In this PM session (Day 7, Tranche 3) HN216 Keith Edmondson, who managed the SDS as Detective Chief Inspector from 1994 to 1997, is cross-examined on the fallout from DS Chitty's disciplinary case, the ethics of using deceased children's identities, and the arrest and withdrawal arrangements for DS Andrew Coles ('Andy Kohl's'/HN2). Questioning covers Home Office and ministerial awareness of SDS operations, DC Mark Jenner's undisclosed relationship being logged as 'meetings', targeting that fed into surveillance around the Stephen Lawrence justice campaign, and reporting reaching McDonald's during the McLibel case. The session closes with officer welfare failures, a startling Rule 10 remark about deceived women, and Edmondson's final defence of his officers' conduct.
00:21:22 Good afternoon everybody. This afternoon's proceedings will be uh transmitted on the live stream but only after a 15minute delay. Those with mobile telephones may use them to
00:21:33 mobile telephones may use them to transmit what they hear in the hearing room, but only after 15 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're describing. They may not be used for recording or photography.
00:21:45 recording or photography. Thank you. Can I have up on screen please MPS0746137
00:21:52 is behind tab B83
00:21:59 and this will be a minute sheet of the dissemination of that report we were looking at just before lunch Bob Lambert's report about officer Chitty and the Chitty disciplinary case
00:22:12 and the Chitty disciplinary case um
00:22:14 um we can see that the report was passed up through the chief superintendent to the
00:22:25 through the chief superintendent to the commander of operations uh Donald Buchanan. Can you see that? I'm sorry. Yes, I can. Yeah. And so you were raising or Bob Lambert's
00:22:36 And so you were raising or Bob Lambert's discussion paper detailing the nature of um the misconduct by DS Chitty was passed up to senior officers including acting superintendent Dwire, acting
00:22:49 acting superintendent Dwire, acting chief superintendent HN 337 and Commander Buchanan. We can also see at page five
00:23:03 that uh command bar uh Barry Moss was also cited on this and DAC Howley
00:23:14 that's the signature in the middle of that page. Um so you understood is it right that senior officers right up into uh deputy
00:23:25 senior officers right up into uh deputy assistant commissioner were cited on this issue and you were all in communication about that. That's what I understand from that. Yes. And on page one in fact uh Mr. Buchanan
00:23:38 And on page one in fact uh Mr. Buchanan had written that this important document demands your written observations and recommendations and that was to superintendent Dwire.
00:23:49 superintendent Dwire. So a a sense of urgency about this topic. Can we look at page two please?
00:24:01 Paragraph five.
00:24:19 Sorry, it's not it's not paragraph five that I'm looking for.
00:24:33 Sorry, page two. Uh, yes, page two.
00:24:51 So sorry I seem to have um mis cited where the reference is but effectively it's saying that the fact that four officers have been found to be weak when faced with self-imposed problems.
00:25:07 Sorry it says what where are we looking? It's referring to Yes. I'm looking for that. Um,
00:25:14 that. Um, it's referring to four officers. It's the third from bottom paragraph.
00:25:28 Thank you. Thank you, sir. Yes. The fact, can you see here towards the bottom of this paragraph? The fact that four officers have been found to be weak when faced with self-imposed problems
00:25:40 when faced with self-imposed problems does not indicate faults with the concept of undercover officers and should in no way threaten its existence. So in terms of the SDS, four officers had been found to be weak. What did you
00:25:53 had been found to be weak. What did you understand that to be referring to?
00:25:59 With due respect, I don't I don't remember this now. I don't recall
00:26:06 I can't give you an answer about what that means. Um
00:26:10 Um without without seeing what else there is in context. Uh is it an indication that in fact other officers had also uh fallen foul
00:26:21 other officers had also uh fallen foul of their deployment and either entered into self um uh sexual relationships
00:26:30 or had some serious mental health problems or misused their uh operative covers.
00:26:38 covers. Again,
00:26:40 Again, it it it certainly indicates something's gone wrong, but I can't tell you just looking at this what what that was. I I need to see if there is something for me to see in context elsewhere, but I I'm
00:26:54 to see in context elsewhere, but I I'm acknowledging that somebody is saying that there were problems with four officers. Yeah. And so you would have been aware that this is wider than DS Chitty. This is
00:27:05 this is wider than DS Chitty. This is not a unique situation that DS Chitty has found himself in, but it's something that has affected other deployments as well. Is that fair to say? Well, certainly reading this now, I
00:27:16 Well, certainly reading this now, I think this morning we were referring to Chittin, I thought that was quite a unique um case again. What is meant by officer found to be weak? What? Forgive
00:27:28 officer found to be weak? What? Forgive me. What does that mean? I can't see that. But it would have flagged to you that there were serious problems with other officers. There was an issue somewhere. Yes. The last paragraph please on the page.
00:27:47 I believe these matters are best discussed on a personal basis rather than on paper and that meeting should take place after the resolution of the Chitty case to discuss the wider implications with
00:27:59 discuss the wider implications with particular regard to selection monitoring outplacing welfare and security. So root and branch uh review of how the operation was being managed.
00:28:12 of how the operation was being managed. Um, why should that be something that takes place in discussion personally rather than something being put down on paper?
00:28:21 paper? I can't answer for that. Was that a red flag that something improper had happened? I don't read it in that context, but um whether whether it was thought that a a
00:28:34 whether whether it was thought that a a personal discussion around the table would be would be of of greater value, I I really genuinely can't answer that. you can't answer your question. You said yesterday that you trusted
00:28:47 You said yesterday that you trusted people until something had gone wrong. Um, and that was why you trusted the UCAs that you managed. But in terms of something going wrong, this is certainly
00:28:58 something going wrong, this is certainly something that surely would have made you think twice about trusting the officers that you were responsible for. Is that fair? Well, in the context of what we what we
00:29:11 Well, in the context of what we what we were talking about yesterday and and in this context, I go back to what I believed was a good system that had been introduced. So it um and that was the
00:29:25 introduced. So it um and that was the the mentoring scheme, the fact that there was this wider family of of SDS officers who could be called upon, the fact that officers would be would be and
00:29:38 fact that officers would be would be and it's a repeat really of what I said, officers would be calling in on a on a daily basis, twice a twice a day when they could, speaking personally to uh office staff. the fact that we met on a
00:29:53 office staff. the fact that we met on a I think it's twice weekly basis that to me is is a way of us trying to um involve ourselves with with with them not their
00:30:06 ourselves with with with them not their act not their actual operation but to in but to have an overview of how they were how they were reacting and what um how they were living their lives their
00:30:18 they were living their lives their personal lives where they were they happy and this sort of thing. These are the sorts of things that I think is a way of of
00:30:28 way of of reviewing each officer on that basis. So you were content that this the the structure that was in place and any steps that you had taken were sufficient to try and uh prevent future misconduct.
00:30:45 to try and uh prevent future misconduct. That's certainly what was intended by all of these these levels of contact that we had. Yes.
00:30:51 Yes. But do you do you accept that those measures were insufficient as it turned out? Well, 30 years later, looking back over things, yes, I can see perhaps now
00:31:04 things, yes, I can see perhaps now there there may have been things, but again, yesterday we had this discussion. Um, I'd have to think what more could we do
00:31:14 do in terms of the disciplinary outcome for Mike Chitty. Um,
00:31:20 Um, we understand that he admitted charges ultimately of falsifying a duty form to say that he was on duty in Wiltshire when untrue and he was demoted to the
00:31:31 when untrue and he was demoted to the rank of constable from detective sergeant having pleaded guilty to making false claims. Um there was no disciplinary action in
00:31:43 Um there was no disciplinary action in relation to Mike Chitty in relation to the um misconduct that he uh uh
00:31:53 his misconduct in the in his SDS deployment. So, nothing in relation to him having a sexual relationship on duty, the damage that he caused to deceived uh women, or the misuse of
00:32:06 deceived uh women, or the misuse of operational cover documents and funds. Do you uh recall that being the outcome?
00:32:18 I can I recall it from having read it only very recently. I don't recall I don't recall much of this. No. Are you surprised that there wasn't any action taken to him taken against him in
00:32:31 action taken to him taken against him in relation to his SDS deployment
00:32:40 again 30 years later? Perhaps I am. But I I I can't answer because I this was not what I was dealing with. I I wasn't responsible for anything to do with his
00:32:54 responsible for anything to do with his um disciplining at all.
00:33:01 Can I refer you to MPS0527403,
00:33:06 please? It's behind tab B116. It's an SDS memorandum dated the 28th of November, 1994. It was sent by you,
00:33:19 It was sent by you, Mr. Edmonson, to the chief superintendent of CE Squad via detective superintendent TN0041.
00:33:30 And it's in relation to why the use of det deceased children's identities ceased.
00:33:39 ceased. Um, I'll give you a moment just to read that first paragraph.
00:33:53 Yes, I read it. And the uh the day of the jackal was a a a mo a a a a method that was used up until the point
00:34:04 method that was used up until the point when you took over management of the SDS.
00:34:07 SDS. That's right, isn't it? It was certainly one of the devices that was used and probably the main one. And we understand that HN26, Christine
00:34:19 And we understand that HN26, Christine Green, known as Christine Green, was the first person not to use that method of uh cover identity. Is that as you recall
00:34:30 uh cover identity. Is that as you recall it? If by that you mean that she was the first not to try and find um information about a death certificate of a young child, then
00:34:44 of a young child, then I I presume that is the case. I don't recall that being the case, but if if we're told that by here that she was, then then that is probably right. But I
00:34:58 then then that is probably right. But I I just in the back of my mind I thought there were other ways well there were other ways in which officers tried to um have
00:35:09 have identities that would withstand some form of scrutiny. We understand that HN26 made up an entirely fictitious cover identity.
00:35:20 entirely fictitious cover identity. Do you recall why that change came about?
00:35:27 there is reference to it later in the report if you if you want to have a look at it but just off the top of your head I don't recall why that would have happened um you probably will come on to it so
00:35:39 you probably will come on to it so perhaps I can wait but there was obviously a discussion with within the office and probably including the the field officers as well
00:35:51 including the the field officers as well but certainly within the office about what more we could do to provide um cover identities that would withstand scrutiny, but whether that was to do
00:36:02 scrutiny, but whether that was to do with Christine Green's um obtaining identification sitting here today, I can't tell you. On page two of this report,
00:36:14 On page two of this report, first paragraph, oh sorry, that it was the paragraph we had um up already.
00:36:43 Um, it's the last sentence. SDS officers have recent evidence that searches have been made in St. Katherine's house regarding their identities.
00:36:55 regarding their identities. Is that a reference to DS Dyn and the fact that Helen Steel was looking for DS Dyn and searching for the birth
00:37:06 Dyn and searching for the birth certificate? I can't tell I cannot tell you what that reference is about. Um I I don't have you'll have to accept I don't have the chronology and time scale
00:37:18 don't have the chronology and time scale of all those events as well but I'm I certainly sitting here can't say that that is a reflection of of the work that Helen Steel was trying to do.
00:37:30 Helen Steel was trying to do. Were you aware? In fact, I'll probably take you to um MPS 0746 348.
00:37:40 348. is behind tab B90.
00:37:48 We can see here that it's in reference to uh retired officer DS John Dyn.
00:37:57 Where where where am I looking please? Um just at the top of the page the the U title.
00:38:03 title. Oh sorry.
00:38:03 Oh sorry. And we can see Can you enlarge it? Yes,
00:38:06 Yes, please.
00:38:16 So, we can see that that's in relation to him. He's retired, but it's the last sentence
00:38:22 sentence um that I want to take you to. Okay. Thank you.
00:38:28 It's in response to the question, has the ALF subsequently questioned his credentials? The answer was um no, but close comrades have sought to trace him since his departure from the field for
00:38:39 since his departure from the field for welfare reasons.
00:38:44 Uh the date of this document, I'm not sure that it's actually on the face of the document. If we take that down,
00:38:56 the date we understand to be the 29th of May, 1994.
00:39:02 And I think if that's not on the face of the document, that must be in the metadata of this document. But uh if uh that date is right, then it's it's right, isn't it, that by May 1994,
00:39:16 right, isn't it, that by May 1994, SDS
00:39:17 SDS management knew that people were looking for John Dyn. They've been trying to trace him. Is that fair to say?
00:39:30 Is that fair to say? and without reading the whole thing, but I I I will accept what you're saying just there. Yes. Because I can't. And so by the time we got to the last document that I referred you to, this
00:39:41 document that I referred you to, this memorandum that you wrote to the chief superintendent about uh recent evidence that searches have been made in St. Katherine's house regarding their identities
00:39:54 regarding their identities relation to officers. Can we infer that that's reference to Helen Steel making searches for DS Dines?
00:40:07 searches for DS Dines? You could certainly infer that it was um Helen Steel making um
00:40:13 um searches, but it doesn't doesn't stop the fact that it could have been other people as well. But I I if if we're told that Helen Steel was making inquiries, then that could be inferred.
00:40:25 inquiries, then that could be inferred. But there could be other areas of activity.
00:40:30 activity. Um
00:40:31 Um because it doesn't mention Helen Steel. It doesn't. It just talks about comrades, doesn't it? In relation to Dines and we know as a matter of fact that Helen Steel was actually looking and Dave Morris were looking for him at
00:40:42 and Dave Morris were looking for him at the time.
00:40:43 the time. I understand that now. Certainly. Yes. um given the concern that people might be presented with their own death certificate and the um the security
00:40:54 certificate and the um the security considerations around that. Um is it right to say that that was probably the driving force behind moving away from that method of using deceased
00:41:07 away from that method of using deceased children's identities as the basis of cover identities for the SDS officers? it would it would have been a a factor. I don't know that it was the the major
00:41:18 I don't know that it was the the major factor. I think there probably were other thoughts around it as well. I some of us some people thought is that the way we should be obtaining our our
00:41:29 way we should be obtaining our our details
00:41:30 details um computeriz sorry in terms of whether we should be was that an ethical consideration that people had? Well, there would have been that as well that was raised I I believe by someone but if I may the you
00:41:44 by someone but if I may the you computerization I think was coming in and there was a concern that we were sending or could be sending officers out with identities
00:41:55 with identities that
00:41:57 that could have been um could have been identified as such as being somebody who doesn't exist as such or who's dead. There are a lot there are a lot of other
00:42:08 There are a lot there are a lot of other things around this because I I think I did say there was a talk about perhaps going to look at um death certificates
00:42:19 going to look at um death certificates but then using some part of that death certificate but twisting it around so that so it wasn't it wasn't the the death certificate that was being used.
00:42:31 death certificate that was being used. It was like an acknowledgement that there was some incident tragic in incident obviously of a young child but that we could perhaps find a a more secure way of offering identities. Um
00:42:45 secure way of offering identities. Um hence why you might come on to it but where we did some work around the country.
00:42:53 country. Um what I want to concentrate just on at the moment is whether [clears throat] the use of deceased child's identities uh
00:43:03 uh was ever justified. Can you say that if if it became the case that um uh cover identities were just fabricated
00:43:15 just fabricated um entirely uh uh uh not based in reality?
00:43:20 reality? That isn't that isn't that a base on which to say well why did we ever use deceased child's identities? There was never a reason to do that, was there? Right over the over and forgive me this
00:43:32 Right over the over and forgive me this because you know this started perhaps in [clears throat] back as far as 1968. There were there must have been a lot of considerations of how best to provide some
00:43:44 of how best to provide some [clears throat] thank you some secure method of providing background. Um there people tried different ways and a
00:43:57 there people tried different ways and a bit reluctant to say what they all are here because that's okay. I understand that the the security side of that but what what what consideration was given to
00:44:08 given to um
00:44:10 um what would happen if somebody tried to trace the officer? Obviously, the birth certificate was used uh as a basis of something that potentially a hostile
00:44:22 something that potentially a hostile uh researcher would find and use that then as a stepping stone to try and find the suspected undercover officer or whoever that
00:44:33 whoever that whoever they thought it was. But ultimately, there was a risk, wasn't there? very real risk that the parents of that deceased child would have a knock on the door and they would get a a
00:44:45 knock on the door and they would get a a terrible surprise. Or for instance, if there was a child born out of a relationship that an undercover officer had in the field, that person searching for their
00:44:56 that person searching for their ancestry, grandparents could also knock on the door. Was that ever given a consideration at all by managers? I think those I can't answer for all the
00:45:08 I think those I can't answer for all the years before but I certainly know that once we started to review the processes um there would have been they that would have been part of the consideration that
00:45:20 have been part of the consideration that we had
00:45:23 we had I will always say whether it is accepted or not a major consideration is always the security of the officers themselves the safety of
00:45:34 the officers themselves the safety of the officers themselves,
00:45:40 the safety of the officers themselves. What about the ethics of using that that method just purely on a principled basis? Yeah, eventually that was that
00:45:51 basis? Yeah, eventually that was that was something that crept in into our discussions as well I believe and forgive me I cannot remember who or at what stage but somebody did say something
00:46:02 something um at some period in my time well you know we are using dead Charles details and is that right that and that that was for ethical reasons and nothing else
00:46:14 for ethical reasons and nothing else from what I remember was it recognized that providing guidance on how to create an identity using that method in the trade craft manual created a risk that new recruits
00:46:27 manual created a risk that new recruits might use that for other purposes not just the SDS operation. So for instance we know that um HN2 provided activists
00:46:38 we know that um HN2 provided activists with uh false identities in the name of deceased uh deceased children. We know that
00:46:46 that um
00:46:46 um HN2 Andy Kohl's he provided details. I think it was advice in terms of how to create false identities. Wow. Okay. That's
00:46:57 Wow. Okay. That's again I'm sure you're going to show me something that says I knew that. I I didn't realize Andy had you you weren't aware of that. I wasn't aware of that. Were you aware of um other officers in the field whose
00:47:11 of um other officers in the field whose uh activist groups were creating uh false identities themselves or not? I I I believe and and this is now as a
00:47:22 I I I believe and and this is now as a result of having read things with horrendous inquiry. I I do believe that there were uh other fields and I believe again it's probably the to do with
00:47:35 again it's probably the to do with animal rights but there were people there who would use different identities when they were in court or most I suppose in court. So yes, the the
00:47:47 suppose in court. So yes, the the activists themselves were using false identities. So it so it would appear and the risk was that a UCO could provide that method as a a method to use
00:48:01 provide that method as a a method to use potentially.
00:48:04 I'm surprised to hear that that's even thought of. I I am surprised. I would be terribly disappointed to think that a an act
00:48:15 act an SDS officer would would
00:48:21 provide information or support to an activist to find false identity. It just that seems very odd.
00:48:36 Can I move to the arrest of DS Kohl's please? MPS0526749 [clears throat]
00:48:44 is behind tab B112
00:49:03 again. This is a branch note. It's it's authored by you. I think your name is at the end of the report.
00:49:12 It's in relation to aggravated trespass on Saturday the 19th of November 1994
00:49:23 when HN uh 2 Andrew Kohl's was part of a hunt sabotage in Essex.
00:49:35 He was arrested and we can see on page four
00:49:40 four at paragraph 5.1
00:49:44 in terms of what you advise for future act action
00:49:55 given that he was due to leave the field in February 1995. plans for his departure were in train and you say that his arrest does not complicate matters. It's suggested that
00:50:07 complicate matters. It's suggested that he may simply fail to appear at court and that would certainly be in keeping with his cover role and in the event that a warrant is issued for his arrest, service would not be affected as he's
00:50:19 service would not be affected as he's given a false name and address. So this is a false name and address, not his cover name.
00:50:37 [snorts]
00:50:46 Okay. Sorry, I'm reading that. Did you see any legal or ethical problem with that [snorts] given that he would be uh uh
00:51:01 in breach of uh his bail and potentially have having committed a a bail act offense by not turning up to court?
00:51:12 offense by not turning up to court? No, not at the time. No, I didn't.
00:51:17 Uh, what consideration did you have about him providing any false details um on the proper administration of justice? I suspect it's the same as your
00:51:28 justice? I suspect it's the same as your evidence in relation to HN1, is it? Yes, it is. And I just I just and reading this I can see we talk about the uh
00:51:40 see we talk about the uh um that the matter would remain on file and that and basically it goes back to Andy Coohl's would be able to withdraw safely from the field
00:51:52 safely from the field leaving his operation intact. That's what's in my mind there. And we understand from um HN2's um evidence that the name he actually
00:52:04 um evidence that the name he actually used was Christopher Jones, which wasn't his undercover uh identity provide through back office, but it was um a a flippant approach to the use of a Chris
00:52:18 flippant approach to the use of a Chris the name of Christopher Jones who was a real person, it's understood, who lived who who worked in the info shop and on whom HN2 reported. [clears throat] What
00:52:29 whom HN2 reported. [clears throat] What about the impact on the real person going by the name that HN2 uh acquired for the purposes of uh
00:52:40 uh acquired for the purposes of uh giving that to the police and being charged?
00:52:44 Was that given any consideration when looking at this case? Can you Sorry, I just need to Could I see what you've just been reading from?
00:52:58 see what you've just been reading from? Um, it's UCPI 22105,
00:53:04 page two.
00:53:30 UCPI 22105 page 2. It's not a it's not a document that was in your bundle. I'm afraid it's a
00:53:42 but we understand that it relates to Christopher Joneses, somebody that HN2 reported on and use their name when arrested.
00:53:54 Okay. I can come back to that. We'll we'll get the reference. Were you aware of that at all?
00:54:02 all? Unfortunately, it's just sitting here. I can't I can't recall it. Okay. I can't give you I'll move on from that point. Um page four please of this report
00:54:17 page four please of this report 5.2 to
00:54:24 uh you write that um departure from the field is an important and delicate operation when the officer is a leading personality within the ALF. In terms of HN2 being a
00:54:37 within the ALF. In terms of HN2 being a leading personality, did you have any concerns about him acting as an agent provocator in that capacity?
00:54:48 Well, you know how strongly that I felt about um the one thing I had seen and that is a provocator. So I he may have
00:54:59 that is a provocator. So I he may have been a leading personality but there's nothing here that tells me that he was acting as a provocator. Were you
00:55:06 Were you and I would not have accepted that element of it. Were you talking with him and and probing the the risk of him being a an Azan provocator given that
00:55:17 being a an Azan provocator given that you understood him to be a leading personality within the group? I don't recall any any conversations like that whatsoever. Whether Bob had um
00:55:28 like that whatsoever. Whether Bob had um Bob Lambert had had discussion with him, I do not know. I cannot say that I had a conversation with him um uh indicating that I knew he was a
00:55:39 uh indicating that I knew he was a leading personality and anything to do with a provocator but he would he would certainly he certainly would have been advised I
00:55:50 he certainly would have been advised I mean this is at the very end but he would have been advised anyway as your provocator absolutely not you say that the arrest incident may prove to be of operational assistance Was
00:56:02 Was it by this stage that arrests were were pretty much overlooked and not thought to be anything problematic at all? In fact, may be advantageous to operations.
00:56:18 Every arrest was of importance and given consideration, but um each one would be on its own merits.
00:56:29 um each one would be on its own merits. Was it seen as part of a deep swimming approach to an undercover operation? Um,
00:56:40 Um, it was accepted that it might help um an an oper an officer's operational activity. Um, you've this is that's about the third time now I've heard that
00:56:52 about the third time now I've heard that term deep swimming. never heard it until a couple of days ago during this again. It's a term that I believe Peter
00:57:03 again. It's a term that I believe Peter Francis may have have made up. I've never heard that expression. Deep swimming.
00:57:09 swimming. Can I ask you to look at MPS 0732479?
00:57:15 It's behind tab 113.
00:57:24 [snorts] This is a note in regard to the arrest of DS calls for the good in Easter hunts sab in Essex on the 22nd of November 94. So it's the
00:57:35 the 22nd of November 94. So it's the arrest that we've been looking at. We can see that this note
00:57:45 goes from uh you to the acting chief superintendent HN337 to commander Robs Buchanan. So again, information about this arrest, the specifics of it goes up
00:57:58 this arrest, the specifics of it goes up to uh the commander of operations.
00:58:05 You see that Well, yeah, sorry. At the top, it's sorry, the top of the uh under me and then up to the commander. I can see it's been forwarded to him.
00:58:16 can see it's been forwarded to him. Yeah. And if we can expand that a little bit. Uh, paragraph three, please.
00:58:31 The conclusion was drawn that the best way to proceed would be as suggested in paragraph 5.1
00:58:40 which [snorts] we'll come to it's just below that DS calls uh should fail to appear at court because this the subsequent arrest warrant being executed would be
00:58:51 warrant being executed would be extremely vote.
00:59:01 Um,
00:59:05 so this is effectively HN 337 advising uh you to instruct Kohl's to proceed as
00:59:17 uh you to instruct Kohl's to proceed as per paragraph 5.1 A, which is which is what we looked at. uh uh before that paragraph 5.1 simply to fail to attend that was in the
00:59:28 to fail to attend that was in the previous document
00:59:31 and that's that's from to me from from HN 337 337 okay
00:59:38 337 okay yeah in fact that's going up to commander of operations and and and uh you were part of that chain of communication
00:59:50 communication and we can see parag uh second paragraph on this page two or bullet point two
01:00:03 the DCI Edmonson to see and instruct DC Coohl's to proceed along the lines outlined in paragraph [snorts] 5.1 which was effectively
01:00:15 was effectively to instruct DC DS Coohl's not to DC coals not to attend um court.
01:00:21 um court. So, so is that do you recall whether you did that? You told him not to attend court. That was those were his instructions. That's if that's my instruction. Yes.
01:00:32 That's if that's my instruction. Yes. Uh
01:00:34 Uh we know from I don't intend to bring it up, but it's at MPS0722314
01:00:41 behind tab B118. It's the register of Chelmsford Magistrate's Court and it's the warrant issued in Coohl's fake name. In fact, in fact, perhaps we could bring that up. Sorry. MPS0722314
01:00:58 tab B118. It's dated 22nd of the 12th, 1994. And we can see here the name Christopher
01:01:10 And we can see here the name Christopher Jones,
01:01:11 Jones, which was the name I referred to earlier. I think I perhaps had the wrong reference.
01:01:23 So ultimately it appears that the magistrate's court did affect a warrant for arrest for failure to attend. Any thought given to
01:01:34 failure to attend. Any thought given to firstly uh the time that was taken to administratively to issue the warrant uh not back for bail but also the time
01:01:45 not back for bail but also the time taken by any police officers tasked with trying to affect the warrant. the time and expense by public servants to
01:01:57 carry out the the the the the acts that were consequential upon your instructions.
01:02:06 No, I've I I've seen all the the the previous reporting and the the passing of information through and the instruction to me. No, that's I'm I'm
01:02:17 instruction to me. No, that's I'm I'm not get I hadn't hadn't seen that. Sure. Well, you've just shown it me, but I I I would still go by the um the instruction that I was given, which I probably
01:02:28 that I was given, which I probably recommended in the first place was endorsed and and that's the way that operation of Andy Kos's operation was dealt with.
01:02:39 dealt with. I'd like to ask you about the commissioner's visit in 1995 behind tab B120 MPS 052 7327
01:02:51 7327 page two
01:03:08 Can I just ask you to um just have somewhere probably that you could go straight back to it after I've seen what you're going to show me now because I'd like to make some sort of
01:03:20 because I'd like to make some sort of comment
01:03:22 comment about the instruction that was given. Yes. Do you want to go back to that now? This is a completely different as it in that case I would ask if I could write a note.
01:03:34 I would ask if I could write a note. Yes, of course. And and
01:03:36 And and let Sir John see it. Yes.
01:03:38 Yes. And what was in what I've subsequently been thinking about is is that Yes, please. Of course. Yes. Thank you.
01:03:53 [clears throat]
01:04:23 [snorts]
01:04:31 [clears throat]
01:05:57 Oh
01:06:58 Yes. Um, that's a general comment rather than one specifically about the topics we're looking at now. Yes. If I may, sir, it's it encompasses all that we've been
01:07:10 it encompasses all that we've been discussing around this and other cases and I I've had it in my mind and and I I did say could I do it would now be appropriate and it was accepted that it was. So that's why I've done it if I
01:07:21 was. So that's why I've done it if I may.
01:07:22 may. Certainly. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Um can that be shown? Sorry.
01:07:30 Sorry. Across. Thank you.
01:07:34 Sir, might I use this opportunity as well just to clarify something? The way I phrased a question earlier might have been interpreted in a way that made it sound like I was suggesting
01:07:46 that made it sound like I was suggesting that activists were using DCIS, deceased children's identities uh themselves. And I I I didn't intend to for it to come across that way. I don't
01:07:57 for it to come across that way. I don't have evidence of that. Uh, no. There has been a suggestion of that in other circumstances, but um, no matter
01:08:07 matter I'm grateful. Thank you.
01:08:31 Yes. Looking at this document in front of us now um behind tab B120. This is uh Bob Lambert's briefing note regarding the security arrangements for
01:08:43 regarding the security arrangements for the commissioner's visit to the safe house in 1995. Do you recall that event?
01:08:53 I recall if if it's if it's support condom then I I recall support Paul coming. Yes. Yes. The arrangements set out here a
01:09:04 Yes. The arrangements set out here a reasonably convoluted. We can see and a quick uh view of this uh paragraph three a focus on security
01:09:15 a focus on security leading to descriptions of nosy caretaker or neighbor. um some being people to be aware of. Um it may be that empty rooms uh are used because there
01:09:28 empty rooms uh are used because there was a move from the house. The uh car swaps at secret rendevous. That's a paragraph six
01:09:47 and secret communications by mobile phones in paragraph 7 on the next page. So reasonably uh uh detailed
01:10:01 uh uh detailed arrangements as to how the commissioner would get to the safe house, how he would be transferred there, swapping cars
01:10:10 cars um and
01:10:13 um and involving quite a lot of uh arrangement and if agreed, we can see down at paragraph 10, Mr. Lambert suggests that if agreed, it's asked that a short
01:10:25 if agreed, it's asked that a short meeting be arranged with the commissioner's driver to discuss and fine-tune arrangements. So, a a big plan being uh advocated for by Bob Lambert
01:10:36 being uh advocated for by Bob Lambert for the visit. Do you recall those arrangements being made that it's quite a big deal? Well, having read them, I certainly do. I'm sure that's something we would have
01:10:47 I'm sure that's something we would have we would have done. behind tab B127 MPS 0527
01:10:54 0527 324
01:10:57 324 page two
01:11:02 [cough]
01:11:05 we can see that these are the other senior managers that are involved in in this visit
01:11:13 [snorts] um and we can see that DAC Howley notes at the bottom of this page age that in a in a note to superintendent Docker that Mr. Lambert
01:11:24 superintendent Docker that Mr. Lambert has been reading too many novels of the John Lar uh genre I suspect and Mr. H337
01:11:33 H337 will come
01:11:36 will come over the page will [snorts] come with me and the commissioner in my car and we will al light in such and such to make our way on foot to the premises. My driver will
01:11:47 on foot to the premises. My driver will wait further along and blank uh uh will take the commissioner and me away. So effectively we're going to drive up
01:11:58 So effectively we're going to drive up to the premises. We're gonna get out, walk into the premises, we're gonna have our meeting, and then we're going to leave relatively in a normal way. Um, my point is, was Mr. Lambert
01:12:12 point is, was Mr. Lambert a bit fantastical about the security of the operation and all the arrangements that needed to go into it? Was he living in a bit of a fantasy world with this
01:12:23 in a bit of a fantasy world with this undercover operation?
01:12:28 Let me say I um I would I would have supported Bob and the way we were trying to do it, but if they felt higher than us that it was just as easy to turn up
01:12:40 us that it was just as easy to turn up and walk along a road, then fine. Right.
01:12:44 Right. And is it is it reasonable to say that it would be much easier for Bob Lambert to drag other more junior uh officers into his fantasy
01:12:58 more junior uh officers into his fantasy world of the the SDS operation than it was to persuade the senior officers that all of the support and the the arrangements needed to take place.
01:13:13 the arrangements needed to take place. I mean, that's just not a view I I hold about that. It was something that Bob had put forward. It was complex. I agree. But we were
01:13:25 It was complex. I agree. But we were trying to take care of both the commissioner and um and our operation and the security of our premises. Whatever whatever we did at some stage, I do understand because
01:13:38 at some stage, I do understand because we had the same issues on protection duty, but at some stage the commissioner still got to walk into a building. I accept that. But we were doing our best at that time, I imagine, just to ensure
01:13:52 at that time, I imagine, just to ensure the security of of everybody concerned. I don't see it as fantastical. and and the arrangements for withdrawal plans. Um
01:14:03 Um would it be fair to say that ever more uh elaborate withdrawal plans with officers traveling abroad and such like were again a creation of Mr. Lambert in
01:14:14 were again a creation of Mr. Lambert in the 1990s that were unnecessary? [clears throat] Well, may I say not not only um Bob Lambert because I believe I had a big
01:14:25 Lambert because I believe I had a big part to play in the plans for um HN1. So, it's not just Bob Lambert. I I reiterate
01:14:36 reiterate we were told that the security of our operation
01:14:41 operation would be paramount and that's what we were trying to do. If other people think that it's a a bit far-fetched, then I'm sorry, I disagree.
01:14:54 MPS0731 923
01:14:59 923 uh please behind tab B128
01:15:04 is a compilation of cover notes from January 1995.
01:15:10 And we can see that um it's a it's a long composite but it shows how details about operations were being passed up the chain of command. So
01:15:22 being passed up the chain of command. So if I can just draw your attention to a few um entries and then ask you a few questions on this document. Page one shows uh a report from Lambert chief
01:15:35 shows uh a report from Lambert chief superintendent HN 337 and then to DAC security Howley
01:15:45 uh to do with officer safety and welfare.
01:15:54 Uh page two we can see that s superintendent docker was also cited on this
01:16:08 page three
01:16:13 uh bottom paragraph you can see that di Lambert's report sets out our targeting strategy in respect of DC Jenner
01:16:24 strategy in respect of DC Jenner And we can see that that is a note that goes from you as DCI up to the superintendent in S squad
01:16:38 and superintendent Docker is uh cited on that
01:16:49 page for
01:16:55 Superintendent Docker is cited
01:17:00 on the need for DS Coohl's
01:17:08 uh
01:17:11 it's noted as a domestic position here, but it it's in reference to his need to move house for him being compromised up in uh Tottenham with people moving towards uh Lordship Lane. The detail of
01:17:25 towards uh Lordship Lane. The detail of that is within the the documents that have been uh passed up to Superintendent Docker
01:17:33 and that we can we can see that on page five actually.
01:17:49 And page six, we can see reference to DC boiling targeting strategy
01:18:01 that is being sent up to uh the superintendent and es squad.
01:18:13 And on page six at the end
01:18:19 you can see a docket of reference a docket reference to DS Morris's withdrawal strategy regarding his visits to Germany and Egypt. So is it your
01:18:30 to Germany and Egypt. So is it your recollection that significant matters like this, the withdrawal, the targeting strategies, any uh potential compromise, these were all matters that were raised
01:18:42 these were all matters that were raised further up the chain uh to your senior officers. They were cited on
01:18:49 cited on some of the ins and outs of SDS uh uh uh uh decision making, but my understanding. Yes.
01:19:00 but my understanding. Yes. And to what extent then did you feel you were raising important matters with your supervisors?
01:19:09 I don't quite understand what you're asking me. Did you feel that any any anything of any significance you would make sure your s your senior officers would be cited on it?
01:19:22 If we I'm listen again I'm saying I'm sitting here 30 years later. I am I'm sure that if something significant were to arise that would have affected the
01:19:33 to arise that would have affected the squad I it's it's normal practice for us to I hope normal practice for us to um escalate that so that the more senior
01:19:45 escalate that so that the more senior officers
01:19:47 officers who have ultimate responsibility can can be can be apprised of everything that's going on that's sitting here now be surprised if you didn't do those things.
01:19:58 things. It certainly wasn't the case that the SDS operated as a small little unit that nobody really knew much about and you dealt with all your issues internally.
01:20:09 dealt with all your issues internally. We would have dealt with some issues internally but but things like this which are quite significant I think quite rightly would have been raised with more senior people.
01:20:20 with more senior people. And what was the criteria for raising issues with your superior officers?
01:20:29 You know, all I can say is if we thought it was necessary, we would have made sure that they'd been cited exactly what each criteria was. I can't
01:20:41 exactly what each criteria was. I can't tell you, not now. In terms of authorizations, um, it's right, isn't it, that Superintendent Docker authorized travel authorizations
01:20:52 authorizations or travel requests? I can take you to some of them. Yes, forgive me again. I I want to keep saying 30 years later, but I I'm I'm sure that something like that would have
01:21:04 sure that something like that would have been the case. Yes. Uh behind tab 189, please. MS0527911,
01:21:12 page two.
01:21:24 And if we can expand that. Yeah, enlarge it. You can see this is a an application for travel out of the Metropolitan Police District
01:21:38 out of the Metropolitan Police District overnight
01:21:40 overnight for DC Francis with the organization Militant Labor. And the request for travel is from the 28th of October 95 to the 29th of
01:21:52 28th of October 95 to the 29th of October 95 for the purpose of left-wing activities. And it's the request is submitted by you signed off by Eric Docker on the 2nd of
01:22:05 signed off by Eric Docker on the 2nd of November 95. Um, you do say your wi in your witness statement at paragraph 3 to8 that I'm
01:22:16 statement at paragraph 3 to8 that I'm not aware now, if I ever was, of undercover officers traveling outside the MPS district without prior authorization.
01:22:25 Is is it right that this retrospective authorization was something because it was signed off on the 2nd of November for travel at the end of October. Was
01:22:36 for travel at the end of October. Was that retrospective uh uh authorization fairly common or is it matter of practice or I again I looking at I was a bit
01:22:49 I again I looking at I was a bit confused over the dates there. Yes, I see what you mean. Peter Francis has gone out on the 28th and this is not signed till the second. It's it's not normal practice that I can
01:23:02 It's it's not normal practice that I can recall, but there I I'm sure there would have been occasions when we were and I can't remember them, but I just got this, you know, in depression my mind that someone would have said, "Look, I'm sorry. I had to my group traveled out
01:23:16 sorry. I had to my group traveled out yesterday to do something and I had no chance to tell anybody and I'm back." So, normally though, we would have been seeking because that's what we I think we had to do. Okay. So,
01:23:27 Okay. So, seek authority. Nor normally the intention would be to get prior authorization but at occasions it was retrospective. There's a few more um examples of retrospective authorization.
01:23:39 examples of retrospective authorization. Uh I don't intend to take you to them all because uh we don't have that much time but there's for example HM14 uh Mr. Boiling going to Essex overnight in
01:23:50 Boiling going to Essex overnight in November 95. HN1 uh DC Rainer going to Liverpool overnight in December 95. Again, retrospective authorizations.
01:24:03 Again, retrospective authorizations. In light of that, was there a sense that these authorizations for travel were a tickbox exercise
01:24:13 exercise and were not needed in or off in in order to authorize the officer? I I think certainly one or other of us I Bob Lombardor or I would have would have
01:24:27 Bob Lombardor or I would have would have been probably asked about you know about going and we have we'd have discussed every one of the the opportunities they had of going out. Um, and if they, and
01:24:39 had of going out. Um, and if they, and as I say, if it was something they said, look, we that group is going and we're going now, I I probably would have said, okay, you're going to have to go to to ensure the cover. But again,
01:24:53 ensure the cover. But again, you can see that it may be retrospective, may have been retrospectively signed. Um but I
01:25:03 but I um I can't say that you know it was it was done in any other way than to ensure that the bosses knew that what was happening
01:25:12 happening or what what had happened what had happened at least they were aware
01:25:17 aware um in terms of being aware of uh what's happening can I refer you to MPS 0527833
01:25:26 page who
01:25:31 this is a a retrospective application for travel for DC Mark Jenner if that can be enlarged please.
01:25:44 And we can see here this is an application for him to travel from uh the 29th of December 1996 to Saturday the 4th of January 97 for meetings and
01:25:56 the 4th of January 97 for meetings and it's travel to Cumbria or North Umbrea and obviously those dates are over the new year period. Oh yes
01:26:03 Oh yes and the officer will remain outside the Metropolitan Police District overnight. official transport will be used and it's signed
01:26:15 signed uh application is submitted and signed off the sixth of January 97. Now this relates to a trip that we've heard evidence about from uh the woman we know
01:26:29 evidence about from uh the woman we know as Allison who was in a sexual relationship with DC Jenner at the time. Uh she says that was a a trip that they took over the New Year period camping in
01:26:41 took over the New Year period camping in the Lake District.
01:26:46 Lambert is acting up as DCI and you're acting up as detective superintendent.
01:26:56 Is there any indication here that this trip was being signed off, but you didn't want Superintendent Docker to know about
01:27:07 want Superintendent Docker to know about this for any reason? No, I don't I don't read that into it. No, I don't read that into it. Was it obvious to you that this was a six-day
01:27:20 obvious to you that this was a six-day trip over New Year, a holiday for DC Jenner and his girlfriend Allison?
01:27:31 Again, at the time I sitting here now, I can't I can't say that I read that into it. I'm sure I can I really am sure that Bob
01:27:42 I'm sure I can I really am sure that Bob or I would have said, "What what's it about?" But if he if he had said look I need to be doing this for to ensure keep my cover then we would have we we
01:27:54 my cover then we would have we we probably would have said okay but it's it is unusual except that there it's particularly unusual to think that a Londonbased organization would be holding meetings over New Year
01:28:06 would be holding meetings over New Year in the north of England isn't it? In retrospect looking now I have to say yes. Was it actually glaringly obvious that this was a romantic trip away?
01:28:20 that this was a romantic trip away? Certainly not to me. Should it have aroused suspicion
01:28:29 in hindsight, given what um evidence I've now been given, then yes, it should have it should have been something that we perhaps would have
01:28:40 something that we perhaps would have Well, I don't know. I I was going to say something that we should have given more um inquiry about but I can't I don't know
01:28:49 know um what was actually discussed with with Mark Jenner at the time. Official transport will be used. Would
01:29:00 Official transport will be used. Would also his cover his accommodation have been covered by the SDS as well. Is it the sort of thing if somebody's having to be away for operational reasons for six days, they would put in
01:29:12 reasons for six days, they would put in normally a receipt at normally an operational uh meetings some sort of uh some sort of recompense would have been made if if it was necessary. [snorts] If
01:29:24 made if if it was necessary. [snorts] If you say he was he was camping, I I doubt be camping in the middle of the winter, but if that's what he's saying, normally if someone travels away and they incur
01:29:37 if someone travels away and they incur an expense and it's to do with their operation, they they will in some way be recompensed for it.
01:29:47 Do you remember asking him what that trip was about? Forgive me, I don't. No.
01:29:59 There was no intelligence report coming back from that trip, was there?
01:30:08 [snorts] We the inquiry has not found any intelligence report emerging from this trip. And I am not acknowledging that there probably wasn't. If you had not got an intelligence
01:30:19 If you had not got an intelligence report from a trip of that length outside the Metropolitan Police District, would you have thought that that was a little strange and asked some more about it? A big one? No, not necessarily.
01:30:31 A big one? No, not necessarily. Officers, you know, they're they're part of a a group that they're very closely knitted. They would go away. you know, don't don't always get a report back
01:30:42 don't don't always get a report back about activities activities relating to the target organization. It's just an acceptance that that really I would have looked at that and thought Jenna was maintaining
01:30:55 that and thought Jenna was maintaining his cover. But if he says he's going for meetings over six days and your evidence has been that well SPS reporting is just reporting on everything,
01:31:06 reporting on everything, wouldn't you have thought it was odd that he didn't submit reports? I didn't pick up on that. I is it a situation where it's so
01:31:17 I is it a situation where it's so blindingly obvious that this is a a trip away
01:31:22 away with one person that either
01:31:26 either it's a matter of incompetence not to see that or that you did recognize that but chose to ignore it
01:31:37 recognize that but chose to ignore it or is it a matter of you completely understood it and accepted it and it was part of the operation. of DC Jenner. Well, again, given all those three scenarios, I'm I'm going to stick by
01:31:48 scenarios, I'm I'm going to stick by what I say. Um, it would be part he's not the only one who will have done trips like this. It will be part of his operational um maintaining his
01:32:00 operational um maintaining his operational cover. Now, I see the bit at the end about meetings, but I I I'm not saying I saw anything. You say there is nothing but
01:32:11 nothing but officers undercover do did travel away a lot and
01:32:17 lot and this to me this is almost routine although looking at it now it's an odd time to to to be doing this with the group but groups used to do strange things
01:32:29 things in terms of him maintaining his operational cover he in in effect you're right in that he was maintaining his cover as Allison's boyfriend, wasn't he? Did he?
01:32:39 Did he? No, that's not how I looked at this. This is certainly not how I understood this.
01:32:46 DAC Howley uh on occasion authorized travel um and withdrawal strategies. Can I refer you please to MPS0735351?
01:33:00 It's behind tab B181.
01:33:07 And this is to do with post-operational foreign travel by DS Kohl's and DS Morris. It's dated 15th September 1995
01:33:21 and it's a a a memorandum from you to DAC security uh DAC uh um
01:33:34 Howley
01:33:38 was that fairly a regular occurrence that DAC Howley would be cited on the the intricacies of a a withdrawal strategy like this and sign off on that.
01:33:52 In relation to um DC Francis is his trip to Santorini for 10 days for Yre summer
01:34:04 summer school and DS web was going as his cover. I don't recall this being a um a standard thing, but I'm I'm actually pleased to see that we we sought the DAC
01:34:18 pleased to see that we we sought the DAC securities uh approval for it.
01:34:25 Um the reference that I just made to DA DC Francis trip to Santorini, that's at MPS0527866.
01:34:38 [cough] It's behind tab B 263
01:34:47 page six.
01:34:55 So we can see here a trip on the 11th of July 1996. DS Webb will travel to Greece and DS Francis will travel to Greece on the 31st of July.
01:35:07 31st of July. Both officers returning to London on the 9th of August. So again, [snorts] those sorts of significant uh uh trips abroad signed off by DAC how is that is
01:35:22 abroad signed off by DAC how is that is was that standard? I can't I can't remember it about the process, but all I can say is I'm I'm pleased to see that uh this has gone up
01:35:35 pleased to see that uh this has gone up as high as the DAC.
01:35:41 Um DC Jenner's targeting strategy is behind MPS0735326
01:35:52 behind tab B130 dated the 1st of February 1995. It's six pages quite detailed.
01:36:04 And so this is the targeting strategy that we've seen you've raised up with your senior managers. you sent it uh uh to them to uh to have sight of. And we can see on
01:36:15 uh to have sight of. And we can see on page two,
01:36:19 paragraph 2.3,
01:36:24 DC Jenner was targeted in the London Burough of Hackne
01:36:32 and targeted against leading figures Norman Blair of class at London class war and Mark Metaf of the Hackne Community Defense Association.
01:36:45 And you can see the sorts of matters that they were interested in.
01:36:53 So is it right that senior managers uh senior management within the NPS within special branch can have had no doubt as to the groups targeted and the issues that they were dealing with.
01:37:08 senior managers in in within special branch within special branch. Well, that's certainly that indicates that here, doesn't it? That and and and did any of those senior officers within special branch raise any
01:37:21 officers within special branch raise any queries about why DC Jenner was being targeted towards these individuals and these groups.
01:37:33 If they if they did, it would have been verbally, I suspect. I don't think anything on paper. I I don't recall. Would it have been very unusual for them
01:37:44 Would it have been very unusual for them to have raised any issues about targeting? Well, it wouldn't be unusual. I think they would when I say query, they would have asked I'm sure they would have
01:37:55 have asked I'm sure they would have asked
01:37:57 asked um pertinent questions.
01:38:02 And you would have if what you're if what you might be indicating is is just a pass it up to the the senior man and they tick it and off they go. No, they weren't like that. They would
01:38:13 they weren't like that. They would certainly give some thought to what they were reading and if they they thought it needed some further investigation, they would have called one of us. They have called the chief superintendent. Depends
01:38:25 called the chief superintendent. Depends if it's if that's for instance that's commander, he probably would have called the chief superintendent of the squad. I mean, it's a they don't it's not blindly signed off,
01:38:36 they don't it's not blindly signed off, which is I think what perhaps is trying to be discussed. I I I'm not making that point. I I'm I'm suggesting that if this information is going up to the senior managers
01:38:47 going up to the senior managers and they are asking you for more detail about it and presumably you would supply that more detail, you'd have a discussion about it, then they're very much involved and and cited upon the
01:38:59 much involved and and cited upon the targeting and the operational decision making that is taking place within the SDS. Is that right? I would hope so. Yes. And so in terms of any justification of
01:39:11 And so in terms of any justification of the operations of the SDS, senior officers within special branch would have been very much part of that discussion.
01:39:28 I'd be very surprised actually if we if if there wasn't that discussion. It's not it's not just left I mean it would be written up by
01:39:39 be written up by um Bob Lambert or myself but mostly Bob because of his operational understanding it would be written up about a targeting strategy but as I think we we discussed
01:39:50 strategy but as I think we we discussed yesterday um the targeting strategy comes because largely of a request from one or other of the desks I believe they
01:40:02 one or other of the desks I believe they have a requirement for intelligence. So that would have been a discussion. um however that's held and then that
01:40:15 um however that's held and then that would have provided the information that Bob or myself would have needed then to write up the targeting strategy which would have then been handed back
01:40:27 would have then been handed back probably to the chief superintendent through our boss to their chief to the chief superintendent who wanted the work to be conducted. That's that's how I envision this would
01:40:39 That's that's how I envision this would have happened. and and in terms of the targeting strategy of DC Jenner um what we can see highlighted in this paragraph here were the interests of special branches that
01:40:53 the interests of special branches that fair to say it is about it's about their involvement in these particular sorts of issues and and we can see there um towards the end it's their
01:41:04 um towards the end it's their involvement in local police issues allegations of harassment racism wrongful arrest How can that have been justified for spying
01:41:15 have been justified for spying by police? Well, I go back to what I've said earlier today, if not yesterday. Special branch was was there to provide intelligence about activities in in
01:41:28 intelligence about activities in in areas of London. And if that if that were to include uh such things as as would you know organizations involved here then
01:41:38 here then then that would have been what we would have done in the normal special branch f fashion using and in this case using SDS um information to provide that more
01:41:50 um information to provide that more detailed
01:41:53 detailed assessment of an area or policy of of organizations. And I reiterate as well to ensure that we were picking up on anything which
01:42:05 we were picking up on anything which might cause polit um unrest on the streets. Um in terms of um home office
01:42:16 Um in terms of um home office involvement in any decision making uh can I have up on screen please MPS 0245657
01:42:29 and this is in relation to DS Kohl's enforced move.
01:42:36 Do you remember that uh happening? And I I can see my name's on it, but I actually don't remember it.
01:43:00 Um, we can
01:43:09 You can see from paragraph two that there was 30,000 pounds of negative equity in relation to the home that he had to
01:43:18 had to uh
01:43:20 uh uh leave behind. Okay. And
01:43:25 Okay. And the uh hope was that the home office would authorize the payment of that to clear the negative equity.
01:43:36 of that to clear the negative equity. Did the home off do you recall the home office getting involved with that move arising out of a suspected compromise? No, I don't.
01:43:47 No, I don't. How regularly would you deal with the home office uh for any matters arising out of SDS business?
01:43:59 Literally top of my head I don't recall a connection with the home office. But I'm sure in the past home office had some part to play in
01:44:14 in um special branch activity and and therefore SDS but it's I don't believe in any way when I'm saying this it would not have been in any way to do with an
01:44:26 not have been in any way to do with an operational perspective. It may have been oversight because I do believe that the home the uh home office had some sort of oversight
01:44:37 home office had some sort of oversight of SDS certainly some years many years prior to my my involvement with them. If it helps, you do set out in uh paragraph
01:44:48 it helps, you do set out in uh paragraph 106 of your witness statement reference to the home office because you say that the SDS worked with the full understanding of the home office and senior police officers within the MPS
01:45:00 senior police officers within the MPS and that the home office and senior officer endorsement negated any requirement for judicial oversight. Was it this sense that the home office and senior officers had authorized the SDS
01:45:14 senior officers had authorized the SDS uh operation and therefore you had like an inherent authority to conduct yourselves as you as you were doing without the need for any further
01:45:26 doing without the need for any further uh well you say judicial oversight um uh but policy regulation uh legal endorsement was that your
01:45:37 was that your when when I made my statement that's what I believed about the involvement of the home office. I think I've been I've been told that the home office as I said
01:45:48 been told that the home office as I said just moments ago the home office did have a part to play in in maybe the formation or and the acceptance of of um an undercover operation. But I believe I
01:46:02 an undercover operation. But I believe I I that the home office actually have have not have sort of not held that responsibility and I can't tell you so clearly because
01:46:15 and I can't tell you so clearly because often time um it would be at a matter because don't forget the home secretary that many years ago
01:46:24 years ago um was was actually the responsible for the running of the work for um not the operational running but was responsible for the Metropolitan Police.
01:46:37 for the Metropolitan Police. Uh you go on in paragraph 106 to say we were told that the Home Office instigated our operation and desired that our intelligence output should continue and that ministers were questioning the commissioner on public order and related politically sensitive
01:46:50 order and related politically sensitive issues.
01:46:52 issues. Was that your operational understanding at the time that you were the manager of the SDS? That was really my my understanding. And who who who told you that? Do you have a recollection of
01:47:03 have a recollection of No, I
01:47:04 No, I who told you whether No, I can't. I'm sorry. It's just something I I believe was was correct.
01:47:16 And certainly the we know that the commissioner would meet the home secretary on on a I would say regular irregular basis. After all, the home secretary had
01:47:29 basis. After all, the home secretary had oversight
01:47:31 oversight and it was your understanding, was it that uh matters concerning the SDS, if they were important enough, would go up to either the commissioner or the home secretary or the home office.
01:47:45 secretary or the home office. Forgive me that that that is my understanding. Then
01:47:51 sir, I note the time maybe time for the afternoon break. Certainly. [clears throat] Cora. quarter now.
02:06:41 Yeah,
02:06:45 Mr. We saw evidence about DAC Howley receiving the Chitty report in 1994 and we know that DAC Howley attended the
02:06:58 and we know that DAC Howley attended the SDS safe house with the commissioner in 1995.
02:07:04 1995. What if anything was discussed at that 1995 meeting at the safe house about DS Chitty and sexual relationships? Can you recall anything?
02:07:17 relationships? Can you recall anything? I recall nothing at all about that conversation. I don't know if Chitty was even mentioned. Sorry. Did did DAC Howley or the commissioner raise
02:07:28 Howley or the commissioner raise anything with the UCOs about the nature of relationships in the field?
02:07:37 Certainly not in my hearing. And did they raise any issues about uh sex or the misuse of cover identification
02:07:48 identification um outside of operational reasons? Certainly not in my hearing.
02:07:58 Can I have on screen please MPS0245371.
02:08:09 It's in relation to the strategy of HN1 who is to remain in the field for a further year post 1st of uh May 1995.
02:08:25 This behind tab B150 we can see at paragraph one
02:08:32 references made to HM1's intelligence relating to leading animal rights activist Jeff Shepard who was arrested in possession of a sornoff shotgun and
02:08:43 in possession of a sornoff shotgun and other items which appeared to be the component parts of incendiary devices. This arrest coming se seven months prior to his departure from the field
02:08:54 to his departure from the field concentrated our minds on his plans for departure and indeed the time at which he should leave the field. Um I should have drawn your attention to the fact it seems that you have written
02:09:06 the fact it seems that you have written this report. It's your name at the end. Is this a report that you recall writing or is this something that perhaps Bob Lambert would have written and you'd put your name to it? Forgive me. It could be
02:09:20 your name to it? Forgive me. It could be me. It could. But the important thing is that my name is at the bottom. So, and was the arrest of Jeff Shepard actually a result of intelligence
02:09:33 actually a result of intelligence provided by HN1. Do you recall? No, I don't recall. The inquiry has not been able to find any evidence of report submitted by HN1 prior to Jeff Shepard's arrest. Do you
02:09:46 prior to Jeff Shepard's arrest. Do you recall anything about the arrest and a shotgun being found and your response to that?
02:09:53 that? I I'm afraid I don't recall it. I don't recall the arrest. H1 says that he had verbally reported Shepherd talking about the shotgun and
02:10:05 Shepherd talking about the shotgun and one of the DS's in the back office had made a a note prior to Jeff Shepard's arrest. Um,
02:10:15 Um, but it's understood that the arresting officers were not armed when they arrested Jeff Shepard, which would obviously have put them in some danger. And so it suggests that either the SDS
02:10:28 And so it suggests that either the SDS did not provide the intelligence from HN1
02:10:32 HN1 to the uniform police officers arresting uh uh Jeff Shepard or HN1 did not provide preemptive intelligence that led
02:10:43 provide preemptive intelligence that led to the arrest. Are you able to assist us with either of those two options? I'm afraid I can't.
02:10:56 MPS 0746166,
02:11:00 0746166, please. It's behind tab B185.
02:11:05 It's a note of congratulations from DAC Howley
02:11:10 Howley to you
02:11:12 to you in relation to the HN1 intel and the conviction of Shepherd. And it's dated the 5th of October 1995.
02:11:26 Certainly from this note, it appears that the the DAC How's impression was that HM1 helped to secure the conviction of Jeff Shepard?
02:11:37 of Jeff Shepard? And
02:11:39 And was that your impression as well that it was HN1 that helped to secure that conviction? Certainly reading this note from Mr. Howley. Yes. And can you recall whether
02:11:51 Howley. Yes. And can you recall whether any information was given to the court of about the involvement of an undercover officer in that offense? No, I'm afraid I can't give you any help in that respect.
02:12:03 in that respect. Is it likely that none was provided to the court? I truly don't know. And I'm just going on the base of your your evidence earlier
02:12:14 your evidence earlier about by what? Sorry. uh your evidence earlier was that you you didn't uh um you didn't think about the the nature of um well no I'm not going to put uh
02:12:27 of um well no I'm not going to put uh words in your mouth no I don't I know what you mean sorry I know what you're referring to and none of that came to my mind I don't I I can only tell you I'm seeing this letter and
02:12:39 only tell you I'm seeing this letter and I'm I'm agreeing that it would appear that Mr. How is thanks HM1 for the contribution. I I I really cannot at all
02:12:52 contribution. I I I really cannot at all remember anything at all about the uh about the court case or any intelligence or information that was passed to anybody about it.
02:13:03 anybody about it. And page two please paragraph two.
02:13:11 [clears throat] Um Mr. Howley says that at the right moment I shall use the latest success to reinforce with ACSO and the commissioner just what an excellent
02:13:22 commissioner just what an excellent return they are getting for their investment and that's obviously to do with the SDS and the type of intel that is being uh uh
02:13:33 is being uh uh uh
02:13:36 uh collected by them.
02:13:40 Were you aware whether the commissioner was made aware of that um conviction and the involvement of HM1? As I've said
02:13:51 As I've said I I would not know when Mr. how will have engaged I I know that he did engage with AXO quite a lot but on all aspects of security work but I I I don't know
02:14:04 of security work but I I I don't know about this happening in relation to this to SDS work at all. Was it your understanding that DAC howley did used to inform the upper echelons about some of the detail of SDS
02:14:17 echelons about some of the detail of SDS operations? Was it your understanding that he would raise issues of significance, whether it's a concern or whether it's a a congratulatory message?
02:14:29 congratulatory message? I would have thought he would have done, but I don't have that specific evidence to show that. But I just would have thought Mr. Harley would have done such a thing.
02:14:47 MPS0746143,
02:14:50 please. It's behind tab 288.
02:14:57 It's a memo from Detective Superintendent Pierce to ACSO Vaness on the 8th of January 1997.
02:15:08 on the 8th of January 1997. and it informs of disruption of two events.
02:15:18 One is to do with um ALF
02:15:23 ALF and on page four we will see that it's ALF poisoning of turkeys prior to Christmas inflicting uh losses on the poultry business and the second in relation to RTS
02:15:36 relation to RTS and the M25 planned protest.
02:15:45 And we can see on page two
02:15:51 that in turn that was sent by ACSO who at the time was ACSO Vaness to the commissioner
02:16:10 who asked uh Commander Moss to convey the papers to you to to to to um the commissioner. So the commissioner was uh briefed on the details of these
02:16:22 uh briefed on the details of these events
02:16:24 events and the commissioner Paul Condon responded
02:16:28 responded saying seen noted thank you please convey my um appreciation to all involved. So this is a an example of the successes of the SD the SDS being sent
02:16:41 successes of the SD the SDS being sent up to the commissioner but certainly an example. Could I would you would you mind just going back a couple because
02:16:48 because I was trying to read something and it Oh, I'm sorry. Yep. It zipped away. Was it page uh five you wanted to go to or page four, I think.
02:17:01 or page four, I think. Right. Just stop for one second, please.
02:17:09 Is there a previous page to this?
02:17:18 No, that's that's that's that that's it. It's probably what I was reading in that pages. Just let me see. I thought it was something about RTS. Is that um Yeah, there's reference to RTS and
02:17:31 um Yeah, there's reference to RTS and the M25 planned protest as well. Right. Could I see that page, please? I think that was on page four.
02:17:42 I think that was on page four. So, it's the poison turkey incident and then one other page five.
02:17:51 Is that the end?
02:18:02 Sorry. Yes, it's the second paragraph on this page.
02:18:10 So we can see that uh the RTS
02:18:16 uh protest right
02:18:17 right had it occurred yes
02:18:20 yes would have stopped M25 traffic flow. Okay thank you. Sorry I just couldn't was trying to make a connection but thank you very much. So two two instance that were disrupted.
02:18:33 So two two instance that were disrupted. Yeah.
02:18:35 Yeah. Um,
02:18:40 in terms of the M25 traffic flow, I think that had been disrupted um just a week or so prior to this alleged plan um by a a crash in the
02:18:54 alleged plan um by a a crash in the Dartford tunnel. So, um I think it's something that, you know, whilst it would have created some disruption, would it be fair to say
02:19:05 some disruption, would it be fair to say that no more disruption than a a serious traffic accident would cause? Forgive me. I don't quite know what they were planning, but a serious tra traffic accident
02:19:16 accident is certainly enough to cause a quite a serious disruption as well, isn't it? But I don't know what they were planning.
02:19:25 planning. Um, UCPI 42393, please
02:19:44 behind tab B294.
02:20:02 at 42 39.
02:20:06 39. Sorry, page three. It's -3. 4239.
02:20:30 We see here it's a letter from TN061.
02:20:40 Could you enlarge it, please? Yes. Sorry, I can't
02:20:49 to the terrorism and protection unit in the home office
02:21:01 about the operation of HN1 and his infiltration of the uh [clears throat] animal rights extremists.
02:21:14 and the fact final uh penultimate paragraph that he is going to be recommended for recommendation by the commissioner. Can I just I'm reading through forgive me.
02:21:35 All right. Sorry. Yes, I've read it. Thank you. And on page three at the very end
02:21:50 a request to raise to the ministerial level.
02:21:57 um this raising issues about SDS operations to the home office and asking that to be uh brought to the minister's uh uh uh attention
02:22:08 uh uh uh attention presumably that was something that was quite out of the ordinary was it? I think so. Yes. Um but nonetheless, did you do you recall anything about that?
02:22:20 recall anything about that? No, I don't. And providing any more information? No.
02:22:23 No. When was it written? Oh, yep. Okay. No, I don't recall it. But it's fair to say that the home office and what we don't know is if it
02:22:34 office and what we don't know is if it was raised with the minister, but had it been then they would been aware of the SDS operations. And forgive me if we do know if you look at page one. Oh, sorry. Thank you.
02:22:48 This is an internal document by a home office official.
02:22:55 One assumes briefing the home secretary for his regular meeting with the commissioner. Thank you, sir.
02:23:10 So is it right this is evidence of the home secretary being briefed
02:23:17 very top level certainly indicates SDS operations as I said earlier that you always aware that the um commissioner would have
02:23:28 that the um commissioner would have regular meetings with home office. Thank you. Um, MPS 0720835
02:23:38 please. Behind tab B184
02:23:51 can see this is a briefing note in relation to the security threat to Dines by Helen Steel and another
02:24:02 I think it's Mr. Blair Nor Blair,
02:24:07 are you are you going to um point me towards a particular uh paragraph? If not, can you enlarge it and I can read the whole thing? Yeah, paragraph 1.1, please.
02:24:29 Thank you. So, this is a a note from the 27th of September, 1995, and it's about Helen Steel and Norman Blair searching for
02:24:42 Steel and Norman Blair searching for uh John Dyn. And what we can see from further on in the report is that they they had attended
02:24:50 attended I can't see that at the moment. Sorry. If if you if uh I I basically summarize it for you, they've they've attended at the uh family home of Dyn's
02:25:02 attended at the uh family home of Dyn's parents
02:25:06 and it's clear to the SDS that they are searching for Dyn please. Paragraph 2.6.
02:25:21 You can see it's safe to assume that Steel and Blair's wish to locate John Barker was additionally motivated by the former's need for his support in her defense of a liel rit issued against her
02:25:32 defense of a liel rit issued against her and one other by the McDonald's hamburger chain. This is in relation to the Mcll case.
02:25:47 Suffice to say here that Steel regarded Barker as an invaluable ally and potential witness in what was regarded as an important fight against a high-profile multinational animal
02:25:58 high-profile multinational animal abuser? Um,
02:26:04 was it recognized by you at that stage that John Dyn had actually been involved in drafting that pamphlet in the first place? Were you aware of that? No, certainly not. No. And that would
02:26:16 No, certainly not. No. And that would have raised concerns to you, would it have been an ajon provocator? No, it would be. No, I'm not aware of that.
02:26:25 that. And in terms of Steele's search for John Dyn or as she understood it to be John Barker at the time, was there any sense that such a concerted effort to find him
02:26:38 that such a concerted effort to find him might be motivated not just by him being a a witness in a a a trial, civil trial, but in fact there was more to it and that she was in a relationship or she
02:26:50 that she was in a relationship or she had been a in a sexual relationship with John Dyn.
02:26:55 I don't want to conflate times and things but at this no there was no s to me there was no suggestion I was never aware of that but
02:27:06 suggestion I was never aware of that but obviously I became aware I can't remember exactly at what point either in my career or subsequent work life where I learned about it time
02:27:18 work life where I learned about it time scale has gone completely in relation to Um given that this could expose the SDS operation and cause
02:27:29 operation and cause embarrassment to the commissioner, this must have been quite a an important topic for discussion within the SDS unit. Is that right?
02:27:43 I don't know if you're going to come on to this, but my first indication um I think I have said this already in my statement. my first indication
02:27:55 my statement. my first indication of a connection in this way um or a connection of any way between Helen Steel and John Dyn was um
02:28:09 Steel and John Dyn was um when I was off duty but um on my way to somewhere else to put my daughter into university
02:28:20 university um and I think that would have been around September. time I a phone call I think it was a phone call I think we had telephones by then but phone call
02:28:32 had telephones by then but phone call from Bob Lambert to say that I needed to meet with him urgently and I said well I will of course but we
02:28:43 and I said well I will of course but we got this other important job to do first went met my daughter put her into her accommodation would have stayed a lot longer, but Bob
02:28:55 would have stayed a lot longer, but Bob was quite insistent that I came back. And it took me some while to get back to it. And that's when I think Bob started to brief me about Helen Steel trying to
02:29:08 to brief me about Helen Steel trying to find
02:29:09 find John.
02:29:11 John. But I don't have in my head now time scout for this. That's what I think is my first
02:29:17 my first um indication that there was an issue like that. Can you recall just going by when your daughter then first went to university? What would that likely have been a
02:29:29 What would that likely have been a September? That's what I was thinking because I say when you know university year starts at about that time. So I'm imagining she it would have been around that period. And so would it have been
02:29:40 that period. And so would it have been just shortly before this uh note was was made in on the 27th of September 1995? If you've got that then yes that that probably is the case.
02:29:51 probably is the case. Was there a time at which you went to the McDonald's headquarters in East Finchley
02:29:59 Finchley where there had been a picket relating to McDonald's? Now I don't I don't recall going. Do you mean to the headquarters itself? I don't I don't
02:30:10 headquarters itself? I don't I don't recall going but I knew the area extremely well. So whether I'm conflating my I knew my knowing that area and being
02:30:23 my I knew my knowing that area and being personally in that area or whether I'd gone to to the headquarters. don't know why I would have gone unless somebody now says well look there's a note here
02:30:35 now says well look there's a note here to say you did but I don't recall going and I don't don't think I would have gone can't think of a reason to go given malel was such a a big issue and
02:30:48 given malel was such a a big issue and we've got Helen still very much involved in McLeel one of the uh two defendants she's looking for John Dyn was very much involved in in that uh uh anti-MDO's
02:31:01 involved in in that uh uh anti-MDO's campaign. Is it likely that there was information that the SDS had that would be useful to McDonald's and that was being conveyed to McDonald's at the
02:31:13 being conveyed to McDonald's at the time?
02:31:14 time? I see what you're saying. Um, we we could have had uh some information or intelligence, but
02:31:23 but I I don't know if and how that would have been
02:31:30 transferred to um or shared with anything to do with McDonald's.
02:31:39 Um,
02:31:42 sorry. Can I if if just to help perhaps hopefully when SDS gets this gets intelligence, it passes it to the squad and the the squad, whichever squad it
02:31:53 and the the squad, whichever squad it is, then deals with that information in the way that the squad would deal with it. It's not something that SDS would have as far as I as far as I can remember. I don't recall us ever having
02:32:05 remember. I don't recall us ever having direct contact with anybody other than perhaps a security service. Would you pass on information to the squad
02:32:16 you pass on information to the squad in knowledge that it would be passed on to McDonald's in the same way that information that was passed on about um Debenhams or Boots? You knew that that
02:32:27 Debenhams or Boots? You knew that that is likely to go to those companies? I didn't know that it was likely to go to McDonald's, but um I I could see there was a possibility that some some relevant information might have been
02:32:39 relevant information might have been shared with them that but that whether it's about the um it's more to the relevant information would be to do with the the picketing of certain
02:32:51 with the the picketing of certain McDonald's stores I would shops restaurants. What about um the uh litigation? So we know that the trial started in June 1994,
02:33:04 1994, so just after you arrived as manager in the SDS.
02:33:08 the SDS. Information gleaned from your offices about meetings held by the McLeball uh group, the support group, about their defense campaign, would that be filtered
02:33:19 defense campaign, would that be filtered back to McDonald's? That I'd be very surprised at. I there's there's there's certainly a difference between us giving the SDS giving
02:33:31 between us giving the SDS giving information to C squad. Um certainly I don't I don't think it would have been something that they would have I would have been dealing
02:33:42 would have I would have been dealing with in relation to McDonald's company itself. It's not I didn't touch base with them at all.
02:33:56 information purely about civil litigation like that. What where would that information go if it doesn't go to the public order squad like picketing information would desk would that go to?
02:34:09 information would desk would that go to? Some
02:34:11 Some can only say somewhere on C squad. I'm I'm reading more that something called Arie comes into this but other than that most mostly sea squad that's
02:34:23 squad that's or Arie did you say well I only just now I saw the word Arie and I thought oh yes I remember the organization but um but they were to do with animal rights of course
02:34:35 with animal rights of course yes
02:34:36 yes um but more I would suggest that information would just go to sea squad for their for their information. [clears throat]
02:34:47 Um, I'd like to ask you about HM43's operation. Um, UCPI 30748,
02:34:57 30748, please. Behind tab B186,
02:35:03 Peter Francis. Uh, 40. Yeah, sorry. Peter Francis. All right. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Oh, we can see here that there's a meeting with SDS officers on the 10th of October 1995.
02:35:16 October 1995. Oh,
02:35:16 Oh, sorry.
02:35:18 sorry. If we can enlarge that.
02:35:35 And we can see how the security service officer
02:35:42 briefed the SDS officers about the current interest of CIS within uh uh in relation to militant
02:35:53 CIS within uh uh in relation to militant labor
02:35:54 labor and a list of names being given to 1843.
02:36:01 Uh do you recall that? No, I don't recall it. No reason to obviously no reason to say would that be a regular sort of occurrence. Right.
02:36:13 Right. I know I know that we had a um a connection with the security service. That's all I can say at the moment. Don't recall this meeting behind tab B191 please. UCPI 30749.
02:37:03 So we can see that this is the the list of individuals now uh being sent to you following that meeting on the 10th of October. And if we scroll down, please.
02:37:17 [snorts]
02:37:23 Oh, sorry. In fact, the note actually says it's in the process of being uh drawn up and and it will be forwarded to you. Do you recall getting lists of individuals that CIS were interested in
02:37:35 individuals that CIS were interested in for HM43 to provide information about them? I don't recall it but again with liaison with security service um if that's what they were seeking our
02:37:48 that's what they were seeking our support with and obviously it would be something that we would do our best to comply with [snorts]
02:38:21 Sorry. Bear with me one moment.
02:38:48 Was it right that ultimately um or even at this stage CIS uh CIS's interest within uh uh in militant labor
02:39:00 interest within uh uh in militant labor and anarchist this had oh sorry in in the left wing had generally faded away and there wasn't a an interest that they had
02:39:11 had um other than a watching brief in relation to the an SDS officer. Yes, I think that's that's what we started to get the impression um from them. They had other
02:39:23 um from them. They had other responsibilities. I think the iron curtain had fallen. They still had a watching brief, I'm sure, but um the the request that they
02:39:34 sure, but um the the request that they originally had to do say with Y was certainly fading from what I recall from their perspective.
02:39:45 I'd asked you previously yesterday um in about uh trade union reporting.
02:39:57 Can I pull up please MPS0245736?
02:40:02 It's a report behind tab B209
02:40:08 on the Southern Council Industrial Dispute.
02:40:13 It's a report from the 1st of December 1995
02:40:18 1995 and essentially it's a report on legitimate trade union activity with little to no public order interest
02:40:29 with little to no public order interest reporting on the internal politics and funding of uh UKAT.
02:40:39 Were you aware of this sort of reporting on trade unions and did you ever raise or query the value of this to policing
02:40:51 or query the value of this to policing of public order? I can I can see this type of reporting as part of um what special branch would have done at some stage. um over time.
02:41:05 have done at some stage. um over time. I I think our again our only concern really would be nothing to do with the internal machinations of a of a trade
02:41:16 internal machinations of a of a trade union but to see whether anything relating to that would have affected I see it says two SWP people sellers um were chased off but to see whether any
02:41:30 were chased off but to see whether any of these disputes within from trade unions and then as it says the council um whether they might have impacted on the streets in terms of public order.
02:41:42 the streets in terms of public order. Probably unlikely, but you know that that's not that's the sort of thing that we would be reporting on. But it was not to do with the internal masculinations of an or of a trade union.
02:41:55 of an or of a trade union. Was the information useful for organizations such as the Economic League? Had you heard of them? I've I've certainly heard of them, but
02:42:07 but are they are they mentioned here? No.
02:42:11 No. Would would this sort of information have been passed the economic league or other organizations like the consulting association? Not by SDS. All that again all that type of
02:42:22 All that again all that type of information would would have been dealt with on another squad. Now what what happened with that sitting here today I can't tell you but
02:42:36 sitting here today I can't tell you but I don't I don't recall of um activities in relation to contact with something like the economic league
02:42:47 league would that have been CE squad or a different squad? Well I can I can only think because now it's combined C squad. Okay. And while I was on the CE squad for that
02:43:00 And while I was on the CE squad for that shorter period, I certainly didn't have any contacts or pass information to such organizations.
02:43:11 Um, reporting on the uh uh LDMG
02:43:19 MPS 0246 290
02:43:24 290 please. behind tab two uh B241.
02:43:32 So it's a report on the legal defense monitoring group.
02:43:38 It's signed off by you. Sorry, this is who? Uh the legal defense monitoring group
02:43:46 and it's in response specifically in relation to somebody called Liz Fuller.
02:43:57 Yeah. Who is the woman we understand uh to have had a relationship with HN1? Oh, yes.
02:44:07 Oh, yes. Were you aware of that at the time? Aware of the relationship? Yes.
02:44:12 Yes. I know. I I reiterate what I said yesterday. terribly saddened by that from all p from all perspectives in terms of reporting on the legal
02:44:23 in terms of reporting on the legal defense monitoring group. Was that uh again collateral information uh uh
02:44:34 again collateral information uh uh reporting in relation to an organization that really did not have any public order implications?
02:44:46 Well, obviously I think the reporting really is about Liz Fuller and then the again in typical special branch fashion,
02:44:57 again in typical special branch fashion, they would have indicated organizations that
02:45:02 that person had um associations with or connections with. It's not it's it's not unusual to see that.
02:45:16 Uh the annual report of 1995 1996 is behind tab B246 MPS 0728967.
02:45:31 The date was the four uh 15th of April 1996. Will this be an annual report that you principally drafted? I would have had a part to play in it certainly. Yes.
02:45:49 We can see on paragraph two there two key areas of interest public order and serious criminal activity by extremist activists.
02:46:02 Those
02:46:05 were the two key key areas were they?
02:46:13 And on in paragraph three, okay,
02:46:17 okay, successful though it has proved in bringing offenders to arrest and conviction requires prudent management if SDS officers are to avoid appearances at court.
02:46:28 at court. The development of this strategy is essential to avoid compromising and maintaining operational security. So was there because of the involvement in animal rights
02:46:40 in animal rights uh uh activity, was there a shift from the SDS being exclusively intel gathering to evidential gathering but not complying
02:46:53 evidential gathering but not complying with the normal evidential rules of disclosure in criminal proceedings?
02:47:01 Certainly reading this now, there would appear to have been an additional responsibility for SDS and away from not away but as to include as
02:47:14 away from not away but as to include as part of its public order issues and now leading to this serious criminal activity. And I think that must be referring to animal rights activity. As you say,
02:47:24 you say, it paints a picture of almost unrestrained use of this highly intrusive policing tactic secretly to bring people to justice without the checks and balances needed
02:47:37 checks and balances needed in a developed democratic society. Would you agree with that?
02:47:45 We're putting we are we are obviously trying to gain now we're trying to gain intelligence about people who are um
02:47:56 intelligence about people who are um engaging in serious uh criminal activity and I and I think that it's where we move from certainly not in involved with
02:48:07 move from certainly not in involved with them but learning intelligence about them passing that intelligence on so that it can be it can be used and converted into a overt policing
02:48:19 converted into a overt policing activity.
02:48:21 activity. So I don't think it's a I don't think it's a ploy to avoid appearance at court. It's is as I did mention this yesterday as well. I think
02:48:33 mention this yesterday as well. I think it's something that the we learned um on my B squad days. We learned from the RU how we would how they would gain
02:48:44 how we would how they would gain intelligence about particular activity and would convert that into evidence but without without causing any um adverse effect on
02:48:55 without causing any um adverse effect on their intelligence gathering operation. And to a certain extent this is what I think was happening when we had special branch and so SO 13
02:49:08 branch and so SO 13 There was a SO13 was was a the organization that dealt with the overt
02:49:18 overt side of criminal activity based on intelligence brought in from well SDS is one element of it but other areas and in fact we had
02:49:30 of it but other areas and in fact we had officers in special branch who were put into the cell I think it was called in SO13
02:49:39 SO13 where where the um quite proper processes were in place. I never worked there but I understood the processes I believe where they would convert in um
02:49:52 believe where they would convert in um intelligence to evidence to ensure that the EV the SO3 officers could um deal with the criminal aspect of that intelligence.
02:50:05 criminal aspect of that intelligence. but almost laundering out the uh SDS involvement in that that is is probably a good way of putting it. Yes. Can I ask
02:50:16 putting it. Yes. Can I ask not to well not to avoid appearance at court because if it were really necessary then unfortunately he would probably have to do that as they actually do in so 10
02:50:28 do that as they actually do in so 10 areas
02:50:30 areas but it's not certainly not to avoid an appearance at court to to circumvent what I I've been asked about already.
02:50:41 about already. Page six of the report, please. There's reference to um the SDS accepts that the threat from the left cannot be assessed as great.
02:50:52 as great. And this is reference to what we spoke about earlier, the the CIS interest being reduced because of the uh lack of interest in
03:10:22 that it's noted that HN81 got in another quick whine about having no specified group to target. But the last sentence
03:10:36 on the on the um the note
03:10:44 says that we will be expecting results in his main target area unless there is a clear compelling and soding miraculous opturn in the SWP requirement.
03:10:56 opturn in the SWP requirement. So he's been sent to Brixton. no indication of what groups to target but will be expecting results. Is that a situation where HN81 is being sent out
03:11:08 situation where HN81 is being sent out and told to try and find something? Could I just Yeah, sorry. Forgive me. Just let if I may just have a moment just to get around what we're we're saying here.
03:11:33 [snorts]
03:11:59 Thank you. And so is this ultimately why we have reports on the Steven Lawrence campaign and ultimately the Steven Lawrence inquiry because it's something to report
03:12:12 inquiry because it's something to report on but it didn't actually justify reporting on or infiltration at all
03:12:22 from that officer. Is that what when were those reports? um from 1997 onwards. So this is at the very end of your manage management.
03:12:34 your manage management. Right. So I I I let me just clear here then. Obviously there was some I I know at the time that we were
03:12:45 some I I know at the time that we were saying um that the SWP were not so important for us at that time and it was persuaded
03:12:55 persuaded and agreed by C squad at the time that perhaps there were other issues u to be reviewed. There was a concern about
03:13:06 reviewed. There was a concern about street violence I is is how I understand it with with groups that we knew very little or nothing really about identified.
03:13:17 nothing really about identified. So
03:13:19 So to it to to help C se C squ S squ S squ S squ S squ S squ S squ S squ Squad
03:13:25 squ Squad um and therefore us we we decided I can see this we decided to put um that strategy of putting um 81 into that area
03:13:39 strategy of putting um 81 into that area just with a view as I I think it does indicate to see what is going on within that area of relevance ments to SDS and
03:13:50 that area of relevance ments to SDS and C squad and that I can I can actually see that as a as a as a strategy if you like. Um but you're right there was no spec and he's right as well no specific
03:14:02 spec and he's right as well no specific target but our concern was and what what is going on in that area um I believe that I think it may have been John John
03:14:13 that I think it may have been John John Webb through his understanding of and discussions that there was a rise of sort of of violent pockets of activity and we
03:14:25 violent pockets of activity and we didn't we didn't have a handle on that and therefore could we do something about it and that's what I think is is behind this and actually I agree with it
03:14:36 behind this and actually I agree with it as it's written there. I don't like some of the terminology but that's another matter.
03:14:42 matter. Thank you sir. I note the time. It's 5:00. I do have one further topic that I'd like to ask questions about but I'm also conscious that the there are going to be some rule 10 questions as well.
03:14:54 to be some rule 10 questions as well. Um, I'm in your hands as to what what we do about timing. How long is your topic going to take? Probably about 15 minutes. Yes. I think the best way to do it is to
03:15:08 Yes. I think the best way to do it is to finish your topic, then we'll rise for the rule 10 questions. Maybe we go a bit beyond half past five, but so be it. Grateful.
03:15:16 Grateful. Um, Mr. Contend with that. I hope. Yes, sir. Good. British Ral. Yes.
03:15:23 Yes. Um, Mr. Redmondson, I'm sorry to to prolong the afternoon a little bit, but I do want to ask you about officer welfare.
03:15:30 welfare. Yes.
03:15:30 Yes. Um, and uh, two officers brought proceedings against the Metropolitan Police in relation to psychiatric damage caused by the uh, uh, their SDS
03:15:43 caused by the uh, uh, their SDS operations. And there's obviously a significant number of officers that have suffered psychologically
03:34:17 Um, just to clarify, HM123, his evidence was that he ceased to see any anyone around halfway through his deployment, but he did become a mentor for HN81, but had no instructions regarding his
03:34:29 but had no instructions regarding his role or responsibilities. Was there any training for the mentors themselves as to how they should go about mentoring uh an officer? I don't think it was training as you
03:34:41 I don't think it was training as you would have described it. I think obviously was a discussion with them and to try and you know just a discussion
03:34:52 to try and you know just a discussion with them to say look we we're using you and your experience to support officers in the field.
03:35:10 So those are all the questions that I have. There'll be a break now for rule 10 questions. Yes. Um
03:35:16 Yes. Um sorry Lord due to respect sir may I just may I speak
03:35:23 what what about about the the um psych psychological and psychiatrist work that I did or yes of course you may um you hopefully you will see that um
03:35:37 um you hopefully you will see that um there was a concern raised about 123 and the way that he was acting and that I thought there was something that we should be doing about that. And I
03:35:48 should be doing about that. And I identified a number of psychiatrists [clears throat] and I um one specific one who had supported the
03:36:01 one specific one who had supported the RU in their undercover work and other activity.
03:36:05 activity. That was Dr. Mary Piper, wasn't it? Forgive me if it was Mary Piper. That's certainly a name I recall, but it was another gentleman's name, doctor, as well. I think it was Mary Piper. And I
03:36:17 well. I think it was Mary Piper. And I asked um 123 to go and visit Mary Piper because I was concerned about his uh demeanor, his his activity, his health.
03:36:30 demeanor, his his activity, his health. And uh Mary Piper spent whatever time, I can't remember now, with him. And I will say Mary Piper gave him a a clean bill of health in relation to his up his
03:36:43 of health in relation to his up his undercover work. Now that wasn't I didn't just stay with that. I then asked two other officers to uh I can say one is Trevor Morris and the other is HN1. I
03:36:57 is Trevor Morris and the other is HN1. I chose them because I had a lot of faith in them and I asked them if they would go to Mary Piper and undertake the same uh activity or same um
03:37:11 uh activity or same um response. Sorry, that's not the word investigation as as a 123 had undertaken. They they both did that and I asked them for their
03:37:22 both did that and I asked them for their views because I wanted to do something about it. Neither was very enamored with with what they had been through, but probably from personal things about how
03:37:33 probably from personal things about how they felt about it, but they weren't that enamored. But I then submitted a report. It's quite a lengthy report I hope where I indicated that we should have psychiatric testing for officers
03:37:46 have psychiatric testing for officers prior to going into the the field possibly halfway through and certainly at the end. So that was
03:37:57 certainly at the end. So that was towards the I think towards the end of my service. But I I just think it's important that I'm allowed to say that it wasn't just a tick in the box and that other things done and that I
03:38:10 that other things done and that I consider to be very important. I'm sorry. I also asked I believe I believe Peter Francis went but I can't remember specifically.
03:38:22 remember specifically. Um, it may assist you to bring up MPS 0246999
03:38:28 0246999 behind tab B305.
03:39:05 Um,
03:39:19 Sorry, I know that. Sorry, I've got the wrong reference there. I expected that to come up with a document from 1997. Was it around 1997 where your view was counseling will have to form an integral
03:39:31 counseling will have to form an integral part of our welfare operation? Does that ring a bell? Yes, it does. Yes. Um, can I just ask you in relation to that why that view only crystallized in 1997
03:39:42 only crystallized in 1997 and why a formal system of professional psychological support was not introduced until the end of 2001. And I recognize you left in July 1997. So you may not be
03:39:54 you left in July 1997. So you may not be able to assist so much with that. I right just very quickly then I will say that um I hadn't really understood the psychological pressures on people until
03:40:05 psychological pressures on people until until these events started mostly with one 123 I think and as a result of that I then realized more should be done and hence what I've just explained and the
03:40:16 hence what I've just explained and the paper that you have. Thank you.
03:40:26 Yes. Um, I'll now rise for however long is needed to deal with rule 10 questions. Thank you.
04:01:13 Yes, sir. I'm just going to read the note onto the record uh that Mr. Redmondson jotted down earlier in his evidence. It reads, "This is a belated thought on my
04:01:25 reads, "This is a belated thought on my part some 30 years later, but I wonder now, given the importance the police and the home office placed on SDS activity, why such matters like this were not taken to such as the AGM for
04:01:38 taken to such as the AGM for consideration?" I think were you referring to the attorney general there? Did I thought so? Yes. In terms of the uh
04:01:52 In terms of the uh rule 10 questions, I I have a few. Um Mr. Edmonson, I suggested to you during the course of my questioning that HN26 known as Christine Green was the first
04:02:05 known as Christine Green was the first UCO to use a fictitious identity. that in [snorts] fact was incorrect and I apologize for that because although it's it is noted that an SDS in SDS documents
04:02:18 it is noted that an SDS in SDS documents at the time um there was at least one other UCO in open who was deployed with a fictitious identity before HN26
04:02:30 identity before HN26 um that was HN56 who was deployed in 1990
04:02:35 1990 with a fictitious identity and HN9 95. Stefan Scott deployed in 1986 using his real birth name in place of his adopted
04:02:46 real birth name in place of his adopted name. So I'd like to correct the record on that, please.
04:02:54 Um, Mr. Dremonson, when I asked you what you would have done had you discovered Coohl's Andy Kohl's
04:03:05 had you discovered Coohl's Andy Kohl's sexual relationships.
04:03:10 You said that the women in question quote may have wanted this to happen anyway because that happened quite a lot. So I'm told the question is who
04:03:21 lot. So I'm told the question is who told you that and what exactly did they tell you?
04:03:26 Sorry, just you were saying that I said, did I?
04:03:31 did I? Yes. I think when I when I questioned you as to what you would have done had you discovered Cole's sexual relationships, you said words to the effect of uh some of the women in question may have wanted
04:03:43 of the women in question may have wanted this to happen anyway because that happened quite a lot. So that I'm told. Do you recall what you were told and who told you in relation to that? not in
04:03:54 told you in relation to that? not in relation to to Andy Coohl's but I recall um Richard Richard Chesham some tranches ago where he said that certain within
04:04:07 ago where he said that certain within groups certain groups there was a lot of pro promiscuity and close friendships resulting in I'm not saying it was promiscuity actually it's just that close friendships which resulted in in
04:04:19 close friendships which resulted in in sexual activity but that That really was some tranches ago now, I think. Um, but you're not suggesting here for the women who have been deceived
04:04:31 the women who have been deceived uh by the officers who were under your management that they would have wanted that to happen. I have no I can't say that I I can't say that that is the case. I have no knowledge of that. Is it it's relatively
04:04:44 knowledge of that. Is it it's relatively well it must be inconceivable mustn't it that any woman would want that sort of thing to happen to her to be deceived by an undercover officer into a sexual relationship. I think we had this yesterday where you
04:04:57 I think we had this yesterday where you know I think I was asked what what would the the young lady have agreed had she known of the police officer's identity and of course I agreed absolutely not.
04:05:10 and of course I agreed absolutely not. And in terms of the woman who alleges she was tricked into a sexual relationship by HN2, Andy Kohl's.
04:05:21 relationship by HN2, Andy Kohl's. Um,
04:05:25 you are quoted as saying that she took part willingly in any activity on the understanding that she knew who the man was.
04:05:34 was. Um, that's a quote from your evidence. But what do you think about the power dynamics between Jessica, a 19year-old who had recently left home, and Andy
04:05:46 who had recently left home, and Andy Kohl's, a 32year-old serving police officer?
04:05:52 Well, can I just say forget that he was a police officer? I'm sure the dynamic would have been uh on on his part, a younger lady being impressed by an older person.
04:06:03 person. But it's a complete we can't forget that he's a police officer. He's there with completely different knowledge of what was going on uh in that uh scenario. And it's a it's an abuse of
04:06:17 uh scenario. And it's a it's an abuse of his power, isn't it? As a serving police officer taking advantage of a a young 19-year-old woman who is completely naive to the situation that she's in. Would you agree
04:06:29 situation that she's in. Would you agree with that? What I would what I would say is again and I said this yesterday it it will surely depend on I mean yes it shouldn't have happened because he was an undercover officer. I accept that but
04:06:42 an undercover officer. I accept that but the dynamic between individuals is important as well. If somebody is working closely with involved with um socializes with then a sexual
04:06:56 socializes with then a sexual activity may take place.
04:07:02 I'm just being asked to to to clarify that that's an alleged uh relationship a a sexual
04:07:09 a sexual uh relationship that happened, not an admitted
04:07:13 admitted sexual relationship.
04:07:17 Um you said in your evidence that you would never have countenanced openly sexual relationships undercover. What do you mean exactly by openly?
04:07:30 What do you mean exactly by openly? I would just never have said you could have sexual relations. And so there wasn't a sense that by omitting to say that or turning a blind
04:07:42 omitting to say that or turning a blind eye that you could essentially permit them by Absolutely not. No.
04:07:58 We talked about the referral that you made for HN123 when he raised uh uh welfare issues in respect of his
04:08:09 welfare issues in respect of his operation and the the the psychiatric uh injury that he had been caused from his operation. Do you recall that? And you referred him to the psychiatrist Mary Piper.
04:08:20 Mary Piper. But if you recall, I didn't send him because he'd raised it. I I referred him because of the way that he was beginning to act within the within the squad, within his own activity. So, it wasn't
04:08:34 within his own activity. So, it wasn't because he'd raised any issue. It was because I realized that something wasn't right. Now, I'm not a doctor, not a medical person in any way, but it was clear to me that he needed some help.
04:08:47 clear to me that he needed some help. The only help I could think of was psychiatric support.
04:08:52 support. Is there any reason why you didn't refer HN43 Peter Francis to psychiatric support when his wife raised issues with the office through John Webb?
04:09:05 the office through John Webb? I can only say though um that I was un unaware of the extent to which he probably felt that he needed it. I I
04:09:16 he probably felt that he needed it. I I didn't recognize that. His wife said that he was acting strangely, but I believe is what she said. But that's not the same as the sort of activity and and
04:09:29 the same as the sort of activity and and the way that 123 was acting. Did John Webb disclose to you uh HM43's wife wife's concerns in a
04:09:42 HM43's wife wife's concerns in a concerned way? Was there a serious concern about HN43 Peter Francis [clears throat] in light of his wife's concerns?
04:09:51 concerns? All I can say is that um I'm sure John would have given me exactly the sort of information that he'd received from Mrs. Jenner.
04:10:08 Mrs. Francis, do you mean sorry to Mrs. Franc um you stated that UCOs were visited at home once a year and your aim was for
04:10:20 home once a year and your aim was for either yourself or the DI Lambert to visit each officer once every six months.
04:10:27 months. Is there a reason why you didn't uh visit HN43 Peter Francis at home?
04:10:38 Again, I I think I did say I thought certainly thought Bob had done it more than once and I thought I had done it at least once. I may that may not be enough, but certainly I do recall I do
04:10:51 enough, but certainly I do recall I do recall visiting at least once. Finally, can I ask you about the organizational role of UCOs and their level of influence within the groups
04:11:02 level of influence within the groups that they infiltrated specifically in relation to HN14 Jim Boiling in Reclaim the Streets?
04:11:13 Boiling in Reclaim the Streets? Uh, can I have MPS0526904
04:11:18 on screen, please?
04:11:40 And if increase that
04:11:47 we can see here that this is an annual authorization of operations in relation to operation psycho dream which is Jim Boiling's code name.
04:11:59 Boiling's code name. It's signed off by commander of operations Colin Black uh in the commencement date of his operation was June 1995, but I'm not too
04:12:10 operation was June 1995, but I'm not too sure what that date is at down at the bottom
04:12:15 bottom date.
04:12:18 Looks like 14th of the 5th and it might be 99. So, um I'm not too sure if you're going to be able to assist us with this because that would be post your um uh management dates, but can you see
04:12:32 um uh management dates, but can you see in the develop under the subheading development that it says
04:12:39 Psycho Dreams reporting during the last year leaves one in no doubt that he is part of the RTS inner circle responsible for the planning of all major RTS events.
04:12:52 events. And the much heralded stop the city on June the 18th will involve a major public operation. PD Psycho Dream is already providing high quality intelligence and respect of that event.
04:13:03 intelligence and respect of that event. What do you say about one of the officers being part of the inner circle responsible for the planning of all major events? Well, I would say that at least it for
04:13:15 Well, I would say that at least it for me acknowledges that you managed to get so close to the inner circle as to be able to report on all the important matters relating to
04:13:26 on all the important matters relating to RTS. It doesn't state there and I I'm wouldn't and we'll go back to what we've said no no um a provocator. It just means that he's part of the inner circle
04:13:38 means that he's part of the inner circle who involved in planning. Does that not infer to you that he is planning some of these events? We know we we know from HM14's deployment that
04:13:49 we we know from HM14's deployment that he was involved in um securing vehicles um as part of demonstrations that he was involved in entering buildings uh and occupying offices. Um
04:14:04 sorry, I was just going to say but that's not planning that's supporting an operation. that's providing um and getting as close as they possibly can without being a provocator and that's the important
04:14:16 provocator and that's the important thing.
04:14:17 thing. And had uh you uh uh determined that he had been planning the events, had been in a position of being a a provocator, what
04:14:28 position of being a a provocator, what would you have done about that? Well, and may I just again go back to say you don't know what date that is. Um, so I I'm I'm trying to answer if
04:14:42 Um, so I I'm I'm trying to answer if it's 99, if it's 99, I'm trying to answer a question about something I knew nothing about and that he his activity may have progressed and developed to
04:14:53 may have progressed and developed to such an extent that he was very much involved in the inner circle. I don't recall Jim being part of an inner circle. But even if, forgive me, I don't know what that date is, but do you see
04:15:05 know what that date is, but do you see what I'm trying to say to you? Um I I don't recognize that as being the gym that I knew as part of inner circle planning.
04:15:15 planning. Jim Jim was very close to to many of the organizers and and would have done that type of supporting role that many SD off SDS officers did.
04:15:27 SDS officers did. MPS
04:15:29 MPS uh 000000223 if we can have that on screen please describes Jim as a leading figure in RTS.
04:15:43 We can see that this is March 97. So before you have retired from the SDS a description of being a leading figure.
04:15:54 a description of being a leading figure. Did that not ring alarm bells with you that he might be in a position where he is leading the activists in RTS in their activities? Now that again I'll just say almost what
04:16:06 Now that again I'll just say almost what I've said before. It means that to me that he's become involved very closely with the activists but again understanding that and and the aon provocator was very much part of what
04:16:20 provocator was very much part of what they were were warned about. So yes, he could be a leading figure, but he does he doesn't have to be a figure that uh um gets involved in planning of
04:16:31 um gets involved in planning of activity.
04:16:33 activity. And did you personally have uh conversations with Jim Boiling about the dangers of becoming an a provocator given his leading position in RTS? I'm
04:16:45 given his leading position in RTS? I'm not saying personally, but definitely uh any anybody joining um STS would have been given that warning about
04:16:56 been given that warning about um aan provocator. And what steps were uh what steps were taken during the course of their deployment to reinforce that message if any?
04:17:07 I don't think there were specific steps uh reinforcing it. I think it was just a I think I would be acknowledging that learning what part he was playing that
04:17:18 learning what part he was playing that you know he was involved very closely perhaps but there was nothing to suggest that he was planning which is the important thing here. So trust trusting the officers to
04:17:31 So trust trusting the officers to excuse me
04:17:32 excuse me uh uh limit their own involvement. I'm afraid that's thinking now I think that's what we would have to do. Um just to flag that the date on that
04:17:45 Um just to flag that the date on that last report was the 14th of the 5th 99. Okay.
04:17:50 Okay. So post your your two years your retirement. Thank you. Those are all the questions that I have. Thank you. [clears throat] Thank you. You've had a long two days. Um as far as
04:18:01 You've had a long two days. Um as far as I know, there is no reason to think that I will ask you to come back again and I thank you for coming and giving the detailed evidence that you have. May I just address you on one thing, sir?
04:18:12 just address you on one thing, sir? Yes.
04:18:12 Yes. Um,
04:18:14 Um, obviously there's been a a lot of um adverse comment about SDS and the things we've done that have happened. But let me tell you, if I may,
04:18:26 happened. But let me tell you, if I may, I was very proud to have been a police officer.
04:18:29 officer. I [snorts] um was very privileged to have done and been involved in many of the activities of special branch in the most sensitive areas. So to have been given the
04:18:42 areas. So to have been given the privilege of being an SDS manager was something I I took to heart. Now I'm listening now to what we have done and what we haven't done and off some and
04:18:53 what we haven't done and off some and some things did go wrong. I can obviously but I would just like to commend many of the officers who who conducted themselves quite properly
04:19:04 conducted themselves quite properly throughout their time on SDS who provided invaluable intelligence much involving themselves as well in their own private lives in terms of the stresses on them. So while some things
04:19:17 stresses on them. So while some things went wrong, I would just like it to be recognized that many colleagues acted very very um properly in relation to their activity. Thank you, sir.
04:19:29 their activity. Thank you, sir. Please rest assured that uh in so far as I possibly can, I am hearing about the deployments of all officers and from uh
04:19:43 deployments of all officers and from uh all or almost all of those who remain living.
04:19:47 living. Thank you. Thank you very much. Tomorrow we will start at 9:30 as we will on Thursday. I'm sorry we
04:19:59 as we will on Thursday. I'm sorry we have a hard week this week. Uh, tomorrow's evidence will begin with that of Steven Titty and then the afternoon Helen Steel will come back to resume her her evidence.