for LTD.
03:25:06 Well, if I I if I was the one who gave him the authority to do that, then yes, it looks as though that's against uh E in that respect.
03:25:18 in that respect. Was it thought that the the policies and guidelines and the law didn't apply to SDS officers?
03:25:29 law didn't apply to SDS officers? No, I don't believe that is the case. But I think Al always as well and it was in one of the other documents that you've shown me something about the security
03:25:40 security of the op of his operation and his own security but I'm a little concerned that if about who gave him I'm is it am I the
03:25:53 if about who gave him I'm is it am I the one who gave him that authority not to sorry to go to court? Um, if we go back to MPS0526756,
03:26:07 which is the report behind tab B78,
03:26:14 this is something you were dealing with um at the very outset when you're first arriving uh as as a manager because it's the 22nd of April and you'd only started
03:26:25 the 22nd of April and you'd only started you've only taken over in that month. We can see that you've signed it off there as the SDS DCI
03:26:36 [clears throat] again. Sorry. Would you Thank you. So this is you're sending this information up to HN
03:26:47 information up to HN 337.
03:26:58 And is it right that HN337 was on board with that as well? That
03:27:06 forgive me again just a moment. Yes.
03:27:23 Oh, okay.
03:27:32 Well, certainly in respect of that. Yes. Um,
03:27:36 Um, and if we go to that none of that at the moment, none of that is in breach of anything.
03:27:43 Um, if we go to MPS 0732480,
03:27:49 please
03:27:59 can we see this is um now now the matter of HN
03:28:09 [sighs and snorts]
03:28:15 If if it doesn't say it on the on this page, I'll take you to the next page, but um it's rel Sorry, if we can just keep that on the screen as well. Yeah, we can see you've signed it off here.
03:28:27 we can see you've signed it off here. It's in relation to HN1's arrest. It's been sent up to HN 337, the OCU commander, through Eric Docker, the superintendent.
03:28:43 You can see it's in relation to HN1's uh appearance. Right. Could just give me a moment to read it then, please.
03:29:18 and I'm moving over the page.
03:29:36 Right. Okay. Thank you. Um
03:29:40 Um so whilst the summons in relation to his own case of a section five uh uh charge against him was withdrawn by Bishop
03:29:51 against him was withdrawn by Bishop Oakland magistrate's court. Um the case in relation to LTD was to go up to appeal. the one in which he uh appeared as a defense witness.
03:30:06 he uh appeared as a defense witness. And there seems to be no concern either by you, Eric Docker, or Superintendent HN337,
03:30:14 HN337, the operation uh commander in relation to his involvement in these court appearances in his undercover identity. Was it the sense that this far
03:30:26 identity. Was it the sense that this far from being contrary to policy was actually good for his cover operation and therefore not seen as a problem at all?
03:30:38 not seen as a problem at all? Certainly reading this I I would agree with what you've just said. you know, I mean, it's it's been through a number of people
03:30:53 been referred through. No.
03:31:00 And um but but you don't accept that that's contrary to policy. Is that your evidence?
03:31:07 evidence? Well, it it seems it's been accepted all the way through that we're it's this business of contrary to policy that um in the very strict way that I've
03:31:19 that um in the very strict way that I've seen it presented and you could say that was contrary, but I think what we've tried to do there is indicate that we I mean I'm not involved really in that
03:31:31 mean I'm not involved really in that one, but there was no intention to mislead a court. The court was still dealing with a case. It had named people in front of it. If
03:31:43 It had named people in front of it. If one of the people using a name was not was was using a wrong name, is that actually misleading the court? I have to say I don't think it is. Was it the
03:31:55 say I don't think it is. Was it the situation that the golden rule operational security trumped all other considerations?
03:32:06 all other considerations? Um it it's as a golden rule but it doesn't trump absolutely everything. It wouldn't have done. We would every case would have had to been looked at on its own merits.
03:32:27 Can I ask you about um
03:32:33 the Chitty case? Do you remember um uh Chitty being one of the officers that you had to deal with before
03:32:45 the topic you've been asking about? Could you put up NPS74 Could
03:32:52 you put up MPS 0748350?
03:33:05 Page two. Please
03:33:12 look at the sentence at the foot of the page. Please.
03:33:21 It doesn't look as though that was done in this case. No, it doesn't, sir. You're right.
03:33:27 Uh, was there a reason for that?
03:33:38 I I can't I can't answer that. And he said, I don't know. Put bluntly, unless the court is told
03:33:49 the court is told about the identity of the witness giving evidence before them, they are going to be misled. To take this example, if the court had
03:34:00 To take this example, if the court had known that it was a police officer giving evidence in support of a defendant
03:34:08 about an [clears throat] incident which he had witnessed, would that not have uh assisted the court?
03:34:25 So the the the court is I appre I appreciate um but the court is I don't see what the court would gain
03:34:40 is I don't see what the court would gain by knowing that one of the people in front of them was an undercover police officer because all the evidence it's it's being given
03:34:52 would would not have changed in any Hey,
03:34:59 they have they have a man in front of them who is who is um either pleading guilty or whatever or giving evidence. But the fact that he is an undercover officer doesn't alter in any way, this
03:35:12 officer doesn't alter in any way, this is in my the way I'm thinking, doesn't alter in any way the the evidence the the truth of the evidence that he or she is given giving
03:35:24 is given giving Thank you. Thank you. Um
03:35:31 the Mike Chitty case, do you remember that in May 1994 again you were dealing with that disciplinary uh case very shortly after you first
03:35:42 uh case very shortly after you first arrived on the SDS? He was an officer um who was reported as a missing person with concerns that he had made an attempt on his life. Upon resurfacing,
03:35:54 attempt on his life. Upon resurfacing, he made serious allegations about Bob Lambert's involvement in the securing of prosecutions for the Debenham's incendurary device campaign. Uh do you recall dealing with Mike
03:36:06 Uh do you recall dealing with Mike Chitty
03:36:08 Chitty in that disciplinary capacity? Do you know I don't I have to say I don't unless you can unless you can now show me something where I've I've been involved. I I I know of the Chitty case
03:36:23 involved. I I I know of the Chitty case because
03:36:23 because if I can show you um MPS show me something. Yeah. 0726956
03:36:29 please.
03:36:40 It's an SDS discussion paper. If we just go to the next page, please.
03:36:46 This is the discussion paper about the Chitty case. Um, a a report written by Bob Lambert and including current policy and
03:36:57 and including current policy and practice. If we can go to page 18, please.
03:37:02 Paragraph 2.10. effectively says that all officers in animal rights admit to having formed close relationships with activists
03:37:16 and there's much anecdotal evidence to suggest that the same is true in the anarchist field. Hence the importance of selecting officers who are strong-minded and loyal
03:37:28 and loyal with the advantage of uh uh stable personal relationships.
03:37:45 So those extracts from that paragraph, those references to relationships, the need for a strong, stable personal
03:37:56 the need for a strong, stable personal relationships, is that a thinly veiled reference to intimate sexual relationships amongst UCOs on duty in the animal rights and
03:38:09 UCOs on duty in the animal rights and anarchist fields?
03:38:13 Did you read it like that? No, I I I don't read it like that. Um, no, I don't. I I I
03:38:25 I I I know that one of the concerns and HM1 certainly on more than one occasion probably, but certainly I recall speaking to him about close friendships and he said one of the issues that he
03:38:38 and he said one of the issues that he had to to face constantly in many ways was the fact that he there was a lot of sympathy with what the activists were trying to do in
03:38:50 what the activists were trying to do in a in a legal peaceful way and HM1 said, "My difficulty is that I sometimes feel I'm betraying friends." So, it's a purely friendship that you
03:39:02 So, it's a purely friendship that you thought he was. That's how I understood. Yeah. Did you know that Mike Chitty had returned to his uh uh
03:39:11 uh uh returned to the field after his deployment had finished? He'd returned to the field and had uh engaged in a a relationship that he had with a woman known to the inquiry as Lizzy.
03:39:24 You might want to look on your cipher list to see who
03:39:28 who who that is.
03:39:32 Sorry, what am I looking for? the name Lizzy. Do or do you understand that he returned and had a relationship with a woman at all? Do you recall that?
03:39:43 Again, I'm sorry. Sitting here today, I I can remember very little of of the Chitty case. Now, I appreciate um it seems that I must have been just around
03:39:55 seems that I must have been just around or starting at about the time that that case was continuing, but I I don't recall my part in that chitty affair. Now if I had a part then forgive me I
03:40:08 Now if I had a part then forgive me I don't remember it sitting here again if you as as in the past I've had someone shows me a document it perhaps would reflect but I don't recognize much of
03:40:20 reflect but I don't recognize much of this here
03:40:21 this here page 19 please paragraph 2.12
03:40:32 see this reference to DS Chitty's marriage
03:40:43 managers and colleagues had several indications during his tour of duty, however, that he intended to seek a divorce.
03:40:55 And towards the end it says, "Thus he appears to have had no real emotional counterbalance to the temptation to return secretly to the warmth of a close female associate in the animal rights
03:41:06 female associate in the animal rights movement." [snorts] That's Bob Lambert writing this report about Mike Chitty returning to the sexual relationship that he had in
03:41:17 the sexual relationship that he had in the field post deployment. Do you remember that as being a real issue that you had to deal with in the first couple of months of you taking over management of the SDS?
03:41:28 of the SDS? I again I'm sorry but I don't recall it being an issue that I had to deal with. I appreciate I you've just said I was the DCI there but I don't recall this
03:41:41 the DCI there but I don't recall this okay
03:41:42 okay me taking this sort of prominent role in this at all. Page 28 please.
03:41:51 Paragraph 3.5
03:41:57 says, "During his official tour of duty, DS Chitty was romantically attached to a number of women within the South London animal movement. In fact, it was a standing joke amongst activists that
03:42:08 standing joke amongst activists that Slam was more of a dating service than a viable campaigning group. By mid1 1986, he was known to be a close associate of Lizzie." Um,
03:42:24 does did that would you have read this report, this discussion report about Mike Chitty? Would you have read it and would you have read this part of the the
03:42:35 would you have read this part of the the report?
03:42:36 report? I'm sure I would have, as I say, I'm sure I was given information about the Chitty affair. I'm sure that papers again coming into the
03:42:48 sure that papers again coming into the office I tried to read as much as I could. So I while I don't believe I had a part to play whatsoever in that role that discipline role um I it it's it
03:43:01 that discipline role um I it it's it would be unusual for me not to have read those papers. I'm just going to check on something if I may.
03:43:36 Sorry, I was just trying to see whether that that was any relevance about TN2. 26, but I don't see the cipher here. So,
03:43:51 it's not relevant for the the question that I want to pose to you. If we can just bring up paragraph 3.6 6 and 3.7, please.
03:43:59 please. Can you see that? It here it says, "No doubt Lizzy is not the only woman to shed a tear when Mike Blake, uh,
03:44:10 uh, lover and sometimes fellow slam activist, left England for the USA in May 1987."
03:44:19 And that's at the end of paragraph uh 3.7.
03:44:30 It says um uh Lizzy had got Blake out of her system after a passionate affair and was now emotionally upset having to cope with his unexpected return. DS Chitty
03:44:42 with his unexpected return. DS Chitty has told the writer, that being Bob Lambert, that at this point he, as Blake, made an offer of marriage to Lizzie, which she pondered before declining. If you'd have read this, it's
03:44:53 declining. If you'd have read this, it's obvious, isn't it, that this was a sexual relationship that an undercover officer had engaged in? And so, did that strike you at all? Is this
03:45:06 did that strike you at all? Is this ringing any bells? the whole of the Chitty affair itself is is is sort of a lot notoriety within SDS and and and did that um
03:45:21 give you cause for concern about putting measures in place so that that wouldn't happen again with the officers that you were managing
03:45:34 because Mr. My point is from the very start of your deployment, sorry, your management, it was a known risks a risk that UCOs were having relationships with members
03:45:47 were having relationships with members of the public in the field. Is that right?
03:45:50 right? What what I would say just here is that from I think Chitty really is a a serious oneoff event and and so that's
03:46:04 serious oneoff event and and so that's that's one part of it. It's not it's to me this is not normal uh SDS or even former SDS activity.
03:46:15 former SDS activity. um quite extraordinary really what he what he did. Um but I think what you're trying to gain is say and we go back to what
03:46:27 is say and we go back to what information I may or may not have given to spouses. Um I
03:46:34 Um I No, not really. That's not the point I'm trying to make. It's that you you were aware that a UCA was having sexual relationship in the field. Is that right? Now from this I Yes.
03:46:46 Is that right? Now from this I Yes. And that was right at the very start of your management. That was the whole of the Chitty affair. Very very specifically a very for me at that time a very unique affair.
03:46:57 that time a very unique affair. Okay. Thank you. Serate the time. Uh we'll resume at 5 2.