Undercover Policing Inquiry – A Bob Lambert Primer

INTRODUCTION

From 2nd to 6th December 2024, Bob Lambert will give evidence to the Undercover Policing Inquiry. Lambert has come to epitomise the spycops scandal.

Using the identity ‘Bob Robinson’, which he stole from a dead child, Lambert is known to have deceived at least four women into sexual relationships and fathered a child whilst undercover from 1983 to 1988. He is accused of having committed a number of serious crimes, and acted as an agent provocateur.

Among a raft of significant accusations, he is said to have been instrumental in the ‘McLibel’ trial and to have abused the judicial system, violating legal professional privilege and giving evidence in a false name.

It is also claimed that while taking part in a secret Animal Liberation Front (ALF) cell, he planted an incendiary device in a Debenhams shop, causing £340,000 worth of criminal damage.

Yet Lambert received police commendations for his work in the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS). He was considered the ‘gold standard’ for undercover policing, and after his deployment ended, he was promoted, going on to run the unit and overseeing some of the worst excesses of the SDS in the 1990s.

One of the officers he oversaw, Peter Francis, said of Lambert:

‘He did what is hands down regarded as the best tour of duty ever.’

On his retirement, Lambert received an MBE for ‘services to policing’.

Over the past three weeks at the Inquiry, we have heard evidence from some of the people that Lambert spied on, and some of the women he deceived into intimate relationships. Now we will hear five days of cross examination of the man himself.

This article summarises some of the key issues that have emerged from the evidence so far and highlights some of the questions Lambert will have to answer. We don’t seek to answer those questions here. However, our hope is that we can will aid people following Lambert’s evidence to understand the significance of particular lines of questioning and the answers he gives.

THE CABAL

Criticisms of Lambert have not only come from the people he spied on. During Opening Statements we heard how a number of his contemporaries and fellow officers have described him in none too flattering ways.

The evidence of HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’, HN109, and HN11 Mike Chitty ‘Mike Blake’ paints a worrying picture. HN10 Bob Lambert, HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’, HN8 and another unnamed undercover officer are described as forming a ‘cabal’ within SDS, of which Lambert was the leader.

HN39 Eric Docker (one of the managers of the SDS) refers to the Detective Superintendent of C Squad, HN99 Dave Short, saying of Lambert:

‘The man’s out of control, you’ve lost him.’

HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ described an incident where Bob Lambert and John Dines ordered management out of the room to deal with a disciplinary incident themselves, as some kind of ‘self appointed court of the star chamber’.

HN109 claims to have been physically intimidated and threatened by Lambert. He was granted anonymity in the Inquiry, not because of fears of reprisals from the people he spied on, but from fears that Lambert may still be able to do him harm.

DECEITFUL RELATIONSHIPS & FATHERING A CHILD

Lambert is known to have deceived at least four women into intimate sexual relationships. Two of those women gave live evidence to the Inquiry: Belinda Harvey on Tuesday 26 November and ‘Jacqui’ on Thursday 28 November. We heard in excruciating detail about Lambert’s lies and cruelty in those relationships.

During Belinda’s evidence we learnt that Lambert planned his departure at the end of his deployment a year in advance, yet he continued the relationship with her, effectively putting her life on hold, as she believed they had a lasting relationship despite the fact he was already secretly planning to leave. Both women also testified that Lambert did not use condoms in his relationships with them.

The issue of most obvious concern is the fact that he fathered a child with ‘Jacqui’. She described how he was present for the birth, and he cut the umbilical cord. She pointed out that childbirth is messy and intimate and entails ‘leaving your dignity on the floor’.

Initially he was a good father to ‘TBS’, even after his and Jacqui’s relationship ended, but then he disappeared from her and his son’s life after his deployment ended.

Perhaps most unforgivable, Lambert failed to inform ‘Jacqui’ when, years later, his other children both died suddenly from a genetic heart condition. Jacqui told the Daily Mail how she struggled to take in the awful news. Why hadn’t Bob told her that their son might carry a fatal gene?

Even when he was outed as an undercover officer he still didn’t tell her immediately. This callous disregard isn’t Bob Lambert in the 1980s, it is much more recent, and it illustrates the character of the old man who’ll be giving evidence on 2 December.

‘TBS’, the son ‘Jacqui’ had with ‘Bob Robinson’, is also a core participant in the public inquiry. During Opening Statements we heard from his legal representative about how he has struggled to come to terms with the reality that his understanding of his parentage was based on a lie. TBS highlights the role of the wider police apparatus in that.

In his witness statement he says:

‘It feels scary that as an organisation the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] were happy for me to go through my whole life without knowing the true identity of my biological father. And if it were not for the work of activists and journalists I would probably never have known the truth or had the chance to meet my biological father.

The MPS simply left me alone to deal with all of this, both before and after I learned of Bob Lambert’s true identity’

When was it obvious that Bob Lambert’s identity would become known to TBS? What decisions were taken regarding the need to notify Bob Lambert’s identity to TBS before his mother pieced the truth together from press reports?

LONDON GREENPEACE

One of the main targets of Lambert’s operation was London Greenpeace (LGP). A key point to be examined will be how it is portrayed in Lambert’s reporting, where he implies that it was largely or entirely an animal rights organisation, sharing office space with the ALF Supporters Group (every witness examined so far has made clear that this was never the case), and somehow acting as something of a ‘respectable’ front group for the ALF.

We have heard from many witnesses that this is a gross misrepresentation. LGP was a very diverse group that campaigned on a great many issues, including nuclear testing and workers rights.

Many witnesses also agree that support for the ALF was a potentially divisive issue in the group and most importantly, all of the witnesses cross examined to date concur that Bob Lambert was one of the loudest proponents of animal rights issues within the group.

Despite having filed many reports at the time that imply LGP supported violence and was likely to cause public disorder, after he was outed in 2011, Lambert publicly described LGP as ‘a peaceful campaigning group’.

The accuracy of Lambert’s reporting is a matter of key importance that we will look at further below.

McLIBEL

A key line of questioning will involve Lambert’s role in writing a fact sheet for LGP entitled ‘What’s Wrong with McDonald’s?’. Many witnesses recall Lambert having been one of a small group that authored the leaflet. Photographic and witness evidence shows that Lambert and other undercover officers distributed the fact sheet in the street outside McDonald’s restaurants and on stalls at book fairs and other events.

In 1990, McDonald’s brought libel proceedings against five London Greenpeace campaigners, including Dave Morris, Helen Steel and Paul Gravett, who have all given evidence to the Inquiry in the past few weeks.

That writ led to the longest trial in English history, where Helen Steel and Dave Morris were forced to represent themselves, with the pro-bono help of Keir Starmer, who at the time was a young barrister, just starting his career.

The Inquiry will be looking at a number of very important issues around the McLibel trial, starting with Lambert’s role in creating the ’libellous’ leaflet, and his activities in the wider McDonald’s campaign.

It will move on to SDS awareness of McDonald’s corporate spies in LGP while the trial was ongoing, the spying on and reporting of Kier Starmer’s confidential and privileged legal advice and the Defendants’ legal strategy.

It will also examine the role of Lambert and the wider police and security services in influencing the contents of the libel writ and sharing information with McDonalds before and during the trial.

And finally, there is the fact that information about the key roles played by several SDS officers was withheld from the courts not only during the original civil trial, but also during subsequent proceedings, where the UK government defended a claim in the European Court of Human Rights.

MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE

The McLibel trial is not the only instance in Lambert’s time undercover where it appears that he violated legal professional privilege or mislead the courts. He is believed to have appeared in court both as a defendant and as a witness for the defence.

Lambert was one of those arrested at Murray’s Meat Market, on 7 December 1985. He and four others, including Geoff Sheppard, are recorded as appearing in court and being bound over. He was represented by the same counsel as his fellow defendants, appeared before the Court and is recorded as giving evidence in his cover identity. Contemporary documents show that a senior local police officer was informed of Lambert’s true identity but there is no record that the Court was informed.

Many witnesses describe how Lambert visited and corresponded with prisoners on remand and defendants awaiting trial, and documents show that he reported on the legal advice and strategies of a number of defence campaigns. These will be matters of particular interest to the Inquiry, as one of its roles is to uncover potential miscarriages of justice and refer them back to the courts.

However, even more significantly, it appears that Lambert was in the habit of encouraging direct action, and recruiting vulnerable young people. His role in potential miscarriages of justice therefore goes far beyond simply reporting on legal advice or interfering in defence campaigns, as there is evidence that Lambert incited activists to take part in crime and even committed serious crimes himself, in his undercover role.

Many witnesses describe Lambert as ‘charismatic’ and ‘more of a leader than a follower’. He lied about his age and was significantly older than many of the activists he befriended. Paul Gravett, in his evidence, clearly describes an element of grooming in his relationship with Lambert, who encouraged him to step up his involvement and take radical action.

Jacqui testified that Lambert didn’t just research and write text for the anti-McDonald’s leaflet, he wrote other leaflets too, including one which featured an image of a human baby in a butcher’s shop, used for the demo at Murray’s Meat Market in Brixton for which he and other activists were arrested and tried.

In his evidence to the Inquiry, Geoff Sheppard also described how Lambert made a leaflet that called for ‘economic damage’ to animal abusers. Paul Gravett describes him writing or contributing to text inciting criminal acts, including a leaflet entitled ‘You Are the ALF’, and ‘London ALF News’.

COMMITTING CRIMES

He is also alleged to have been the driver on the night when the window of a butcher’s shop in Roehampton was broken. Chris Baillee (known as ‘RCM’ at the Inquiry) was accused of breaking the window and convicted for criminal damage. He alleges that Lambert knew that it was someone else who broke the window, yet nothing was done to prevent Baillee from being convicted.

Baillee also alleges that Lambert possessed, supplied and smoked cannabis before the action.

Lambert claimed to contemporaries that he carried out an arson attack on the empty home of a director of vivisection company Biorex.

Geoff Sheppard testified that he was acting as a lookout when Lambert pushed something through the letterbox, and Gravett states that ‘Bob Robinson’ admitted the offence to him and chronicled it in ‘London ALF News’.

Many witnesses have provided witness statements in which they describe ‘Bob Robinson’
claiming to have committed other criminal offences in the furtherance of animal rights. These include pouring paint stripper on a car used by a director of Biorex, using corrosive etching fluid to damage the window of a McDonald’s restaurant in Golders Green, and threatening to burn down the headquarters of the Hudson Bay Company furriers.

Lambert’s evidence, in general terms, is that he would have claimed to have committed offences, which he had not actually committed. However some of these offences clearly appear to have happened, as they were reported in the local press at the time.

DEBENHAMS

The most significant allegation levelled at Lambert is that he was an integral part (perhaps even the instigator) of a small ALF cell that planned and carried out a coordinated attack on Debenhams department stores on the night of 11-12 July 1987.

Three stores, in Luton, Harrow and Romford were damaged as a result, the Luton store more or less burnt to the ground. It is claimed that Lambert was one of a group of four activists who built improvised incendiary devices.

Numerous witnesses, including Belinda and Jacqui, have testified to knowing Lambert was involved in the planned action before it took place.

Both Geoff Sheppard (who was later convicted) and Paul Gravett (who was not) admit to having been part of the cell and testify to Lambert’s role, that he was involved from the very start, and that he planted the device in the Harrow store.

Lambert continues to deny that he was directly involved in this action, however some of the discrepancies around this were examined during Opening Statements.

Most shockingly, we heard for the first time that CCTV footage from the Harrow store was handed over to the police who first attended the scene, but it was then snatched by Special Branch officers, and has never been seen since. Lambert will therefore face hard questioning about the Debenhams campaign.

Geoff Sheppard and one other activist are currently appealing against their conviction, based on Lambert’s involvement and undisclosed role. That case is currently before the Court of Appeal.

INACCURATE & MISLEADING REPORTING

A very significant area of questioning will relate to Lambert’s contemporary reporting of the events described above. Witness after witness expressed their incredulity at the inaccuracy of the reports they were shown. Often that simply related to the mischaracterisation of groups such as London Greenpeace (as commented on above).

However, on some occasions it appears that entire groups or series of events were simply made up. This was the case for the creation of groups such as ‘Anarchists for Animals’ or a direct action group to target Biorex. All those reported as being involved in these groups insist they never existed.

Many of these reports do not describe anything particularly criminal and it is unclear why they would be invented, except perhaps to fill a void and justify Lambert’s continued deployment.

Inaccuracies in Lambert’s reporting take on a more sinister dimension when we consider a number of allegations levelled at named individuals. These are often vague and difficult to pin down, however, where it has been possible to address the specifics, witnesses have often stated that not only were they not carrying out the role or attending the meeting concerned, but they have reason to believe that it was in fact Lambert himself who carried out that role.

It appears Lambert often used Helen Steel’s name to replace his own in reporting, to hide his own high level of involvement. This is particularly concerning as she was later targeted by Lambert’s successor, John Dines, and deceived into an intimate and highly abusive relationship, seemingly on the strength of those reports.

Other examples of Lambert using activists’ names to cover his own role have emerged in the questioning of a number of witnesses from both LGP and animal rights campaigns, adding significant weight to the idea that this was a regular practice of his.

There is likely to be particular focus on Lambert’s reporting surrounding the Debenhams action and subsequent incendiary device campaigns, because it is clear from witness evidence that although Lambert knew about the plan in advance, he did not file any detailed reports about it until after the action had taken place. Even then his reports appear to ‘drip feed’ information rather than give full details of what he already knew.

Questions will include how he was getting this information (if, as he claims, he was not part of the cell)? and why he was providing it in such a limited fashion (if, as the evidence suggests, he was at the heart of the plan from the start)?

If he wasn’t responsible for the Harrow fire, why has he let the culprit get away with it?

PROMOTION, COMMENDATIONS & AN MBE

As noted in the introduction, despite the dark clouds that continue to shroud his operation, Lambert received commendations for his work undercover. He was promoted after his deployment ended and went on to run the SDS, and was even awarded an MBE for services to policing.

We understand that this round of questioning will only address his time undercover, and it is expected that he will be asked to return at a later date to give evidence about his subsequent career and his time as manager of the SDS.

---

A prevous primer: In 2015, when Lambert was lecturing at two universities and training future spycops, we were part of a campaign to have him sacked from both positions. Here’s a video of a talk we gave at the University of St Andrews taking an overvew of his career. We also published a transcript.