HN52 Bernard Greaney, an SDS Detective Sergeant who managed undercover officers from 1997 to 2003, is cross-examined about his supervision of officers who deceived women into sexual relationships while undercover (HN26, Jim Boiling, James Thompson, Mark Jenner, HN60), the Tradecraft Manual's guidance on 'sexual liaison,' and his repeated claim to have been unaware of the misconduct occurring under his watch. He is also questioned about James Thompson's fabricated Operation Lime account, use of a dead child's identity, and the SDS's surveillance of black justice campaigns amid findings of institutional racism.
00:29:14 Good morning everybody. Regular attenders will know what I'm about to say. Today's proceedings are going to be livereamed, but after a 15minute delay. Those with mobile telephones may use them to report what they hear in the
00:29:26 them to report what they hear in the hearing room, but only after 15 minutes have elapsed since what they report. Uh they may not be used for recording or photography. Yes. May the witness be sworn please. Thank
00:29:37 May the witness be sworn please. Thank you.
00:29:41 I do solemnly I do solemnly sincerely and truly sincerely and truly declare and affirm declare and affirm the evidence I shall give that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth
00:29:52 shall be the truth shall be the truth the whole truth the whole truth and nothing and nothing but the truth please
00:29:57 please yes
00:30:00 yes [cough]
00:30:01 [cough] please will you tell us your full name Bernard Patrick Greeny Mr. Greeny, you have provided a witness statement to the inquiry dated the 9th of February, 2024.
00:30:14 of February, 2024. So, it's at your tab A1. It's MPS 0749291.
00:30:20 Uh, apart from two corrections that I'll come on to, could you please confirm that the contents of your witness statement is true to the best of your knowledge and belief? Yes, sir. Now, you have alerted the
00:30:33 Yes, sir. Now, you have alerted the inquiry in advance that there were a couple of corrections that you wish to make to your statement. And so, what we're going to do now, I'm just going to bring up those uh paragraphs on the screen just to address those. At this point, I wonder if we could just um turn
00:30:46 point, I wonder if we could just um turn up Mr. Green's statement uh please and begin by going to page 57 and it's paragraph 143, please.
00:30:59 paragraph 143, please. Uh we can see that paragraph uh begins having considered uh the file note dated the 9th of July 2002 and my statement to operation hear and you just wanted to
00:31:12 operation hear and you just wanted to clarify that in fact technically it wasn't um a statement that you provided to operation hear it was a typed copy of
00:31:23 to operation hear it was a typed copy of a statement that you provided as part of Jim Boiling's disciplinary process. Yes, that's correct. And you just wanted to clarify that particular point in that paragraph. And the second of the two corrections,
00:31:35 the second of the two corrections, please could we turn to page 81. It's paragraph 216.
00:31:46 So here you say, I believe I accompanied Carlo
00:31:51 Carlo reference to Carlo Sarakia on at least one trip to Italy, although in my recollection it was to Florence, not Bologna, and I acted as cover officer for him and HN118 in that time, although
00:32:05 for him and HN118 in that time, although I was not otherwise their cover officer. And I think the point that you wanted to clarify uh was that you were not the only cover officer on that trip to uh Florence. HN24 Steven Bills also
00:32:18 Florence. HN24 Steven Bills also traveled with you. Is that right? Yes, he did. And one of the things that you uh have informed the inquiry about is you remember it because you were the one that got stuck with the driving as ever. So yes.
00:32:29 as ever. So yes. All right. I want to just begin by your background. You joined the Metropolitan Police Service in the mid 1970s.
00:32:39 1970s. 1975. Yes. And you were promoted to sergeant in the early 1980s. That's correct. You joined special branch in 1992.
00:32:50 You joined special branch in 1992. Yes, sir.
00:32:51 Yes, sir. Now, prior to your posting to the SDS, you were in fact secounded to the animal rights national index which is known as ANIE.
00:33:00 ANIE. Yes.
00:33:02 Yes. In your statement, you refer to the fact that you didn't even know the SDS existed until you in fact secounded uh to Anie. Is is that right?
00:33:14 to Anie. Is is that right? Yes, that's absolutely true. Now, in that particular role, um you were in fact the recipient of SDS intelligence. Yes, sir.
00:33:25 Yes, sir. How did you know that that intelligence was from the SDS? How did you find out about the SDS? Uh, the other officers in Arie told me
00:33:36 Uh, the other officers in Arie told me they were aware of it. In terms of that reporting in Arie, you're receiving intelligence from various sources and you are told, well,
00:33:47 various sources and you are told, well, these are reports. This is intelligence from the uh special demonstration squad, the SDS. Could you just comment on how that intelligence
00:33:58 that intelligence uh stood out in in any way from other sources of intelligence that you had? In other words, was this particularly useful? Was it more detailed? Was it less useful, less detailed? How would
00:34:10 less useful, less detailed? How would you describe the utility of the SDS? It would usually be more detailed and more current. Um, other than that, it wouldn't it didn't stand out at all.
00:34:22 didn't stand out at all. In terms of the detail again at that stage this is when you first discovered or heard about the SDS the detail that was provided in your role in Arie was it
00:34:34 was provided in your role in Arie was it well this is we don't need all all of this information or was it useful was it too detailed how would you describe the utility of it it was it was very useful but um there's
00:34:46 it was it was very useful but um there's a slight misconception as to what anie was in those days it was just a a receptical for information from all over the country which was looked at, analyzed
00:34:57 country which was looked at, analyzed and then sent out to areas of the country that it particularly referred to. Um it was only as it progressed that uh it moved on to uh receiving
00:35:09 uh it moved on to uh receiving direct intelligence from informants.
00:35:14 And in ter in terms of the utility of the SDS intelligence, h how did you how did you rate the utility of that or did that did not stand out any more than any other intelligence that you were
00:35:25 other intelligence that you were receiving? I couldn't give an accurate answer after all these years to be honest. Um appreciate it was always it was always reliable always
00:35:33 always and often proved to be substantiated at a later time. Okay.
00:35:39 Okay. your selection for the SDS, you were approached by Bob Lambert. Is that right?
00:35:45 right? Yes.
00:35:46 Yes. Would you agree that it was a very informal uh approach? I think you described in his statement that he invited you uh for a drink and also to meet DCI Keith Edmonson. Do do you remember that?
00:35:57 remember that? Yes, I do, sir. Do you know why out of everyone um Bob Lambert approached you to join the uh SDS as a manager?
00:36:09 SDS as a manager? Um
00:36:10 Um well I think with the position that he had in mind for me um I was in a perfect position to know that job so to speak and I'm sure he would have consulted
00:36:21 and I'm sure he would have consulted with officers on the SDS that I previously worked with on B squad at special branch um to find out a little bit about me.
00:36:33 And so what about your experience uh made you suitable for for that posting in your view? Well, the specific posting within the SCS was to cover animal rights and
00:36:44 SCS was to cover animal rights and environmental issues and I was sat there I had been for 12 18 months I can't exactly remember dealing with those very issues on a national level. So there
00:36:56 issues on a national level. So there would be an obvious potential reason there to get me on board as a replacement for the departing DS on the SDS. All right. Now I wonder if we can just bring up a
00:37:08 Now I wonder if we can just bring up a document. So it's at your tab B91. It's NPS0527313.
00:37:23 Now, this is a branch note about a visit to the SDS by uh HMIC uh in [clears throat] January 1999. But what I would like to refer to, I wonder
00:37:34 what I would like to refer to, I wonder if we can turn to the second page um in this document. And sorry, can we could turn to page three, please? Over the page. Now we can
00:37:46 three, please? Over the page. Now we can see here set out uh the management structure within the SDS for that particular visit um by HMIC in January
00:37:59 particular visit um by HMIC in January 1999. But I just want to just use that as a reference. So in terms of the structure, the management structure in the SDS when you joined, now this is a
00:38:11 the SDS when you joined, now this is a little uh later, but you can see there's the the DCI at the at the top, HN58, and below uh him uh the detective inspector, HN53, and then below that, it was your
00:38:25 HN53, and then below that, it was your level of of management, wasn't it? There were um three um SDS uh uh
00:38:34 uh uh DS's. Is that right? Yes, sir.
00:38:36 Yes, sir. Okay. Now, when you joined the SDS, the other DS's in the office, I think were uh John Webb and null war. Is that right?
00:38:47 right? That's correct. And then Steve Titty later took over from DS web and person we're calling HN9 took over from DS War. Yes.
00:38:57 Yes. And after DS titty left um Steve Beals joined. Is is that correct? I think so. Say yes. All right. Okay. Now below that we can see line
00:39:10 Now below that we can see line management structure for UCOs and one uh uh clerical support officer. Now during the period of time that you were a DS a
00:39:22 the period of time that you were a DS a manager in the uh SDS this was from the period May 1997 to August 2003 just as an overview of the UCOs
00:39:35 just as an overview of the UCOs uh that were below your level of the DS's in the SDS there were UCOs that you directly supervised yes
00:39:45 yes and there would have been other UC OS that were in the SDS at the time that although you didn't directly supervise them from time to time maybe if one of your colleagues one of your fellow DS's were away or or busy with other things
00:39:57 were away or or busy with other things that you might step in and and or act in that role briefly for specific operations. Okay. Just in terms so we get a clear picture at this stage of who you supervised.
00:40:10 at this stage of who you supervised. uh you supervised directly uh HN26 and so this is her cover name was Christine Green one of those that you supervised. Yes.
00:40:20 Yes. HN14 uh DC Jim Boiling. Yes.
00:40:24 Yes. Uh HN16 DS James Thompson. Yes.
00:40:28 Yes. HN60 whose cover name was Dave Evans. Yes.
00:40:33 Yes. Uh HN3 Jason Bishop. Yes. and HN77 cover name Jacqueline uh Anderson. Yes. So those the ones that you directly supervised but there were
00:40:44 you directly supervised but there were others that overlapped with your time and just to go through those briefly. So for a period of about 8 months or so at the beginning of your time as a manager Peter Francis.
00:40:55 Peter Francis. Yes.
00:40:56 Yes. Uh also Mark Jenner HN15. Carlos Saraki. Yes. HN81 cover name David Hagen. Yes.
00:41:06 Yes. And then toward the end uh HN118 Simon Wellings.
00:41:10 Wellings. Yes.
00:41:11 Yes. So those if we go back to the chart that we have in front of you, those would have been the UCOs um as time progressed uh that were uh below you
00:41:23 uh that were uh below you looking further up the chart. And so we've got your uh DCI um was um initially it was uh was it HN person we're referring to as HN58?
00:41:35 we're referring to as HN58? Yes sir.
00:41:36 Yes sir. Okay. One of the things you say about HN58 was that he was generally laidback uh but he was uh authoritative. Is is that your description? Yes.
00:41:47 Yes. Of him.
00:41:51 How often just from your perspective there how often did HM58 that position of uh DCI uh speak to the UCOs? What sort of contact did he have with the
00:42:03 sort of contact did he have with the UCOs?
00:42:04 UCOs? He had the same contact as the DI and the DS's. The bi-weekly meetings with the officers he would be there and also whenever the officers came into our main
00:42:16 whenever the officers came into our main office he would be there. So he wouldn't spend a lot of individual time with them, but he was always available to participate in any discussions that were
00:42:27 participate in any discussions that were needed to be brought to his attention. And following HM58, uh, HN 36 DCI Dell. Yes.
00:42:36 Yes. And you describe him as personable, intelligent, fair-minded. Absolutely. again was he similar to HN58 in terms of approachability in terms of if the UCOs
00:42:48 approachability in terms of if the UCOs had something they wanted to discuss would it have been relatively easy for them would it have been quite natural for them to um approach him I would say so yes now below the rank of DCI we have the
00:43:01 now below the rank of DCI we have the detective inspectors now mentioned earlier that it was Bob Lambert who approached you uh and he was the DI when you joined Yes. Now, you described him as personal but
00:43:14 Now, you described him as personal but also highly respected. Yes.
00:43:16 Yes. And we've heard lots of descriptions of Bob Lambert uh in terms of uh the respect that he had from the UCOs. Could
00:43:27 respect that he had from the UCOs. Could you just help us with why that was the case? So, you you were there, he recruited you, um you spent some time, you you saw him at at close quarters. What was it about Bob Lambert that meant
00:43:40 What was it about Bob Lambert that meant that he was highly respected? Well, I think because he had been there and done it basically. He had been an undercover officer. Um, and now the new
00:43:51 undercover officer. Um, and now the new breed of undercover officers were coming in and they were aware of his success in his operation. So, it wasn't like I could talk to them because I had no experience in doing that. Bob Lambert
00:44:04 experience in doing that. Bob Lambert had. He'd been there, seen it, and done it. and he was respected for that. Was there a real distinction from a manager point of view from those
00:44:16 manager point of view from those managers who had been UCOs, particularly UCOs in the SDS, compared to managers that did not have that undercover experience? What was there in terms of
00:44:27 experience? What was there in terms of the way in which they were regarded by other UCOs? How would you describe that dichotomy? Obviously, they can give the definitive answer to that individually, but basically it's very difficult to
00:44:38 but basically it's very difficult to tell someone what the best thing to do is in any circumstances when you yourself haven't done it. You get my drift.
00:44:49 After Bob Lambert, it was DI HN53 who was in that role as your DI. Is that right? And again, in terms of your description of him, it's
00:45:01 terms of your description of him, it's positive. You describe him as being held in high esteem as well. Is that is that your recollection? Okay.
00:45:10 Okay. Now, if we go back to the document that we uh were looking at, I wonder if we can turn to uh page 13 in this document. So, you joined as manager in 1997. So
00:45:23 So, you joined as manager in 1997. So this is this is a couple of years uh later but it's uh it sets out a a an overview of your uh role in the SDS and
00:45:35 overview of your uh role in the SDS and what one of the tasks that you had was you were responsible as well for the for the finances. Is that correct? That's correct. Yes. So we can see all of in the bullet points management of
00:45:47 of in the bullet points management of the money, maintenance of uh accounts. That side of your responsibilities. Looking back, do you think that took away your attention from
00:46:00 away your attention from the main part of your role which was to supervise the UCOs and and their intelligence? Was that was that a distraction? Did it sort of undermine
00:46:11 distraction? Did it sort of undermine the amount of time that you could spend with the officers? No, it was the other way round. The dealing with the officers and the day-to-day running of the business, the
00:46:22 day-to-day running of the business, the operation
00:46:24 operation uh would take my attention away from the more mundane [snorts] administrative tasks.
00:46:32 Now I in terms of your connection with the officers we've heard and can you confirm that two times a week you would have a meeting with the UCOs that you
00:46:46 have a meeting with the UCOs that you were supervising? Yes.
00:46:48 Yes. Now in terms of these meetings, was that a
00:46:53 a forum in which the UCOs could speak openly about problems that they they were having. So
00:47:04 problems that they they were having. So not just oh this there's going to be a demonstration on this day or I was involved
00:47:09 involved not just the intelligence but difficulties that they they were having. personal um issues, concerns. Was that a forum to do so or not? Because it was it
00:47:20 forum to do so or not? Because it was it was in front of the other UCOs. Could you help us with that? That was the forum to do it in in the um not in the open forum obviously. We would have a dis a round discussion and
00:47:31 would have a dis a round discussion and people would say what they'd done that week, what their plans were for the rest of the week, etc. When that has been done, that was the opportunity to have smaller individual meetings face to face
00:47:43 smaller individual meetings face to face or involving the DI or the DCI and that was the perfect time to bring up any particular problems that they were facing.
00:47:52 facing. Now, can you just as a we we'll go to specifics, but could you just help us with the the generality of that? So those those problems so when an officer is having a particular problem can you
00:48:03 is having a particular problem can you just give us an example of where they might approach you so you have these two meetings once a week but if there's something well I want to discuss something with you directly could you
00:48:14 something with you directly could you did that actually happen yes not not not always for a problem but you can't discuss everything in in detail in front of everybody else because everybody else has got their own
00:48:25 because everybody else has got their own things to talk about but it was it with the opportunity to bring up anything on the domestic front, child sickness or whatever that they might need help or understanding about.
00:48:37 understanding about. So the example you've just given is child sickness. So for example, look is is this is this accurate? I'm I'm struggling because uh home life is difficult. Sick child need to be there
00:48:48 difficult. Sick child need to be there and and it's very difficult to be undercover and and to deal with that. That's the sort of Yes. And as a general uh point, were from your perspective, were the officers
00:49:00 from your perspective, were the officers quite open with what was happening in their personal life?
00:49:06 You never know, sir. You say you never know. But for example, can you recall anyone saying, "Well, I'm having relationship difficulties at home. It's it's not going well." So like
00:49:19 home. It's it's not going well." So like personal matters of that nature, not just logistics. I'm finding it difficult traveling in or but the I'm having I'm having some personal problems. No.
00:49:28 No. No. Okay.
00:49:32 And of course one of the things that you have set out in your statement, one of the main concerns that you had was for the officer officer's welfare. Yes sir.
00:49:41 Yes sir. And so instead of the officers coming to you and saying look I'm having some some difficulties. Did you ever inquire maybe not in the open meetings
00:49:53 inquire maybe not in the open meetings but just if you saw these officers week after week you you would have seen if perhaps they were a little off color or something wasn't right is that would you
00:50:04 something wasn't right is that would you would you inquire is everything okay at home is everything all right would you ever be sort of proactive in sort of questioning them in terms of how they were doing yes because that's a a general thing you do with people that you know and people
00:50:16 do with people that you know and people that you work with if you think they've been a little bit below par and you're always asking people how they are or how their wives are, how's the kid? Was it was it at a superficial level,
00:50:28 Was it was it at a superficial level, for example, well, how's how's the how's your son or daughter? Oh, fine, all good. Or was it can you remember sort of some more sort of personal well actually no I'm struggling or or any any
00:50:42 no I'm struggling or or any any explicit explanation to you that there were difficulties particularly in a relationship. I can't recall any. Okay.
00:50:50 Okay. In addition to the twice weekly meetings is it right that the officers that you were supervising were calling you twice a day? Yes. That was the main reason for that
00:51:02 Yes. That was the main reason for that just to make sure they're calling twice a day because if there's a missed call it might mean there was something wrong or something had gone wrong. That would be the main reason. Yes. And so that wasn't a forum to discuss
00:51:14 And so that wasn't a forum to discuss particular problems or or or was it what was the nature of these calls? No, those calls were generally very brief. Hello, I'm here. I'm alive and well. I'm doing so and so this afternoon. Um things of that. Okay.
00:51:29 afternoon. Um things of that. Okay. In terms of the officers that you directly supervised, were you yourself involved in recruiting any of them? The ones that you've
00:51:40 any of them? The ones that you've supervised? None of them. So, no. In terms of the recruitment exercise, I think you say in your statement that it was limited that you might have participated in some of the interviews.
00:51:52 participated in some of the interviews. Mhm. Yes.
00:51:53 Mhm. Yes. Do you remember those interviews? No, sir. I'm going to just show you a document just to see if it jogs your memory. I wonder if we can uh put up on the screen so it's not in your bundle. It's MPS 073163
00:52:08 please.
00:52:12 [snorts] Now we can see this is a selection interview for 118 and we can see the the panel there. It's difficult to it's a bit blurry. HN58,
00:52:23 difficult to it's a bit blurry. HN58, HN53 and ST. So Steve Titty. So you you were not on this particular interview panel, but I wonder if we could just sort of turn through the pages. So if we
00:52:34 sort of turn through the pages. So if we go to the next page, does this look familiar to you? Does that is that something that you recall this nature of this document? So various scenarios are
00:52:46 this document? So various scenarios are put to the officer and so the the DCI the DI are asking these questions and then you're there gauging the way in which the officer replies. Does that
00:52:58 which the officer replies. Does that ring any bells? It does. I can't recall this document specifically. I imagine the questions were varied for different interviews. Well, let's go to something specific. If we just turn to the third page please,
00:53:12 we just turn to the third page please, you you can see one of the scenarios there and it's given this heading sex and drugs and rock and roll. And it says we can just make out says skills, moral and ethical boundaries, creativity, use
00:53:24 and ethical boundaries, creativity, use of legend. Yes.
00:53:25 Yes. Awareness, moral dilemas, levels of commitment, different values in society. Yes.
00:53:32 Yes. Now, if we just go through, if we just zoom out and we can see how those topics are developed. So we can the scenario begins. You're at a social event uh with your wearies and have had a couple of drinks. When one of the leading lights
00:53:45 drinks. When one of the leading lights in the organization asks you to drive them home, what do you do? Now do you recall that particular question? Well, to a degree I I can see it and I
00:53:56 Well, to a degree I I can see it and I can understand it. And so for example, is this right that the test is um don't drink and drive? And so what you're looking for is creativity of how to get out of that
00:54:08 creativity of how to get out of that situation where an activist that you're spying on um suggests that you drive even though you've you've drunk um uh too much alcohol and you're so you're seeing how they present with scenarios
00:54:21 seeing how they present with scenarios that are likely to happen in their deployment. Okay. And then the next one as you are over the limit the same weary offers to share a cab home with you. when you get to your place, they do a
00:54:32 when you get to your place, they do a bunk from the cab. What do you do? So again, your sort of testing officer, how or the uh applicant, how would they react to a scenario that's likely to happen at some stage or quite possible
00:54:44 happen at some stage or quite possible to happen during a deployment if they were successful? Yes.
00:54:48 Yes. All right. And then when the cab is finally gone, the weary invites herself in for coffee and then offers you a joint so that you can both relax. What do you do? Again, a scenario is likely
00:55:01 do you do? Again, a scenario is likely to occur if they go into a certain uh field and you want to see well how would they react to to that? Um would they agree to for example smoke cannabis and
00:55:13 agree to for example smoke cannabis and and so you're looking at how they react to a scenario that's that's likely to happen. Yes. Okay. Could we turn over the page please? So as this scenario uh develops uh we can see the last question
00:55:26 develops uh we can see the last question or the last part of the scenario is this. Uh when you have both had coffee it becomes obvious that she has no intention of leaving before the morning.
00:55:38 intention of leaving before the morning. What do [clears throat] you do? Now long time ago you were involved in some of these interviews but not significant involvement in the recruitment process.
00:55:50 involvement in the recruitment process. But do you remember this? Does that that particular not specifically sir? Right. One of the things that you said in your statement is that the only correct
00:56:03 statement is that the only correct answer to each of those points that we just had a look at was to avoid criminality or inappropriate behavior. And what you said in your statement was that I believe that the responses to
00:56:16 that I believe that the responses to this particular question, so the one we're looking at at the top was a deal breaker.
00:56:22 breaker. Yes.
00:56:25 Yes. So this is setting out a scenario that could very well happen. Yes.
00:56:30 Yes. And the purpose of it is to see. So if the person being interviewed said, "Oh, well, I would I would just I would just um I would sleep with the activist and
00:56:42 um I would sleep with the activist and uh I would remain cover." That would be right. That's it. We're not going to hire this particular uh applicant. Um not suitable for the SDS. Is is that right?
00:56:51 right? Yes, it is.
00:56:55 But what when you describe it as it's a deal breaker this this particular question who who told you that what because you you're very clear that well you know if an applicant is saying
00:57:06 well you know if an applicant is saying well yeah I I would have I would have remained I need to keep my cover so I would have I would have had um sex with the activist and and kept my cover and you're very clear that that's a deal
00:57:17 you're very clear that that's a deal breaker. No, you're not going to be joining the SDS. But how did you know that that was a dealbreaker? That that was the wrong answer. It was a dealbreaker to me and I'm 100% sure it was a deal breaker to uh the DI
00:57:30 sure it was a deal breaker to uh the DI and the DCI as well because you can't do that.
00:57:41 Was that ever communicated to the UCOs that they weren't allowed to sleep with activists? I'm sure it was.
00:57:52 I'm going to I wonder if we can take this document down. I just want to um go back to your statement. I wonder if we could turn to page 20, please. In Mr. Greeny's statement, it's
00:58:03 Greeny's statement, it's paragraph 54. It's 54G. So, right at the top. So, you say, "I did not train UCOs. their
00:58:14 say, "I did not train UCOs. their development was looked after by the other UCOs uh particularly those who were more senior or operating in related groups during my time in the SDS both DIS and had previously been UCOs as HN58
00:58:28 DIS and had previously been UCOs as HN58 had been so far as I provided any guidance my recollection is that this was part of my pastoral supervisory role now just stepping back from that
00:58:39 now just stepping back from that do you would you agree that that that was inadequate that the UCO's training that their development wasn't looked after by the managers but
00:58:50 wasn't looked after by the managers but by by other UCOs. Looking at that back at it now, do do you think that's a bit strange?
00:58:59 strange? I think I alluded to it earlier, sir. How do you train somebody to do something that you haven't done, especially something of this nature? Well, if we if we you address that in
00:59:10 Well, if we if we you address that in fact in your in the next paragraph. So, I wonder if we could just go to uh it's H
00:59:15 H and it's the last sentence. So, you say I lacked the direct experience to tell them how to manage their day-to-day work. Uh but I would act as a sounding board uh if required.
00:59:27 board uh if required. So again going back to your recruitment and so you described well experience in uh ANIE uh in terms of animal rights issues uh you're very good analyst and
00:59:40 issues uh you're very good analyst and had spent many years uh recipient of that intelligence but in terms of supervising undercover officers firstly you had never been a UCO
00:59:50 UCO no you'd never worked with UCOs before joining the SDS no And
00:59:59 what if someone were to say that you were unsuitable to be a manager because uh you to use your own words lacked uh direct experience to tell them how to manage their day-to-day work.
01:00:12 manage their day-to-day work. Well, it's a valid point, but you have to
01:00:15 to you have to have people in that position. You can't get former undercover officers permanently to supervise new undercover officers. I don't see how that that's sustainable
01:00:27 don't see how that that's sustainable numerically.
01:00:32 If we I wonder if we can just take this page down. I just want to ask you something on the same topic, but it's later in your statement. Could we turn to page 42? It's paragraph 107 in your
01:00:43 to page 42? It's paragraph 107 in your statement. So here you say as cover officer at least part of my role was to ensure that the UCOs's kept within the rules as
01:00:54 the UCOs's kept within the rules as police officers and the scope of their authorization. I did not feel constrained to supervising my UCOs in cases where another cover officer was absent whether on duty or leave. Uh apart from the notes about expenses and
01:01:06 apart from the notes about expenses and cover driving licenses, I do not recall the content of these documents being discussed generally where they were relevant. My understanding is that new UCOs would be directed to read policy
01:01:19 UCOs would be directed to read policy documents as part of their preparation. And so again, the way the language that you're using is that well your understanding is that new UCOs would be
01:01:31 understanding is that new UCOs would be directed to read policy documents, but who's directing them? If you're the if you're their direct manager and you're were you directing them? I would have been. Yes. And so policy
01:01:42 I would have been. Yes. And so policy documents, would this include the tradecraftraft manual? Tradecraft manual is there to be read. Yes.
01:01:50 Yes. Did you read the tradecraft manual? I'm sure I did, so yes.
01:01:58 In your statement, you say about the tradecraftraft manual that it certainly was not deemed authoritative on any point of tradecraftraft.
01:02:12 point of tradecraftraft. Can you just help us with why you've you've said that that it wasn't deemed authoritative on any point of tradecraft and the way you describe it as a collection of anecdotes from individual
01:02:24 collection of anecdotes from individual officers?
01:02:27 officers? I think it's exactly that, sir. Individual stories from previous undercover officers, not the specific [clears throat] this is how you do things, just examples of things that have happened.
01:02:38 have happened. Well, if we and just to be fair to you, if we just go to that particular part of your statement which is on this page, sorry, it's over the page or paragraph 109, please.
01:02:56 Okay. Now you refer to it as in the middle. It had no particular status within the SDS. It certainly was not deemed authorative on any point of trade craft. Prospective UCOs were encouraged
01:03:08 craft. Prospective UCOs were encouraged to discuss their preparation with the deployed UCOs in preference to reading documents. Yes.
01:03:20 I wonder if we could just in terms of that description of it being no particular status. I wonder if we can actually turn to the tradecraftraft manual itself. Could we please So it's a your tab B10 refer to MPS0527597
01:03:35 your tab B10 refer to MPS0527597 please.
01:03:52 Special Demonstration Squad Trade Craft Manual.
01:03:59 Would you agree that the front page gives the impression that it has status? Yes. Looking at it, yes.
01:04:15 You said that it wasn't authoritative, but would you accept looking at the document that there was a danger that a new recruit looking at that would think it was authoritative?
01:04:29 Well, they could take that view. Yes. I wonder if we could turn to page five, please.
01:04:37 please. And I wonder if we can just highlight just the top few lines please. Beginning this manual.
01:04:44 So the very first paragraph, paragraph 1.1, this manual of tradecraft for the special demonstration squad is designed
01:04:55 special demonstration squad is designed both for new members of the squad and also as a guide to best practice for members of the squad during their posting.
01:05:08 So again, if this document you have described as not deemed authoritative on any point of
01:05:19 not deemed authoritative on any point of tradecraftraft, collection of anidotes, no particular status, but that's that's not what it says, is it? This is rather than saying this
01:05:30 it? This is rather than saying this manual is a collection of anecdotes, it said this manual is of tradecraft is designed as a guide to best practice. So it's the opposite of what you've just described, isn't it?
01:05:42 described, isn't it? As a guide. I have said it's a collection of anecdotes and I've not read it for 30 years. That is my recollection of what it was. You don't It wasn't a document
01:05:53 it was. You don't It wasn't a document that you went to and said, "Well, this has happened. I'm going to do A, B, and C because that's what they do there. It's just an example of what has happened in the past. It's not binding
01:06:04 happened in the past. It's not binding in what it contains. It's it's it's clear, isn't it, that right from the um opening of this uh document that anyone reading it, if
01:06:16 document that anyone reading it, if someone were to ask a new recruit, right, just read the first paragraph of this document, is it a a collection of anecdotes that have no real uh
01:06:27 anecdotes that have no real uh authority, or is it your guide to best practice? They're going to say, well, it's a guide to best practice. That's what it says, and it goes into a lot of detail. I may say that sir. Yes. Could we please turn to page 27?
01:06:45 So paragraph 5.6.1 if we can begin with that. So sexual liaison 5.6.1 the thorny issue of romantic entanglements during a tour is the cause of much soulsearching
01:06:58 tour is the cause of much soulsearching and concern. And then this. In the past, emotional ties to the opposition have happened and caused all sorts of difficulties, including divorce,
01:07:09 difficulties, including divorce, deception, and disciplinary charges. While it is not my place to moralize, one should try to avoid the opposite sex for as long as possible. Now, again,
01:07:20 for as long as possible. Now, again, you've said, and it's correct. This is all a long time ago, but do you remember reading this section of the tradecraftraft manual? As I said, I read this 30 years ago. I
01:07:31 As I said, I read this 30 years ago. I have no specific recollection of each individual entry. Were you aware of any difficulties, divorces, disciplinary charges arising
01:07:42 divorces, disciplinary charges arising out of that heading uh sexual uh liaison?
01:07:46 liaison? I'm sure they're in the book there somewhere, but I can't instantly recount them, sir. No. Was
01:07:56 this not the actual guidance that was applied at the time? So, we can see that last sentence there. One should try to avoid the opposite sex for as long as
01:08:07 the opposite sex for as long as possible. So, it's not saying we're going back to that interview scenario as a deal breaker. It's it when we get to the tradecraft manual, what it says is
01:08:19 the tradecraft manual, what it says is try and avoid it for as long as possible. What it doesn't say is it's a deal breaker. Do not do that because if you do, you're you're out of the SDS. It it's it's permissive, isn't it?
01:08:31 it's it's permissive, isn't it? I don't know. I don't really understand what you mean by that. So in in the interview scenario, someone who's um said, "Oh, I would have I would have slept with the activist to retain my
01:08:42 slept with the activist to retain my cover." You said, "That was that was a deal breaker. That was wrong." Uh and that was your understanding. But if we look at the manual that the officers are pointed to at the beginning of their
01:08:53 pointed to at the beginning of their deployment, it's not put in that way, is it? It's say, "Well, look, try and avoid it for as long as possible." So it's it's different. Try and avoid the opposite sex for as long as possible. trying to avoid
01:09:04 long as possible. trying to avoid getting into that situation as long as possible.
01:09:07 possible. But it's clear I mean the heading in bold sexual liaison. It it's clear what it's referring to, isn't it? Ultimately, yes. Yeah. Now, if we look at the next paragraph, please 5.6.2
01:09:19 paragraph, please 5.6.2 refers to the uh free love attitudes of the 60s and 70s have largely disappeared in the minds of extremists following herpes, hepatitis, and AIDS. However, if
01:09:33 herpes, hepatitis, and AIDS. However, if you are doing your job properly, men and women in the field will experience occasional approaches from males and females, straight and gay. Would you agree that this suggests that if you as
01:09:45 agree that this suggests that if you as a UCO are not approached by members of the opposite sex, if if then you're doing something wrong as a UCO
01:09:56 UCO if you're not being approached. Well, that's how the author of this has presented it, but I disagree. Okay.
01:10:09 Could we turn to the next paragraph, please? Uh, so 5.6.3. So, under the same heading, I wonder if we can show the next page as as well, maybe just side by side because the paragraph
01:10:22 just side by side because the paragraph Thank you. Thank you very much. While you may try to avoid any sexual encounter, there may come a time when your lack of interest may become suspicious. In these circumstances, you
01:10:33 suspicious. In these circumstances, you can either try to introduce an appropriate male or female from your own relations or friends to meet the weareries on a few occasions or ask the office if they can find an ex SDS
01:10:44 office if they can find an ex SDS operative to fill such a role. Again, do you do you remember reading that? I don't remember reading it. Um, but it's not something that would be done,
01:10:55 it's not something that would be done, not with one of my officers. Would you agree that that advice is completely reckless, suggesting that an undercover officer
01:11:07 undercover officer turns to
01:11:09 turns to a relation or a friend of those to meet activists that they are spying on? Completely reckless advice. Yes. Madness.
01:11:20 Madness. Madness.
01:11:27 [clears throat] And if you had read this at the time, would you not have said to one of your DS colleagues or you described how approachable the DCI, the DI, everyone
01:11:40 approachable the DCI, the DI, everyone was approachable, everyone could talk about what they wanted to talk about. Do you have any recollection of reading particularly these sections of the tradecraftraft manual and say what what
01:11:52 tradecraftraft manual and say what what is this? This is madness. Why is why is this the guide to not the guide to worst practice? This is the guide to best practice. What what is this document?
01:12:03 practice. What what is this document? I don't remember raising it with anybody, sir. No. All right. But I imagine if an officer read that and came to me and said, "Oh, I've got a plan to get my auntie in to help me out with this." he was certainly
01:12:14 with this." he was certainly disillusioned as to the possibility of that happening. But again, in your role, as you've described, in terms of your experience, not having that experience um in
01:12:25 not having that experience um in undercover operations and instead referring the UCOs who are coming in to join the SCS to these policy documents. And [snorts] so in terms of your
01:12:36 And [snorts] so in terms of your training, this was this not in fact in effect
01:12:41 effect the substitute for your training. So you said, "Well, I wasn't training the undercover officers. They knew what they were doing. They should ask their colleagues." But what you were doing is you were pointing them to documents such such as this that were giving advice
01:12:53 such as this that were giving advice that that you've described as madness looking back on that that now. How did that arise? Do you think people weren't brought in and said, "Go
01:13:04 people weren't brought in and said, "Go and read the tradecraft manual. You'll find everything you need to know in there to run your operation." people are made aware of the existence of the tradecraftraft manual. Go and have a look at it if you like. It goes
01:13:15 have a look at it if you like. It goes back, I don't know, to the to the dawn of the SDS. I imagine there's all sorts of bits and pieces in there that uh undesirable. [clears throat]
01:13:26 uh undesirable. [clears throat] Well, isn't looking back on it now, is that not
01:13:31 that not one of the main problems? As you said, you've got guidance going back to the dawn of the SDS that you've described as an experienced officer as madness. One part of it I have. Yes.
01:13:43 One part of it I have. Yes. But in terms of the one part, it is a part that we have heard countless accounts of how it has shattered uh particularly women's lives
01:13:57 shattered uh particularly women's lives as a result of undercover officers sleeping with them. So although it is one part, it has contributed, would you agree, to
01:14:08 it has contributed, would you agree, to shattering a number of people's lives? Well, we've kind of moved on a paragraph here, so I'm looking at the the first one, 563.
01:14:16 one, 563. That's what I'm referring to. The the second paragraph we haven't actually gone through. Let's turn to that. Both options are fraught with difficulty, and you must make your own mind up about how to proceed. Pausing
01:14:29 mind up about how to proceed. Pausing there. Why? Why is it left to the UCO to make up their mind about engaging in sexual relationships with
01:14:41 engaging in sexual relationships with activists in their cover role? Wouldn't the best advice be if you that situation should ever arise or if it is developing to contact your manager straight away
01:14:53 to contact your manager straight away for assistance? Absolutely. But it's the again it's the opposite of the correct advice, isn't it? You must make your own mind up. As I say, sir, this is not a document
01:15:05 As I say, sir, this is not a document that was given to officers saying read that is what you do. This was a collection of documents in a book, a binder, whatever, which officers were entitled to go and have a read and see
01:15:17 entitled to go and have a read and see what happened during the history of the organization. It's not uh rules by which they are bound to operate or guidelines. It's just I think
01:15:28 operate or guidelines. It's just I think as I said initially just a set of a set of stories. If you have no other option but to become involved with a weary you should try to have fleeting disastrous
01:15:39 try to have fleeting disastrous relationships with individuals who are not important to your sources of information. One cannot be involved with a weary in a relationship for any period of time without risking serious consequences.
01:15:50 consequences. So the advice there is we've heard repeated a number of times. Try to have fleeting disastrous relationships. It's not a story though, is it? It's advice
01:16:03 not a story though, is it? It's advice to undercover officers as best practice cuz that's what it says at the beginning of the tradecraftraft manual from from this author, whoever that may be.
01:16:20 But why why was why was it still in existence? Why was it all new recruits read the tradecraft manual before [snorts] they're deployed? All of them referred to this document. All of
01:16:33 them referred to this document. All of them asked to read it. And it's the it's the opposite, isn't it, of the advice that they should have been given. When you go into it specifically and deeply say yes.
01:16:44 deeply say yes. Now,
01:16:47 Now, of course, we know that majority of the undercover officers were male and majority of the activists that um
01:16:59 majority of the activists that um undercover officers um slept with in their undercover role were female. Would you agree that the
01:17:10 the uh it was women, not men, uh who were uh harmed as a result of uh the officers following this advice and sleeping with
01:17:21 following this advice and sleeping with activists? There was predominantly whim uh women who uh were the victims of that conduct.
01:17:29 conduct. Yes. Would you agree uh that that is uh the effect of that is misogynistic that
01:17:41 the effect of that is misogynistic that it is sexist because essentially it is um it is harming uh women to further
01:17:52 it is harming uh women to further undercover operations. Yes.
01:17:59 But well, not the sexist and misogynist part of it. I don't think that was a an aspect of of our office at all. It's just people getting together in
01:18:12 It's just people getting together in life and forming relationships. Those relationships should have been cut off at the very start. If someone is trying to make advances to you or clearly wants
01:18:23 to make advances to you or clearly wants to uh become more closer than just friends, then that should be put a stop to.
01:18:29 to. So
01:18:30 So that's what these guys knew. You don't do it.
01:18:36 Never. You never told them that.
01:18:41 Can I think of a specific example where I've sat somebody down and said you must not have sexual relationships with men or women out there? I can't recall that. But definitely that is the line that was
01:18:52 But definitely that is the line that was taken.
01:18:54 taken. Just in terms of the way you've described it, I just want to just refer you to what was said by the commissioner. So this is the Metropolitan Police Service. This is the opening to uh our trunch of the inquiry.
01:19:09 opening to uh our trunch of the inquiry. And so there was reference made as follows. A significant number of UCOs engaged in serious sexual misconduct and there was a continuing failure by the
01:19:20 there was a continuing failure by the SDS's managers to prevent that misconduct from occurring. The MPS again apologizes to the individuals affected and to the public for these failings and for the wider culture of misogyny and
01:19:32 for the wider culture of misogyny and sexism that allowed them to happen. Now, that description was put forward on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service. Yes. Would you agree with that or is it exaggerated or unfair? How
01:19:46 or is it exaggerated or unfair? How would you characterize that? I think it's unfair to wrap everybody up in that. If anybody wants to accuse me of being a misogynist or a sexist, I would take great exception to it. But being a member of the SDS management,
01:19:57 being a member of the SDS management, I'm swept up in that overriding explanation or statement. I I I want to ask you about individual
01:20:08 I I I want to ask you about individual officers and your uh knowledge of the sexual relationships that they engaged in. I'd like to begin with HN26.
01:20:19 in. I'd like to begin with HN26. So cover name Christine Green. This was an officer that uh you described as as being an excellent UCO. Is is that right? Okay.
01:20:30 right? Okay. And just to confirm your evidence in as reflected in your statement is that you did not know that uh she had engaged in a sexual relationship with an activist
01:20:43 a sexual relationship with an activist by the name of Thomas Frampton. Yes.
01:20:45 Yes. So he he also had a nickname uh Joe Tax and also Joe Tex. And I just want to just take you through some documents in relation to
01:20:56 relation to her interaction with Frampton and just to go back to that particular time. It is going back quite a way. I wonder if we could turn to MPS 0247385.
01:21:08 we could turn to MPS 0247385. So I'm afraid it's not in uh your bundle, but I think we can bring it up on screen. So what this is, it's go it's it's a report from HN26
01:21:20 it's a report from HN26 dated the 3rd of December 1997. And you can see Roadbridge. So that was H26's code name. Uh so Thomas uh
01:21:31 H26's code name. Uh so Thomas uh Frampton there uh and in particular so this particular report from one of your UCOs, you would have you would have seen this
01:21:42 you would have you would have seen this report. thought he would have maybe typ typed it up. Is that right? Quite probably. So, yes. Again, number of years ago, but we can see veteran hunt sabotur Frampton has finally ended his tempestuous
01:21:54 finally ended his tempestuous relationship with privacy and is now seeking to fill his empty hours by becoming involved in mainstream ALF uh activity. And so animal
01:22:05 ALF uh activity. And so animal liberation front um from your experience in um ANIE uh anyone involved in mainstream ALF activity uh with someone um that you're
01:22:18 activity uh with someone um that you're particularly interested in. Yes.
01:22:20 Yes. Okay.
01:22:22 Okay. Now if we just follow through this particular timeline. So this is December 97. If we go to another document please. It's 0247472.
01:22:40 Now, this document that we're going to put on screen is a file note 30th of January 1998. And so the summary of this is
01:22:54 And so the summary of this is HN26
01:22:56 HN26 is not really producing any uh particularly helpful reporting. It's time to uh bring her operation uh to
01:23:07 time to uh bring her operation uh to an end. And we can see in fact the first bullet point infiltration of the ALF at a national level. It's no longer a realistic option. And we can see the beginning of the next of the last
01:23:19 beginning of the next of the last paragraph RB, so roadbridge HN26. She she's disappointed um that she would not be continuing her efforts to infiltrate the upper echelons of the ALF.
01:23:31 the upper echelons of the ALF. She acknowledged that it become increasingly difficult to achieve that objective. She said she would need a longer period in the field to do so. uh and uh it says I said that she now had
01:23:42 and uh it says I said that she now had an opportunity to reflect on our view before discussing with HN58 next who would then make a final decision. Now we can see that this note
01:23:56 decision. Now we can see that this note was submitted to HM58 you null war Steve Titty is it so at the time you would have been copied into this
01:24:05 into this yes
01:24:05 yes file note
01:24:07 file note could just help us with this this so this meeting with HN26 said well look it's you're not in a position to infiltrate the ALF let alone the upper
01:24:18 infiltrate the ALF let alone the upper echelons but then it's left with this we're going to give you an opportunity to reflect on our view and
01:24:26 and what one interpretation of that is would you agree is well you know it's you're it's coming to an end you haven't infiltrated the ALF
01:24:37 infiltrated the ALF but but see see what you can do you we're not closing it down um you've got an opportunity to to reflect how how would you interpret that or how did you interpret it
01:24:50 interpret it I would interpret that as Bob saying, you know, this is this is the situation. We're looking to pull you out early next year. Um,
01:24:58 year. Um, what do you think about it?
01:25:05 And then the matter is going to be brought up with HN58 at a later date. Wonder if we can take that document down. So again, that was 30th of January
01:25:17 down. So again, that was 30th of January and again, sorry, sir, this document is not in your bundle, but we're going to bring it up on screen. It's NPS0247517.
01:25:25 So we're now moving forward to
01:25:31 just under four weeks later. So February 1998, strategy meeting between the SDS and C squad. And we can see various officers referred to, but let's just
01:25:43 officers referred to, but let's just focus on HN26 road bridge. And it says this, an accepted member of London Animal Action who has been involved in a number of campaigns outside London stabbing Hillgrave. And then this has
01:25:54 stabbing Hillgrave. And then this has recently become involved in a small group which has the potential to commit serious criminal damage. Okay. Yeah.
01:26:04 Yeah. So,
01:26:08 can you help us with this? You've got a report in the December saying Frampton's had a breakup with his his relationship's over. You've got the
01:26:21 his relationship's over. You've got the following month, January 1826. You're not able to infiltrate the ALF. Well, you'll have some time to reflect. And then about 4 weeks later, there's now reference to her having recently become
01:26:34 reference to her having recently become involved in a group with the potential to commit serious criminal damage. We can see there's a there's a change. Yes. And can you help us with your recollection of that change?
01:26:46 recollection of that change? I'm afraid I can't. I don't know what's happened in the inter intervening period.
01:26:50 period. Did you ask? This is your This is your uh UCO. She's her deployment's not going anywhere. She's not able to infiltrate the ALF. She's told to reflect and then
01:27:03 the ALF. She's told to reflect and then things turn around. Did you not ask? Wow. What What's What's changed? I'm sure I did. Let's move to the following uh month. So, this is just about 3 weeks later. I
01:27:15 So, this is just about 3 weeks later. I wonder if we can turn up MPS 0247 547, please.
01:27:32 Now, this is a file note that Bob Lambert
01:27:37 Lambert drafted, but he copied this in to you. Uh, and again, it's about, you can see it's a file note about Roadbridge.
01:27:48 it's a file note about Roadbridge. So, again, it's it's not long after that meeting where she's asked to reflect. And if we could turn to the first paragraph on page one.
01:28:01 Roadbridge has identified a Londonbased ALF cell with potential to commit serious crime. The leader of the cell is Joe Tex, an established and respected
01:28:13 Joe Tex, an established and respected ALF activist.
01:28:17 And so again the position in a few weeks has changed from infiltration of the ALF at national level was no longer a realistic option reflect to suddenly a
01:28:30 realistic option reflect to suddenly a complete turnaround and here we have uh HN26 identifying a Londonbased ALF cell with the potential to commit serious crime. So a significant turnaround
01:28:44 crime. So a significant turnaround in this deployment. Yes.
01:28:46 Yes. And again in your role as as her supervisor do do you have any recollection of of the turnaround? So well yeah looking back on it well yeah this this officer
01:28:58 back on it well yeah this this officer was on the way out wasn't producing any proper intelligence to suddenly really getting somewhere. Does that ring any bells?
01:29:06 bells? I I can't recall what was said and done 28 years ago or whatever it was. Uh clearly
01:29:13 clearly um intelligence is now being supplied about Cotex Frampton, a very uh worthwhile figure within the animal rights groups that we would look at. Um
01:29:25 rights groups that we would look at. Um and if
01:29:28 and if uh [snorts] Bob Lambert has said that he's worth looking at then we will and again your experience and one of the reasons that you said as
01:29:39 and one of the reasons that you said as far as you're aware joining the SPS is your experience with for example animal rights activists and you you didn't you that um anyone involved in ALF activism
01:29:53 that um anyone involved in ALF activism in an ALF cell. This is something very difficult to infiltrate. It's not it's not um the ALF don't have a stand on the high street um looking for members. It's
01:30:05 high street um looking for members. It's very difficult to infiltrate. So, this was an exceptional achievement. Yes. Not exceptional if you know the person. I mean, the ALF was not an organization as such. It had no structure to it.
01:30:17 as such. It had no structure to it. people just attributed themselves to the animal liberation front in whatever action they were doing wherever they were doing it in the country. If we look at I wonder if we can just
01:30:28 If we look at I wonder if we can just zoom out of that and just go to the last paragraph. So the last paragraph says in recent weeks text has taken RB into his confidence and this has opened up a rich
01:30:39 confidence and this has opened up a rich seam of intelligence. It has also of course placed an increased burden on RB and she is now committed to her cover role to an unprecedented extent.
01:30:50 role to an unprecedented extent. So again in terms of the language used here, this is Bob Lambert who you respected and with your own um experience of uh animal rights activism
01:31:03 experience of uh animal rights activism at this level unprecedented extent of her commitment. Were you not aware that she was sleeping
01:31:15 Were you not aware that she was sleeping with
01:31:18 with Thomas Frampton and that's how she obtained this intelligence? No sir, I was totally unaware. If we turn over the page please to paragraph 4 on the next page.
01:31:32 paragraph 4 on the next page. there is a uh reference um in
01:31:39 um in paragraph 4. We can see the last sentence that it comes so soon after the writer's more downbeat assessment of her ability to provide high-grade ALF intelligence is a lesson to him and then
01:31:51 intelligence is a lesson to him and then this and a tribute to Arby's willingness to explore all options available uh to her. What what what were those options?
01:32:02 her. What what what were those options? What what what options did she explore? I'm sorry, I'm not seeing that. But so the last I wonder if you can just It's the last few words. Tribute to
01:32:15 It's the last few words. Tribute to Arby's willingness to explore all options available to her. So it's the last few words. I'm still not seeing that. I'm only seeing one paragraph. So do you have the paragraph that begins, Arby has made significant
01:32:26 begins, Arby has made significant breakthroughs? So if if you go to Can you see this three lines down towards the end that it comes so soon? Yes. Yes.
01:32:35 Yes. Yes. So that it comes so soon after the writer's more downbeat assessment of her ability to provide high-grade ALF intelligence is a lesson to him. And then this bit and a tribute to RB's
01:32:46 then this bit and a tribute to RB's willingness to explore all options available to her. Well, this is a report, a file note Bob Lambert has taken the time to write. We can see the detail of it. It's the most significant
01:32:59 detail of it. It's the most significant development in HN26, your UCO's uh deployment. And the references here to she's committed to an unprecedented extent her willingness to explore all
01:33:12 extent her willingness to explore all options available to her and my question is what are those options available to her if they're not sleeping with Thomas Frampton to get the intelligence?
01:33:24 Frampton to get the intelligence? It would strike me that the view was road bridge was coasting along just going along dayto-day.
01:33:35 just going along dayto-day. But when she was faced with uh her operation coming to an end, she started to work a little bit harder, moving to a higher gear and started to get better results. There's nothing there about her
01:33:49 results. There's nothing there about her sleeping with him. Could we turn to the next paragraph please?
01:34:01 So if we look at the fourth line down, you say there's nothing there about her sleeping with him. It says this. She is now, this is Bob Lambert in a note, file note to you or including um you in the
01:34:13 note to you or including um you in the copy list. She is now regularly enhancing her cover credibility by staying overnight with activists when they travel to different parts of the country on demonstrations and other
01:34:24 country on demonstrations and other business.
01:34:24 business. Yes.
01:34:25 Yes. In April, she plans to travel with Teds and others to a week-long animal rights gathering in Holland. And this will further enhance her standing. Yes.
01:34:33 Yes. So again,
01:34:35 So again, following the chronology, you have here's a report Thomas Frampton's has a relationship breakdown. Then there's a meeting. Your intelligence is not going anywhere. Reflect. And then suddenly you
01:34:48 anywhere. Reflect. And then suddenly you have uh uh she has infiltrated the ALF cell. She's close to Thomas Frampton to an unprecedented extent and is now regularly enhancing her cover by staying
01:35:00 regularly enhancing her cover by staying uh overnight. And again the same point by staying overnight with activists.
01:35:12 not staying overnight with Thomas Frampton.
01:35:16 Frampton. Now, a phrase that has been referred to a number of times. I just want to just see what your reaction to would be. If someone were to say, well, just looking
01:35:27 someone were to say, well, just looking at all of these descriptions is what was going on if you were not asking her directly, were you sleeping with Thomas Frampton? Uh what how did you suddenly uh infiltrate this group to
01:35:40 you suddenly uh infiltrate this group to such an extent? is if someone were to say, "Well, the reason what was happening is you're just turning a blind eye to what she was doing." You you you must have known that she was sleeping with Mr. Frampton, that this was this
01:35:53 with Mr. Frampton, that this was this was standard SDS uh practice, and what you're doing is is turning a blind eye to it.
01:35:59 to it. Absolutely not. We know now We know now that she was in a relationship with Thomas Frank. Yes.
01:36:04 Yes. Okay.
01:36:06 Okay. If you were not turning a blind eye to it, would you agree with this that it was a blind spot for you? You you these officers were having sex with activists,
01:36:18 officers were having sex with activists, but you you were just unaware of it. It was
01:36:20 was What I would like to say, sir, is that we now know that that was happening. And from that position, we are now turning round and looking back over [laughter] the history of it. and everything in
01:36:32 the history of it. and everything in there you can now happily put into that scenario because you knew it happened when I was there. I'm looking to the future. I don't know what's happened in
01:36:44 future. I don't know what's happened in the past. I'm looking to the future. And there was nothing in that that indicated to me that Roadbridge was engaged in a a relationship of that sort, nor with any of the other officers
01:36:56 of the other officers staying overnight with activists. Yes. All SDS officers do that all the time. If they're going to do a demonstration halfway up the country, they're staying with other
01:37:07 country, they're staying with other activists halfway up the country. It's common.
01:37:18 Before moving on from HN26, I just want to ask you briefly about a a a topic that uh relates to and you'll remember this the release of Mink
01:37:30 you'll remember this the release of Mink from Crowill Farm. Yes.
01:37:32 Yes. Okay. So, this was again it in the chronology we were looking at uh 1998. So, this is towards the summer of 1998,
01:37:43 So, this is towards the summer of 1998, August of that time. And I want to turn please and search at your tab B81. This is in fact one of your file notes.
01:37:57 Uh and I just want to ask you briefly about uh this. So it's MPS 02476 please.
01:38:16 So I wonder if we can take turn to page two and it's the last paragraph. At this stage of
01:38:26 stage of uh RB's HN26's operation, there is nothing to be gained in the long term by providing preemptive intelligence to disrupt uh this action. There are potentially far more serious offenses in
01:38:38 potentially far more serious offenses in the offing and this case, as with the next planned offensive, would be better utilized to cement RB's status rather than to create an atmosphere of uncertainty. And so you you recall this
01:38:51 uncertainty. And so you you recall this particular uh incident where 6,000 m were released from Crowill Mink Farm and HN26 was involved in that particular
01:39:04 HN26 was involved in that particular action again with Mr. Frampton. Yes.
01:39:08 Yes. Uh and aware of the significant damage that it did the surrounding environment. Uh extremely serious criminal offense to do that. And I just want to ask you about what your briefing was to to HN26
01:39:20 about what your briefing was to to HN26 because you were aware of what was going to happen in advance. Yes.
01:39:24 Yes. And was your thinking that this was a great opportunity for HN26 to burn her credentials as an ALF activist. that
01:39:38 credentials as an ALF activist. that that was because the real aim was to catch Joe Frampton uh committing a very serious offense. That that was that was
01:39:49 serious offense. That that was that was the target. That was the bottom line that the intelligence was indicating that he was going to undertake firebombing and that was what we were looking to
01:40:01 and that was what we were looking to stop and arrest him for. This was um a smaller action, nothing like a firebombing that would enable
01:40:13 firebombing that would enable Roadbridge, as I've said, to further cement her status within that group to be privy to the firebombings, which was I deemed to be far more important.
01:40:25 be far more important. on reflection and nothing to do with the fact that they were having a relationship or anything, but on reflection, [clears throat] I should have said, "No, that's not a good idea on several levels." And I'm sorry that I didn't.
01:40:44 Was Was that the problem though? you wanted to get Thomas Frampton and so willing to have serious criminal activity take
01:40:57 have serious criminal activity take place
01:40:58 place uh with that bigger end in mind because you were focused on let's get him arrested for committing a major arson. Yes.
01:41:07 Yes. Now I'm going to ask you if we can take that document down. I just want to ask you about this um u particular document it's in. So again, it's not in your bundle, but we'll bring it up on screen.
01:41:18 bundle, but we'll bring it up on screen. It's NPS0247864, please.
01:41:26 And so I wonder if we can turn forward to in the codes of practice. Could we turn to undercover operations code of practice? This is dated 3rd of June 1998. Could we turn to paragraph 2.4,
01:41:40 1998. Could we turn to paragraph 2.4, which is on page four? Uh I just like to ask you for your opinion on this because here it says where there is serious criminal activity being planned uh and
01:41:51 criminal activity being planned uh and the field officer is party to that activity uh then in accordance with the criteria laid down in paragraph 1.6 authorization will be sought from commander of special branch. Is it fair
01:42:02 commander of special branch. Is it fair to say that in this instance that authorization was not uh sought? So I understand
01:42:15 is this an example of the SDS uh acting outside the rules? No, I mean my first point is I didn't realize it was as far as the commander. I thought perhaps chief superintendent.
01:42:28 I thought perhaps chief superintendent. Um
01:42:30 Um and I thought it was authorized.
01:42:34 I'd like to ask you now please about another officer that you supervised uh HN16
01:42:42 HN16 uh DS James uh Thompson in relation to Mr. Thompson. Would you agree with this description that you had a very good rapport with him?
01:42:56 a very good rapport with him? I thought so. Yes.
01:43:01 I wonder if you can turn up MPS073805.
01:43:07 So this is a document in your tab B220. [snorts]
01:43:12 [snorts] So this is a letter recounting an Operation Hearn interview with you in relation to HN16.
01:43:22 We'll just wait for that to be brought up on screen. If we look at if we can turn to the second page of that please in particular paragraph
01:43:33 please in particular paragraph three. [snorts]
01:43:52 So, I wonder if we could just zoom out just so we have just the document without the Thank you. [clears throat]
01:44:04 So, can you see the paragraph beginning? It's the third one. Greeny explained that he was the cover officer to Thompson. Maybe if we just expand that one. Thank you. So, Greenie explained that he was the cover officer for
01:44:15 that he was the cover officer for Thompson from the point of joining the special demonstration squad in the summer of 97. Uh Thompson would have been in the field for approximately a year. And then this he referring to you
01:44:26 year. And then this he referring to you described Thompson as quote a maverick within a maverick unit, a unit that didn't follow the normal rules unquote acknowledging that the SDS was an
01:44:37 acknowledging that the SDS was an extraordinarily unique unit in policing terms. Now, this is a letter uh that is uh summarizing recounting an Operation Hearn interview
01:44:49 recounting an Operation Hearn interview with you. I just want to ask you about the accuracy of that when it says that you describe Thompson as a maverick within a Maverick unit. Is that is that accurate?
01:45:01 Is that is that accurate? Um, I will give them the benefit of the doubt and say yes because I never saw these officers from Operation Hearn post the interview they had with me at my house.
01:45:13 house. What I mean is they took contemporaneous notes, two officers, one of them writing in long hand as we discuss matters. And when I saw them off, they said, "Yes, we'll go and get this
01:45:25 "Yes, we'll go and get this uh typed up and we'll come back and get you to sign your statement." and I never saw them again. So from that perspective, [clears throat] I don't give a 100% guarantee that what they here is right, but I'm not
01:45:36 they here is right, but I'm not disputing
01:45:38 disputing what those few lines there in front of me.
01:45:45 And so in terms of your description there, why did you describe uh the SDS as a maverick unit?
01:45:58 uh the SDS as a maverick unit? because it's [clears throat] it's a completely unique unit. It does [snorts] it has undercover officers that live lives out there for four, five, six years doing a job that nobody else is is
01:46:09 years doing a job that nobody else is is doing.
01:46:10 doing. That I think wow
01:46:12 wow is [clears throat] uh not following the normal rules in every shape.
01:46:25 Would you accept that um an undercover policing unit uh should uh follow the rules?
01:46:33 rules? I'm not talking about the rules of the undercover unit. I'm talking about the general rules which they can't possibly adhere to.
01:46:51 terms of and again the main focus questions that I'm asking you this this morning is about sexual relationships with uh activists
01:47:04 sexual relationships with uh activists why couldn't they follow the normal rules and and not engage in that conduct of course they
01:47:23 I wonder if we could just turn to the third page. It's the page on the the right hand side here and it's just the middle paragraph beginning in terms of
01:47:34 middle paragraph beginning in terms of his relationship with Thompson. So this is your relationship with Mr. Thompson. So in terms of his relationship with Thompson and whether he confided in him, Mr. Greeny pointed
01:47:46 he confided in him, Mr. Greeny pointed out that and then this there could often be a case of the operatives knew best how to run their operation. So again, would you agree it's it's this the same um this was your approach that
01:48:00 the same um this was your approach that in your own mind at the time your view was that they knew best? No, that is Operation Hearn's interpretation of whatever it was I said at the time. Okay. Okay.
01:48:11 Okay. Okay. They certainly knew best how to run their operation on the day-to-day events.
01:48:18 events. Uh they are at the coldface and as is common amongst police in general, this mentality is sometimes prevalent. The nature of the SDS role meant supervision
01:48:29 nature of the SDS role meant supervision was minimal and the field officers were very independent to the point where out in the field they would make active decisions on operations. Now again, you
01:48:40 decisions on operations. Now again, you have made clear this is not a a situation where you're interviewed, you're provided with the interview transcript, you can write any corrections or confirm its accuracy. Operation her interview and then they go
01:48:51 Operation her interview and then they go away and then sometimes later you see this document. But in terms of that description that they record from meeting with you that the nature of the SDS role meant that supervision was minimal.
01:49:02 minimal. Would you agree that that is what you told Operation Hearn that the supervision of these UCOs was minimal? Minimal in the field.
01:49:13 Minimal in the field. Where where else would it be other than the field? in the office [clears throat] in the general um planning of their operation, where they're going, what they're doing, who they're meeting, where it's going to take them, but from
01:49:25 where it's going to take them, but from the dayto-day instant reaction to what is occurring in front of them and around them, it's [snorts] all down to them. There's no supervision over that. And looking back on it now,
01:49:37 over that. And looking back on it now, would you accept that um that that was uh that was wrong? the the having minimal supervision of these officers in
01:49:48 minimal supervision of these officers in the field in the field um that that allowed all the misconduct that we've heard about in this inquiry. It's a a hands-off approach. You could be using it's not it's not a hands-off approach
01:50:00 it's not it's not a hands-off approach not being supervising them in the field. How do you do it? You can't put another officer in there to supervise them who's supervising him at some stage. You have to trust the people
01:50:13 some stage. You have to trust the people that are doing this job. And I did. He's a high highly experienced detective uh managers in the SDS. The bread and butter dayto-day work is
01:50:25 The bread and butter dayto-day work is spying on people. Yes.
01:50:27 Yes. Keeping tabs on your own UCOs. That that is not an impossible task, is it?
01:50:35 it? Yes, it is. We have seen examples and we'll come to it. For example, whenever there's an issue with say there may be a compromise to an officer's deployment,
01:50:47 to an officer's deployment, security services involved, phone records downloaded, there is a huge amount of work that goes on to increasing the level of supervision and spying on various activists. And so the
01:51:00 spying on various activists. And so the suggestion that you can't monitor the undercover officers, that's that's not right, is it? Yes, it is right.
01:51:10 If we look in this um I'm going to ask if we can just turn to another document. It is MPS. We're going to look at this document. We're going to take a short
01:51:21 document. We're going to take a short break. It's MPS071972.
01:51:27 Now, you were aware of HN53's detailed investigation into James Thompson. um all the uh uh matters that
01:51:41 Thompson. um all the uh uh matters that uh he uh was uh suspected on and you um were aware that um a significant amount of work was was being done checking all
01:51:52 of work was was being done checking all of his misconduct. Yes. Yes. And in terms of the document that we have here, this is an example of HN53's
01:52:01 HN53's uh uh work in examining uh what had happened with Mr. Thompson. I'm going to ask if we could turn to page 11 in this document, please.
01:52:12 document, please. Because in this document, HM53 reversed relationships. uh and he says this uh DS Thompson has privately
01:52:23 this uh DS Thompson has privately expressed concerns to HN1 that the officer's inquiries related to the fact that he had established relationships whilst in the field in terms of the background to the inquiries
01:52:35 terms of the background to the inquiries those concerns were groundless but the frequency of contacts with non-activist female subscribers could show that this was the case. Now, were you aware that
01:52:48 was the case. Now, were you aware that uh HN53, amongst uh other things in his investigation of Thompson, uh got hold of his phone records, went through who he was phoning, and then it was became
01:53:00 he was phoning, and then it was became apparent that he was making a lot of telephone calls uh to female activists. Does that
01:53:08 Does that No, sir.
01:53:14 you are the officer directly supervising Mr. Thompson. But here you can see that HN53 is setting out uh the results of
01:53:25 HN53 is setting out uh the results of his inquiries where you have other officers referring to uh the fact that uh he was concerned uh that this was all about relationships and that in fact the
01:53:37 about relationships and that in fact the frequency of contact with females in the subscriber records uh showed that this was uh the case. Would you accept it is quite possible to for example something
01:53:49 quite possible to for example something basic as just looking at officers phone records to see um what they've been up to, who they're contacting. It's very very straightforward and in fact a good simple way of of keeping tabs on them of
01:54:02 simple way of of keeping tabs on them of supervising them. It could be done. [clears throat] Yes. Can I just ask about accommodation? To what extent with the UCOs were you aware of where they were
01:54:14 were you aware of where they were living, who were they living with? Is this something that you let them get on with that or is that something that you took a close interest? You take a part in where they're going to set up their flat and the surrounding
01:54:28 to set up their flat and the surrounding area and access to various bits and pieces.
01:54:31 pieces. Um, but then they, you know, they secure the flat and they move in and they should move in on their own.
01:54:42 In relation to James Thompson, your evidence is that in relation to his relationships with Sara and then Ellie that this is something you just simply um had no knowledge of at the time?
01:54:54 um had no knowledge of at the time? None whatsoever. Okay. Um did you stay in contact with HN16 James Thompson after he left the SDS? Not as such. No. Our paths would
01:55:06 Not as such. No. Our paths would occasionally cross, but there was no uh no real communication. No. All right. So, I don't know whether that's a convenient moment to break. So, we will spray quarter.
02:12:19 Where does it say?
02:12:26 Wonder if we can just turn up a document. MPS 40919, please.
02:12:40 Now you remember before the break at the beginning towards the beginning of of my questions to you asking you about the scenario test in the selection
02:12:51 scenario test in the selection interviews. We have another uh set of documents relating to interviews and you can see that these are in uh towards the end of 1997.
02:13:03 end of 1997. And so we can see Matt Simmons. If we turn through this document, we can see um other potential candidates HN3 who was ultimately
02:13:14 was ultimately successful. one of the um officers uh that you supervised but did not interview. But I just want to check with you your uh view of something that's
02:13:26 you your uh view of something that's written on page 10.
02:13:33 It's in relation to your evidence that in relation to the sex and drugs and rock and roll scenario that it was in your view a deal breaker
02:13:46 that it was in your view a deal breaker uh if the undercover officer gave an indication uh that the hypothetical activists who wanted to sleep over whether they would sleep with them or
02:13:57 whether they would sleep with them or not. Because here we have in the second session DCI introduction to the session uh stating that in fact there were no right or wrong answers to the various scenarios set. We are looking at a
02:14:10 scenarios set. We are looking at a number of skills self-discipline self motivation energy persistence creativity innovation reasoning planning quick thinking uh handle moral ethical questions response to loss of status
02:14:23 questions response to loss of status constraints on social domestic life. But here you have the DCI saying, "Well, look, you're going to have a series of scenarios and no right or wrong answer to any of these. We just want to see how you react and your reasoning for that."
02:14:35 you react and your reasoning for that." And would you agree that that in fact reflects more what we saw in the tradecraftraft manual in sense try and avoid as long as possible having sexual
02:14:46 avoid as long as possible having sexual relationships. But if you're going to have a sexual relationship, make sure it's as brief as possible. Uh, and here you you have the DCI referring to these questions as none of
02:15:01 referring to these questions as none of these are deal breakers. We just want to see how you articulate your response. I think it's misleading saying there's no right or wrong answers. To take that
02:15:12 no right or wrong answers. To take that literally, there are very, very, very wrong answers. You're talking about building the cabin and running off. If you said yes, I'd punch the cabbie in the face and leg it
02:15:23 punch the cabbie in the face and leg it with my my newfound friend. That would be a seriously wrong answer.
02:15:31 I wonder if you can take that document down. I want to turn to another officer. So, Jim Boiling again, was this a UCO that you would agree you had a particularly good rapport with?
02:15:43 had a particularly good rapport with? Jim Boiling? I thought so. Yeah.
02:15:51 In relation to your evidence uh in your statement, you you your your evidence is that you have no knowledge of his relationship with
02:16:04 no knowledge of his relationship with Monica, Ruth, Rosa, the pseudonyms that we're applying to those. Yes, sir.
02:16:09 Yes, sir. Okay.
02:16:11 Okay. I want to ask you about something that Jim Boiling said when he gave his evidence. Now, can I ask first, did you watch Jim Boing's
02:16:24 I ask first, did you watch Jim Boing's evidence or No.
02:16:26 No. No. Okay.
02:16:28 No. Okay. One of the things that he said is that he remembered once that he was going through some surveillance photographs with you and trying to identify the
02:16:41 with you and trying to identify the people in the surveillance photographs. And he said that there was once, for example, there was a photograph showing
02:16:53 example, there was a photograph showing him and he thought it was Monica. So this is 1997. So a after you uh began as a as a manager. And the way he described he said well we were obviously a couple
02:17:04 he said well we were obviously a couple in the photograph but then nobody was asking any questions. So for example the questions about well who's this who's this? Who's this? Who's this? But the person that he's obviously the woman
02:17:15 person that he's obviously the woman that he's obviously in a relationship with that they're acting as as a couple. No questions asked about the identity of of of th that person. Do we have that photograph, sir?
02:17:27 Do we have that photograph, sir? We do not have that uh photograph, but I can um
02:17:32 can um I I'll I'll say to you exactly what Jim Boing said. He said occasionally, for instance, you would get surveillance photographs or photographs from a demo that had been sent out for known
02:17:43 that had been sent out for known organizers to be identified. And I remember once one of the photographs showed me with I think it was Monica. We were obviously a couple in the photograph, but there was nobody asked. Nobody asked about that. And the
02:17:54 Nobody asked about that. And the question, well, being careful about ciphers, which managers saw those photographs and he said uh that he thought it was uh you who had uh thought
02:18:06 thought it was uh you who had uh thought uh about it that that it was you who had um seen the photograph and not us. Does that ring any bells? None whatsoever, sir. When was this? 1997.
02:18:15 1997. 1997.
02:18:20 I mean, that's pretty much when I started on the group. Um, I can't remember seeing that.
02:18:32 So, he he was asked in terms of acknowledgements that it was happening, I relationship, what signs were that that managers knew it was happening even if they were not inviting discussion about it? Yes. Can you help us with what
02:18:44 about it? Yes. Can you help us with what the signs were? Not really. um what was the basis for you saying yes and he said this I mean I do remember for instance that I went to animal liberation front gathering there was some suggestion that
02:18:55 gathering there was some suggestion that another unit might have been trying to provide some sort of coverage of my vehicle which was a van in which I was sleeping in the back of and living in the back of and I think there was some sort of comment about that's going to be
02:19:07 sort of comment about that's going to be an invasion of privacy yes with the sort of implication that that's not an area they want to be looking too closely at was that at a time when you were in a sexual relationship. Uh yes, although
02:19:18 sexual relationship. Uh yes, although not at that gathering. And so in his evidence um he indicated that there was uh a a
02:19:30 uh a a situation where uh deliberately questions were not were not asked and directly about individuals in in photographs because it was obvious that
02:19:41 photographs because it was obvious that he was in a relationship. But that rings absolutely no no bells with you. It doesn't.
02:19:45 doesn't. All right. May I ask did he in his evidence say I told him to enter into relationships or did he say um I encouraged him or I gave him sort of the Montipython nudge nudge
02:19:58 him sort of the Montipython nudge nudge wink wink to do it? Did he at any stage say that?
02:20:03 say that? Uh he was asked um about another officer did HN43 speak openly about his sexual activity undercover in front of managers and Mr. Boiling's reply was, "I very
02:20:14 and Mr. Boiling's reply was, "I very much doubt it. I think if it helps you at all, the attitude of the office was largely, I would have described as an understanding that particularly for people in lifestyle fields, there were
02:20:25 people in lifestyle fields, there were areas of it that they didn't wish to openly discussed that officers would be invited to resolve themselves or by speaking to their field member. So maybe I guess um if I was being cynical I'd
02:20:36 I guess um if I was being cynical I'd say sort of a don't ask don't tell policy is probably the best way of presenting it. Is he correct? Don't ask don't tell. No he's not. Okay.
02:20:50 This is an officer HN14 Jim Boiling uh who you would see regularly over a period of years. Yes. Uh an officer that at the time you respected.
02:21:01 respected. You had a good rapport with him. I thought so. And he is describing looking back on his time, his description is that there was a don't ask don't tell policy.
02:21:12 a don't ask don't tell policy. Mhm.
02:21:13 Mhm. Are you surprised to hear that he's saying that? Okay.
02:21:18 Okay. Totally wrong. I'd like to turn now to a different document. Could we please turn up MPS 0748100?
02:21:27 0748100? So, this is your tab B33. So, I want to ask you some questions about uh Rosa.
02:21:42 Now, if we turn to page two of this document,
02:21:47 document, I wonder if you can sort of expand that. So, this is a note that Rosa uh leaves
02:21:58 So, this is a note that Rosa uh leaves at uh a place where Jim Boing uh was uh staying before he [cough]
02:22:05 [cough] uh withdrew [clears throat] from the field.
02:22:08 field. And you can see that this note says, "Privacy from upstairs will remember me and the neighbors at number 39. need to contact his family to
02:22:20 number 39. need to contact his family to know if they've heard anything or if they not uh what trucking companies he had contact of. Any links to other people he used to work for in Earlesfield, Leighton or here would be
02:22:31 Earlesfield, Leighton or here would be really helpful as his godfather, a daughter of one of his old employers, the daughters 10 or 11 years old or if you know uh privacy he used to pick up
02:22:42 you know uh privacy he used to pick up car parts for. So this is a note that Rosa leaves trying to track down HN14. Is that something you remember? Not at all. Do you remember Rosa trying to track
02:22:54 Do you remember Rosa trying to track down Jim Boiling? Yes.
02:22:59 Yes. Okay.
02:23:03 A a a significant uh event for you during your time as manager. Yes. Significant but not unprecedented, not uncommon. How often did the SDS move
02:23:14 uncommon. How often did the SDS move officers?
02:23:17 officers? In my time there, twice. And was one of those occasions because Rosa was trying to track down Jim Boing? I don't think specifically. No. Okay. Could we turn over the page,
02:23:28 Okay. Could we turn over the page, please?
02:23:31 So, we can see here and
02:23:37 at the bottom of this document, we see BG. So, your initials there. So, this is your file note that you've typed. Yes. Yeah.
02:23:45 Yeah. Okay.
02:23:47 Okay. Now, the three paragraphs up from the bottom. Before leaving the flat, Rosa wrote out a short note attached. It's the note we've just been looking at, which he asked the decorator to pass on
02:23:58 which he asked the decorator to pass on to the landlord. Basically, the note is asking him to contact her with any information he may receive about PD Psycho Dream Jim Boiling in the future.
02:24:09 Psycho Dream Jim Boiling in the future. He's not anticipating hearing from her again, but if she does ascertain his phone number, then he will deal with her accordingly. Nothing further has been heard from Rosa since the visit.
02:24:20 heard from Rosa since the visit. PsychoDream is aware of this development, not unduly concerned. He's confident he has left no trail for her or anyone else to pursue. HN53 will further discuss the matter with Psycho
02:24:32 further discuss the matter with Psycho Dream when they meet on Thursday, the 9th of November. Now, does that jog your memory of this time period here? Does
02:24:43 memory of this time period here? Does that
02:24:43 that not really, sir? No, it doesn't. Okay. Clearly shows that I've seen that note 26 years ago, but neither of these are currently in my memory.
02:25:00 I wonder if we could turn forward please to page 13.
02:25:17 You were Jim Boiling's cover officer. Yes.
02:25:21 Yes. Yes, sir. Out of all the officers, you were most directly uh concerned with his day-to-day welfare. Yes. Yes.
02:25:28 Yes. And in particular, [laughter] the a sensitive time is when he's withdrawing from the field. Yes. All right. And so we have here a resume of an email from uh Rosa.
02:25:41 uh Rosa. Can you see the penultimate sentence? Okay. This is in relation to emails to Jim Boiling. She has started seeing someone but seems to accept that life
02:25:54 someone but seems to accept that life moves uh on. Yes.
02:25:58 Yes. So here uh uh uh Rosa is contacting Jim Boiling's uh landlord trying to get
02:26:09 Jim Boiling's uh landlord trying to get uh hold of him. And here we have emails being sent from Rosa to Jim Boiling. and then saying that she started seeing
02:26:21 then saying that she started seeing someone but seems to accept that life moves on. Uh, did this give you any cause to think that Rosa had been in a
02:26:34 cause to think that Rosa had been in a relationship with Jim Boiling? No.
02:26:37 No. Could we turn over the page, please? And so this is again it's it's a summary uh of the emails.
02:26:57 And we can see for example the second bullet point. Many of the emails were confused and erratic particularly the later ones where she appears uncertain about original thoughts on Jim's identity. Some of the emails are poetry.
02:27:10 identity. Some of the emails are poetry. Rosa talks of finding a new boyfriend and going to live in and its privacy. So again, here you have Rosa sending poetry
02:27:22 again, here you have Rosa sending poetry in emails. Uh there's another reference to the relationship. Uh Rosa talks of finding a new boyfriend again. Did that cause you to think
02:27:37 again. Did that cause you to think that
02:27:39 that Jim Boiling may have had a relationship with Rosa? Well, it does now as we all look back on it knowing that Jim Boiling had a relationship with her. We didn't have
02:27:50 relationship with her. We didn't have that information then. As I said previously, we're looking forward. Rose is finding a new boyfriend. There's nothing there that says Jim was her old boyfriend. Um, you know, my apologies to
02:28:03 boyfriend. Um, you know, my apologies to Rosa, but that does not tell me that the two of them were in a relationship.
02:28:13 Did you uh did you ask did you ask him boiling? No, I doubt very much that I did.
02:28:27 I wonder if we could turn over the page, please.
02:28:31 I wonder if you can just expand that. So, page 16.
02:28:41 [clears throat]
02:28:47 So again just as a generality you can see long and detailed uh message uh to Jim Boiling uh from uh Rosa
02:29:00 uh to Jim Boiling uh from uh Rosa and again do do not accept that uh this is indicative o of a relationship.
02:29:11 Have I seen this sir? Not being funny. Have I actually seen this? Well, have [laughter] you these are emails that all of this is from the uh documentation recovered uh
02:29:24 from the uh documentation recovered uh from the SDS um office and so this is emails that uh you would have seen at the time.
02:29:51 Can we go to
02:29:56 you you were Jim Boiling's cover officer?
02:30:01 officer? Yes.
02:30:01 Yes. Uh emails um are recovered by the SDS between him and Rosa. Um, note that Rosa left uh with the landlord is also on the
02:30:16 left uh with the landlord is also on the uh the file in the SDS offices. Would you not have expected to have been shown these documents and asked about them given that you were his supervisor? I might well have done, sir, but I have
02:30:28 I might well have done, sir, but I have no memory of this whatsoever.
02:30:32 Could we zoom out and just go to page 17, please? Sorry, over the page. We're on page 15. could be moved to page 16.
02:30:44 If we can just expand the top bit of that.
02:30:49 So again, we can see here in relation to this um email, after much persuasion from my sister, I started seeing someone two weeks ago. It's early days. I'm heavily scarred, but life moves on. I'm
02:31:00 heavily scarred, but life moves on. I'm glad life is good with you. I hope it will be for me, too. We did have some beautiful times together. Those will stay in a part of my heart. Uh, I wish you well. Be gentle to your creativity
02:31:12 you well. Be gentle to your creativity and be wise out there. Signed off by Rosa. Uh,
02:31:21 would you again have been expected to have been shown these if your your DIC uh has obtained emails from Rosa to uh
02:31:33 uh has obtained emails from Rosa to uh Jim?
02:31:35 Jim? instead of keeping them from you that they would have shown you and and asked I thought they would say yes because you were supervised but again does that not it doesn't ring any bells no
02:31:47 thanks if we just turn to page 17 please
02:32:11 So, if we you can see a number of bullet points. 1 2 3 4 five six up from the bottom. Can you see it says Rosa talks of finding a new boyfriend and possibly going to live in privacy. Hooray.
02:32:31 Again, in terms of this document, you can see the heading there, resume of Jim's withdrawal. Does that does that not ring any bells
02:32:42 Does that does that not ring any bells at all?
02:32:42 at all? I'm afraid not, sir. But in terms of the process whereby Rosa is trying to track down Jim Boiling and
02:32:53 is trying to track down Jim Boiling and as time goes by, you start off with a note, their emails, and they become it becomes more and more pressure in relation to uh Jim Boiling being found
02:33:05 relation to uh Jim Boiling being found out. You don't remember that buildup? No.
02:33:07 No. Sorry.
02:33:09 Sorry. Could we turn to page 19, please?
02:33:16 Wonder if we can expand page 19. Rosa contact with the office. Do you remember that? I do.
02:33:23 I do. Okay. Tuesday the 12th of December, four calls were received in the office from Rosa. The following is a synopsis of those calls. 11:42 a.m. duty phone. Rosa asked for Jim. Null War answered and
02:33:36 asked for Jim. Null War answered and said he didn't know him. Now, just pausing there. That would have been an extremely significant uh telephone call, would it not? Yes.
02:33:47 Yes. And
02:33:49 And you would have discussed that or did you discuss it with no null wall? Did he? Yes, I think so. Yes, I think I was there.
02:33:59 Did he say
02:34:03 did he describe what the conversation was about? This is just a a a resume of a synopsis of those calls. But did he say that Rosa had identified herself as
02:34:15 say that Rosa had identified herself as Jim Borman's girlfriend? [clears throat] I don't remember that, sir. No. 11:50 a.m. Duty phone. Rosa asked for
02:34:26 11:50 a.m. Duty phone. Rosa asked for Matt, a friend of Jim. Noah award denied all knowledge of Jim. In a distressed state, described Jim as 5'9 and she knew him as Jim Sutton. So again, in terms of that second call,
02:34:39 So again, in terms of that second call, was that something that was discussed with you?
02:34:43 with you? Yes, I'm sure. 11:55 a.m. Office phone. Asked for Jim BG. So you answered and
02:34:54 Asked for Jim BG. So you answered and denied knowledge of him and said it was a private number and he couldn't help. In relation to your knowledge of Jim
02:35:05 In relation to your knowledge of Jim Boiling's relationship with Rosa, did this raise your suspicions at all?
02:35:15 [laughter] It raised my suspicions. It's Jim's former trying to find him. Well, we we've gone through the emails and you said you can't recall seeing
02:35:27 and you said you can't recall seeing those emails, but but again, in terms of if someone said you're turning a blind eye to this, could can you understand why someone might say that that you get
02:35:39 why someone might say that that you get to the stage where not out of the blue, but you have series of emails from Rosa clearly des making it abundantly clear that they've been in a relationship and
02:35:50 that they've been in a relationship and she's trying to behind uh uh her boyfriend. To say that you weren't really suspicious at this and this was just an activist calling uh
02:36:02 and this was just an activist calling uh trying to get in contact with Jim. Is that not turning a blind eye to it? I don't think so, sir. No. As I have said before, looking back historically, yes. It all
02:36:13 looking back historically, yes. It all fits into that pattern now that we know Jim was engaged in sexual relations. 12:25 p.m. duty phone. It's the fourth call of the day. Rosa says, "If you see
02:36:24 call of the day. Rosa says, "If you see Jim, tell him I'm leaving him." And it's all over.
02:36:33 The what we all we have here is the synopsis of those calls. Yeah.
02:36:38 Yeah. But you would have been discussing nothing but this with no war, I'm sure.
02:36:43 I'm sure. And so again, where the the typed up record is Rosa referring to, "If you see Jim, tell him
02:36:54 referring to, "If you see Jim, tell him I'm leaving him." Is it not obvious that they have been in a relationship?
02:37:02 Looking back, yes.
02:37:14 In his evidence, Jim Boiling said, "I phoned HN52." So, you I phoned HN52 when it became obvious to me that I was
02:37:25 when it became obvious to me that I was going to be found by Rosa and I explained the whole scenario to him. Do you remember Jim Boiling phoning you
02:37:38 Do you remember Jim Boiling phoning you and explaining the whole scenario to you?
02:37:41 you? No, I most certainly do not. He said, "I asked for advice. I wasn't sure. The advice might be we think you should leave the job or whatever, but I
02:37:53 should leave the job or whatever, but I really didn't know what to do. And I asked for advice." That was on a weekend on a Saturday, I think, after I'd been into the internet cafe. And they said, "This girl is looking for you all over
02:38:04 "This girl is looking for you all over town." And I had just logged on in my real name. And I could see this was inevitable now. And then this in his evidence, Jim Boing said this. It was he
02:38:15 evidence, Jim Boing said this. It was he said, "Okay, we will speak to the management straight away and we will come and see you 10:00 on Monday in the East Squad office, which is where I was working, and we will talk it through
02:38:26 working, and we will talk it through with you there." So at 10:00 on Monday, nobody turned up and there was no communication at all. Do you remember that saying to him that
02:38:37 Do you remember that saying to him that you will speak to management straight away, you will meet him at 10:00 on Monday morning in Equad office, but instead of meeting up with him, nobody attended.
02:38:48 attended. I don't remember that. No. If I'd had that conversation with him, then yes, I would have passed that on to the management and yes, meetings would have taken place. after the weekend. I have no specific memory
02:39:00 the weekend. I have no specific memory of it.
02:39:03 of it. He
02:39:03 He he says either the next day or the day after I had a message to phone HN53. Yes.
02:39:10 Yes. So I phoned, this is Jim Boiling saying I phoned HN53. He said to me, "Don't call us again." He said, "Don't call the office. Don't call us again." And then he said, "I haven't got any time to speak to you. It's not
02:39:23 got any time to speak to you. It's not you particularly. We are telling all former officers now not to call us. A and in his witness statement when HN53
02:39:35 A and in his witness statement when HN53 said that to him the way in which Jim Boing described it in statements he was dumbfounded. So he calls you, he explains the
02:39:46 So he calls you, he explains the scenario to him. There's an agreement to meet up with him. Nobody shows up. And then when he contacts the office, HN53 says, "I haven't got time to speak to you. Don't call the office." And he's
02:39:57 you. Don't call the office." And he's dumbfounded. Can I just check who HN53 is? Yes. You have um the uh cipher list there. So
02:40:05 there. So the detective inspector, right, thank you, sir.
02:40:13 I can't imagine HN53 saying anything like that. He will he will obviously be able to confirm whether that's true or not, but it seems very unlike him.
02:40:31 Do you remember Jim Boing phoning you first? So, not the the office, but phoning you first and essentially asking you for help and explaining the scenario that that call
02:40:42 explaining the scenario that that call that doesn't out of all the calls that he made to you, that must have stood out the most. Here's someone calling you saying that he's about to be found out by Rosa. He's went to this internet cafe
02:40:54 by Rosa. He's went to this internet cafe and the person in the internet cafe said, "Well, she's looking all over town for you." And he's put in his details. So, it's obviously the the game is up and he called you because you're his uh
02:41:07 and he called you because you're his uh cover officer and you don't meet with him. Does that Does that ring any bells? It doesn't ring any bells, sir. If that conversation took place and all right I can't deny that it did didn't rather I
02:41:20 can't deny that it did didn't rather I would have done what it suggested I would have spoken to uh the senior management and they got back to Jim and then it was taken from there but quite frankly it's it's very difficult sat [clears throat] here to go back 25 years
02:41:32 [clears throat] here to go back 25 years and try and remember a sequence of events a sequence of phone calls and with respect to Mr. Boiling. Um, all this is coming from what he's saying. Um, and I don't think Mr. Boiling is
02:41:45 Um, and I don't think Mr. Boiling is high on the list of well.
02:41:50 well. He's not high on what list?
02:41:56 Clearly honesty and reliability.
02:42:03 Could we please take this document down and turn up MPS 072649
02:42:38 Yes. 072649.
02:43:08 Okay. Well, we we'll try and find that document. But I just want to ask you about um something that Jim Boiling has also
02:43:18 also said is that in describing the conversation that he had with you on the phone that he his words were we both
02:43:29 the phone that he his words were we both agreed that this was most likely to be my former girlfriend Rosa. So he in terms of
02:43:36 terms of describing uh the situation to you that he refers to Rosa in those those terms as as former girlfriend when he's talking to you.
02:43:48 you. Is it is it possible that he he did refer to Rosa as his former girlfriend? Never refer to anybody as his former
02:43:59 Never refer to anybody as his former girlfriend or of having a girlfriend or of having any relations. never.
02:44:09 In his statement, he also refers to that Rosa identified herself in the calls as as his girlfriend. And again, is it
02:44:21 as his girlfriend. And again, is it possible given the passage of time, is it possible that she could have identified herself in that way in the in the calls? Not to me. Not on the one call that I took. No. Okay. Right.
02:44:35 [snorts]
02:44:38 Is it fair to say that in relation to Rosa herself, and you're aware now of traveling abroad and all of the effort
02:44:49 traveling abroad and all of the effort she made to try and track Jim Boiling down, that there was no thought uh given to uh her welfare or her well-being.
02:45:02 her well-being. [snorts]
02:45:03 [snorts] I going to describe one more time with the reference to that. I'm told that that is correct. O MPS072649.
02:45:27 All right.
02:45:30 going to move on to a different um officer um HM 104 Carlo Saraki. Okay. Now, he was not one of those officers
02:45:42 Now, he was not one of those officers that you were his cover officer. He was someone that was deployed at the same time as you, but you uh were not directly responsible for him. But do you
02:45:53 directly responsible for him. But do you remember this particular officer? I do. Yes. Okay.
02:45:57 Okay. And would you have been for example present at those twice weekly meetings? Would he have been in the same room as you? Okay. Okay.
02:46:10 Okay. And again in terms of relationships uh your evidence is you were unaware of uh any inappropriate relationships as regards that particular
02:46:21 regards that particular Yes.
02:46:21 Yes. officer. Okay. Now, I wonder if we could just go back to your statement, please. And it was one of the paragraphs that you corrected. I just want to ask you about
02:46:32 corrected. I just want to ask you about that, please. I wonder if we can go to page 81 in Mr. Greeny's statement. It's paragraph 216.
02:46:43 [cough and clears throat]
02:46:46 So, here you say, I believe I accompanied Cardo on at least one trip to Italy, although in my recollection it was Florence. I acted as cover officer for him and 118 in that time. Um, now
02:46:58 for him and 118 in that time. Um, now just u pausing there in relation to Florence and you also reme mentioned HN118.
02:47:06 HN118. We know that there was a European social forum meeting in Florence in November 2002. Does that sound about right that it it could have been you going out um
02:47:20 it it could have been you going out um to act as cover officer for Carlos Saraki in relation to that meeting in Florence?
02:47:27 Florence? Well, that's the part that we amended at the beginning that uh Steve Bills was with me. The two of us went out there and and you you were there and you ended up having to do all the driving. Yes.
02:47:37 Yes. And that and that's why that that's something that you remember from that. Now, in your statement, you say, "We have it here four lines down." My recollection is that Carlo did drop out of contact for slightly longer than was
02:47:49 of contact for slightly longer than was normal during this trip, but not for so long that I alerted the office. If I had any idea prior to or during that trip that Carly was engaging in an intimate relationship in his cover identity, I
02:48:00 relationship in his cover identity, I would have taken these concerns to uh Mike, reference to Mike Dell or HN53.
02:48:07 Now in in terms of when you're acting as a cover officer, something you've described that takes place when you're going abroad, UCO is traveling abroad.
02:48:19 going abroad, UCO is traveling abroad. Um
02:48:20 Um that's you conduct what's called a close pass. Is that right? If it's possible. Yes. And so is the main purpose for your role as cover
02:48:31 main purpose for your role as cover officer when you're traveling abroad just so that you're you're someone there so if something goes wrong you're you're already uh there and it's someone that the officer can contact.
02:48:42 the officer can contact. Yes.
02:48:43 Yes. And would it be fair to say that in terms of the physical contact that you have with the officer is very limited? Yes. And but what you try to do is a
02:48:55 Yes. And but what you try to do is a close pass. So for example, walking past him without acknowledging each other just so that you can keep an eye on the officer
02:49:02 officer sometimes. Yes. Now, in relation to uh any uh
02:49:11 any uh trip, would you agree that looking back it was uh very easy for um if there is just going to be the odd close pass for for an officer to uh take an activist
02:49:24 for an officer to uh take an activist girlfriend with him on holiday um without being spotted by the management. Is that
02:49:30 Is that Yeah. And so we know that Carlo Saraki uh went on a number of trips abroad as did um other officers with um activist
02:49:43 did um other officers with um activist uh girlfriends and because of the limited contact with the cover officers um this was never this was never spotted.
02:49:56 was never spotted. Is that would you accept that the supervision of officers when they were abroad um was
02:50:08 another another blind patch for the SDS supervisors that these are officers traveling abroad but actually what they were doing when they're abroad it's it's all on trust what they're doing wherever they are
02:50:19 what they're doing wherever they are whoever they're with is always on trust they could be in the middle of London and we wouldn't have sight of them, the fact that they've gone abroad, same thing, different place.
02:50:32 same thing, different place. And as an example of of of that, I'm I'm not going to take you through the detail of it, but you're aware that in relation to James Thompson's deployment,
02:50:44 to James Thompson's deployment, Operation uh Lime, a trip to France, he said to intercept a gun and gunpowder. Yes. Being brought back to this country. Yes. uh that
02:50:56 Yes. uh that you you attended France on that particular trip. Yes.
02:51:00 Yes. But did you see him at all? No.
02:51:08 A and so again looking back for example that to that scenario you have an officer who can say almost any almost
02:51:19 officer who can say almost any almost anything would you accept and the the attitude at the time well we trust these officers we'll we'll take their word for it we're presuming they're telling the truth they have integrity.
02:51:31 truth they have integrity. Is there any alternative?
02:51:35 You set a man up, off you go. Go and infiltrate that group over there. There's 50 of them. Get to know them. Go to their parties. Go to their homes. Do what you like. No, sorry, not do what you like, but behave normally to get
02:51:49 you like, but behave normally to get into their confidences to become their friends. You can't sit on their shoulder while they do that. The opportunity to do everything under the sun is there. if
02:52:00 do everything under the sun is there. if they choose to do it. I don't see how you stop it. Do do you remember for example on this on this trip it's going to go to Bordeaux and then there's going to be a handover of the firearm in Marles. Does
02:52:13 handover of the firearm in Marles. Does that
02:52:13 that Yes.
02:52:14 Yes. And then
02:52:16 And then [snorts] there's a problem contacting you. Can't say you can't say where he is exactly. And then the next moment he's already in Marseilles and and the handover's taken place.
02:52:28 handover's taken place. Yes. a sudden. Do you remember that? The change of plan. He was going to go to Bordeaux first and all plans change all the time, sir. Plans change all the time. But looking back, would you accept that
02:52:41 back, would you accept that a a number of officers looking back were pulling the wool uh o over your over your eyes w with with
02:52:53 o over your over your eyes w with with some ease, wouldn't they? Weren't they? It's not difficult. All they're doing is not telling me. That's not a difficult thing to do. It's very difficult thing to disprove.
02:53:04 very difficult thing to disprove. There's no deception involved in terms of convincing me that they haven't got a girlfriend or whatever. They just don't mention it.
02:53:19 Mark Jenner was again another officer that you over overlapped with, but you weren't his direct supervisor. Yes.
02:53:27 Yes. And
02:53:29 And again, your evidence is that you had uh no knowledge of uh his relationship, the person that we're uh calling Allison.
02:53:40 person that we're uh calling Allison. No, sir.
02:53:46 [snorts]
02:53:49 In his evidence to the inquiry, Mr. Jenner said his words were in relation to his
02:54:00 words were in relation to his relationship that it was a bit of an open secret is the way he described it. Mhm.
02:54:14 Would you uh agree with that characterization that his relationship with Allison was a bit of an open secret?
02:54:21 secret? No, Sarah, but it's a long time ago, but I wonder if you have any recollection of a particular incident. So this is where Mark Jenner he gave evidence that null
02:54:33 Mark Jenner he gave evidence that null war had attended a court in do and this was uh relating to Mr. to Jenna's attendance there and when he
02:54:44 Jenna's attendance there and when he returned to the office in front of everyone he said oh was that your girlfriend you were with so no war goes to the magistrate's court sees Mark
02:54:55 to the magistrate's court sees Mark Jenner there and then when everyone's back in the office uh making a joke oh were you was that your girlfriend that you were with now Mr. Jenna said, "Well, actually, it
02:55:06 Mr. Jenna said, "Well, actually, it wasn't Allison wasn't there on that occasion, but he described the way in which this was sort of casually said in front of everyone." [clears throat] Um, that again, it it was an open secret
02:55:18 that again, it it was an open secret that uh he was in a relationship. Does that ring any bells or any discussion? Could could I again ask, has Mr. Jenner or Mr. Garachi at any stage said they
02:55:31 or Mr. Garachi at any stage said they told me that they were having a relationship or that I encouraged them to do it or hinted that they should do it because the answer to that is no. I had no idea. That may make me look
02:55:43 had no idea. That may make me look particularly foolish and stupid, but that's the reality of it. I wonder if we could uh please turn. So, it's your tab B143. It's MPS309432,
02:55:56 It's MPS309432, please.
02:56:14 Now in terms of this document operational uh legends uh I'll just give you a moment to have a look at that.
02:56:25 you a moment to have a look at that. Does does that have you seen that document uh before? Uh
02:56:31 Uh just to be fair to you, your your your initials are at the end of it. Yes.
02:56:36 Yes. And so that would suggest that you were on the copy two list, but you would put everybody in everybody's initials on the bottom of it, and they would usually tick it or put their initials there to say that they'd read
02:56:47 initials there to say that they'd read it.
02:56:50 Um,
02:56:55 doesn't uh ring any bells, sir.
02:57:04 Uh, paragraph five of this. So, this is Steve Titty's note of 10th of October 2000. And again, it sort of spills over to the next page. uh partnerships in the
02:57:15 to the next page. uh partnerships in the left-wing field are by and large confined to the parties that they are members of. For example, there are large number of cohabiting partners relationships within the SWP and
02:57:26 relationships within the SWP and socialist party and anyone who enjoys single status over a certain period may invite unwanted suspicion. The most difficult of this type of inquiry is generally instigated from an attached female who may be taking soundings on
02:57:38 female who may be taking soundings on behalf of one of her friends. The female antenni is difficult creature to subdue and whereas as a rule they employed monogene they do possess the ability to unearth doubts about perceived
02:57:49 unearth doubts about perceived relationships. There have been recent operations touchy subject and psycho dream where due to the lifestyle employed by the operatives their
02:58:01 employed by the operatives their bonafidees were considered uh unimpeachable.
02:58:06 And so in relation to uh uh these two um touchy subject HN15 and Psycho Dream HN14
02:58:17 HN14 uh he says there have been recent operations where due to the lifestyle employed by the optives their bonafide were considered unimpeachable. Now in relation to uh his evidence
02:58:30 Now in relation to uh his evidence yesterday when he was asked about this particular document and it's Steve Titt's office note uh he was asked whether at the time
02:58:42 note uh he was asked whether at the time that he circulated it um about the awareness of relationships and including that of DC boiling And he said as would
02:58:56 that of DC boiling And he said as would there have been knowledge of the managers and he said as a result of this report I would have said yes. So he accepted that he had knowledge of uh
02:59:07 accepted that he had knowledge of uh these two relationships but he was asked well what about the other managers and the way in which he said it is as a result of this report I would have said
02:59:18 result of this report I would have said yes. So he said, well, here's a report referring to the operations of touchy subject PsychoDream. Due to the lifestyle employed by the operatives, they bonafideed were considered unimpeachable. This is paintly not the
02:59:30 unimpeachable. This is paintly not the case and every operation and consideration should now be given for providing additional operational support to field uh officers. Do you remember any [clears throat] discussion uh with Mr. Titty about this
02:59:43 discussion uh with Mr. Titty about this note or about uh those two deployments? No sir.
02:59:50 No sir. How much discussion was there between you and your fellow detective sergeants about each other's u officer deployments and uh issues arising?
03:00:02 and uh issues arising? Oh, plenty. [clears throat] Were any of those discussions about sexual relationships with activists? No.
03:00:16 And again going back to where we started with the scenarios of well these these are questions you're going to be asked about things that could arise could and and probably will arise during a
03:00:27 and probably will arise during a deployment. So why was it asked of undercover officers or candidate officers as a specific scenario, but
03:00:38 officers as a specific scenario, but then during the whole of the deployments? Well, of all all the years that you were a sergeant that that it it never came up in conversation at all.
03:00:50 never came up in conversation at all. I can't answer that, sir. Is the answer to that that it wasn't
03:00:57 it wasn't in [clears throat] the minds in your mind and the minds of your fellow managers that it wasn't a big deal that if officers have relationships with
03:01:08 if officers have relationships with activists and their cover identity, it wasn't something that that that registered at the time as being anything anything wrong. If anything, it was something maybe described as as
03:01:19 something maybe described as as something amusing. No, certainly not. It's, as I said earlier on, it's a deal breaker. If it comes to light, as far as I'm concerned,
03:01:32 comes to light, as far as I'm concerned, they're off the squad and the matter goes forward for disciplinary consideration. That's why nobody tells you that they're doing it
03:01:43 you that they're doing it because they know that's the end of their operation and they're in they're facing trouble. in his evidence, Carlos Saraki uh referred to
03:01:55 referred to a time where he's he's describing to
03:02:00 to uh his managers that one of the activists we're calling Alfred um and he says, "Well, Alfred and his partner tried to pair me off uh with female activists on several occasions."
03:02:13 activists on several occasions." And his description, Carlos Saraki's description was this. My sorry the initial response from SDS management was marrynt and the response was that I should use my guile and common sense to
03:02:24 should use my guile and common sense to deal with this. So again does that not reflect the attitude in the SDS office so that it's it's
03:02:35 so that it's it's as Jim Boiling said you know don't ask don't tell that this was going on. it wasn't wasn't considered an issue and when when it is arisen it's it's almost treated as a little bit of a a joke.
03:02:47 treated as a little bit of a a joke. No, that reflects exactly what it should be that you use your g and your common sense and whatever to get out of that situation. It's not that difficult to be honest.
03:03:08 So I wonder if this is a convenient moment um to uh break because I'm coming to the end of questions about uh relationships and before moving to another topic but also an opportunity
03:03:19 another topic but also an opportunity given the time for any additional uh rule 10s that need to be put. [snorts] Um [clears throat] if you think that's sensible then I agree. How long do you need? Um, may I have uh 10 minutes with
03:03:31 need? Um, may I have uh 10 minutes with a view to after we resume continuing up until 1:00? Certainly.
03:14:21 Mr. Greeny, I want to ask you about the topic of race and racism. And one of the points that you make in your statement is that you attended the one-day uh
03:14:35 is that you attended the one-day uh racial incident awareness training which I think was known as riat or the riat. Is this again I'm asking you something that happened a long time ago but you
03:14:46 that happened a long time ago but you you describe that as as a worthwhile course. Is is there anything that you could just help us with from this distance of time of what was covered in the racial incident awareness training
03:14:57 the racial incident awareness training and and the the focus on that? I have to be honest sir I can't remember it after all this time and your understanding was was this as your you understood it likely that SDS
03:15:09 your you understood it likely that SDS office staff would also have uh participated in in relation to uh training about issues of race to to
03:15:21 uh training about issues of race to to what extent over and above for example one-day courses such as this did it feature at all in the uh training of you and your fellow managers but also the
03:15:33 and your fellow managers but also the UCOs that you were supervising. I'm not sure I'm with you, sir. So, in terms of races as an issue and uh
03:15:44 So, in terms of races as an issue and uh being sensitive to uh issues relating to uh race and discrimination, did that was there any above the react was there any training or any discussion about race at
03:15:57 training or any discussion about race at all?
03:15:58 all? No sir.
03:15:59 No sir. So, of course, your uh time as manager began in 1997, and so a couple of years into that, there was the McFersonen report, the uh finding of institutional
03:16:13 report, the uh finding of institutional racism. In terms of that, that must have been a talking point.
03:16:21 1999. in 1999.
03:16:25 in 1999. Sorry, I misheard. [snorts]
03:16:28 [snorts] So 1999,
03:16:30 So 1999, first report, institutional racism clearly would have been a topic discussed uh in the Metropolitan Police and at the time you were two years into being a manager. Yeah. What do you recall about the
03:16:42 Yeah. What do you recall about the discussions that you had in the SDS office? So this is what was it uh what was the reaction? A hostile reaction? I can't believe that this has been a
03:16:53 can't believe that this has been a finding. This is unwarranted or well, we need to change practices. Just help us with again going back to 1999. You've got that finding. What's the response the the discussions in the SDS office at
03:17:08 the the discussions in the SDS office at that time or or the nature of the tone of those discussions? I don't wish to be unhelpful, sir, but I [laughter] I can't remember what discussions we had about that 25 years ago. I'm sounding to
03:17:20 about that 25 years ago. I'm sounding to starting to sound like a parrot, but uh it doesn't stick in the mind all these years later. In terms of the officers that you were directly supervising, so we
03:17:32 directly supervising, so we they did not include UCOs such as H and 81 who infiltrated groups such as movement for justice. But were you uh not aware that groups such as Movement
03:17:44 not aware that groups such as Movement for Justice were being uh spied on by SDS UCOs that uh there were reports referring to Steven Lawrence family campaign? Did that were you what was
03:17:57 campaign? Did that were you what was your awareness of that please? I knew that uh there was an officer within those groups, not the Lawrence family group. Um, and I don't think he was I don't think
03:18:09 and I don't think he was I don't think he was directed there. I think it kind of fell into his lap because that's the way his group moved and he went with it. I
03:18:15 I I'm going to ask you about some the way in which you describe this topic in your statement. I wonder if you could please have Mr. Greenie's statement back, please.
03:18:24 please. Uh, looking in particular at page 67, please.
03:18:34 So paragraph one. So this is we can see in the middle there's the heading reporting justice campaign. So just to orientate yourself with where we are in your statement. And then paragraph 175.
03:18:46 your statement. And then paragraph 175. As I have explained above, the SDS was not specifically seeking intelligence relating to the aims or impact of any justice campaigns, whether they were the subject of direct or collateral
03:19:00 subject of direct or collateral reporting. Uh the focus was on public order, particularly where other groups sought to hijack legitimate protests for their own ends and criminality. I was not routinely involved in processing such reporting except when the relevant
03:19:12 such reporting except when the relevant cover officer was absent. I'm unable to comment on the effect SDS operations had on such campaigns in so far as there was any because I was not sufficiently focused on them at the time. So you set
03:19:24 focused on them at the time. So you set out clearly there your limited involvement directly with those reports. But in terms of your reference uh to the uh the the reporting um being uh
03:19:38 uh the the reporting um being uh direct I wonder if we can in terms of that description so where you say that um as I've explained above the SDF was not specifically seeking
03:19:49 was not specifically seeking intelligence relating to the aims or impact of any justice campaigns whether they were subject to direct or collateral reporting. Now, just as a as a broad principle, do do you accept that
03:20:01 a broad principle, do do you accept that in addition to what you've described as collateral reporting that there was direct reporting on on various justice groups?
03:20:08 groups? I'm sure there was. And would you agree that uh in particular the Steven Lawrence campaign
03:20:19 particular the Steven Lawrence campaign a lot of these justice groups uh were often uh uh black justice groups. Yeah.
03:20:29 Yeah. And in terms of the way in which the justification has been put forward, we we've heard evidence um from UCOs and
03:20:40 we've heard evidence um from UCOs and other managers that broadly says well these groups were looked at because there was a concern these justice groups were looked at because there was a concern that they were being hijacked by
03:20:52 concern that they were being hijacked by other groups. And I want to ask what your view at the time was that the SDS um was focusing on on black justice
03:21:05 um was focusing on on black justice groups at this time and whether that was appropriate. the SDS was focusing on public order incidents
03:21:14 incidents and the officer that was within whichever one of those groups it was, I can't say, um was keeping everybody up to date on what the potential public disorder
03:21:26 disorder could be.
03:21:27 could be. And for example, in terms of Dwayne Brooks, a number of reports on Dwayne Brooks in the context of the Lawrence family. Were you aware of those reports?
03:21:39 family. Were you aware of those reports? So reports of Dwayne Brooks including amounts of settlement offers with with the MPS.
03:21:46 the MPS. Certainly the name Dwayne Brooks rings a bell. Yes. And so wouldn't you say it rings a bell as something that was reported on that references to Dwayne Brooks that that he
03:21:57 references to Dwayne Brooks that that he appeared in the SDS reporting?
03:22:01 Yes. And again looking back on it from today, do do you consider that there was
03:22:12 today, do do you consider that there was an overemphasis uh by the SDS o on black groups, black justice groups? No.
03:22:26 I'm going to ask you um uh please um about uh if we can turn to page 68, paragraph 178 in your statement, please.
03:22:41 And it's again it's one of those paragraphs that spills over to um the next page. I wonder if we can have both of them. [snorts] So I just want to ask you about this in particular. So as to the propriety of acting DI Walton
03:22:54 the propriety of acting DI Walton meeting HN81, I do not remember taking a view on the matter then. My view now is that it was problematic at best, but if HN81 was told to attend by Bob Lambert,
03:23:06 HN81 was told to attend by Bob Lambert, he had to turn up. I would not have discussed this outside the SDS, and I do not remember there being any discussion in the office. I do not know what, if any, consideration was given to
03:23:19 any, consideration was given to informing the McFersonen inquiry of SDS activities in relation to the Steven Lawrence campaign. Now, again, your description as
03:23:30 Now, again, your description as problematic at best. Can you explain why you've set that out in those terms, please?
03:23:37 please? Um, well, I don't think that this is a a meeting that would have been instigated by the SDS. I believe this would have come from the other direction.
03:23:49 come from the other direction. Um,
03:23:51 Um, and it's as simple as that.
03:23:56 Would you agree with with this that uh this meeting between HN81 and DI Walton um is a long way from what the SDS was
03:24:09 um is a long way from what the SDS was set up for in 1968. Well, I think as I've just said to I don't think it was the SDS inputting this. I think it was the other side saying at whatever level
03:24:23 saying at whatever level we need to or we would like to speak to the guy that that knows what's going on here
03:24:28 here and the McFersonen inquiry looking into um issues of racism within the MPS and a meeting taking place between DI Walton
03:24:40 meeting taking place between DI Walton and HN81.
03:24:43 and HN81. Would you accept that it is understandable that people would say, "Well, this that there is an element of of of racism
03:24:54 that there is an element of of of racism here because the focus is on criticism of the Metropolitan Police by um those representing black justice groups."
03:25:07 It's to be honest I I don't think the SDS were particularly worried about
03:25:18 were particularly worried about criticism from outside
03:25:24 and I really don't know. Sorry, I've I've lost my own train of thought here. It's very difficult to work this out on a couple of couple of paragraphs. There's very very little context around
03:25:35 There's very very little context around this for me to frame my answer.
03:25:41 I want to uh turn to a number of um other topics and I want to get as many um points covered with you in the next 20 25 minutes that that we have. And so
03:25:54 20 25 minutes that that we have. And so in some in relation to some of these not going to be able to go into as much detail as you would like but I wonder if you can help us with a number of these. Uh first I want to ask you about um HN
03:26:06 Uh first I want to ask you about um HN 15's uh then wife who we're calling uh s um has described um Christmas parties and attending
03:26:17 um Christmas parties and attending Christmas parties and I just want to ask you um
03:26:22 you um because this was an opportunity for managers to meet the spouses. What's your recollection of that as an event?
03:26:33 your recollection of that as an event? The Christmas the SDS Christmas parties where the UCO's partners attend. Is is that something that you can remember? Yes, that well that was an event that took place annually when I went there in
03:26:46 took place annually when I went there in 97. Uh I think the last one was 1998. There was only two that I could remember. And then the uh I think it was a tradition and the tradition fell away.
03:26:57 a tradition and the tradition fell away. It wasn't done again. But the whole point of it was just a Christmas party like every other office in the country and an opportunity to to meet everybody. Do you remember in particular Mark
03:27:09 Do you remember in particular Mark Jenner's then wife attending any of the parties? Please don't say uh her name. We're referring to her as S. But do you have any particular recollection of her
03:27:21 have any particular recollection of her um at any number of these Christmas parties at all? No.
03:27:27 No. What was the from your perspective? What was the the function of these Christmas parties in in the sense of inviting the partners along? What was the purpose of of that?
03:27:40 along? What was the purpose of of that? It's a Christmas party. We used to go somewhere [clears throat] away from London. Wives and partners came along and everybody met each other and interacted. As I say,
03:27:52 met each other and interacted. As I say, office parties all over the country. There was no underlying reason behind it other than it's Christmas. Let's have a Christmas lunch somewhere. In terms of this perspective
03:28:03 In terms of this perspective that
03:28:05 that Mark Jenner during his deployment having uh relationship with activists and as a result of that also deceiving uh his then wife S. and from Ess's perspective
03:28:19 then wife S. and from Ess's perspective attending these Christmas parties circulating with the UCOs and the managers and the thought that this was all known that all of these officers
03:28:32 all known that all of these officers having these various relationships and looking back on those uh Christmas parties that it was a betrayal of the of the the wives and partners who attended.
03:28:45 the the wives and partners who attended. It's never No sir, never intend. Do you understand that perspective? From the lady's point of view, yes, I can. And I'm sorry that it came to that.
03:28:59 can. And I'm sorry that it came to that. It's one thing that does bug me more than most things in this inquiry is that uh there are a number of wives there who I made a conscious effort to keep in
03:29:11 I made a conscious effort to keep in touch with when their guys or lady were out in the field whether for long periods of time or at potentially difficult demonstrations. I always like to keep them informed when
03:29:23 I always like to keep them informed when it finished when uh their partner was safe and sound and there weren't any more problems. and I got to know two or three of them quite quite well. I would hate to think that any of them think
03:29:34 hate to think that any of them think that I was doing that to their face knowing that their husband was having an affair with a weary. Did that sorry did that contact with the spouses, the
03:29:45 did that contact with the spouses, the partners include HN26's husband? Not so much. Um I remember the gentleman and yes if if [laughter] there'd been a um a
03:29:58 if [laughter] there'd been a um a particular activity and uh she had it was over and she was fine. I'm sure I phoned him and said it's okay. [snorts] That was a [clears throat] very
03:30:09 That was a [clears throat] very important part of it. You don't want partners especially wives sitting at home perhaps seeing things on the telly worrying that uh their other half is is in danger.
03:30:21 in danger. But in terms of HN26's uh husband, uh he was aware uh that uh HN26
03:30:32 uh he was aware uh that uh HN26 uh was having a a sexual relationship with with Thomas Frampton
03:30:41 and you've said you did have some interaction uh with him,
03:30:47 but your indication is that this wasn't raised this as a topic at all. This was this was never there's no there was no hint.
03:30:54 hint. He just said he knew. Yes.
03:30:57 Yes. He didn't tell me unless he said different. He didn't tell me.
03:31:07 I wonder if we could just turn up tab B225. It's NPS072843.
03:31:27 So, this is um a Hearn document, but I wonder if we could just turn to
03:31:41 So, you can see it says brief uh summary of MG11 by ex-husband of HN20. 26. Yes sir.
03:31:57 So this in his MG11 which is is a statement the ex-husband of HN26 explains the employment of 26 on the SDS and his understanding of it. I recognized and understood that due to
03:32:09 recognized and understood that due to this role uh she would have to develop and maintain relationships with members of her target group and that she would be away from home for periods of time. He explained that they both had demanding roles and HN26 appear to
03:32:21 demanding roles and HN26 appear to handle the pressure well. He stated that after 2 and 1/2 years HN26 changed. She became completely absorbed by her role. Very little separation from pretend and reality. The two seemed to swap place.
03:32:33 reality. The two seemed to swap place. She wasn't really HN26 anymore. spent longer and longer away from home. When she did come home, she was exhausted. He explained how their relationship became non-existent. Six months before she came out of the field, six months before, she
03:32:45 out of the field, six months before, she told him that she was in a relationship with someone called Joe and that he was a member of her target group. I
03:32:56 he was a member of her target group. I asked her whether Joe knew that she was a police officer working undercover and she told me that she had told him what she did.
03:33:06 she did. to date, HN26's ex-husband is aware that she is still with Joe. So, here's uh HN26
03:33:13 HN26 husband describing the change that takes place with HN26. Um he asks her, she admits to the relationship and given what you have just said about your some
03:33:25 what you have just said about your some interaction with the husband, there was no there was no hint of any of this at all with your discussions with him. I think he says further on in another document that he didn't tell us.
03:33:37 document that he didn't tell us. [clears throat]
03:33:41 But again, is this not another example of this is this is going going on under under your watch as a as a supervisor?
03:33:55 under your watch as a as a supervisor? It's all going on under my watch. So, yes.
03:34:02 I was asking you earlier about HN16 in the context of your knowledge of uh his relationships whilst he was deployed
03:34:14 his relationships whilst he was deployed and
03:34:15 and I I also asked you some questions about Operation L. Can I just ask you just some further questions about that particular operation? Do you remember
03:34:26 particular operation? Do you remember being involved with a a dry run in the November before the actual trip? Does that
03:34:34 that Yes.
03:34:35 Yes. And do you remember having a meeting at HN16's
03:34:40 HN16's uh house in relation to that dry run? Does that does that ring any bells? Doesn't bring a thing to mind, but I'm sure that would that would have happened. Yes.
03:34:52 happened. Yes. I did you actually attend uh did you go with him on the dry run in your role as a supervisor? Yes.
03:34:59 Yes. Okay. On that trip, did you you said that for the main trip you didn't see him. Did you see him on this previous trip?
03:35:05 trip? Yes, I think so.
03:35:12 There's reference in relation to that dry run that they were stopped coming back but that and there was a stop. they were stopped, which his evidence was that uh others were spooked by this, but
03:35:25 that uh others were spooked by this, but that he pointed out the random nature of what happened and that he was re reassuring the group that it would all be it would all be all right. Did you have any concern that a various serious
03:35:38 have any concern that a various serious um offense um as far as you understood it at the time was about to take place? This was the dry run for it. Were you not concerned that your undercover officer was reassuring others in the
03:35:50 officer was reassuring others in the group not to be rattled and reassuring them? Did that provide any sort of concerns to you? No.
03:35:57 No. No.
03:35:58 No. You were not directly involved in the investigation of H uh of HN16 because that was conducted by HN53. That's right, isn't it? But you were fully aware um were you not of the various
03:36:12 aware um were you not of the various findings that uh HN 53 uh made. Is that is that correct? I'm not too sure to be honest. Well, I'm just going to
03:36:27 Were you at least fully aware that as far as HN53 was concerned that HN53 thought that HN16 should be uh referred
03:36:38 thought that HN16 should be uh referred to uh the Directorate for Professional Standards that this is that potentially criminal offenses had taken place uh and that he needed to be seriously disciplined. I know they were going in that direction. So, yes. Uh, and were you
03:36:50 direction. So, yes. Uh, and were you aware that HN53's view of Operation Lime was that it was false? That this is something that James Thompson had invented to uh improve his
03:37:04 Thompson had invented to uh improve his chances of staying on as an [clears throat] SDS officer, that it was a complete fiction. The first time that it was revealed to me as a complete fiction was when Operation Hearn came around to see me, whenever that was, 2014.
03:37:17 whenever that was, 2014. I hadn't been told by I'd gone by then, but I hadn't been told by the existing SCS staff.
03:37:27 A and what was your reaction then to learning of that by Operation Hearn? What what was your reaction? Disbelief, sir, with a bit of depression
03:37:38 Disbelief, sir, with a bit of depression thrown in and dismay.
03:37:43 Again, you were supervising James Thompson for a number of years. You uh saw him uh regularly.
03:37:55 of years. You uh saw him uh regularly. How do you account for him acting in that particular way under your super supervision? I'm not qualified to make an assessment of his behavior, sir. Unbelievable
03:38:06 of his behavior, sir. Unbelievable would be the first word that comes to mind. One of the
03:38:13 most serious, if not the most serious aspect of HN16's deployment was using a deceased child's identity, Kevin
03:38:25 using a deceased child's identity, Kevin Crossland. Yes.
03:38:27 Yes. Now, by this stage, the use of deceased children's identities was no longer a feature of of legend building.
03:38:39 building. A and again in terms of his application for documentation, mobile phones registered in that name,
03:38:50 mobile phones registered in that name, the name being put on voters uh register passport in in that name. And again, in terms of all of those things, if someone were to say, "Well, how could he have
03:39:02 were to say, "Well, how could he have again, how could he have done all of that without anyone in the SDS knowing about it at the time?" What do your response be? Here is an undercover officer who amongst other things um has
03:39:16 officer who amongst other things um has um
03:39:18 um produced a false identity in in this way uh without anyone in the office knowing. How do how do you account for that?
03:39:29 account for that? Because he didn't tell anyone he was doing it, sir. have I'm sorry, but like any activity of that kind, you do it privately, discreetly, and you don't tell anybody
03:39:41 discreetly, and you don't tell anybody about it. It's not something that you're going to stumble across from the other way. And it's not a question that you would imagine yourself asking your officers routinely, you know, are you
03:39:53 officers routinely, you know, are you obtaining false documentation? Have you set up a false alias? Have you made up a completely speurious uh gun running incident
03:40:04 uh gun running incident that doesn't come on the radar? Can I ask you about Helen Steel?
03:40:15 What was your first recollection of realizing that Helen Steel um uh was uh trying to uh
03:40:30 Helen Steel um uh was uh trying to uh find out who HN5 John Dyn was?
03:40:37 I don't have any recolle. I know it happened. I know that was going on. When when did you find out about the relationship between John Dyn and
03:40:48 the relationship between John Dyn and Helen Steel?
03:40:53 I found out I knew that she was pursuing John Dyn. Um, but that was years after the event. John Dyn was long gone before I got to
03:41:05 John Dyn was long gone before I got to the SDS.
03:41:09 What knowledge did you have as to what uh the SDS and the police did to assist John Dyn
03:41:20 Dyn when Helen Steel was looking for him? Are you aware of any of that? It's referred to as Operation Muscat. No, sir.
03:41:33 Do you recall any discussion in the office about this? I'm sure there was. I'm sure there was. But
03:41:40 But again, I apologize, but after 25 years, I can't summon up discussions that were had that long ago on many subjects. Uh, and again, would you agree that this is
03:41:51 and again, would you agree that this is it's not unlike the situation with with Rosa that an undercover officer engages in a relationship with an activist and
03:42:03 in a relationship with an activist and then disappears and then understandably they try to find they try to find him. I do. Uh, and would you agree again with no thought uh given to the welfare of
03:42:14 no thought uh given to the welfare of the women that were deceived or the focus on the on the undercover officer? [cough]
03:42:22 [cough] Yeah.
03:42:25 Can I please ask you about a specific document? I wonder if we can put up on screen. MPS 0245149.
03:42:44 Now [snorts] you will see first of course this is before
03:42:50 before your time as a manager. It's 1995. So it's it's DCI Keith Edmonson's note. I just want to ask you about uh this. So this is um special branch
03:43:01 this. So this is um special branch report uh concerning the arrest of Jeff Shepard on the 26th of May 1995 in connection with animal rights extremist offenses. It will be immediately
03:43:12 offenses. It will be immediately apparent that this intelligence must be protected. However, it is provided with the express intention of assisting senior officers understand the extent of Shepherd's activity and intention and
03:43:23 Shepherd's activity and intention and provide a possible line of inquiry should the circumstances present themselves. It must be emphasized that while the source is still in place and for the moment secure, his continued security is dependent upon the way in
03:43:35 security is dependent upon the way in which he conducts himself and the way in which the police activity both past and future indicates lines of inquiry and the perceived strategy behind those inquiries. And then we can see this minute sheet and report must be passed
03:43:47 minute sheet and report must be passed by hand at all stages. We see the various officers that it's passed to and that number seven this is passed to you. Is this an example of SDS intelligence
03:44:02 Is this an example of SDS intelligence that you received when you were in your um ane uh role? Not a classic example. No. Can you remember why this was you were
03:44:15 Can you remember why this was you were one of those recipients that it must be passed by hand to? Are you able to shed any light of that? Well, because I was a I was in Arie, sir. It's obviously gone to Mr. Leeing and another officer there.
03:44:27 and another officer there. I was part of the uh the Ars. Do you have any This is 1995. 1995. Do you have any recollection about
03:44:38 1995. Do you have any recollection about police knowledge about a firearm at any stage, this distance in time? No, sir. All right.
03:45:05 When you started as a manager in the SDS, you indicated that you didn't have
03:45:17 SDS, you indicated that you didn't have any uh handover at all. Is that right? Yes.
03:45:27 The manager that took over from you is Ron Gilbertson. Yes.
03:45:32 Yes. To what extent did you provide him with a handover? In other words, to bring him up to speed with what the job entailed,
03:45:43 up to speed with what the job entailed, the pitfalls, the problems, anything like that that uh could help him in in his role as manager in
03:45:54 help him in in his role as manager in the SDS, i.e. taking over uh from you. I can't remember that, but I would like to think that I did give Roland a good introduction. I would like to think that
03:46:06 introduction. I would like to think that I told him about each officer and as much as I knew about it. Perhaps I didn't, but I'm hopeful that I did. At any at any time in your discussion,
03:46:18 At any at any time in your discussion, did you mention uh any concerns about misconduct by any officers in any way? No.
03:46:27 No. Well, I mean, I don't know if the um
03:46:33 um James
03:46:35 James I probably would have gone on about Operation Lime and that sort of thing. I don't know. But at that time, is your evidence that you, as far as Operation Lime concerned, you believed James Thompson had told the
03:46:48 you believed James Thompson had told the truth about this? Yes.
03:46:53 in relation to True Spies, the three-part episode that was aired by BBC 2 in 2002. So, this is about a year
03:47:04 2 in 2002. So, this is about a year before your time as manager concluded. Could you just help us with the discussion in the office that took place between UCOs and managers when these
03:47:17 managers when these episodes were aired on television? What was the talk about true spies? Was there a sense of betrayal? Absolutely. Yes. Anger, the fact that it had uh placed them all
03:47:30 the fact that it had uh placed them all in very difficult positions either in reality or within their mental capacity to to think that this was now being discussed and shown on the television and that their predecessors,
03:47:42 television and that their predecessors, some of them had contributed to it. In your mind, who who was to blame for this being aired? Oh, I have no idea, sir. Were you aware of uh Roger Pierce's
03:47:54 Were you aware of uh Roger Pierce's involvement in any of the liaison with this program? I don't know. Were you part of the steps that were
03:48:06 Were you part of the steps that were taken to reassure past and present UCOs? I would have been. Yes. And so that was in the context of you being concerned about their welfare. Of course.
03:48:17 Of course. Would it be too high to say that there was anger in the uh SDS office after the program was shown? Certainly.
03:48:27 Elected politicians. Were you ever given any specific instructions that you should treat elected politicians any differently when the officers were producing their intelligence reports?
03:48:38 intelligence reports? No.
03:48:40 No. in relation to James Thompson and the campaign against capitalism demonstration on the 18th of June 1999
03:48:51 demonstration on the 18th of June 1999 also known as J 18. Uh he has indicated that you were aware of uh what he was proposing to do in advance of that day.
03:49:03 proposing to do in advance of that day. Do you have any recollection of discussing uh what he was going to do in advance of J18 that day? Specifically in relation to his plan to purchase four
03:49:15 relation to his plan to purchase four cars and then uh crash them or uh park them on the entrance to the area to the city to block the police uh and then to
03:49:26 city to block the police uh and then to abandon those vehicles. Do you remember any discussion with him in advance of that?
03:49:31 that? No, not with him. I can remember um that the demonstrators had planned to set up false accidents at traffic lights somewhere. I can't remember where.
03:49:44 somewhere. I can't remember where. So Jim Boiling said it was his idea. He bought the cars and he he planned the whole thing. What's your re reaction to that?
03:49:56 that? I don't know, sir.
03:50:00 in relation to the uh NPOIU, what what's um what was your knowledge of the NPIU whilst you were a manager in the SDS?
03:50:13 whilst you were a manager in the SDS? Well, I think the MPIOU was a development from army and we were told at some stage that they were going to be putting police officers
03:50:24 were going to be putting police officers undercover in the field in the manner of the SDS.
03:50:27 the SDS. To any extent was there any competition with the NPIU in the sense that the SDS uh felt competitive or felt superior to the NPIU? Was there any uh tension or
03:50:39 the NPIU? Was there any uh tension or any sort of interaction on that level? There was no tension. It was as far as I was concerned. Well, you go away and do what you're you're doing and never the let's try not to uh tread on each
03:50:51 let's try not to uh tread on each other's toes. So, the undercover officers and the NPIU had to conduct um the newac course. Were you aware of that particular course? No.
03:51:02 No. Were you ever asked by AUCO in the office whether they could attend or should attend that course? No.
03:51:08 No. They ask about DCS Colin Black. You've said in your statement that you'd come to the SDS office premises reasonably frequently and that there was nothing remarkable about these visits. C could
03:51:19 remarkable about these visits. C could you just help us with uh your recollection of DCS Black attending the offices, what he would attend for, and the nature of the communication. So,
03:51:30 the nature of the communication. So, what I'm um asking about is what's the degree of interaction between what's happening in the SDS office and DCS Black with his uh as you described it
03:51:42 Black with his uh as you described it reasonably frequent visits to the office there. Do you recall? Um well, that interaction would have been between the detective chief inspector and Mr. Black. And it's
03:51:53 inspector and Mr. Black. And it's basically what Mr. Black would have done to any of the units under his supervision. Um, but to do so at the yard, he's just got to walk down the corridor and do the bits and pieces. With us, we're away from there, so he
03:52:06 With us, we're away from there, so he would just phone up and make a periodical make an appointment periodically to come and see the office. Uh, we have heard recent evidence from
03:52:17 Uh, we have heard recent evidence from Helen Steel that one of the other UCOs that you supervised, HN60, had a relationship in his cover identity with a woman he met on a horicultural
03:52:30 with a woman he met on a horicultural course. [cough and laughter] Were you aware of that relationship?
03:52:38 I was told of a relationship 7 days ago by um my barrista. Prior to that, I had absolutely no
03:52:49 Prior to that, I had absolutely no knowledge of it whatsoever. Finally, can we just end by I wonder if we can just put up on screen uh page 16, paragraph 48 of [cough] your statement.
03:53:01 paragraph 48 of [cough] your statement. [clears throat]
03:53:15 So you say here, "If I had my time again, I would have no hesitation in being a cover officer." Overall, the role was an important one, even though I placed it second to the work I did on
03:53:27 placed it second to the work I did on Bqu Squad in terms of my personal career highlights. I can understand why former UCOs might feel that their roles are now tainted due to the actions of a number of their former colleagues. In my view, the actions of a few completely
03:53:39 the actions of a few completely undermine the valuable work done by the majority both in my time and throughout the history of the SDS. C can I just challenge your reference to the actions
03:53:50 challenge your reference to the actions o of a few because would you uh accept at least from everything that you have been told
03:54:01 from everything that you have been told at least today that the majority of the officers that you were supervising HN26 with Thomas Frampton HN14 with Monica Ruth and Rosa HN16 with Sarah and
03:54:15 Monica Ruth and Rosa HN16 with Sarah and Ellie and HN60 with the woman that we were just describing that it is not a few officers, but this was endemic in the SDS at the time. It's not one or two bad
03:54:27 SDS at the time. It's not one or two bad apples.
03:54:30 apples. It's certainly a lot more than I ever thought. So, yes, your words, if I had my time again, I would have no hesitation in being a cover officer. But if you had your time again, um, what would you have done
03:54:42 again, um, what would you have done differently given everything that you're aware of now?
03:54:49 You would have to have regular meetings with the officers and go through exactly what they're doing.
03:54:57 You got to be tighter on them. I don't know how you're going to do it. So those are my questions. I don't know whether there is any re-examination though.
03:55:13 Yes, please. just one course
03:55:14 course small matter. It won't take long. Um could could we have on screen please uh Mr. Greeny's witness statement which is uh I hope MPS 0749
03:55:27 which is uh I hope MPS 0749 there you go 291. Uh and at page 43
03:55:35 the topic's the trade craft manual. Uh Mr. Greeny you you say paragraph 109 there.
03:55:42 there. just have that enlarged. While I remember that there was a tradecraftraft manual, I do not recall that it was in the form that the inquiry has received it. It was a collection of anecdotes from individual officers similar to appendices B and C, and it had no
03:55:54 appendices B and C, and it had no particular status within the SDS. It certainly was not deemed authoritative on any point of tradecraftraft. Prospective UCOs were encouraged to discuss their preparation with the deployed UCOs in preference to reading
03:56:05 deployed UCOs in preference to reading documents. the the tradecraftraft manual quote unquote that you were taken to earlier. Yes, sir.
03:56:13 Yes, sir. Was according to the evidence we've heard
03:56:17 heard a quite a lengthy document. In fact, not complete. It has gaps in it and it was produced by HN2 Andy Kohl's after his deployment in a back office period of
03:56:28 deployment in a back office period of time. Um,
03:56:30 time. Um, it do we take it from paragraph 109 that you think you ever saw that document or were aware of it? Uh, yes sir, I was aware of it.
03:56:41 Uh, yes sir, I was aware of it. The Andy Coohl's document. Oh, the Andy Coohl's one. No, it doesn't ring ring any bells, sir. Do
03:56:47 Do do you recall it being given to or shown to undercover officers before they went into the field? I can't remember that. No. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir.
03:57:03 Forgive me if I've oversimplified uh your evidence, but [clears throat] the impression that I've got is that a great deal went on uh
03:57:14 deal went on uh in and outside the SDS office of which you were unaware. Yes, sir.
03:57:24 Thank you for attending to give evidence. I I think that will be the conclusion of it. Um I can't rule out that you may be asked to come back, but I think it's most unlikely. Thank you very much.
03:57:35 Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll resume at 5 2.