In this Tranche 3 Phase 2 Day 9 PM session, former SDS Detective Sergeant Ron Gilbertson (HN49, served 2003-2006) is questioned by Counsel to the Inquiry about the unit's culture, welfare procedures, and its official prohibition on undercover officers having sexual relationships with the activists they spied on. Extensive scrutiny is given to a contradictory 2003 Tradecraft Manual passage condoning such relationships, Gilbertson's failure to challenge officers HN18 (Robert Hastings) and HN104 (Carlo Soracchi) despite known risks, and racial bias in SDS intelligence-gathering on figures such as Atif Chaudry. The hearing closes with detailed examination of an alleged 2003 plot by an activist ('MT') to stage a mock suicide-bomber stunt during Ariel Sharon's UK visit, exposing discrepancies between Gilbertson's intelligence reports and other witnesses' accounts.
00:01:59 Mhm.
00:03:54 Mhm.
00:07:44 Mhm.
00:11:34 Mhm.
00:13:29 Mhm.
00:17:19 Mhm.
00:19:14 Mhm.
00:21:47 Good afternoon, everybody. Uh this afternoon's proceedings will be live streamed after a 15 minute delay. Those with mobile devices may use them to report what they're hearing in the
00:21:58 to report what they're hearing in the room here in the hearing room, but only after 15 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're reporting. Uh they may not be used for recording or photography.
00:22:09 photography. Please may the witness be sworn.
00:22:14 I swear by almighty God I swear by almighty God that the evidence I shall give that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth shall be the truth the whole truth the whole truth and nothing but and nothing but the truth. Please sit down.
00:22:30 Mr. Gilbertson, you provided a witness statement to the inquiry dated the 14th of February 2024, so NPS0749294
00:22:40 at tab A1 of the bundle. We have that up on screen, please. Yes.
00:22:45 Yes. 115 pages and it's signed by you on the last page. Is that your statement? Yes, it is. Can you confirm that the contents of your witness statement are true and correct to the best of your knowledge
00:22:57 correct to the best of your knowledge and belief? Yes.
00:22:59 Yes. You were a detective sergeant in the SDS from the 18th of March 2003 to around April or May in 2006. Is that right? Yes, I I believe it was actually April,
00:23:10 Yes, I I believe it was actually April, but it I can't remember the exact date. And then this was your final posting in the Met and you retired on the 27th of July 2006. Is that right?
00:23:21 July 2006. Is that right? That's correct, yes. Looking at your background, you joined the MPS in July 1976 and commenced uniform duties. I joined the Metropolitan Police in '76.
00:23:33 I joined the Metropolitan Police in '76. I don't think it was SDS. I joined Yes, that's right. Uh
00:23:37 Uh And whilst in G division, you did some undercover vice work, but you never never done any undercover work using a cover identity. Is that right? that's correct, yes. You were promoted to sergeant in 1981
00:23:49 You were promoted to sergeant in 1981 and joined Special Branch in October 1991. Is that right? That's correct, yes. Uh you were then posted to B Squad, then in '93, '94 you joined the area
00:24:02 in '93, '94 you joined the area liaison unit, where you were tasked with gathering intelligence on extreme religious groups and cults. Is that right?
00:24:09 right? That was actually an adjunct to area liaison. It was It was another function that I did. Thank you. And that was in in anticipation of the millennium. You moved to E Squad to the Palestinian
00:24:21 You moved to E Squad to the Palestinian desk in 1996 or 1997. Yes.
00:24:25 Yes. Uh but you also continued to monitor extreme religious groups. Is that right? In anticipation of the millennium, yes. Uh would you say that monitoring and obtaining intelligence on extreme
00:24:36 obtaining intelligence on extreme religious groups became a significant part of your career in Special Branch? It certainly um It influenced the direction of it, yes. Uh And did that include Islamic
00:24:48 Uh And did that include Islamic extremism? Ultimately, but not not when I first started doing it. That was Christian extremist groups. Um but there was similar similarities and as
00:25:00 there was similar similarities and as the issues concerning the millennium ebbed, um, the other issues concerning perhaps extreme groups, in particular Islam, um, did did arise. And with, um,
00:25:12 And with, um, without referring to any specifics, did that work include intelligence about suicide bombings? Yes.
00:25:18 Yes. Did you become quite passionate about dealing with Islamic extremism while you were on E Squad, given, uh, the intensity of the role? Yes, yeah. I I I it did. I did. That's not It was no disrespect to Islam, but
00:25:30 not It was no disrespect to Islam, but it was an issue that was causing problems both in the UK and and domestic and internationally. And the same in relation to Palestinian issues when you were working on the Palestinian death, did you also become
00:25:41 Palestinian death, did you also become quite passionate about that issue while you were working in E Squad? From a professional capacity. From a professional capacity, yes, in as much as it was, uh, an important issue that needed to be,
00:25:52 that needed to be, um, constantly reviewed. That's not to put anyway the Palestinian cause down or or take it, um, put other causes forwards, but it was an important issue that, as we can see
00:26:03 important issue that, as we can see today, still is influential. And moving to your time in the SDS, when you joined, DCI Dell was the DCI and he recruited you. Is that right?
00:26:14 recruited you. Is that right? Um, yes, I suppose he did, yes. Um,
00:26:19 I do not need to know from where, but is it right that you knew, um, DCI Dell from a previous posting in Special Branch?
00:26:28 Branch? Yes.
00:26:29 Yes. Uh, did you know him well? I I knew him professionally well. I I I didn't know him We weren't personal friends or anything like that. And would you say in terms of his, um, managerial, um, approach, he was
00:26:41 managerial, um, approach, he was approachable if you required advice or wanted to discuss an issue with him? In my experience of him, yes. Was it the same with the UCOs if they wanted to discuss an issue with him? In my experience, yes.
00:26:53 In my experience, yes. And when you joined HN53 was the DRI. If you want to look at your cipher list to remind you.
00:27:33 Yes, he was, yes. Sorry. Thank you. And again, I don't need to know from where, but you knew HN53 from a previous posting as well. Is that right? That's correct, yes. And did you know him well? Were you
00:27:44 And did you know him well? Were you friends or again was it a professional Professionally, we we we we got on and we weren't I wouldn't say friends. It depends on how you define friendship. Um but we got on perfectly amicably.
00:27:55 but we got on perfectly amicably. [snorts]
00:27:55 [snorts] And do [clears throat] you recall what the dynamic was like between DCI Dell and HN53?
00:28:01 and HN53? I can't remember. of managerial style. I can't remember any any any problems there.
00:28:08 there. And did DI HN53 supervise you?
00:28:14 On the SDS. Yes, on the on occasion, yes.
00:28:17 yes. And how did he do that? Well, if we if we had problems or if there was an issue that he had certain areas of responsibility. I think finance is one of his areas of responsibility.
00:28:29 is one of his areas of responsibility. If Mr. Dell wasn't there at certain times for whatever reason, if he was leave or if he was another commitment, then um
00:28:38 um then HN53 was was the um the person we would have gone to or our offices were very close to each other and if there was an issue, he would
00:28:49 and if there was an issue, he would contribute to that discussion. [snorts]
00:28:51 [snorts] And in terms of his supervision of you, did he make his expectations clear to you of what your role was as a detective sergeant? HM53. Yes, yeah.
00:29:02 HM53. Yes, yeah. Following
00:29:05 Following DCI Dell, DCI McKinney took over managing the unit, and HM72 if you need to look that up, took over as DI. Is that right?
00:29:18 [clears throat]
00:29:20 [cough] [clears throat]
00:29:36 HM, sorry? 72.
00:29:38 72. Yes, that's correct. Yes. And you also recall Francis Flood joining the unit and becoming a DCI, but is it right that you just didn't know him as well because it was right at the end of your Yes, yeah. Yeah, I didn't know.
00:29:50 Yes, yeah. Yeah, I didn't know. Looking at the detective sergeants, you took over from HM52, which is DS Greeny. Correct, yes. And then the other DSs who worked with you at the same time was HM24 DS Beals,
00:30:03 you at the same time was HM24 DS Beals, Yes.
00:30:04 Yes. HM9, and HM50. Um
00:30:16 [snorts]
00:30:19 And um
00:30:24 Trying to think Well,
00:30:31 Trying to think of the government's first name. Um
00:30:37 Don't worry. Don't Hang on. Sorry. Uh
00:30:48 [clears throat] Don't worry, Mr. Gilchrist. I I think that is right from what you've said in your statement. We can come back to it if you need to. Yeah.
00:30:53 Yeah. Um
00:30:55 Um as I understand, is it right that the DCIOs, DIs, and DSs would interact daily in the back back office? Yes. Yes.
00:31:01 Yes. Yes. And in your witness statement, you describe wandering into into each other's offices. So, would you describe the atmosphere amongst the managers and relatively informal, casual relationships and interaction in the
00:31:13 relationships and interaction in the back office. It was
00:31:15 It was could be interpreted as informal. I wouldn't really call it casual. It wasn't as if you were
00:31:22 it at a say police station. It was we worked very closely together. So, to some extent, there was a um a relaxation of what or might ordinarily
00:31:33 a relaxation of what or might ordinarily be um normal protocols, but it was certainly relaxed, but not casual or I'm going to say contemptuous, but you understand what I mean by that. I don't mean trying to contend, but but overly
00:31:44 mean trying to contend, but but overly casual or overly forward. And looking at your your relationship with the UCOs that you managed, how would you characterize that relationship? Managing people under those
00:31:55 Managing people under those circumstances is different to managing people um in other more more usual environments. Um
00:32:03 Um it it was what could be interpreted as being casual, but in many ways it wasn't. There was there there were um
00:32:13 uh understandings to be observed, and they they did observe them. Obviously, everything was first name terms with the everything was um
00:32:23 um more relaxed, but there was it was efficient. And how would you describe the culture of the unit? Could you expand on that?
00:32:34 Could you expand on that? Well, for example, was the way in which the SDS operated different from your experience of um other um
00:32:42 other um units you worked in in Special Branch. Yes, I would say it was it was how was it different? It was perhaps might be perceived to be more relaxed um
00:32:54 more relaxed um but
00:32:55 but that doesn't mean it was inefficient or uh so casual as to have no discipline at all. There was it was just a different interpret different um expression of discipline. When you say more relaxed, can you
00:33:06 When you say more relaxed, can you elaborate on what you mean by that?
00:33:16 It [clears throat] It was very much a first name term first name term um environment um
00:33:25 people
00:33:28 you relied on people to um work
00:33:32 um work very very often difficult circumstances and they would come in but all but there was two ringing what we call ringing a day that is to say
00:33:43 we call ringing a day that is to say um they would they would have to phone in it before 12:00. They would have to phone in before I think it was 6:00. Um unless there was a specific reason not to such as they had scheduled leave or they were sick but you knew where
00:33:54 or they were sick but you knew where they were
00:33:55 they were and that was very rigidly adhered to if anyone didn't they they were for want of a better word chased as to where where they were and if they didn't do it they would be pursued as to why they didn't do it. So it wasn't so
00:34:06 they didn't do it. So it wasn't so casual as to be meaningless it was just a different environment. And I think you described in your witness statement as being told in your induction to your to Special Branch of it being a secret unit.
00:34:18 it being a secret unit. Yes.
00:34:19 Yes. Um was there any feeling or suggestion when you joined the SDS of it being considered to be an elite group? No,
00:34:26 No, not to me. No, it wasn't elite it was it was a
00:34:30 was a unit doing unusual work but um to describe it as or that they had a feeling that they were some sort of elite group. I don't I never did that and I never felt that way myself. And if
00:34:41 and I never felt that way myself. And if anyone had started going down that particular line, I I just
00:34:46 I I just I'm
00:34:48 I'm confident the others would have stopped them as well. To the point of if someone continued going down that line, they'd be off. You could You can't have that. Looking at that contact that you had with the UCOs, you've mentioned the
00:35:00 with the UCOs, you've mentioned the twice-daily calls. There's also wasn't there twice-weekly meetings? Yes, that's right. Um
00:35:06 Um And is it right that those meetings were an opportunity to ground those UCOs back into reality and check on their welfare? It's a check on their welfare, to do up certain other administrative issues that were there.
00:35:18 issues that were there. Um to see how they were, as you say, yeah, from the welfare aspect, both professionally and if they had issues in their own lives, perhaps that might come up.
00:35:27 come up. Looking at that then, what did you talk to the UCOs about in the meeting about those personal matters? Well, if it was a personal matter, um
00:35:39 um I wouldn't say, "Can you share with us what's going on at home, so-and-so?" It would be a case of you I would I would I personally would try to pull them separately and speak, make sure everything's going on at home. If
00:35:51 sure everything's going on at home. If it was an issue concerning the the Metropolitan Police, that would be expressed by whoever held the meeting. If it was to do with the group, then that wouldn't be a That would be a professional matter and it would be
00:36:02 professional matter and it would be discussed in in a meeting of the group. You can't
00:36:05 You can't broach personal issues in a crowded environment cuz people won't talk about them or they'll close up.
00:36:11 up. In terms of checking on the UCOs' welfare, would you have private meetings with the UCOs you managed during that time to gauge how their home life was, to see how they were coping in the
00:36:22 to see how they were coping in the field?
00:36:25 field? Yeah, so you from from It would depend on whether if you thought that something was wrong or if um
00:36:36 you you you might be picking something up by the way they are or you might just be chatting to them anyway in the way that anyone in any any environment might say
00:36:45 say how are things? Is there was there an expectation that the UCO should be telling you about personal difficulties they were having with their home life?
00:36:57 I think it was an assumption more than an expectation. So it wasn't necessarily understood by the UCOs that they were expected to to tell you information of that nature.
00:37:09 Effectively relied of them to self-report.
00:37:16 I think it was more than an expectation more than that that they would have known if they've got problems they've got to report it because they know it they know or they should know it was going to ultimately impinge on their work and
00:37:29 ultimately impinge on their work and so if they've got a problem they should say it. If they didn't say it and I didn't pick up on it or one of the others didn't pick up on it then you wouldn't know in the same way that any wouldn't know anyone wouldn't know anywhere.
00:37:40 anywhere. Did you discuss during these meetings with the UCOs the individuals that they were close to in the field? Sometimes yeah but and if for example a UCO was a man and
00:37:51 and if for example a UCO was a man and they were close to a woman in the field or vice versa is this something you explored further with regards to the type of relationship they had? I would have done if if
00:38:02 I would have done if if any UCO that I was supervising had
00:38:07 had indicated that to me. But it's not something you would have asked about necessarily. No they might have mentioned a member of the group who was female.
00:38:21 a member of the group who was female. I didn't explore that the fact whether whether that there was anything um emotionally developing between them. If I suspected that, then I would have developed it, but they
00:38:33 developed it, but they males and females in their groups, and
00:38:37 you you you you if unless you don't unless you suspect it, why would you go that down that line? Or you because I couldn't say every time they mentioned a female
00:38:48 they mentioned a female he's not going to be becoming romantically involved. Cuz it'd be silly.
00:38:51 silly. Uh
00:38:52 Uh during those weekly meetings, was there any informal discussion about the people involved in the UCO's target groups? What do you mean by informal discussion? Uh so um say after you've had your um
00:39:04 Uh so um say after you've had your um meeting and uh about work, was there any discussion about the individuals in the groups? And what I'm getting at, for example, is any derogatory talk about the individuals in the target groups?
00:39:16 in the target groups? Not in my presence, no. Someone mention people, and they might mention the way that they are, but they they there was nothing defamatory that I can recall anyone mentioning. And when discussing women in their target groups, were there any comments
00:39:28 target groups, were there any comments that were sexist? No. No, I didn't No, there wasn't. Uh
00:39:34 Uh it was a predominantly white male unit, wasn't it?
00:39:39 [snorts] Predominantly, but not exclusively so, yes.
00:39:43 yes. Uh
00:39:44 Uh At the twice-weekly meetings, was there much banter and jokes amongst the managers in the UCOs?
00:39:54 Well, there as I said, it it could be a casual uh well, a more casual environment, say, than on division or elsewhere, but there wasn't but banter that makes it seem as if it was all a bit of a boys' club, and it certainly wasn't.
00:40:06 it certainly wasn't. And do you recall any sexist banter or jokes or attitudes being voiced? No.
00:40:10 No. You say in your statement at paragraph 39 that you uh don't recall receiving any training on sex discrimination and or gender equality during your time in the MPS, is that
00:40:23 during your time in the MPS, is that right?
00:40:24 right? Paragraph 39. Yeah.
00:40:26 Yeah. I can get it up on screen if you need. So so I've got it.
00:40:32 That's right. I did I don't Yeah. And you say if you look at that that unfortunately these issues were not as well recognized at the time. Is that correct?
00:40:41 correct? Yes.
00:40:42 Yes. What do you mean by that?
00:40:49 I don't think they were recognized as being the way that they are now. I think that it wasn't acceptable for for people to um behave that way even then, but I think
00:41:00 behave that way even then, but I think the way that things have gone since then um
00:41:04 um is is developed that issue to such a such a highly defined point that people can interpret anything any way they wish and so
00:41:15 they wish and so I didn't receive any training and the others didn't receive any training on those issues and now perhaps people could if they heard those be comments again interpret it as being sexist. Doesn't mean it was and it doesn't mean
00:41:27 Doesn't mean it was and it doesn't mean it certainly doesn't mean it was at the time. And I would say that I and and I'm sure the others if it had been overtly or nasty
00:41:33 or nasty in that direction they would have stopped it and terminated it. How developed do you think your understanding was of sexism at the time?
00:41:44 Not as developed as it is now, but I don't think that was I think that's the case for everybody.
00:41:51 It's 20 years is is is that over 20 years?
00:41:54 years? Do you think that because sex discrimination and gender equality was not as well recognized at the time you were in the SCS officers and managers may not have recognized that the banter or attitudes that they had were in fact
00:42:06 or attitudes that they had were in fact sexist.
00:42:09 sexist. Are we judging it by the time of was 2003
00:42:12 2003 or well not 2003. I think that is exactly the the question which is back then because
00:42:18 because Well you and you you're you're you're taking those comments by today's values. But
00:42:24 But yes exactly the point about that you didn't think they were as well recognized at the time meant that you might not have realized that comments were being made by UCOs were were in fact sexist.
00:42:35 were in fact sexist. By the values of the time I don't think so.
00:42:38 so. Today as I can't remember any specific values I can I can only say I don't know. If if if you could play let's say a tape back and say oh oh they said this which is impossible because they weren't but if you could then
00:42:51 they weren't but if you could then perhaps then then possibly but if you're judging people by a changing um scale then okay I could say what you want.
00:43:01 want. In terms of your training at paragraph 37 of your witness statement you say that you didn't really have any formal or informal training when you joined the SDS.
00:43:09 SDS. No.
00:43:10 No. Um
00:43:11 Um and in terms of your your induction it was a few weeks handover in which you had discussions with DS Greeny um spoke with the office staff read some previous intelligence reports and there
00:43:22 previous intelligence reports and there may have been a training manual. Yes. Yes.
00:43:26 Yes. Yes. Um during your conversations with DS Greeny did he discuss with you the risks that the UCOs may have faced in the field that a detective sergeant sergeant should be looking out for?
00:43:38 should be looking out for? I can't remember. Okay. Do you recall if he included the risks of UCOs having sexual relationships? And any advice he gave you in relation to that?
00:43:48 to that? I can't remember that he did but I knew and everyone knew that that was strictly forbidden.
00:43:57 Uh do you recall that when he handed over to you whether he mentioned any previous instances of UCOs having sexual relationships undercover? I don't remember that.
00:44:09 Without giving any specifics, did H and 50G
00:44:13 50G Greeny D Greeny advise you about the risks of compromise for the UCO? In In what context? In discovering that they were people in the target group discovering that they were undercover officers and that that
00:44:25 were undercover officers and that that being a risk. Well, that that was a constant risk that we were always conscious of anyway. Everyone was conscious of the risk of compromise that could come from any quarter.
00:44:35 quarter. And did he talk to you, do you recall, about any instance of activists trying to find a UCO after their deployment had ended?
00:44:44 ended? He may have done, but I can't I I can't I can't remember any specific conversation. Do you recall any specific instance of him telling you about an activist getting hold of the SDS office number, for example?
00:44:55 for example? No.
00:45:01 At the end of your deployment, when you handed over to H and 35, did you advise H and 35 about the risks of UCOs having sexual relationships undercover?
00:45:14 I can't remember.
00:45:18 Now, looking at your I don't remember that, but I remember other issues um concerning um
00:45:30 um support um I will come back to that later. Thank you. Um looking at your role, as I understand, you considered yourself
00:45:41 as I understand, you considered yourself a line manager and cover officer of the UCOs
00:45:45 UCOs that you you supervised in the field. That's right, yes. And what exactly did that entail in brief?
00:45:54 Um well, making sure that they were okay as best as best you you could, um making sure that they they they were focused on whatever groups that were
00:46:04 were they were targeted to understand. Um
00:46:10 Um that would because there was only a certain only certain number of us that also involved knowing the other people that you weren't but directly under your supervision. The basic day-to-day running of
00:46:22 The basic day-to-day running of everything and um other issues they may have. That's right, isn't it? That you say you were [clears throat] assigned specific UCOs, but you were also if there was a necessity necessary to be across all the UCOs in the field at the time so you
00:46:33 UCOs in the field at the time so you knew what was going on. Yes.
00:46:35 Yes. A- A- And another part of your role, wasn't it, was um processing the intelligence of uh the UCOs. Yes.
00:46:42 Yes. A- And was that um just the UCOs that you supervised or did it sometimes mean other UCOs as well? Sometimes meant other UCOs as well. A- Another role that the DCSs undertook
00:46:53 A- Another role that the DCSs undertook was that of a duty officer. And as I understand that meant that you had a mobile phone number for 7 days that the um officers could contact you on out of hours.
00:47:02 hours. A- Yes.
00:47:03 A- Yes. Is that right? A- Anytime, yes. A- Can I just ask in relation to that, if you picked up a call as a duty officer and dealt with some intelligence about a particular event, would you then see that issue through with that UCO
00:47:16 see that issue through with that UCO until that event had happened [clears throat] or ended, or did you hand that back to um that UCO's cover officer?
00:47:24 officer? If
00:47:25 If you I received a call out of hours that warranted um some sort of action to be taken, I would then cause the action to or try to cause action to be taken w- whether that's
00:47:37 action to be taken w- whether that's submitting an intelligence report or contacting one of our um supervising officers. I'd also ensure that as soon as possible the officer's actual cover officer would would be informed. Very
00:47:48 officer would would be informed. Very often that person would take would would take it on because it was their their area. If they couldn't or if it w- warranted more then I and others would
00:47:59 warranted more then I and others would assist as well. In terms of recruitment of UCOs, as I understand it, you were involved in some interviews. I don't need to know who is, but some interviews. Is that right? sir.
00:48:09 sir. And in terms of those interviews, there were certain scenarios that were put to UCOs, weren't there, to test their understanding as of moral or ethical issues that may
00:48:20 of moral or ethical issues that may arise in the field. Is that right? I believe it I believe it was, yes. Do you recall if that included um the risk of sexual encounters or any racist incidents? I can't I can't It's 20 over 20 years
00:48:32 I can't I can't It's 20 over 20 years ago and I can't genuinely can't remember.
00:48:34 remember. Um [snorts] there were also home visits, weren't there, to um UCOs and their partners. yes.
00:48:41 yes. Um
00:48:43 Um and you state at paragraph 86 of your witness statement that it was preferable that a UCO had a stable home life to provide an anchor Well, this is my my expression, but provide an anchor back
00:48:54 expression, but provide an anchor back to their real life. Is that fair? Yes.
00:48:56 Yes. And you say one of the reasons was that the [clears throat] if there was disquiet in a UCO's home life, an alternative life undercover might become more attractive and their loyalty to the SDS may be corrupted. Is that right?
00:49:09 SDS may be corrupted. Is that right? Yes.
00:49:10 Yes. Did this concern, at least in part, come from a concern about the risk of sexual relationships undercover?
00:49:19 There was the potential for of that, that if if somebody was unhappy at home to such an extent and they were meeting people
00:49:26 people um in this environment that something might um
00:49:30 might um there was a a risk of that, certainly, yeah.
00:49:32 yeah. Uh
00:49:34 Uh and was this also due to a concern I don't need to know names at the moment about any previous UCOs that had had sexual relationships that were known about?
00:49:43 about? Not as I recall, but it was an obvious risk.
00:49:47 risk. [snorts]
00:49:47 [snorts] Uh why did the SDS place particular importance on a partner or a spouse being the anchor back to their real life.
00:49:57 life. Well, what other anchor could they other anchor could they have? It It's got to be something where you're going to want to go home to. And it was it hoped that a stable home life would reduce that risk of sexual
00:50:08 life would reduce that risk of sexual relationships under cover? But
00:50:17 You say at paragraph 87 of your witness statement that you would prefer an individual who had a stable relationship and domestic life so that they had a support system to help them.
00:50:28 support system to help them. Was the responsibility for supporting the welfare of every UCO being placed on the family and in particular the spouse of the UCO? No, it was but but they were part of it.
00:50:39 No, it was but but they were part of it. They would have been part of it and in ways that
00:50:42 ways that No, um
00:50:44 No, um in ways that neither I nor any other cover officer could do.
00:50:49 could do. They're wife generally it would be a wife or potentially it could be a husband then they're going to be the the main um strength in their life. The main the main the main support in their life.
00:51:00 main the main support in their life. Was any consideration given to the possibility that marriages in fact may not have been an anchor? You know, affairs are possible. What affairs in the field?
00:51:11 What affairs in the field? Uh
00:51:12 Uh in general as a general concept of a marriage.
00:51:15 marriage. Well,
00:51:17 Well, any particular consideration from it but obviously we knew that in the same way that everyone in this room knows that that that people have relationships. Sometimes they're married, sometimes they have affairs which happens
00:51:28 they have affairs which happens everywhere. So, it would be silly to think SDIOs officers are the only ones that have affairs. SDIOs officers I dare say some of them did but
00:51:39 did but so did lots of people in other occupations and professions. You can't and and which they keep covertly the as well.
00:51:47 well. How far can you go with that? Was any consideration given by the managers to the risk that UCA would seek some sort of anchor and stability in their cover lives given their long-term
00:51:59 their cover lives given their long-term nature?
00:52:01 nature? [sighs and gasps]
00:52:05 It was it was obviously a risk and that was the reason why we spoke to them and hopefully if if we detected any problems in their in their cover lives, we could we could have picked up on that
00:52:17 we could we could have picked up on that too
00:52:18 too um
00:52:19 um to stop it which would have included potentially bringing them out. But
00:52:26 you if you if you don't pick up on it for whatever reason then you don't pick up on it. Was part of the purpose of the home visit to assess the stability of the
00:52:37 visit to assess the stability of the UCO's married life and then report that back to the DCI and DI? I only ever did one home visit. I said need to know who it was. Um
00:52:48 Um and
00:52:51 it it would be reported back and if it if it
00:52:54 if it it was this it wasn't the case in this issue in this situation, but hypothetically this let's suppose we went we did someone did a home visit and it was absolutely disastrous. Then that
00:53:05 it was absolutely disastrous. Then that would be
00:53:05 would be that would be an issue and you'd say well it would you can't be having that. You can't be having people going out and that their situation domestically is is atrocious because they're going to have too much pressure on them.
00:53:16 too much pressure on them. And from your recollection during these visits were UCO's and their partners warned about the risk of sexual relationships in the field? They would they would it was made clear to them they could they couldn't do it.
00:53:27 to them they could they couldn't do it. So during the home visits was it were the partners told that it was prohibited? I can't I as I said I only ever did one home visit. I can't remember that whether if that was discussed or not,
00:53:38 whether if that was discussed or not, but it but it was made clear to the UCO's that they could they must not do that. They must not engage in sexual activity with with people in their groups.
00:53:47 groups. Moving on to the Tradecraft manual, I think at paragraph 105 of your witness statement, you recall this being shown to you during your induction, but I think what you say is that you didn't
00:53:59 think what you say is that you didn't read it. Is that right? That's right. Is there any particular reason why you didn't read it? It might have been that I I intended to, but I had other things to do. Were you told what the contents were? I can't remember.
00:54:11 I can't remember. Do you have any recollection of being told that that guidance contained um
00:54:16 um guidance about UCOs having sexual liaisons in the field? I can't remember being told that. And as I didn't read it, I never I never picked up on it.
00:54:26 up on it. Um I can get it up if if you need to um but I'll try without. You say in your Operation Hearn witness statement, which is in
00:54:37 is in 2013, that new UCOs were instructed to read the Tradecraft manual. Do you recall saying that in your witness statement? If it's in If it's in that, then I accept it, yeah.
00:54:48 accept it, yeah. Why was that? To instruct Why were they instructed to read it? it would be another aspect of their of their training. Of their induction.
00:54:58 I think you describe it as a um again in your Operation Hearn witness statement as
00:55:03 as um offered guidance on how to maintain and build their legends and undercover operations. Um
00:55:11 Um If we could get this up, please, the Tradecraft manual 0527597
00:55:19 tab B8 at 27.
00:55:27 If you just have a read of paragraph 5.6.1.
00:55:34 It's not on my screen yet. Just give it a moment. So, you just have a read of 5.6.1.
00:55:51 [cough]
00:56:08 Yep. And then 5.6.3.
00:56:15 You see here, "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 can either try to introduce an appropriate male or female from your own relations or friends to
00:56:27 from your own relations or friends to meet the wearers on occasions, or ask the office if they can find an ex-SDS operative to fill such a role." "Both options are fraught with difficulty, and you must make your own mind up about how to proceed." "If you have no other
00:56:38 to proceed." "If you have no other option but to become involved with a wearer, you should try to have a fleeting, disastrous relationships with individuals who are not important to your sources of information." "One
00:56:49 your sources of information." "One cannot be involved with a wearer in relationship for any period of time without risking serious consequences." Uh do you have any recollection of reading that at the time? No.
00:57:00 No. Uh just looking at the language used here, it's not prohibitive, is it? It's permissive. Yes.
00:57:07 Yes. Uh and it clearly contemplates sexual relationships in some circumstances. Yeah, it anticipates the potential for it, yes.
00:57:15 it, yes. Doesn't prohibit long-term relationships. And it doesn't Not not the way that that's worded, no. And it doesn't prohibit any form of sexual activity with non-activists, does it?
00:57:25 it? No, it doesn't, no. But that was I had nothing to do with that document. I I I I I [clears throat] that. Um and as you've indicated or read in manual um, your understanding of management's
00:57:36 um, your understanding of management's attitude at the time you were in the SDS is that they were completely prohibited. Is that right? Yes.
00:57:41 Yes. So, giving the tradecraft manual to the UCOs to read uh, would have given them a really confusing picture as to SDS's management's attitude to such a relationships,
00:57:52 attitude to such a relationships, wouldn't it? It It It could be interpreted that way other than it would it would show uh, given that I never read the um, manual. It would have given a
00:58:04 manual. It would have given a Yes, it would have been confusing other than they knew what the current regulation was and that was they can't do it.
00:58:10 do it. So, uh
00:58:11 So, uh had you been aware of that contradictory advice, uh, what would you have done about it? I'd have had that withdrawn.
00:58:20 Uh, in your witness statement, you say um,
00:58:25 um, uh, as you've explained, in your time sexual relationships were prohibited and said this this was a direction given by DCI Dell. Is that right? I think it was before him, I think.
00:58:37 I think it was before him, I think. Uh, we'll come back to that in a moment then. Um, so was it clear from the outset of your time in the SDS that they were prohibited in all circumstances? Yes. Yeah. Uh, and do you recall who informed you
00:58:48 Uh, and do you recall who informed you of that position? I'm being careful of anonymity. Uh, please read this out for us if you need to.
00:58:54 need to. I I can't I can't um, remember who, but in any case it was wrong. It would be morally wrong to do it.
00:59:06 Uh, was the risk of sexual advances in the field and sexual relationships something that was openly discussed amongst managers? It was It was acknowledged and um,
00:59:19 It was It was acknowledged and um, there were
00:59:22 there was there was a a system um, a a in place that we we hoped could um, mitigate that.
00:59:33 You say that you think that before DCI Dell gave a direction that was prohibited, it would that was already in place.
00:59:44 I believe that I believe that was the case. I mean, perhaps it's me assuming that was the case because it was such a profound thing for someone to do that I was assuming it was already just would have been the position. Uh and you talk about DCI
00:59:56 Uh and you talk about DCI Dell giving this direction to um the COs in the field in your time. Do you do you recall that? I believe I do, yes. Yeah. Uh did he give it in the
01:00:08 Yeah. Uh did he give it in the twice-weekly meetings? He didn't say every week or twice a week,
01:00:13 week, but it was perfectly clear that what what the situation was. No one, I don't think, could honestly say that they weren't aware that such activity wouldn't be tolerated and was wrong. Did he say that at the outset of each
01:00:25 Did he say that at the outset of each UCO's um
01:00:27 UCO's um deployment as well? I'm sure he did. I'm sure I'm sure he made clear to them that I the ones that I had I certainly made clear to them that they they couldn't do anything like that because it was a risk. In the same way
01:00:38 way that any any other um dubious activity would be a risk and it it wouldn't be tolerated. Um just looking at the previous time, if you need to, the um DCI prior to uh Dell
01:00:49 you need to, the um DCI prior to uh Dell was HN 58. So, if you need to look that up, please do. And he says in his witness statement, again, I don't think we need to bring this up, but please tell me if you need to see it. In his witness statement at
01:01:00 to see it. In his witness statement at paragraph 87.1, uh he said he may not have given any UCOs in the SDS during his tenure an express direction. What what he said HN
01:01:11 What what he said HN 58. [cough] Yeah.
01:01:14 Yeah. 58.
01:01:15 58. 58.
01:01:15 58. Yeah.
01:01:17 Yeah. Um
01:01:19 I can't I can't see who that is. but um
01:01:24 In any event, I think the point being is the predecessor to D- DCI Dell um suggested he never he didn't give an express direction that used the that sexual relationships were
01:01:35 that sexual relationships were prohibited. Was there any uh suggestion to you that this was a change in policy? No. No. No. I just I would have I would have assumed it was big policy.
01:01:46 have assumed it was big policy. Do you know why DCI Dell considered it important to give an express direction to the UCOs? It was a It was obviously a potential
01:01:57 It was a It was obviously a potential area
01:01:58 area that could um that could occur and he wanted to It would have made it I I suspect it would have made it would have made it clear that people couldn't do it.
01:02:05 it. For a number of reasons, not least then it's it's it's the wrong thing to do. Um do you know if that decision to give that direction was based on his knowledge of any previous I don't know.
01:02:16 I don't know. um UCOs?
01:02:23 Did uh DCI Dell ever tell you about any previous uh UCOs undertaking sexual relationships? I can't I can't remember him mentioning
01:02:34 I can't I can't remember him mentioning it to me.
01:02:35 it to me. Did you ever ask him?
01:02:41 [snorts] I'm not you know I I don't think I did because it was it was I said it was such a
01:02:45 a profoundly wrong thing to do. It'd be like asking them is anyone ever committed murder? Well, no. So, why would they be doing that?
01:02:54 Knowledge of previous instances of sexual relationships, would that not have assisted assisted you in understanding the reasons why an officer may enter a a relationship in the field and therefore assist you in mitigating
01:03:06 and therefore assist you in mitigating any risk for the UCOs in your time? Uh Possibly, but So, why weren't you professionally curious about that? Because it it was such a
01:03:18 Because it it was such a um
01:03:20 seriously wrong thing to do that I was curious about it and I was on guard for it.
01:03:26 it. But
01:03:30 it was just something having been told that they were aware of that.
01:03:35 that. And understood it and they did understand it. That you didn't progress it from there.
01:03:43 Did HN53 ever tell you about um former UCOs having sexual relationships undercover? He's the DI. HN53 was um
01:03:54 HN53 was um The DI if that assists you. Yes, sorry. Got him, yeah. So what was the question again? Did he ever tell you about any previous uh UCOs having relationships undercover?
01:04:07 I don't remember him having done so. Possibly, but I don't remember. Uh you recall in your witness statement at paragraph 28 uh that a significant significant amount of HN53's time was
01:04:19 significant amount of HN53's time was occupied by Peter Francis's civil litigation against the Met. Do you recall that? Yes.
01:04:24 Yes. Uh
01:04:26 And in brief, do you recall the nature of HN53's work in relation to this litigation? It was to um support the commissioner's solicitor to
01:04:40 support the commissioner's solicitor to deal with that that action. Um and is it right that at one stage you were considered to um as his deputy for the litigation? Very early on, but
01:04:52 Very early on, but other things happened and it never happened.
01:04:54 happened. Um
01:04:56 Did you have any role then in in actually executing that duty as deputy? Because I think you say that you read some of the papers, is that right? at some of the papers, but it it was not looked at a few of the papers very early on and so no, I had no role in it.
01:05:11 Uh and you say that the matter was so complex you couldn't uh do it alongside your other duties. Can you uh explain what you meant by so complex? [snorts]
01:05:20 [snorts] Well, there was there was a huge amount of documentation. And I had my other duties and the SDS duty officer duties and and other issues. But I couldn't possibly do all
01:05:31 issues. But I couldn't possibly do all three of them. Various.
01:05:34 Various. So, the complexity was more about what you were doing rather than complexity of the litigation, is that what you're saying? I don't know what the happen I I knew it was complex the litigation against the
01:05:45 was complex the litigation against the commissioner. I don't know how complex, but um I had other issues that took my time up and I couldn't have anything more to do with that. Uh and when you say you read some of the paperwork, do you recall reading Peter
01:05:57 paperwork, do you recall reading Peter Francis' witness statement? No.
01:06:01 No. Um
01:06:05 Going back briefly to um DCI Dell's direction to the UCOs, did they express any concerns to you or issues that this direction might have um give them in the field?
01:06:15 field? Sorry, I don't understand the question. So, when the UCOs were given a direction that sex relationships are prohibited, did they raise any issues that arose from that or worries they had about themselves in the field?
01:06:26 themselves in the field? remember so, but I I know that they used to
01:06:29 to um say that um many of them felt if all of them felt they could have dealt with more um
01:06:37 um support in the field.
01:06:40 And [snorts] did DCI Dell tell the UCOs that if a sexual relationship was discovered, they would be removed from the unit?
01:06:48 the unit? Was that part of the direction?
01:06:53 I can't remember whether whether UCOs were specifically, but that would have been the result. Even if you didn't specifically say that, would it been obvious to the UCOs that if that was discovered that the
01:07:04 that if that was discovered that the consequences would be significant? Absolutely, yeah. And as you've sort of indicated already, your personal view is that it was morally unacceptable. And I think in your witness statement at
01:07:15 And I think in your witness statement at paragraph 109, you comment that they should have innately known that it was wrong. The UCOs should have done. Well, it is it is innately wrong, and I don't think it's so unreasonable to
01:07:28 don't think it's so unreasonable to assume that people that were in their 20s and 30s and police officers know the difference between right and wrong.
01:07:36 wrong. So, yes, they they should have known. Yeah. And in addition to DCI Dales' direction, you give your own direction as well, didn't you? To the UCOs about this. Yeah.
01:07:45 Yeah. Saying it's prohibited. Yes.
01:07:46 Yes. And did you repeat that throughout their deployments? Not every week or every every on a on a fixed basis. It's my It's Monday. You
01:07:57 fixed basis. It's my It's Monday. You mustn't know. Periodically. Periodically. And it was it was If anyone to say I didn't know, I don't believe that, too. And why did you think that was necessary? Because it's an obvious area that
01:08:10 Because it's an obvious area that was potentially was was a potential risk.
01:08:16 risk. But
01:08:17 But that was a risk for a number of reasons. Um
01:08:21 Um was it written down anywhere? Well, I said that. No, the direction that it that such relationship were prohibited. I can't remember. It may have been, but I can't remember. [snorts]
01:08:29 [snorts] Um
01:08:30 Um again, I don't think we need to to bring it up, but please say if so. There are Operation Hearn's notes of when you spoke to them. And that note in relation to sex says he told his people not to
01:08:42 to sex says he told his people not to get a girlfriend, that it was wrong, potentially rape. Do you recall saying that to Operation Hearn?
01:08:50 Hearn? I believe I do, yeah. You did?
01:08:52 You did? time, was over the I understand there's been a ruling on it since.
01:08:56 since. I would
01:08:57 I would I don't think we need to go into the the the
01:08:59 the I simply want to understand your understanding that you did say that. I believe I did say so. terms of your assessment of sexual relationships in the frame you considered them extremely serious and a
01:09:10 considered them extremely serious and a potentially a criminal offense. Is that your take on them at the time? Yeah, really. Yeah. And did you say that to, for example, HN104 and HN18, so Carlo Soracchi and Robert Hastings?
01:09:22 Robert Hastings? Certainly, certainly Hastings. I can't remember I said it to to the other one, but he would have known my feelings on it.
01:09:31 Did Did you Theo Dell ever give you and the other detective Did he ever direct you and the other detective sergeants to monitor the UCOs to ensure they were adhering to this
01:09:42 to ensure they were adhering to this direction? And if so, did he give you any advice on how to do so?
01:09:49 I can't remember him him suspecting that anyone needed that sort of attention. So, so no, he never gave me advice on it because I can't remember him doing doing
01:10:00 because I can't remember him doing doing it.
01:10:02 If we could have up on screen paragraph 210 of Mr. Gilvin's witness statement. It starts on page 77.
01:10:26 [clears throat]
01:10:36 So, there was a potential risk of UCOs engaging in sexual relationships. In my view, the reasons why they might have done so included attempting to maintain cover because if they refused the advances of someone in their target
01:10:48 advances of someone in their target group and they were single in their cover identity, this might have thrown suspicion on their credibility and opportunism. If the individual morality was compromised, clearly it was not just
01:10:59 was compromised, clearly it was not just about justifiable for any reason. We could just keep that up. But firstly, I think you accept also in your witness statement, don't you, that you never directly asked the UCOs if they were in sexual relationships, the ones you
01:11:10 sexual relationships, the ones you covered.
01:11:10 covered. I don't believe I did, no. Given that [snorts and clears throat] you'd identified this risk in in your uh evidence, the UCOs the um management took it very seriously. Why didn't you
01:11:21 took it very seriously. Why didn't you ask them?
01:11:25 I didn't ask because I assumed that because it was so clear to them, I wouldn't have to I wouldn't have to ask. Clearly I was wrong on that, and I I'm sorry for that, but um
01:11:36 um at the time, it was clear that they could they couldn't do it. Uh and clearly some of them did. But um
01:11:48 i- if if if if you make something clear to a to to a person, and it's absolutely and it's such an important issue, then
01:11:57 then to keep on going over the point now, if I was doing it, I think the people should not only be asked, but then it'd be written down, they sign it they acknowledge it. But at the time, that
01:12:08 acknowledge it. But at the time, that wasn't the procedure. Looking at 104 Kali Raki and and Robert Hastings, for example, uh why did you think that um refusing advances in the field might
01:12:21 refusing advances in the field might have thrown suspicion on their credibility?
01:12:25 D- Do you mean uh suspicious [laughter] that they were a police officer? No, suspicious about about them, and why why they're not. And also, um it might cause offense. It might it
01:12:37 it might cause offense. It might it might cause um distress, I don't know, or or anger at being rebuffed, which could then cause them problems, potentially. But not in terms of discovering they
01:12:48 But not in terms of discovering they were police officer. Well,
01:12:50 Well, then perhaps it might go on to that. A a who's initially rebuffed might become um
01:12:58 become um discontented and then if they start delving into them even more, that could be discovered. So, there was the potential risk of that, but more than anything else it was upsetting the the system on the in the um
01:13:10 in the um in the group. And then you also come into opportunism if their individual morality was compromised. And I think you say paragraph 230
01:13:21 And I think you say paragraph 230 that you place trust in the UCOs you supervised to comply with DCI Dales direction. You've also here acknowledged that opportunism was a was a risk. So, did
01:13:33 opportunism was a was a risk. So, did you and DCI Dale and the other managers think that there was they would never disobey DCI Dale's direction?
01:13:47 I I think certainly I thought it was such a
01:13:50 such a highly
01:13:52 highly um significant thing to do and so wrong that they wouldn't do it in the way that they wouldn't do other things that are highly significant and wrong. In hindsight, do you think that's perhaps a naive approach? Yes, absolutely. Yeah.
01:14:05 What about how H and 18 suggested that in fact the position of management was see no evil, hear no evil?
01:14:17 hear no evil? That that was the approach of management in relation to sexual relationships. wasn't that wasn't the case at all. That was not the case. Um you wrote a policy, didn't you, on support role players?
01:14:29 support role players? It was a initial thing to to start the start a policy on it, yes. If we could have that, please, NBS 0749292
01:14:37 0749292 to tab B73.
01:14:45 It's right, isn't it, you were the cover officer while that comes up, you were the cover officer of HN18 from the start of um
01:14:52 of um his deployment, that's right. Um
01:14:56 Um Robert Hastings. Yeah, yes I was, yeah. And you um were not the principal um cover officer for Carl Iturri but you recall sometimes supervising
01:15:07 but you recall sometimes supervising him.
01:15:07 him. Yes.
01:15:09 Yes. Did you recall supervising on and off or was it over a particular period of time? It was on and off and if the usual cover officer was away then I might take that on duty full time while he was away but otherwise it would
01:15:21 while he was away but otherwise it would be on and off. And were you aware that both those officers at points in their um deployment had requested a support role player?
01:15:30 Um certainly um Scratchy Mhm.
01:15:33 Mhm. Um Hastings don't remember but um I think I would have I I I went quite early on in his his engagement so um I don't know whether that was before or after I left.
01:15:44 or after I left. Okay.
01:15:45 Okay. Um this is the um is it right this is the uh policy that you wrote? Yeah.
01:15:50 Yeah. Uh dated the 27th of October 2003. Do you recall if DCI Dell instructed you to write this or did you do it of your own accord? I can't remember, it might have been something we were discussing and he said
01:16:02 something we were discussing and he said you
01:16:03 you do a note or it might have I might have just done it, I can't remember. Uh and uh thinking about um um HN Carl Iturri and um Robert Hastings
01:16:14 um HN Carl Iturri and um Robert Hastings um and their deployments. Uh paragraph 216 of your witness statement, you explain that you felt very strongly that this was an extremely useful tactic uh for the reinforcement of UCOs
01:16:25 uh for the reinforcement of UCOs legends. What Why did you consider it to be such a important tactic? Because
01:16:30 Because the the system um existed prior to my my writing this note.
01:16:36 note. And what I wanted to do was make people endeavor to people um people the officers, the UCOs
01:16:47 um people the officers, the UCOs more realistic because people have generally have somebody in their lives. And
01:16:53 And what I was hoping to do was to have those and others of different ages and different different genders to um
01:17:02 um encounter the UCO when he was with his um associates and just to be more real. And did you also uh uh [laughter] accept that this um would assist in
01:17:14 accept that this um would assist in mitigating the risk of sexual relationships undercover? I think I think it would it would have if you if you had someone that was going to go and do that, it might have helped that.
01:17:24 that. So, why isn't that written in this policy?
01:17:28 policy? Well, because at the time I never I never
01:17:31 never thought that they would be doing that. I always have thought that they knew that they mustn't do it and and that was perhaps a naive thing on my part. But they they it it wasn't before that. It was it was I didn't think they were
01:17:42 It was it was I didn't think they were going to be doing that anyway. So, I didn't I didn't put it in the I didn't I didn't include it in the note. Now I wish I had have done because of what's happened now. But at the time I thought they would be in Well, my And in fairness, most of them were.
01:17:54 fairness, most of them were. Um
01:17:55 Um didn't do this. It should be remembered that most of many of the SDS didn't do anything didn't behave this way at all. [clears throat] And [snorts] for those who did, okay, they did and that's for them to answer,
01:18:06 they did and that's for them to answer, but
01:18:07 but I didn't think that um they were doing it. It was it was just to give them some support. Um and you recall that um Carlo Soracchi did ask for a um support role player. Yes.
01:18:18 Yes. Um was that because of sexual advances he was experiencing in the field? Not at all. I think it was just a to to um
01:18:25 um to help him in his function in the in in the field. And so, his requesting that did that not create any suspicion in your mind in terms of him um engaging in sexual relationships? No, it it was it was just something that
01:18:37 No, it it was it was just something that he he needed not to um
01:18:41 um thwart or or frustrate any approaches he might have been receiving cuz if if it was, he should have he should have mentioned it but to me [clears throat] or to his cover officer. But to um I
01:18:53 I I got the impression cuz I I do remember that
01:18:56 that vaguely those that conversation I had with him and it was just another um
01:19:01 um supporting his in his legend.
01:19:07 And you say you also don't recall H Robert Hastings requesting a support role player. I don't I don't don't recall it but we that it may have it may have asked and he may have asked me but I don't I don't specifically remember him.
01:19:18 specifically remember him. Um if we could get up please MPS 009432.
01:19:28 It's not in his section of the bundle. Thank you. This is a note titled operational legend was written by DS Tidy. It was a detective sergeant before your time.
01:19:39 detective sergeant before your time. Yeah.
01:19:42 Do you want me to read it? Pardon?
01:19:43 Pardon? Do you want me to read it? Um
01:19:45 Um you were asked about this in your witness statement. Um do you recall seeing this at the time you were in the SDS? No, I don't I don't recall seeing it at
01:19:56 No, I don't I don't recall seeing it at the time.
01:19:58 the time. When
01:20:00 When you were writing your policy on support role players, did you discuss that with DCI Dell or HM 53? What this note? Your policy. When you were writing that about the use of support role role
01:20:12 about the use of support role role players.
01:20:12 players. I I believe I believe I certainly to Mr. Dell and probably to to 53 as well. And did neither of them highlight this
01:20:24 And did neither of them highlight this document to you which also brings up the same topic? Well, I assume if they had, I would have looked at it. Um perhaps they did perhaps they might
01:20:35 Um perhaps they did perhaps they might have mentioned perhaps they might have mentioned it. But I don't remember calling them mentioning it. But that was some What what what year was this?
01:20:43 was this? Uh well, it was written 2 and 1/2 years well before um your time in the SDS, but the point being that you were writing a document on this topic and nobody in management raised, "Oh, um there's a there's a document that relates to the
01:20:54 there's a document that relates to the same thing. Maybe you should look at it."
01:20:58 it." Well, I don't know if they knew about it but at that time or not. Um
01:21:03 Um moving on to officers um that you supervised in the field, if you need to uh look, please do. HN60.
01:21:13 [clears throat]
01:21:31 Yes. Uh
01:21:33 Uh Did you know him well? I knew him um I remember him before he went on the SDS, but I don't I never worked with him.
01:21:40 him. Um
01:21:41 Um But from your time on the SDS, did you know him well? I I knew him reasonably well. We weren't friends, if that's where you That's where it's going. Uh do you recall if he attended a horticultural course whilst uh he was undercover?
01:21:54 I don't recall, but that does ring a bell.
01:21:56 bell. Uh do you recall him ever mentioning meeting a woman who was not an activist on this course? No, not at all. Uh And were you aware at the time you were on the SDS if HN60 had had a sexual
01:22:07 were on the SDS if HN60 had had a sexual relationship undercover? No, that's the first I've ever heard of it today.
01:22:14 Uh looking [snorts] at um Carlo Soracchi,
01:22:20 uh you say in your witness statement that you were not aware of um any of um Carlo Soracchi Soracchi's relationships uh with Lindsey Donna McLean, or his current partner. Is that right? I wasn't aware of any of those, no.
01:22:32 I wasn't aware of any of those, no. Again, did you have a Did you know Carlo Racki well? I knew him well from
01:22:40 well from him being a DC. I remember him before he went on to the SDS when he was at Scotland Yard when I was there. And I I obviously remember him in the unit,
01:22:52 I I obviously remember him in the unit, but
01:22:54 but I I know
01:22:55 I I know it depends what you mean by know well. I knew him, but we weren't anyway friends. We were We just He was one of the DCs. I got on well [snorts] with him, I think. I think he got on well with me, but we weren't We weren't friends. Did [snorts] you discuss his home life
01:23:07 Did [snorts] you discuss his home life with him at any point? Any difficulties he was marital difficulties he was having at the time? me, no.
01:23:13 me, no. I I remember once going to his home because he was contemplating studying for promotion. And there's a book that I don't know if they
01:23:21 they they read now, but there was a book um instruction manual, a very thick instruction manual, which which contained
01:23:28 contained what which a lot of the syllabus had to had to be gleaned from. And I remember taking it to his home address. And I think his wife was there. And
01:23:37 And I think he I think he had a child. And it was just seemed normal. It seemed normal, do you say? It just seemed normal when I was in there, yeah, but Do you remember what timeframe that was?
01:23:50 No, it would It would have been probably within the first year of my service.
01:23:57 service. And you recall, don't you, that he uh prior to you joining the SDS, he was living with another um undercover officer, HM 77.
01:24:06 HM 77. I wasn't aware of that at all until after until this until I was told when I went to make my statement or I don't know whether Helen told me. Might have been Helen Helen Helen people told me. But I wasn't aware
01:24:18 Helen people told me. But I wasn't aware when I was on the when I was there that that had been the arrangement. And um when you were on the SDS, were you aware of what Carlos Racket's living arrangements were at the time?
01:24:30 arrangements were at the time? No, he had a an address, um but I I didn't know that he was sharing a flat with um another know he was living with anyone, didn't know he was living with a woman? Well, he certainly should shouldn't have
01:24:41 Well, he certainly should shouldn't have been living with um one of his own people, um and I wasn't aware that he was living with um one of the other officers, which I understand was the case for a time. But that I think was before I was on the unit as well.
01:24:53 before I was on the unit as well. But looking at the time you were on the unit, uh you say [clears throat] you know at points you did supervise him. So, wasn't it something that you should have been aware of was where he was living, who he was living with? I was aware where he was living. I know
01:25:05 I was aware where he was living. I know that he had a flat, but I wasn't aware that he had anyone living with him. Did you ever ask him? And if not, why not?
01:25:13 not? I didn't ask him because it was it's a bit like um a similar argument to to not
01:25:20 to not about about the sex. Obviously,
01:25:25 it unless it was authorized, and I thought if if it had been authorized, then I would have been told, and people would know.
01:25:33 know. It would have made I would have thought it would have made his position pretty impossible to do. So, I think he's living with uh Donna McCullen, his partner at the time, before you joined the SDS, and then lived with her um
01:25:45 lived with her um uh until approximately May 2004. Yeah.
01:25:49 Yeah. Um
01:25:52 A UCO's duffel accommodation is an essential part of their cover identity, isn't it?
01:25:57 isn't it? Yes.
01:25:58 Yes. So, even if you weren't his principal supervisor, you supervised him at times. Shouldn't you have known exactly where he was for any security risk, who you were living who he was living with
01:26:10 were living who he was living with security risks? I knew where his address was, or I would have known where his address was, but
01:26:17 it is very difficult to know if if if in this case if he moves somebody in with him because I can't You can't um keep turning up at a UC's address because it could it could compromise
01:26:29 because it could it could compromise them.
01:26:31 Was there any direction from senior management not to ask about his living arrangements? No.
01:26:44 I'm going to get a document up very briefly, please. It's MBS 0527068 at B67.
01:26:56 If you go to the next page, please. This is what we understand to be a rent book in relation to Carlo Seraqi's living arrangements. You see there next to tenant is Carlo Neri, his undercover
01:27:08 to tenant is Carlo Neri, his undercover name.
01:27:09 name. Yeah.
01:27:10 Yeah. Date looks like 30th of January 2003 and then underneath rent collector is D McLean. Do you recall ever seeing this document at your time? No.
01:27:21 No. Did you have any involvement in the paying of the rent to his accommodation? No.
01:27:30 No. Do you know who did? Would it have been Dief Greenough as his main Sorry, Beals. Dief Beals is his main cover officer. Would he have been involved in this?
01:27:41 involved in this? Is
01:27:42 Is I doubt it would have been him, but you You have to ask him.
01:27:46 [cough and clears throat] So, would that be a convenient time to break?
01:27:49 break? Certainly. Um
01:27:52 Um 10 minutes all right? Yes, we'll break for 10 minutes.
01:30:09 Mhm.
01:33:59 Mhm.
01:35:54 Mhm.
01:37:49 Mhm.
01:40:54 Mr. Gilbertson and Carlo Soracchi says as does DCI Dell that at one stage Mr. Soracchi discloses to DCI Dell that he had entered into a sexual
01:41:06 Dell that he had entered into a sexual relationship undercover. And Mr. Soracchi recalls this being at the end of 2003. Did DCI Dell ever tell you about that at
01:41:18 Did DCI Dell ever tell you about that at the time?
01:41:18 the time? No.
01:41:23 Were you aware of aware of any of the other managers knew about this? Not so far as I was aware.
01:41:36 Um Do you recall having a leaving party at the end of your time? a Yeah, quite a small function, yeah. Um
01:41:46 Um and I think you leave the SS in April 19, 2006.
01:41:49 19, 2006. Uh would it have been around that time, do you think? It would be Yes. Um
01:41:54 Um do you recall where it took place? It was
01:41:57 It was [clears throat] um
01:41:59 um at the
01:42:00 at the it was in a pub at the after-hours Thursday meeting. I Do you want me to say what part of London? I won't mention that. we don't need to know. It's in a pub. Yeah. [laughter] Uh and um
01:42:12 Uh and um being very careful of anonymity, use the cipher list if you need to. Do you recall who was at that party? Um I remember a few people. It was um
01:42:25 Sorry.
01:42:31 Um
01:42:39 Can I go through the list? Can I go have a look?
01:42:41 a look? Um
01:42:48 Okay.
01:42:53 If you need to, just write their names down, please do.
01:44:01 There was one officer who's since deceased.
01:44:04 deceased. Um
01:44:05 Um Please just write them down. Um
01:44:18 Um
01:44:20 It's quite a few.
01:44:57 [sighs] [gasps]
01:45:00 They're the only ones that can come come to mind. I think there were others, but they're the only ones that come to mind. Okay.
01:45:12 Okay.
01:45:25 Thank you.
01:45:29 Okay. the deceased officer is not on that list. If you want to name him by nominal by his his HN number, by all means do. Uh
01:45:39 Uh was it um
01:45:41 was it um HN275?
01:45:49 275? Is that right? Uh No, it isn't. uh then we'll we'll come back to it. Um
01:45:55 Um uh Carlos Saraki recalls that your leaving party that there was discussion about HN67 having a relationship [clears throat] and fathering a child whilst deployed. Do you recall that?
01:46:07 Do you recall that? No, I don't. Um it wasn't a wasn't a um
01:46:11 um huge function, but there were various There was a few people there and there were different groups and if that conversation took place, I wasn't present when it was taking when it um when it was said.
01:46:22 when it was said. But could we just have a HN18 witness statement, UCPI-35 557.
01:46:29 557. [clears throat]
01:46:32 Uh paragraph 249.4
01:46:37 page I think 117.
01:46:54 Uh you can see there paragraph 249.4.
01:46:59 Yeah. Uh DS 108 was my first cover officer until he retired. I believe he was my cover officer for approximately 12 months. Um so
01:47:09 so Robert Hastings started um I think from August 2004.
01:47:15 Um and he says here that until you retired. Yeah.
01:47:20 Yeah. Does that accord with your recollection? Yeah.
01:47:23 Yeah. So, if he started in August 2004, you left in April 2006.
01:47:30 Yeah. Does that sound about right? That that would be about right, yeah.
01:47:36 Again, do you um recall having a good relationship with Robert Hastings? I don't remember it being bad relationship or difficult relationship. Um
01:47:50 I don't know what he really means by it's sometimes difficult to engage with. That would be my next question.
01:47:57 Um Do you think that's an accurate reflection of yourself?
01:48:02 Of myself? Um possibly.
01:48:05 possibly. Do you think you were difficult in [clears throat] conversation, difficult to engage with?
01:48:12 I like to think not, perhaps I am, but um
01:48:15 um I I I was never rude to him or or or particularly um in any way um
01:48:22 um difficult with him. But um
01:48:25 But um I don't really understand I don't really understand what what what what's that meant. He He was a DC and I was a DS and I was supervising him. I wasn't his I wasn't his friend, I was his um I was his DS.
01:48:36 I was his DS. I wasn't on bad terms with him, but he wasn't a friend. You can come down, thank you. At paragraph 228
01:48:45 uh of your statement, we don't need to get it up, um you say as far as you were aware, he was in a stable and happy relationship. Um do you recall ever discussing his home life with him?
01:48:58 A few times we we had um we had we we had um conversations. Not specifically about that, but that came up. He didn't seem to be at that time
01:49:09 time um
01:49:11 he didn't seem to didn't seem to have issues. I believe subsequently that was that that did change, but when I dealt with him he was he was married, he was I think had children, and things seemed normal.
01:49:23 children, and things seemed normal. You said subsequently it did change. I understand I understand subsequently that the situation this situation that at the time? No.
01:49:30 No. Um
01:49:31 Um Maya is the woman who he had a relationship with in the field. She says that she and Mr. Hastings began flirting with one another at the beginning of
01:49:42 with one another at the beginning of 2006.
01:49:44 2006. Do you have any recollection of noticing any changes in Robert Hastings during that time and in relation to being open or being worried about him in the field?
01:49:58 worried about him in the field? No, but but I'm not saying this is in any way to um cover myself. It was 20 years ago, and I and
01:50:08 and some some if there was a change in someone's personality slightly 20 years ago, I don't know anyone would particularly remember it. And do you recall that he'd enter infiltrated a group called the
01:50:19 infiltrated a group called the International Solidarity Movement? I can't remember that that was that was the group, but if if you say it was, then I'll go with that. Do you recall being close to a person
01:50:30 Do you recall being close to a person called Atif Chaundry who lived at a housing cooperative? Please don't say the name of this if you're aware. No.
01:50:37 No. You don't recall of him ever talking about going to visit that cooperative. Perhaps he did. If he Have you heard of it? I've forgotten.
01:50:45 Um if we could have a paragraph 209 of H&18's witness statement, please.
01:50:57 In fact, it may be that we don't need it, but um Robert Hastings says that you said to him when he began his operation, "Nobody came out of the SDS
01:51:09 operation, "Nobody came out of the SDS clean."
01:51:10 clean." Do Do recall saying that to him? I I
01:51:14 I I I was the first aware of that um that comment last week. And I absolutely refute it. I I never said that's not the way I speak. It's not the way I I say it. And to me it sounds like a
01:51:27 sounds like a It sounds like the a preview clip from a a police series on television. It's It's absolute nonsense. Also, it's not true. Pe- People who have served on the anti-SDS 40 years, some of them came off
01:51:38 anti-SDS 40 years, some of them came off um and didn't have uh par- particularly pleasant times. Others went on to have extremely good careers. Most went on to have normal lives and normal normal careers. And also
01:51:51 normal normal careers. And also within the Metropolitan Police generally, I knew a lot of people throughout the Metropolitan Police. When I joined and when I different places I served, people that served all the time on relief. Relief is what the we used to call them was a shift. A police station
01:52:04 call them was a shift. A police station would be A, B, or C relief. It'll be It'll be a what people would know and understand to be a shift. Some of those officers did exactly the same. Um I knew one person in traffic patrol. I'd only cite that because it's about as
01:52:15 I'd only cite that because it's about as far away as from Special Branch work as you can get. Who also sadly ended up have being mentally ill. I've dealt with a lot of men- mental illness in my career. Quite a lot of mental illness in my career. And
01:52:25 And I can tell you it comes from all backgrounds, all races, genders, and it isn't exclusively to one area or or one particular group of people. So, and
01:52:36 one particular group of people. So, and I would not have said that. Also, I don't really understand what he means by it.
01:52:41 it. Um
01:52:46 He says that that um he took it to mean that it was recognized that SDS work was morally and ethically ambiguous. Would you have ever ever said anything to him along those lines?
01:52:56 lines? No, because
01:52:59 it wasn't. It was difficult work. And if anyone had any doubts about the the the morals or ethics of it, they should have they should have had the courage to say. But
01:53:09 But Um
01:53:13 If
01:53:16 Everything that certainly and I'm and I speak with confidence about the others that I served the other people the other DSEs I spoke I worked with. I and I'm sure they and these our supervising officers
01:53:28 supervising officers did everything as far as we could in accordance with regulations and did did do it properly. So if there was ever If we ever thought something was a gray area or something like that, then he he he should say it. But we wouldn't go
01:53:39 he should say it. But we wouldn't go into that. We weren't out to Um we weren't the secret police. We weren't we weren't out to to to frustrate demonstrations. We weren't out to frustrate people.
01:53:50 to frustrate people. Given the misconduct of the UCEs during your tenure of the SDS, which has since been exposed, uh
01:53:57 uh such as Carlo Soracchi and Robert Hastings having sexual relationships, do you accept that there were failings in the management team? There's there's There's nothing else to say but there were, yeah. And do [clears throat] you accept some
01:54:08 And do [clears throat] you accept some responsibility for your part in that? I suppose I suppose um
01:54:17 Actually, I don't know. It's easy to It's easy to to I'm not going to I don't take this the wrong way. I'm not going to sit here and flagellate myself because it it it's the easy thing to do. I I did the best I could with what I had
01:54:28 I I did the best I could with what I had in the circumstances prevailing at the time.
01:54:31 time. So
01:54:31 So Is there anything else that you think you could have done differently to expose
01:54:36 to expose With the benefit of hindsight, there's a lot of things that I could think could could could be made to look tighter. And and and I would should but but that's with the benefit of hindsight. At the time
01:54:46 time I thought what I did was was permissible and good and I didn't do it I didn't do it to take shortcuts. I didn't do any Neither did anyone else as far as I'm aware. And I'm genuinely
01:54:57 far as I'm aware. And I'm genuinely sorry that I didn't pick up on it, but I didn't. And moving on to a different topic, Mr. Gilbertson, I just want to go back to your background very briefly.
01:55:08 your background very briefly. When you joined the Met in 1976 76, in terms of racism and race discrimination, the world was a very different place to how it is today. Would you Would you agree?
01:55:19 agree? Yes, yeah. It was much more widespread over racism within society. Would you also agree? Within society, yes. And in terms of racial diversity in the Met when you joined, also less diverse
01:55:32 Met when you joined, also less diverse than today, wasn't it? It was, yeah. Do you recall when you were a uniformed officer ever hearing or seeing anyone doing anything racist?
01:55:44 racist? Officers, that is. Well, by the standards of now or by the standards of the time? Well, the standards of racism being racism.
01:55:54 Actually, I don't. It's I'd also like to say that there's a lot
01:55:58 lot of myth about the 1970s policing, that every particularly in the in the in the police and in the Met, that it was all like a big boys club. It really wasn't. And the people
01:56:10 And the people people did beat There were instances that were people acting badly, but it wasn't universal and it wasn't universally accepted. And I would defend the police of that time. Um
01:56:20 Um Um would Did you have the same experience when in terms of racism when you joined Special Branch in 1991? No.
01:56:28 No. No.
01:56:31 Did you ever Did you ever witness or hear any racist comments or actions while you were in Special Branch? No.
01:56:39 There were colored officers in Special Branch. We We dealt with We dealt with, you know, we dealt with each other. We engaged with each other. I don't remember anyone being
01:56:48 being I mean, if Could you give me an example of what you what a low example of what you consider to be racism and I could work on that. I was saying we want to get an understanding of what your understanding was about racism at the time.
01:56:59 was about racism at the time. No.
01:57:00 No. I never heard anyone referred to defamatory in way or any women referred to that way. Um
01:57:07 Um Do you ever aware aware while you're in special branch of anyone making a complaint about racism? Not that I was aware perhaps someone did but I I didn't I wasn't aware of it. And when you were on E squad, do you
01:57:19 And when you were on E squad, do you ever recall it being referred to the black and brown desk? No.
01:57:27 Cuz it wasn't. It wasn't a black and brown desk if you're going to put it in those terms. We we we monitored other countries too which weren't which were white so it would have been a stupid
01:57:38 stupid um
01:57:39 um comment.
01:57:40 comment. Do you recall when you were acting on the E squad of any um Islamophobia from officers?
01:57:46 officers? No.
01:57:48 No. Any racial stereotyping?
01:57:53 Could you expand on on what you mean? What do you understand to mean by that? That um
01:57:59 That um people are being treated in a negative way simply because they come from a particular part of the world. Did you have an experience of that? No.
01:58:08 No. And again when you reached the SDS in uh March 2003, did you ever recall hearing anything racist saying anything racist on your time there? No.
01:58:18 No. How likely do you think you are to remember
01:58:22 remember any racist comments? Well, if a comment went past me and I didn't get notice it then I wouldn't remember. If it was something that was significantly racially defamatory then I would remember it but I don't remember
01:58:33 would remember it but I don't remember it.
01:58:34 it. During your time in the SDS, did you ever hear any derogatory or racist comments about the Stephen Lawrence campaign, the Lawrence family, or Dwayne Brooks from current officers or any reference to previous SDS officers?
01:58:47 reference to previous SDS officers? Any any defamatory comments about them? Uh yeah, derogatory or racist comments about them. No.
01:58:55 Um You recall that you undertaking racial awareness course when you're in Special Branch, is that right? I believe there was one, yes. Uh but no refresher course when you were
01:59:06 Uh but no refresher course when you were in the SDS. No.
01:59:08 No. [clears throat] Do you think you were well equipped to spot racism whilst you were in the SDS?
01:59:18 Once again, it depends on If if you if if you're applying the the standards of day, then probably not. But
01:59:25 But at the time I thought I was. And and you think you had a good understanding, for example, of conscious and subconscious racism? No, because that's a term that really wasn't employed at that time.
01:59:36 wasn't employed at that time. Direct and indirect discrimination? Once again, it was a term that was as far as I was aware wasn't a term that was used at that time. What about your understanding of Islamophobia at the time? I don't think actually it was a
01:59:48 I don't think actually it was a an expression at the time. Um
01:59:51 Um but
01:59:52 but it [laughter] wasn't something that people did. Um It wasn't an issue. There was an issue with extreme Islam. I'm not denying that, but people didn't
02:00:03 I'm not denying that, but people didn't go around being racially defamatory or religiously defamatory against Islam. It was an area of work that we had so some of us had to engage with. Uh
02:00:12 Uh looking back briefly on your time in E Squad.
02:00:15 Squad. Um
02:00:17 Um I don't want to hear any specifics about individuals or groups at this stage. Um
02:00:23 Um but it's right, isn't it, that when you were on in E Squad you undertook work relating to international matters and organizations relating to Jordan, Israel, and the Middle East, is that right?
02:00:34 Middle East, is that right? Um
02:00:35 Um and you spent a considerable amount of time, as we've discussed, looking at religious extremism and the risk of suicide bombings. Yes or no? Yes. [clears throat] Yes, absolutely yes.
02:00:44 yes. Uh and looking at the strategic picture behind that, for example, you had 9/11 happened, didn't you, at the whilst you were on E Squad, about 18 months before you joined the SDS.
02:00:55 you joined the SDS. You then had the Second Gulf War. I think that was probably just after you joined the SDS. Does that sound about right?
02:01:01 right? Second Gulf. Um yes, I think it was, yes.
02:01:04 yes. Uh and also um going on was the Second Intifada starting in about 2000, involving significant violence, wasn't that between Palestine and Israel? Yeah.
02:01:12 Yeah. While you're in E Squad. Um
02:01:16 Um So, you really were in the hot seat, weren't you, when you were in E Squad in terms of these kind of issues? Yes.
02:01:23 Uh could we bring up your witness statement, please, at paragraph 16, tab A1, 0749294? Uh and you explain here that you
02:01:34 Uh and you explain here that you undertook risk assessments for demonstrations by [clears throat] the Palestinian Solidarity Solidarity Campaign and and associated groups. Do you recall that? I remember that, yes.
02:01:56 So, you please have a read at paragraph 16.
02:02:18 And it goes over to the next page. So, when you're you're done with that, please um say.
02:02:27 Is it possible to get the whole um paragraph up on on screen? From the next page as well.
02:02:37 Don't worry if not.
02:02:58 [clears throat]
02:03:06 Thank you.
02:03:34 Yes, it's para paragraph 16. Just that 16, thank you. So, when describing these demonstrations, you recall them to be generally peaceful. Yes.
02:03:43 Yes. Yeah.
02:03:44 Yeah. So, no no public disorder from your memory.
02:03:49 memory. The
02:03:50 The occasionally, very occasionally, there may there may have been people warned or perhaps even some people arrested for minor offenses, but in most cases they they passed off peacefully. And do you recall if there was a wide range of different people attending
02:04:01 range of different people attending these demonstrations, ethnicities, um
02:04:07 um socialists, trade unionists, different [snorts] Muslims, non-Muslims, different religions, do you recall that? Yeah,
02:04:13 Yeah, it wasn't only it wasn't only Palestinians or people from that region. Yeah, it was it was it was a number of what you if you would refer to them as white people, white people attended
02:04:24 attended from different interest groups, and some of them were just interested in in the cause. [clears throat] Yeah.
02:04:29 Yeah. So, if we just read here, the night before the demonstration, Israel conducted military activity against the Palestinians provoking considerable outrage in the Palestinian Muslim community. As a result, a few thousand
02:04:41 community. As a result, a few thousand people turned out to support the demonstration, many of whom were in a heightened emotional state. I was tasked to attend the demonstration. I recall that one Asian man, in his early 20s, climbed onto either a car or a low wall
02:04:53 climbed onto either a car or a low wall and was actively exciting the crowd in a language I did not understand. I saw that he was dressed as a shaheed, wearing a suicide bomber's tunic. It was clear to me that the Palestinian cause is attracting an increasing number of
02:05:04 is attracting an increasing number of aggressive and potentially dangerous activists. Can you explain what you mean by suicide bomber's tunic? A shaheed [laughter] is um is like my understanding of it is is actually a
02:05:16 understanding of it is is actually a candidate for being a suicide bomber, and they wear, prior to their action, um a a tunic that contains uh it's webbing. The ones that I've seen
02:05:27 it's webbing. The ones that I've seen have been webbing that contain pouches um
02:05:31 um and
02:05:32 and often um some sort of pouch that that has a an electrical device to ignite it. So, in terms [snorts] of this uh person, when you say he was wearing a suicide
02:05:43 when you say he was wearing a suicide bomber's tunic, was it a vest with pockets in it, or are you saying it had wires and fake bombs in it? No, I'm saying it it was a it was it wasn't just um
02:05:55 wasn't just um webbing, it was something more than that, but it didn't that that I could see, cuz it was from a distance away, um
02:06:02 um any wires or anything like that, but it was
02:06:05 was um
02:06:07 um representative of a shaheed's tunic. Um I just want to understand um why you understood that. So, you couldn't see any wires. It was a a vest
02:06:18 couldn't see any wires. It was a a vest It was similar to the ones that I'd seen. Imagine Well, do you know what suicide bombers what what a shaheed's tunic looks like in these circumstances? That's what I'm asking you as to this particular activist. What does it look like?
02:06:27 like? I've seen, but without the without the pouches full of things and without without without the um pouch for electronic device. But the actual tunic is like military webbing without the equipment.
02:06:38 equipment. Right. So, there were no fake bombs or anything on it. It was know, cuz I think if he had have done, he might have been arrested for um some offense, probably. So, what why did that suggest to you then he was trying to look like a
02:06:49 then he was trying to look like a shaheed and wasn't wearing a jacket which had pockets in it? That's how he was dressed, and that's I I think it was part of an image to um
02:07:00 I I think it was part of an image to um create excitement in the crowd. Because there have been suicide bombings in the region, and he was wearing something representative of that. [clears throat] And looking at exciting um the crowd, that you say in a language
02:07:13 the crowd, that you say in a language you don't understand, um couldn't he have been um
02:07:19 um involving himself in just legitimate protest in um his objections to what was going on, rather than anything sinister? Absolutely. I've seen um
02:07:30 Absolutely. I've seen um No, I won't say. Um
02:07:35 I couldn't understand what he was saying, but from he was acting in the site in the very excited way, and the way as I remember that, I do have a vivid vivid memory of it, the way he was exciting the crowd
02:07:49 was worrying to me. But why was that when you couldn't understand what he was saying? He could have exercising his legitimate right to protest in anger of whatever it was he was protesting against. was he was wearing a tunic, which is
02:08:01 was he was wearing a tunic, which is um similar to, as I said, a suicide bomber's tunic. He was at at an event which had become all the more um full of angst because of what had
02:08:12 full of angst because of what had happened you could say hours previously. He was
02:08:17 He was shouting in an excited way. I couldn't understand what he was saying, but I don't think he was giving out the cricket scores. And [snorts] in terms of what you've written here, you you've identified him as Asian. Are there any particular reason why you've identified him as
02:08:30 reason why you've identified him as Asian here? He could have been Asian, he could have been Arab, to be honest. Why did you think it was important to record that here? Because that was his description. Do you think in assessing this
02:08:42 Do you think in assessing this demonstration that the color of his skin has a has [clears throat] impacted on your assessment of what was going on? No, I don't because you can get it was possible to get um
02:08:56 British white English suicide bombers, but this was one that happened to look like that. If he had been white, I would have said a white man doing the same thing. Um if we could have that MPS
02:09:08 Um if we could have that MPS 0729811,
02:09:12 it's not in um your bundle. It may be that you haven't seen this document before.
02:09:17 before. So, we're moving back now to your time in the SDS as Robert Hastings um cover officer. And I'm going to ask you a little bit about his targeting and some of the incidents you dealt
02:09:28 and some of the incidents you dealt with.
02:09:30 with. So, this is a report. I don't know if you want to have a read of it and see if you recall um
02:09:35 um seeking authority for Robert Hastings to be temporarily relocated from his home address because his family had been racially harassed by local youths. Uh it's a move that ultimately didn't
02:09:46 Uh it's a move that ultimately didn't take up. Does this uh do you recall this?
02:09:51 I don't really recall it, no. No, I don't recall it. And I don't remember writing it. But I've seen the copy of the original um today and it is my signature. It is your signature. So, do you accept therefore that you wrote this?
02:10:04 therefore that you wrote this? It may have I accept that I saw it and I accept that I signed it. It may have been someone might have just prepared it for me because it was the use of a word there that I wouldn't use and I've never used. I don't know what it means. But Dean, I
02:10:16 I don't know what it means. But Dean, I think Dean cuz I saw this last week. And so, you have seen this document I have seen this document before the last [clears throat] week for the first time, but um um Well, not for the first time cuz I've signed it, but the I have no particular
02:10:28 signed it, but the I have no particular memory of it. Um but you're not sure if you wrote it. Do you think it's likely given that you're his cover officer and you're the one signing it?
02:10:39 I don't remember writing it. I don't remember signing it, but I do I don't dispute the fact I did sign it. But it may have been prepared it might something else might have been going on someone else might have written it and and signed [clears throat] it I've got
02:10:50 and signed [clears throat] it I've got that and I signed it. But in general in your career as a police officer, would you go about signing documents you hadn't read, reviewed, and agreed with? Not not blind and I might I would have
02:11:01 Not not blind and I might I would have read it before I signed it, but I've got no recollection of it. But it as it didn't have anything to do with um
02:11:08 um it was more of a welfare issue and I was his cover officer. Someone might have just been helping out while I was doing something else. I don't see it as a don't read anything sinister into that because there wasn't anything sinister into it.
02:11:19 into it. So if we um look at it it's um that you can see there in paragraph two explains that Robert Hastings' partner is of Afro-Caribbean origin and they're experiencing some racial harassment from local youth. If
02:11:31 racial harassment from local youth. If we look at page two, see the penultimate paragraph,
02:11:39 and you can see here as previously mentioned the officer has lived at the address for 9 years. This present discord appears to be mainly racially motivated and in part justified by a desire for retaliation against members
02:11:50 desire for retaliation against members of the black community as a result of the bombings in London on the 7th of July. [clears throat] Do you recall reading that? I don't recall reading it. No, I must have I'm sure I did read it, but I don't
02:12:01 have I'm sure I did read it, but I don't recall reading it. And there's no way you would have made that link. To explain what I'm getting at, what Robert Hastings has said about this document was that the bombings in London
02:12:15 document was that the bombings in London on the 7th had nothing to do with the reason they were being harassed in in his evidence would it was that's iron nonsense
02:12:22 nonsense [clears throat] and it was to do with the fact semi racial harassment and also the fact he was a police officer. So my question to you is why did you prove a document with that in there?
02:12:34 with that in there? I must have made a mistake. But why would it have been put in there at all? Why would that link have been made?
02:12:39 made? Well, perhaps at the time it was thought to be a genuine reason. But as um Mr. Hastings has explained he said it was iron nonsense had nothing to do with it. Did you think that
02:12:51 do with it. Did you think that that's in there because you made that link in writing this document? Well, I'm not I'm not sure that I wrote it. I I do accept that I would I I signed it. Um
02:13:02 Um but
02:13:04 but it was it was there was no sinister intent to put it in. And I don't know why it's there but um if if it and it might have been at the time
02:13:13 time that
02:13:15 that that was thought to be the case. They wouldn't have just put it in to pad it out.
02:13:19 out. So you think somebody else might have written that and made that link? Possibly, I don't know. Do you accept that the suggestion is erroneous speculation? Given what Mr. Hastings said about
02:13:30 Given what Mr. Hastings said about No, because because because we had no reason to speculate. We had no reason to to to do that. At the time it was written if it turns out to be incorrect then I'm sorry it turned out to be incorrect but at the
02:13:41 turned out to be incorrect but at the time it was put in there quite genuinely and that happens. Things happen and they turn out to be incorrect but the time it is done is done with the best of intent.
02:13:53 is done is done with the best of intent. Do you think in approving this document that you accepted that as a reason because your background in E Squad and perceptions you may have obtained
02:14:05 has unduly influence influence your perception of events when you were on the SDF?
02:14:15 I'm not sure.
02:14:18 I want to turn to Robert Hastings tasking into the international solidarity movement. Um
02:14:27 Um do you recall that group from your time working in E-Squad?
02:14:33 There were There were so many groups that I don't particularly remember that one.
02:14:49 And [snorts] do you recall that I think in fact in your Operation Herne witness statement, again I don't think we need to get up but please if you do
02:14:59 you do um
02:15:00 um you say Islamic fundamentalism was an issue and we were keen to assist in frustrating activity from that quarter. Is that accurate in terms of what you said?
02:15:10 said? Yeah, that was Yeah.
02:15:14 And was that largely because of events such as September 11th and others?
02:15:20 others? Yes, and the way things appear to be going.
02:15:22 going. And do you recall that um Robert Hastings initially had a verbal tasking
02:15:28 tasking which was for him to be floating between target groups in order to obtain intelligence in regard to Palestine or Israel-related issues and any potential extremism. Do you recall that?
02:15:39 extremism. Do you recall that? I don't remember a verbal tasking but it might have happened. But do you recall the content of the tasking that that's what it was for? I don't I don't I don't recall it but I don't think it's um impossible that it wasn't it wasn't
02:15:50 um impossible that it wasn't it wasn't discussed. So what he says and again we can bring it up if you need to but I don't think we do at paragraph 68.3 of his witness statement
02:15:59 statement he says I recall that I was to float and use any new connections in order to springboard and obtain any intelligence in relation to ISM specifically regarding individuals or groups who might be of concern to Islamic
02:16:10 might be of concern to Islamic terrorism. Does that sound [clears throat] about right in terms of his task?
02:16:12 his task? fair, yeah. And now you say at paragraph 283 of your witness statement that you had no determinative role on targeting, which was the DCI's responsibility.
02:16:23 was the DCI's responsibility. But given your background in E Squad, do you recall having at any influence over Robert Hastings' targeting and the reasons for it? It would have to be officially
02:16:34 It would have to be officially sanctioned, then it would have to have gone through the DCI. Um
02:16:39 Um I may have been asked my opinion. And if if that was the case, I may have um
02:16:44 um suggested certain areas.
02:16:49 And do you recall that you processed, because you were his cover officer, at least the majority of his intelligence? Do you [snorts and clears throat] Do you think that's right? I processed some of it. I don't know what I don't know how productive he was at that time. He was just cuz he was
02:17:00 at that time. He was just cuz he was just going out, so And in terms of the activities of the International Solidarity Movement, do you recall that they were supportive of the Palestinian people in their homes and were focused on Palestinian rights?
02:17:12 and were focused on Palestinian rights? Does that Does that accord with your recollection? As I said, there were so many groups. I I can imagine they may have well may well have been, but I don't remember them particularly as as a group. But there were
02:17:23 there were many many groups. Some came up and sprung up and died very quickly. Others kept going. But in terms of Robert Hastings' targeting and which group he went into, do you recall that particular group?
02:17:35 do you recall that particular group? Not specifically 23 years later, no. Could we please have out MPS.006.4457,
02:17:43 which is at B104 of the bundle.
02:17:56 Um this is a review authorization for Robert Hastings that stated the 6th of December 2005. Well, that's what the inquiry has dated it. So, at this stage I think he's been in the field about 15
02:18:09 I think he's been in the field about 15 months. If you go to very briefly page four.
02:18:19 Can you see there a name? It's got your name in it. Yeah.
02:18:24 Yeah. Um
02:18:25 Um and I don't know if you want Do you recall um
02:18:28 recall um writing this document? No, I don't. If you could go back to page two, please. Paragraph one. I may well have written it, but I don't recall it. Do you think it's likely again because you were
02:18:37 you were It's It's possible. Yeah.
02:18:40 So, page two, paragraph one. [sighs and gasps] Here we go. So, you have here the criteria for Commonwealth deployment
02:18:52 the criteria for Commonwealth deployment continues to be met as the Palestinian issue remains a political issue and an emotive subject for those seeking to advance Islamic militancy. The consequences for the NPS is that either dedicated support groups or
02:19:03 either dedicated support groups or elements from the left-wing protest in a manner which could have direct consequences for public order in London and other parts uh of the UK.
02:19:15 and other parts uh of the UK. I can carry on read that. Commonwealth has infiltrated uh to ISM a point where he is able to state who are the leading figures within the organization, methods of recruitment, of recruiting
02:19:26 of recruitment, of recruiting supporters, um
02:19:30 um of the group, pass on to his room and what is expected of them once there. Any leading personalities within the ISM would known to be known to Commonwealth. Does Does this ring any bells to you?
02:19:42 No. I don't remember that paragraph um specifically, but it seemed it seems fair.
02:19:50 fair. If we could just go briefly to paragraph five.
02:20:02 Um common law has been able to provide intelligence on the ISM organization that today has been extremely active in drawing attention to the plight of the Palestinians to the world. Laudable as that may be, the actions of the group are such that they could attract
02:20:13 are such that they could attract individuals that could subvert legitimate process and use the organization as a conduit for their own illicit ambitions or dupe innocent members of the organization facilitating facilitating acts of
02:20:24 facilitating acts of terrorism. Again, do you recall that you it's noted here that there was a concern about the potential actions of others, not ISM itself.
02:20:33 itself. Is that an accurate interpretation? But it would include it could include others, yeah. Uh
02:20:40 Uh from your recollection and experience that you have pro processing Robert Hastings intelligence during those that time you supervised him. Do you recall any evidence of
02:20:51 him. Do you recall any evidence of Islamic terrorism through ISM I can't remember now. Uh uh
02:20:58 Uh uh if there was any link to Islamic militancy or extremism, do you agree it's likely that you would have remembered? No, I don't because I I I've dealt with um
02:21:09 I've dealt with um in various roles with a lot of intelligence concerning terrorism and other important issues such as espionage for a number of years. So, to say that I'll remember that I may have done I may not. Sometimes you
02:21:22 I may have done I may not. Sometimes you you remember the most strange and obscure things. Others they just becomes um it goes it goes into the general bit of your mind. And so, I don't have a
02:21:33 bit of your mind. And so, I don't have a specific memory of that. I think it's fair to it was written. But um
02:21:38 But um I think what you're saying is I I can't remember it. I really can't. It may have been it may have been that, but um [clears throat] I I can't say yes, I remember that.
02:21:50 I I can't say yes, I remember that. Um let's have a look at a a of the reports again, a flavor of what the types of things that the ISM were doing. Um, can we briefly have a MPS0039660?
02:22:02 Again, not in the bundle and I'm afraid it may be that you've not seen these documents. Um,
02:22:11 Uh, so this is a report dated, you can see at the top, the 17th of November 2004.
02:22:18 2004. And you can see here title subject ISM Rampart Street door entry code. And then the main body, the door access code for the Rampart Street center,
02:22:29 the Rampart Street center, and then used for ISM training weekend over the 13th to the 14th of November 2004.
02:22:35 2004. So this appears to be a the first report on ISM. Do you recall that that's the type of thing they were doing, training sessions?
02:22:43 sessions? No, I don't remember. You don't recall what they would have been doing? of groups
02:22:46 of groups did training sessions, so I'm not surprised that that it's in there, but Sorry, but many other groups do training sessions.
02:22:52 sessions. Do you recall um, writing this formal report up from Robert Hastings? No.
02:22:59 No. Uh, if we could have a MPS004130s,
02:23:03 please. Uh, and I think probably all these documents you haven't seen.
02:23:24 [snorts] So here we have a [clears throat] intelligence report 21st of February 2005.
02:23:30 2005. You see it's about privacy and ISM supporter considering a fundraising event for the 18th of March. And then you can see here the description of the organizing of the fund raising event in North London.
02:23:42 North London. Do you have any recollection of this, whether you wrote this report? No.
02:23:45 No. But again, an indicative of the types of things that ISM were doing was fundraising. I don't, as I said, specifically remember the ISM. Mhm.
02:23:53 Mhm. So, lots of groups do that. And if if you say that's what that's what the report says, that's what it says. Um but, I don't specifically remember if that was the ISM. I don't dispute it,
02:24:04 that was the ISM. I don't dispute it, but I don't specifically remember it. Can we please have that MPS0042118?
02:24:19 So, you can hear again a report the 12th of April, 2005. ISM activist claims to have been in contact with extremists. ISM activist privacy has recently stated that she had met Asif Mohammad Hanif and
02:24:32 that she had met Asif Mohammad Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif while in Palestine with the ISM in 2003. Does this ring any bells? No.
02:24:40 No. Don't recall whether you wrote this report or not. Yep.
02:24:44 Yep. Do you think it's likely 21 years ago, I may well have written it. But, I but I wrote or compiled
02:24:52 hundreds, as the others did, if not thousands of reports. And to say that something you wrote 21 years ago it it it it would be amazing, I think, if I did.
02:25:04 if I did. Looking at this report, this is a meeting which was 2 years before this report. And we know that the the one was a suicide bomb, the other an attempted suicide bomber in an incident that took
02:25:15 suicide bomber in an incident that took place in Tel Aviv. So, in relation to that, if I could bring up UCPI39734,
02:25:22 which is a BBC news article about it on the 5th of May, 2003.
02:25:40 So, this is a newspaper article that's contemp- contemporaneous to the incident. Mhm.
02:25:46 Mhm. [clears throat] And you can see in paragraph one, the heading "Two Britons accused of a Tel Aviv suicide bombing were allegedly seen visiting a Gaza apartment belonging to a pro-Palestinian group 5 days before the
02:25:58 pro-Palestinian group 5 days before the attack."
02:25:59 attack." And then paragraph two, "Raf- Raphael Cohen, an activist for the International Solidarity Movement, which carries out what is called non-violent direct action against the
02:26:10 non-violent direct action against the Israeli of Gaza and the West Bank, said he spoke to the pair on the 20- 5th of April for 15 minutes."
02:26:20 You go down to paragraph nine, so about three paragraphs under flower tribute. Says Mr. Cohen confirmed he met the men who was given a cup of tea at the ISM office.
02:26:30 office. And then,
02:26:31 And then, um,
02:26:33 um, he says, "I did meet them. I did say, 'Who are you? What organization do you belong to?' They said they did not belong to any organization, but I did not form any impression of them. And
02:26:45 not form any impression of them. And then they went to lay flowers at a nearby site where an activist was killed, and that was the activist Rachel Corrie,
02:26:52 Corrie, who was killed a few months earlier. And it was later they went on to undertake this act of terrorism a few days later. Do you recall any of this?" No. I I I
02:27:04 No. I I I vaguely remember Rachel Corrie being in the news,
02:27:08 the news, um,
02:27:09 um, but I don't remember I don't remember that specifically, no. Mhm. So you can see in this article the ISM activist is very open about his involvement with the two men. There's no and there's no connection with ISM save
02:27:21 and there's no connection with ISM save for a cup of tea and laying flowers at Rachel Corrie. Do you Do you see that? I see it's written there, yeah. So when Robert Haston reported this information to the office in 2005 in the
02:27:33 information to the office in 2005 in the previous intelligence report, Mhm.
02:27:35 Mhm. did you ask him to do any further research on this? Do you remember that? He wouldn't If we'd have been another thing that [snorts] he would have assumed would have been um
02:27:46 um he would have picked up on the fact he's picked up on that already and if there'd been any more information he would have reported it. If we look at page two of this article
02:27:58 you can see at the penultimate paragraph the British investigation involved MI5, MI6, Scotland Yard and the terrorism branch,
02:28:07 agencies. So it'd be fair to you to assume wouldn't it that when Robert Heaton reports this meeting to you in 2005 that MI5, MI6 would have investigated it
02:28:20 that MI5, MI6 would have investigated it at the time and that would have been fair to assume wouldn't it? No, I'm not going to assume that. They would have been receiving all kinds of intelligence reports and possibly the ones that that one that I've been have been submitted. As to whether or not
02:28:32 been submitted. As to whether or not they investigated and who investigated it you'd have to speak to them. It's just as a purely as a concept I mean it's it's in a BBC article I could have researched yourself and found out that point. I'm not going to discuss
02:28:45 I'm not going to discuss the
02:28:46 the BBC news articles. That information would have been distributed and I'm sure that those agencies
02:28:54 agencies would have received it. How they acted upon it would be a matter for them. My point is when you receive the information from Robert Heaton about this meeting in 2005 two years after the incident what is
02:29:06 incident what is uh that there's nothing is there for the SDS
02:29:10 SDS could add to intelligence about this and the meeting with an ISM activist two years later is it? I don't know because you don't know with intelligence reports you don't know
02:29:21 with intelligence reports you don't know if it's part of a greater thing. So to say oh well that happened two years ago we can forget that then isn't necessarily the case. There's been lots of instances of intelligence coming in later that then becomes a missing
02:29:33 later that then becomes a missing point part of a jigsaw. So, I'm not going to speculate on that. If we can go to MPS0065297.
02:29:46 This here is a document which appears to be a brief analysis of the ISM and the key query of dated it 13th of March 2006. So, just just before you're about to leave.
02:29:57 about to leave. Yeah.
02:29:58 Yeah. Um again, you probably haven't seen this document. Does this uh look like something that you recall from the time that you may have written or whether
02:30:14 I can't remember writing it, but if I'm
02:30:21 Possibly. I don't I don't know. Um if we could go to the bottom of page three, please.
02:30:31 Just
02:30:35 Very briefly, it says here, "Despite these efforts and the accompanying media attention, ISM remains [snorts]
02:30:40 [snorts] a small group with a core membership of no more than 12 to 15 people. This small group comes to the heart of the ISM and it is built largely around three key members of the group, Charlotte Carson, Privacy and Raphael
02:30:53 Charlotte Carson, Privacy and Raphael Cohen. Do you again recall who the key members were? No.
02:30:59 No. You see later on in this paragraph it says
02:31:01 says said, I
02:31:02 said, I I don't particularly remember the group. So, why would I remember key members of a group I can't remember? Do you recall what Arthur Charing's involvement with the group was? No.
02:31:15 If we could please send to page five, paragraph four.
02:31:28 So, you can see here, this concern relates to infiltration is based on the recognition that Israel remains staunchly opposed to the role undertaken by the ISM within the occupied territories. The group is keen to refute
02:31:39 territories. The group is keen to refute accusations of being a supporter of terrorist activity, but does recognize that public perception of the group within the UK and Israel in particular may have been influenced by the apparent revelation that two recent suicide
02:31:50 revelation that two recent suicide bombers had traveled to the region as members of the ISM.
02:31:57 Do you accept that this statement is false?
02:32:00 false? No, I don't know about that. You've seen the BBC news article. Yeah.
02:32:05 Yeah. And the explanation that they were suicide bombers and they met with an ISM activist. There's no suggestion that they are members of the ISM, is there? Not in that news article, but you know, but I don't necessarily use all my
02:32:17 but I don't necessarily use all my sources from BBC. If not false, do you also accept that's potentially at least misleading because there is no evidence that we've seen here
02:32:26 here I'll be corrected if I'm wrong in the intelligence report that was provided to you or the article that they were members.
02:32:33 members. I don't know whether there was other intelligence that I and you haven't seen, so I'm not going to comment on it.
02:32:42 Do these reports seek to provide justification for the reporting on ISM being linked to Islamic extremism? No, they they they report status of the ISM of how it was believed to be at the
02:32:54 ISM of how it was believed to be at the time.
02:32:55 time. And save for the reports relating to two suicide bombers, if it was suggested to you that there was no evidence of Islamic terrorism found by Robert Hastings, would you agree with that?
02:33:08 Hastings, would you agree with that? As far as I'm aware, there wasn't, but at the time we didn't know that. So with hindsight, it's easy to say, "Oh, if that's the case, then there's nothing there." But we didn't do it. We weren't
02:33:19 there." But we didn't do it. We weren't if we weren't we weren't we weren't swinging them for the fun of it.
02:33:25 Robert Hastings it did target that group for a considerable period of time certainly throughout the time you were there.
02:33:32 there. And [snorts] it's clear there was no link as you said that ISM had no interest in violence or terrorism as a group.
02:33:39 group. Did you associate the potential for ISM to be linked to others who were linked to Islamic militancy simply because ISM was interested in the rights of Palestinian people? No, absolutely not. Because there were
02:33:51 No, absolutely not. Because there were lots of groups that were doing that and we
02:33:54 we didn't monitor them all of them. It there has to be something more to it than that, something that that that excites the interest. So no, we weren't just picking on ISM out of the blue. Was the threat of ISM and any
02:34:06 Was the threat of ISM and any association it had with Islamic extremists and deliberately exaggerated to make SDS reporting relevant to SDS customers? Because you don't have to um
02:34:17 Because you don't have to um inflate the risk of Muslim extremism when you've got people getting blown up on trains in London.
02:34:25 If it was suggested to you that because of your background and E Squad you were highly sensitive to anything that you perceived would link a group or an individual to Islamic extremism and this
02:34:37 individual to Islamic extremism and this has unduly influenced how you've interpreted Robert Hastings reporting on ISM?
02:34:43 ISM? No, absolutely not. I was highly sensitive to it because it's my job and if you remember at that time there were numerous attacks there have been attacks since and it was my duty as as a
02:34:54 as a police officer in London to protect the country our allies and the people of London. And if that meant examining certain things then I was willing to do that. It wasn't done to be
02:35:05 willing to do that. It wasn't done to be unfairly or intrusive, it was done [clears throat] to protect the people of London.
02:35:10 London. Um
02:35:10 Um Right and the rest of the country. that you don't have much memory [clears throat] of Athar Shah I want to look at a few of the reports about Athar Chaudry, just to understand why some reporting
02:35:20 reporting [snorts]
02:35:20 [snorts] was submitted. If we could have a MPS 0041332.
02:35:25 Again, probably these documents are not ones you would have seen. [clears throat]
02:35:36 A report dated the 24th of March 2005 relating to ISM Charlotte Carson in contact with Atif Chaudry. The ISM activist Charlotte Carson
02:35:47 The ISM activist Charlotte Carson maintains contact with Atif Chaudry, a fellow ISM activist. She also is a keen supporter of Zaytoun, a Palestinian olive oil producing company that distributes in the UK.
02:35:59 distributes in the UK. Zaytoun is Mr. Chaudry's business that he had set up to import Palestinian goods including olive oil. What is reported here is that Atif Chaudry has a legitimate company
02:36:10 Chaudry has a legitimate company undertaking legitimate attitudes, nothing to do with public disorder or criminal enterprise. So, why why was it recorded in an intelligence report for special branch?
02:36:22 It was It showed an indication of what he was doing and at the time when that's written, you don't know that company is a legitimate company or is being used as a front company. So,
02:36:34 So, it was reported. If it subsequently transpires that it that isn't that is the case that it is legitimate, then okay, then it should come out. But at the time you receive information, you go on what the
02:36:45 receive information, you go on what the information says. I don't I didn't know Zaytoun as a company. It could It could exist. It might not exist. Someone I I would imagine if they were going to progress that, we'd research it.
02:36:56 that, we'd research it. But you don't know. In terms of Atif Chaudry, his evidence was that he was involved with ISM London.
02:37:04 London. But in 2004 started to concentrate on this business and effectively left ISM. So, that's in 2004. And he says he did some fundraising and some training, but in
02:37:17 fundraising and some training, but in essence peripheral. So, we have a report here in March 2005, well after him leaving the group. So, why, even if this was suspicious, why is it he being reported on
02:37:29 reported on for a group he's barely involved in? Well, because at that time we wouldn't have known that was the that was the situation. I didn't know that was the situation. So, um Robert Heaton did not tell you
02:37:40 So, um Robert Heaton did not tell you that Atif Chaundry had in fact left ISM. not have appreciated it either at that time fully. He might he might have known he wasn't there, but he didn't know people leave groups or or absent from groups and then come back. I think Robert Heaton's evidence was
02:37:51 I think Robert Heaton's evidence was that um in fact um paragraph 169.1 of his witness statement talked about being very close friends with Mr. Chaundry and knowing that he'd left. So, he was clearly aware. You're saying that he didn't tell you that.
02:38:03 didn't tell you that. I can't remember him telling me that and although he he he might have been a a confidant of his, then he was still if he still felt it was appropriate to report on him, then I'm just processing
02:38:15 report on him, then I'm just processing the information that he passed. Can we go to MP 0064199, please?
02:38:22 please? To get another intelligence report about Atif Chaundry's um what's described as antecedent details dated the 18th of October 2005.
02:38:33 Again, you've got a fairly detailed report here about Atif Chaundry and his family members, where they went to school, where they live, um where they work. Uh again,
02:38:46 Uh again, these are people not involved in ISM, nothing to do with the group. But
02:38:51 But why is this necessary to record such personal information about his family? I I don't know if I wrote that, but all I can think it was it wasn't done with any sinister intent. It was done
02:39:04 with any sinister intent. It was done with a view to providing information about someone who might become of significant interest later. If that If that ebbs away, then okay, then that should come out. But, at the time it was done with the best of intent. If the
02:39:15 done with the best of intent. If the mistake was made, then it was made, but it wasn't a malicious mistake. But, in terms of making a mistake, again, this is this is a man who has left the group and family members who aren't involved in it. And
02:39:26 members who aren't involved in it. And And I think in your statement, you talk about paragraph 201 of your witness statement, having an eye on whether UCO reporting was intruding on the privacy of individuals and that you would keep an eye on it. Is this not the kind of
02:39:37 an eye on it. Is this not the kind of information that you would want to make sure didn't enter intelligence reports? It depends on what the situation is at the time. So, um yes, you're right. We You You have to be aware of collateral intrusion, but
02:39:50 be aware of collateral intrusion, but it doesn't mean that occasionally it won't happen. It wasn't It is It's not done with with any, as I said, with any sinister intent. Sometimes mistakes like that happen.
02:40:00 happen. If you go to MPS 0065137.
02:40:14 A report of the 18th of February 2006, again, on Atif Chaudry. And it says here, "I saw Atif Chaudry went to Libya with his mother on Saturday, the 18th of February, for about 3 weeks. He was
02:40:25 February, for about 3 weeks. He was taken to the airport, believed to be that with
02:40:28 that with by his father in a small car. Um
02:40:35 we know from the previous report that his brother works at the Libyan Embassy. And Atif Chaudry's evidence is what this trip was about was to visit his brother and go to his nephew's birthday. Does
02:40:47 and go to his nephew's birthday. Does that
02:40:49 that Do you have any recollection of that? No.
02:40:51 No. Would there be any reason why that information [clears throat] have been left out deliberately by Mr. Hastings?
02:40:58 Hastings? I don't know whether it was left out deliberately. I think the the point it is that it's gone to Libya. Would that have been a concern for you, [clears throat] going to Libya?
02:41:11 This was prior to the collapse of Libya. And
02:41:16 And potentially anyone that went there possibly could be it could become a point of interest later.
02:41:25 later. So, the fact of him uh brother working at the Libyan Embassy and uh
02:41:32 Libyan Embassy and this being effectively a holiday being left out uh
02:41:38 uh looks like it's more sinister than it is, doesn't it? No, it doesn't. That's what happens. No, it doesn't. It doesn't. It is a fact that he went to he went to Libya um with his mother. There's there's no there's no sinister
02:41:49 There's there's no there's no sinister intent there. We're not trying to not trying to make anything more substantial than it was. It These reports, we didn't research these reports in the sense of we took we progressed them. They went to a bigger intelligence pool. And sorry.
02:42:03 a bigger intelligence pool. And sorry. They went
02:42:03 They went They went to a bigger intelligence pool who would deal with it as they saw fit. We just provided the intelligence. If it was considered once it had seen by the appropriate desk officer that that was
02:42:14 appropriate desk officer that that was of no consequence, then that would be of no consequence. But, they could they couldn't decide that unless they'd seen it.
02:42:20 it. Is the reason that Abu Taha Jaber was in fact reported on so much because he was the only Asian person and uh of [laughter] and or of Muslim background who was actively involved in ISM London when
02:42:33 actively involved in ISM London when Robert Hastings joined it? No.
02:42:35 No. Uh and that raised the suspicion in you that he might be linked to Islamic extremism. No.
02:42:43 No. Would you recognize that repeated reports about an innocent British Asian man with a Muslim background with no links to Islamic fundamentalism is illustrative of institutionalized
02:42:54 illustrative of institutionalized racism?
02:42:54 racism? No, I wouldn't.
02:42:57 Would you accept at least that this was unfavorable treatment of Atif Chaudry? No, it was it we were we were he was reporting to prepare
02:43:06 prepare say they say Hastings was preparing reports in in good faith. It wasn't if it had been let's suppose it would have been a white English person then that's what would the report would have said. It wasn't it just so happened that was
02:43:17 It wasn't it just so happened that was the circumstance. It wasn't that he was picked out or singled out or there were others there that he ignored. I want to move [snorts] on to look at um the accuracy
02:43:28 the accuracy uh of um
02:43:29 uh of um reporting
02:43:31 reporting and how important um that was.
02:43:38 Did you consider that reporting from the UCOs that it was essential um to be um accurate?
02:43:47 accurate? As accurate as they could be. What does that mean? Well, sometimes you might they might they might come across something report it in good faith and it doesn't turn to be accurate or doesn't turn out to be as
02:43:58 be accurate or doesn't turn out to be as significant as it first appeared. It's a it's it's easy 20 years later to turn around and say that was completely inaccurate. At the time we went with what we had. Did you ever ask a UCO to fact-check
02:44:11 Did you ever ask a UCO to fact-check something because you were unsure about its accuracy? A UCO in general you mean? Yeah.
02:44:18 Yeah. Possibly. I can't remember.
02:44:27 Could we please have a MPS 0749294?
02:44:47 Uh apologies, that is uh yes, sorry. This is um can we go to paragraph 23, page 10?
02:45:02 So, if you have a read of that, do you recall this? The um incident that you submitted a good work report for HM118 about a stunt to run at uh Ariel
02:45:15 about a stunt to run at uh Ariel Sharon's car. Do you recall that? I do remember that. Um
02:45:22 Um and you recall there that you were the duty officer that received that call from HM118. Yes.
02:45:32 But, being careful about any individual's privacy, what do you recall HM118 telling you um on that call about this incident?
02:45:44 um on that call about this incident? That um a member of the group that he was um
02:45:48 was um involved with had discussed
02:45:53 discussed as I as I remember, discussed um
02:45:59 get getting over the public order barriers
02:46:01 barriers at I think it was Whitehall during Mr. Sharon's visit um to the UK and and running at the at the his car. Something along that line.
02:46:15 So, [snorts] he told you there was a member of a group that So, a member of his group had discussed uh or getting over Did you say getting over the barriers at Whitehall and running at penetrating whatever you want to phrase
02:46:26 penetrating whatever you want to phrase it.
02:46:27 it. his car. That's You recall that is what HM118 said. [clears throat] As as far as I can remember, yeah, from 2005.
02:46:33 2005. if he said anything else? And I think it was with the intention of Well, as it says here, with the intention of causing a government and it and it could be I think it was something along the in
02:46:45 I think it was something along the in the line of [snorts]
02:46:46 [snorts] to to appear like it might have been possibly a suicide bomber, possibly.
02:46:52 Possibly. What was your immediate reaction to what H118 had told you? I was concerned that um I know that um Mr. Shrubsole is either either here then or coming here
02:47:04 then or coming here and that um it would be a matter for of importance that that that information went in quickly and for the information of the um uh
02:47:14 uh beautiful officer in charge of the leasing of that part. How seriously did you take it at the time?
02:47:22 time? I took it very seriously.
02:47:27 Do you recall in terms of the timing of the call
02:47:30 the call and its proximity to the event and the proposed stunts? Was it When you say the timing of the call, the timing of the call to me So to you, so you get the call, was that for the event the following day? Do you
02:47:41 for the event the following day? Do you remember?
02:47:42 remember? I think it was I think it was either e- or even that day. At midnight or around midnight cuz I remember I was in bed and I got up and spoke to him and I can't remember if it was before midnight or over over the midnight
02:47:53 midnight or over over the midnight period.
02:47:55 period. that that's the time of the call? Yes.
02:47:57 Yes. In terms of the event, was it about was it Do you recall if it was the day after, a few days after? Do you remember?
02:48:01 remember? think it I think it might have been in the afternoon that the next day or it might have been a few days after, but it was it was soon anyway. Uh and you were taking notes you took it uh extremely seriously from what you
02:48:13 uh extremely seriously from what you were told and that you needed to act upon it immediately. Yeah.
02:48:16 Yeah. Uh so um again being careful of anonymity, did you tell the DCI and the DI?
02:48:22 DI? [sighs and gasps] I can't remember whether I phoned them immediately, but um I remember going in I think I went in early to our office to get the report written up and I made sure
02:48:32 sure I'm sure that I made them made made made them aware early and to get it over to get the report over to Scotland Yard in order that they could distribute it to the parties. So that was the next day? It was earlier the next day.
02:48:47 Do you recall if HN 118 told you during that call if the activist had already been talked out of the plan?
02:48:59 the plan? I can't remember. Um
02:49:03 I think he might he may have he may have indicated that um it
02:49:09 it that that he and possibly others might have talked talked out this person out of it, but he was unsure whether he might still might go ahead and do it anyway.
02:49:21 Um please do not say any of the names out loud out loud for privacy reasons, but do you recall um HN 118 stating the name of the activist on the phone?
02:49:32 activist on the phone? He may have done, but I don't remember it.
02:49:34 it. Uh
02:49:36 Uh you don't remember if he said it on the phone or not? I can't remember now. He might have done, but I can't I don't remember now. again, do not say it out loud, but do you remember what that name was? No.
02:49:49 Do you recall HN 118 ever equivocated equivocating or hesitating about the identity of the person who was responsible for the plan?
02:50:00 I don't I don't believe he did. I I believe he said it was a person. Um and he and he didn't he mention that individual by name as I recall. If if if I'm wrong in that, then I'm wrong.
02:50:11 I'm wrong in that, then I'm wrong. But certainly that was the plan by that person or or or somebody to go and do that.
02:50:17 that. Potentially to go and do that.
02:50:24 [clears throat] Have you seen any of Guy Taylor's evidence or Noel Douglas Noel Douglas's evidence? In relation to the in this inquiry? No.
02:50:35 Have you seen anybody's evidence in this inquiry?
02:50:37 inquiry? No. What you mean from the interested parties?
02:50:40 parties? Yeah.
02:50:40 Yeah. No.
02:50:42 No. Did you watch one HM118's evidence? No.
02:50:47 Um
02:50:50 You have a cipher list there. What Guy Taylor and Noel Douglas say Sorry, apologies. What
02:51:02 HM118 says is that it was a person called MT. And that should be on your cipher list. MT?
02:51:11 MT? Mhm.
02:51:17 MT was the activist. That was the activist. Please don't say the name out loud. But just so you can have a look. That's who HM118 says it was.
02:51:29 Should be on the civilian cipher list.
02:52:09 I can't see an MT on my list. check that that Mr. Gilham has the civilian cipher list, please?
02:52:22 Oh, MT. Yeah, put it in there. Sorry. Um
02:52:28 Okay, I've got it. I don't recognize either of those names. You You don't recognize him telling you that name at all. No. No.
02:52:37 Um Um Guy Taylor and Noel Douglas who um were activists within um Globalize Resistance, the group that
02:52:49 Globalize Resistance, the group that HN118 was um infiltrating. Do Do those names ring any bells to you? Guy Taylor's does, yeah. And Globalize Resistance? Globalize as a group, yeah. Um they say
02:53:01 Um they say that it was not Empty. Uh and Empty has also given evidence and said it was not him who um proposed this stunt. It was another person.
02:53:12 person. Uh and I'm going to show you um that name and if you tell me if this you recognize this name. Again, [clears throat] please don't say it out loud.
02:53:26 Do you recall if that's the name that HN118 gave you on the phone as responsible for this stunt? I don't remember that.
02:53:36 Do you recall [snorts] if HN118 mentioned the ethnicity of the activist who came up with the plan on the phone? No.
02:53:43 No. Uh did you ever recall HN118 telling you about a um it being a young Arab male? No.
02:53:52 No. Did he describe the activist to you in any way that you recollect? I don't I can't remember if we had a conversation about it. I would have thought that um if he had a would have put it in the intelligence report. But my main concern was
02:54:04 my main concern was um
02:54:06 a potential act of that nature occurring and to put into thwart that. But I don't remember anything about ethnicity or anything. Were you seriously instructed to record in their raw reporting the ethnicity of
02:54:17 in their raw reporting the ethnicity of people from Muslim Muslim backgrounds in particular? Not Not especially, no. I don't remember that.
02:54:31 Um given that you took this incident seriously
02:54:37 seriously and um that this was an event that was supposedly happening the following day if it was going to go through. Well, soon, possibly something Apologies, within a few days.
02:54:49 Apologies, within a few days. Wasn't it essential for police who were um
02:54:53 um monitoring that event that they would know the identity and characteristics of the person who was going to extremely useful and I imagine that we would matters in train to get some sort
02:55:04 would matters in train to get some sort of identification or They'd be pretty key, wouldn't they? So, know what this person looked like. So, do you not recall asking 118 what he looked like? No, I don't. No. Do you think you would have done given the seriousness that you took it?
02:55:21 I may have done. I can't I can't remember now.
02:55:25 Do [snorts] you recall H and 118 saying um how he heard about the plan, where he was and the context of it? [sighs]
02:55:35 [sighs] He He did mention
02:55:39 about where he was when he heard it and that he was obviously I think he he was with the person that he he nominated. Where was he? Do you recall? I can't remember now. Was it in a pub? Do you recall that?
02:55:50 Was it in a pub? Do you recall that? It may well have been, but I can't remember.
02:55:51 remember. Do you recall if he told you who else was there from the group? For example, Guy Taylor.
02:55:58 He may have said that, but I can't remember. It's a lot It's a long time ago. I can't remember. Noel Douglas? I don't remember any other names.
02:56:08 But you say in your witness statement here
02:56:11 here that he said to you um informed me that a member of one of his target group intended intended to ram at Mr. Sheron's car.
02:56:19 car. Is that what you recall H and 118 saying?
02:56:21 saying? That's That's he said that or that's what I um
02:56:26 what I um surmised from our from our discussion. Cuz
02:56:30 Cuz How long did you talk to H118 for on the phone
02:56:33 phone about this?
02:56:37 It was it was certainly a reasonable amount of time, but I can't remember the exact time. Um
02:56:44 Um 10 minutes? An hour? It was under an hour, but um it might have been 10 minutes or more than 10 minutes. [snorts]
02:56:51 [snorts] Um do you recall on the phone if he mentioned, for example, the person wearing a fake suicide vest? I don't remember that. Do you recall if he told you um what it
02:57:02 Do you recall if he told you um what it looked like? Or
02:57:04 Or Well, if he told me what it looked like, he'd be telling me that he had a fake suicide vest. So, I don't recall that, yeah.
02:57:08 yeah. Do you recall any plan to construct a him telling about constructing a fake suicide vest?
02:57:18 And in terms you've mentioned there that um he said that um he'd managed to persuade the individual not to engage in the stunt. Did he explain how that came about and who was involved in dissuading
02:57:30 about and who was involved in dissuading the activist? I can't remember if if he said it was him or or him and fellow activists. Um
02:57:40 I think he'd I just don't know the best word to some extent diffuse the situation. But um or had attempted to, but it was still a a potential viable option for this for
02:57:52 a a potential viable option for this for this to happen. But in terms of who was involved in dissuading, did H118 tell you that it was him
02:57:59 was him and potentially some other people were involved?
02:58:01 involved? have done. I can't remember. Um
02:58:06 Because what Guy Taylor says is that he persuaded the activist not to go ahead with the plan. And H118 said no more than a a sentence or two. Does that sound like something H118 told you or
02:58:17 sound like something H118 told you or was very much that he was the one persuading uh
02:58:22 uh the activist not to do it? [clears throat] No, I don't think um HM118 was
02:58:28 HM118 was um
02:58:31 inflating his his his role in this. I can't but
02:58:34 can't but if Guy Taylor was there and he said that, then perhaps that's right. But it was a HM118's um duty to do what he did and that was and to report it and he did that.
02:58:48 and to report it and he did that. Um so your understanding was that he had been talked out of this done on the same night that HM118 gave you the impression that he might still go ahead with it. Whether he gave me the impression or whether
02:58:59 whether that's what I um in how I interpreted it when you when you spoke to me, I can't remember now 20 years later. Can we have that MPS0027866, please?
02:59:16 [clears throat] [cough]
02:59:23 Uh so this appears to be um one of the first reports about this and you can see at the top, date information obtained from source, 15th um of uh July and the typing date of the same. Activist MT,
02:59:36 typing date of the same. Activist MT, possible action action concerning the visit of Ariel Sharon. The activist MT who is associated with has spoken of his intention of embarrassing Mr. Sharon during to the UK
02:59:48 embarrassing Mr. Sharon during to the UK and his protection officers by dressing up as a suicide bomber and performing some sort of protest action in the vicinity of Mr. Sharon. Do you recall writing this report? I I I can't remember the wording but I
02:59:59 I I I can't remember the wording but I do remember preparing that report, yes.
03:00:14 Uh and what this has been based on what H and 118 had told you in the phone call.
03:00:18 call. Yes.
03:00:25 So is it likely in terms of the dates and typing this was actually information you changed you obtained on the 14th of July and that you typed it up the day after.
03:00:39 Well, the the date of the information obtained was the 15th. But you were going to write it up the following morning. Yeah. It It would be It was the same date of typing. The typing date is the
03:00:50 date of typing. The typing date is the same date the information was received. I received it, I I guess um after midnight, so hence the 15th. And I typed it up that that morning.
03:01:02 And I typed it up that that morning. [snorts]
03:01:02 [snorts] Um
03:01:03 Um and does this accurately reflect what you think H and 118 told you on the phone?
03:01:09 phone? Yes, cuz I was only really in those terms, yeah. If we look at the source comment, is it likely this is information that H and 118 would have told you?
03:01:20 and 118 would have told you? Him being the source. Yes.
03:01:23 Yes. So it says here, however, uh well, first of all, the plan is not endorsed by fellow activists who consider it to be too dangerous and could result in being shot by Mr. Shawn's protection officers. And then however, MT is apparently a determined
03:01:35 however, MT is apparently a determined individual who may carry out this action of his own volition. Yeah.
03:01:39 Yeah. Would that have been something that H and 118 told you or did you add that?
03:01:46 I imagine it would have come from H and 118.
03:01:49 118. Because what H and 118 said about this in um
03:01:53 in um evidence was he did not describe MT in this way.
03:01:58 this way. So did you add that?
03:02:03 I didn't add it because I didn't I didn't just make it up. Um
03:02:08 Um it's
03:02:09 it's it would have been put as a result of the conversation I had with him. At the time,
03:02:14 time, that's what I believed to be true. And when I spoke to him, that's the impression I got. So, that's what I put. So, this is not that you know MT is the aware of who he is and all of his
03:02:25 aware of who he is and all of his characters. So, this is going to be on base of what H118 told you. Yes. And if he if I if I misunderstood what you said, then I'm sorry, but
03:02:37 then I'm sorry, but that that's that's the way I interpreted what you said to me. That is to say H118.
03:02:52 Can we have a MPS0027870, please?
03:03:03 So, you have here again you see date information obtained from short source 15th of July, typing date 16th of July, and that he did not attend the picket of Ariel Sharon's hotel.
03:03:15 Ariel Sharon's hotel. I think you said it was at Whitehall. Was this then a different incident?
03:03:20 incident? I can't remember. I thought it was I thought it was in Whitehall. Perhaps it it [laughter] was at
03:03:26 at another location. But
03:03:29 But Okay.
03:03:33 Um if [snorts] we can now go to MPS0027871.
03:03:43 Again, another one. You can see the dates again the same. You can also see the report number 605 and in the previous one is 604. So, this seems like a series of reports that you're putting in. I'm guessing these are all going to
03:03:54 in. I'm guessing these are all going to be
03:03:55 be from you. Is that right given the topic it's on?
03:03:58 it's on? And that they're all from I believe these reports are from me, yeah.
03:04:01 yeah. So, why would you put in this is MT's personal
03:04:04 personal phone number? Again, with this on base of something that H 118 would have told you? Because if I would have I would have considered at the time if a person is possibly going
03:04:15 the time if a person is possibly going to commit actions like that. And at the time I thought that was the case. Um
03:04:21 Um such information such as his telephone number could be relevant later on if he's ever subject of a more um meaningful inquiry. If we could look at MPS0027874.
03:04:47 I can see again the next report in the series, report number 606, same date and information um obtained from source typing date.
03:04:56 Yeah. Uh
03:04:57 Uh title MT talked out of extreme action by Guy Taylor. MT, the Globalizer Resistance activist, intended to cause embarrassment to the visiting Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, and his protection
03:05:08 his protection uh during his visit to the UK. His plan involved dressing up as a suicide bomber and attempting to infiltrate Mr. Sharon's personal security cordon. MT seemed determined to carry out this stunt despite the obvious dangers.
03:05:19 stunt despite the obvious dangers. However, MT was talked out of doing it after having a long conversation with Guy Taylor, the de facto head of GR. Taylor did not do this on his own. He was helped by another member of GR
03:05:31 was helped by another member of GR trusted by Taylor, and it was their combined efforts that eventually persuaded MT not to go ahead with his planned um stunt. Um again, this information would have
03:05:42 Um again, this information would have come from that initial call from H 118. I don't know. Um it's it's type this date date of typing is the 16th, which is after
03:05:52 is after after that. So, but so possibly a subsequent and All the other reports are also typed date of 16th of July. Oh, well,
03:06:02 Oh, well, possibly, but Well, apologies at the first one of the 15th, apology, but the subsequent ones are at the the 16th. Um my question to you is why is this
03:06:13 my question to you is why is this information about being talked out of the action in a different report to the previous one? The previous one identifies that members of Global Rights of recent aren't on
03:06:25 of Global Rights of recent aren't on board with this plan, and then but in a separate one it says that he's talked out of it. So, why are those that information separate separated? not sure that I took that information. That might have been compiled by someone else, or it might have been compiled
03:06:36 else, or it might have been compiled compiled to me in a subsequent conversation. So, the first report would have been the first conversation, and then I would I might have spoken to um HM 118 later, and he said, "Oh, now
03:06:48 um HM 118 later, and he said, "Oh, now the situation has changed." And that is a dynamic situation with in these all of these situations. So, things change, and that might be that it's changed, and that report came in later.
03:06:57 later. So, HM 118's evidence was that this [clears throat] was a conversation in a pub where this stunt was proposed, and then he had a conversation and he was talked out of the incident on the same
03:07:08 talked out of the incident on the same evening.
03:07:09 evening. But that's not the impression you got from him on the phone. That's not the impression you got. And perhaps I And perhaps I misinterpreted um
03:07:17 um what
03:07:18 what I put or or or didn't or didn't ascertain that when I was speaking to him. But if that if that's the case, then okay. But at the time I put the first report in, that was the concern.
03:07:29 first report in, that was the concern. And considering that you're free you're dealing with the prime minister of a another important country, you can't um
03:07:37 um you you can't be casual about such things.
03:07:39 things. And your recollection was that of HM 118 saying that he was the one who talked um him out of it, but here it says a longer conversation with Guy Taylor, and him being the one and that that was helped
03:07:50 being the one and that that was helped by a number member of GR. Would that other member have been HM118? I don't know. Could have been. And then you wrote here at hand as comment office copy only information
03:08:01 comment office copy only information passed to DI TN24. Would it have been you who passed the information on? It may have been. I can't remember.
03:08:09 But because what the activists Guy Taylor and Noel Douglas have given evidence of was that this was a conversation at a pub. It was short-lived. It did come up as an idea. He was talked out of it and that was the
03:08:21 He was talked out of it and that was the end of the matter. Yeah, but I I wasn't at I wasn't at that pub at that in that pub at that time, so I don't remember. All I All I received was a message from HM118, who I believe in good faith passed that information.
03:08:33 in good faith passed that information. And as I said, if you're do you're dealing with the Prime Minister of an important country, a very controversial Prime Minister of an important country, and that someone has mooted a plan to do that, that has to be acted upon.
03:08:45 that, that has to be acted upon. And given your background in E Squad and the concern you had developed about Islamic extremism, do you think that
03:08:53 that that receiving this call that you potentially blew it out of proportion and what was told you was that he'd been talked out of it and it wasn't going ahead. No.
03:09:06 Could we have up MPS0028780?
03:09:15 So this is a report and you can see here dated the 4th of August 2003. So this is about 3 weeks later. Do you recognize this document?
03:09:52 I don't remember. I don't I don't remember at all. Um you note at the top there you see note for SBH9RG. TN24 has asked that this update be put
03:10:04 TN24 has asked that this update be put in. Perhaps best done by way of note for desk. Uh do you think that's um Steve Bell's um H9 and yourself? yeah.
03:10:13 yeah. So,
03:10:13 So, [snorts]
03:10:13 [snorts] given that there's a note to you about it, you had likely at least you would have seen this. Yes, so. And I may have I may well have forgotten it, but I don't remember compiling it. Thing is, that given that you dealt with
03:10:24 Thing is, that given that you dealt with the initial incident, it's likely you would have written it up. Not necessarily. If someone else had got that information, I I may have I may have written it up, but um I don't remember writing that up. Uh and if it wasn't you, do you do you
03:10:36 Uh and if it wasn't you, do you do you think it was possibly one of the other two DSs, maybe Steve Bell's, because he was
03:10:40 was um
03:10:42 um H118's cover officer? Is that possible? It It's possible, but I don't know that it was.
03:10:51 Uh just to now look at the um details um of it. You see here MT planned to dress as a Palestinian martyr bomber. Do you know why uh he's just been described as
03:11:03 know why uh he's just been described as a Palestinian martyr bomber here rather than a suicide bomber? Well, if it'd been me writing it up, I would have said shaheed. So, um
03:11:12 So, um I don't know, no.
03:11:16 Says [snorts] here um the aim was to get close enough to Sheeran to be photographed by the media. Uh and then it goes on to say, "It has now emerged that MT did go so far as to
03:11:28 now emerged that MT did go so far as to begin building props to support his disguise. He has told a trusted activist friend that he obtained a half a dozen sturdy cardboard tubes and spray painted them red in color before attaching
03:11:39 them red in color before attaching various lengths of brightly colored electrical wire to link the base of the tubes. He planned to wear the prop under a long coat before leaping over any crowd control barrier approaching Sheeran before whipping his coat open.
03:11:51 Sheeran before whipping his coat open. He planned to do this as Sheeran either arrived or left a venue. So, you can see here there's a significant more amount of detail
03:11:59 of detail than the initial reports.
03:12:03 reports. Um do you know why that is? Do you think this is information that came out after those initial calls or do you not know?
03:12:11 I don't know. I mean, I assume it did come out after the calls because that wasn't in the earlier calls, but Did you recall any of this description here being told to you on the phone? No. No, if if if it had done, I would
03:12:23 No. No, if if if it had done, I would have put it in.
03:12:28 Uh because [snorts] what HM118 has said is that he didn't actually see the prop uh and did not give the description, for example, of the brightly colored wire. And the activist had not given him this
03:12:39 And the activist had not given him this level of detail. So, do you know if this is where else this information could have come from if it wasn't HM118? I don't know. Possibly um other sources, but
03:12:49 but it didn't come clearly from HM118 because he's saying it didn't. I don't I don't know where else it came from. I didn't prepare it. I don't know. Is that you speculating in terms of it could have come from another source?
03:13:00 could have come from another source? I I I was Well, I was trying to be helpful in as much as um where else could it come from, but I can't see where else it could have come from. Cuz what um HM118 said about the bit about the
03:13:13 HM118 said about the bit about the leaping over um the control barrier approaching Sheeran before whipping the coat open, he described that as I think there's a little poetic license for whoever typed this up. Well, if that's the way he That's what
03:13:25 Well, if that's the way he That's what he says, then fair enough, but that's the impression I got at the time and that that was going to be the plan. You recall him telling you that it was he was going to leap over the crowd control barrier. Well, there's no other way to get to him, so um
03:13:36 him, so um I think he did say that, but I can't I can't remember. I can't but perhaps he didn't say that and I've I've misinterpreted it but there was no intent on that part.
03:13:48 And then it goes on to say he admitted he was impartially inspired by the alternative comedian. You can carry on reading that and then at the end about
03:13:58 about MT was also mindful of the fact that the commissioner of police had been forced to make a very public apology for the breach and that another similar case might at least cost a top pig his job. Now MT when he gave evidence said that
03:14:09 Now MT when he gave evidence said that this was not an expression he would ever have used and then H118 I believe agreed with that. Do you know where that has come from? Not at all, no.
03:14:23 And then you see the final sentence. If you could just go expand out, please.
03:14:32 On [snorts] the second page MT has assured one of those individuals that he has now destroyed his makeshift vest vest and that they have no intention of resurrecting the plan should Sharon visit again in the future. Do you recall
03:14:43 visit again in the future. Do you recall being told that that MT had destroyed the vest?
03:14:46 the vest? I may have been told but I can't remember.
03:14:54 Um
03:15:03 Moving on now to um the consequences of this. You say that you wrote a good work report. Yes.
03:15:12 Yes. About this breach of H118. Um do you recall what you said in there? No.
03:15:17 No. And when you say you submitted it, who did you submit it to? Was it the DCI or the DI?
03:15:21 the DI? Through through line management. Um
03:15:26 Um Can I have please MPS006 sorry 00760
03:15:31 78.
03:15:40 Now accept this is a document written well after your um time in the SDS. Um
03:15:48 Um but it's about this incident. So if you want to just read the Ariel Sharon section.
03:17:08 Okay. Um
03:17:10 Um [clears throat] Obviously this is a document after your time in the SDS, but it's a retrospective document looking at this. So I want to know whether any of this information came from you or what you
03:17:22 information came from you or what you recall HM118 telling you about this um um incident. Um
03:17:28 Um go on, sorry. So, you look here now, it says again something slightly different. MT constructed a highly realistic dummy bomb vest comprising red-colored vertical tubes affixed to a green canvas
03:17:40 vertical tubes affixed to a green canvas vest with electrical cabling and a pull lanyard. So, new details coming in here. Do you recall HM118 telling you any of this detail? No. As I said, if he had said that, I would have put that.
03:17:53 Do you know who wrote this report? No. Well, it was a year after I was gone, so no, why would I know?
03:18:10 And then, you see it says the dummy vest was retrieved by the officer and destroyed. Uh
03:18:17 Uh again, different from before, which said MT had destroyed. Did HM118 ever tell you that he had destroyed No.
03:18:24 No. the vest?
03:18:25 the vest? Once again, if he had said that, I would have put that.
03:18:35 And then, if you look at the final paragraph, which says the potential scope of this is perhaps best illustrated by the events surrounding the tragic death of Mr. Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Station. Do you accept there is no real comparison
03:18:47 accept there is no real comparison between this incident, a discussion in a pub that was shut down on the same day with the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes?
03:18:55 Menezes? Well, you should really ask the person who composed this document. Um I don't really see how the how the two are connected. Uh
03:19:04 Uh so, those are all my questions um on this topic. Um And actually, in fact, all my questions is I have one correction to make. I believe I stated I referred to Asif
03:19:17 believe I stated I referred to Asif Chaudry's brother as having worked at the Libyan Embassy. In fact, apologies, he worked at the British Embassy in Libya. So, apologies for that mistake. Uh um
03:19:26 Uh um So, I'm told and that because of the timing uh that the with your agreement, the potential way to deal with rule 10s is by a further rule nine to avoid this
03:19:37 is by a further rule nine to avoid this witness having to come back. Would that be an appropriate way forward? Um certainly it would. Um are there any questions in re-examination that you would wish to ask Orla in now? No.
03:19:49 ask Orla in now? No. Uh in which case we will deal with um the rule 10 process by the means that you've suggested. I think those that are attending and listening uh ought to know why this is happening and uh I owe
03:20:01 know why this is happening and uh I owe it to them to explain this. I'm afraid uh there is a uh a video conference uh about my wife's condition that I absolutely must attend uh at
03:20:12 that I absolutely must attend uh at 5:15. And uh for that reason I I fear the that any questions that uh may arise out of what you've heard today will have to be dealt with on paper. Thank you for
03:20:24 to be dealt with on paper. Thank you for your forbearance. We'll resume again on Monday at 10:00. All right.