DS HN216 Keith Edmondson, a supervising sergeant in the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) from 1997 to 2001, gives evidence about his knowledge of deceptive sexual relationships conducted by undercover officers under his supervision, including DC Jenner (HN15) and DC Boiling (HN14), his own 'Operational Legends' report proposing fictional partners for cover, and the SDS tradecraft manual's guidance on 'sexual liaisons' in the field. He is also pressed on intelligence reports recording the race of protest attendees, surveillance of the Stephen Lawrence and Ricky Reel justice campaigns, and repeated professed lack of recollection about warning signs he now accepts, in hindsight, should have prompted him to act.
00:47:29 Good morning everybody. Uh today's proceedings are going to be livereamed in the usual way with a 15minute delay. Those with mobile telephones may use them to report what they hear in the
00:47:40 them to report what they hear in the hearing room, but only after 15 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're reporting. They may not be used for recording or photography. Yes.
00:47:52 I swear by Almighty God I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth shall be the truth the whole truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and nothing but the truth
00:48:03 and nothing but the truth yes
00:48:04 yes thank you please sit down Mr. Tilly, I well aware of your medical condition and if at any time you need a break or you need to stop, just please say so and we
00:48:16 need to stop, just please say so and we will stop [snorts] immediately. Sure. Thank you. Yes.
00:48:23 Yes. So, Mr. Titty, thank you very much for attending to assist the inquiry with your evidence. Um, my questions are intended to be short and simple, but if you have any difficulty understanding them or you'd like me to repeat or
00:48:34 them or you'd like me to repeat or rephrase, please do say. As the chairs indicated, if you need a break at any time again, do say. May I also ask that you keep your voice up so that the transcribers can hear you
00:48:46 up so that the transcribers can hear you and make a note of your evidence. You've provided a witness statement to the inquiry. Um, please may we display control number um 0749334.
00:48:58 So tab A1. Uh this is a statement dated uh I think if you go to the final page I think it's 14th of March 2024 and consists of 156
00:49:09 14th of March 2024 and consists of 156 pages. If we could go please to the final page there is a redacted black box. That's page 156.
00:49:26 And we can see there is a box with your name on it. But under that I understand that's your signature. Yes, it is. Um, are there any corrections or amendments you wish to make to the
00:49:38 amendments you wish to make to the statement before we commence? None. Thank you. And can you confirm that the statement is true to the best of your knowledge and belief? Yes, it is. Are you happy for that to stand as your evidence-in-chief to this inquiry?
00:49:49 evidence-in-chief to this inquiry? Yes, I am. So, I'd like to admit that as Mr. Titt's uh evidence in chief. Mr. Mr. Titty, uh you joined the MPS in March 1971, um serving in uniform and then uh going
00:50:01 um serving in uniform and then uh going into vice, correct? And then in the mid 1970s, around 1975 or six, you joined special branch. Correct.
00:50:10 Correct. Correct. Yes. I understand that you served in ports A, B, C at least twice, and E squads. Uh is that a comprehensive list?
00:50:21 that a comprehensive list? Yes.
00:50:23 Yes. And you didn't serve in the surveillance? No, I didn't. Immediately prior to joining the SDS, we understand that you were serving on C squad. Is that right? Correct. Yes.
00:50:34 Correct. Yes. What knowledge did you have of the SDS and its work from your time on other units within special branch?
00:50:44 I was familiar that SCS existed. I was familiar with the methodology of the type of reporting that would come
00:50:55 of the type of reporting that would come onto C squad that would help C squad fulfill many of their obligations. Did you know of the SDS as as an entity
00:51:06 Did you know of the SDS as as an entity in when you're in the wider special branch
00:51:10 branch initially? No. But as time unfolds, you become aware of things like that. Yes. uh in 1997 you joined the SDS and you I
00:51:21 uh in 1997 you joined the SDS and you I understand that you joined as a detective sergeant even though you'd passed your inspector's exams by that stage given that you had I understand worked as an acting detective inspector elsewhere in uh special branch why why
00:51:33 elsewhere in uh special branch why why did you not seek an inspector's posting
00:51:38 the um examination system changes over a period of time and what happened was that uh it changed. So once
00:51:49 happened was that uh it changed. So once you'd
00:51:51 you'd gone to something called Osprey, I believe it was if you failed the operational side of that which was to do
00:52:02 operational side of that which was to do with a fictitional police station in a fictitional conabulary that they then took the exam away from you. So you would no [clears throat] longer became eligible for promotion.
00:52:14 longer became eligible for promotion. Now that was simply a period of time. Whereas many of my predecessors had kept their inspectance exam forever, mine was taken away from me.
00:52:25 mine was taken away from me. Uh but it is fair to say, isn't it, that by the time you join SDS, you are a very experienced detective sergeant. That's correct. Yes. You start on the unit in late 1997. And
00:52:38 You start on the unit in late 1997. And I think you suggest at um paragraph 14 that this was likely in October 97. Um and then you retired from the MPS in
00:52:50 Um and then you retired from the MPS in September 2001. Again, still still ranked as detective sergeant, but your recollection is that you left the SDS office slightly before that. Is that right?
00:52:59 right? That's correct. That's right. I had some u leave etc to take up and I left some sometime in July. I believe it's right, isn't it, that you didn't serve as a UNC undercover officer
00:53:12 serve as a UNC undercover officer yourself during your career. Correct.
00:53:15 Correct. But you had served as a uh covert human intelligence source, a CHIS handler. Yes.
00:53:22 Yes. Is that right?
00:53:25 If we could bring up please paragraph 21 of Mr. Titt's witness statement.
00:53:36 That's NPS 749338, page seven. [snorts]
00:53:46 You say at the top of page seven, a potential risk from employing only those who had served, previously served undercover was the tendency to look back on their own deployment as the correct way of doing something
00:53:58 way of doing something even when
00:54:01 even when time had moved on. The benefit was supervising officers who could understand and empathize with the experiences of the UCOs. So second sentence there, first you agree that there is a benefit of having former UCOs
00:54:13 there is a benefit of having former UCOs on the unit. Yes, I do. But exploring the first sentence, what is it? What do you mean by former officers looking back on their own deployment as the correct way of doing
00:54:24 deployment as the correct way of doing things?
00:54:27 things? Quite simply, if you have been operating as some of them had done in in in the field, you [clears throat] would have learned
00:54:38 learned a considerable amount about the the pitfalls, the obstacles, uh many of the issues that they have to deal with on a day-to-day basis that affects their their their intelligence work, the work
00:54:49 their their intelligence work, the work that
00:54:51 that the safety angle, their families, and having that in the tank enables you to then at a later stage in your career help other people almost in
00:55:03 your career help other people almost in a mentoring role. But are you suggesting that there's a um a prediliction for former UCOs to prefer their own methods over perhaps other methods which might be more
00:55:14 other methods which might be more current?
00:55:16 current? I think that each individual would probably um have certain people who would enjoy the benefit of people with previous experience and others perhaps not. So
00:55:27 experience and others perhaps not. So I'm I'm thinking more to do with the actual person giving the advice. So I think you're the suggestion I take from this paragraph is that you're saying that the officers who had served
00:55:38 that the officers who had served undercover had a tendency to look back on their deployment as being correct. That that is I think what you're saying. Is that right? That's right. Yes. Yeah. So preferring their methods to other
00:55:50 So preferring their methods to other methods.
00:55:51 methods. Yes.
00:55:53 Yes. When you wrote this in your statement, were you thinking of anyone in particular? No.
00:55:57 No. No. Very general that related to to to the office in general. And when you say um
00:56:08 And when you say um correct way of doing something even when time had moved on, what do you mean by that? Well, for as I explained a moment or so ago, um, people who had been in in
00:56:20 or so ago, um, people who had been in in the field, obviously then it was sometime later before they reemerged into in in the as office managers. So, um, things things change. So, things change, but some of the UCO
00:56:32 So, things change, but some of the UCO former UCOs preferred the old ways. Different time, different place. Different time scales, different Yeah, that's that's right. Um, did that
00:56:43 Um, did that preference for a tendency to look back on their own deployment is correct go so far as sexual activity undercover? I I'm I'm not sure I can accept that. I
00:56:56 I I'm I'm not sure I can accept that. I think that it's you spend a given amount of time in the field and as I explained earlier, there are obstacles. There are many many
00:57:07 are obstacles. There are many many hurdles that those individuals have to address and that helps later on when it comes to supervising newer people going into the office in in a in a different
00:57:18 into the office in in a in a different capacity and different field perhaps. [clears throat] I understand that you knew certain SDS officers from before your time on the SDS. In particular, you knew DCI HN58
00:57:39 That's your DCI through your the majority of your service, if not all of it.
00:57:48 Yes. And you knew Di Lambert? Yes.
00:57:53 Yes. You say you had known DCIHN58 from Special Branch and had served on S squad together. How long had you known him by by the time you joined the SDS?
00:58:04 by the time you joined the SDS? Well, many years. And how well did you know him? Uh,
00:58:10 Uh, very well. I mean, we weren't family related or anything like that, but we just knew each other through through work.
00:58:17 work. But but but you were friends rather than simply colleagues on good terms. Both. Both. There was always a uh we we we knew each other. [clears throat] Uh, and you say you're not sure um
00:58:31 Uh, and you say you're not sure um whether you approached the SDS or whether an SDS manager approached you to join. Uh, but if you were asked to guess, you would guess it was HN58 who asked you to join the unit. Yes. Correct. Yes.
00:58:45 Yes. Correct. Yes. And you knew, as you say, Di Lambert from your time in the special branch. And how long had you known him by the time you joined the unit? again a considerable amount of time because I knew him not that we'd worked
00:58:57 because I knew him not that we'd worked together but he was worked on other squads as I had in Special Bunch all prior to to SDS. And how well would you say you knew him? I I absolutely knew him uh but
00:59:10 I I absolutely knew him uh but because he was a a special branch colleague
00:59:14 colleague but not not on the friendly terms that you knew HN58. Not to the same extent. No. [clears throat] In terms of the other SDS personnel, the other sergeants when you joined, we understand, were HN52 DS
00:59:26 you joined, we understand, were HN52 DS Bernard Greedy. Yes.
00:59:28 Yes. And HN129 DS no war. Correct. Yes.
00:59:32 Yes. And then later DSHN9 replaced DS War at some point. Is that correct?
00:59:38 correct? Yes.
00:59:41 Yes. So during your service there are didn't didn't get that. DSHN9. You'll need to look at the list to know who that is.
00:59:53 But his name is closed.
01:00:03 HN9. Yeah.
01:00:13 Yes, I knew him.
01:00:21 So during your service, I think it's right to say there were five police officers of a supervising rank based in the SDS office, a DCI, a DI, and then three sergeants of which you were one.
01:00:32 three sergeants of which you were one. Correct.
01:00:35 And in terms of that office, was it a compact office? There would have been a um supervising admin role. Yes. Sorry. In terms of the office, is
01:00:46 Yes. Sorry. In terms of the office, is is it was it a single space? Was an open plan?
01:00:49 plan? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. And so you would all speak to each other each day. Is that typical? Sorry. Is that Would you typically speak to all of your colleagues every day? Oh, normally. Yes. And you could overhear what was going on
01:01:01 And you could overhear what was going on because you're working in the same space.
01:01:03 space. Uh no, because the the there was open plan
01:01:08 plan one part, but then there was other offices apart from that. So people could go and have meetings. um outside of the main office to speak more more confidentially. Okay.
01:01:20 confidentially. Okay. In terms of your initial training as an SDS manager, you say at paragraph 23, which we can find on page seven, I did have a handover with those members of the SDS who were in the office. They
01:01:31 the SDS who were in the office. They told me what my role was to entail, who I was working with, and where they were located. I expect this was mainly done by DCI uh and DI Lambert, DCI HN58 and
01:01:42 by DCI uh and DI Lambert, DCI HN58 and DI Lambert. And then a paragraph 24 on page eight, you say that your understanding of the SDS objectives came from the documentation available in the SDS offices when I arrived as well as
01:01:55 SDS offices when I arrived as well as discussions with other officers who were based in the SDS offices when I arrived. Do I take it there was no other induction or training? No, not per se. No.
01:02:07 No, not per se. No. And although it's mainly done by DI Lambert and DCIHN58, was there input from your fellow sergeants? Well, I think from everybody, everybody in terms of training materials, was it
01:02:19 in terms of training materials, was it essentially an ad hoc reading of whatever you could find in the office? There was there was um documentation that I was referred to um within the office when I arrived to
01:02:31 within the office when I arrived to become more familiar with the the SCS methodology. And at the time, did you think that the initial self-education and the induct limited induction you received was sufficient?
01:02:43 received was sufficient? Yes, I do. With hindsight, do you think that it was sufficient? Yes, I do.
01:02:53 By the time you joined the SDS, you had been in special branch for a long time. How typical was it to join a unit with that degree of um induction and
01:03:05 that degree of um induction and training?
01:03:07 training? It was for me was a normal extension of my special branch career. Um I had worked on squads where I was
01:03:19 I was handling identifying cultivating agents. I had
01:03:26 I had attended an MI5 agent handling course. So for me this was simply another role that I was able to play. [snorts] Now turning to the UCOs you supervised.
01:03:39 Now turning to the UCOs you supervised. Uh I is it correct that you were the principal sergeant with responsibility responsibility for the following UCOs? Um HN 15 DC Mark Jenner. Yes.
01:03:51 Yes. A DC HN81 whose real name is closed but whose cover name is David Hagen. Yes.
01:03:59 Yes. DC HN60. Again, real name closed but whose cover name was David Evans.
01:04:08 Hn60.
01:04:26 Not that I can recall. And HN 104 DC Carlos Saraki.
01:04:39 Partially, yes. What do you mean partially? I was there for a part of the I think our our periods over overlapped. That's
01:04:51 our our periods over overlapped. That's what I'm saying. But during the time that you were both in the unit, you supervised him. Is that fair?
01:04:57 fair? I certainly I think so.
01:05:08 You describe, if we bring up perhaps um pages 36 and 37 of your witness statement, you describe at paragraphs 106 and 107, which are up on the screen
01:05:20 106 and 107, which are up on the screen or will be shortly that your duties in the SDS fell into two broad categories. [cough]
01:05:29 [cough] [clears throat] first to help UCOs's create and maintain their legend and second to obtain, write up and disseminate intelligence that the UCOs provided to you. Presumably, you also had a role ensuring
01:05:42 Presumably, you also had a role ensuring a UCO's welfare. Is that right?
01:05:48 You you would a role I'm not sure was a role, but you would it was something you would discuss certainly. but a responsibility for you as a sergeant to ensure that your
01:06:00 ensure that your um a UCO in the field was safe. You certainly would discuss all aspects of their legends etc. Yeah. And I we also understand that you had a
01:06:12 And I we also understand that you had a particular unit responsibility in relation to transport. That's correct. Yes, I did. Yeah.
01:06:22 Focusing on your duties concerning report writing, is it right? Is it correct that the only information which you considered worthy of reporting was written up? To the best of my uh recollection? Yes.
01:06:37 To the best of my uh recollection? Yes. So there's a degree of filter. It's not a case of all intelligence.
01:06:43 No, you you in general time you reported what was what was important. So if if you considered information was not reportw worthy you it wouldn't be included in a written report
01:06:55 included in a written report pro probably um possibly I can't say verbatim no what process did you have to enable you
01:07:07 what process did you have to enable you to assess whether information was worthy or not worthy of being included in a final written report obviously hard intelligence and saw
01:07:18 obviously hard intelligence and saw intelligence relevant to any issues that may have been going on were was always reported and then you would consider everything else became secondary but
01:07:31 everything else became secondary but bearing in mind to le to omit something may not
01:07:36 may not be very clever because I'm simply one person and there are many many other people who would look at things and be think that's is important
01:07:47 things and be think that's is important for for for a bigger picture uh look at the uh anything that may be coming up. Did the extent of collateral intrusion by which effectively I mean the inclusion of sensitive personal
01:07:58 inclusion of sensitive personal information not relevant to the report affect your decision of what to include? Did I consider it? I'm not I can't say that I did consider it. Not now. Um because I I simply don't know.
01:08:13 because I I simply don't know. Is the truth of the matter that you left in everything that you thought might be of interest either then or later? Yes, sir.
01:08:27 Could we um look at paragraph 132 of your statement please? Page 48.
01:08:42 You say this once I had written an intelligence report I usually asked for a second pair of eyes on it
01:08:51 there that were always other there were always others in the SDS offices to double check that the material was sufficiently anonymized and worthy of reporting. We might also have have a conversation about where the report was to be
01:09:02 about where the report was to be disseminated although it was usually obvious [clears throat] where it was going to be sent. When would you ask for a second opinion? What would cause you to do that? If a if an issue was particularly
01:09:14 If a if an issue was particularly sensitive, I would want to make sure that the priority was always given to source protection and if on any difficult or sensitive matter, you had to make sure that the source was
01:09:25 to make sure that the source was protected. So, I needed to make sure that if I was uncertain of any of my terminology, that I would most certainly ask for uh uh somebody else in the office who I knew, which could have been
01:09:36 office who I knew, which could have been any one of the other individuals um to say, "Could you have a look at this, please?" [snorts] So, when you when you refer to sensitive material, you mean sensitive material that could compromise your source. Correct.
01:09:48 Correct. What about other sensitive material? Well, yes, because sometimes people depending upon the the the roles, the positions they played, when you receive
01:10:00 positions they played, when you receive a piece of information, very few people may have known about it. So, if you're going to disseminate that to a larger audience, you really do need to make sure that you're covering you're looking after the source.
01:10:12 after the source. Now, you say you usually ask for a second pair of eyes on it. How how often did you ask for a second second opinion? Sorry, could you? Yes. You say in this paragraph that you usually asked for a
01:10:24 paragraph that you usually asked for a second pair of eyes on your reports. How often is usually? Oh, I can't tell you. I I mean it's whenever report I I considered
01:10:35 whenever report I I considered needed a second pair of eyes. So So it wasn't a case of passing a stack of reports to another DS to go through all the reports and just just for safety check.
01:10:46 for safety check. Every so often I would certainly ask for a second opinion. Yes, sir.
01:10:52 Was double-checking of reported material an established practice?
01:11:01 I think if any officer any of the the the the managers in the office thought that the intelligence was sensitive, the answer to that is yes. C
01:11:13 sensitive, the answer to that is yes. C to call it an established practice probably be giving it too much um status. But no, I think that you you use common sense to look at any piece of information. I suppose what I'm asking is did the
01:11:25 I suppose what I'm asking is did the other sergeants writing up their reports ask you to check. They may have done. I can't I simply can't recall now.
01:11:34 And was this a process that your inspectors had asked you to do or one that you had adopted yourself? No, it it was something that you you were aware of. You you were very conscious of as
01:11:46 of. You you were very conscious of as everybody was in the office to ensure that their sources were as well protected as they possibly could be. And when it had had that second pair of eyes or double-checking, did the material within the final report change ever?
01:12:01 within the final report change ever? Was it a question of changing it, excising it, or stopping the report? Quite possibly. I I I I can't recall. I mean, did a word get changed in a report? Quite possibly. I I simply can't
01:12:13 report? Quite possibly. I I simply can't tell you.
01:12:17 Just briefly on accuracy of reporting. Uh can we bring up please MPS 301506? Sir, this is not in Mr. Titty's bundle.
01:12:29 Sir, this is not in Mr. Titty's bundle. Uh it is in um HN15's bundle. This is an intelligence report dated the 6th of November 1998. And at the second paragraph, it includes
01:12:41 And at the second paragraph, it includes this text. At present, intelligence and opportunist hits are carried out by stewards from North and East London together with privacy from South London who handles the photographic side. [snorts] Now, we understand that you
01:12:52 [snorts] Now, we understand that you supervise HN15. Mr. Jenner, is this a report which you would have typed up given the date and from whom it was coming? I'm I'm I'm sure I I'm I'm
01:13:03 was coming? I'm I'm I'm sure I I'm I'm sure I would if I could just read this paragraph. Of course.
01:13:36 quite probably in his evidence to the inquiry, Mr. Jenner said that there were no such opportunistic hits. Uh, and he said he
01:13:47 opportunistic hits. Uh, and he said he didn't write the report and it was inaccurate. Can you assist us? How did that information come to be written up in the report?
01:13:58 The only way I would have been able to have written that report would have been directly
01:14:06 directly from information or intelligence uh from Mr. Jenner.
01:14:15 And finally on this topic, did you have were there any checks that you would perform from the office to check that what was being recorded was in fact accurate?
01:14:27 in fact accurate? Was it effectively taking the UCIO's word for it? No, that would have been done on a wider basis.
01:14:36 basis. [snorts]
01:14:41 Looking at the hierarchy of the SDS in your statement at paragraph 125, you were asked about how you performance managed the UCOs and you say that you don't think that managed is the correct
01:14:53 don't think that managed is the correct word for the for the detective sergeants oversight within the SDS. You also say your primary concerns were UCIO's safety, maintaining their legends
01:15:04 UCIO's safety, maintaining their legends and collecting their intelligence, noting the UCOs in the field tended to be self-sufficient
01:15:12 in relation to the UCOs you oversaw. Was it a true reporting line or or or was it in some way fluid? No, it' be accurate in terms of the the um the onetoone, but if if if I if I
01:15:25 um the onetoone, but if if if I if I wasn't
01:15:26 wasn't [snorts] around, then that would have they would have spoken to to to somebody else. Um
01:15:33 [snorts] um why do you disagree in the statement with the description of managing the UCOs?
01:15:41 because of the role that they performed. They we saw them as best we possibly could uh on a on a Monday I believe
01:15:52 could uh on a on a Monday I believe which was a wider forum for the officers to come and and chat. We saw them individually as and when we could on on a Thursday dependent upon their time
01:16:06 a Thursday dependent upon their time scale but
01:16:08 scale but their their lives were dictated by a hundred other things. They had their alter egos, their legends to establish,
01:16:19 alter egos, their legends to establish, to make sure to to monitor, maintain. They had people they needed to develop and be with in the in the in the field. They had their own families to consider.
01:16:31 They had their own families to consider. So
01:16:33 So it was for them it was 24/7 crisis management. They they had no time. So to be able to spend time with them was was impossible. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't you
01:16:45 That doesn't mean that you shouldn't you wouldn't have had a role to manage and direct them. Does it? No. No. But it what I'm saying was extremely difficult because of their their time scales. They they were it was it was constant.
01:16:57 it was constant. So does that effectively mean that the UCOs were in essence left to get on with things as they saw fit and free from direct oversight? No. Hence the the the meetings that on a
01:17:08 No. Hence the the the meetings that on a Monday and a Thursday and at any other time um that was relevant and and it's it's important to remember that you can't
01:17:18 can't intervene because you don't you're you may be compromising their safety. At paragraph 102 of your statement, you say that UCOs's often chose to speak to
01:17:29 say that UCOs's often chose to speak to the DI or DCI about issues arising in the field. Uh given that people the people who held those ranks at the time had been in the field themselves.
01:17:41 I presume therefore you're referring to the fact that DCI HN58, DI Lambert and later DHN53 had all served as UCOs during their careers. Is that is that
01:17:52 during their careers. Is that is that the reference? Yes. and and they were seeking the benefit of their experience. Is that the impression you had? That's right. Was the practical effect of that that the UCOs you supervised
01:18:05 the UCOs you supervised would bypass you and deal directly with the man with your superior officers? If they felt more comfortable in dealing speaking to somebody else, then
01:18:16 dealing speaking to somebody else, then that was that was good on their part because they uh whatever happened they needed to feel comfortable in their own environment to enable them to continue their job. If that meant bypassing me,
01:18:28 their job. If that meant bypassing me, that was that's good. What matters did you think the UCOs would feel more comfortable speaking to uh the [clears throat] more senior officers but not you about? I can't help you with that. So, do I take it that those conversations
01:18:41 take it that those conversations remained private and weren't diss weren't trickled back down to you? I'm I'm confident that if it was it was relevant and I needed to know, I would have been told. Did you ever consider that they may be
01:18:53 Did you ever consider that they may be discussing prohibited conduct with DC DCI or DI? No.
01:19:04 If the information, if not all information came back to you from the DI and DCI,
01:19:10 and DCI, how could you safeguard the UCA's welfare when they're in the field? Because it would have come back to me. they would have it would have been channeled back to me and and as I said I would have been told what was important in order to ensure always to ensure
01:19:22 in order to ensure always to ensure their safety subject to what the DCI and DI feel is is appropriate to and and what the officer was telling them it's always it's always a two-way street
01:19:33 street you say at paragraph 47 of your statement that in particular DI Lambert was the first port of call for anything to do with UCO's welfare or problems in the field. Uh can you recall any
01:19:45 the field. Uh can you recall any specific examples of issues that UCOs's took to DI Lambert in the first instance? no no um particular instances except that his longevity in the field
01:19:56 except that his longevity in the field um meant that he was he was extremely well known um and was was very very well known within SDS circles and and people knew him for his
01:20:09 circles and and people knew him for his role and that's why often they would use him as a um as a barometer. What was known about his role? What was discussed? Well, he they knew that he had worked um as an undercover officer
01:20:21 had worked um as an undercover officer and he had been a manager for some considerable time. So, he had been a um a big asset to SCS over a considerable period.
01:20:29 period. Were the actions of Di Lambert in the field specific actions discussed? I have no I don't know. I wouldn't know.
01:20:41 At paragraph 47 of your statement on page 17, you say, "Di Lambert's management style was outstanding. His knowledge of the SDS was second to none and he had a deep understanding of the UCO role. He was sensitive and
01:20:53 UCO role. He was sensitive and approachable." And then you make the comment that we looked at about him being a first port of call. So you're very positive about Di Lambert's style of management. In what ways was his management style outstanding?
01:21:05 management style outstanding? He was extremely empathetic. He was very positive. He was extremely knowledgeable and and and I think because of his his his knowledge of the wider role of SDS,
01:21:17 his knowledge of the wider role of SDS, people naturally looked to him as as a um beacon of information, point of information. You've also described him elsewhere in your statement as irreplaceable. Why do
01:21:28 your statement as irreplaceable. Why do you say that? probably because of the length of time that that he'd spent in the office, but I'm aware that no one is irreplaceable,
01:21:39 I'm aware that no one is irreplaceable, but that would probably possibly have meant have been my meaning. SDS culture. How would you describe the culture of the SDS office?
01:21:51 the SDS office? Secret
01:21:54 Secret at the cost of everything else? No.
01:21:58 No. H how different was the culture within the SDS
01:22:01 the SDS uh as opposed to other units that you served in within special branch?
01:22:08 Was [clears throat] it did did it feel like a cultural cultural shock when you started working with SDS? Um not in in some ways. Yes. In because of
01:22:19 not in in some ways. Yes. In because of the the secrecy of the whole operation and uh
01:22:25 and uh that was the most important my memory the the secrecy of the operation
01:22:32 operation you saying that was the most important. Is is that what we we've heard of referred to recently as the golden rule that protect the SDS secrecy at all costs? I I I no that was my understanding but there was no such
01:22:43 understanding but there was no such thing as a a golden rule.
01:22:51 Did anyone in particular set the tone for the unit? Was was it a culture set by the top by the DCI? Uh was was there did it have its own particular um aura of of the space? You know, was h who
01:23:04 of of the space? You know, was h who shaped how things were led? Was it top down? No, there was it was a it was a a specialized unit run as an annex to the
01:23:17 specialized unit run as an annex to the main to main special branch um of there was no nothing special about it you know the just apart from the secrecy that was all
01:23:29 from the secrecy that was all I'd like to ask you about sexism within the SDS
01:23:34 the SDS in your experience how did it compare to the Metropolitan Police Service generally
01:23:42 in in what did did it feel more sexist? Were there or were there fewer sexist comments or attitudes displayed in the SDS to when you were in uniform or in special branch?
01:23:53 special branch? I I'm I'm simply not aware of any sexist comments made at any time during my time on SDS nor during my time in special
01:24:04 on SDS nor during my time in special branch
01:24:05 branch and in the wider MPS. Well, that was such a long time ago. That was now in the early '7s. So, I I think and the what I can remember about the early '7s
01:24:16 what I can remember about the early '7s is there were so few police officer ladies that were that sexism wouldn't have arisen because
01:24:27 sexism wouldn't have arisen because there were so few ladies.
01:24:31 Doesn't doesn't that suggest that it's potentially more likely to arise? No. because um of their roles and and and the ladies simply um there were very
01:24:42 and the ladies simply um there were very very few lady police officers. During your service, all the managers on the unit were male. Yes. Yes. As were the majority of the UCOs?
01:24:55 As were the majority of the UCOs? Yes.
01:24:58 Yes. Do you think that this gender imbalance as opposed to the wider society had an effect on the unit's culture and behavior?
01:25:08 behavior? Perhaps. But the the issue that they would face is identifying ladies that would be able to come in and uh do the job. That's right. That's not really what I'm
01:25:20 That's right. That's not really what I'm I'm I'm looking at. It's it's more in terms of conduct in how women were spoken about. within the unit. Do you think that was affected by the fact that most of the time that office must have had only men
01:25:32 time that office must have had only men in it?
01:25:33 in it? No. No. I I No, I don't. I obviously it's always good to have a a wider a gender balance. Most certainly, but if you can't, then you can't.
01:25:45 you can't, then you can't. Did you ever You said you not heard any sexist comments, but did you have anything that you would consider as sexist banter? No.
01:25:58 your service over overlapped with the deployment of I think at least six officers that the inquiry understands to have conducted sexual relationships undercover. Um
01:26:08 Um agent 14, 15, 16, 26, 60, and 104. Now you've accepted in your witness statement during your service in the SDS
01:26:19 statement during your service in the SDS that you knew of the sexual activity by H& 14 and 15. That's DC's Boiling and Jenna.
01:26:27 Jenna. In terms of knowledge during your service, are there any others that you would wish to add to that list today? So, we've got 14 15 16 James Thompson. 26 H26's name is closed and she was
01:26:40 26 H26's name is closed and she was deployed as Christine Green. Agent 60. Um we've spoken about uh it's again closed name but his he was
01:26:51 uh it's again closed name but his he was deployed as David Evans and 104's Carlos Iraqi.
01:26:55 Iraqi. The reason I'm not looking at my my my list is because I knew I had no knowledge of anything outside of what I've mentioned in other reporting.
01:27:17 deceitful sexual relationships. You have said at paragraph 65 of the statement that when you joined the unit, you familiarized yourself with documents in the SDS office.
01:27:30 in the SDS office. Uh and you say there was a lot of documentation in the office available to read, including the tradecraftraft manual. I familiarized myself with available documents. Can we take it that you mean by that that you read the tradecraft manual when you joined the
01:27:42 tradecraft manual when you joined the unit?
01:27:43 unit? Almost certainly. Yes.
01:27:50 UCO interviews. You explained in your statement that you were involved with interviews for the UCOs who joined the unit during your time there. Uh now the inquiry understands as part of these
01:28:02 inquiry understands as part of these interviews candidates were asked a series of questions based around scenarios. Do you recall those scenario questions being asked? No, I do not. Okay.
01:28:14 Okay. Can we please bring up MPS 0733163, please?
01:28:28 Now I think it's right to say that you your evidence is that you you as a general point would be involved with interviews for prospective new UCOs during your time on the unit. Correct.
01:28:39 during your time on the unit. Correct. Yes. When they were identified as potential candidates. Yes.
01:28:46 Yes. This is uh the interview proformer we understand for HN118 and also we can see under the other reduction box another another candidate.
01:28:57 reduction box another another candidate. It's dated 30th of January 2001. So you're still in the office. Yeah.
01:29:03 Yeah. And if you look on the panel we see that you're listed along with DCI [clears throat] HN58 and DI HN53. So we can see also on this first page that we've got some general general
01:29:15 that we've got some general general details to be completed in there. And then if we could go overly to page two, we have uh the start of the scenarios.
01:29:26 we have uh the start of the scenarios. Um and at least one if we look halfway down that racial violence steep. So presumably I think the suggestion would be that that you would have asked questions within that um within that
01:29:38 questions within that um within that scenario.
01:29:39 scenario. Sure. Does that ring any bells? Yeah. Which one?
01:29:48 If we could go over leaf, please to page three. And about onethird down the page, there's a there's a heading sex and drugs and rock and roll.
01:29:59 drugs and rock and roll. I understand from your statement of paragraph 143 that you say the interviews were designed to test a potential UC's ability to handle moments of stress in the field. So is it a [snorts] fair summary that they address
01:30:11 [snorts] fair summary that they address various scenarios as ident identified as posing particularly difficult moral or ethical conundrums? That's fair. And that UCOs might expect to deal with
01:30:22 And that UCOs might expect to deal with those in the field. [clears throat] Whether they would have to deal with them within the field, I I don't know. But it was simply a almost a knowledge
01:30:35 But it was simply a almost a knowledge and reasoning type type episode. That's all. So even if the specific scenario the topics would likely be matters dealt with in the field. So here we can see sex and drugs and rock and roll and
01:30:47 sex and drugs and rock and roll and it's effectively progressive scenario isn't it?
01:30:50 isn't it? Yes.
01:30:59 Do am [clears throat] I able to take it that by the inclusion of all of these topics, sex, and drug and rock and roll, um the the one we've seen on the previous uh page in relation to racial violence
01:31:13 that managers appreciated that a UCA may be involved with racial violence or in this case um offered
01:31:24 violence or in this case um offered drugs or a sexual encounter. Yeah. I mean there was simply topics to discuss that uh I've got no recollection of of this but uh yeah
01:31:38 recollection of of this but uh yeah now by the time of HN118's interview in January 2001 you've explained in your statement that you knew that DC boiling and DC Jenner had conducted sexual activity in the field
01:31:51 activity in the field to which we'll return later but but that's right in terms of timeline correct Here [snorts]
01:31:58 we have a scenario where it is quite clear that if we go over leaf to the next page on page four,
01:32:10 [clears throat] an officer goes home with uh someone that they are surveilling and it becomes obvious that she has no intention of leading leading before the morning. What do you do? So
01:32:21 before the morning. What do you do? So it's effectively looks like an offer of sex, doesn't it?
01:32:31 Can you recall
01:32:36 where this performer where this interview these interview scenarios came from?
01:32:41 from? No, I cannot. And so you can't say how long it was in usage with the SCS? No, it's I I I I cannot help. the the the documentation was shown to me a day
01:32:53 the documentation was shown to me a day or so ago and I have absolutely no recollection of it whatsoever. If we could just go back one page presumably even if this particular form of interview comes in later.
01:33:04 of interview comes in later. Yeah.
01:33:05 Yeah. Did it do you recall earlier interviews that you can remember being part of having a similar format of scenario questions?
01:33:21 No, I cannot. In relation specifically to the sex and drugs and rock and roll scenario, we can see the topics that are being assessed
01:33:33 see the topics that are being assessed um under awareness. One of the categories is level of commitment. Do you know what would you would have been looking for? simply a reaction from the individuals
01:33:44 simply a reaction from the individuals that they have how they responded. Would that commitment include sexual activity in order to maintain cover? No, it was it was it was simply to raise awareness of of listen what they were
01:33:57 awareness of of listen what they were saying about issues. What? Sorry. What do you mean raise awareness about what they were saying about issues? By by putting to them various topics uh to try and judge their reaction to how
01:34:09 to try and judge their reaction to how they may deal with something. So assessing their raw instincts on how they may behave. That's right. Yeah. In this one, we're looking at awareness, moral dilemm, the awareness, moral dilemas, levels of commitment, different
01:34:20 dilemas, levels of commitment, different values in society, and then the skills that are being assessed, moral and ethical boundaries.
01:34:29 Where would the boundary have been in this scenario? Where where would that have crossed acceptability? I I simply don't recall the the interviews and I
01:34:42 don't recall the the interviews and I don't recall the the um documentation. That's what I'm having difficulty with. I'll move on a little. Um we know that some of the UCOs who were recruited
01:34:53 some of the UCOs who were recruited obviously did take part in deceptive sexual activity. Do you have a view on anything that could have been done differently at interview to identify problematic candidates?
01:35:08 There's nothing that I can recall now that
01:35:13 that that I could have think of. Similarly, do you think there's anything that could have been done differently to make sure the position on deceitful sexual activity was clear at the outset of deployment, even from recruitment? I
01:35:26 of deployment, even from recruitment? I I'm under no illusions that
01:35:31 bearing in mind what I've learned since this inquiry started that there should have been more and there could have been more we we could try to put in place. Was it um
01:35:45 Was it um I'm not sure. Moving away from the interview scenario and back to to to a general proposition as managers presumably you accept that you were aware that there was a risk of a sexual
01:35:57 aware that there was a risk of a sexual advance and also a risk of sexual activity in the field for UCOs. No, I I I I don't accept that even as a risk even if not acted upon.
01:36:09 even as a risk even if not acted upon. It's
01:36:11 It's that kind of risk can happen anywhere to anybody. So the fact that somebody's acting working undercover [snorts] is a is a risk in in all in many many aspects. So it's it's it's it's there
01:36:23 aspects. So it's it's it's it's there but it's um it's not obvious.
01:36:28 You say it can happen to anybody but not everybody is assuming a false identity. No,
01:36:33 No, they don't necessarily have the option of simply saying, "Well, I'm I'm married or or giving an an excuse which is pertinent to their real life." It's a
01:36:45 pertinent to their real life." It's a different situation for a UCA. Do you would you accept that? Yes, I would. Was the risk of sexual advances towards a UCO in the field ever discussed openly
01:36:56 a UCO in the field ever discussed openly in the office? Not that I can recall.
01:37:05 Was the risk of sexual activity by a UCO in the field ever discussed openly in the office? No,
01:37:15 No, in private [clears throat]
01:37:22 not nothing
01:37:25 emerges that has not already been reported upon. Sorry, could you could you explain that? You say nothing emerges that has not already been reported upon. I'm just like to understand that answer a little bit more.
01:37:36 bit more. Um
01:37:38 Um the the answer so the answer is is is no.
01:37:47 When you say not being reported upon in in the in the in the in their alter egos.
01:37:54 egos. Yes. But I'm [snorts] talking about private discussions within the office about sexual activity by UCA. No, not at all.
01:38:04 In relation to the guidance provided to the UCOs about sexual activity while they prepared to deploy, what guidance did you personally provide them?
01:38:17 I think
01:38:22 to the best of my recollection, one of the primary areas was that of safety. um to make sure that their legends and
01:38:33 um to make sure that their legends and the alter egos were as intact as it possibly could be. The the wider welfare issue um I may not have
01:38:45 wider welfare issue um I may not have discussed as much.
01:38:53 Do you rec Who do you recall discussing that
01:38:58 that sexual activity in the alter egos? I I don't recall.
01:39:07 Um agent 60 who who who you may have supervised and was selected and deployed while you were in the SDS says this in his statement. We don't need to bring it up. I'm happy to read it. It is
01:39:18 I'm happy to read it. It is NPS's witness statement NPS0748427
01:39:24 paragraph 22B on page 11 and Agent 60 says there was no instruction on how far it was acceptable to enter into sexual relationships while undercover be before I deployed. Nothing was said to me about
01:39:37 I deployed. Nothing was said to me about sexual relationships by SDS managers before I was deployed that led me to foresee or anticipate the possibility that this would arise. Do I take it that you don't recall
01:39:48 Do I take it that you don't recall giving any guidance on sexual relationships to HN60? I'm I'm if if he if he has said that, I'm sure he's correct.
01:40:03 You say in your statement at paragraph 180 that sexual activity was unacceptable. And then at paragraph 181b you say you believe it was clear to all
01:40:14 you say you believe it was clear to all UCOs who entered the field that it should not happen and all efforts should be made to avoid it. How was that made clear to the UCOs?
01:40:32 I cannot recall. It It seems from your evidence today that it was not explicitly stated. No.
01:40:42 No. So if you didn't instruct them, who instructed them that sexual activity was unacceptable? I don't know that um you that question
01:40:55 I don't know that um you that question is probably better addressed to other each individual but I can only say that I can never recall speaking to anybody about
01:41:05 about not because it's not something that you would expect somebody to do anyway. the the the the whole aspect of this is they are coming from stable family
01:41:16 are coming from stable family backgrounds with families and so you do not expect them to cross a rubric and and and have um affairs outside of marriage
01:41:26 marriage and and when you say it's not something you would expect somebody to do anyway I think you've clarified to an extent that you mean you wouldn't expect people to have an affair outside marriage but do you also mean a police constable
01:41:38 you also mean a police constable having sexual relationship with a member of the public. What about in general? I mean, it applies to everything.
01:41:50 What did you understand the consequences to be for a UCO had they been found to have been having a uh having become involved in sexual activity in their undercover identity?
01:42:03 undercover identity? that I'm I'm I'm uncertain of um because I was never made aware of anybody having uh a sexual relationship while they were
01:42:16 uh a sexual relationship while they were in the field. Well, we'll come back to that. But you were aware of two sex two cases of sexual activity, weren't you? But not when they were in the field,
01:42:27 But not when they were in the field, but whilst they remained serving police officers.
01:42:31 officers. Yes.
01:42:33 Yes. We we will come back to that. Returning to the trade craft manual um at paragraph 181b of your witness statement which is helpfully up on the screen. It says the
01:42:46 helpfully up on the screen. It says the document about the thorny issue in my witness pack provides realistic guidance to UCOs about what to do if something happened despite all efforts to avoid it.
01:42:56 it. So I take it that that's a reference to the tradecraft manual. I I would imagine so. Yes. Um
01:43:05 Um [clears throat] and and we know because you've indicated already that you read that when you joined.
01:43:11 joined. Yes.
01:43:12 Yes. And UC's preparing to deploy would be directed to read it, wouldn't they? Yes.
01:43:18 Yes. You spoke to Operation Hearn about the tradecraftraft manual. If we could just bring that up. That's MPS072280.
01:43:26 So that's B134 in the bundle. And if we could show page two, please.
01:43:40 We can see here it's an interview with um two detective constables took place on the 24th of July 2013. If we could turn please to the head of page four please.
01:43:57 You asked about the tradecraftraft manual. Yeah. And you say or or you are reported as having said I do recall that officers would periodically be tested on the
01:44:09 would periodically be tested on the contents of the tradecraft manual. First of all, is this an accurate account of what you told the office in Operation Hearn? No, I don't think it is. Um certainly
01:44:20 No, I don't think it is. Um certainly the word test I would remove now um having look having a look at it. Most certainly. So, and and and why would you remove that
01:44:31 and and and why would you remove that word?
01:44:31 word? Well, because I I almost certainly they would have been uh referred to that document when they entered the um uh back office. But were they tested on the
01:44:43 back office. But were they tested on the tradecraftraft manual? No, I don't think that that was not I don't think so. So, do I take it that you didn't test them on the tradecraftraft manual? No, I didn't. No. Would Di Lambert test them on the tradecraftraft manual
01:44:54 tradecraftraft manual to the I don't know. Would the other sergeants test my I don't I don't know.
01:45:02 I think the word test is is wrong. The the impression one gets from this paragraph noting your your position on
01:45:14 paragraph noting your your position on it. But the position the the impression one gets is that this is a reference to something that is a true training manual and not just guidance. Would you agree with that reading? No. No. Um,
01:45:34 I'm not sure
01:45:39 if we could bring the tradecraftraft manual up, please. Mps0527597,
01:45:45 page 27, please. So, that's B8 of the bundle.
01:45:54 [clears throat]
01:46:02 That's the first page. Page 27, please.
01:46:08 So, we have section 5.6. There's the heading sexual Asians. And at 5.6.1, 6.1 uh we can see it opens with the the
01:46:20 uh we can see it opens with the the reference of the thorny issue of romantic entanglements during a tour is the cause of much soulsearching and concern. In the past, emotional ties to the opposition have happened and cause all sorts of difficulties including
01:46:32 all sorts of difficulties including divorce, deception, and disciplinary charges.
01:46:36 charges. When you read this section of the manual, did you understand it to mean that SDSUs had previously been in relationships while deployed? Uh no, but there had been difficulties quite
01:46:49 there had been difficulties quite obviously from from the and from what I understood people were encouraged to I think I described as a living breathing document which meant that people could add to
01:47:00 which meant that people could add to that document if they needed to if they needed to raise new things. Things always change. So um I was not aware of people having other
01:47:12 I was not aware of people having other relationships. So, but I'm aware that they could be. You referred to difficulties. What what what difficulties have there been? What you you can't uh define the word
01:47:23 What you you can't uh define the word difficulties when you're working undercover. Did you mean difficulties in relation to sexual relationships undercover? Everything you
01:47:32 you It's a very wide area. Too wide an area.
01:47:39 So, I'm just trying to understand. Is it your evidence that reading this you didn't understand it to be referring to sexual relationships while undercover?
01:47:48 I clearly understood that that people were having difficulties when they work undercover. That when you spend long times periods of time away from your family happens but no I'm not aware of
01:48:00 family happens but no I'm not aware of anybody having a sexual relationship because of that paragraph. And that's despite the section being headed sexual liaison and the paragraph referring to uh romantic relationships.
01:48:11 uh romantic relationships. Yeah. Yeah.
01:48:19 Again, when it refers to the consequences being divorce, deception, disciplinary charges, did that not make you realize that this is talking about sexual relationship? You mentioned the word divorce. that could easily because the length of time
01:48:30 could easily because the length of time the longevity of a person spends away from his family. If we could look at um paragraph 5.6.3 which is at the foot of paragraph 27 and
01:48:42 which is at the foot of paragraph 27 and then overleafly. So page 27 and over leaf to page 28 and if we could display them so we can see both side by side that would be great.
01:48:56 That's Thank you very much. So the bottom text, bottom block of text I think says if you if you have no other option but to become involved with a weary, you should try to have fleeting
01:49:09 weary, you should try to have fleeting disastrous relationships with individuals who are not important to your sources of information. One cannot be involved with a we with a weary in a relationship for any period of time without risking serious consequences.
01:49:22 without risking serious consequences. Can you expand on what you mean when you say that this document provides realistic guidance to UCOs? Well, I think in the in the first
01:49:33 Well, I think in the in the first sentence in these circumstances, you can either try to introduce an appropriate male or female friend um or ask the obviously they can find an STS obviously to fill that um obviously
01:49:46 is clearly written for people who are having difficulties that they need to seek advice.
01:49:54 What did you expect the UCOs to do with the knowledge from this document to to seek advice or to act in accordance with what it suggests? You yes you would uh but
01:50:05 You yes you would uh but sorry which you you you would hope they would seek advice. Just seek advice. What about acting in accordance with the guidance in this? Well, yes. I mean I don't think when you
01:50:16 Well, yes. I mean I don't think when you say in accordance with this tradecraftraft manual well with this specific section when they talk about having a relationship. Yes.
01:50:26 [clears throat] This document doesn't suggest, does it, that sexual relationships, which UCO considered unavoidable needed to be reported to managers. Was that
01:50:37 to be reported to managers. Was that advice that you ever gave to the UCOs's? No.
01:50:45 You said it provided realistic guidance but at the time did you consider that it provided appropriate guidance to UCOs? Yes. Yeah.
01:50:56 Yes. Yeah. So if we look at the text of the of this section,
01:51:00 section, do you accept that the way it's drafted suggests the overriding concern of the section of of this manual is the maintenance of a UCO's legend? No, I don't. I think that it's raising
01:51:11 No, I don't. I think that it's raising the awareness that but it doesn't condone anything of the tor
01:51:20 but in terms of the focus of the what the aim of this section of the ma of the manual
01:51:26 manual you don't accept that that it it puts the maintenance of legend above other considerations? No, I don't because nobody can condone
01:51:37 nobody can condone a sexual relationship while you're working undercover.
01:51:43 And of course, paragraph but paragraph 5.6.3
01:51:46 5.6.3 advises the sexual activity can be a part of that maintenance, doesn't it? And refers also to relationships plural.
01:51:57 And refers also to relationships plural. But it may do. Again,
01:52:00 Again, it's it's the whole set is wide open. It doesn't say who, where, when. It's simply to me it's it's simply an open-ended question. Uh, were you comfortable with the
01:52:12 Uh, were you comfortable with the guidance that it provided? Well, it wasn't guidance. It was simply a um a manual that I think people have been asked to contribute to in order to make
01:52:23 make newer underers coming in to make aware of potential difficulties. That's all. It wasn't a um a hard and fast rule or regulation. It was simply guidance,
01:52:35 regulation. It was simply guidance, but it was a document that you read when you joined the unit. Yes, it was. And which the UCOs all read when they joined?
01:52:39 joined? I'm I'm I'm sure they did.
01:52:44 Do you agree that by stating that if if unavoidable, you should try to have fleeting disastrous relationships, this section of the manual clearly contemplates not only the avoidance but
01:52:55 contemplates not only the avoidance but also the taking place of sexual activity undercover? No. No. I uh um
01:53:03 um I don't think the the the wording in there is
01:53:09 is difficult because It is unclear, but it's regardless of the wording, it is purely a guidance and should never detract from the fact that while you're undercover or any other, you should not
01:53:21 undercover or any other, you should not have you should [clears throat] not be having any form of sexual relationship. Now, to to be fair to you, you do make that point in your witness statement and you say it provided guidance on how to avoid sexual activity. It did not permit
01:53:33 avoid sexual activity. It did not permit sexual activity or give permission for it to take place. It was not a rule book and did not set out a policy. But would you agree that it didn't only suggest how to avoid sexual activity, but also provided on advice on the advice on the
01:53:45 provided on advice on the advice on the conduct of sexual activity undercover?
01:53:50 No, I don't think so.
01:53:56 In his oral evidence to this inquiry, HN118
01:54:02 HN118 recalls speaking to you about the sexual relationship section in this tradecraftraft manual. You may like to look up his
01:54:22 118 says that he recalls speaking to you about the sexual relationship section in the tradecraftraft manual and that your response to him was different time, different place. Um, I don't intend to
01:54:33 different place. Um, I don't intend to go to the transcript there, but the reference is HN18's evidence on the 16th of March this year. Um, page Folio 38, lines 1 to4. Do you recall that conversation with
01:54:45 Do you recall that conversation with 118?
01:54:46 118? No. And unfortunately, I don't recall knowing 118. I have no uh recollection of the name or of the individual. Okay. Well, now HM118 would have been in
01:54:58 Okay. Well, now HM118 would have been in the back office in 2001. Right. Now that's post states your operational legends note. Could Could you not have said, "Oh, it's an old account that that conduct's taken
01:55:10 an old account that that conduct's taken very seriously now." I um I My problem here is that I simply don't know him. Understood. I I I cannot I I can't help you.
01:55:35 If we could return please to your witness statement and paragraph 180.
01:55:49 I'd like to just go through a few a few paragraphs of your statement then ask you some questions. paragraph 180 on on page 66
01:56:03 this argument
01:56:12 he's saying starting at the end of the second line I had no idea or suspicion that any UCO I was supervising was engaging in sexual activity with activists in the field I [snorts] was not aware of any female activist s put
01:56:24 not aware of any female activist s put in that position. Sexual activity was unacceptable. If we could move to page 128 and paragraph 334
01:56:38 and you refer to intimate relationships. I had no knowledge or suspicion of any such relationships being conducted and I did and so I did not form any view of them.
01:56:49 them. And then the next paragraph, paragraph 335 on page 129. There was no culture of turning a blind eye to sexual activity in the field. My focus day today was on their
01:57:00 focus day today was on their intelligence, legend, and welfare. I did not ask whether any UCO was engaging in sexual activity in the field because there was no basis for doing so. On reflection, perhaps we should have been
01:57:11 reflection, perhaps we should have been trained to ask more questions, but I doubt this would have made a difference. you query whether you should have been trained to ask questions. What sort of questions did you have in mind that you
01:57:23 questions did you have in mind that you ought to have asked? I'm not
01:57:29 quite simply asking them perhaps more directly. um
01:57:37 that wasn't an obvious way to help develop a relationship with somebody that is working in a difficult environment.
01:57:49 working in a difficult environment. Um and also you would hope that over a period of time that if there were difficulties they would have come to you about whatever it may be. Um, and then
01:58:00 about whatever it may be. Um, and then you could explore what other methods you could take to try and help them. Now, what training do you think would have helped you with that? I don't know. I think I think experience
01:58:11 I don't know. I think I think experience is probably important, but I I I I can't tell you.
01:58:15 tell you. You were by that stage a very experienced detective within special branch. Presumably, you're very familiar with asking difficult questions. Yes.
01:58:23 Yes. Why could you not have done it in this case?
01:58:25 case? Because they would have known. They don't they didn't they didn't they didn't know me very well even though I may have been experienced within special branch within this particular unit
01:58:37 branch within this particular unit apart from one individual I didn't they they I didn't know them they didn't know me
01:58:45 when you say you doubt asking questions would have made a difference why do you say that? Oh. Um, because if somebody's going to have an affair, if something
01:58:56 going to have an affair, if something happens, it happens. You can put all the background into place, but if something happens, it happens.
01:59:05 happens. But this isn't the Again, this isn't the same as an affair, is it? This this is a whole different ball game. A deployed UCO Yes.
01:59:14 UCO Yes. with a member of the public. That's right. Who is deceived about the identity of that person. Yes.
01:59:20 Yes. interexual relationship. Yes.
01:59:22 Yes. It's not the same, is it? As as simply it's not simply the same as saying somebody's somebody's having an affair. Perhaps not. But by the same token you
01:59:34 Perhaps not. But by the same token you once you are out and away and working in your in a field to what ex extent officers are thinking about
01:59:47 about their families, their work, their individuals that they're with is a is a myriad of different thoughts going through their own minds. So you could
01:59:58 through their own minds. So you could talk to them and you could have all this training but ultimately I I don't think it would have made any difference. Isn't that exactly when a direct approach would have been useful? Perhaps.
02:00:11 Do you think if you'd asked them directly the UCA would have told you or would they have lied? I can't I can't answer that.
02:00:23 During his evidence, [clears throat] HN14 uh James Boing suggested that part of the skill in managing UCOs was knowing what questions not to ask the
02:00:34 knowing what questions not to ask the UCO in order to avoid official knowledge of certain matters. Is Mr. Boing correct in that? Were you purposefully not asking questions? Um if
02:00:45 Um if I don't know I can't comment on what Mr. Boing says. Um, and I'm sure that the individuals responsible who who would chat to Mr. Boing would have um been
02:00:59 chat to Mr. Boing would have um been extremely good in how they dealt with him and I'm sure I'm confident of that.
02:01:07 Was that something that you encountered? Was there um
02:01:16 did you and your manager colleagues intentionally avoid asking those difficult questions of UCOs to avoid direct knowledge? No.
02:01:24 No. Was
02:01:26 Was the reality not so much of a question of managers needing to receive training about asking questions of their UCOs, but rather the need to remove a cultural prohibition against curiosity to be
02:01:38 prohibition against curiosity to be lifted?
02:01:43 Uh you had been a sergeant of a supervising rank for nearly a decade by the time you joined um special branch. Had you been trained to identify when officers you supervised were struggling?
02:01:58 Trained wrong. No, that's that would be the wrong word. But you were you experienced? Yes. Yes.
02:02:07 Yes. Yes. And were you experienced in working out whether those you supervised were trying to conceal something from you? No. Um
02:02:18 No. Um you would certainly pick up anxieties from from all of the individuals um for the simple reason that some of them were working in extremely difficult fields and had good reason to be anxious.
02:02:33 and had good reason to be anxious. If we could turn now to your office note of the 10th of October 2000 that is MPS309432
02:02:40 sir that's B108 of the bundle. [clears throat]
02:02:49 This is an office note of two pages. And if we turn over to the second page, we can see it's signed off st at the bottom
02:03:00 bottom and dated the 10th of October. If I can take this by way of degree of summary, paragraph two, you explain the difficulties to a UCIO's legend and
02:03:11 difficulties to a UCIO's legend and maintaining the cover of an absent partner or a reason profitered for an unwillingness to enter into a relationship over a protected deployment. Is that a fair summary? No.
02:03:25 Paragraph 2, line five, [snorts] you refer to becoming involved with a married woman, hence a reluctance to discuss the virtues of this lady. What do you mean by that? The virtues of
02:03:37 What do you mean by that? The virtues of this lady. Yeah, maybe it's too cruy.
02:04:04 I think that's the the um an overall context of an individual's legend that they how they um
02:04:16 they um when they enter a field or when they leave a field, how they promote themselves to their Yes. Un understood. But specifically in relation to the
02:04:28 But specifically in relation to the language that you use here. Yes.
02:04:29 Yes. You say they may be involved with a married woman, hence a reluctance to discuss the virtues of this lady.
02:04:38 Is that belittling infidelity? There's a suggestion that there is um a cover story effectively of of of infidelity with a married woman. No, I
02:04:50 infidelity with a married woman. No, I don't I don't um I can't I'm what I'm here I'm struggling with is why I use the word married. Um well, I think the suggestion is that the
02:05:01 well, I think the suggestion is that the officer is able to tell those with whom he is associating. He doesn't want to talk about he he's in a relationship, but the lady is married. Yes.
02:05:10 Yes. I don't want to talk about her. Yes.
02:05:11 Yes. But you're talking here about virtues of the lady. And and I'm just asking specifically about the language. It's would you accept it is certainly gendered language, arguably sexist language. Why Why have you included that
02:05:23 language. Why Why have you included that in a work document? Um, I don't I I I'm struggling to see where there's anything sexist in there. Well, referring to in effect the virtues
02:05:35 Well, referring to in effect the virtues of the ladies, but I I think I'll I'll leave that on. I shall move on. At paragraph three, you write, "The introduction of a girlfriend boyfriend at a suitable stage engenders much greater confidence in the persona of the
02:05:47 greater confidence in the persona of the individual plus increases the viability of the operation. It's abnormal to continue to refer to the existence of someone without an occasional sighting." Sure.
02:05:56 Sure. And then paragraph four, starting beneath the redacted section, it says this. The reason that SDS have been so successful is primarily due to the resourcefulness of the officer and his much greater intelligence and nouse than
02:06:08 much greater intelligence and nouse than his fellow weary. It can therefore be safely assessed that at an early stage of entry it may sit as something of an oddity that an apparently intelligent individual many of whom possess good
02:06:19 individual many of whom possess good senses of humor are single. There is a limit as to how long each of us remains embited after our failed marriage, divorce, kicking the bollocks from the girlfriend etc.
02:06:31 girlfriend etc. So to summarize this section in more neutral terms, you're suggesting the fact that the UCO presents as an otherwise eligible individual but nevertheless remain single might be considered implausible by the targets.
02:06:43 considered implausible by the targets. Is that that's the sum correct? Yes. Um
02:06:49 Um what information had you based that comment upon? And I'm just going to ask you to try and keep your voice up a little bit. Thank you.
02:06:59 on
02:07:03 the whole methodology of individuals undercover office coming into the office and and leaving the field many years later. The it's there's a pattern that
02:07:18 later. The it's there's a pattern that emerges that when you enter the office or when you go into the field, I'm sorry, you're single. You are embited. There are certain similarities with every single person
02:07:31 similarities with every single person who has worked undercover and that oddity that idiosyncratic nature that they that that they possess in terms of they've had a a bad family background, difficult
02:07:43 bad family background, difficult background, a a failed marriage, they're they're single, etc. has has followed each individual regardless of the field all the way through until they leave. when they have something that happens
02:07:54 when they have something that happens which is a something and that's what I'm looking at as a whole as opposed to any individual. I'm looking at the whole pattern of the SDS as opposed to one
02:08:05 pattern of the SDS as opposed to one particular person.
02:08:12 Many people are single for many years. Why would it have been so implausible for them to have remained single single throughout? for the simple reason some of them are operated in a field where
02:08:24 of them are operated in a field where there are other single women and uh that in itself can present an issue
02:08:34 and why would have been being single in the long term lead back to the UCA being identified as a police officer? Yeah, I'm not saying I'm saying it can be it needn't be um but it but it can
02:08:47 be it needn't be um but it but it can be.
02:08:49 be. Paragraph five, you say this is that down the very foot of page one and over to page two. You say, "The most difficult type of inquiry is generally instigated from an attached female who
02:09:00 instigated from an attached female who may be taking soundings on behalf of one of her friends. The female antenni is a difficult creature to subdue. And whereas as a rule they applaud monog monogines, monogamy presumably, they do
02:09:13 monogines, monogamy presumably, they do possess the ability to unearth doubts about perceived relationships. Now that last sentence, are you suggesting that women are a creature to subdue? Is that is that your meaning? No. Um my meaning was was the opposite
02:09:26 No. Um my meaning was was the opposite of that. It was more to do with as a single officer going into the field
02:09:36 and there are other ladies around they and you're new to any particular environment. What happens is that they will you're seen the woman I think women
02:09:48 will you're seen the woman I think women are much more observant than than us men. So if you're in you're having tea or coffee or drinks or whatever, who is it that picks it up and starts to wash dishes? If you come with a a t-shirt
02:10:00 dishes? If you come with a a t-shirt that's suddenly ironed, you're single. Who's who's ironing your t-shirt for you? That kind of observation that a woman a lady can make. And that's what I was referring to.
02:10:13 So the crux of the note is in the final two sentences of page five. There have been recent operations for example touchy subject and psycho dream. Now touchy subject is a reference
02:10:24 dream. Now touchy subject is a reference to Mr. Jenner and psycho dream to Mr. Boiling where due to the lifestyle employed by the operatives their bonafidees were considered unimpeachable. This is patently not the case in every
02:10:36 This is patently not the case in every operation and consideration should now be given to providing additional operational support to field officers. First the practical point. What benefit did you see in employing uh what what we
02:10:49 did you see in employing uh what what we call support role players or fictional partners for the UCS? The whole uh purpose of of the uh of the report was to provoke discussion. Um I have no uh
02:11:01 to provoke discussion. Um I have no uh uh list of we must do we should consider A B C D or E. I think that uh any issue on this nature should be done in consult consultation with many if not all as
02:11:14 consultation with many if not all as many of the field officers as possible to understand the problems that they faced. It should be done by people who have are a much senior position with with within within special branch
02:11:26 with within within special branch because they ultimately will will have to consider budgets etc as to how we try and address this kind of problem. So it's not this is this is it's a very
02:11:37 it's not this is this is it's a very wide subject but but in essence you thought it was worth having a discussion about bringing in uh support role players certainly pro provoking discussion to
02:11:48 certainly pro provoking discussion to try and help officers of this yes I did now focusing on the sentence uh due to the lifestyle employed by the operatives their bonafidees are considered unimpeachable you explain in your
02:11:59 unimpeachable you explain in your statement that at the time you wrote the note you knew that DC Boiling and DC Jenner had been involved in sexual activity undercover. Correct. Yes.
02:12:09 Yes. You also say I did not know that they had been in long-term sexual relationships with activists and neither of them told me anything about sexual activity undercover themselves.
02:12:21 We'll explore exactly what you knew, but the inference here is that the officers themselves had concealed it. However, you'd been told by others. That is that the fair is that a fair summary? um whether I had been told by others,
02:12:33 um whether I had been told by others, whether I had read it, um I can't tell you now, but certainly I I learned of it.
02:12:39 it. You learned of it from somebody who was not a UCA. Yes. Yes.
02:12:46 Yes. Yes. You in this you in the paragraph I just read, you appear to make a distinction between sexual activity and long-term sexual relationships. Do do you accept that whether it is sexual activity
02:12:59 that whether it is sexual activity um or a long-term relationship, both are a deceit?
02:13:03 a deceit? Yes. Yes. Yes. And that it's egregious conduct, even if it is a one night stand? Yes.
02:13:14 Were short-term relationships acceptable in your view? No.
02:13:23 As I touched upon earlier in my questions, at the point that you found out, DC Boiling and DC Jenner were still serving police officers,
02:13:34 were still serving police officers, weren't they? Yes.
02:13:36 Yes. Albeit not on the unit. They they had moved on from Yes. Now, you must surely have appreciated that that was something that could be potentially misconduct. Uh,
02:13:48 Uh, should I phrase that? Did you appreciate at the time that that was potential misconduct? Yes.
02:13:56 Did you report it? No, I did not. And I think that the the reason probably I didn't report it was because I didn't think about it.
02:14:07 it was because I didn't think about it. I I raised the uh subject that that they were that they had, but for a different reason. It was connected with the
02:14:18 reason. It was connected with the operation of the field officers themselves as opposed to the disciplinary route that you're suggesting.
02:14:28 Was it because the the the person who communicated it to you was more senior than you?
02:14:34 than you? No, I I think it it was more I I because they had moved on. uh it was something that I needed I I felt important to address but in terms
02:14:46 felt important to address but in terms of the disciplinary code I did not think of that.
02:14:50 of that. Did you ask your senior managers what they had done about that in terms of discipline? No, I didn't. Was that because you were incurious? No, I think that they would have I I
02:15:02 No, I think that they would have I I mean, this is wrong for me because I'm talking hypothetically now, but I think they would have at some point read that report and and and would drawn their own conclusions from it.
02:15:13 from it. What report do you mean? The one that you're showing me. We'll come to that in in due course, but so I'm mindful of the time. We've been going quite a while. I [snorts] understand it maybe a good moment for a
02:15:25 understand it maybe a good moment for a morning break. Certainly. Um we'll have a 15minute break at that this time. Thank you sir. Is that uh enough for you? Yes it is sir. Thank you.
02:15:36 Yes it is sir. Thank you. Then we'll break 15 minutes and resume there.
02:34:23 Yes,
02:34:29 Mr. City, before the break, we were uh discussing your operational legends office note. if we could pull uh that back up please.
02:34:42 [snorts]
02:34:45 Thank you very much.
02:34:49 [snorts and clears throat] Looking at the section where you refer to uh the operatives bonafidees, you don't set out in plain language [clears throat] what DC Jenner and DC
02:35:01 [clears throat] what DC Jenner and DC Boiling had done. Uh, do you you don't refer to them having a relationship directly in this note, do you?
02:35:11 you? You're shaking your head. So, we you do need to articulate for for the transcript, please. When you say bonafidees, bonafidees meaning good faith. Is that what you
02:35:24 meaning good faith. Is that what you meant by it?
02:35:29 They're um they're legends. their their um alter egos, their strength in the in the field in general. Yeah.
02:35:38 Yeah. Something pertaining to them being genuine.
02:35:40 genuine. Yes. [sighs] So are you suggesting that despite having uh so you you're using unimpeachable bonafidees as a as a coded reference, aren't you? As effectively as
02:35:52 reference, aren't you? As effectively as a euphemism to their relationships? No.
02:35:56 No. um where where I use that that terminology was purely in respect of their their work their their work they both of them were
02:36:10 their their work they both of them were extremely good uh m Mr. the general I had personal knowledge of and his his his bonafide is in in
02:36:21 and his his his bonafide is in in respect of his ability to extract information intelligence was was extremely important. He he was extremely good and and I know that Mr. bowling I
02:36:32 good and and I know that Mr. bowling I don't didn't have as much to do with but I know that he was extremely well received in the office in terms of his ability and the work he did with I believe it was reclaim the streets I
02:36:44 believe it was reclaim the streets I believe
02:36:44 believe but the two officers you refer to as having unimpeachable bonafidees are the two officers who you knew by this stage had had deceitful sexual activity correct
02:36:55 correct yes and this is a note talking about how you can use uh a support role player to create the illusion of a fictional partner.
02:37:09 illusion of a fictional partner. You in the same document talk about unimpeachable bonafidees from two officers who had sexual relationships. What you were talking about in this paragraph is the fact that their
02:37:22 paragraph is the fact that their bonafidees their legends were unimpeachable because they had had sexual activity undercover. No, I cannot accept that. I what I will
02:37:33 No, I cannot accept that. I what I will accept acknowledge is that their bonafiders were established because of their ability to extract the relevant intelligence that they did, not because they had a sexual relationship with anybody. Because that that part of it
02:37:46 anybody. Because that that part of it was secondary. And the reason it was secondary was because I'd only just learned about it. And that's what which prompted the report. I that was it was new information. So I didn't know it.
02:37:58 new information. So I didn't know it. But their intelligence product yes
02:38:01 yes would not have been known to the female antenna for example that you discussed that's I'm dealing with something different that's a that's a different dynamic
02:38:10 dynamic what I'm dealing with as far as the female antenna is concerned is the what I discussed earlier was the the overall SDS methodology and that was purely that
02:38:22 SDS methodology and that was purely that when somebody goes into a field how are how do they dress what do they look like do you clean up the glasses and the cups and the sauces that is that it's there's different dynamics within this particular report that addresses the
02:38:35 particular report that addresses the under underpinning this is can we do more to help an officer that's but do you accept that would be a complete nonsequittor within the context of this note it just doesn't flow does
02:38:46 of this note it just doesn't flow does it you're talking about creating a legend using a person to create a fictional relationship the two examples you give are those
02:38:57 the two examples you give are those whose have created a a real relationship and therefore they are beyond suspicion. That's what you mean, isn't it? No, that may be your interpretation, but
02:39:09 No, that may be your interpretation, but that was not the rationale behind my writing of this report.
02:39:17 So your your suggestion is that you're referring in general terms to their operation and not to their sexual relationships. That's correct. And that is why you've used coded
02:39:28 And that is why you've used coded language like bonafidees rather than spelling it out what you mean.
02:39:32 mean. Yes.
02:39:40 If we look at the circulation of this note, we can see it goes to your effectively all of the supervising officers within the office. H58, HN53,
02:39:53 officers within the office. H58, HN53, HM129 DS War, and HN52 DS Greeny.
02:40:00 Was it the case that at the time that you circulated this note that each of those managers was aware that DC Jenner and DC Boiling had conducted relationships undercover?
02:40:11 relationships undercover? As a result of this this report, I would have said yes. So,
02:40:17 So, if we just get the timeline correct on this, at the time you wrote this note, you knew of those relationships. Yes, I did. At the time you circulated it, you believe everyone else in the senior in in the
02:40:28 everyone else in the senior in in the SCS management knew of those relationships. No, I they may have known about it as a result of the circulation of this note. I can't I can't Mr. Titty, you've just suggested that the the references to Bonafidees and how
02:40:41 the the references to Bonafidees and how unimpeachable their operations were was nothing to do with the fact they had sexual relationships in the field. That's right. If that if that is so, yeah,
02:40:49 yeah, how is it that this was would have tipped them off and made them aware of it? for for the simple reason is that I don't necessarily know that I would have jumped as soon as I found out about
02:41:01 have jumped as soon as I found out about the the the um relationships. I don't necessarily think I would have gone into print the next morning or whatever the case may be. Um you're talking you're introducing so many different
02:41:13 you're introducing so many different dynamics. This report covers many many issues and
02:41:21 whereas and underpinning it is a means purely to get more assistance for undercover officers not what who knew what or whatever and it's um if that report
02:41:34 whatever and it's um if that report informed other people in the office then that itself was helpful. Yeah.
02:41:42 Yeah. When it was circulated, did anybody come to you and say, "What do you mean by bonafidees?" And did you have to tell any of the managers, other managers what you meant by that? No, I didn't.
02:41:54 No, I didn't. So, H58 didn't need clarification. No, if the the date Yeah, I think if I'm correct
02:42:07 October 2000, my instinct is that this was just previous to
02:42:27 HN58 retiring.
02:42:30 retiring. I don't think that's correct because we we understand that HN58 retired in the summer of 2001 and was replaced by Michael Dell in around May 2001. So 6 months before? So okay,
02:42:41 okay, I I think we can put that to rest. Sure. Yeah. So did 58 know around this time of these relationships? 53 knew around this time of those
02:42:53 53 knew around this time of those relationships. your nodding, I'm afraid. I'm sorry. Yes. I'm sorry. So, it's yes to 58 and yes to 53.
02:43:05 So, it's yes to 58 and yes to 53. Yes.
02:43:06 Yes. DS War.
02:43:09 DS War. Yes.
02:43:11 Yes. And DS Greeny? Yes.
02:43:12 Yes. Do you recall discussing it specifically with any of those officers? No. I I am I am very familiar with the fact that I would have learned about the
02:43:24 fact that I would have learned about the relationships following either a discussion in the office or from a report that I cannot be more accurate than that
02:43:39 noting what you say about your intention around bonafidees and it's a matter for the chair as to how how ultimately he construs that But was it your intention by using those words to conceal the
02:43:51 by using those words to conceal the conduct of DC's Jenna and Boiling from others should that note have a wider circulation in the SCS? There was no um
02:44:05 the report stands on its own merit. It doesn't it's not suggested anything. And I think you're probably using the word bonafide is in um too strong a language.
02:44:17 bonafide is in um too strong a language. It was simply a eupheanism for for for both individuals. That was all. It wasn't um a special word that was introduced because of sexual
02:44:28 introduced because of sexual relationships. It most certainly wasn't. Mr. T, I accept it's a euphemism, but what we're trying to get to the bottom of is what is it a euphemism for? Um, but you accept you don't write here
02:44:39 Um, but you accept you don't write here because of the outstanding reporting and trade craft, do you? No, but the why couldn't you have said that?
02:44:47 that? For the simple reason is that that wasn't the rationale behind the reason for the report. The reason for writing the report was to, as I've mentioned earlier, was to provoke discussion as to
02:44:58 earlier, was to provoke discussion as to what else we could do for bearing in mind that information had come to me that both Mr. Mr. Boing and Mr. Jenner had had
02:45:10 had had sexual relationships when they were in the field. When I learned of that, I then
02:45:18 thought I would try and provoke some discussion. And your intention in writing this was to provoke discussion. What discussion actually took place to your recollection? Um, I I cannot recall, but I do know
02:45:31 Um, I I cannot recall, but I do know that something of this nature would have required a lot of thinking by each individual officer. I I'm speculating. I don't know. You don't recall? No.
02:45:47 And do I take it from your earlier answer that you don't expect this to have any wider dissemination than within the SDS?
02:45:54 the SDS? I wouldn't have thought so, but I can't be accurate on that. And did you have a specific discussion about it with any of your superiors? No, I did not.
02:46:12 The deployment of support role players is is a tactic, is it not? Yes.
02:46:19 Yes. Yes.
02:46:22 Yes. Is the suggestion within this note that sexual activity undercover
02:46:29 is also a tactic? No, that's not the the the the rational at any point or at any place within this report. It's to uh make people aware
02:46:43 report. It's to uh make people aware that there has been sexual activity and what can we try and possibly do to prevent that in the future. So your position is it doesn't condone sexual deception as tradecraft. That's right.
02:47:07 You suggested in your witness statement that you did not condone or intend to give the appearance of condoning the behavior of Jenna or Boiling in this note. Correct. Yes. Yes.
02:47:18 Yes. Yes. Why not condemn that behavior in this note?
02:47:23 note? Because that was not the intention or the point of the note. That I think would have taken place elsewhere. That is not the reason the report was written.
02:47:34 written. Why couldn't you have said sexual activity by boiling and Jenna meant they're beyond suspicion of their group, but this is entirely unacceptable and we need to think of ways to avoid it. for the simple reason the fact that
02:47:46 it. for the simple reason the fact that I knew that they had been involved in sexual relationships. I was not aware of the context of what they were um or the activities of either one of them. Did the knowledge that Mr. Jenner and
02:47:59 Did the knowledge that Mr. Jenner and Mr. Boiling had had sexual activity undercover give you any suspicion that other UCOs may also have been engaged in deceptive relationships? No.
02:48:12 Why did you think that Jenna and Boiling, so Mr. Jenner and Mr. Boiling were unique in that regard? Um, I didn't necessarily think they were unique. What I was doing was acting upon information that I'd received.
02:48:27 We've talked about direct questions and how it would have been difficult for you to have talked um to ask directly when you didn't know UC's.
02:48:39 when you didn't know UC's. Following this disclosure of those two known deceptive relationships, was that not sufficient prompt to you to go and ask the UCOs directly whether they had
02:48:50 ask the UCOs directly whether they had been also involved in sexual deceptive relationships? Perhaps it should have, but my my my focus was purely on raising the awareness of this issue.
02:49:05 raising the awareness of this issue. At paragraph 313 of your statement, you address what steps were taken by management to mitigate the risk that relationships undercover might develop and you suggest that one of the purposes
02:49:16 and you suggest that one of the purposes of your note was to open discussion as to how such risks can be mitigated.
02:49:24 Do you accept that the operational legends note doesn't refer to mitigating the risk of sexual relationships occurring? It may help if we can have that back up on screen. Yeah.
02:49:37 Yeah. Thank you. It talks, doesn't it, about how how somebody stands out by not having a relationship, but it doesn't mention anywhere
02:49:48 anywhere the difficulties of somebody having a relationship, does it? You you're you're quite correct, but that was not the purpose of the report.
02:49:59 The focus of this document is simply on maintaining a legend, isn't it? No, the focus of this report is raising awareness of people having um had relationships and what we can do to help
02:50:11 relationships and what we can do to help them.
02:50:13 them. Historic sexual relationships within the SDS.
02:50:17 SDS. Um
02:50:19 Um we know that detective inspector Rob Robert Lambert had um sexual uh a number of sexual relationships undercover. During your time with the SDS, did you
02:50:30 During your time with the SDS, did you ever hear anything about Di Lambert conducting sexual activity while deployed as a UCA? No.
02:50:36 No. Or that he had a child from one of those relationships? No.
02:50:41 No. You were close to DCI HN58. Did he never disclose anything to you about Di Lambert's experiences in the field in this regard? No.
02:50:52 No. HN43
02:50:54 HN43 Peter Francis left the unit a few months before your arrival. Did you ever hear any suggestion that he had conducted a relationship undercover? No.
02:51:06 Detective Sergeant War has suggested that
02:51:13 uh HN43's exit strategy involved leaving the country with a girlfriend. Did uh Sergeant War ever mention anything to you about Mr. Francis having a girlfriend while deployed? No.
02:51:24 No. HN1, did you hear about HN1 having a sexual relationship while deployed? No.
02:51:31 No. And HN67, did you hear a rumor that HN67 had fathered a child? No.
02:51:39 HN14, Jim Boing, I'd like to ask you about your knowledge of the specific deceitful activity of Mr. Boiling. From the date of that operational legends note, we know that you were
02:51:50 legends note, we know that you were aware of the sexual deception by DC boiling by the 10th of October 2000 at the latest. To the best of your recollection, when exactly did you find out about HN14 sexual activity undercover?
02:52:06 I cannot recall, but let's I'm going to assume it was he had left the field. But where he was then in relation to his
02:52:17 But where he was then in relation to his um next posting or his down I I can't tell you.
02:52:20 tell you. So I I I understand that I think 14 left the Mr. Boing left the field in September 2000. Right.
02:52:28 Right. So when you wrote this note that must have been pretty fresh knowledge. Yes.
02:52:34 Yes. So maybe within a few weeks of finding out you write this note. At paragraph 328 of your statement, you say,
02:52:45 say, "Although I had been told by someone in the office that DC Boiling had engaged in sexual activity in the field, I did not know he had been in a long-term relationship." What exactly were you told about DC
02:52:57 What exactly were you told about DC Boiling sexual activity? I I I wasn't told. I I simply can't help you. I I have no recollection of the discussion or the report that I read
02:53:10 discussion or the report that I read that makes reference to Mr. Boing's sexual activities and um I I don't know anything about his activities. Well, just so we're clear on this point, regardless of whether somebody spoke to
02:53:22 regardless of whether somebody spoke to you or wrote to you or however it's communicated that what detail you recall, the the detail exactly as you're you're describing um I I cannot help you with because I I don't know. I can't recall
02:53:34 because I I don't know. I can't recall it
02:53:35 it simply that he had had sexual activity undercover that that that but who told me or where it came from I cannot I cannot help you with
02:53:44 with yes but but I want to know first of all specifically what you were told and and is it simply he has had sexual activity
02:53:52 activity that's it that's right yes you didn't know did you whether it was a relationship or whether it was something more fleeting no none at
02:54:04 Paragraph 328 of that statement says that you heard from someone in the office, but I take it to mean I take your evidence so far to mean that you
02:54:15 your evidence so far to mean that you don't recall who it was now. No, I do not.
02:54:22 In relation to DC Boiling's relationship with Monica, HN14 when he referred to uh Detective Sergeant Greeny showing him surveillance photographs which showed him and Monica
02:54:34 photographs which showed him and Monica at a demonstration possibly in 1997 in which they were very clearly shown as a couple. Uh Mr. Boiling thought it likely that the photograph the photographs were shown to the detective
02:54:46 photographs were shown to the detective inspector and detective chief inspector. Did you ever see photographs like that? No. No.
02:54:52 No. No. Were you told about photographs like that?
02:54:54 that? No, I wasn't. Did DS Greeny ever speak about those photographs? No.
02:55:05 Uh, HN14 also says he told his field mentor. Did you hear from that field mentor?
02:55:12 mentor? No.
02:55:14 No. Moving to Rosa. In relation to Mr. Boiling's relationship with Rosa. He says this. Uh, his witness statement is UCPI 36294,
02:55:25 UCPI 36294, paragraph 296, starting at page 127. If we could bring that up, that would be helpful.
02:55:51 Thank you very much. Page 127, please.
02:56:04 He says, uh, six lines down. By the end of my deployment in September 2000, our relationship had been going for almost a year, and I understood that SDS
02:56:15 year, and I understood that SDS management was aware of it, accepted it as inevitable, but did not discuss it openly, leaving me to deal with it as best I could. Now, you said you're aware of that sexual activity undercover, but I take
02:56:27 sexual activity undercover, but I take it that you didn't if Sorry, but only after he'd been withdrawn from the field. Correct.
02:56:41 Now, prior to his withdrawal from the field, Mr. Boiling says he'd been in that relationship from November 99 to around August 2000.
02:56:52 Looking back and having regard to the timeline,
02:56:56 timeline, do you think that the sexual deception of which you became aware in September was that of Rosa or can you not say? No, I can't. I mean, I I have no
02:57:07 No, I can't. I mean, I I have no knowledge of it whatsoever. No knowledge at all,
02:57:19 please. Could we show MPS 074810 0 and page three, please? So, that's B31 in your bundle.
02:57:44 Thank you very much. And page three, please.
02:57:52 This is a file note. Yeah.
02:57:55 Yeah. About Rosa visiting Mr. Boiling's former Duff address. And if we look at the foot of the page, we can see it's written by DS Green and was circulated to DCI HN58,
02:58:06 DS Green and was circulated to DCI HN58, DCI, DI H53, DS War and you. So a full office circulation. Yeah. I mean normally what would happen is that uh that circulation would be
02:58:18 is that uh that circulation would be there and anybody who read it would have initialed it. So which would say that they have read it and if my signature appeared on it then I read it. If I it
02:58:29 appeared on it then I read it. If I it doesn't then I wouldn't have read it. Well, it doesn't look like we have anyone's signature on this this particular document. No,
02:58:35 No, but presumably it would have been put in front of you, would it? Most certainly if it was if it was uh most certainly would there was a like a memo and because you you were in the
02:58:46 memo and because you you were in the office, you were out of the office, you were doing whatever, you couldn't possibly be there all the time. So you would you would make sure you familiarize yourself with that particular with with all the mowers to keep yourself up to date with what was
02:58:57 keep yourself up to date with what was happening as a general rule in the office.
02:58:59 office. Yeah. So when we see a circulation like this, it it is likely that it would have been put in front of you at the time. Although we can't confirm it, I accept because we haven't got a sign. That's right. Yes. But this isn't signed by anyone. So it's potentially the final copy, isn't it?
02:59:10 potentially the final copy, isn't it? That's right. Yeah. Uh if we look at the top, it says 15 Wednesday 15th of November 2000. Veteran RTS activist Rosa paid a visit to PD's former address. I could dream Mr.
02:59:21 former address. I could dream Mr. Boiling then details her inquiry, including passing a note to a decorator working there about Mr. Boiling's welfare. Do you recall seeing this note?
02:59:32 welfare. Do you recall seeing this note? No, I don't.
02:59:38 Do you recall discussing this incident in the office? No, I don't.
02:59:46 at the uh the final paragraph here says DI HN59 53 will discuss the matter with PD when they meet on Thursday the 9th of November.
02:59:57 November. Were you part of that meeting? No, I wasn't. And in in general um Mr. Bolin was not part of my um group of individuals that I I I covered
03:00:08 of individuals that I I I covered anyway.
03:00:12 At page 126 of your witness statement, uh, paragraphs 327 and 328, you refer to Rosa contacting the SDS office, and you say that while in the SDS, you
03:00:24 and you say that while in the SDS, you didn't know that a woman in the field was looking for Mr. Boiling. Can that be right given the contents of the farm that we've just looked at? I need I would need to see
03:00:43 Thank you. Ah, thank you.
03:01:07 Yeah, thank you. So, having looked at the file that we've just seen about the contact with the decorator, do you want to change your position in relation to whether you were aware?
03:01:19 relation to whether you were aware? No, I don't. The woman from the field was looking. No.
03:01:21 No. Please, [snorts] could we show MPS 30952,
03:01:25 30952, sir? That's B128, which is another document containing notes relating to HM14's withdrawal.
03:01:36 And if we could go to page five, please.
03:01:43 This page records Rosa undertaking extensive research into Jim's background in including contacting the landlord. We've seen about that. And passing a message again. And that's
03:01:55 And passing a message again. And that's part of that same note. If we could now move to page uh first of all, have you seen this summary note before?
03:02:03 before? To the best of my knowledge, no. If we could move to page seven, please. There's an account of Rosa contacting the office. [snorts]
03:02:16 the office. [snorts] And we see an account down there of four calls within the space of around 45 minutes.
03:02:23 minutes. Did you see this note at the time that you're serving on the SDS? No.
03:02:31 No. Now, it seems that Detective Sergeant War and Detective Sergeant Greeny answered these calls. There are three calls to the duty phone and one to the office phone. Starting with the duty phone, that's the mobile phone, isn't
03:02:42 phone, that's the mobile phone, isn't it?
03:02:42 it? Yes.
03:02:43 Yes. That held by the duty officer. That's a role that you would have done from time to time. Correct. Correct. Yes. The office phone. phone within the office. Was that just used for UCOs to
03:02:55 office. Was that just used for UCOs to call in or was it a more general line?
03:03:00 Certainly for UCOs's calling most certainly.
03:03:05 Now we can see that it suggests that um Rosa was in a distressed state. And if we look at the the record of that final call, it says, "If you see Jim, tell him
03:03:16 call, it says, "If you see Jim, tell him I'm leaving him and it's all over." Now, the reference to leaving, would you agree that suggests a sexual relationship?
03:03:27 Reading that, yes. It's the language of a breakup. That's right. Yes.
03:03:35 We've established you would have answered from time to time the office phone and the duty phone. Was it usual for anyone other than UCIs to call those lines? No. I mean, no.
03:03:50 And so I think it must follow that it was highly unusual for a stranger to have called the lines. Yes.
03:04:00 It's likely, isn't it, that a call such as the calls described here would have been notable events. Yes.
03:04:10 Yes. Alarms would be ringing. It would have most certainly somebody would have been talking about it most certainly. It suggests at the least a compromise of a UCO.
03:04:21 a UCO. Yes.
03:04:22 Yes. And potentially the entire SDS. Certainly the compromise of of of of UCO. Yes.
03:04:29 UCO. Yes. Given there were only three detective sergeants, two of whom had spoken to Rosa, surely your colleagues would have spoken to you and amongst each other about this.
03:04:40 about this. Um there's a possibility. Um, but I I can't
03:04:44 can't I can only talk hypothetically on on on the point you're making because I've this is the first time I've seen this. I have no knowledge of it. So, I can't give you anything that's accurate.
03:04:56 give you anything that's accurate. Well, would it's not quite fair, is it? You have seen it. I appreciate you may not have seen this at the time. Sure.
03:05:02 Sure. But you have seen it and you've addressed it in your witness statement, haven't you? Yes, of course. Mhm.
03:05:08 Would it not be inconceivable that the detective sergeants would not have told you of these calls? I I am I'm I'm confident that if somebody had
03:05:19 I'm confident that if somebody had an issue of this nature certainly would have been discussed or brought to everybody's attention. So the fact you don't recall is more likely to be that you've forgotten
03:05:30 likely to be that you've forgotten rather than you don't know. I certainly have no recollection of it. Can you suggest why your colleagues might have kept it from you? No.
03:05:42 No. So now we're at a stage where there is the note from the decorator and the telephone calls.
03:05:53 Is it likely that by this stage you knew that Rosa, a woman from the field, was trying to contact Mr. Boiling? I I I
03:06:04 trying to contact Mr. Boiling? I I I don't know. I mean, I simply can't help you because I've I've got no recollection of it. DS War in his statement says that he became aware of Jim Boing's relationship with Rosa when she telephoned the
03:06:16 with Rosa when she telephoned the office. And then he says, "I shared this information with other managers, although I cannot recall precisely who. Is it likely you were one of them?" No. Unlikely. Unlikely.
03:06:27 Unlikely. Yes.
03:06:28 Yes. Why would it have been unlikely? You just said in terms of why you can't think of any reason why I'm sure I would have remembered
03:06:38 but again you say you can't you couldn't think why they would keep it from you. No serious again quite simply um when something of this nature comes in you make people aware but also you there is a need to
03:06:49 aware but also you there is a need to know you if did I need to know this was happening yes or no depending upon what the thoughts were of other people. Uh, please could we go to MPS 074810
03:07:01 Uh, please could we go to MPS 074810 0 and page 20 of that document?
03:07:07 So that's back to B31 of your bundle.
03:07:27 Thank you. Might might assist to zoom in slightly.
03:07:33 Uh Mr. T, take a moment to to read this. Uh but in essence, it's a note recording the telephone calls from Rosa.
03:07:46 Oh, Dr. You'll
03:07:50 You'll be a beautiful thing. Don't worry.
03:08:09 Thank you. So, in essence, it's it records those telephone calls and and it looks like DH50 HN53 seemingly setting out the party line to be taken if any further calls are
03:08:20 be taken if any further calls are received. Is that a fair summary of the document?
03:08:23 document? Um, yes. I I don't I'm sure it is. Do you recall seeing this note at the time?
03:08:30 time? No, I do not. Given that you were someone who would be tasked from time to time to answer the office phone and the duty phone, it's likely, isn't it, that you would have been told of this note or
03:08:42 you would have been told of this note or of the standing orders generally? Um,
03:08:45 Um, not necessarily because if I think I would have been I would have been my my name doesn't appear anywhere near. No, you're you're quite right. But if we look at the nature of the document,
03:08:56 look at the nature of the document, there seems to be an agreed line. uh
03:08:59 uh the the the bullet points effectively what is
03:09:02 what is that's the SDS line but most certainly if if I'm sure
03:09:10 I'm sure HN53 would have informed me but I have no recollection of it.
03:09:19 So if you're sure he would have informed you and it it's likely you would have been told the party line by the 12th of December you must have realized that somebody from the weary world was looking for Mr. Boiling
03:09:32 looking for Mr. Boiling if if they were and this clearly points out that they were I cannot recall it. It can't have been the situation that you were the only person not to know what the standing orders are. No, I I it's it's um and I one of the reasons is
03:09:45 it's it's um and I one of the reasons is that um
03:09:49 that um I wasn't that familiar with Mr. Boiling's circumstances.
03:09:55 Neither his neither from a a a work perspective or in a a relationship perspective. By this time, you knew DC Boiling had
03:10:06 By this time, you knew DC Boiling had conducted sexual activity undercover. Correct.
03:10:10 Correct. Yes.
03:10:10 Yes. This in December 2000
03:10:17 was the reality that the SDS management assumed Rosa was somebody deceived into sexual activity with DC boiling. Oh, I could only assume so.
03:10:31 Oh, I could only assume so. Did you discuss it with anyone? No.
03:10:35 No. What are you basing that assumption on? Well, I'm I'm I'm saying no, I didn't discuss it with him because I I I was aware of DC Bowling's sexual relationship as per my the report that
03:10:46 relationship as per my the report that you've referred me to, but who, what, where, I cannot expand on that any further.
03:10:53 further. I'm just trying to understand. So, so we we know by this stage you knew that the sexual activity undercover had occurred. Yes.
03:10:59 Yes. By the 12th of December at least, it is likely that you knew someone was trying to chase him. No.
03:11:05 No. No. No, I mean it's the fact that he was in a relationship doesn't automatically mean somebody's going to chase him. No, but somebody was chasing him, weren't they? But but that that would be so if I was
03:11:16 But but that that would be so if I was if I was aware of this most certainly. Do you recall the SDS office's understanding being that this is the person with whom he'd had a relationship? U
03:11:26 U I I simply don't recall the whole aspect.
03:11:31 aspect. So you don't recall the repeated emotive efforts of Rosa to trace Mr. No, I do not.
03:11:50 And that is so despite the file note, despite the multiple phone calls, and despite the standing orders, you didn't put two and two together. No, I I uh his, as I said, he he wasn't
03:12:02 No, I I uh his, as I said, he he wasn't under my wing. Moving to someone who was under your wing. Um H&15 uh DC Jenner paragraph 303 of your statement uh
03:12:15 paragraph 303 of your statement uh please which is at page 119.
03:12:38 You see here, I did not know that DC Jenna had been involved in sexual activity while undercover until after he had left the field. I believe someone in the SCS office told me, but I cannot now remember who that was. I did not ever
03:12:50 remember who that was. I did not ever have a conversation about it with DC Jenner. It's apparent that I had been told about the factory sexual activity in the field by the time I wrote the office note dated 10th of October, 2000.
03:13:01 again. Can you remember when and by whom you were told about Mr. Jenner's sexual deceit?
03:13:07 deceit? Um, date wise, no. But the the proximity to his leaving the field and and the date of this note would have been um that that period of time.
03:13:19 that that period of time. Yes. So, if it is this, I think Mr. Jenner left the field in April 2000. Okay.
03:13:24 Okay. He left the SDS in April 2000. So between then and the 10th of October, but you can't pinpoint any clear more clearly than that. No, I cannot.
03:13:35 Now, Mr. Jenner was a a UCO who reported to you, so you should have been his first port of call generally. Yes.
03:13:43 Yes. You would handle or triage the administration of his deployment? Yes.
03:13:48 Yes. If we could bring up MPS 0749473.
03:13:54 So this is B25 in your bundle.
03:14:11 This sets out uh the the profile for touchy subject. That's Mr. Jenner and um the details of Mark Cassidy, his uh cover name. And we see address details
03:14:24 cover name. And we see address details can be can see that um he moved into Allison's address in February 1996. So if we see down next to address from 25 to96
03:14:36 to96 now that predates your time on the unit. When you joined what did you understand Mr. Jenner's living arrangement to be?
03:14:45 I cannot recall.
03:14:52 Was it typical he was in a potentially in a shared accommodation situation, right? Yes.
03:14:59 Yes. Was that typical amongst your UCOs? Oh, I I I almost certainly Yes. Almost certainly. Yes. Shared accommodation. I to the best of my knowledge, I can't I
03:15:10 I to the best of my knowledge, I can't I can't I'm not being accurate because I can't recall. I think our understanding is that shared accommodation was unusual at this time.
03:15:35 the individual's offices living arrangements I cannot accurately recall for any one of them be they shared or otherwise.
03:15:47 be they shared or otherwise. So you did you have any understanding of whether he was sharing a house with activists?
03:15:55 An understanding? No. But I'm sure that I would have learned about that over the course of time. I was we were talking. Yes.
03:16:01 Yes. But in fact, he was cohabiting with the woman we're calling Allison. No.
03:16:06 No. Didn't know that. No.
03:16:11 Even if he were sharing his accommodation with activists, would that have been unusual to be in a shared house with activists? No. I
03:16:19 No. I people upon whom he was reporting? No. The fact that um the circumstances in which these people lived varied and although they may have
03:16:31 lived varied and although they may have had their own places that changed over time to time. So it's nothing is unusual in terms of living arrangements. In his evidence, Mr. Jenner suggested
03:16:42 In his evidence, Mr. Jenner suggested that moving in with activists was a euphemism
03:16:46 euphemism for cohabiting with somebody with who the offer officer was conducting a sexual relationship. Is that how you understood that expression? No. I if that is true then I'm not aware of it.
03:16:57 of it. Did you hear others using that terminology? No, I didn't.
03:17:03 What checks did you do on Mr. Jenna's cover accommodation.
03:17:09 None. It would have been too dangerous.
03:17:16 Surely you could have checked things like electoral registers. Uh um it would the the cover identity accommodation sorry of an individual
03:17:27 accommodation sorry of an individual is his or is his and I did no checks on I'm sure I did no checks on it. But you had a duty to ensure his welfare. Yes.
03:17:37 Yes. You had
03:17:40 You had oversight of some of the administration to do with his deployment. Yes.
03:17:45 Yes. But you didn't check where he was living
03:17:50 to the I if I did I did but I cannot recall physically doing that kind of activity now. And you didn't know with whom he was living?
03:18:02 I I can't recall. How did you check it continued to be safe and appropriate for DC Jenner to remain in that cover accommodation? By conversations with him directly,
03:18:17 but no independent checks. I I I cannot recall any. Did you and your managers discuss the issue of DC Jenner living in a shared
03:18:28 issue of DC Jenner living in a shared house from a well-being perspective?
03:18:34 It it it's possible, but no specific recollection. No. No.
03:18:40 No. No. Please, could we bring up MPS 0749473
03:18:44 and page 12 of that document, please?
03:18:53 Thank you very much. If we could zoom on the top left hand corner, this is a floor plan of Allison's address and also on that page there, contact details for DC Jenner. Do you recall seeing this
03:19:05 DC Jenner. Do you recall seeing this diagram on file during your time in the SDS?
03:19:09 SDS? I I may have done, but I have no accurate recollection of it.
03:19:16 Was it typical to retain a floor park floor plan on the file for UCAs? Um, I'm sure it was for from a from a safety perspective.
03:19:28 What would you do with it from a safety perspective? Well, if somebody needed help, you you could know where they were, how the house was set out, how it was laid out.
03:19:39 house was set out, how it was laid out. That's always important. But not with whom he was living. No.
03:19:45 So, do I take it that you do not recall discussing this floor plan with HN15? No, I I I
03:19:54 No, I I I I can't recall that. No. Uh, Mr. Jenner gave evidence that Di Lambert knew that he was living with um Allison and that DI Lambert knew the
03:20:05 Allison and that DI Lambert knew the diagram was misleading. Uh, did you discuss HN15's living arrangements with Inspector Lambert? It it's it's possible, but I don't
03:20:17 It it's it's possible, but I don't recall it.
03:20:20 Did he tell you what the true situation was in relation to him living with Allison?
03:20:25 Allison? No, not by any means. My understanding always with with Mr. Jenna was that he was sharing accommodation with other people. And I put that in in the plural
03:20:39 people. And I put that in in the plural [snorts]
03:20:52 please. Can we go to um MPS 0526752?
03:21:00 So this is not a a document that is not in the bundle. And if we could go please to page four,
03:21:08 paragraphs six and seven.
03:21:13 It's the third paragraph from the bottom of the penultimate one. Thank you very much. So this is a branch note by um DCI HN58
03:21:26 So this is a branch note by um DCI HN58 dated the 2nd of March 1998 and it concerns uh DC Jenner's arrest in Dover. And for the present purposes, if we focus on these two uh paragraphs, it
03:21:37 focus on these two uh paragraphs, it says, "Of a more worrying concern was a telephone call into his Duff address on Monday the 2nd of March at 3:00 a.m. by an unknown male who referred to Mark as you provided and made some general
03:21:49 you provided and made some general threatening remarks. Do you recall this incident?" Oh,
03:21:58 vaguely. Do you recall what steps that you as his cover officer took to assess and mitigate this risk to your UCA? Uh,
03:22:06 Uh, it was
03:22:11 in the first instance a obviously a direct conversation with Mr. Jenner almost certainly tried to get from him as much
03:22:23 tried to get from him as much information as was possible. Now, bearing in mind the the the um the words uh you provo bastard. Um
03:22:34 uh you provo bastard. Um you look at the his involvement the [snorts] groups that he was with. That in itself isn't a surprise. That's in a sense part and possible. Then you what
03:22:46 sense part and possible. Then you what you have to make take into consideration I'm sorry is the wider aspect of that as to whether um who' made the phone call and
03:22:59 who' made the phone call and more importantly how we were to monitor the situation.
03:23:09 Did you consider the security of DC Jenner's duff accommodation? I'm sure
03:23:17 I'm sure matters of that nature would have been discussed
03:23:20 discussed not just with Mr. Jenner but also somebody else either um Mr. Lambert or HN58.
03:23:29 HN58. Did you discuss the risk to anyone with whom HN15 was living?
03:23:35 I cannot recall that. I mean it's I can I cannot I cannot say yes to that. This incident concerns a potentially serious threat to an officer's safety and
03:23:46 threat to an officer's safety and welfare. Would you agree? Mr. Jenner's recollection, sorry, you nodded. Just in agreement, Mr. Jenner's recollection is that you did not treat it as such and regarded it as a joke
03:23:57 it as such and regarded it as a joke during a weekly meeting. Is he right in that recollection? I wouldn't have thought so. Um, I would have thought that that would have been the opposite of what had happened for the simple reason is that anybody that
03:24:10 the simple reason is that anybody that comes and expresses any anxiety about anything at all is dealt with very seriously and but with his support. You can't say we will do this
03:24:21 support. You can't say we will do this or we will do that because of their circumstances. You have to work with the individual as opposed to anything else. But you have no recollection of specific
03:24:32 But you have no recollection of specific steps that you took to ensure his welfare.
03:24:34 welfare. No, but I I'm I'm sure that something was done to follow and and I mentioned the fact that monitoring because you wouldn't you're not going to take action
03:24:45 wouldn't you're not going to take action the fact that something's happened that doesn't necessarily follow, but you do monitor it. And um to the best of my recollection or knowledge,
03:24:56 recollection or knowledge, I believe I believe this was an isolated incident, but I I can't be accurate on that. Now, um Mr. Jenner gave evidence to the
03:25:07 um Mr. Jenner gave evidence to the effect that uh DS war attended him attended a court with him in do um and that DS returned to the office
03:25:18 um and that DS returned to the office and said in front of everyone um oh was that your girlfriend you were with Mr. Jenner considered that DS must have known about the relationship with Allison.
03:25:29 Allison. So that would have been around April 1998 as we understand that um Mr. Mr. Jenner appeared at David Magistrates on the 1st of April 98. Do you recall DS War making that comment?
03:25:41 War making that comment? No, I do not. Mr. Jenner suggested it was a bit of an open secret.
03:25:47 I I disagree with that. Did DS War ever confide in you his knowledge or suspicion about HN15? No, he did not.
03:25:58 Moving to um Mr. Jenna's withdrawal strategy which I understand you drafted. If we could um go to that MPS302741
03:26:10 page one
03:26:14 not in the bundle I'm afraid.
03:26:27 So third paragraph down TS Mr. Jenna's code name touchy subject has for some time lived in shared accommodation and over the past few weeks he has slowly but surely begun displaying overt signs
03:26:38 but surely begun displaying overt signs of antisocial behavior. This part of the sherad includes short-temperedness, grumpiness and a general attitude of disdain and dislike to other housemates. Now first is this a document you would
03:26:49 Now first is this a document you would have discussed with Mr. Jenner? Yes
03:26:52 Yes in detail? Yes.
03:26:56 Yes. Now, he suggested he had no input in the document beyond a meeting with you, him, and HN58 to discuss his thoughts on the best way to withdraw. Is that right? Would would he have seen the document?
03:27:07 Would would he have seen the document? That I'm not sure. But in terms of the content of the document, he would have been very familiar with And the account of Mr. Jenner's accommodation, was that accurate as far as you were concerned at the time? Um
03:27:20 as you were concerned at the time? Um let me know the play was
03:27:24 to move into South London. Yes. Um
03:27:32 is there something else in the report that I should be referring to because I've got this big line. No, that that's all really I wanted to ask you in the specific lift and shared a couple. Yeah, that's fine. Yes. Yeah.
03:27:45 Um, in his evidence to the inquiry, Mr. Jenner
03:27:51 Jenner was
03:27:53 was surprised that you wouldn't have known.
03:27:58 Do Do you know why he would be surprised? I can't help you.
03:28:07 Did he tell you? No, he did not.
03:28:14 Did you draft the withdrawal strategy in these terms to cover up the fact that DC Jenner was cohabiting with Allison and maintaining a sexual relationship while deployed?
03:28:23 deployed? No, I did not.
03:28:32 Um, DC Jenner, Mr. Jenner's evidence was that he told fellow UCOs about his relationship with Allison. Did any of the UCOs ever tell you or imply that DC Jenner was in a relationship while
03:28:43 Jenner was in a relationship while undercover? No, they did not. What about Di Lambert before he left? No, he didn't.
03:28:54 Mr. Jenner suggested he agrees with you. He he didn't tell you and he suggested he didn't inform you because you had a reputation of being a little bit indiscreet.
03:29:05 indiscreet. Do you accept that characterization of you as indiscreet? I what somebody says about me or doesn't it's not a matter for me.
03:29:16 it's not a matter for me. You don't recognize that personality trait in yourself? It's not a matter for me. Was there a perception within the unit of you being indiscreet? Again, I have no
03:29:29 Again, I have no a word of that nature I've got no knowledge of.
03:29:35 Were you aware of the efforts that Allison made to try to contact DC Jenner after he left the field? No.
03:29:43 No. Can we just pull up please MPS 309531 uh sir B115.
03:29:57 Yeah, this is a file note.
03:30:05 in relation to contact between uh DI Lambert after he'd left the unit uh reporting that Mr. Jenner's cover
03:30:16 uh reporting that Mr. Jenner's cover employer had been contacted by Allison. Now, did you see this note at the time? I don't know. I it's um
03:30:30 I can't I can't tell you. It's I I the strength there is there is nothing on there that suggests who wrote it, dated where it came from. Circulation.
03:30:43 dated where it came from. Circulation. It's it's empty. Well, I I I believe that comes from I think the 28th of May. I think we can date it to 2001. So it's around the end
03:30:54 date it to 2001. So it's around the end of May 2001. Okay.
03:30:57 Okay. But you don't remember this being discussed? No, I don't. No. And again, it appears to be somebody reaching out to try to trace a UCO certainly
03:31:04 certainly who has left the field. Yeah.
03:31:06 Yeah. Again, would that not have been something that would have been discussed fairly widely within the office? If it was that I'm that I'm sure I I I would remember, but I I have no recollection now. This is only six or seven months after
03:31:17 This is only six or seven months after Rose's calls to the office. Yeah.
03:31:20 Yeah. Did that not ring any alarms?
03:31:24 It [laughter] it would have done if I if I could remember it. Another female with concern for the welfare of somebody contacting the office to see to speak to another UCO
03:31:35 office to see to speak to another UCO who had been withdrawn. Nobody put two and two together there. No, because again it's it's it's your memory you and and the two would have been linked together most certainly, but
03:31:46 been linked together most certainly, but I can't recall it. Um,
03:31:52 you spoke to officers from Operation Hearn in 2013 and we can bring it up. MPS 0732s
03:31:59 MPS 0732s 80 B134
03:32:02 80 B134 page 6 final paragraph and I'll read it while it comes up in the interest of time. Sorry. MPS 07 2222
03:32:15 Sorry. MPS 07 2222 80.
03:32:22 Sorry, three twos is probably not very helpful.
03:32:27 Uh and page six, please.
03:32:33 And if we can zoom in where it says Mark Jenner
03:32:37 Jenner now, do you recall speaking to Operation Hearn in 2013? Yeah,
03:32:44 Yeah, here it says, "Mark was a really good guy, first class. I have no recollection of any issues with relationships with women."
03:32:51 women." Um, is that an accurate record of what you told the officers from Operation Hearn?
03:32:55 Hearn? Um, probably at the time with Hearn, the answer to that is yes, because for the simple reason is already that was x number of years after I'd left retired.
03:33:07 number of years after I'd left retired. Secondly,
03:33:09 Secondly, when you move on, you simply there's so much that you you automatically forget. So, um that would have been my recollection at the time with Hearn with
03:33:20 recollection at the time with Hearn with hindsight now. No, but then I'm sure that was my accurate recollection. So, although you knew in 2000 Yes.
03:33:28 Yes. you forgotten it by 2013 and you didn't tell that. Yes.
03:33:34 Yes. Were you trying to cover up for Mr. Jenner?
03:33:36 Jenner? No, I wasn't. It was, as I just explained, it was what I would have remembered at the time. And just so we're clear, you weren't taking a semantic point between the
03:33:47 taking a semantic point between the distinction between relationships and sexual activity. You're simply saying you didn't know of any involvement with him and women. That's right.
03:33:57 Did you attend the Christmas events uh put on for officers and their wives with the SDS?
03:34:09 Yes. Did you meet S, the the woman we're calling S, who was Mr. Jenner's then wife at those SDS social functions? I have really can't tell you. I I
03:34:23 absolutely went to a [snorts] Christmas lunch as you've just described it. Definitely recall meeting to the best of my knowledge
03:34:35 to the best of my knowledge Mr. Jenna's wife. But if you were to ask me what her name was now, I can't help you.
03:34:41 you. No. Well, I'd rather you didn't say it. No. No. I But I wouldn't be able to. In relation to that, do you know which years you attended those lunches?
03:34:55 Maybe I can narrow it down. I mean, did they attend the lunch in 2000?
03:35:01 No, I I I don't think I did. I I think my recollection is of one where a year probably well the year maybe before then
03:35:12 probably well the year maybe before then um which was overnight um but not the launch that you're describing. I'll ask you directly did you conceal knowledge of HN15 section activity from
03:35:23 knowledge of HN15 section activity from S?
03:35:23 S? No.
03:35:26 No. You also supervised Carlos Saraki, HN 104, and I understand you you supervised him from the time that he joined the unit until you left in July 2001. We've already touched on there being sort of a
03:35:37 already touched on there being sort of a minimal overlap, but an overlap nonetheless, correct? Yes.
03:35:43 Yes. If we could go please to Mr. Saraki's witness statement. That's UCPI 35550,
03:35:52 paragraph 180 on page 92, please.
03:36:10 So here he says, "I I did not speak to any of my SDS managers directly about any of the three relationships at the time that they were taking place. I did raise the fact that I was having problems with contacts trying to pair me
03:36:21 problems with contacts trying to pair me up and this led to the response from DS Beals or DS Titty that I should use my common sense and deal with this myself.
03:36:31 Now at paragraph 177 of his statement, Mr. Saraki's asked about a comment he made to Opern and he says that the document
03:36:42 to Opern and he says that the document contains a reference to him asking for a fictional girlfriend. and he says SDS management failed to provide one and me being told by a supervisor, you're a big boy, use your head. I'm pretty certain it was DS Steve
03:36:55 head. I'm pretty certain it was DS Steve Beiels who said this to me, but I had the conver had conversations with DS Titty and DS Beiels on this issue.
03:37:03 Um, so we don't need to go to the manuscript note, but it for your note is MPS0738088
03:37:12 and page 18. Now, in the manuscript note from Operation Home, which is being put to Mr. Saraki, it does say, "Pulled Steve Beals. It's bothering me." And
03:37:23 Steve Beals. It's bothering me." And then, "You're a big boy. You're grown up. Use your head." We've asked you about these comments in your witness statement. You say it's certainly possible the Mr. Saraki raised
03:37:35 certainly possible the Mr. Saraki raised um avoiding romantic advances. But you would not have said anything like, "You're a big boy, use your head." which is not a comment attributed to me by DC Saraki in any event. Nor would I
03:37:46 by DC Saraki in any event. Nor would I have said anything to suggest getting involved with someone in the field who was not who was not a target activist. This is not a distinction I would have made because all sexual activity in the field was to be avoided.
03:37:58 Just to be clear, are you suggesting the conversation didn't happen at all or it may have happened but you don't recall? I'm suggesting that the I'm stating
03:38:09 I'm suggesting that the I'm stating clearly that if that those if those that conversation took place the words that were used about BB would not have been
03:38:21 were used about BB would not have been said by me. Uh would I have taken a different track? Pro almost certainly. Um but the the the words are simply not
03:38:34 but the the the words are simply not mine.
03:38:36 mine. Um, just in fairness, Mr. Saraki gave evidence about this and and he said he was asked, "What exactly did Sergeant Titty say to you?" Because I appreciate there's some ambiguity in the written documents about whether it's Mr. Beiels
03:38:48 documents about whether it's Mr. Beiels or whether it is you. He said being asked what Mr. Titty said to you. I don't remember exactly. So definitely you're a big boy. You'll work out the best way to deal with this. And I took that to mean that if you needed to, so
03:39:00 that to mean that if you needed to, so long as you don't sort of broadcast it, it would be let not let go, but it would be allowed to continue. So that's his most recent recollection. Did you give him advice in those terms?
03:39:11 Did you give him advice in those terms? No, I did not.
03:39:15 Was it was he correct that as long as sexual relationships were not broadcast, they'd be allowed to continue? He was wrong. Now this is obviously well after your operational legends note acknowledging
03:39:27 operational legends note acknowledging the value of support role players. Were any steps taken to arrange a support role player for M when Mr. Saraki sorry when Mr. Saraki alerted you to this issue that he was facing.
03:39:40 this issue that he was facing. Um that I I I can't help you with I don't know.
03:39:46 You say of this in your witness statement that any issue raised by DC Sarrai about activists trying to pair him off might have triggered a conversation in the office did it. I it it may have done but again
03:39:57 did it. I it it may have done but again I have no recollection of it.
03:40:10 You say that you were not informed by Mr. Saraki that he was conducting sexual relationships while deployed. Given that a conversation about the difficulties he was having with sexual advances took
03:40:21 was having with sexual advances took place or may have taken place, did you proactively monitor that situation? If I had been aware of it, I I'm I would have not just monitor it but but have
03:40:32 have not just monitor it but but have taken some degree of action. But having not been aware of it, I I there's I can't add to anything. Um, Mr. Saraki's admitted to a number of
03:40:43 Um, Mr. Saraki's admitted to a number of sexual relationships while undercover, and the earliest of those is with a woman we're calling Lindsay. The inquiry heard evidence from Lindsay that their sexual relationship began on the 25th of
03:40:55 sexual relationship began on the 25th of May, 2001. You were still serving the SDS at that time, weren't you? Yes.
03:41:02 Yes. Uh, Lindsay says that thereafter she started seeing um Mr. Saraki in a casual way, continuing their sexual relationship. Did Mr. Saraki tell you he'd started a casual sexual relationship undercover?
03:41:13 relationship undercover? No, he didn't. Were you otherwise aware? No, I wasn't.
03:41:20 Mr. Sraki's recollection is that around the time he commenced that sexual relationship with Lindsay, he'd been the subject of matchmaking attempts by his targets, including a dinner party at
03:41:31 targets, including a dinner party at which Mr. Iraqis targets proposed a match with a a male who they knew. Um he says he reported that that situation at an SDS Monday meeting. Do you recall him making that report to the meeting?
03:41:44 making that report to the meeting? I don't recall. He says this report was met with ment. Would you recall that? No, I do not. Was that the kind of reaction you would
03:41:55 Was that the kind of reaction you would have anticipated from your colleagues at that time? Uh I'm surprised it would have it was reported at a general meeting because to do that in front of a wide number of people would perhaps
03:42:08 wide number of people would perhaps attract merrynt but to it's the sort of thing that I would have expected to have been done much more privately. Why would why would it have attracted merment?
03:42:17 merment? Because when people talk openly about oh I'm being matched up with whatever the case may be. you you have a wide circle of people and then maybe they they have they take their own opinions but that's
03:42:28 they take their own opinions but that's the seriousness of that I would have suggested listening to what you're saying it would have been done privately um where somebody could give proper advice and guidance and monitor it and
03:42:39 advice and guidance and monitor it and try and develop how that may be prevented from happening Mr. Saraki's evidence was that he that had he been provided with a fictional girlfriend, it would have prevented him commencing a
03:42:50 would have prevented him commencing a sexual relationship with Lindsay. That is something you could have arranged for him, wasn't it? Oh, that's something that uh well, you you're going back to a much more difficult subject in
03:43:01 back to a much more difficult subject in terms of how you address the whole issue of
03:43:06 of other people to to help you on that. It's a much much wider much more complex, but you're right. your your point is accurate in that if he was having issues then we we should have
03:43:18 having issues then we we should have been trying to do something to prevent that
03:43:21 that and and you've acknowledged the benefit of support wheel players within the operation. Most certainly. Do you take any responsibility for the deception of Lindsay into a sexual relationship
03:43:37 on on a personal level? Uh, no. But I'm aware that these events have contributed to a lot
03:43:48 these events have contributed to a lot of unhappiness. So from that perspective, it it it was I acknowledge it was wrong. Um
03:44:00 um very briefly um discussions of other UCO relationships. Mr. Saraki says in his statement, uh, he refers to a comment he made to
03:44:11 uh, he refers to a comment he made to Operation Hearn. Um, and at page 139 of his witness statement, paragraph 293, he says that he had been told by a third party about a female named Judy
03:44:23 third party about a female named Judy Bashan, who had been involved in a relationship with Peter with Pete Francis, and that when I mentioned this to DSTD, he replied, "Oh, yeah, that's Pete's." In your witness statement, you
03:44:34 Pete's." In your witness statement, you say you deny making the comment and you didn't know and had never met DC Francis. Notwithstanding that, did you hear any rumor to that effect? No, I didn't.
03:44:46 No, I didn't. So, it follows you never repeated such a rumor.
03:44:48 rumor. No.
03:44:51 No. Now, since you made that statement, um, Mr. Saraki gave evidence to the inquiry about the suggestion that you referred to an activist as Pete's Bird. Um,
03:45:03 Um, we can look at that, but I take it that you you have absolutely no recollection of
03:45:07 of Well, I it's it's wider than I I I never knew
03:45:15 knew didn't know Mr. Francis. I had no paths never crossed. Um, and that even relates to in previous special branch
03:45:27 relates to in previous special branch squads there was there was a vacuum. There is there is an emptiness. There is nothing there. Um
03:45:37 Um HN60. Now there's a suggestion that HN60 met a woman on a horicultural course and had a sexual relationship with her. Were you aware of this relationship?
03:45:48 That's the officer who was deployed as David Evans. H60.
03:45:56 H60. H60. No. No. No. No idea. No. H26.
03:46:02 H26. Um, could we bring up please MPS 0738087? [snorts]
03:46:10 Uh, an account you gave or you said you've given to Operation Hearn.
03:46:22 Thank you very much. Uh, page two, please. Oh, hang on. I'm just pausing for one second. And so we see this is the operation home file note. Uh there's you can see that you're present at the top the top and there are two the two
03:46:35 top the top and there are two the two officers present at 12th of August 2014. Um so if you could turn over leave to page two please.
03:46:47 And you are reported as saying of HN26. Sorry, I've lost where that reference is. Um, her SDS work had an impact on
03:47:00 is. Um, her SDS work had an impact on her marriage and she became hardened to her to their new lifestyle,
03:47:07 but you were not surprised to learn of the relationship. Now, why were you not surprised to learn of her conducting a relationship undercover? Um, this is the first time that I've
03:47:19 Um, this is the first time that I've seen this document. Can I have time to read it? Yes, you can. It's been in your bundle. It's B4 B142. But by all means, take time to to
03:47:30 time to to this. I've never seen this before. So, um
03:49:42 Thank you. Um I want to ask you to look at the first page of that note. So that's I think it's page two of the um PDF. But um we understand that this this reports
03:49:56 um we understand that this this reports this records that you knew HN26 socially before she went into the field. Is that correct?
03:50:01 correct? Correct.
03:50:02 Correct. Um in the
03:50:05 Um in the third paragraph, you say it it says it records you saying it took Estie a while to get up to speed with who who was doing what, but he quickly noticed that Hent26 had changed
03:50:17 quickly noticed that Hent26 had changed from how she was when he knew her pre SDS days.
03:50:24 In your witness statement, you said that it was the DS role to look for warning signs and changes in behavior of UCOs as part of monitoring their welfare. Did you report the change you observed
03:50:35 Did you report the change you observed in HM26 to your managers? I can't remember. I mean it it's um even Hearn was 13 14 years after I'd retired and um
03:50:51 13 14 years after I'd retired and um it was it was certainly simply I'm sorry an observation that I may have noticed at the time as I'd known her in a different
03:51:01 different lifestyle. Yes,
03:51:02 Yes, that's all. But but I take it you the best an observation change and then the fact that you see something doesn't mean to say you need to act on it. You but
03:51:14 to say you need to act on it. You but you you look upon it. You notice something and you you monitor things which was part of your job as a DS to look for changes in behavior um in in in in general terms. Yes. But
03:51:25 um in in in in general terms. Yes. But um not having had the day-to-day contact with um this person and
03:51:35 um I'm going to move to a new topic. So I'm mind for the time I I may be able to finish the next topic
03:51:45 before lunch and that then rule 10's over lunch. Yes. If you if I think that's best method of using the time available finish the topic then
03:51:56 time available finish the topic then we'll deal with rule 10 questions over lunch and can you come back uh at 2:00 to deal with the questions that may arise from our rule 10 process. That's
03:52:08 arise from our rule 10 process. That's when other people have the opportunity of putting questions or topics they want covered by council to you. Yes.
03:52:15 Yes. I'm great. I I should do my best to get it done in the next 10 minutes, but I may need to indulge you for a few minutes longer than that. I'd like to look at um racism, racial bias, and discrimination, please.
03:52:27 discrimination, please. Returning to the issue of unit culture, um how would you describe the unit's attitude towards racism?
03:52:45 Sorry. How would you describe the unit's attitude towards racism?
03:52:54 Taken very very seriously, extremely seriously by every single officer. And how did that compare to your experience within the Metropolitan Police? Generally
03:53:05 Police? Generally the same.
03:53:09 How equipped would you say you were at the time to identify racism, including forms of indirect racism?
03:53:18 I think you you become knowledgeable purely by being aware of what's around you and how people are acting. uh and you you pick up all the subconscious
03:53:31 you you pick up all the subconscious matters and and which you see you observe yourself. Without naming any names, did you witness racism amongst your SDS colleagues?
03:53:42 colleagues? No, I did not.
03:53:49 Did you ever have calls to challenge racist attitudes within the SDS? No.
03:53:54 No. Did you witness any racist jokes while in the SDS? the managers or the UCOs? Never.
03:54:01 Never. Did you were you aware of any forms of racist stereotyping? None.
03:54:07 None. You were serving on the SDS when the McFersonen report was published, weren't you?
03:54:12 you? Yes.
03:54:12 Yes. Did the unit culture change at all following its publication?
03:54:18 Firstly, every single person was very aware of the McFersonen report and uh and certainly there was um
03:54:28 levels of training that were being introduced into the Ban Police as a result of the uh McFersonson inquiry. But I think that the the tragedy of of
03:54:39 But I think that the the tragedy of of the the the the Steven Lawrence death, the awareness of what was happening with at the time automatically induced change just people
03:54:52 automatically induced change just people just became more aware themselves.
03:54:58 Did you or your fellow officers ever stop to consider whether the way the unit operated unwittingly disadvantage unwittingly disadvantaged particular types of people?
03:55:09 types of people? No. No. Could you explain that a little? Yes. Did did you feel that for example the way things were the way targetings worked or the way that people made
03:55:22 worked or the way that people made assumptions in relation to what was likely to happen in certain situations disproportionately affected certain types of society. So for example
03:55:34 types of society. So for example um black people. No thank you. Uh no I don't. I think that underpinning all of those issues that you just commented on
03:55:45 that you just commented on was public order drove SDS, elements of SDS and ultimately Squad and other other areas and the fact that there were any
03:55:57 areas and the fact that there were any number of different groups had no bearing on we had a responsibility to address public order issues. You were the supervising officer for the officer we're calling HN81. Is that
03:56:09 officer we're calling HN81. Is that right?
03:56:10 right? Yes.
03:56:11 Yes. And he was initially deployed into the SWP but later um took a a roving public order brief um and was and was redeployed
03:56:25 um and was and was redeployed uh given a a roving brief in Brixham. That happened before your time. But what was your understanding of HN81's brief by the time that you started at the SDS?
03:56:40 To the best of my knowledge, the the area that he was originally in was low key. There was simply not enough activity. So the important thing was to use the stepping stone of the SWP to
03:56:54 use the stepping stone of the SWP to enable him to operate into other fields whereby he wouldn't be he wouldn't be compromised
03:57:05 and why was Brixton chosen? Well, I I I can't be accurate in in my answer, but I can say that probably because of the level of public order
03:57:18 because of the level of public order activity.
03:57:22 Now, Brixton is a diverse area of London with a large African Caribbean population. Do you believe the demographic of that area was a factor in the choice of the location of HN81's
03:57:33 the choice of the location of HN81's roving public order brief? Absolutely not. when you've referred to the um public order activity in Brixton, what did you
03:57:46 order activity in Brixton, what did you mean?
03:57:47 mean? Oh, um
03:57:50 Oh, um there are so many elements to to different groupings. Uh I I don't that
03:58:01 that people congre people congregate in in certain areas. He he needed to be he needed to be able to use his background, his SWP in order to ferment to develop new relationships into into groups that
03:58:14 new relationships into into groups that were going to be active in London and where that was that pressed and which what were the groups and where were they where geographically were they placed? Now, one of those groups was MFJ, the
03:58:26 Now, one of those groups was MFJ, the movement for justice. Uh
03:58:29 Uh what do you do you understand the focus of the MS MFJ to be? of um to create public disorder. Um Mr. Aalad of the MFJ said the MFJ
03:58:42 Um Mr. Aalad of the MFJ said the MFJ were a group that campaigned actively against police brutality and on deaths in custody especially in the Brixton area.
03:58:51 That's not that they don't appear to have a focus on public disorder. Um that is his opinion. Uh, I would
03:59:03 that is his opinion. Uh, I would argue that the movement for justice were instrumental in creating public disorder, especially in the leadup to the uh, McFersonen report, the
03:59:17 leadup to the uh, McFersonen report, the uh, appearance of the five individuals charged or used in the media by the Daily Mail, I believe it was, um, in bringing them to to to justice and the
03:59:30 bringing them to to to justice and the movement for justice. were instrumental in piggybacking very good campaigns um in in all for their own purposes. Given its focus on seeking justice in
03:59:43 Given its focus on seeking justice in relation to flawed policing as part of its aims, did you ever query whether this was an appropriate group to be targeted by a UCA?
03:59:53 Sorry, could you just repeat that? Yes. Given its focus on seeking justice in relation to flawed policing as part of its remit, did you ever question
04:00:04 of its remit, did you ever question whether this was an appropriate group into which to deploy a UCO? The the um movement for justice or any other organization were quite right to uh address anything in in respect to
04:00:16 uh address anything in in respect to floor policing. However, that wasn't our concern. That wasn't our problem. Our concern was a different element of MFJ. One of the groups, one, one of the
04:00:28 One of the groups, one, one of the campaigns in which MFJ became involved was um the Steven Lawrence uh inquiry and and the campaign surrounding that inquiry and the um Steven Lawrence
04:00:40 inquiry and the um Steven Lawrence family's involvement in that.
04:00:45 Was this focus of MFJ useful to the SDS? um useful in so far as uh the concern was that the MFJ were
04:00:57 the concern was that the MFJ were piggybacking and utilizing the Lawrence campaign for their own benefits, their own purposes and that was of interest to SDS interest to not actually interest to SDS but also to the wider Metropolitan
04:01:10 SDS but also to the wider Metropolitan Police.
04:01:12 Police. Um, if we could bring up HN81's annual appraisal, which is MPS3049.
04:01:22 So that's B105. And when that's up, if we could go to page
04:01:28 page four, please.
04:01:33 That's MPS 00004009. Thank you very much. Um halfway down the page we can see that you are listed as the appraiser. Yeah.
04:01:45 And looking
04:01:50 back up to box nine, uh, in regards to HN 81's strategic planning, you've written, H81 has an excellent grasp of current MPS strategies and initiatives in inner
04:02:02 MPS strategies and initiatives in inner inner city areas and of the topical issues that are of concern in terms of police community relations. Now by 1999 2000 HN81 had reported
04:02:14 Now by 1999 2000 HN81 had reported extensively on police accountability and family justice groups was the topical issue of concern you refer to police behavior towards the black community and the perception of
04:02:27 black community and the perception of the police by the accountability and justice campaigns. No, it it his his work covered public order and and each group each individual just happened to be independent. his
04:02:38 just happened to be independent. his work was directly connected with public order.
04:02:42 order. Do you accept that this work in practice involved reporting on black community and police accountability groups? Yes, I do. Did you consider this may disproportionately affect members of the black and the Asian community? Yes, I do
04:02:54 black and the Asian community? Yes, I do for the simple reason that it the uh drivers of many of those uh many things came from C squad who were themselves under pressure to respond to the wider
04:03:07 under pressure to respond to the wider Metropolitan Police um in terms of everything that was happening on the on on the streets and uh if SDS and SDS did play an important role in in
04:03:19 play an important role in in providing evidence and intelligence to to support those those elements.
04:03:27 I'm not going to bring it up, but you you were um the CHIS authorization in relation to N H81 for the period of October 2000 to October 2001.
04:03:41 October 2000 to October 2001. Um so it it's not in it is in the bundle, but it's MPS0743949.
04:03:48 lists you as a handler. And in a section of the CHIS authorization for the objective purpose of use of the
04:03:59 for the objective purpose of use of the CHIS, you write to obtain information relating to the threats to public order and racially motivated crime from extreme left-wing activists in the burough of Lambeath and elsewhere in the
04:04:10 burough of Lambeath and elsewhere in the NPS in support of local and NPS policing objectives.
04:04:15 What do you mean by racially motivated crime from extreme left-wing activists? Oh, quite simply, uh, emanating from the tragedy of Steven Lawrence. There were,
04:04:28 tragedy of Steven Lawrence. There were, which was a, as we recognize, a racially motivated crime. Um, there were so many groups trying to use the campaigning of of of the um of
04:04:40 use the campaigning of of of the um of the Lawrence family for their own purposes. That's what they and those groups that I'm referring to, many of them were extreme leftwing. But when you're referring to um the extreme leftwing activists being who are
04:04:52 extreme leftwing activists being who are involved in public disorder and racially motivated crime? Yes.
04:04:57 Yes. The suggest that's that reads as if you're suggesting that the extreme leftwing is perpetrating racially motivated crime. Well, in that is that your intention? So I I I I I take your point. Uh but
04:05:09 So I I I I I take your point. Uh but that that wasn't the the intention of of that uh particular um um if we could move to some reporting on the Steven Lawrence campaign please. MPS
04:05:21 the Steven Lawrence campaign please. MPS 00001113.
04:05:24 00001113. So that's B50 of the bundle.
04:05:36 Page one, paragraph 4, source comment. MFJ do not intend causing trouble on the 2nd of June 98, but will act peacefully in order to build a mass movement behind this emotive campaign. If the police
04:05:49 this emotive campaign. If the police response to the demonstrations is viewed unfavorably by the MFJ, then consideration will be given to building descent into the protests. Now, you suggested earlier in your evidence that MFJ were very much involved in the creation of public
04:06:02 involved in the creation of public disorder. Is that a fair summary of your evidence? This source comment on a um on MFJ's involvement with the Steven Lawrence campaign seems to suggest the opposite.
04:06:16 What's the purpose of this report? If if there is no public disorder anticipated, it's hugely important in that it it it reflects both sides of the argument. We we we know because the the the volume of
04:06:27 we we know because the the the volume of activities that the movement for justice were involved in. Now if they are now not intending to uh uh cause trouble at a demonstration on the 2nd of June um
04:06:39 a demonstration on the 2nd of June um that is also equally important because it takes away numbers, people, individuals, personalities. So that picture is hugely important to uh
04:06:50 picture is hugely important to uh special match. If we could move please to uh some further reports. Um MPS 0000001134.
04:07:01 This is a socialist workers report on the socialist workers party's public meeting
04:07:07 meeting uh in relation to the Lawrence family support group. Paragraph one end of the second line. The audience was predominantly young and black with about twice as many females as males. It was a genuine community audience with about 24
04:07:19 genuine community audience with about 24 SWP members present. And then on page two, the source comment, the general mood of those present was very angry. If similar numbers attend on Monday, there is
04:07:30 numbers attend on Monday, there is potential for severe public disorder when the five appear reference to the five accused. That's yes. Now for the so for your note there are
04:07:41 for the so for your note there are similar
04:07:43 similar um reports MPS 0000001147 that's B55 and MPS 00004118B107
04:07:55 which refer to explicitly refer to the race of the attendees
04:08:01 attendees um whether they are black whether they are Asian
04:08:06 are Asian and a source comment specifically on the likely public order implication. First of all, do I take it that you would have written this report that we have up on the screen? I'm I'm going to agree with you. Yes.
04:08:19 I'm I'm going to agree with you. Yes. What was the intelligence value of reporting the race and sex of attendees at community meetings?
04:08:27 you the first thing that strikes me is the the numbers of people who are attending 200 people which is significant and immediately causes a um
04:08:38 significant and immediately causes a um a a police concern. Secondly, if you look at some of the individuals who are attending, the fact that um people who are well known who may or may not attend
04:08:52 are well known who may or may not attend also has an interest for the simple reason that that person may bring with him or her so many other people which will have a
04:09:03 people which will have a numbers effect on whatever the meeting or demonstration or protest may be. So if I move on for Grover no more than
04:09:14 if I move on for Grover no more than you more it clearly states the the the anger of the meeting. So when you begin to sum it up the general mood and and also the the
04:09:25 the general mood and and also the the numbers it gives a an overall picture. But page two the source comment is very clear on the mood. Yes.
04:09:32 Yes. And the risk of public disorder. Why did you need to report that the audience was predominantly young and black? What impact did that have on public order policing? None. None.
04:09:43 None. None. So why report it? Do you because of what I've just been explaining? But the the fact that you're black or white or Asian or whatever is irrelevance. It's the public order aspect that drives the reporting and
04:09:56 aspect that drives the reporting and drives the ability for the police to be able to
04:10:00 able to police any community. Was there a view that a group which included a majority of black or Asian campaigners presented a higher risk to public order? No. What what affects that is the
04:10:11 No. What what affects that is the numbers and the people.
04:10:16 Um you said in your statement that you usually left the source comment blank. Why have you included it in this uh that we can see? I I can't help you.
04:10:27 I I can't help you. In relation to comments about anger when the accused attend the McFersonen inquiry, wouldn't it have been obvious that there would have been disorder before the event? And uniform sources could easily have reported on that,
04:10:38 could easily have reported on that, could they not? Um, you you you're quite right. There would have been significant anger. Uh, however, significant anger is one thing, but gold commanders also needed
04:10:50 but gold commanders also needed substantive
04:10:54 documents to go on. They needed to be able to
04:10:57 able to address the numbers of police officers that need to be taken from local stations. Who turns up? How do we police this? It's a significant operation. So, that's important.
04:11:08 that's important. But, for example, this is a public meeting. Yes. That with 200 people that could you could have had somebody from uniform going, couldn't you? You you you're quite correct. But what you're not referring to is the potential
04:11:20 you're not referring to is the potential problem when you have those large numbers for disorder. And what we have to try and address is the people who may turn up that will aggravate and piggyback that and and create public
04:11:31 piggyback that and and create public disorder.
04:11:32 disorder. You said in your witness statement that 1881 was not tasked or asked to report on the Lawrence family either directly or indirectly. You say to the best of my
04:11:43 or indirectly. You say to the best of my knowledge DC 1881 was not tasked or asked to report directly or indirectly on the Lawrence family or their campaign. He was tasked to report an MFJ. any report that referred to Steven Lawrence was incidental to that tasking
04:11:54 Lawrence was incidental to that tasking and only made when relevant to the activities of MFJ.
04:12:00 And for clarity, was that because there was no proper justification for tasking an undercover officer to report on the Lawrence family directly? Correct.
04:12:08 Correct. Yeah.
04:12:09 Yeah. If we could um show please MPS 0720946.
04:12:18 So not in the bundle I'm afraid. and page 13 of that when it's ready.
04:12:45 This says, sorry, I've just lost the reference, but it says Sesh, that's Mr. Grover went on to explain that Dorene and Neville have in reality separated and that they only continued together as
04:12:56 and that they only continued together as a front for the campaign. [snorts]
04:12:59 [snorts] When HN81 did report on the Lawrence family, as has been happen as has happened here and reported here sensitive and personal information,
04:13:10 sensitive and personal information, did you take any steps to ensure the reporting was not recorded or disseminated? I I I always tried to make sure that all the reports were relevant to what was
04:13:22 the reports were relevant to what was required and the more information sometimes you you can insert into a report is important because it reflects a wider issue. Um, so the fact that I'm
04:13:36 a wider issue. Um, so the fact that I'm uh uh putting people in who are fine, what that does is to explain to people, wow, if people of this nature are going to be there, that will attract other people, that will attract other potential for
04:13:48 will attract other potential for disorder.
04:13:49 disorder. Why did you think it was relevant to public disorder to include information about the Lawrence's private lives? Ah, no. It's it's um
04:14:10 It's simply a factor in establishing as much information as possible about the wider public order issue. And if this is relevant in terms of uh they're supposed
04:14:21 relevant in terms of uh they're supposed to if they if they fail to get that kind of thing that may in itself then reduce potential for disorder. They reduce less um demonstrations or protests.
04:14:36 Did you think that this is the sort of thing that you ought to have run past the second pair of eyes before including a report?
04:14:41 a report? I I may have. And so if if the fact remained means that others agreed with your view? No, it's not the sort of thing that I that I can remember. Now, um could I move on to um information
04:14:54 um could I move on to um information regarding litigation, please? MPS 304908.
04:15:01 This is an intelligence report about Dwayne Brooks dated the 19th of December 2000.
04:15:08 2000. MPS 00004908. Sir, that's B 110 in your bundle
04:15:23 again. Is it likely you typed this report?
04:15:27 report? Is it likely you typed this report? Yes, it is. Yes. We see at paragraph one there's a reference to Mr. Brooks's civil case against the Metropolitan Police. Yes.
04:15:36 Yes. And a reference to him being offered £75,000 in settlement, but is unhappy with that sum and indicates a figure that he would be more happy with. Now,
04:15:47 that he would be more happy with. Now, this clearly sets out the views of a litigant against the Metropolitan Police Service and his views on settlement of a claim against that um institution. That's legal information, isn't it?
04:16:06 That I I I I don't know. Did you not consider that this shouldn't have been included in an intelligence report?
04:16:20 Reflecting now, perhaps you shouldn't. Do you accept that regardless of whether at the time you were trained and understood legal professional privilege or not, that
04:16:31 professional privilege or not, that reporting on lawyers and of legal advice and on civil litigation against the commissioner that that was likely in common sense terms to be inappropriate?
04:16:43 terms to be inappropriate? uh what my thinking was at the time, I I I can't tell you. Um but reflecting on the general tenor, obviously I I I acknowledge that perhaps that should not
04:16:54 acknowledge that perhaps that should not have been reported.
04:16:58 H81 met with acting detective inspector uh Walton
04:17:03 uh Walton uh on the 14th of August 98 um at DI Lambert's home. I understand you weren't present at that meeting.
04:17:12 meeting. No.
04:17:15 No. As far as you can recall, was there only one meeting or were there subsequent meetings attended with? To the best of my knowledge, there was simply one meeting. What was your understanding of why DI
04:17:27 What was your understanding of why DI Lambert and Di Walton wanted the meeting to take place?
04:17:33 I
04:17:37 can't recall the precise reasons, but most certainly it would have been uh of help to the
04:17:49 it would have been uh of help to the wider Metropolitan Police. Do you recall whether the request came from SDS senior managers or from Mr. Walton's team? I I can't help you. I don't know.
04:18:08 We understand that you
04:18:16 were um Oh, sorry. If I could, um, HN81 says that you passed on to him congratulations from the commissioner for his excellent reporting at the
04:18:28 for his excellent reporting at the height of the McFersonen inquiry. Do you recall doing so? I I I'm sure that if um HN81 said that, I it would have happened. Were you aware of any other feedback or
04:18:39 Were you aware of any other feedback or liaison
04:18:40 liaison from the commissioner about HN81's reporting? No, I'm not.
04:18:49 H81 during his deployment also gave uh Mrs. Sukdev Real, the mother of Ricky Real, who was actively campaigning for justice surrounding the death of her son, as she continues to do, a lift in
04:19:02 son, as she continues to do, a lift in his vehicle. Um, HN81 says he would have discussed the situation with his handler. Do you recall that conversation? Um, no, I don't. But if again I have no
04:19:14 Um, no, I don't. But if again I have no reason to um disbelieve HN81.
04:19:20 We've not found any report of that meeting. Would you have expected that um the fact that 81 gave Mrs. Real a lift to be documented somewhere within the
04:19:31 to be documented somewhere within the SCS files? I I I'm sure that if there was some relevance then it would have been reported um as most of his
04:19:42 been reported um as most of his nearly all of his intelligence was reported.
04:19:45 reported. Was H&81 directed to obtain information about the Ricky Real campaign only in respect of any public order um elements? That's all
04:19:59 elements? That's all was the real interest in Mrs. real because it [snorts] was thought that the campaign had the propensity to embarrass the Metropolitan Police? Absolutely not. No,
04:20:13 sir. Those are the questions I have intended to ask Mr. Titty. Um there I'm very grateful for your indulgence sitting late. Um and I will endeavor to consider all the rule 10 over the lunch
04:20:24 consider all the rule 10 over the lunch and adjournments. Um we'll resume uh please at a quarter uh 2. Um there is another witness Helen Steel who is to give evidence uh this afternoon and uh I
04:20:36 give evidence uh this afternoon and uh I don't want to take up too much of her time.
04:20:38 time. Understood. Thank you, sir. You Thank you, sir. Thank you.