Tranche 2, Phase 2, Week 4

11-15 November 2024

This summary covers the fourth week of ‘Tranche 2 Phase 2’, the new round of hearings of the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI). This Phase mainly concentrates on examining the animal rights-focused activities of the Metropolitan Police’s secret political unit, the Special Demonstration Squad, from 1983-92.

The UCPI is an independent, judge-led inquiry into undercover policing in England and Wales. Its main focus is the activity of two units who deployed long-term undercover officers into a variety of political groups; the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS, 1968-2008) and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU, 1999-2011). Spycops from these units lived as activists for years at a time, spying on more than 1,000 groups.

INTRODUCTION

It was the second of (at least) four consecutive weeks without livestreaming. This chaotic and last-minute decision by the Inquiry is because the hearings are covered by multiple Reporting Restriction Orders over private information about civilians named in the evidence (generally understood to be people who don’t want spycops’ lies about them in the public domain).

Reporting restrictions have been known to change at short notice and people reporting live from the hearings have had to delete tweets that the Inquiry considers to be in breach, so we have to err on the side of caution when writing these reports.

The Inquiry does not publish the statements, police reports, photos and other documents its refers to in questioning until after the hearing, further impeding the understanding of those of us watching. It is a public inquiry that actively excludes the public.

In the run-up to hearing evidence from HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’ at the start of December, the Inquiry is focusing on testimony from activists he spied on, largely those involved with London Greenpeace in the mid 1980s.

Other officers were committing similar abuses at the time as Lambert, such as HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’ who’s given a written statement but refused to be questioned, and HN2 Andy Coles ‘Andy Davey’ who we’ll hear from in mid December.

CONTENTS

Timothy Greene

Albert Beale

Robin Lane

Paul Gravett

Geoff Sheppard

---

Monday 11 November 2024
Evidence of Timothy Greene

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Timothy Charles Greene was a solicitor during the period the Inquiry is now examining (1983-1992), and worked as such for 38 years. He is now a Circuit Judge. Perhaps in deference to his status in the legal profession, he was questioned by the Inquiry’s lead barrister, David Barr KC.

This hearing was not livestreamed, and at time of writing (a week after the evidence was heard), despite promises from the Inquiry neither video nor transcripts have been published on the Inquiry website, so this summary is being prepared from notes.

Greene’s written statement was introduced into the evidence. Neither the written statement not any of the underlying documents examined during this hearing have been published by the Inquiry yet.

Greene was asked about his career and he explained that he always had sympathy for rebels and underdogs, and he became a criminal defence lawyer.

In the 1980s he was an associate solicitor with a few years of experience often acting for activists including animal rights campaigners. He worked for Birnberg Peirce (one of the firms now representing core participants in the Inquiry) and he explained that even then the firm had a huge reputation. They didn’t have to do marketing. Clients sought them out.

He was asked about his own views, and the fact that the firm had a subscription to the animal rights magazine Arkangel. He says he would refer to it to see what his clients were up to, and that he was a vegetarian, but not a vegan.

Greene was clearly a very committed defence solicitor, who worked antisocial hours and gave clients his home number, because arrests don’t always happen during office hours.

It was clear from Barr’s questions that ‘intelligence’ from the time included multiple reports about then-solicitor Greene (and that they couldn’t even spell his name).

We saw yet more examples of the Inquiry’s chaotic, fire-fighting approach to people’s privacy, including an embarrassing incident when David Barr selected a paragraph of a document, only to find it had been redacted since he last looked.

Reports attributed to both HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’ and HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’ named Greene, although he has no memory of ever meeting either man in their undercover roles. One report called Greene an ‘oddball’ and alleged he had cemented firm friendships with some of his clients. Asked if this was true, Tim quipped ‘if I’m an oddball?’ to much laughter from the public gallery.

Much of the evidence is covered by Reporting Restriction Orders, so it is not possible to go into many of the details, however, it was clear that the reports contained many shocking lies about Greene and the animal rights activists he represented.

It was evident that Greene had a Special Branch file opened on him. He said he was not surprised, given who his clients had been. Nevertheless he was shocked and concerned that such inaccurate and blatantly untrue information was being recorded and even spread to other agencies.

Some reports were marked ‘Box 500’, which means that they were passed to MI5. We were also shown a Special Branch memo stating that a senior Detective Chief Inspector was going to personally brief the Anti-Terrorism Branch about Timothy Greene.

Another deeply concerning aspect of the reporting was the fact that privileged communications between a client and their legal representative were reported on by undercover police. There were numerous examples of this in relation to criminal proceedings, and the example of the McLibel case also came up.

Greene remembers attending a couple of meetings between the defendants and their lawyer Kier Starmer, and says he would have been shocked and deeply concerned to know that the state was involved in a civil dispute.

There were no further questions for Greene from other lawyers, but after Barr finished his questioning the room was cleared and there was a short additional hearing where he gave evidence behind closed doors.

 

---

Monday 11 November 2024
Evidence of Albert Beale

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

The afternoon session on 11 November saw lifelong pacifist activist, Albert Beale, being questioned by Joseph Hudson. Beale has made a written witness statement which was introduced into the evidence.

Beale primarily gave evidence about the infiltration of London Greenpeace (LGP). He is one of several witnesses being questioned about the group, which may be the most infiltrated of any small campaign group, having been targeted not only by undercover police officers but also by a succession of corporate spies working for McDonald’s.

London Greenpeace was a small organisation (wholly separate from Greenpeace International). It was concerned with a wide range of environmental and social justice issues, opposing greedy exploitation of people, animals and resources. An open public group with no formal membership, it held weekly meetings, usually attended by 5-25 people.

Before becoming active active with London Greenpeace, Beale was active in anti-militarism, anti-apartheid, feminism, gay rights and atheism, mostly in Brighton.

He spoke in detail about the War Resisters’ International (WRI) network, which is made up of numerous organisations around the world that resist war. He also gave a short history of the publication Peace News, reaching back to the 1930s.

WRI and Peace News were ideological neighbours as well as physical neighbours (they had offices in adjacent buildings) and there was always a crossover of personnel in the campaigns. London Greenpeace was formed in the 1970s by people involved in both groups, and it was launched with an article published in Peace News.

Asked about the general priorities of London Greenpeace during its early years, Beale replied that it was mainly selling a broadsheet publication. The first significant issue it addressed was opposing nuclear tests.

Beale was not hugely involved in LGP in the 1980s but he always went to meetings if he was around. He highlighted the difference between LGP and Greenpeace International:

‘Imperial Greenpeace as I still find it hard not to still call them.’

Beale was asked about whether LGP had an ‘anarchist ethos’. He responded with a clear account of anarchism as a common-sense approach:

‘If you define anarchism as a thing where people voluntarily organise themselves together, then it did have an anarchist ethos in the sense that nobody was telling it what to do. The group came together and we set our own criteria… self-activity and self-decision making on a voluntary basis… is in a sense one definition of anarchism…

‘unfortunately, of course, anarchism – as with many political philosophies where the people who adhere to it want to change the world – is seen very pejoratively. It is quite clear from seeing some of the police reports that they are using anarchism as… a term of abuse. And anarchism as I understand it is highly responsible and highly self-aware…

‘Unfortunately the cloak and dagger bomb throwing image of anarchists that you see in cartoons is all very witty but it doesn’t really have much to do with what anarchism as most of us understand it is all about.’

SO, WAS LONDON GREENPEACE A FRONT FOR THE ALF?

The main drive of Hudson’s questioning, and indeed a recurring theme throughout the past two weeks of evidence hearings, can be summed up as: You were part of London Greenpeace, but… wasn’t it really the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?

Like all the LGP witnesses before him, Beale very clearly and repeatedly replied ‘no’.

LGP had a very broad range of interests, because of ‘the way the group worked that people with a particular interest might come and inspire others’.

Some people in the group were interested in animal rights, many were not. Within LGP, people’s interests changed over the years and the focus of the group was constantly shifting. There was nothing special about animal rights in that respect. The group always held meetings publicly and anyone could come.

The group was always a mix of generations:

‘It had old codgers and young students in it’.

Beale recognises the popularity animal rights enjoyed among younger people in the 1980s. Asked what he understands by the phrase ‘an ALF activist’, Beale said was someone who has a more radical take on the rights of animals and was in tune with the sort of things the ALF was doing. He confessed to having little understanding of the ALF. Animal issues were not something Beale was very interested in ‘because you can’t do everything’.

In fact, spycop Bob Lambert was one of the people most interested in animal liberation within the group.

Beale recalled that ‘Bob Robinson’ started attending campaign meetings in the 1980s. He was enthusiastic and quickly got involved in activities. He was friendly, willing to write leaflets and he talked about animal liberation issues from the very beginning. His appearance in the group coincided with an increased interest in animal rights.

Beale himself had criticisms of the ALF, and there were concerns within the group. Beale’s LGP comrade Martyn Lowe, who gave evidence a week earlier, is recorded in Lambert’s reporting as raising concerns about the direction LGP was taking.

Beale was sympathetic with Lowe’s position. However, he takes issue with the way those concerns were reported by Lambert, and notes that the issue was not as divisive as the reporting implies. This exaggeration of divisions within a group is a bit of a theme in SDS reporting.

Hudson asked Beale about some of the evidence the Inquiry has of LGP interest in animal rights. Much was made of an ALF leaflet stapled to an LGP newsletter. We were also shown an intelligence report from 13 December 1985 about a public event. The report claims it was addressed by ‘ALF activist’ Steve Boulding, and that most attendees were ALF activists or supporters.

Beale was clear in his answers that LGP organised public events about many different topics, including animal rights. He was directly asked if there was talk of ‘ALF-style’ property damage at London Greenpeace meetings. He says yes, those sort of things were happening at the time and so of course, they were talked about. But talking about actions that are happening is not the same as planning or orchestrating those actions.

BUILDINGS

Hudson asked a series of rather repetitive questions about how buildings were used. Beale was asked to detail the various peace and activist groups that were based in the King’s Cross area, and how they moved around at the time.

London Greenpeace nearly always had an office in one or other of the buildings. Beale was asked about 5 Caledonian Road, which he referred to, ironically, as ‘the Peace News empire’.

The address has long been the home of Housmans bookshop, which is still based there, and it has been used by a vast number of progressive organisations over the years. It even has a COPS blue plaque commemorating the attendance of Special Demonstration Squad spies.

Beale was asked to explain how the letting out of offices was organised, which he did, listing lots of organisations that rented an office in the building over the years.

Hudson also asked about how the London Greenpeace office specifically was used. How often were people there? It was clearly run very informally.

‘I was in and out of that building anyway… There was one guy who I remember took over being one of the cheque signatories and did the sums and did that sort of thing and he popped in, from what I can remember, practically every day.’

Beale described how, in the pre-online era when print and letters were the primary method of disseminating ideas, London Greenpeace would receive huge amounts of correspondence, meaning there was always plenty of work to do responding to everyone.

The reasons for these questions appear to be that the police reporting about the offices imply they were some kind of secret organising hub. One report from 14 April 1987 claimed the ALF Supporters Group (ALFSG) was renting an office at 5 Caledonian Road, and another from 7 July 1987 suggests that London Greenpeace held ‘secret meetings’ there.

Beale batted that description away. There was no ‘secret private cabal meeting’, you have an office, and people drop in: that is not a secret meeting.

‘It is just trying to dramatise normal campaigning work, it seems to me. Of course not everybody is involved in every discussion. It’s not you are trying to make a big secret of it.

‘In fact, if you plan something at a meeting in the office when you are just with a bunch of people, presumably the next week’s normal London Greenpeace meeting presumably you would say, “Oh, we had this great idea and we have planned this and we have done this leaflet or whatever it is”…

‘I can understand, you know, if you are a police spy infiltrating a group, you have got to make the group look more furtive and more wicked to justify what you are doing…

‘the more I see of the police reports, the less serious I find I can take them, even the ones that seem plausible I now have doubts about, because some of them are so obviously absurd.’

James Wood KC took this theme further at the end, asking if Beale personally witnessed any ALF planning at London Greenpeace meetings: ‘No’.

Was there any kind of rental agreement for the ALFSG to have an office at 5 Caledonian Road? ‘No’.

Did Beale witness any planning of ALF actions in any buildings that London Greenpeace used? ‘No”.

Beale was a very good witness. His evidence really conveyed the informal nature of the organising and campaigning, and the importance of solidarity, and made it clear that the sinister way that is portrayed in the police reporting is just wrong.

He confirmed that it is perfectly plausible that ALFSG work could have been done, informally, in the LGP office, by people who were involved in both groups. Challenged by Hudson over whether, as a pacifist, he would have objected to that, Beale answered:

‘[I understand that the ALFSG] was a group whose role was to support people who were imprisoned as a result of Animal Liberation Front activities and things like that. I think there is probably a general support and solidarity with people who are facing prison for things that they have done to follow their own conscience. And one has that basic solidarity with them, even if they are doing things that you would not do yourself…

‘when people are up against the state, sometimes you just know in your gut what side you are on. You know, even if you would rather they hadn’t done it, the people who are on trial, you know where the bigger evil is…

‘It is perfectly possible as a pacifist for me to say, “Whether somebody clobbers one person or somebody drops a bomb on a thousand people, I disagree with each of those 100 per cent. Therefore I disagree with them equally”.

‘Well, yes in one logical sense I do disagree with them equally, but at the same time I can also draw a distinction between the relative demerits of some violence which is far more culpable than others. And in the world we live in, the violence of the state is the worst of all violence. That’s where so much violence in society, the mood of society, emanates from.

‘And much as I disagree with people taking violent action in support of causes, however much I think it is a good cause, I am not going to go out of my way to condemn them in the same way I will condemn the violence of the state. In fact, I may support them, not supporting their actions but supporting what’s happening to them, because they are being prosecuted.’

We were also taken to Beale’s witness statement where he talks about confidentiality being required as the element of surprise was required to make an impact.

‘It doesn’t mean that you are doing something wicked, horrible or illegal if you don’t tell people in advance.’

He explained that the state often tries to stop people doing things that are not illegal. He gave the example of distributing pacifist leaflets to military personnel.

Asked whether ‘violence’ or the tactics of the ALF were up for debate in LGP meetings, Beale replied that debates may have happened but that in his experience:

‘violence, as I define it in my statement – as harming other people, you know, physically attacking people and so on – would simply not be an option’

We were shown a section of a report subtitled ‘violence’, which claimed that someone said in a meeting that vivisectors should be ‘lined up and shot’. Beale is recorded as noting the irony of saying that in the Peace Pledge Union office.

‘it was a turn of phrase, albeit in bad taste… I am sure I would have said something about it. I might well have said something a bit stronger than “noting the irony”…

‘I have to say, some of these reports that are about things at London Greenpeace meetings and some of the ones about me are very, very clearly reports where things are being said that were said at the meeting which are reported very much in the words of the police person doing the reporting…

‘So I wouldn’t take this too literally… I wouldn’t take it as a serious proposal that anybody is sitting there saying people should be lined up and shot in a literal sense’

But, as Beale says, if you’re an undercover police officer you have to make the group you’re infiltrating sound dangerous and subversive to justify what you’re doing. We are increasingly seeing that the consequence of that is that they systematically lied in their reports.

McLIBEL

Beale was also questioned about the McLibel case, when London Greenpeace produced a ‘What’s Wrong With McDonald’s?’ leaflet and were sued by the fast-food giant. Defended by LGP activists Dave Morris and Helen Steel, t became the longest-running trial in English history. The involvement of Special Demonstration Squad officers was not disclosed to the court.

Beale was shown one of LGP’s early anti-McDonald’s leaflets, and asked who might have produced it (specifically whether Lambert was involved).

‘I certainly didn’t type it, it’s not typed well enough… it looks to me like a joint production by a number of people. Bob might or might not have been one of them. I can’t say for sure, I am afraid.’

He described how sometimes you try different campaigns and some just lift off and get a buzz. A similar leaflet they made about Unilever didn’t take off. The McDonald’s campaign ‘did seem to hit a nerve’. As a result, various versions of the flyer were made.

Regarding Lambert’s involvement in writing anti-McDonald’s leaflets, Beale recalled:

‘I think he did some of the writing of them, actually… at that stage Bob was very into the corporate things as well as animal liberation things. That was kind of the two things that he sort of livened up within the group over a period of a few years.

‘So I just have this memory of him, you know, being at a meeting with people looking at leaflet drafts and Bob scribbling away and things. You know, I can’t say what word was written by whom, but he was certainly, he was certainly involved in the McDonald’s leaflets.’

Beale also made the point that LGP became more active during the McLibel trial, and his own role increased:

‘the whole McLibel thing was such an outrage that, that my solidarity with Dave and Helen during the libel case was such that I put a lot more time and energy into things around London Greenpeace.’

Hudson went on to ask about Lambert’s successor, HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’, infiltrating the group.

Beale said he didn’t warm to him as much as Bob. He remembers him monopolising Helen Steel’s attention, which turned out to be a prelude to deceiving her into an intimate relationship.

‘I just remember sitting in a pub one evening… it was kind of all jammed up on a bench in the pub with half a dozen of us from a meeting.

‘I do remember Helen was sitting next to me on one side and every time I tried to talk to her I discovered that John Dines was sitting next to her on the other side and was kind of monopolising her attention a great deal, he was obviously, you know, kind of, anyway, he was talking to her a lot and he was focusing on her a lot.

‘And I just remember that because he was on the other side of Helen from me and I didn’t know Helen very well at that stage, and I was going to ask some things and I didn’t get a word in, you know…which is not like me… I have odd flashes of memory of him.’

This pattern of undercover cops isolating women they targeted for deceitful relationships from other social contact is something we have seen in other cases as well.

Asked whether Dines had been given trusted roles within the group, Beale made it clear that anybody who came to a London Greenpeace meeting could be involved, whether an undercover or not:

‘we were a pretty open and trusting group… if they offered to do some of the work, we would be only too pleased, for goodness’ sake. Because there were times over the years when I felt lumbered with doing most of the admin work because there was nobody else around, you know, prepared to get off their backside and do it. So you were always very grateful when somebody did the work.

‘I don’t know how much work he did. I have no idea. But certainly anybody, anybody who was at the meetings would have every opportunity to take a role in any part of the work they wanted to, pretty much, and would know what was going on and could see the bank statements and things because they would all be there. It was all very open’

The point of these questions? London Greenpeace was infiltrated by more than one SDS undercover officer, and they became very involved in the private lives of people in the group.

The questioning drew out the complete lack of any justification for such intrusiveness, with Beale confirming that there was no information he was privy to a police officer could not have gleaned by simply turning up to a meeting.

Beale concluded by reflecting on the personal impact of these infiltrations. It was heartbreaking to hear him talking about how trusting the group had been:

‘we all have to trust each other as fellow human beings and fellow campaigners. I mean clearly we were silly to do so in retrospect, but you treat people as you want them to treat you, you trust them.’

Beale made the point that some of the overt political policing he has experienced has been bad:

‘I have been on the receiving end of what you might call the political police in this country a few other times beyond London Greenpeace, which in some ways have had more of an effect on me on one level, but in terms of the emotional effect, this is the worst.

‘I mean, having people you sit in the pub with, who are your mates, turning out to do this. It is outrageous.’

 

---

Tuesday 12 November 2024
Evidence of Robin Lane

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Some of this day’s evidence is covered by Reporting Restriction Orders, which means that not everything said in the hearing room can be reported outside of it.

However, we can tell you that Robin Lane has provided an 83 page written statement and some exhibits to the Inquiry. If we’re lucky, these will eventually appear on the ‘Day 12’ page of the UCPI website, but please do not hold your breath.

Questions were asked by one of the Inquiry’s Junior Counsel, Rachel Naylor.

Lane has dedicated most of his life to campaigning for animal rights. He has been vegan for over 40 years, and his main focus in recent years has been the promotion of veganism.

He first became politically active in 1980, joining the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). He became a local contact for the British Union Against Vivisection, now called Cruelty Free International, in late 1982.

He was involved in a number of animal rights groups. After the South London Animal Movement (SLAM) and ‘RATS’, he took up the role of press officer with the Animal Liberation Front Supporters Group (ALFSG) in 1986. He served some time in prison, and after his release, set up a new Campaign Against Leather & Fur (CALF) in 1989. In the 90s he was involved in setting up the Animal Rights Coalition London and London Animal Action (LAA).

NON-VIOLENCE

Lane was shown a leaflet from 1983 – attached to a police report [UCPI020446] – which described different forms of Civil Disobedience (referred to as CD). These included such tactics as occupying zebra crossings by walking over them continuously. According to the leaflet: ‘Non violent CD is very important’.

Lane was asked for his thoughts about this, and exactly which forms of non-violent direct action he considered legitimate and acceptable. It is unclear why the available transcript has been so heavily redacted, as nothing he said during the missing 25 minutes contravened any of the Inquiry’s Reporting Restriction Orders.

It was obvious to everyone that Lane was opposed to violence, and cared deeply about the horrific treatment of animals. He doesn’t agree with taking direct action against personal property, homes and cars, but considers it legitimate to protest outside businesses and sites of animal suffering, or to damage items that are used to torture animals.

He felt the actions taken by him and others were ‘perfectly reasonable’, and people could choose to risk arrest if they wanted to. He preferred demonstrations that did not attract a (potentially violent) police presence.

It was evident that he had spent a lot of time thinking about what constituted non-violent direct action. Indiscriminate or ill-planned actions that might lead to other people (especially children) being adversely affected, were not acceptable to him. He made it very clear that he did not support certain types of action.

SOUTH LONDON ANIMAL MOVEMENT (SLAM)

It seems likely that Robin Lane’s name was first recorded by Special Branch when he attended the first meeting of the reincarnated South London Animal Movement (SLAM) in 1983.

He recalls SLAM as a very ‘democratic’, open and law-abiding group. It was non-hierarchical – everyone sat in a circle, and there was nobody in charge – and ‘easy-going’.

He says someone called ‘Mike Blake’ turned up, and became part of the group. This was in fact an SDS officer, HN11 Mike Chitty, whose first report about SLAM [UCPI019336] described Lane as a ‘self-confessed anarchist’. He denies this, and says he was never an anarchist, has always voted in elections, and goes on to talk about the prevalence of punk at the time:

‘a lot of people called themselves anarchists. I don’t ever think they were really anarchists’.

According to Chitty’s secret police reports, there was lots of discussion of ALF-style actions, such as criminal damage, at the group’s meetings, and SLAM would soon start claiming responsibility for such actions in order to ‘put itself on the map’.

It seems improbable that anyone would have discussed this kind of illegal activity at a meeting which was completely open to the public.

Lane was asked if SLAM was in fact a conduit used to recruit people into the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). He tried to get an important point across to the Inquiry – that ‘ALF’ is an action, taken by an individual, not the name of an organisation:

‘There is no “the ALF”.’

In March 1984, there was an ALF raid on the Institute of Psychiatry (IoP) in Camberwell, resulting in the liberation of rats that were being experimented on there. Members of SLAM heard about this on the news, and realised that there was vivisection happening in their local area.

They set up a working party to discuss campaigning about this, and a ‘handful’ of interested people met at Lane’s home to talk about their ideas. They organised a demo, which took place in January 1985.

Over 1000 people marched from the Institute all the way to Parliament, held a minute’s silence for the animals, then returned to Denmark Hill in Camberwell, where a large group blocked the traffic.

We saw a photograph [UCPI037136] of this march. It was openly organised, planned with the police, who complimented them on their stewarding, and the relevant local councils. This was the first march Lane had ever organised, and he considered it ‘a great success’.

The group learnt more about one particular vivisector based at the IoP, who conducted tests on baboons and mice, Dr Brian Meldrum. They decided to focus their campaigning on him.

Why focus on an individual rather than the entire institution? The working party did lots of research – he recalls ‘trawling through microfiches’ – and this made them realise the sheer size of the Institute and its experiments. They thought that unwieldy scale meant it made sense to focus on one main scientist and then make the links.

According to another Special Demonstration Squad report [UCPI014770], the group produced leaflets that included a photo of Meldrum and described the kind of experiments he was conducting. SLAM planned to distribute these locally, around the IoP and around Meldrum’s house.

Lane recalls that they’d originally thought about including Meldrum’s home address on it, but decided not to. The report suggested that there was much more disquiet about this campaign within SLAM than Lane remembers, and referred to it as a ’hate campaign’. He says it wasn’t; it was a campaign against vivisection – ‘against the torture, you know, of baboons and mice’.

The group used street theatre to raise public awareness of Meldrum’s controversial experiments (for example those where he used strobe lights to cause the baboons to have epileptic seizures), and sometimes held demonstrations outside his house.

We saw some photographs of this. In one [UCPI037134], a SLAM member is wearing a baboon suit. Lane is pictured shining a torch towards their face, and a local bobby stands watching. Another photo [UCPI037137] shows Lane wearing his Meldrum costume, a stained lab coat.

Attached to another report from spycops Mike Chitty [UCPI021972] is a four-page article written by Lane, which appeared in a new publication (‘The Door’) in 1986. Entitled ‘Looking back’, it describes some of the events held outside this house by the group.

Lane recalls that what they called ‘home visits’ were normal in those days, not seen as a big deal by the police, and entirely legal. There was no criminal offence being committed.

He remembers Meldrum’s wife coming out of the house on one occasion. She wasn’t frightened or intimidated, just angry about them holding a chimps’ tea-party in the driveway on the day of her husband’s 50th birthday party.

Lane said such home visits were widely seen as a legitimate form of campaigning, but the law has changed since then and he probably wouldn’t do these now.

SLAM didn’t tend to advertise these demos widely or in advance, it was just members of the group who turned up. Would spycop Mike Chitty have known about them? Lane has no idea; he doesn’t remember ‘Mike Blake’ being present at any of these home visits, but points out that ‘Mike’ wasn’t around all the time; he was involved in lots of different animal rights groups.

We moved on to hear about another tactic, announced at a SLAM meeting [UCPI021972] which Lane remembers as ‘very good’. Activists made very creative use of Freepost coupons, and as a result, Meldrum received hundreds of catalogues and packages over the course of a month. This constituted ‘a very effective way’ of taking up a vivisector’s time, says Lane.

According to a Polly Toynbee article in the Guardian, around 50% of Meldrum’s time was spent dealing with the campaigning.

The Inquiry then produced an article, ‘The Armchair Activist’, taken from issue 19 of the ALF Supporters’ Group (ALFSG) magazine, attached to a police report of December 1986 [MPS 0745764]. Lane recalled that their solicitor at this time advised against publishing this article, in case it was considered ‘incitement’.

This was around the same time as a number of animal rights activists were facing conspiracy charges in Sheffield. The ALFSG was keen to avoid breaking the law, so rather than distributing the magazine as it was, or reprinting it, they physically ripped those pages out.

Excerpts from the article were read out. It described how some activists had developed the Freepost idea much further, as an easily accessible form of action that could be done by anyone with access to a phone – using it to order goods and services for those they targeted. This was said to cause ‘utter misery’ for the recipients.

Lane pointed out that what SLAM had done was completely different; they just used Freepost; they didn’t order any of these other things (such as skips, scaffolding or funeral directors) for Meldrum, or anyone else.

Lane said that he and ‘Tanya’ (his girlfriend at the time) had both been very involved in campaigning against Meldrum’s cruelty, and had always done so in a legal, above-board way.

He did not agree with more extreme forms of action taken by others, and felt very strongly about this. He considered SLAM’s campaigns to be very successful. This one generated a lot of publicity, locally and nationally. However there were some people in SLAM who didn’t like this.

RATS

He, ‘Tanya’ and two friends all left SLAM as a result, and set up their own small group, calling it RATS (not an acronym).

Their aim was to raise money for animal sanctuaries (places set up to look after various animals after they’d been rescued from labs and other places). They borrowed from the ALFSG to pay for printing their first leaflet, and later on raised funds for them as well.

The ALFSG were always fundraising (including through the sale of magazines and merchandise) so they could support animal rights prisoners. Lane drew a clear distinction between this and actual ALF actions: ‘It had to be completely separate’.

The ALFSG was an organisation, with a bank account and a membership, who made regular donations. Even his mum was a member and yet she was, as far as he knows, not involved in ALF activism!

The first police report which mentions this ‘newly formed (anarchist) animal rights group, RATS’ is dated October 1985 [UCPI021949].

Lane says he was very surprised when he saw the leaflet attached to it, which claims that RATS has been ‘set up to raise money for the Animal Liberation Front’. He does not recognise it at all, and says it definitely wasn’t made by him or the other three people involved in RATS (who were all very close friends; none of them were ‘anarchists’):

‘I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the powers that be produced this, because I certainly did not… I disassociate myself with this leaflet’.

In contrast, he does recognise the leaflet attached to a report from January 1986 [UCPI021956]. He explains that this one was put out by RATS, to inform the public what ALF was about, and to counter some of the myths and misinformation that appeared in the media about animal rights activism.

In his opinion, ALF activists were ‘amazing people’, who were doing their best to stop animals suffering, and who didn’t deserve the bad press they were getting at this time. This genuine RATS flyer is clear that they’re a ‘fund-rasing group’ who aim to raise money for both the ALFSG and animal sanctuaries.

ANIMAL LIBERATION FRONT SUPPORTERS’ GROUP (ALFSG)

Shortly after this, Lane and ‘Tanya’ both began helping Vivienne Smith at the ALFSG office in Hammersmith. One of Lane’s jobs was responding to letters that had appeared in the press about ALF activities.

After about six months, he was asked to take on the role of press officer and, after Viv went to prison, to run the ALFSG office. He was raided by the police’s anti-terrorist squad a year later, and then stepped down from these roles before his own trial, which took place in Cardiff in the summer of 1988.

He says he was fully supportive of the ALF actions being taken, and welcomed the press officer role as an opportunity to speak out publicly about what was going on in the meat trade, the fur industry, etc. He used a pseudonym for this (having received threats from butchers, and unwelcome media intrusion at his home).

When ALF activists contacted the office, they did so completely anonymously. The job of the press officer was to provide comments to any media outlets who got in touch. In the 1980s there was a lot of ALF activity – he recalls around five actions every day – so he was kept busy.

The magazine and its printing were done by other people. There was a treasurer in Dorset who handled the finances. Lane coordinated the admin done at the office and says his was ‘pretty much a full-time job’.

We saw an example of an ALFSG ‘diary of actions’, a compilation of news about different actions that had taken place around the country over several months. This was included in a report by Bob Lambert [MPS 0744786]. He also included details of the legal advice provided to the ALFSG by their solicitor, information that should have been treated as ‘legally privileged’ by the police.

Lane says he didn’t know Bob that well, and that ‘he definitely did not’ accompany Lane and ‘Tanya’ on a visit to HMP Hull (where ALF founder Ronnie Lee was being held).

Another Lambert report [UCPI028387] purports to contain details of a conversation taking place at the prison between Lane and Lee. There are a number of reports written by Lambert which Lane doesn’t agree with:

‘I think you should take a lot of what HN10 said with a pinch of salt, you know. I think there is a lot of stuff that has made up here’

Lane does remember that the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) made a donation towards the ALFSG, but he was never the group’s treasurer and can’t be sure of its size.

However, he absolutely rejects any suggestion that money given to the ALFSG during his time there was used to fund any ALF actions or criminal activity. Besides covering the costs of printing and admin, the money was used to support activists who had been arrested and/or imprisoned.

He also repudiates the contents of another report [MPS 0742704], and its allegation that he’d made a secret agreement with Lee and another activist, known as ‘GFT’, not to publicly condemn any action carried out under the banner of the ‘Animal Rights Militia’ (ARM) including its ‘bombing campaigns’.

Lane repeated what he’d said earlier about his commitment to non-violence. He never moved away from this pacifism, and never supported any violence. He recalls being very strict as a press officer. He wouldn’t report actions that broke the ALF code, and would disown them if asked about them.

‘in my time there was no connection between ALF and ARM. Absolutely none’.

He wondered at times if ARM really did exist, and notes that its existence would have suited the authorities.

Similarly, he doesn’t recognise the claims in another report [UCPI028517] that he had been encouraging closer ties with London Greenpeace (LGP). He explained earlier that he didn’t have much involvement with LGP as it met in North London and he tended to stay active locally, in the South of the city.

After the Hammersmith office closed down, the ALFSG admin was done at his home. As with all other witnesses asked about the police’s assertion, Lane is adamant that there was no agreement to share the LGP office in Kings Cross.

He did the ALFSG admin alone, after his relationship with ‘Tanya’ ended. He denies the suggestions made in various police reports that Gabrielle Bosley, Helen Steel or ‘Bob Robinson’ were ever involved in the ALFSG. He doesn’t remember Steel having a liaison role, organising printing or attending a meeting with him, ‘Tanya’ and two other activists.

Both LGP and ‘Green Anarchist’ later reprinted the text he’d originally put together for the RATS leaflet, but he wasn’t involved in this. He points out that supporting a group is different to being part of it. Many of those in one group might be sympathetic to or supportive of the aims of another group, but there wasn’t as much crossover between LGP and ALFSG as the secret police reports imply.

He remembers Support Animal Rights Prisoners (SARP) as a ‘very prominent, very good group’. He wasn’t involved in it. SARP’s remit was much wider than the ALFSG’s: they did lots of letter-writing and campaigning around provision of vegan food and toiletries to prisoners.

HN2 Andy Coles ‘Andy Davey’ (due to give evidence in December) claimed that SARP had been set up in order to support more violent ARM prisoners who wouldn’t qualify for ALFSG support.

‘I think that is nonsense’.

BOB LAMBERT’S LIES

Equally, it is clear that Lane doesn’t believe Bob Lambert’s claims, either those made in his witness statement [UCPI 035081] or the ones which led to him receiving an official police Commissioner’s Commendation [MPS 0726999] for his undercover work.

One of these claims was that he worked ‘at the ALF office’ and monitored their ‘hierarchy’. Lane does not remember ever seeing Bob, or his van, at the ALFSG office, and points out that ‘there was no hierarchy’.

Another was that he’d had meetings with Ronnie Lee and was involved in setting up ALF prisoner support. Lane points out that there were only three or four people involved in the ALFSG, and it’s inconceivable that Lambert could have done any of these things without Lane noticing.

The claim of Lambert’s that the Inquiry spent the most time unpicking was a convoluted story which seems to have been invented to explain how he was able to learn so much about an ALF cell’s future plans, without being part of it.

Lambert is was part of a cell that placed timed incendiary devices in branch’s of Debenham’s department store, in protest at the sale of fur. Lambert is accused of setting the device that burned down the Harrow shop.

This would have been far beyond anything he could justify to his bosses. Unsurprisingly, he denies it. However, he still needs to explain why they trusted him so much.

Lambert apparently suggested that he was going to fulfil some kind of communications role, between the cell (Geoff Sheppard and Andrew Clarke) and the wider animal rights movement, and also the media.

Supposedly they trusted him to explain why they’d adopted these tactics (the use of incendiary devices in shops) to other activists. He said that because he was going to act as some kind of ‘press officer’, they shared information with him about the next set of attacks, that they were planning to carry out in September.

As someone who actually did act as a press officer, explaining ALF actions to the media, Lane was well-placed to offer an expert opinion about this. He points out that he only ever found out about actions after they had happened.

‘I didn’t know about actions beforehand, and it would have been ridiculous for me to have known’.

The ALFSG couldn’t afford the risk of him being done for ‘conspiracy’. He says Lambert ‘must have been part of a cell’ otherwise he would not have been privy to the level of detail about future actions that he claimed.

In his statement, Lambert claimed that by late 1988, he was a ‘trusted colleague of the main Animal Liberation Front activists’ (listing Lee, Smith, Lane and others) and was being considered for a ‘more formal role’ in the ALFSG.

‘I don’t understand what he’s talking about. He was never involved in the Animal Liberation Front Supporters Group so far as I was concerned’.

He says Bob’s fantasy of being considered as his successor was ‘extremely unlikely’.

Asked if Lambert was, as he claimed, Lane’s trusted colleague, the response was unequivocal:

‘Never. In fact, in fact I was suspicious of him.’

Lane recalls a comment Lambert made in a pub after a gig in Brixton (one of the few times they ever socialised in the same place). The subject of undercover cops came up. Lane made a comment about them being the ‘scum of the earth’ and still remembers the way Lambert responded: ‘but Robin, sometimes it’s necessary’.

‘I was always suspicious of him after that’

Lambert reported that he didn’t take up a formal role in the group, but organised transport for prison visits and also for supporters to attend Lane’s trial in Cardiff. However, Lane says this isn’t true. He had some very good friends who came to his trial from London, and they all travelled by train. He doesn’t know who Bob’s talking about.

When the Debenham’s actions happened in July 1987, Lane was the ALF press officer. He had no idea who was responsible, and nobody got in touch with him to claim the attacks.

Although he had nothing to do with it, his house was searched and turned upside down in a very traumatising way, and he was arrested. He remembers giving a ‘no comment’ interview (which lasted five hours) and suffering from panic attacks afterwards. He has no idea why he was targeted.

He also has no knowledge of any internal ‘investigation’ into the possible infiltration of the ALF, something said to have been requested by Andrew Clarke. This is mentioned in a report from November 1987 [MPS 0740488].

LANE’S LEGAL CASE AND RELEASE FROM PRISON

We moved on to hear about Lane’s own trial, in June 1988. He was convicted and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. He ended up serving four and a half months. This was for ‘conspiracy to incite others to commit criminal damage’.

The prosecution case centred on the ‘diary of actions’ that we’d seen earlier. There was no disclosure of the fact that an undercover police officer was involved in the case.

There was a party organised to celebrate him getting out of prison at the end of October. This was a small, private event, held at his barrister’s house, with food provided by the family. Only his closest friends, people who had been supporting him while he was inside, were invited.

There was only one gate-crasher: Bob Lambert. Although Robin was, in his own words, ‘slightly peeved to see him there’, he didn’t feel able to exclude him, as he’d tagged along with Belinda Harvey, his girlfriend at the time. One of the tactical advantages of deceiving trusted women into relationships was the way it allowed the officer to piggyback the woman’s social popularity.

In Lambert’s report of the event [MPS 0740647] he claimed that this weekend was a gathering of ALF activists for ‘important tactical and theoretical discussions’, but Lane says ‘this is pure fantasy’ and assures us that it was in fact ‘fun’, a ‘nice time’ and ‘nothing to do with ALF or anything like that’.

He also describes as ‘fantasy’ the bit in Lambert’s report that calls him ‘the perfect illustration of a broken man’. He says he was actually very happy and healthy at this time. He had already decided to step back from the stress of being involved in the ALFSG. He had a new relationship, and got involved in ‘Life Before Profit’ (a pacifist, environmentalist, vegan group).

ARKANGEL MAGAZINE

Lane started a new magazine, Arkangel, and ran it himself, with someone else doing the ‘desk-top publishing’ layout. There was no subscriber list, just a box of index cards, and addresses were written by hand on the envelopes. This was done by him, his new girlfriend and two other helpers (sisters who lived at the sanctuary), nobody else, and certainly not HN2 Andy Coles ‘Andy Davey’.

However, Coles attached a subscriber list to one of his reports [MPS 0739503], claiming to have compiled this by printing out address labels on the ALFSG computer.

This is a bit baffling. Robin says that the addresses were always hand-written – there weren’t any printed labels – and in any case, the ALFSG computer was never used for Arkangel.

Short of breaking into his house when he wasn’t there, and writing out or photographing these several hundred index cards, Lane can’t see how Coles would have copied the list.

Lane doesn’t remember where or when he first met Coles, but recalls ‘Andy Van’ (as he was called) offering him lifts to Animal Rights Coalition (ARC) meetings in the West Midlands, and to collect Arkangel from the printers in Northampton. He doesn’t remember what they spoke about in Andy’s van, but is clear that they weren’t friends and didn’t socialise together. After making several of these long trips to ARC meetings, Lane suggested setting up the same kind of coalition in London.

ANIMAL RIGHTS COALITION (ARC)

Coles has claimed in his witness statement that another activist, ‘EAB’, had invited him to get involved in ARC London, because of his previous involvement in the ‘South East ARC’.

However, Lane tells a different story. ‘EAB’ was a good friend of his, and he suggested inviting her along to the pair’s planning meetings (held in Andy’s bedsit). He has never heard of a ‘South East ARC’.

ARC London’s first meeting took place in February 1994. It acted as an umbrella organisation, the idea was that it would bring together all the different animal rights groups which existed at the time, to share news and discuss what they were doing.

HN2 Andy Coles offered to produce an ARC London newsletter but neither Lane nor the Inquiry seem to have any copies of it.

The Inquiry does have a pro-forma submitted by Coles that June [MPS 0745749], naming Robin Lane as the organiser (‘under the auspices of Animal Rights Collective London’) of a demo at Christie’s auction house, where a fund-raising auction was being held for the British Field Sports Society (BFSS).

It suggests that thanks to his obtaining a sale catalogue, details of BFSS donors have been circulated in the animal rights movement and they are likely to be ‘targeted’ in some way. Lane says he just picked up a free copy of the catalogue, it was quite heavy, and he had no intention of circulating copies to anyone else.

This pro-forma also mentions him organising a protest at the Serpentine Gallery. Damian Hurst’s art show featured a dead sheep in a glass case. Lane remembers it ‘like it was yesterday’. All they did was hold hands in a circle around this case, and this made visitors unhappy because they weren’t able to get close to it.

He denies there’s any truth in the next Coles’s report [UCPI0746014], about Coles and him being part of a new committee formed to organise an alternative to the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) demo held on World Day for Laboratory Animals. He says he thought that NAVS ‘were doing a good job’ and can’t see why he would have wanted to ‘radicalise’ this annual event.

In his witness statement [UCPI035074], Coles claims that setting up this ARC was ‘core to my strategy’ – it helped him identify and report on potential ALF activists – yet Lane points out that this could have been achieved by any ‘ordinary police officer’ coming along to what were entirely open, public meetings.

LONDON ANIMAL ACTION

In any case, by the end of 1994 London Animal Action (LAA) had been created, and ARC was no longer needed. This new organisation ran until 2005, and was spied on by HN2 and at least two other undercovers (HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’ and HN26 ‘Christine Green’). Its meetings were also entirely open to anyone.

The meetings were organised by a small committee, made up of Lane and just four others, and he denies that Coles was involved in this, or as ‘prominent’ as he claims:

‘I think that’s probably an exaggeration on his part’

He accepts that Coles may well have been involved in putting out ‘London Animal Rights News’, although his main memory of collating and mailing out this publication was of doing the work in the Crystal Palace flat of ‘Christine Green’.

We looked at some of the issues that LAA took action on. Lane didn’t go to Shoreham for any of the protests against live exports from the port, but he was involved in the campaign against Hockley Furs, which went on for three years.

According to a report by ‘Matt Rayner’ [MPS 0246082] its proprietor, Michael Hockley, resigned as a direct result of LAA’s campaign. It characterises the demo held on 16 March (a national day of action against the fur trade) as ‘a series of unrelenting skirmishes’. Lane disagrees with this; he remembers simply protesting outside a string of fur shops.

Towards the end of the day, the activists headed for St John’s Wood, where Michael Hockley lived. The police report provides a sensationalised account of this:

‘the full hatred of the activists towards the man who is seen to personify the evil of the fur trade was expressed through a tirade of angry abuse and noise… with levels of anger fast approaching the hysterical, an all-out assault on Hockley’s home was only prevented by a large police presence’

Lane says this is a ‘gross exaggeration’ of what actually happened. ‘Matt Rayner’ was arrested outside Hockley’s home that day, and seems to have told his SDS managers that LAA activists were ‘amused’ by this. Lane was asked if anyone in LAA would have found such as arrest amusing? He said ‘definitely not’.

How did LAA know where Hockley lived? He remembers ‘Christine Green’ suggesting that they find out by following him home from work one day. The two of them did this in her van, following his taxi, no mean feat in central London.

He remembers being very impressed at the time, although as he says now ‘she was obviously a professional driver’, who’d been trained by the police to tail other vehicles.

‘If it hadn’t been for Christine, we wouldn’t have got that address… that protest at his house would never have happened’

Looking back now, Lane believes that she was actually sympathetic to the anti-fur cause. Like HN11 Mike Chitty ‘Mike Blake’ before her, a while after her deployment ended ‘Green’ resumed contact with people she’d spied on, including a romantic relationship. She is understood to still be partners with one of the activists she’d spied on.

HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’ reported [MPS 0245378] that many of LAA were openly supportive of ALF style direct action and ‘many are personally involved’ (it is unclear how he could possibly have known this).

According to him, LAA was a ‘potent and effective force in the movement’. Lane agrees with this description. He says that the group was ‘very effective’, it was ‘an incredible group’, ‘full of very committed people’, and he believes it was ‘an inspiration for groups around the country’. For once, it appears that a Special Demonstration Squad officer is telling the truth!

The report is, however, not entirely truthful. Lane disagrees with the inclusion of his name on a list of activists said to be ‘involved in disorder and acts of criminality’. He is clear that at this time in his life, he was being very careful not to take part in any criminality as he had no wish to be arrested again. He thinks the SDS sought to justify their infiltration of LAA by making such allegations.

MORE ABOUT HN11 MIKE CHITTY

Lane was asked more about each of the undercovers he encountered, starting with HN11 Mike Chitty. He remembers meeting ‘Mike Blake’ in 1985, when he started a relationship with ‘Lizzie’, a good friend of Robin and ‘Tanya’. As a result, he was welcomed into a very small social group who would hang out at each others’ homes. He says Mike claimed to be a fan of the Welsh rock group Man that Lane had loved in the 1970s.

In his statement, Lane refers to another woman as Mike’s ‘victim’. Robin believes that Mike’s first relationship undercover was with her. He didn’t know this woman so well and has no idea when this relationship began or how long it lasted. He says ‘she wasn’t an activist’; ‘she was more like Cats Protection League’. She and ‘Lizzie’ were friends, and he believes that Mike met them both at South East London Animal Movement meetings in Catford.

Mike moved on to ‘Lizzie’ sometime in 1985, and their relationship lasted for several years, until his deployment was coming to an end and he told the people he spied on that he was leaving for America in 1987.

Lane believes that Chitty deliberately targeted ‘Lizzie’ in order to get close to ‘Tanya’ and himself. He had his own place, a ‘bedsit somewhere’, and never lived with her. ‘Lizzie’ shared her flat in Brockley with an ex. Lane remembers being shocked to encounter this man and learn that he was a ‘proper policeman, not an undercover one’.

How did ‘Lizzie’ deal with Mike’s departure? Lane describes her as ‘very resilient’. She was very close to

Mike and upset about the end of the relationship, but seemed to recover. He recalls paying a visit to her house a few years later, with Roz, his new girlfriend. Mike was there, and had obviously come to see ‘Lizzie’.

Lane admits that he was ‘surprised’ and ‘a bit disappointed’ that Mike hadn’t made any effort to meet up with him, and wasn’t ‘particularly friendly’. Roz died in July 1991. ‘Lizzie’ wrote to ‘Mike Blake’ to let him know, including Lane’s address in case he wanted to send condolences. He didn’t.

He has no idea if their sexual relationship was rekindled in 1990. He finds it hard to believe that Mike ever proposed marriage to ‘Lizzie’. She was a close friend of his and never mentioned this. She had already been through one unhappy marriage, and he doesn’t think she would have wanted to marry again.

In April 1994, Lane attended a farewell meal for another activist in Streatham. Reports indicate that two spycops, Andy Coles and Mike Chitty, were present, but Lane does not remember this.

We heard a bit more about a trip to Blackpool Zoo, to protest about the treatment of animals. Around eight people from London travelled up there, at spycop Mike Chitty’s suggestion. As well as him, the group included Lane, ‘Tanya’, ‘Lizzie’, Mike’s ex and a woman called Sue Williams.

They stopped off at a vegan event in the Leeds area then camped in the Yorkshire Dales, again suggested by Chitty, who had brought a tent in his car. He also bought ‘tonnes and tonnes of alcohol’ and they all got very drunk. Lane remembers him and Sue pretending to be sheep:

‘It might sound very silly, but we were young’.

They were three miles from the US military base and listening station at Menwith Hill, and at one point a jeep turned up and the occupants told them to go back to their tent. Mike Chitty said there was sexual activity on that night. But Lane is says that there definitely wasn’t.

OTHER UNDERCOVERS

Lane also knew Belinda Harvey. He didn’t know her so well when she got together with ‘Bob Robinson’, and doesn’t remember the couple living together, but considered her a good friend by the time Bob disappeared from her life in early 1989, after Lane’s release from prison.

Lane has no memory whatsoever of HN87 ‘John Lipscomb’. He does remember visiting the squat in Sudbourne Road, Brixton (and says it had ‘a really nice atmosphere’) but no memory of ‘ELQ’ or ‘John’.

‘ANDY VAN’ (HN2 CREEPY ANDY COLES)

In his statement, spycop Andy Coles claimed that near the start of his deployment, he made contact with the Campaign Against Leather and Fur (CALF) to enquire about non-leather work boots. There were only two people involved in CALF; Robin Lane and Roz. It was Roz who imported vegan boots, so she would have dealt with this.

Apart from the van journeys mentioned earlier, Lane didn’t spend much time with ’Andy Van’. He recalls that Andy claimed to like the same kind of music as him, and came round to his flat a few times.

Lane had another girlfriend, a violinist, after Roz. They used to go along to London Vegans events together, and met a French woman there, who was single and looking for love. They set her up to meet ‘Andy Van’ (someone they believed to be perpetually single, and vegan) sometime between 1991 and 1994.

They asked her afterwards how this blind date had gone, and he recalls her feedback:

‘It was OK, it was a bit rough, but she didn’t mind that’

As far as he knows it was a one-night stand and didn’t go any further. Andy never spoke about it.

Lane managed to make contact with this woman recently, after finding out that he had inadvertently introduced her to an undercover police officer. She emailed back, saying she had no recollection whatsoever of that night. She only had one question: was he vegan? Robin doubts it, and reckons he ‘was probably pretending to be’.

We heard more about what ‘Tanya’ thought of ‘Andy Van’. She met him when Robin arranged for him to transport a fridge to her flat. He remembers her saying:

‘I don’t want that man coming around again, he was bit creepy’.

He got the clear impression that she meant creepy in a sexual way:

‘I thought he was bit creepy too, to be honest’.

He says he heard other people say something similar.

Coles claims in his statement that if Lane hadn’t been a target, they might have been friends, but this seems unlikely. Yes, he made use of Andy’s van, but insists they ‘weren’t mates’. He never saw him with a woman, so assumed he was single. He had no knowledge of him his relationship with a vulnerable teenager, ‘Jessica’.

HN1 ‘MATT RAYNER’

In comparison, he thought of HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’ as a good friend, someone he liked. He was into classical music and sometimes came to concerts at the Royal Festival Hall with Lane and the violinist.

Lane recalls a trip to the Ritzy cinema in Brixton together. Like other LAA activists, Rayner went to his parties, such as a birthday party in Holborn.

He remembers ‘Rayner’ as an effective campaigner, who had a van, and laughs as he recalls how he asked him to take over the Northampton van run when ‘Andy Davey’ disappeared off the scene. He was, unsurprisingly, happy to help out.

HN26 ‘CHRISTINE GREEN’

What about ‘Christine’? She was an even closer friend, both of Lane and his now-wife. They socialised together a lot throughout her deployment, which ran from 1994 till 1999. They became friends very quickly, she lived near him and often gave him lifts to meetings. He thought she was a ‘nice genuine person’.

In one report [MPS 0745689] we can see Lane’s signature appears as a witness to hers on a tenancy agreement dated June 1996 for her flat in Central Hill, Upper Norwood. At the time, he thought she asked him to do this because he was a close and reliable friend. He now suspects this was ‘just a very clever and devious way of obtaining my signature’.

She lived alone at this cover address, and Lane used to spend a lot of time there. It was where they collated London Animal Rights News and stuffed envelopes. He didn’t know anyone called Thomas Frampton, or Joe Tex. He says Christine was single, and ‘never in a relationship all the time I knew her’.

He remembers their close friendship coming to an end. One of the group, a woman, had become ‘one of those tree people’, protesting about trees being cut down (possibly in Crystal Palace park, where there was a protest camp at that time). Christine blew out a planned cinema trip with Lane in order to spend time with this woman. His feelings were hurt, and he realised she wasn’t such a good friend after all.

IN RETROSPECT

Lane says that over a decade later, in around 2010, he saw a video of Lambert delivering a lecture and recognised him as ‘Bob Robinson’. He says he wasn’t surprised:

‘there was always something strange about him’

However he was ‘devastated’ when he learnt about the undercovers whom he’d considered good friends, ‘Mike Chitty in particular’. He recalls that he ‘felt so tricked’ by them, he ‘turned into a paranoid person’, suspicious of everyone.

Why was he being spied on when he wasn’t committing any crime? He said earlier that he felt that he was treated as a ‘convenient target’ by the police.

How does he feel now about being reported on by seven different officers, and all this information about him being stored by the police and security services? He still doesn’t understand it. His view now of these spycops operations:

‘I think it’s disgusting. I think it’s an outrage and it’s absolutely appalling’

It was close to 6pm by this point, the end of a very long day of evidence from Robin Lane. He managed to make a joke about billing the spycops for the vegan food they consumed.

The Inquiry’s Chair, Sir John Mitting, thanked him for his ‘good humour’ and noted that he had done a better job of avoiding name-dropping people whose identity is supposed to be private than ‘some former undercover officers’.

---

Wednesday 13 November 2024
Evidence of Paul Gravett

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Gravett was affected by a number of Special Demonstration Squad deployments, including HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’, HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’, HN2 Andy Coles ‘Andy Davey’, and HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’.

Gravett had previously been scheduled to give evidence about all of them, over one and a half days, however the Inquiry barrister questioning him, David Barr KC, failed to prepare his questions in time. In the event, Gravett was only questioned about Bob Lambert’s operation, and may be called back to give further evidence at a later date.

Gravett has provided a written witness statement to the Inquiry, which was read onto the record but, at time of writing this, has not yet been uploaded to the Inquiry website.

Previous witnesses have been asked to begin with an account of their wider activist lives, but Barr went straight to the point with Gravett, asking when he first met Bob Lambert.

Gravett first encountered Lambert at an Islington Animal Rights jumble sale, although they didn’t speak at that time. Meaningful connection began at a London Greenpeace public meeting about the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) in December 1985.

An intelligence report dated 13 December 1985, written by Lambert himself, documented this first meeting, referring to Gravett as ‘Paul Grottier’ – Gravett testified that this was not an alias, his name had just been misspelt or misheard.

Gravett described how, from the beginning, Lambert made a strong impression. Approximately ten years Gravett’s senior, Lambert was confident and charming. Gravett looked up to him and their friendship developed quickly.

By summer 1986, Lambert was close enough to visit Gravett’s family home, meeting his parents and spending time chatting in Gravett’s room. Lambert hosted parties at his Highgate residence. Gravett recalled he was a drinker who didn’t appear to use other drugs.

Lambert significantly influenced Gravett’s development as an activist and his views on animal rights. Gravett characterized their relationship as having ‘an element of grooming’. While Lambert wasn’t the only influence on his activism, he stood out among others.

‘He brought me along as an activist, increased my confidence a little bit… he stood out [in London Greenpeace] as the person, you know, I think closest to me and willing to help enable me to become a more skilled campaigner’

LONDON GREENPEACE

Barr asked the usual round of questions about the differences between London Greenpeace (LGP) and Greenpeace International (the two were wholly separate), and the links between London Greenpeace and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).

On the latter point, Gravett’s answers confirmed those of other LGP witnesses:

‘So we are talking about early 1986. The group that I joined then was quite a diverse one in terms of the breadth of its activities, more than most other groups. I would describe it as a green or ecological anarchist group. But broadly, the strands of the group that I felt were most, were most apparent to me in those early days, I would call class struggle and animal rights’.

Lambert was well established within LGP when Gravett got involved. He was a key holder for their office at 5 Caledonian Road, and early on invited Gravett to the office and showed him around. Being a key holder gave him full access to the building, though some individual rooms had separate locks.

The LGP office itself was modest, but it served as a crucial organising hub. Gravett recalled a couple of chairs, a telephone, stationery, lots of leaflets on shelves. LGP had a minutes book for the meetings which might also have been kept there.

On Bob Lambert’s politics, Gravett said:

‘He was first and foremost an animal rights campaigner, but he did certainly have knowledge in other areas. You could talk to him on anarchism. He obviously had a knowledge about that.

‘And he wasn’t, he didn’t just confine himself to animal rights. I remember there were other demonstrations that he went on perhaps, but not very frequently. It was in the main his concern was animal rights campaigning’.

By the autumn of 1986, both men were deeply involved in the anti-McDonald’s campaign. We were shown a photograph of Bob Lambert and Paul Gravett giving out leaflets together outside a branch on ‘World Anti-McDonald’s Day’, 16 October. Gravett was 24 years old at the time.

We were also shown an article written by Gravett in March 1987, which advocated unlawful direct action. Barr asked whether the views expressed in the article were influenced by Bob Lambert or were they views that Gravett held entirely independently of anything Lambert said and did?

‘Well, it’s sometimes very difficult to draw the distinction, because obviously you get influenced by those around you, who you are meeting, who you are seeing a lot of’.

Undercover officers like Bob Lambert were not just conducting surveillance, they were participating, and it is impossible to fully understand the influence they had.

THE ALF SUPPORTERS GROUP AND BROADER CONTEXT

Unlike the other witnesses we have heard from LGP, Gravett was one of the LGP activists in the 1980s who was himself very interested in animal rights, and was involved in the ALF Supporters Group (ALFSG) in 1982 and early 1983.

Intelligence reports claimed the ALFSG office moved into the London Greenpeace office, but Gravett testifies that this never happened.

Gravett met with imprisoned ALF founder Ronnie Lee about running the ALFSG, receiving clear instructions that no Supporters Group money should be spent on direct action.

The only times he is aware of this rule being broken involved Lambert himself. On one occasion, Lambert pocketed some money from a fundraiser (which had raised £260 for the ALFSG) ‘to buy more glass etching fluid’.

On another, funds from a benefit gig were reportedly used to build incendiary devices. Intelligence reports claimed Gravett was involved in financial management and strategic planning for the ALFSG, but he is clear that his role primarily involved collecting mail.

INTELLIGENCE REPORTS AND DISPUTED CLAIMS

Throughout the period, Lambert filed numerous intelligence reports, many of which Gravett disputes in his testimony. His criticisms of Lambert’s reporting were particularly compelling because Gravett did not shy away from admitting his own political opinions and actions at the time.

Gravett’s first LGP meeting, in December 1985, was addressed by a speaker talking about the ALF. The report of it describes a discussion about animal rights activists needing to move beyond targeting butcher shops and fur shops to focus on major multinational corporations.

While Gravett couldn’t recall the specific conversation, he acknowledged he wouldn’t have opposed such a strategy.

However, the report also refers to another witness (Geoff Sheppard) saying that ‘all vivisectors should be lined up and shot’. Paul Gravett doesn’t remember this comment. He doesn’t recall Geoff Sheppard ever saying that any animal abuser should receive physical violence, and he doubts it was said.

This recorded exchange about shooting vivisectors was also raised on Monday in the questioning of Albert Beale, who was equally sceptical about the language he was reported as having used.

Another intelligence report, dated 15 April 1986, claimed Gravett was involved in criminal damage against animal abusers’ property – which Gravett admitted was true – but also stated he was assisting with the ALF press office in March 1986. Gravett testified he wasn’t involved with the supporters group at that time and wasn’t at the meeting in question.

An intelligence report from 14 April 1987 claims that the ALFSG had moved into the London Greenpeace office, and that that ALF press officer Robin Lane was a regular visitor. Gravett says none of that is true.

A report from 5 May 1987 about a party held at Brunel University, to celebrate an animal rights activist’s release from prison, lists 65 people as being present. Again, Gravett says he wasn’t there despite being on the list.

A significant report dated 16 July 1986 concerned Biorex, a contract testing laboratory in north London that carried out experiments on animals for cosmetics, chemicals and drugs. The report discussed a proposed ‘Biorex Action Group’ supposedly being started by Geoff Sheppard with Gravett and Helen Steel.

Again, Gravett disputed this, noting there was already a long-standing campaign against Biorex (which conducted peaceful demonstrations throughout the period in question). Geoff Sheppard (whose evidence was heard the following day) was also asked to address this proposed Biorex group and likewise said that he did not think it ever existed.

In all, the evidence has exposed extensive inaccuracies of this kind in Lambert’s reporting, and this raises important questions about what Lambert was doing. It seems possible that he invented things to justify his deployment and perhaps even used other people used to cover for his own actions as an agent provocateur.

McLIBEL

Asked about Lambert’s role in producing the factsheet about McDonald’s, Gravett explained that there was a subgroup that worked on the leaflet and reported back to LGP meetings. Lambert was part of the subgroup, Gravett was not.

The Inquiry honed in on this:

‘Q. As someone who was not a member of the subgroup, does it follow you aren’t able to tell us exactly whether or not Lambert wrote anything, and if so what?

A. …he obviously, as a part of the subgroup, did have a substantial input into it, what was in there, yes. I contributed one sentence.

Q. Right.

A. “Revolution begins in your stomach”.

Q. Right. So we can rule that out for Mr Lambert?

A. Yes, he wasn’t guilty of that.’

DIRECT ACTION

There is no doubt that, during the period in question, animal rights activists were involved in direct action, and Gravett did not shy away from that fact.

It is important to recognise that clear lines were drawn around ALF actions, and they unequivocally said that only ‘actions that promote animal liberation and take all reasonable precautions to avoid harm to both human and non-human life’ could be attributed to the ALF.

Barr seemed to struggle with this distinction at times, and Gravett had to point it out:

‘Q. Is it right that at this point in your career as an activist you were carrying out acts of criminal damage against people you considered to be involved in animal abuse?

A. Well not, you say criminal damage against people, that would be violence, wouldn’t it?

Q. Well, the property.

A. The property. I had carried out some acts of criminal damage, I believe, around 1986’.

Barr pushed Gravett on whether he ever considered the impacts of home visits on the people affected. Gravett replied that:

‘home visits within a campaign are part of the broad spectrum of approaches, the aim of which is to stop someone exploiting and abusing non-human animals, which is very, very, very serious. Sentient creatures being abused and exploited’.

That was the driving force behind all of Gravett’s animal rights activism. As well as examining the role of undercover policing, this public inquiry gives space to people who have a thoughtful ethical code that differs from the mainstream. For example, Gravett and others believe that the law should be broken to damage property that does harm to human and non-human animals.

However, Gravett’s own role in direct action is not the real issue. Of most concern to the Inquiry is the fact that Lambert became increasingly involved in direct action as his operation progressed. He began driving activists to actions in his van, including a visit to the home of a vivisector in Surrey where Lambert chanted and waved a placard, and to hunt sabotage events.

Gravett recalled a large hunt sab where arrests occurred, though specific details escaped his memory. An intelligence report dated 20 September 1986 detailed plans to disrupt the Surrey Union fox hunt’s first seasonal event, with a speaker from the Hunt Saboteurs Association coming to a LGP meeting to discuss new tactics.

More serious actions followed. Lambert admitted to Gravett that he had conducted an arson attack on a property owned by Biorex director (empty and up for sale at the time). He described how he researched the property, confirmed it was not being lived in, and poured flammable liquid through the letterbox.

The spring 1987 edition of London ALF News carried a report, entitled ’A hot night in August’, of this attack. Gravett testified that this report was written by Lambert and the attack itself verified by Geoff Sheppard, who had acted as Lambert’s look-out that night.

Lambert also told Gravett that he had committed other acts of criminal damage: disguising himself as a jogger to pour paint stripper on a Biorex director’s car, and damaging McDonald’s windows with glass etching fluid.

Again, we were taken to intelligence reports about the paint-stripper action that claimed it was conducted by activists, plural, and that Gravett had phoned through details to the ALF press office.

Gravett contested this:

‘He told me he did it on his own… I never telephoned anything to the Animal Liberation Front press office’.

Whether or not these actions really happened is an important question in the run up to Lambert giving evidence. Gravett recalls that the paint-stripper and etching fluid actions were reported in the local media (the Islington Gazette and Hampstead & Highgate Express respectively), and Sheppard confirms that he was look-out when Lambert put something through the letterbox at the Biorex director’s property, although he does not remember seeing flames.

Of the McDonald’s window, Gravett said:

‘Lambert was an enthusiast for the use of glass etching fluid. Particularly in that time-frame, 1986, you know, early 1987. So I wouldn’t have been surprised…

‘I don’t have any reason to doubt, really. Because, firstly, Bob Lambert told me he did it. Then, as it says, there is a report on it in a local paper. So I think, I think it was him that did it’.

We heard previously from Gabrielle Bosley how Lambert had asked her to buy etching fluid for him, and we heard from Gravett that he was asked to do the same.

The implication of the evidence we heard is that it appears police officer Bob Lambert committed multiple crimes while he was undercover in the animal rights movement and encouraged others to do so, and then reported these crimes to his bosses at Special Branch as if he wasn’t involved.

Whether or not these actions really happened, for Gravett, the fact Lambert confided in him about his role significantly elevated his standing in Gravett’s eyes:

‘That sort of unlawful direct action, it was extremely rare. I mean, as I said, arson itself was extremely rare. And to tell someone you when done that afterwards – again, very rare’.

The significance of Lambert’s status as a self-professed arsonist quickly became clear.

THE DEBENHAM’S CAMPAIGN

The campaign against Debenham’s department stores emerged in early spring 1987, and marked a significant escalation. According to Gravett, Lambert initiated the plan to plant incendiary devices in the shops selling fur:

‘I think he said something along the lines of, you know, “We should escalate the direct action in what we are doing, and involving arson”…

‘if not those exact words, words like them. Like I said “escalate”. There is different stages of direct action and arson comes close to the top. And I had never done anything like that. But he was saying that we should be escalated. So, yes, something on a vastly different scale would not be unreasonable to think something like that was said’.

Gravett is not claiming that Lambert had to persuade him to take action, but he is very clear that the original idea was Lambert’s.

A cell formed, comprising Lambert, Gravett, Andrew Clarke, and Geoff Sheppard. (Sheppard gave evidence himself on 14 and 15 November).

The group held several outdoor meetings to plan their actions, and while decisions were made collectively in keeping with anarchist principles, Gravett identified Lambert as the instigator who led discussions. He recalls that Helen Steel was invited to take part in the meetings but she only came once, and said she couldn’t be involved.

Barr asked multiple questions on the most minor of points about the planning, including a long discussion about train timetables and the reliability of British Rail in the 1980s. We were shown a British Rail passenger timetable from May to October 1987. For a hearing about criminal damage and incendiary devices it was surprisingly dull to follow.

Gravett, for his part, was very honest about his involvement in the planting of the incendiary devices, although he admitted he does not have a clear memory of everything.

The group targeted four Debenham’s stores near London. The plan was to cause small fires to set off the sprinkler systems, which would cause water damage to stock and financial loss for the company. This was designed to avoid causing any harm to any living being, within ALF policy.

Gravett chose the Reading branch of Debenham’s, and conducted reconnaissance weeks before the planned attack.

On the day of action, the four gathered in the afternoon to distribute eight devices – two per person. Gravett recalls remarking that if anyone had told him he’d be doing this seven years ago, he’d have told them they were mad.

He concealed his devices in an opaque carrier bag and headed for Paddington station. However, long queues and delays at Paddington meant Gravett wouldn’t reach Reading before the store closed. He got off the train at Langley and disposed of his devices in a canal, a decision influenced by his familiarity with the area through friends.

The other three reported successfully placing their devices. Gravett remembered meeting that evening, at a Stoke Newington squat, to discuss the outcome.

The impact became clear when Lambert informed the group that the Luton device had resulted in a fire which caused £5 million in damage, far exceeding their intention to merely trigger the sprinkler system. This was because the sprinkler system had been switched off. The group was shocked by the extent of the destruction.

AFTERMATH AND ARRESTS

The four of them decided to plan another attack, and more devices were being built, before Geoff Sheppard and Andrew Clarke were arrested. Events around the arrests moved quickly. Lambert arranged to meet Gravett at a Finsbury Park pub, and told him he had seen a police car at Clarke’s house. Gravett called the house, and someone confirmed that anti-terror police had raided.

There was talk about how Clarke and Sheppard had been caught. It seemed the police had known when to raid and catch them red-handed. However, they were all already known to the police as animal rights activists. Intelligence reports from this time suggest that animal rights activists carried out an internal investigation into possible police infiltration.

A series of intelligence reports also claim there were discussions about using ‘fireball’ devices. The Inquiry redacted the names of the chemicals in the documents, so that no one could use them as a guide to make an improvised incendiary device (which was met with laughter from the public gallery – don’t try this at home, kids!).

In any case, Sheppard and Clarke were arrested in the process of assembling more devices that were no different from those used in the Debenham’s actions. We were read excerpts from the forensic experts who examined the chemicals found in the raid and made clear that they were incendiary, but not explosive in nature.

Gravett says he would never have agreed to using something like a chemically ignited ‘fireball’ device, and he doesn’t believe the others would either. This is just one of a long list of reports, from the period after the arrests of Clarke and Sheppard, which Gravett says he thinks are straightforward lies.

Gravett organised a defence campaign for Clarke and Sheppard, visiting both in prison, with Lambert accompanying him on at least one visit.

Gravett’s last meeting with Lambert was at a pub, in November 1988. Lambert claimed his residence had been raided, and shortly afterwards vanished from the movement.

In 1985, annual revenue from the fur trade in the UK was about £80m. By 1989 it had plummeted to £4m. This was due to campaigns of all types – some legal, some not – by the animal rights movement. Alongside this, opinion polls showed 70%-80% of the public were against killing animals for their fur.

Gravett’s brave testimony sheds light on a period where the boundaries between state surveillance and active participation in criminal activities became dangerously blurred. Perhaps more than any other undercover deployment examined by the Inquiry to date, Lambert went far beyond observing. He had intimate and sexual relationships with numerous activists, he actively participated in meetings and created content, writing articles and flyers.

What Gravett’s evidence makes clear is that he also played a leading role in not just encouraging but also committing illegal acts.

Perhaps most significantly, the testimony revealed how Lambert’s reports often diverged from reality. He clearly manipulated the information he was putting in his reporting, creating a complex legacy that will be difficult for the Inquiry to unpick.

Gravett’s evidence is not finished. The Inquiry is expected to call him back to give evidence about other undercover operations just as soon as their legal team get their act together to prepare more questions for him.

Meanwhile, Lambert himself is scheduled to give evidence on 2-5 December 2024.

---

Thursday 14 & Friday 15 November 2024
Evidence of Geoff Sheppard

Click here for Thursday’s video, transcripts and written evidence

Click here for Friday’s video, transcripts and written evidence

Geoff Sheppard was also questioned by David Barr KC, on Thursday afternoon and again on Friday morning.

Sheppard wants to make a correction to his own witness statement, to reflect his position changing slightly since he wrote it. He wants to make it clear that he did not consider the spycops’ infiltration of the animal liberation movement to be justified.

He thinks he must have met HN10 Bob Lambert sometime before December 1985, but is not completely sure when. He remembers ‘Bob Robinson’ as someone who was ‘very approachable, very friendly, very outgoing’. He was ‘very confident’, not shy. He says he was quite anti-social himself, so didn’t socialise much, and had no idea if Bob took illicit drugs during his deployment.

LONDON GREENPEACE

Sheppard went along to London Greenpeace (LGP) meetings most weeks but tended to sit and listen, but not get involved ‘in producing leaflets or anything like that’. Bob was much more actively involved, and ‘very vocal’ at the meetings. Sheppard recalls him as a ‘leader’ rather than a ‘follower’, with a ‘strong personality’. He was always up for giving people lifts in his van.

Sheppard is asked about a public meeting held by LGP that December, the subject of a Lambert report [UCPI028481]. The topic was ‘Animal Liberation’ and the main speaker someone called Steve Boulding. Sheppard can’t remember if this meeting was organised by Lambert or not. According to the report, Sheppard was very vocal about vivisectors that night and said ‘They should all be lined up and shot’. He admits that he may well have made a comment like this, ‘as a figure of speech, not as an actual plan’, but doesn’t remember doing so.

He was also asked about ‘CTS’ but seemed a bit confused, and it’s not clear that he remembers meeting her at all. He says he didn’t know ‘Jacqui’. (These are the pseudonyms of two of the women that Lambert had sexual relationships with during his deployment).

HUNT SABOTAGE

We next saw a report from February 1987 [MPS 0742173] which lists the names of ‘London Greenpeace activists and anarchist squatters’ who formed the ‘North London Hunt Saboteurs’ (NLHS). His name is listed, and he is described as an ‘experienced Animal Liberation Front activist’, as is Paul Gravett.

Sheppard says he only went sabbing two or three times in his life, and doesn’t know the dates. The report suggests that on this date the sabs have brought along people who are ‘more used to giving than receiving physical violence’.

Sheppard says this ‘doesn’t ring any bells with me’. He only went when the sabs needed extra numbers. He is well aware that ‘they were much more likely to be on the receiving end of violence than dishing it out’ and that at least two sabs had been killed in action.

ANIMAL LIBERATION FRONT

Barr moves on to ask about Animal Liberation Front (ALF) activity. Sheppard confirms that this was not a membership organisation. Individuals and small cells operated autonomously to rescue animals from being abused, and would sometimes cause property damage to prevent further animal abuse. He said that he wasn’t involved in committing any criminal damage to anybody’s home, clarifying that what he meant by ‘home’ did not extend to unoccupied premises.

Barr reads out some examples of tactics said to be endorsed forms of ALF direct action. Sheppard says he was not personally aware of some of these (for example squirting battery acid on fur coats, or setting fire to vehicles) and other actions (for example damaging a vehicle’s tyres, or paintwork) seemed far more likely.

Barr shows us a copy of ‘Interviews with ALF activists’, which was published around 1986 and attached to a police report [UCPI009110]. Sheppard remembers seeing this at the time but not all of the incidents reported in it – for example, six department store vans are said to have been fire-bombed as part of an ‘intensifying campaign against stores which sell fur’ – or all of the ideas for action detailed. He points out that it can’t be assumed that all of these tactics were actually being used at the time just because they were written down in this publication.

The Inquiry has thoughtfully redacted the instructions for making an improvised incendiary device, just in case anyone watching today is tempted to do so!

Later, the same publication describes corrosive etching fluid as a ‘new weapon’ used by ALF in Sheffield (on the windows of House of Fraser shops, as they had fur departments). Sheppard remembers hearing about this technique but never used it himself.

For some reason Barr then highlights a report of an action done at a country house owned by a fox hunter. Animal rights activists appear to have painted the word ‘SCUM’ on a wall. It is reported that etching fluid had been used on the windows and superglue on the locks.

It is unclear why he’s brought this incident up, other than to suggest this was typical of an ALF ‘home visit’ (something Sheppard has never done). Barr even says he’s not suggesting that Sheppard had anything at all to do with this.

Is it fair to say that there was a lot of ALF direct action in those days (the ‘80s)?
Sheppard agrees that yes, compared to now, this was the case. Were there people who were involved in both ALF and LGP? Sheppard points out that he has to say yes, ‘because I was one of them’, but he thinks the vast majority of LGP were not doing ALF-style actions.

The only activists involved in both ALF and LGP that we know of (discounting undercovers like Lambert) are Sheppard and yesterday’s witness (Paul Gravett). They were both asked if the ALF Supporters Group (ALFSG) had ever shared LGP’s office, as alleged in one of Lambert’s reports [MPS 0740079].

They have both denied ever hearing about such an arrangement. Sheppard disagrees with the claim that he went there to help with ALFSG admin. He went to the LGP meetings, which took place elsewhere (in Endsleigh Street) but not the office. His only involvement in the ALFSG was 5-6 years later.

EXISTING CRIMINAL RECORD

The next report we see, from January 1986 [UCPI028483], includes a description of Geoff Sheppard and details of his criminal record up till that time. He points out that he did not in fact assault a police officer outside the Savoy hotel in June 1983. That officer assaulted another demonstrator (breaking his nose) and then arrested Sheppard, saying ‘You’ll do’. However he was convicted of this and given a £10 fine and suspended sentence in November of that year.

He also received a conditional discharge in 1984, and served 150 hours community service in 1985, both for minor criminal damage related to animal rights. In 1986, he and Paul Gravett were arrested together for graffiti on the wall of HMP Holloway that read ‘Free the Unilever Four’. There is another report [UCPI028377] which lists the activists who visited him while he was on remand that April, and refers to this graffiti as one of Sheppard’s ‘lesser crimes’.

Six months later, he and Gravett were arrested again, this time for criminal damage at a Hornsey meat trader’s. Lambert’s report of this [MPS 0742721] lays out Sheppard’s thoughts ahead of his upcoming trial (including his plan to plead guilty, having been ‘caught red-handed’, and his sentencing preferences).

Sheppard attended the sentencing of animal rights activists in Sheffield Crown Court in 1987. All ten were sent to prison, but their sentences were not as long as had been feared. He agrees that the report of this [MPS 0740062] mostly matches his memories, bar the part which said that Brendan McNally ‘literally screamed with delight when he was taken from the court’.

This report goes on to say that after this court case, activists would undoubtedly review their operational security measures and be more careful about how they purchased items for actions, or how much they wrote down. Sheppard doesn’t remember any of this; he just remembers his enthusiasm for animal rights being ‘reinforced’ at this time.

ANARCHISTS FOR ANIMALS

In December 1985, Sheppard and other activists were arrested while leafleting at Murrays Meat Market in Brixton. The group used the name ‘Anarchists for Animals’ (AFA) for this demo. Sheppard doesn’t know for sure who made the leaflet (which portrays a butcher holding a cleaver to a human baby) but strongly suspects that both this and the demo itself were organised by ‘Bob Robinson’.

According to Lambert’s reports, the AFA continued to organise. Sheppard, however, casts doubts on this, he thinks this name was just used for that one demo. ‘I didn’t think Anarchists for Animals was a genuine organisation’ he says.

Despite this, another report [MPS 0747119] from August 1986 describes Sheppard as an AFA activist, and claims he is ‘impressed by recent demonstrates outside the homes of vivisectors in Surrey and Sussex’. He doesn’t think this was true. He says he was far more interested in direct action than these kinds of ‘home visit’ demos.

BIOREX CAMPAIGN

Biorex Laboratories was located in Highbury, and vivisection was carried out there. Campaigning and actions (such as Sheppard’s breaking of two windows, something he was convicted of in 1985) were already ongoing long before July 1986. Sheppard says that contrary to what is reported then [MPS 0740016], he had no intention of forming a new ‘Biorex Action Group’.

He remembers going to the national anti-Biorex demo. There was a brief sit-down during it, which was broken up by the police immediately. However, as someone with no interest in home visits, he did not carry out any reconnaissance of Biorex directors’ home addresses.

However he remembers that Lambert planned an action, and came to him to ask for his help. ‘He said he needed someone to act as a lookout’. Sheppard also recalls ‘I used to do a bit of running, you know, running around the local park’; Bob knew this and at some point told him that this made him a ‘good candidate’ for this action.

Lambert drove them both to Barnet in his small van and parked it about quarter of a mile from the house. The area was suburban, and they walked the last bit of the journey. The house was detached from its neighbours. Sheppard took Lambert’s word for it that the house was up for sale, and that he’d phoned the estate agents and been told that it was completely empty.

Bob is said to have given instructions during the van journey about what to do if the police arrived:

‘Basically he said if it was a police officer on his own, then we’ll try and push him over and we make a run for it. But he said that if there were two police officers then we should just give ourselves up due to their, I remember these words now, “due to their superior training”.’

As the look-out, Sheppard spent most of his time looking away from Lambert and the target house. He says he turned round briefly, and saw Lambert seemingly pushing something through the letter-box, but didn’t see any flames. To this day, he doesn’t know for sure if there ever was a fire, and admits ‘it is possible that it was me being hoaxed’.

The following spring, an article about this action (with the title ‘A hot night in August’), appeared in the London ALF newsletter [UCPI037249]. Sheppard did not write this, and he’s not sure if it’s entirely accurate (as it mentions flames, which he never saw) but admits that he would have agreed with the sentiments expressed in it. The only person he ever told about this action afterwards was Paul Gravett.

On Friday, James Wood KC (Sheppard’s barrister) has a few follow-up questions about this incident. He wants to know if Sheppard is certain that the Barnet address (72 Galley Lane) mentioned in the ALF ‘List of actions’ matched the place he visited with Bob Lambert that night.

He produces some stills taken from Google Earth of the street and its houses, and Sheppard says ‘it does seem about right’. However he was never given the address beforehand, and was driven there by Lambert. Wood tries to explore further. Does Sheppard remember exactly where the van was parked, or how far away this was? He can’t remember any more than the distance he estimated before (quarter of a mile).

ETCHING FLUID AND PAINT STRIPPER

London ALF News carried a list of ‘London ALF actions’ that had taken place since the last issue. The same edition included a story of etching fluid being used at the Golders Green branch of McDonald’s in October 1986. Supposedly 3 windows had to be replaced at a cost of £1800. Sheppard says he didn’t know anything about this attack and didn’t see the coverage of it in the local newspaper.

A police report from the time [UCPI028517] suggests that the use of etching fluid is on the rise amongst animal rights activists and more McDonald’s branches will be targeted. The Inquiry have asked a lot of questions about etching fluid during these hearings.

Barr asks Sheppard what he knew about its effectiveness, and about what Lambert reported [MPS 0742721]:

‘In reality “glass etching fluid” is unlikely to weaken a plate glass window, unless it is applied with an implement that scores the glass. This is a fact often ignored by activists, shopkeepers and, of course, glaziers.’

Sheppard never used the stuff so wasn’t able to tell them much.

He is asked about another attack on property belonging to a Biorex director. A November entry on the ‘London ALF List of actions’ says their car had been damaged with paint stripper. He says he heard a story about this (which entailed Lambert dressing up in his jogging gear and throwing the chemical over the car as he jogged past) but as he may well have heard it from Lambert himself, cannot verify its truth.

THE ANONYMITY OF MR X

Sheppard says he first learnt about that somebody was working on making an incendiary device from Lambert – and isn’t sure of the exact date – and he had no practical knowledge of this himself. He doesn’t know where this person got their knowledge or the idea.

This person is not willing to take part in the Inquiry and has asked Sheppard not to use his name. He offers to refer to him as ‘Person X’, and thereafter Barr begins to call him ‘Mr X’. However, obviously irritated by this, Mitting interrupts to tell Sheppard that if this ‘pretence’ around the identity of Mr X is maintained, it will distract and detract from this Inquiry.

It appears that the Chair has decided that only he gets to award anonymity to people who he deems deserving. He tells Sheppard that he doesn’t mind him referring to this person as ‘Mr X’ for the next few hours, but asks him to ‘have one more go at persuading him’ that evening. Sheppard is sceptical that he can change X’s mind, and reports back the next morning that he hasn’t managed to.

Everyone notices that Barr immediately stops using the name ‘Mr X’ after this, which comes across as very disrespectful. We will continue referring to him as ‘Mr X’ throughout this report.

DECIDING ON DEBENHAM’S

According to a report from April [MPS 0740019] Geoff Sheppard is serving a short custodial sentence, and due to prison overcrowding, is currently held in Hendon Police Station. It goes on to claim that his sentence has been a ‘deterrent to others’, that he ‘has been hesitant to return to crime’ but is bound to do so when he is released.

In the witness statement he supplied to ‘Operation Herne’ (an internal police inquiry) back in 2017 [UCPI0737215], Sheppard wrote of being recruited to take part in an incendiary device action by a ‘fourth person’, who he was not willing to name at that time. However we now know that this was Paul Gravett.

Sheppard says his memory of dates is hazy. He remembers that there were four of them who met up, mostly in parks, to discuss their plans, all men (him, ‘Mr X’, Paul and Bob). Did Helen Steel ever attend these meetings? Not to his memory, no.

Barr returns to this question later, on Friday. He produces Steel’s witness statement [UCPI037365]. In it she writes of being invited to a meeting in 1987 to discuss campaigning against the fur trade. They met in a park. She was driven there by Lambert, in his van. She says that she was one of five people present.

After hearing her account, Sheppard accepts that this may have happened, but he still genuinely has no memory of being at a meeting at the same time as her.

James Wood KC also raises this on Friday, pointing out that at one point in his witness statement [MPS 037104] Sheppard refers to a meeting that he attended with four other people in early 1987. It says that four of the group decided to work toward a future action, but the fifth person present decided not to be involved. Sheppard says ‘I think I must be referring there to Helen Steel’.

How did they reach the decision to target Debenham’s? He recalls an ongoing campaign around the country to persuade Debenham’s to stop selling fur. He was ‘enthusiastic’ about taking direct action against the fur trade.

IMPROVISED INCENDIARY DEVICES

We moved on to find out more about the tactic they chose to use for this campaign: improvised incendiary devices (IIDs).

They decided to put these devices in the stores towards the end of the day, just before they closed. The IID was set up to work with a 9-10 hour delay, so it would go off during the night, when nobody was there, and set off the sprinkler system, causing the shop’s stock to be damaged by the water.

The plan was for coordinated attacks, all on one night. They each picked a ‘convenient’ branch that they would be responsible for, and carried out their own reconnaissance in advance. They met up after this to share information; he remembers talking in the street somewhere.

He reported back to the group that he hadn’t found a fur department in ‘his’ branch (Romford). He recalls being unsure about what to do. He remembers Lambert being very insistent that as it was a Debenham’s store, it was still a legitimate target, and going along with that. He doesn’t know for sure what he would have done otherwise, but says Lambert persuaded him to continue with the action in Romford.

WHO DID WHAT

‘It wasn’t like the military’ he explains to Barr that nobody was ‘assigned roles’ as such – they each decided what they were able and willing to do. Barr asks if this was ‘agreed in the anarchist way – without a hierarchy’? Sheppard says there was nothing especially ‘anarchist’ about it. He doesn’t know the source of the components used in the first batch of devices.

All four members of the ‘cell’ were up for placing these devices in shops. He offered to help with the manufacture of the devices, but neither Gravett nor Lambeth got involved in this work. Sheppard says he never questioned this, and nothing was said about it.

Mitting picks up on this, and at the end of Friday’s hearing asks some questions of his own about why Lambert, who seemed to either be ‘a leader’ or ‘the leader’ in this plan, had nothing to do with the devices’ construction?

Sheppard replies that Bob certainly could have helped, if he’d wanted to, with the same kind of ‘menial’ tasks that he’d taken on, such as cutting out ventilation holes in the devices, and attaching (‘do not touch!’) warning stickers on the outside. He suggests that perhaps Lambert was trying to ‘distance himself a little bit’?

Asked if anyone in the group claimed more expertise in this manufacturing process, Sheppard says ‘there is no doubt that Person X was more expert’.

THE DAY OF DEBENHAM’S

On 11th July 1987, Sheppard went on foot to collect two of these devices from a house in Tottenham. This wasn’t the home of any of the four ‘cell’ members, but Mr X was there.

He remembers that the devices were on a table, but not which room this was in. He doesn’t remember how many devices were there when he arrived. He just picked up two and put them in his jacket pockets.

He thinks he went straight to Romford from that house, possibly by train. It was sometime in the afternoon. He placed the devices on two different floors of the shop, then travelled home. He doesn’t remember what he did that evening, but believes he stayed at home, alone.

AFTERWARDS

He isn’t sure when he met up with the others again. ‘Maybe a week later’ he suggests. He doesn’t actually remember all four of them meeting up; he may just have met with Lambert. Where? He has a vague memory of this being indoors. Didn’t they plan to hold a debrief as a group? He can’t remember.

What did Lambert first say when you met him afterwards? He said that he’d been able to place one of his two devices at the Harrow store, but not the second. There was no explanation for this.

He also remembers talking to Gravett afterwards. He recalls Gravett telling him that ‘his hands felt very sticky, his fingers felt sticky’ (maybe caused by the label coming off?)
and that he’d thrown both of his devices in a canal, instead of planting them in the Reading store. Sheppard remembers feeling annoyed. Not angry, just annoyed.

‘To put it bluntly, did you think he’d bottled it?’ asked Barr.

‘That thought did go through my mind, yes’

What did the other two think? He can’t remember what Mr X thought, but does recall telling Lambert that he didn’t think Gravett should be involved in any such actions in future.

He remembers Lambert getting ‘very serious, and it wasn’t the smiley Bob Lambert anymore’, he became ‘quite angry’ and ‘quite aggressive’ and told Sheppard: ‘No, no, he must remain involved’. Sheppard backed down.

The Luton branch’s sprinkler system did not work, so the damage there was far worse than the group had expected or intended. Did they really not discuss this ‘striking event’?

‘Mr X, as we’re finding out now, is a cagey person… I can’t remember him saying anything about it, or leaping with joy or anything like that’.

An SDS report from this time [MPS 0735386] claims that Mr X (a ‘leading ALF activist’) is ‘delighted with the success’ of these incendiary devices’ and believes their design makes them ‘far more reliable’ than those used elsewhere. It also says that he has cleaned his room of any forensic traces and intends to squat a different house in order to manufacture more. This report was written by Bob Lambert.

Sheppard doesn’t know what Mr X thought of his devices or what he was planning next, and points out that Lambert may not have known either, and ‘may have just been making it up for himself’.

He then goes on to say:

‘He obviously needed the second event to happen. I have a suspicion that there may have been a degree of persuasion going on from Bob Lambert. He didn’t need to persuade me, because at that time, at that time I was still very, very committed’.

According to an article in the ‘Victims of Conscience’ newsletter [MPS 0649477] the costs of the damage caused to these three Debenham’s stores was calculated before Sheppard’s trial. Calculated as £8,731,296 in Luton, £350,000 in Harrow and £205,000 in Romford, this night of ALF action could be said to be one of the biggest ever in terms of economic impact.

Sheppard is clear that he has no regrets. He points out their reconnaissance included considering if anybody would be harmed in the event of an accidental ‘full-scale fire’.

In response, Barr plays BBC news footage from the Luton Arndale centre. According to the voice-over, the roof of the shopping centre was badly damaged in the fire. Didn’t this expose fire-fighters to risk? Not if there was nobody inside the area of the fire for them to rescue. Barr clarifies that he is referring to the risk of the weakened ceiling falling onto them later.

He also brings up the issue of asbestos. According to the forensic scientist who gave evidence at the criminal trial, it was not possible to fully examine the scene inside the store the following day, because of asbestos particles in the air. Barr suggests that this ‘gives rise to a risk to life’. Sheppard points out that many things could represent a risk to life, including driving.

Mitting has one question of his own before we finished for the day. A phone call was made claiming this action at around 3am, and a recording of this played at the trial. Had there been any discussion about this beforehand? Sheppard can’t remember.

WHAT THE ‘CELL’ DID NEXT

According to an intelligence report [MPS 0748765] ALF activists have decided to set a deadline by which Debenham’s must stop selling fur in all their stores. Supposedly a ‘trusted’ journalist at ‘Time Out’ will be used to communicate this to the company, and their department stores will be ‘monitored’ to see if they have complied.

Sheppard doesn’t remember this deadline, or know who was involved in setting it. However it seems that ‘Time Out’ did publish the cell’s only press statement, in full.

Lambert also reported [MPS 0735383] that Mr X has ’revealed’ that he manufactured these devices at his home, and planted the Luton one, and that the other two were planted by ‘two close and trusted comrades’ of his. Barr suggests that Lambert is being ‘extremely coy’ here, and Sheppard agrees that he seems to be ‘drip-feeding the information’.

‘Without a Trace’ was a booklet published by Hooligan Press in 1986, containing advice about foiling forensic investigations. Clarke is said to be ‘confident’ that the devices will provide no clues to police investigating these attacks, but aware that a very thorough search of his house might be problematic. Barr asks if either of them had this pamphlet? Did they talk about forensics? Sheppard does not recall doing so.

In order to prevent this being an issue in future, Mr X is said to be planning to manufacture more devices elsewhere, in a squatted house in Tottenham, that will be available at the end of August. It says the process of assembling them will be much quicker than last time, and take around three days and nights, but Sheppard has no memory of this.

Lambert’s report says the cell plans to carry out another incendiary attack, on the provisional date of 26th September. It has a short-list of possible targets in the West End (not Debenham’s) and will soon choose one. Sheppard doesn’t remember if, how or when they did this, but confirms that they have a list of shops engaged in the fur trade.

Barr asked:

‘Just to be clear, how is it that Bob Lambert is able to report all of this detail?’

Sheppard replied:

‘Well, I mean the answer to that is quite simple, which is that he was an integral part of this cell’

CHANGING PLANS

The next report [MPS 0735382] describes this ‘active London cell’ of four people, meeting in two dates in August, and Mr X as this ALF cell’s ‘effective leader’. It says that he has given up his job as a Haringey Council gardener, and for this reason, the date of the group’s next incendiary action will be brought forward to 29 August. The target will be Harrods of Knightsbridge, and devices will be left on four different floors in order to maximise the damage.

Sheppard doesn’t believe this was true. He remembers that every time Harrods was mentioned, ‘it was immediately dropped’. People knew that it contained a pet store, so there would be innocent animals inside overnight. He doesn’t remember this being discussed, the idea of using four devices on different floors, or anything about changing the date.

It also suggests that a new person (who does not know Mr X) will be brought in to help plant the devices. And that neither Mr X or Sheppard himself (who will be helping with the manufacture) will be involved in that aspect of the operation. Sheppard doesn’t recognise this plan at all. Yes, he planned to help make the devices. But he thought there would be four devices, one for each of the four of them, and nobody else would be involved.

Barr asked why allocate just one device per person now, instead of the two each had used for the Debenham’s attack? Sheppard thought this might have been a reflection of their perceived reliability. Barr wondered if there were only four devices this time, did this mean they could be planted by just two people?

He also asks if the group had – as suggested in this report – gone to Debenham’s in Oxford Street on 1 October to check if they had complied with the ALF demands? Sheppard didn’t know.

According to a Special Branch briefing note [MPS 0735381] the cell was put under surveillance, and on Saturday 22 August, Mr X was seen collecting a white bag from an address in Bow E3 and being driven to Sheppard’s house.

A ‘secret and reliable source’ (police code for one of their undercover officers, in this case HN10 Bob Lambert) has provided information about the contents of this bag (components for IIDs) and the identity of the man who lives at this address in Bow (‘MSW’) along with the allegation that ‘he is believed to be performing the role of “quartermaster” in this affair’. Sheppard says they didn’t have a quartermaster.

A week later, Lambert’s next report [MPS 0735376] says the group’s plans have been delayed, due to Mr X finding out more about the physical layout of Harrods, and the fact that live animals are kept there. Sheppard remembers visiting other shops to see if they sold fur, but he doesn’t know if anyone went to Harrods at this time to look at its layout. Another possible reason is offered for this delay: that there are currently 200 liberated laboratory rats staying at the home of Mr X’s girlfriend. The new action date is said to be 11 September.

It is reported that Sheppard is storing the components for making these improvised incendiary devices (IIDs) in a ‘well hidden place’ in his home. He remembers this, but has no memory of the planned targets. How many people knew about these plans? Sheppard is very clear that there were only ever four of them involved, and he can’t speak for the others, but knows that he didn’t mention this to anyone else.

THE ARREST, SEPTEMBER 1987

Another week later, on 4 September, it is reported [MPS 0735374] that Mr X is ‘known to favour’ Friday 11 September, but that the date won’t be confirmed until after the weekend. Why not? Were they planning to meet and discuss it that weekend? Sheppard has no recollection.

It is said that it took Mr X two full days to manufacture 10 devices for the night of action in July. This report states that ‘it is anticipated that they will need a full day to make five devices’ this time. Sheppard doesn’t remember any discussion about how long it would take. He insists that their plan was for ‘four people, one device each’, and these devices would be identical to those used before.

A report dated 7 September [MPS 0735373] mentions that a drugs raid took place at Mr X’s address on Thursday 3. The police searched the room of one his housemates, but not that of X. It says that the action is likely to go ahead on Friday 11th, and the necessary devices will be assembled at Sheppard’s home, on either Wednesday 9th or Thursday 10th.

It goes on to say that Mr X is ‘flattered’ to have been approached by Manchester activists wanting him to make more of these devices, ‘considered to be the best within the movement’, known for their reliability and effectiveness.

Sheppard doubts this, as (a) people did not talk openly about ALF activities or such devices & (b) Mr X is ‘cagey’ and unlikely to have welcomed such discussion. He points out that activists wouldn’t spread information ‘far and wide’ especially about stuff like this.

Barr insinuates that there were ‘mechanisms’ for ALF activists to be put in touch with one another. Sheppard rejects this idea. Were plans or photos of these devices sent to anyone? (another claim made in this report). Sheppard shakes his head, he doesn’t know anything about this.

Sheppard is asked if he ever kept a large kitchen knife near his bed? (as noted in block capitals in this latest report) He says he may well have done and recalls the reason why: an ‘unsettling’ incident one night that summer, when he disturbed someone who was trying to climb through his (ground floor) bedroom window.

Sheppard was arrested in his room, along with Mr X, on 9th September. At the time they were in the process of assembling IIDs. The police smashed the door open and injured his arm badly in the process; he had to be taken to hospital.

SPARE DEVICES OUT IN THE WILD?

Lambert began circulating rumours that there were ‘five viable devices’ unaccounted for, that had been made before the men were arrested, and never found by the police.

The first such report of this [MPS 0740045] dates back to October 1987. It claims that these haven’t been used yet, and are being stored by activists with no connection to either Sheppard or Mr X.

‘I think that’s probably fabricated’ says Sheppard. He doesn’t think any extra devices were made (and moved) before his arrest; they were still in the middle of making them when the police interrupted them.

Another report, from the following summer [MPS 0740509], repeats this claim, saying these five devices are still in the possession of ‘ALF activists’ and ‘under the control’ of one of them. Sheppard repeats his doubts about this being true. He knows he wasn’t involved in making any extra devices so Mr X would have had to do this alone and never told him about it.

The two men were held on remand until their trial the following summer. They sometimes shared a prison cell during this period. However Sheppard doesn’t think that his co-defendant would have disclosed the existence or location of any remaining devices to him.

One more report, from August 1988 [MPS 0740511] makes it apparent that these rumours are false. This report claims that Sheppard was involved in making these five extra devices; it wasn’t something Mr X did alone.

PRISON VISITS

We see a report from November 1987 [MPS 0740050]. It lists the real names of activists who are known to have visited Sheppard and his co-defendant while they were inside (usually giving false names when they did so). There’s a second such report from February 1988 [MPS 0740020].

‘Bob Robinson’ is listed as visiting in both reports. Sheppard remembers him bringing a gift with him one time (a pamphlet about ‘philosophical egoism’, which he explains is a kind of ‘individualism’). He doesn’t remember Belinda Harvey coming with him.

Did ‘Bob’ discuss the upcoming trial with him? Sheppard thinks it’s likely that he did, but doesn’t remember what was said. As far as he knew, Lambert was involved in the defence campaign. He never looked up at the public gallery during his trial, but thought he was there.

Lambert describes ‘friction’ between the two men in his report of May 1988 [MPS 0740498]. It says that Mr X is obsessing about the trial and trying to persuade Sheppard to plead guilty to some of the charges. Sheppard, on the other hand, is said to be planning to plead not guilty and then remain silent. He confirms that this is quite accurate, yes.

The report goes on to allege that Mr X had conversations with visitors about the five missing devices. He doesn’t want them to be used for any ALF actions before his trial lest it affect the outcome. Sheppard says that nobody consulted him about whether or not any such devices should be used, and he is still ‘dubious’ that they even existed.

Later on we hear about a report [MPS 0740492] of ‘recent fire bomb attacks’, said to have been ALF actions, at Oxford St department stores, in November 1987. Sheppard says he heard about these on the radio but not beforehand. He doesn’t know who carried them out. It is unclear if this is linked to the ‘missing devices’ or not.

INFILTRATION SUSPECTED

How come the police turned up at Sheppard’s house precisely when he had all the components for these devices there, on that date in September? He says there is still a huge question mark about this.

He says he heard ‘there was some kind of investigation going on’, but he wasn’t involved, didn’t initiate it, saying ‘maybe I wasn’t far enough up the hierarchy…’ and didn’t know much about its form or any outcome.

It appears that there was a burglary at Tottenham Magistrates Court in September 1988, which appeared to target search warrants, including the one used to arrest Sheppard. He denies any knowledge of this.

NEW TYPE OF DEVICE

Barr then introduces a report [MPS 0735383] describing a new type of device, that would work differently from the first ones. This entailed a mixture of chemicals which would react violently and become a ‘lethal firebomb’. According to the report, these would be sealed into Jiffy bags and posted through the letter-boxes of a range of targets..

Another report [MPS 0735376] claims that Sheppard and Mr X plan to scope out possible targets in the City of London over the weekend, with a view to then launching a ‘Jiffy bag campaign’. Sheppard remembers checking out various shops involved in the fur trade.

Indeed, in a Special Branch report [MPS 0735365] the two men are said to have visited furriers and other shops in the West End on 5 September. This report says that surveillance will be in place for the planned dates of their next action:

‘full 24-hour coverage of the two addresses has been arranged’.

The same report that we saw earlier, dated 7 September [MPS 0735373] claims that the pair met up to test their new devices on the following day (Sunday 6 September) and planned to deliver Jiffy bags to approx 20 addresses at the end of the month. In contrast, Sheppard says ‘there was talk of a new device but it never really got beyond that’.

We are shown a report [MPS 0736879] detailing exactly what was found in Sheppard’s room by the police on 9 September. He doesn’t dispute the items listed, but does not remember how they came to be there. He points out that the idea of making a new style of device still hadn’t been put into practice, and he and X were engaged in making more of the original design when the raid occurred.

Even the police’s expert witness, Linda Jones (who was called in to identify the various liquids, powders and crystals) is reported [MPS 0736878] to have advised that none of these chemicals are explosive. She states that they could potentially be blended to produce an incendiary mix, but it is clear to her that ‘none of the chemicals have been mixed’. Sheppard agrees with this finding.

Yet again, the Inquiry team has taken the trouble to redact some of the names of the chemicals found during this raid. They do not want the public to find out how to make such ‘lethal firebombs’ from reading one of their lengthy transcripts (the only way to get any information at present, as no new documentary evidence has appeared on the website since Martyn Lowe’s exhibits).

LAMBERT’S INFLUENCE

At the very end of Friday’s hearing, Sheppard’s own barrister, James Wood KC, asks him to provide more details about how Bob Lambert operated, and the influence he had over the activists he spied on.

In his witness statement [MPS 0737215], Sheppard has mentioned a LGP meeting which took place in the first half of 1987, possibly in the group’s office rather than at Endsleigh Street. It was attended by 5-6 people, they all sat on the floor and he remembers Lambert occupying the raised section.

Sheppard recalls this was a ‘generalised’ meeting about people who wanted to take action about animal abuse. There was no specific target in mind, and nothing ‘concrete’ was arranged.

He thinks it may well have been called by Lambert, and he has a very clear memory of Helen Steel looking at Bob at one point, ‘with a very quizzical expression on her face’, and suggests ‘she was wondering: who is this bloke?’ at the time. He didn’t often see her at meetings but remembers her at this one. He thinks Paul Gravett was there too.

How often did he meet with ‘Bob Robinson’? Maybe 10-20 times. Most of these were meetings of the four ‘cell’ members, discussing their plans to use incendiary devices against Debenham’s. They didn’t take minutes of their meetings or have a Chair.

What was Lambert’s role in these discussions? Sheppard remembers Bob ‘pushing these plans forward’. He says he was ‘very enthusiastic’ himself in those days. He didn’t socialise much with Lambert outside of meetings. Their relationship was about taking direct action.

Wood is very keen that the witness share his impressions of Lambert and his role during this ‘crucial period’. He was ‘definitely very keen, definitely very active’. He remembers ‘Bob Lambert was a forceful character. Charismatic, I suppose’. Sheppard recalls that Lambert wanted the actions to happen. He ‘was a kind of a leader rather than a follower’. He finds it hard to remember more than this.

Wood asks: How does Sheppard describe his own role? Leader or follower? A mixture of the two. Sheppard says that he was very passionate about animal rights, but his nature was to be more of a follower.

The hearing ends at lunch-time. Mitting thanks Sheppard for giving evidence over the past two days (something he noticeably did not do yesterday).

Geoff Sheppard’s evidence this week has been very focussed on just one of the undercovers, HN10 Bob Lambert. Many observers have wondered why the Inquiry have chosen not to continue asking him about his experiences of undercover officers on Friday afternoon.

It appears that the only reason not to do so is Barr’s failure to prepare, and/or unwillingness to let anyone else ask questions. This represents a waste of hearing time and expense as the venue is paid for by the day.

Geoff Sheppard will return to give more evidence to the Inquiry on Monday 25 November.

 

Tranche 2, Phase 2, Day 2

15 October 2024

This summary covers the second day of ‘Tranche 2 Phase 2’, the new round hearings of the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI), examining the animal rights-focused activities of the Metropolitan Police’s secret political unit, the Special Demonstration Squad, from 1983-92.

The UCPI is an independent, judge-led inquiry into undercover policing in England and Wales. Its main focus is the activity of two units who deployed long-term undercover officers into a variety of political groups; the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS, 1968-2008) and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU, 1999-2011). Spycops from these units lived as activists for years at a time, spying on more than 1,000 groups.

Opening statements: Day 2

James Wood KC (Albert Beale; Gabrielle Bosley; Jane Hickman; Claire Hildreth; Hilary Moore; Rebecca Johnson; Robin Lane; Dave Morris: Geoff Shepherd; Paul Gravett; Helen Steel; Martyn Lowe)
Rajiv Menon KC (Friends of Freedom Press)
Dave Morris (McLibel Support Campaign)
Peter Weatherby KC (Hunt Saboteurs Association)
Sam Jacobs (Sharon Grant OBE; Stafford Scott)
Owen Greenhall (Joan Ruddock; Diane Abbott)
Fiona Murphy KC (The Category F Core Participants and TBS)
Kirsten Heaven (Non-Police Non-State Core Participants’ Co-ordinating Group)

1) James Wood KC

James Wood KC opens today’s hearing. He is speaking on behalf of 12 individuals represented by Hodge Jones and Allen:

• Albert Beale
• Gabrielle Bosley
• Jane Hickman
• Claire Hildreth
• Hilary Moore
• Rebecca Johnson
• Robin Lane
• Dave Morris
• Geoff Sheppard
• Paul Gravett
• Helen Steel
• Martyn Lowe

Their written Opening Statement goes into much more detail than his abbreviated oral submissions.

Wood began with some strong words about the officers of the Special Demonstration Squad, stating that they had:

‘committed some of the most serious abuses of state power against activists in modern times. They displayed, we say, a complete contempt for the basic rights and dignity of those they spied upon’.

Introductions

Wood went on to introduce those he represents, all of whom had been targeted for their involvement in a wide range of groups, including London Greenpeace, the women’s peace movement, the Trafalgar Square Defendants Campaign and various animal rights groups.

He noted that their political views, and the tactics they chose to use, varied, but made the point that none of them encouraged or promoted any form of direct action that would cause harm to anyone.

He took some time to explain that London Greenpeace was a small, autonomous, group, established in 1971 and completely independent from the much larger Greenpeace organisation that now exists. He provided pen portraits of those who were active in the group in the 1980s and explained a little about their background and interests.

Both Albert Beale and Martyn Lowe could be described as ‘pacifists’ and had long been involved in anti-nuclear, peace campaigning and projects. Albert is due to give evidence on 11 November and Martyn is scheduled to appear on 4 November.

Dave Morris spoke later that morning, about the McLibel case in which he and Helen Steel were involved. Morris was also part of the Trafalgar Square Defendants Campaign, set up in the aftermath of the anti-Poll Tax demonstration that took place in central London in March 1990. He will be providing more evidence on 5 November.

Like Morris, Steel was also involved in a wide range of environmental and social justice groups over the years. She was also one of the women targeted and deceived into a long-term sexual relationship by one of the spycops, and so is part of the ‘Category H’ group. Helen will give evidence on 27 November.

Gabrielle Bosley got involved with London Greenpeace in the mid 1980s. She will give evidence on 7 November.

Paul Gravett became active at the same time. He was particularly interested in animal rights, and Wood went on to give an overview of the main groups that Gravett was involved in. These included Islington Animal Rights, London Boots Action Group (LBAG), and London Animal Action (LAA).

These groups were heavily infiltrated, both by a string of undercover police officers and by corporate spies (sent by the fur trade and vivisection industry). This Inquiry should examine how much information was being shared by the Special Demonstratoin Squad (SDS) with such players. Paul is due to give evidence on 13 November and 14 November.

Claire Hildreth was also passionate about animals, and involved in both LBAG and LAA. Hildreth formed a very close friendship with one of the spycops, HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’. She will appear on 11 December.

Wood turned next to a discussion of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a name used by people who took direct action to end animal suffering. He highlighted that one of the ALF’s principles was:

‘Reverence for Life: In all actions we take the utmost care that no harm should come to either human or animal life.’

The Animal Liberation Front Supporters Group (ALF-SG) had a press officer and an office, that produced publications. It did not take part in direct action.

Robin Lane served as press officer, and spokesperson for the group, between 1986-88. He has a long history of involvement in campaigning against animal abuse, and will give more evidence on 12 November.

Wood also mentioned Greenham Common women’s peace camp very briefly, as it has largely been covered by the evidence given by Jane Hickman, Hilary Moore and Rebecca Johnson during the Inquiry’s ‘Tranche 1 Phase 1’ hearings earlier this year (which examined spycops 1983-1992 who targeted groups not involved in animal rights).

Wood simply noted that there was no real justification for this SDS targeting; it was done on the ‘apparent whim’ of Margaret Thatcher.

Unsafe convictions

Geoff Sheppard was convicted of two serious offences, and the safety of both convictions is cast in doubt by the conduct of two different undercovers. Geoff will give evidence on 14 November and 15 November.

In July 1987, times incendiary devices were planted at several Debenham’s stores, set to go off overnight when the buildings were locked and empty, with the intention of them triggering the store’s sprinkler systems and thereby causing huge economic damage to the furs that Debenhams controversially still sold at the time. HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’ was closely involved in initiating, planning and carrying out this action.

Sheppard went to prison for his part in the Debenham’s action. By the time he was released, Lambert had been made an SDS manager. However he had trained up a protégé, HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’, who encouraged Sheppard to return to activism and facilitated this by providing transport.

Sheppard’s second conviction, in 1995, was for a firearms offence. Rayner was lauded for providing the intelligence that led to this, but kept quiet about the role he had played in inciting Sheppard.

Had the SDS now decided that securing criminal convictions should be one of their roles? Wood contends that the SDS was ‘completely unsuited’ for this, given that they would always prioritise maintaining their cover over the criminal justice system. The involvement of the spycops was never disclosed to the courts and none of the usual safeguards were in place to ensure fair trials.

Legal privilege

In another issue which has come up in other Opening Statements, Wood explored the SDS’s ‘disdain’ for the criminal justice process, and lack of respect for the principles underpinning fair trial processes. SDS reports are full of details about what should have been considered ‘legally privileged material’.

Bob Lambert frequently visited Sheppard while he was in prison on remand. His reports contain information about the two co-defendants, the meetings they had with their lawyers, legal strategies and interpersonal conflicts.

Officer HN109 has told the Inquiry that he did not have a clear understanding of the concept of ‘legal privilege’ and so did not provide any guidance about to the undercovers he managed. It appears that none of the unit’s managers did, and such information was routinely recorded and retained.

Lambert’s lies

Wood then returned to the Debenham’s story, going into more detail about Bob Lambert’s involvement. Lambert organised the first planning meeting, and argued that all Debenham’s stores, even those that didn’t sell fur, were legitimate targets.

He chose the Harrow branch as his target, and told the others that he had successfully planted a device there. £340,000 of damage was caused as a result. Overall, this anti-fur campaign is estimated to have cost Debenham’s around £4m. They stopped selling fur as a result.

Lambert continues to deny that he was directly involved in this action. Wood highlighted some of the discrepancies around this. Most shockingly, we heard for the first time today that CCTV footage from Harrow had been handed over to the (anti-terrorist) police who first attended the scene. It was then snatched by Special Branch officers, and has never been seen since.

From examining Lambert’s reports, it is clear that he was privy to far more information about these improvised incendiaries than he should have been, and that he curated the content of reports in a way that seems designed to mislead, and hide the extent of his direct involvement.

He claimed that these reports had been ‘sanitised’ by his managers but the relevant managers all deny doing so. The Inquiry has not been able to find all the reports that are believed to have been produced around this time.

However, there are SDS reports, identifying another person, ‘MSW’, as a ‘quartermaster’ for the Debenham’s campaign. ‘MSW’ was politically active between 1979-84, but says he had no knowledge of this serious crime, and did not even know the two men who were convicted or ‘Bob Robinson’ (Lambert) himself.

Lambert also made false, unfounded, allegations about Helen Steel being involved, which she denies. It seems that there may be a pattern of Lambert fabricating such stories to cover up his own deeds, and perhaps to advance his career.

Another witness, Chris Baillie, has come forward and told the Inquiry that Lambert had set him up to be arrested for criminal damage done by a third person to a butcher’s window. He will appear as a witness on 6 November.

It is clear that some people were suspicious about exactly what Lambert was up to, However, according to one of his managers, HN109:

‘the value in his intelligence potentially blinded more senior officers to how it was being obtained.’

Other SDS officers, like HN11 Mike Chitty ‘Mike Blake’, are known to have made similar comments.

Having later become an SDS manager himself, was Lambert able to destroy records relating to his own deployment and misconduct? Did he also ensure documents relating to Geoff Sheppard’s relationship with ‘Rayner’ were destroyed?

Interestingly, Lambert also told some activists that he carried out a similar, incendiary, action in Selfridge’s in August 1988.

The Inquiry will undoubtedly have lots of questions for Lambert when he finally appears between 2-5 December. It is estimated that his evidence will require four full days, longer than anyone else in this set of hearings.

Responding to the State

Wood made some comments about the Opening Statements we heard yesterday, in particular the one delivered by Peter Skelton on behalf of the Metropolitan Police.

Some of the mistakes made by the SDS are repeated, for example a failure to distinguish between various animal rights groups and those involved in them – labelling them all as ‘militant’ – along with attempts to exaggerate the impact of animal rights campaigners on those they protested.

Pickets outside shops, offices and homes may have been annoying or unwelcome, but at the time they were entirely lawful, and represented only a minor inconvenience, not a public order problem, and were hardly ‘terrifying’ in the way the police would have us all believe.

Even Bob Lambert is known to have written:

‘By late 1984, however the public order threat posed by various animal rights groups had all but disappeared.’

He notes that the only clients of his who were convicted of criminal offences had been encouraged and supported to take those actions by undercover officers.

It is clear that the SDS had a motive for portraying animal rights activists as ‘extremists’: this boosted their reputation and annual applications for increased funding. The Met continue to make these allegations because they seek to justify the highly intrusive infiltration of these groups.

What was the point?

These deployments were entirely speculative, and, Wood says, ‘entirely without justification’.

Despite spending years in the field, SDS officers didn’t always produce much useful intelligence in their reports, from the ‘cosy world of middle-class animal right campaigning’. Their deployments were not reviewed regularly.

Out of control

There was a lack of supervision or managerial control. Undercovers were given the freedom to operate as they wished, resulting in impropriety. Some (for example, HN2 Andy Coles ‘Any Davey’) took up positions of responsibility in the groups they targeted; others (like Bob Lambert) are known to have used their dominant personalities to influence the direction and activities of their target groups.

Most of the undercovers were older than those they spied on (having followed the advice they were given to ‘knock a few years off’ their real ages), and as a result younger activists often looked up to these men, and sought their advice about personal issues. There is evidence of them abusing their power, manipulating and ‘grooming’ people.

We heard that Claire Hildreth had confided in HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’ about her experiences with ‘creepy’ HN2 Andy Coles ‘Andy Davey’. He did not report Coles’s predatory behaviour to managers at the time.

This feeling of freedom undoubtedly extended to inciting and committing other serious crimes. The spycops believed they could act with impunity, and that their superiors would always have their backs.

Relationship with the Security Service (MI5)

According to Wood:

‘the evidence shows the Security Service and the SDS working alongside each other in close liason at all times’

The written Statement provides a great deal more detail about this. We know there were weekly meetings between the two. There was ‘intense political interest and influence’ in the units’ targets, including the groups listed above.

Re-traumatising the victims of these violations

The final issue raised by Wood was about the ‘procedural difficulties’ faced by Helen Steel. He explained that she had been finally been given disclosure, but this meant she had been supplied with ‘many thousands of pages of material’ and asked to respond under extreme time pressure.

This material relates to the abuse she suffered, and includes many untrue and unproven allegations made about her by those abusers. Reading this has been extremely distressing and re-traumatising for her, but the Inquiry is not taking a ‘trauma-informed’ approach, and appears not to understand the significant and cumulative effect on Helen.

Her privacy has already been grossly violated by these officers, and now she (like other Non State Core Participants) is being expected to apply for privacy redactions within a very tight and inflexible time-frame.

He reminded the Inquiry’s Chair, Sir John Mitting, that the primary focus of this Inquiry should be to examine police misconduct, rather than unproven allegations made by former officers about their victims. The effectiveness of this Inquiry could well be impacted, by the inability of Helen and others to participate fully and effectively and provide crucial evidence.

A reminder

Wood drew Mitting’s attention to a European Court of Human Rights judgment, ironically from Helen’s own landmark case, Steel and Morris v United Kingdom.

This ruled that:

‘even small and informal campaign groups, such as London Greenpeace must be able to carry on their activities effectively and that there exists a strong public interest in enabling such groups and individuals outside the mainstream to contribute to the public debate by disseminating information and ideas’

He was sure that if the European Court had been aware of the state-sponsored intrusion of London Greenpeace at the time of this case, their words would have been ‘more forceful’. Democratic principles, such as freedom of speech and freedom of expression, do not seem to be recognised by the Met.

He went on to say that the SDS ‘represented the worst in our society’, the police were ‘incapable of properly balancing…civil and democratic rights’ and the unit should not have existed.

Mitting’s response

Having heard all of this, Mitting asked Wood to communicate to Helen that he acknowledges ‘her detailed and informative statement’, saying her evidence ‘is of the greatest assistance to me’.

He went on to add that he is ‘encouraged to hear’ that she will provide oral evidence during these hearings, but wants her to send in the documents she refers to it her witness statement, especially the photos, as soon as possible (before she gives evidence on 27 November).

2) Rajiv Menon KC

Menon spoke again on Tuesday, this time on behalf of the Friends of Freedom Press (FFP).

They provided an Opening Statement and other evidence in the Inquiry’s Tranche 2 Phase 1 hearings earlier this year (Steve Sorba from FFP provided a witness statement and gave oral evidence in Week 2), about the SDS’s spying on the anarchist movement.

In particular HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’ infiltrated the Freedom collective between 1979 and 1984 and later became a commander of Special Branch.

Today’s additional written Opening Statement addresses the evidence of SDS managers and other recently disclosed material.

Menon began by reiterating core participants’ profound concern that the Inquiry will be holding hearings in closed session, and that evidence will remain hidden from public scrutiny, perhaps forever, to protect the privacy of the officers and their families and the interests of the British state.

He then went on to consider the evidence of SDS managers, which raises important questions about SDS practices, where officers were allowed to cross what should have been operational red lines. Managers turned a blind eye, or sanctioned unconscionable behaviour, pointing out that the position of the Met becomes more and more untenable with every Tranche of Inquiry hearings:

‘the SDS did not serve any proper policing purpose’.

Historical overview

Menon noted that the decade under investigation in this tranche, from 1983 to 1992, is critical. The election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 saw a shift in the political direction of the country. The post-war consensus between organised labour and capital was abandoned, leading to a showdown with the trade unions.

The period was marked by struggles against racism and fascism, and the titanic struggle between the miners and the government. The gloves came off, and the police played a key role as enforcers of government will, known as ‘Maggie Thatcher’s Boot Boys’.

The SDS was an elite squad within Special Branch and they knew their officers would be protected at all costs. That meant attitudes changed.

During the 1980s we see reporting shift from a more old-fashioned objective style, to one that was exaggerated and inaccurate, intrusive, pejorative and laced with scurrilous fantasy. Officers and managers shared jokes inside the intelligence community echo chamber, at the expense of those on whom they spied.

Under the shadowy direction of MI5 the SDS created a culture whereby the supposed public order policing purpose was secondary to the real purpose of the SDS as a secret political police force.

Entitlement and arrests

Menon then examined evidence about the pay and overtime SDS officers felt they were entitled to.

‘SDS officers were overpaid and overvalued. SDS managers colluded in allowing their undercover officers too much independence, Roger Pearce’s mantra was: always defer to the officer in the field. This degree of autonomy spiralled out of control in the 1980s…

‘These undercover officers were likely to have been the highest paid officers in the Met, at least for their rank…

‘undercover officers could claim [overtime] for all their time in the pub or even in bed with an activist, supposedly gathering vital intelligence to protect the state, “Fucking for Queen and country” as Roger Pearce so crudely put it in his first novel.’

Menon also notes that during the Tranche 2 period now being examined (1983-1992), more SDS officers were arrested and ended up in court in their cover names. Although often for relatively minor offences, this was inevitably a stepping stone to more serious criminal involvement by SDS officers, as well as spying on defence lawyers.

It was also in direct contravention of Home Office instructions which unequivocally forbid any use of informants that may result in misleading a court.

None of the SDS managers appeared to regard the reporting on a legal advice as a problem.

Fantasy reporting

He then considered the problems inherent in MI5 using SDS undercover officers as human intelligence sources, often producing ‘fantasy reports for MI5’.

Menon notes evidence that senior managers felt that:

‘being a fantasist was a good trait for a undercover officer.’

‘Productive’ officers like Roger Pearce understood the game. Pearce would sex up his reports with lurid detail that played to the taste of his managers. His reporting style became the new SDS template for the 1980s.

HN115 Detective Chief Inspector Tony Wait says that MI5 received copies of virtually everything that SDS produced. They were ultimately serving the same political masters: a Conservative government, determined to crush the so-called enemy within.

The evidence of HN109 and HN11 Mike Chitty paints a further, worrying picture. HN10 Bob Lambert, HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’, HN8 (names restricted) and another unnamed undercover officer formed a ‘cabal’ within SDS. Lambert was the leader, and Menon notes,

‘There is reference in Eric Docker’s witness statement to the detective superintendent of C Squad, Dave Short, saying of Lambert: “The man’s out of control, you’ve lost him.”’

But was Lambert a rogue officer or was he playing a managed role, a participating agent provocateur? Lambert’s protégé, Dines, expressed the opinion that ‘rules are made to be broken’.

Lambert and Dines were regarded as the elite within a squad, that operated in a culture of impunity.

An inevitable problem

As an anarchist organisation that dates back to the 1880s, Freedom has a long historical memory. They say this is exactly where such state-sponsored spying always ends up, as agent provocateur activity which gets out of control or is carefully orchestrated with appropriate plausible deniability from the people in charge.

And so we come to ‘Operation Sparkler’, the prosecution of two Animal Liberation Front activists after improvised incendiary devices were placed in three Debenham’s stores, where Lambert is suspected of placing the third.

The investigation was taken over by SO12, Special Branch, away from SO13, the anti-terrorist squad. This appears abnormal as SO13 made the arrests. Was Special Branch trying to ensure that certain lines of enquiry were not pursued?

HN39 Eric Docker was promoted to detective chief inspector of SDS in October 1987, the month after the arrests. It was he who wrote up the commendation report for Bob Lambert.

Then, towards the end of the 1980s, things changed again. The Security Service Act was passed and the Service, also known as MI5, came slightly out of the shadows, as its activity was put on a statutory footing for the first time.

Margaret Thatcher was ousted, following the hugely successful anti-Poll Tax campaign in 1990, and MI5 had to do a full re-think. By 1992, there had been a change of focus and approach to ‘domestic extremism’.

This is addressed in the corporate witness statement of ‘Witness Y’. MI5 told Special Branch that they no longer needed all the ‘product’ that the SDS supplied.

This was the exact moment when there should have been a re-think, but instead of disbanding SDS, the Metropolitan Police Service and Special Branch doubled down, expanding their domestic surveillance operations, as we will see in Tranches 3 and 4 looking at later spycops’ activity, when the very officers who were the most responsible for the worst excesses of the SDS – Lambert, Dines and Coles – became the unit’s managers.

Menon ended his statement with the advice that the Inquiry needs to ask some searching questions, especially of those managers who were meant to be supervising the Lambert-Dines cabal:

‘Whether SDS activity was simply immoral or also criminal remains to be fully explored. On behalf of Freedom we suggest that there is now more than sufficient evidence from witnesses and documents for you, sir, to conclude that it was both.’

3) Dave Morris

Next we heard from Dave Morris, the only Core Participant to make oral submissions (as he is appearing as a ‘litigant in person’), on behalf of the McLibel Support campaign.

The McLibel case ended up becoming the longest trial in English legal history. There were just two defendants, Dave Morris and Helen Steel.

Morris explained that Steel had been unable to contribute as much as she might have liked towards the accompanying written Opening Statement, due to the Inquiry’s delays in making disclosure to her and the unreasonable length of time allowed for her to go through this evidence. She has only managed to write a partial personal witness statement, but aims to produce another before giving oral evidence on 27 November.

It made a refreshing change to hear directly from one of the people who had been targeted by the spycops. Morris will give further oral evidence on 5 November.

Introducing the McLibel case

Dave explained some of the background to this infamous legal case. As life-long community activists, he and Steel were both involved in fighting for a better future, they were both involved in London Greenpeace, and along with other campaigners, distributed copies of a leaflet entitled ‘What’s wrong with McDonald’s?’

When the McDonald’s corporation threatened legal action, Steel and Morris refused to back down, and found themselves defending a libel case against a well-resourced, powerful multinational. They had to represent themselves, as legal aid was not available for such cases.

They relied on the help of volunteers to assist them, and received ‘pro bono’ advice from a young barrister named Keir Starmer for around ten years.

As a result of publicity around this ‘David and Goliath’ case, the leaflets which McDonald’s had set out to suppress were widely distributed for many years, all over the world.

We now know that the SDS not only infiltrated the campaign, they also collaborated secretly with McDonald’s before and during the case, something Morris condemned as ‘a serious miscarriage of justice’.

We also now know that one of the undercovers, HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’ engineered a long-term relationship with Steel – they even lived together – and this had been described the day before by the Inquiry’s own Counsel, David Barr KC, as Dines’s

‘cold, calculating emotional and sexual exploitation’

Infiltration

In the 1980s, London Greenpeace was a small group, campaigning about issues that were of widespread public concern, like the treatment of animals and workers and the environment. The trust and privacy of those involved was abused by the infiltration of SDS spies.

HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’ became a prominent and influential activist in what he described himself as ‘a peaceful campaigning group’. During his time undercover, he deceived four women into sexual relationships and fathered a child with one of them.

In 1986, he helped to create and distribute the original 6 page fact-sheet which asked ‘What’s wrong with McDonald’s?’ and provided the reader with a list of answers (everything from nutrition and diet, environmental damage, unethical advertising, worker exploitation, factory farming, global poverty…).

Morris brandished a copy on screen, and explained this was the leaflet that prompted McDonald’s to threaten libel action. A shorter version was produced and given out during the McLibel trial, with at least 3 million copies being printed and distributed in the UK.

When HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’ joined the group, he also helped to produce and distribute these leaflets, organise events and protests, and become the group’s treasurer.

It wasn’t just these two SDS officers who infiltrated London Greenpeace; there were also at least six ‘inquiry agents’, corporate spies sent by McDonald’s to gather information between 1989-91.

McDonald’s hired former police officers for this operation, and one of them had a fraudulent sexual relationship with a member of the group, which lasted for around six months.

As a result of the intelligence gathered by the SDS and these inquiry agents, McDonald’s served libel writs on five named individuals in September 1990.

Three of the group felt they had no option but to pull out of what promised to be an expensive, unfair fight, leaving Morris and Steel to stand up to McDonald’s in court.

The case – including a full appeal – ran until 2005.

The pair went on to win a case against the British Government in the European Court of Human Rights, and were formally represented there by Keir Starmer there (as they received legal aid for this). That court ruled that the state had violated their right to a fair hearing and freedom of expression, but had no idea about the extent of the intrusion they had suffered.

Breaching legal privilege and spying on Starmer

Dines reported that the leaflet ‘is causing much concern within the corporation’, shortly before the McLibel writs were served. According to him:

‘Arrangements are in hand to monitor events arising from these legal proceedings’.

He went on to report on confidential discussions between the recipients of those writs and their lawyers.

In a later report he boasts:

‘It is accurate to say that I was “by the side” of Helen Steel and Dave Morris in 1991 and relaying the legal advice back to my bosses in the SDS’.

He used to collect Steel after she had attended legal strategy meetings with Starmer.

Secret unlawful collaboration between McDonald’s and the Met

It is clear that information flowed in both directions, between McDonald’s and the SDS.

McDonald’s recruited Sid Nicholson in 1983 as Head of Security. In his prior 31 year police career, he had worked in apartheid South Africa before coming to London and rising to the rank of Chief Superintendent in the Met, covering the Brixton area.

He was responsible for McDonald’s security and ran their spying operations. He brought in other former police officers, such as Terry Carroll (also from Brixton), who was hired as a Security Manager, and admitted in 2013:

‘I was aware that Sid would liaise with Special Branch officers about the protestors’.

He also recalled Sid telling him that there was a ‘Special Branch bloke’ inside London Greenpeace.

In 1990, he had sent Nicholson a memo, promising:

‘I will get onto Special Branch to get an assessment’.

Nicholson testified during McLibel that his security team were ‘all ex-police’, and it’s clear that this strategy meant they were all able to get hold of information from mates who were still on the force. One of the McDonald’s spies held two long meetings with a Special Branch officer in June 1990 to share private information.

Morris noted in passing that Bob Lambert had worked on Special Branch’s C Squad, with special responsibility for the Brixton area, while Nicholson was still in post.

A police ‘file note’ from 2002 (disclosed recently by the Inquiry) reveals that although HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’ was heavily involved in the anti-McDonald’s campaign in 1990, the SDS had made sure that his name

‘was deliberately omitted from the McDonald’s libel writ list’

Morris describes this as ‘blatant manipulation of the legal process’, and calls on the Inquiry to investigate the roles played by undercovers in this web of secret collaboration and subterfuge.

The search for the truth

Dines began cynically faking a mental breakdown in 1991, and finally disappeared from Steel’s life the following year, telling her that he was going abroad. As a result, she suffered heartache and worry, and spent many years trying to find him.

By 1995, Lambert had been promoted to SDS manager, and was worried about the possibility of either Dines or the Commissioner being sub-poenaed to give evidence at the McLibel trial, if Steel were ever to discover the truth about her ex-partner.

By 1998 Steel and Morris knew only that Special Branch had provided their private details to McDonald’s, and successfully sued the police over this. In 2000, the Met offered to make a pay-out of £10,000, plus costs, rather than go through ‘a difficult and lengthy trial’.

Morris says now:

‘Had the true picture been known we may well have not settled the claim.’

The judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal found that much of what had been printed in the leaflet was true, and that McDonald’s had breached both employment and animal welfare legislation. However they were never prosecuted. Why not?

Consequences of the case

London Greenpeace never fully recovered after the McLibel case, and its activities gradually fizzled out.

Although the ‘McLibel Two’ won on some points, they also lost on some. As a result, Steel and Morris had damages of £60,000 awarded against them, which they refused to pay. Morris says the case:

‘certainly had real consequences. Not only Helen and myself, but also Keir had to put in years of unpaid and intense work to help defend the action’.

For Steel, the stress of fighting the case was magnified by the trauma of Dines’s fake breakdown, her concern and her efforts to trace him. She then had to deal with the additional trauma of gradually uncovering the shocking truth about his identity.

Morris says this case is another example of the police:

‘showing their utter disregard for the integrity of legal proceedings’.

4) Peter Weatherby KC

Peter Weatherby KC appeared on behalf of the Hunt Saboteurs Association (HSA).

Before talking about the activities of the HSA, Weatherby made clear:

‘there was no legitimate justification whatsoever for undercover policing targeting it as an organisation or its supporters or its activities or their families or their homes or their private and sexual lives…

‘undercover policing interfered with a fundamental constitutional and convention rights of Hunt Saboteurs Association supporters relating to freedoms to organise, assemble and act as well as their personal rights as autonomous individuals.’

He outlined various transgressions of undercovers, quoting SDS officer HN2 Andy Coles ‘Andy Davey’:

‘Misleading a court is something done by criminals and government ministers alike – we shouldn’t be squeamish about the ends justifying the means in our own case.’

This casual approach to misleading criminal courts is an affront to the rule of law. Managers knew and consented, and:

‘if ever this Inquiry needed evidence that the SDS was allowed to operate beyond any normal lawful limits, this is it… [SDS] was a political policing unit to which normal lawful limits were simply not recognised or applied.’

The HSA was formed and still exists to prevent the killing of animals in blood sports. Its core activities were and are to take non-violent direct action to prevent such cruelty and to lobby government to enact laws to criminalise and stop activities such as fox-hunting and hare-coursing. Some supporters report illegal hunting to police and provide evidence for prosecutions, there’s nothing inherently unlawful about those core activities.

Opinion polls show the majority of the public is against blood sports and has been throughout at the whole history of the Hunt Saboteurs Association. The Hunting Act passed in 2004, cementing the HSA’s position on the right side of history.

It is a national association with democratic structures, which takes part in national lobbying. Activities against hunts are invariably through local groups.

The HSA has always believed in non-violence. This is a moral and a practical choice. Confrontation or violence are a distraction. To make a hunt ineffective, saboteurs lay false scents, blow hunting horns to draw hounds away, and make noise to cause wild animals to seek safety.

Weatherby notes:

‘Pursuing wild animals with dogs may well not have been unlawful during the period under consideration and neither was disrupting that cruel pursuit in the ways described.’

Conversely, hunt supporters often sought to deter and intimidate saboteurs through organised violence perpetrated by hired thugs. Hunt saboteurs have been killed and sustained serious injuries requiring hospital treatment. This is an important point which Weatherby addressed at some length and in more detail in his written statement.

Violence directed at hunt saboteurs was so severe that the HSA collated these experiences and submitted a written report entitled ‘Public order, private armies: Security guards of British hunts’ to the Home Affairs Select Committee investigating the use of private security firms. There was little subtlety in the campaigns by hunt supporters against hunt saboteurs and the threats were in plain sight.

Undercover officers witnessed the violent attacks on hunt sabs and on occasion reported on where the real threat lay. Managers refer in contemporaneous documentation to the risk of officers being injured by hunt supporters.

HN2 Andy Coles ‘Andy Davey’ stated:

‘I feared serious assault from terriermen or being shot at by irate farmers more than anything else during my tour.’

In 1992 the British Field Sports Society (BFSS) ran a campaign to encourage hunts to use so-called stewards to deter saboteurs.

In the words of BFSS spokesperson, Nick Herbert:

‘we’re going to start hunting the saboteurs.’

This left little to the imagination.

Herbert went on to become an MP and was policing minister between 2010 and 2012. In that role, he defended undercover officers having sex with women they spied on.

He is now Lord Herbert and chair of the College of Policing, responsible for the authorised professional practice for undercover officers.

In this context, Weatherby examined whether the HSA were a public order threat. An SDS report from 1989 summed it up:

‘From a public order point of view the threat of violence these days comes more from supporters of the hunt rather than from the 20 to 30 saboteurs.’

Why then were the HSA made a target? The answer is politicised bias. Put simply, ‘Those associated with hunting had greater access to the corridors of power than those who opposed hunting.’

Weatherby referred to obvious and key areas of questions the HSA urge the Inquiry to focus on.

Justification

Any such deployments should be subject to precise justification based on a rigorous process, based on evidence properly recorded and regularly reviewed and supervised at a high level.

None of this appears to have occurred. There was no tenable justification for the deployments against the HSA.

Weatherby cited the 1995/1996 SDS annual report:

‘The emphasis that penetration of hunt sabotage groups is a means to an end rather than an end in itself in terms of SDS operations remains valid.’

Thus, from the SDS’s own mouthpiece, it seems their justification for infiltrating the HSA was a speculative attempt to identify people who might be involved in other acts. Could this means to an end infiltration ever be justifiable in principle? The HSA firmly refute that idea.

Proportionality

What proportionality exercises were conducted? Were legitimate aims identified at all? Is there evidence of any significant useful intelligence obtained at the time?

Weatherby notes that even if what he calls the ‘Animal Liberation Front excuse’ were accepted, most so-called ALF activity involved low-level criminal damage caused when rescuing animals or damage perhaps to butchers’ shops.

Instructions and training

What were the instructions to undercover officers? What was their training? What were their limitations, not only generally but on those target activities?

Weatherby pointed to undercover officers taking part in, encouraging or organising serious criminal activities; he notes that a number of the women personally violated in deceitful relationships were hunt saboteurs, and adds:

‘you’ll hear from witnesses who were befriended by undercover officers, they not only went to festivals and abroad with them, but they welcomed them into their own homes and families and introduced them to friends unaware of their true identities.’

Finally, he notes that police bias against hunt sabs often led to unlawful arrests. Many such detentions did not result in charges and not infrequently hunt saboteurs took successful civil claims.

Officers like Lambert, Dines and Coles were also arrested, which raises a number of uncomfortable issues. Did these officers infringe legal privilege? Were these arrests used as a means of enhancing the standing of undercover officers in their deployments? Did undercover officers mislead criminal courts?

‘The Inquiry must not only establish the facts concerning these violations of fundamental rights and affronts to the administration of justice, it must also establish accountability and bring to an end such unacceptable practices.’

5) Sam Jacobs

Sam Jacobs appeared next, on behalf of Sharon Grant OBE (in relation to Bernie Grant) and Stafford Scott (Broadwater Farm Defence Committee)

There is an accompanying written Statement.

Jacobs made a brief oral statement, and referred the Inquiry to wider points made in the opening statement of the co-operating group of non-state non-police core participants, about shocking SDS mismanagement, culture and lack of accountability.

He notes that documents disclosed in this Tranche have important implications for all of his clients, including those whose evidence will be heard in Tranche 3 who, because of restriction orders have not yet had sight of the material.

Targeting

How groups or individuals were selected for targeting by the SDS remains opaque. Managers’ statements shed little light.

Only HN115 offers a detailed account of targets identified by the SDS, following consultation with the Security Service and senior managers from other squads.

Jacobs urges the Inquiry to consider:

‘the interests and concerns of the Metropolitan Police which will have informed the apparently amorphous targeting strategy.’

Like Scobie on Monday, Jacobs gives the example of a Special Branch report from January 1983, ‘Political extremism and a campaign for accountability within the Metropolitan Police’, which makes it plain the police viewed any attempt to bring accountability as subversive in itself.

The subversive aims of the Greater London Council included ensuring the police complaints procedure worked effectively. The report describes attempts to develop monitoring groups as ‘grandiose’, and ‘sinister’ and sought to discredit democratically elected officials as having extremist connections.

Jacobs concludes@

‘It is clear that the very notion of police accountability was viewed as problematic by Special Branch…

‘reporting on these groups and the various justice campaigns in the Tranche 2 period [1983-1992] and beyond was a deliberate objective.’

Sharon Grant OBE

Managers’ witness evidence about reporting on elected officials is inconsistent and has served only to muddy the waters and to raise further concerns.

The 1 June 1988 briefing paper produced for the Security Service’s Management Board on counter subversion refers to F Branch monitoring of various mainstream political groups, including the Labour Party.

This casts doubt on managers’ claims that there should be no active reporting on MPs or that reporting on members of Parliament by the SDS and Special Branch was either discouraged or was simply incidental.

Reports on Bernie Grant and other MPs were frequently supplied to the Security Service. Special Branch had a direct interest in the activities of elected politicians and they did report on their activities.

The 1983 report on police accountability references dozens of elected officials, including Bernie Grant, with (inaccurate) details of their purported political beliefs and allegiances.

The interest of the Metropolitan Police and the SDS appeared to be at its highest when Bernie Grant was critical of policing methods or of the police. The Met is most concerned with its own reputation and using Special Branch reporting to defend itself from criticism.

Sharon Grant has long-held concerns that the Met was the source of unfavourable media stories about her husband and the evidence disclosed to date heightens those concerns.

Stafford Scott

Managers’ evidence has exacerbated Scott’s concerns about why he and the Broadwater Farm Defence Committee were reported on by undercover officers. The Metropolitan Police made it clear that they regarded any campaigns for police accountability and justice to be subversive by their very nature, and Scott was involved in precisely this area of work in his community.

Managers’ statements insist that reporting on such groups was a by-product of reporting on the other political groups, and so was justified in the interests of public order.

However, not one single report on Stafford Scott or of the activities of Broadwater Farm Defence Committee that raises any legitimate concerns about public order, or evidences manipulation of the group by political activists.

Managers approved and submitted reports by undercover officers, yet did not confront or address the racism that was so clearly prevalent. Two of the reports describe speakers at public meetings as ‘negroes’.

HN78 Trevor Morris ‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’ is referred to as ‘a coloured potential recruit’.

It is clear that he was regarded as a useful asset, who would be able to obtain access that might not be available to other undercover officers.

HN59 states that managers would edit reports, sometimes removing words or phrases. HN109 states that he had an editorial role over the reports, removing irrelevant or judgmental comments. Yet explicitly racist language was not edited.

Undercovers’ and managers’ constant refrain is that the language used in reports was reflective of its time and should not be judged by today’s standards:

‘yet this is language that is more in tune with the segregated American deep south than London in the 1980s.’

The language and attitude expressed in the reports, which went unchallenged by managers, shows that minorities were regarded as a threat by the Metropolitan Police whenever they sought to organise around issues of justice and accountability.

The opening statement of the Met Commissioner to Tranche 2 Phase 1 described reporting on social justice campaigns, family campaigns and community organisations as ‘indefensible’, resulting from:

‘a critical failure on the part of its managers’.

Scott asks the Chair to be aware that these attitudes and behaviours do not operate in a vacuum, and the critical failures of the SDS managers were also critical failures on the part of the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office, and not just the individuals giving evidence to this Inquiry.

6) Owen Greenhall

Owen Greenhall appeared on behalf of Diane Abbott OBE and Dame Joan Ruddock, who have supplied a written Opening Statement.

Diane Abbott has been a leading anti-racism campaigner for decades. In 1987 she became the first black woman to be an MP, representing Hackney North and Stoke Newington. Re-elected in 2024, she is now the longest-standing continuously serving female MP, the ‘Mother of the House’.

The Right Honourable Dame Joan Ruddock PC is an anti-apartheid campaigner and former chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). She was MP for Deptford from 1987 to 2015 and held several ministerial positions, including Minister for Women, Minister for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Minister for Energy and Climate Change.

Greenhall explained that both Abbott and Ruddock were subject to SDS reporting and they share a number of concerns (expressed in their opening to Tranche 2 Phase 1 earlier this year and expanded here)
(i) The targeting of MPs and the adequacy of disclosure.
(ii) Concerns over racial discrimination in the activities of the SDS.
(iii) Concerns over the use of information gathered by the SDS.
(iv) Procedural issues related to the Inquiry.

The targeting of MPs

Reporting on MPs was a central concern in the creation of this Inquiry, and was debated in Parliament in March 2015.

The response from the Minister for Policing Criminal Justice and Victims, Mike Penning, was that he would:

‘do everything I can to make sure that the documents are released… We have to find out exactly what went on.’

Spying on MPs raises serious concerns over the erosion of the Wilson doctrine against police surveillance of Members of Parliament, inappropriate collection of personal information and interference with the democratic process. Greenhall pointed out:

‘It’s notable that only Labour MPs appear to have been targeted.’

Former undercover officer Peter Francis has revealed that Special Branch files on MPs were typically ‘very extensive’ and often contained personal and private information.

HN78 Trevor Morris ‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’ was asked whether he ever saw a file on an elected politician. He replied:

‘I was going to say hundreds. Many, many, many… they are all marked ‘Secret’… probably top secret.’

Trevor Morris published a book ‘Black Ops: The Incredible True Story of a British secret agent’ using the pseudonym Carlton King.

Greenhall quoted from that book:

‘It is the job of the Security Service to vet and assess senior politicians; the Branch assisted with this duty where and when required. When the Branch came across intelligence relating to politicians (through its agents, desk officers or SDS operatives et cetera)… it would pass this intelligence to the Security Service.’

Yet very little of this reporting has actually been disclosed by the Inquiry to date (when questioning Morris they didn’t menton his book and later absurdly said MI5 had forced them not to admit he was in fact Carlton King).

Core participants ask that these discrepancies are investigated to ensure that the Inquiry uncovers the full truth of what took place.

Racial discrimination in the activities of the SDS

Greenhall quoted Home Office guidelines produced right at the start of this Tranche, in 1984:

‘Special Branch investigations into subversive activities in particularly sensitive fields, for example in educational establishments, in trade unions, in industry and among racial minorities, must be conducted with particular care so as to avoid any suggestion that Special Branches are investigating matters involving the legitimate expression of views…

‘It is not the function of the force Special Branch to investigate individuals and groups merely because their policies are unpalatable, or because they are highly critical of the police, or because they want to transform the present system of police accountability.’

Yet there was extensive reporting on racial justice campaigns and police accountability issues.

Indeed, Managers appear to have been unaware of the guidelines. Annual reports for the SDS indicate that campaigns on racial issues were a key aspect of targeting, the Anti-Nazi League, a variety of local anti-racist and anti-fascist groups and predominantly black family justice campaigns regularly feature.

The purported justification – concern that these groups might be taken over by other organisations – is racist, assuming black-led organisations could not preserve their own independence.

The use of information gathered by the SDS

Throughout the Tranche 2 period (1983-1992), the SDS worked hand in glove with the Security Service. One primary purpose of the Security Service was vetting. The SDS played a crucial part in this.

‘Witness Y’ accepts:

‘it is in my view highly likely that some (possibly most) of the information sought from SDS officers was sought in order to be used for vetting purposes’

Security Service influence on targeting is confirmed by SDS managers. HN115 Tony Wait states:

‘The Security Service influenced our targeting decisions quite a lot. Most of our deployments were in agreement with them. We would always seek their views before deciding on new targets.’

Security Service requests were often coupled to political and diplomatic concerns at the time (see our report on the Opening Statement on behalf of CND).

As Carlton King, aka HN78 Trevor Morris, writes:

‘the Branch was only one cog in the British state’s domestic national security apparatus, the Security Service (MI5) was an even more central component, as was the Home Office, the judiciary, the press and of course the politicians, in particular cabinet-level government ministers who sat at the centre of this machine and could therefore tweak it to their advantage.’

That past involvement coming in one of the largest anti-nuclear movements could inhibit the future career of those concerned is reminiscent of the authoritarian regimes which the SDS and Security Services claimed to be fighting against.

Greenhall therefore asked the Inquiry to:

‘fully explore the use that was made of SDS reports for vetting purposes, particularly in relation to politicians and civil servants.’

Procedural issues

Greenhall echoed the concerns raised by many other core participants.

‘The disclosure and Rule 9 process for Tranche 2 has been heavily delayed for the non-state core participants and that has had the effect of marginalising their impact and in many respects excluding them from effective participation.

‘The impact of these delays has almost exclusively been to the detriment of non-state core participants… limitations on attendance at hearings has hindered the engagement of the core participants in the Inquiry…

‘The Inquiry is asked to ensure that procedural issues do not reduce the accountability of those responsible for the SDS… [and] to take steps to minimise the prejudice to non-state core participants affected by the delays.’

7) Fiona Murphy KC

After lunch, we heard from Fiona Murphy KC, representing ‘TBS’ and ‘Category F’ Core Participants (people deceived into relationships by undercover officers)

‘TBS’

Murphy spoke first on behalf of TBS, whose mother ‘Jacqui’ had a long-term sexual relationship with HN10 Bob Lambert.

TBS was born in 1985 and his father, posing as a committed animal rights activist using the name ‘Bob Robinson’ (an identity Lambert stole from a dead child), was involved in his life until 1988. Then he disappeared, abandoning TBS, who did not learn of the true identity of his father for a further 24 years. He has provided a written statement to the Inquiry.

TBS has given powerful testimony, setting out the difficult process of reconciling himself to his biological father’s absence, his tragic attempts to learn more about the fiction that was ‘Bob Robinson’, to identify with that fiction, and how TBS has struggled to come to terms with the reality that his understanding of his parentage was based on a lie.

TBS complains that the treatment of him by the Inquiry has not been fair, has not been consistent, has not been predictable and has not facilitated him in being heard in relation to decisions that affect him.

He aligns with the remarks of other core participants about issues arising from delay and disclosure. The unorthodox approach to the marshalling of evidence taken by this public inquiry runs the significant risk of the truth being obscured.

The Inquiry also chose to limit TBS’s legal funding, locking his lawyers out from considering the evidence of civilian witnesses, including the evidence of his own mother.

‘These experiences have undermined TBS’s confidence in your Inquiry, sir, and he endorses the analysis of the non-state non-police core participants opening statement that this is an Inquiry in crisis.’

The Commissioner’s responsibility

TBS has outlined in his witness statement:

‘The Metropolitan Police Service do not seem as an organisation to accept that … they had responsibility to try to minimise the impact, to hold their hands up, to accept that they had allowed a toxic culture to develop which led to these issues. To acknowledge the wrongs done and to provide resources to help the victims, such as me, to access specialist psychiatric and psychological help.

‘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 Metropolitan Police Service simply left me alone to deal with all of this, both before and after I learned of Bob Lambert’s true identity.’

The Commissioner of the Met apologised to TBS in his opening statement for the distress he has suffered growing up not knowing his true parentage, for the fact that the Metropolitan Police should not have allowed Bob Lambert to behave in the way that he did, and committing to ensure that TBS receives answers to his questions during this Inquiry.

The apology addresses Bob Lambert’s conduct, it does not address the organisational responsibility of those who knew of TBS’s existence in the years and decades following his birth. It does not address the Commissioner’s own failings in relation to TBS in the period leading to and following Bob Lambert’s exposure.

TBS invites the Metropolitan Police to provide a corporate evidential witness statement deposed in full compliance with the Commissioner’s duty of candour, addressing the chronology of the organisation’s awareness of the developing public interest in the SDS in general and Bob Lambert in particular.

When did the Met became aware that there was a significant likelihood that Bob Lambert’s true identity would be disclosed publicly? 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 evidence together from press reports?

Lambert was exposed on 15 October 2011. He made apologies on 23 October to London Greenpeace and to Belinda Harvey, who he had deceived into a relationship. He made no mention of Jacqui or TBS. He made no effort to contact them.

Eight months later, by chance, Jacqui stumbled on the truth when she saw an article in the Daily Mail on 12 June 2012.

‘It was unconscionable for the Metropolitan Police Service to leave TBS and his mother to find out the truth in the manner in which they did.’

Murphy set out the legal framework on the Rights of the Child, citing pronouncements at the highest judicial level that the best interests of children are not served by the concealment of truth. On the contrary, it causes mental and psychological suffering which does not diminish with age.

Knowledge of one’s true identity positively contributes to personal development, to one’s sense of self and there are also of course important practical consequences, including in relation to knowledge of potential hereditary medical conditions.

Had the Metropolitan Police sought advice at the time of TBS’s birth or at any stage subsequently, they would have been advised that notifying TBS of his true parentage was in his best interests.

TBS will learn facts about his childhood and early development during this Inquiry. The decision to restrict his legal funding is therefore particularly cruel. TBS has had to suppress his identification with the non-existent ‘Bob Robinson’ and to come to terms with the true identity of Bob Lambert.

In his own words:

‘The father that disappeared was a fabrication, and I’ve had to grapple with deconstructing that myth that my life was built around.’

The impact upon TBS of this deception has been profound and it endures to this day.

Murphy highlighted some details from the evidence, such as the decision to obscure Bob Lambert’s identity and whereabouts at the time when ‘Jacqui’ was seeking to have TBS adopted by her new husband, misleading social services and the family courts. The name of the individual who did this has been restricted by the Inquiry, preventing publication.

She also notes:

‘Bob Lambert’s deployment as “Bob Robinson” continued for a further three years after TBS’s birth, but that he was permitted to return in a managerial role. Despite his having demonstrated in these starkest terms that his professionalism and propriety could not be relied upon and that he posed a significant risk of ongoing harm to those among whom he was deployed.’

Murphy then made a chilling appeal to the Inquiry:

‘There is evidence, sir, that we ask you to consider with care that there were other children born of these abusive relationships.

‘At a bare minimum, sir, it is the Commissioner’s responsibility to assure you that no other human being is living a life with the truth obscured from him or her as it was from TBS for more than two decades.’

Families whose loved ones’ identites were stolen

‘Category F’ are the families whose loved ones’ identities were stolen by the Special Demonstration Squad and its officers. They have also provided a written Statement.

The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police publicly apologised to the families on Monday, adding that misconduct by officers while using the dead children’s identities was disrespectful to their memories, and the Commissioner has apologised to all the families for this and for the Metropolitan Police’s failure to stop that misconduct from occurring.

Murphy noted that the apology was welcome, but detailed the inadequacies of the Met’s response:

‘What is apparent is that the risk to families from such events was never considered, although it ought to have been. This is but one example of the SDS’s deplorable myopia.’

Senior officers within the Metropolitan Police were fully aware of the practice but did not take any steps to stop it for two decades, nor to close the SDS.

Few officers turned their minds to the inevitable impact on the families or the devastation that this practice has wrought on their families, already made vulnerable by the premature loss of a child or a young adult, and how the memories they all cherish have been tainted and tarnished by it.

The families participating in this tranche covering the period between 1983 and 1992 are:

• Frank Bennett and Honor Robson in relation to the theft and abuse of their brother Michael Hartley’s identity.
• Faith Mason, in relation to her son Neil Martin.
• Marva and Judy Lewis in relation to their brother Anthony Lewis.
• Kaden Blake, in relation to her brother Matthew Rayner.

They represent only a small proportion of the victims of identity theft by the Metropolitan Police in this period.

The families want to understand the extent of the intrusion into their own lives and how the identities were used.

They are concerned that in taking a child’s identity the officers went on to research and use details from the families’ private and family lives, so as to test their identity choice and to build their ‘legends’.

Meanwhile, no care was given to the risks to which the families were thereby themselves exposed.

Officers went far beyond acceptable conduct, seducing women, inveigling themselves into the lives of others, attending parties and weddings and even celebrating the birthdays of dead children as if they were their own. They committed criminal offences and appeared in court as witnesses or defendants in the names of dead children’s names.

They undermined lawful and legitimate protest movements. For the Marva Lewis and her family it was especially bitter to learn that HN78 Trevor Morris ‘Anthony “Bobby” Lews’ sought to undermine campaigns for racial justice while:

‘pretending to be my brother… he had stolen the identity of a deceased young black boy and his work undercover contributed to undermining the investigation into the racist murder of another black boy, Stephen Lawrence.’

‘The restricted family’

The families registered their regret and disappointment with the Inquiry. They are concerned that onerous restriction orders over historical practices are impeding the Inquiry’s investigations.

Many officers continue to enjoy anonymity, to the dismay of the families. This means it is the dead child’s identity with which their misconduct will be forever associated, and not the identity of the officer who was responsible.

The Chair has said that any attempt to challenge the restrictions, which were applied without reference to the families, is ‘discouraged’ and:

‘would almost certainly result in the existing restrictions being upheld… [and it’s] very unlikely that the Inquiry would extend funding for the purposes of any such scrutiny’.

The families have not been placed on an equal footing to the police core participants, and the Inquiry is failing to comply with the principle of open justice.

These problems are at their most acute in relation to ‘the restricted family’, a family who have been forced to participate in this Inquiry anonymously by reason of a restriction order covering their own name, to protect the identity of the officer who stole it.

They have been silenced and disempowered, denied the opportunity to speak openly about the trauma they have suffered, and their hopes that this Inquiry might expose the truth and achieve a measure of accountability have rapidly faded.

8) Kirsten Heaven

Our last speaker of the day, Kirsten Heaven appeared on behalf of ‘the co-operating group of NPSCPs’ – this means all the Non-Police Non-State Core Participants in this Inquiry, whose lawyers try to work together to represent everyone’s shared interests.

They produced a lengthy written Opening Statement for Tranche 2 Phase 2, in addition to the individual and group statements many of these people have made.

Initial observations

She pointed out that at the same time as making various apologies for the actions of undercover officers and ‘systemic management failings’ in yesterday’s Opening Statement, the Met also sought to persuade Mitting that the Inquiry should really now focus its attention on what they call the ‘primary question’: whether or not the spycops deployments were justified, rather than exploring the way these undercovers behaved.

She said:

‘Put simply, abhorrent behaviour and systemic managerial failure are matters that clearly go to the heart of the question of justification’

The Met are ‘wrong on this issue’, she added.

She then reminded Mitting of how the Investigatory Powers Tribunal dealt with this issue in the case brought by Kate Wilson (one of the women deceived by spycop EN12 Mark Kennedy ‘Mark Stone’).

The ensuing judgment from that case was highly critical of the ‘broad, open-ended authorisations’ used by the spycops units. These deployments were speculative ‘fishing operations’ and resulted in extensive collateral intrusion. They cannot be justified.

‘Abhorrent, abusive, cruel and morally repugnant’

The four undercover officers that we’ll hear most about in this set of hearings have still not shown any real remorse, for the impact of what Heaven described as ‘the most abhorrent, abusive, cruel and morally repugnant behaviour in the history of the SDS’.

For example, HN2 Andy Coles ‘Andy Davey’ continues to deny that he – as a 32 year old married man – groomed a vulnerable teenager, Jessica, into a sexual relationship, pretending to be much younger than he actually was. The Met accept that ‘Jessica’ has been telling the truth.

The Inquiry must be sceptical about any evidence it hears from these men. Heaven continued by skewering the laughable idea that these spycops might still have reputations worth protecting.

Coles has claimed that ‘Jessica’ had a ‘father issue’ and was ‘obsessed’ with him. Since his identity was uncovered, by activists, multiple women have come forward to report similar stories of his creepy, predatory, ‘sex pest’ behaviour. He has made denigrating comments about some of these women too.

He was a married man, supposedly trying for a baby with his wife at the same time as grooming and sexually abusing a much younger activist.

HN10 Bob Lambert, after leaving the police, tried to reinvent himself as a respectable academic lecturer.

Coles, described as ‘another aspiring novelist’, went on to become a Tory party councillor in Peterborough, Deputy Police & Crime Commissioner for Cambridgeshire, and even a school governor.

At one point he endorsed a campaign to protect young people from sexual exploitation despite being a perpetrator of it himself.

Unlike Lambert, Coles did not receive an MBE or a Police Commendation for his work in the SDS, and is known to have complained about not being given the recognition he felt he deserved for his ‘sacrifice’.

‘An elite undercover officer’

We have heard about a ‘cabal’ centred around Lambert, a group of men who saw themselves as a superior elite group within a special secret squad, fiercely loyal to each other.

By all accounts, Lambert himself is an over-entitled, self-promoting, arrogant man, described by HN109 as a ‘charismatic attention seeker’ and by former undercover colleague HN11 Mike Chitty ‘Mike Blake’ as ‘a professional liar’.

He has shown no remorse for the cruel and abusive deception of ‘Jacqui’, or the three other women he had relationships with, claiming now that he did not intend to ‘target’ them, just succumbed to ‘weakness and irresponsibility’.

The ‘Category H’ Opening Statement suggests that Lambert may well have been motivated by a desire to seek out extra-marital sex with a younger woman, and notes that he has not returned the awards he was given for his contributions to policing.

Lambert has continued to use his skills of ‘deception and duplicity’ in his academic career. Despite stating that the animal rights movement was a ‘very serious business’, suggesting that these were dangerous people, he used to take his baby son along to meetings with these activists.

Lambert is known as a manipulative figure, who has already used a range of tactics to deflect criticism of his unethical behaviour and try to control the narrative. He is likely to go to great lengths to defend his reputation, and may well try to feign contrition. Hopefully Mitting will keep this in mind when he hears Lambert give evidence in December.

Lambert has hinted that he might publish a book about his experiences one day, and Heaven suggests that the Inquiry investigate the existence of a draft.

Rather than seeking to understand the serious impact the spycops’ actions had on those they targeted, Lambert seems to have treated many aspects of the SDS as a big joke. Even HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’, probably his closest friend in the unit, said that you don’t get a pointed answer from Lambert ‘unless you ask him a pointed question’.

Lambert rose through the ranks to become an SDS manager, then left the force in 2007. Sir Ian Blair, the Met’s Commissioner at the time, attended his retirement party. We still don’t know how much he and other senior cops knew about the way that Lambert operated, and if they bothered asking questions to find out how the SDS was obtaining its intelligence.

It’s all very well for police lawyers to turn up at this Inquiry with yet more ‘apologies’ for the spycops’ abuses, but we need to hear evidence from these senior officers.

‘Rules are make to be broken’

Dines and Lambert were very close, and frequently praised each other. They seem to have had a lot in common, including a deep-seated misogyny and lack of respect for activists, especially women, or their own wives.

Other officers say that HN5 John Dines was very competitive, a ‘gong hunter’, who ‘wanted to be a gold star SDS officer’ and sought notoriety. It seems likely that this last wish will be granted.

Dines made many disparaging remarks about his time undercover (saying he found it ‘unpleasant, miserable and boring’) and about those he targeted, including Helen Steel. He professed to be in love with her, but coldly stated that he ‘couldn’t give a rats’ about the impact on her of his deception and the way in which he disappeared from her life.

Like Lambert, Dines received a police commendation. He did not want his wife to attend the ceremony in 1992.

Dines has refused to provide oral evidence to this Inquiry, so will not be appearing during these hearings.

Back in 2003, the Met paid out a huge sum of money to enable Dines to relocate his family from New Zealand to Australia. This was due to their fears that Helen Steel – after years of dogged research on her part – would succeed in tracking him down.

It seems that the police knew enough about his misconduct to realise that this could have resulted in a civil claim against the force. The 2003 BBC ‘True Spies’ documentary series had helped to confirm her suspicions about Dines and his true identity.

As well as demanding money for relocation costs, and compensation for the effect on his new career (as an extremely well paid barrister, who often took on cases defending radical activists in the New Zealand courts) Dines asked his former colleagues at the Yard to write him references and help him find new work in Australia.

The fourth officer discussed by Heaven was HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’. He also deceived a woman, Denise Fuller, into a romantic and sexual relationship that lasted around one year. Denise is due to give evidence on 6 January 2025.

Rayner knew that fellow officer Andy Coles had tried to sexually assault a woman, but did not report this incident to the SDS managers.

Loyalty and lies

We’ll be hearing evidence from some of the unit’s managers later in this Tranche (in January 2025).

When SDS officers have spoken publicly about the unit in the past (for example, in ‘True Spies’) others clearly saw this as a ’betrayal’ of the SDS’s secret status.

Heaven commented earlier about officers being ‘selective’ in their evidence and what they chose to reveal to this Inquiry. It seems that many of them still have a strong sense of loyalty to each other.

Their employers, the Met police, have now made it very clear that they consider some of the problems associated with the unit to have been caused by the managers’:

‘failure to lead the SDS properly and effectively’.

They have been admissions of failings in terms of welfare, discipline and misconduct; a lack of proper training; a lack of scrutiny or oversight; a failure to maintain professional standards or to ensure that reporting was appropriate or ethical.

Heaven points out that SDS managers should not allow any perceived loyalty – towards either the Met or the officers they managed – prevent them from providing honest answers to this Inquiry. Some undercovers (including Lambert and Coles) have already made comments critical of their managers, in an attempt to shift blame away from themselves.

One of the managers that we’re due to hear from, at the very end of this set of hearings on 22-23 January 2025, is known to us only as HN109. He applied for anonymity in this Inquiry, and was granted it.

We have since learnt that his reasons for doing so were not any worries about activists tracking him down, but concerns, even in 2023, about the hostility of officers who he had managed, and the risk of them ‘causing trouble’ for him and his family.

We heard evidence about the ‘Scutt incident’ in the Tranche 2 Phase 1 hearings a few months ago. Bob Lambert threatened and physically assaulted HN109, in front of other members of the SDS. It will be interesting to hear what all these managers have to say about each other and how effective or ineffective their individual styles of management were.

Heaven makes it clear that this will be the time for SDS managers to call in the ‘insurance policy’ and make it clear just how much senior officers knew, or didn’t know, about the unit and its officers’ behaviour.

Carlton King, self-styled ‘Black James Bond’

Heaven then moved on to talk about ‘Carlton King’, an image of whom was shown on the screen.

Described as an ‘author and prolific podcaster’, it is unsurprising that a member of the public recognised that this was an alias being used by a man called Trevor Morris, who had been an undercover officer in the SDS, before going on to work in the secret services.

As his costume shows, has cultivated a somewhat ‘glamorous’ image of himself.

As well as producing a regular podcast, he has published a book (‘Black Ops: the Incredible True Story of a British Secret Agent’) which contains an entire chapter about the SDS and more musings about the workings of Special Branch.

He makes no secret of the fact that he infiltrated a number of groups during his deployment, and spied on the family of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence.

The Inquiry presumably knew about this, but chose not to share this decidedly pertinent information with Core Participants, or the wider public, and when questioned, claimed that Morris needed the protection of a Restriction Order.

Since then, Mitting has made a ruling on this, and it is clear that MI5 and/or MI6 have been involved and told Mitting that he can neither confirm nor deny that Trevor Morris and ‘Carlton King’ are in fact the same man.

Heaven pointed out the obvious absurdity of this approach. The book is on sale to the public, and was published with the agreement of the ‘intelligence community’ and Home Office.

‘Carlton King’ has appeared in mainstream media reports sharing his opinions about events such as the Manchester Arena bombing. Comments left below such reports make it obvious that commenters knew of his true identity.

‘Jenny’ and ‘Bea’ have both been clear that they did not consent to sex with Trevor Morris, and consider it rape.

Morris has been utterly unrepentant about deceiving them in this way. It is noted that at no time (in either his book or podcast) has he divulged that he used his false identity to trick women into having sex with him.

Although he has done a great deal of self-promotion and publicly shared a lot of stories about his time as a spy, when Morris gave evidence to this Inquiry he claimed to suffer from problems with his memory and recall of the past.

Heaven pointed out that there is a risk of this Inquiry’s findings being undermined if it is not able to consider all the evidence that exists, and that the impact on the spycops’ victims could be ‘devastating’.

When he appeared in Tranch 2 Phase 1 hearings, Morris made many uncorroborated, outlandish allegations and displayed a degree of indifference towards the women whose human rights he had abused. Heaven suggested that perhaps his ‘nonchalance about such issues can now be understood better’ by his time in the security services. However this post-deployment history has not been officially disclosed to NSCPs, not even to the two women he deceived.

Understanding the ‘customers’

After this, she went on to discuss some other ‘procedural matters’: information that the Non State group recommend that the Inquiry seek to obtain to help it understand the true motivation and utility of SDS reporting (including more information about the ‘customers’ of this intelligence, and the relationships between the SDS/ Special Branch and others) These may include, for example, private companies, employers, foreign governments, other police forces in the UK and elsewhere.

After this, there were a few closing comments, about the delays in disclosure; the concerns raised by many NSCPs about the Inquiry being in a state of ‘crisis’ (which resulted in a recent letter to the Home Office, and request to meet with the Home Secretary).

Those who were spied upon are being told that they will have a very short time frame (potentially as little as two weeks) between receiving hundreds of jumbled pages of disclosure and having to respond to the Inquiry. This is extremely stressful, and inherently unfair.

She finished by asking that the Inquiry laid out the steps it proposed to take to prevent any ’further loss of confidence and trust’ in the process.

Tranche 2, Phase 2, Day 1

14 October 2024

The first day of the new round of Undercover Policing Inquiry hearings, setting out what to expect in the next three months.

CONTENTS

Introduction
Provisional timetable of upcoming live evidence

Opening statements: Day 1

David Barr KC (Counsel to the Inquiry)
Peter Skelton KC (Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis)
Oliver Sanders KC (Designated Lawyer’s Core Participant Group, HN122; HN1; HN32; HN69; HN39; HN109)
Neil Sheldon KC (Home Office)
Quincy Whitaker (John Burke-Monerville)
Rajiv Menon KC (Richard, Nathan and Audrey Adams)
Charlotte Kilroy KC (The Category H Core Participants)
James Scobie KC (Michael Chant, Lindsey German, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament)

Introduction

The Undercover Policing Inquiry held its ‘Tranche 2 Phase 1’ hearings in the summer of 2024. ‘Phase 2’ has just begun, two weeks later than scheduled, and these hearings are due to continue until 23rd January 2025. There are 39 days when hearings will be held. The Inquiry has scheduled some breaks.

The majority of witnesses will be civilians who were spied on by undercover officers from the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), but we are due to hear evidence from at least four of the undercovers, and five officers who worked in the unit’s back office (four of them senior managers).

This round of hearings kicked off on Monday 14th October 2024. Opening Statements were delivered online over Days 1 and 2.

Provisional timetable of upcoming live evidence

Please note that this timetable is a provisional one and may well change over the coming weeks; it’s already been altered a few times. Check the Inquiry’s website to be sure!

Click on each hearing’s title for more detailed information and timings for each day.
Day 3 (Mon 21 October)
• 2:00 PM: ZWB
Day 4 (Tue 22 October)
• 10:00 AM: Kaden Blake
Day 5 (Wed 23 October)
• 10:00 AM: HN122 ‘Neil Richardson’
Day 6 (Thu 24 October)
• 10:00 AM: Richard Adams
• 2:00 PM: John Burke-Monerville
The Inquiry takes a break for the week commencing Monday 28 October
Day 7 (Mon 4 November)
• 2:00 PM: Martyn Lowe
Day 8 (Tue 5 November)
• 10:00 AM: Dave Morris
Day 9 (Wed 6 November)
• 10:00 AM: Chris Baillee
Day 10 (Thur 7 November)
• 11:00 PM: Gabrielle Bosley
Day 11 (Mon 11 November)
• 10:00 AM: Timothy Greene
• 2:00 PM: Albert Beale
Day 12 (Tue 12 November)
• 10:00 AM: Robin Lane
Day 13 (Wed 13 November)
• 10:00 AM: Paul Gravett
Day 14 (Thu 14 November)
• 10:00 AM: Paul Gravett
• 2:00 PM: Geoff Sheppard
Day 15 (Fri 15 November)
• 10:00 AM: Geoff Sheppard
The Inquiry takes another break during the week commencing Monday 18 November
Day 16 (Tue 26 November)
• 10:00 AM: Belinda Harvey
Day 17 (Wed 27 November)
• 10:00 AM: Helen Steel
Day 18 (Thu 28 November)
• 10:00 AM: ‘Jacqui’
Day 19 (Mon 2 December)
• 10:00 AM: HN10 ‘Bob Robinson’ Bob Lambert
Day 20 (Tue 3 December)
• 10:00 AM: HN10 Robert Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’
Day 21 (Wed 4 December)
• 10:00 AM: HN10 Robert Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’
Day 22 (Thu 5 December)
• 10:00 AM: HN10 Robert Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’
Day 23 (Mon 9 December)
• 10:00 AM: ‘Callum’
• 2:00 PM: ‘Walter’
Day 24 (Tue 10 December)
• 10:00 AM: AFJ
Day 25 (Wed 11 December)
• 10:00 AM: Clare Hildreth
Day 26 (Thu 12 December)
• 10:00 AM: ‘Jessica’
Day 27 (Wed 18 December)
• 10:00 AM: HN2 Andrew Coles ‘Andy Davey’
Day 28 (Thu 19 December)
• 10:00 AM: HN2 Andrew Coles ‘Andy Davey’
Day 29 (Fri 20 December)
• 10:00 AM: HN2 Andrew Coles ‘Andy Davey’
The Inquiry takes a break for the two weeks commencing Monday 23 & 30 December
Day 28 (Mon 6 January 2025)
• 10:00 AM: Denise Fuller
Day 29 (Tue 7 January)
• 10:00 AM: HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’
Day 30 (Wed 8 January)
• 10:00 AM: HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’
Day 31 (Thu 9 January)
• 10:00 AM: HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’
Day 32 (Mon 13 January)
• 10:00 AM: HN115 DCI Tony Waite
Day 33 (Tue 14 January)
• 10:00 AM: HN115 DCI Tony Waite
Day 34 (Wed 15 January)
• 10:00 AM: HN69 DCI Malcolm MacLeod
Day 35 (Thu 16 January)
• 10:00 AM: HN32 DS Michael Couch
Day 36 (Mon 20 January)
• 10:00 AM: HN39 DCI Eric Docker
Day 37 (Tue 21 January)
• 10:00 AM: HN39 DCI Eric Docker
Day 38 (Wed 22 January)
• 10:00 AM: HN109
Day 39 (Thu 23 January)
• 10:00 AM: HN109

Opening Statements: Day 1

1) David Barr KC (Counsel to the Inquiry)

David Barr KC is the Counsel to the Inquiry (CTI), and his written Opening Statement outlines the position of the Undercover Policing Inquiry.

He was the first to address this set of hearings, known as Tranche 2, Phase 2 (T2P2).

Although Mitting and Barr were clearly in the hearing room, Core Participants who showed up were not allowed in and public access to the opening statements was ‘online only’. This was a cruel decision.

CTI’s statement included multiple accounts of predatory undercover officers lying about their ages in order to target and groom very young and vulnerable women. He described ‘cold, calculating emotional and sexual exploitation’, while the victims of these and other officers were denied the opportunity to be together at the Inquiry venue. Instead they were left isolated, listening to disturbing revelations at home.

Barr explained that T2P2 will examine the deployments of 7 ‘open’ former Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) officers (for whom at least the cover names have been made public), 11 ‘closed’ officers (whose real and cover names have been withheld, and who will give evidence in secret) and 14 former SDS managers. It will look at the infiltration of activist groups from 1983-1996. 26 members of the public have made statements and 22 will give oral evidence.

The Inquiry’s work in this period will include:

‘Whether the undercover deployments in question were capable of justification, the sexual deceit of women (both admitted and alleged), reporting on black justice campaigns, the alleged participation of undercover police officers in serious offending, potential miscarriages of justice, failure to declare the involvement of undercover officers to prosecutors or courts, violation of legal professional privilege, alleged participation in torts, the influence of UCOs within groups, the continuing use of deceased children’s identities and officer welfare will be key aspects of our investigation in this phase.

‘So too will the knowledge, attitude, actions, or inactions of managers within the SDS in relation to these and other issues. Standing back from specific events, the culture of the unit will remain an important overarching theme.’

The language Barr used is interesting. The Inquiry will investigate whether these undercover deployments were ‘capable of justification’, not whether or not they were justified. It may already be clear to Counsel to the Inquiry that the actual conduct of the unit cannot be justified. Any assessment of justification must therefore be hypothetical, ignoring the facts of the operations.

It is also encouraging that he appears to have kept the role of managers and the culture of the unit in his sights.

He focused his statement primarily on the 7 ‘open’ officers:
• HN11 Mike Chitty ‘Mike Blake’ – deployed April 1983-June 1987 into the animal rights movement in South London. Chitty will not give evidence. The Inquiry believes he lives abroad. However, interviews he gave to ‘Operation Herne’ will be published.
• HN10 Robert Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’ – infiltrated London Greenpeace, in North
London, and other groups between 1984 and 1989. CTI states ‘his ultimate target was the Animal Liberation Front.’ Lambert will give live evidence from 2-5 December.
• HN87 ‘John Lipscomb’ – successor to Chitty, who infiltrated the animal rights movement in South London between 1987 and 1990, first in Bromley then Brixton. His reporting focused on hunt saboteurs. He provided a witness statement but ‘Lipscomb’ is considered too ill to give evidence.
• HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’ – infiltrated anarchist groups, including London Greenpeace, 1987 -1991, overlapping with and replacing Lambert. He has made witness statements, but Dines is refusing to give oral evidence. He lives abroad.
• HN122 ‘Neil Richardson’ – infiltrated the West London Branch of the Revolutionary Communist Party and then Class War, 1989 – 1993. ‘Richardson’ will give oral evidence on 23 October.
• HN2 Andrew Coles ‘Andy Davey’ – infiltrated a number of animal rights groups in South London between 1991 and 1995. Coles will give oral evidence from 18-20 December.
• HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’ – infiltrated animal rights groups 1992-1996, including London Boots Action Group, London Animal Action, and the West London hunt saboteurs. Based in north-west London, he reported on activists as far afield as Liverpool and Manchester. ‘Rayner’ will give live evidence from 7-9 January 2025.

Barr addressed a number of themes:

Sexual Relationships

This was perhaps the strongest yet from Barr on sexual relationships the officers had. He addressed the relationships each officer had:

On his own admission, Chitty entered into sexual activity with female activists whilst he was undercover. This included a relationship with the woman known to the Inquiry as ‘Lizzie’.

He remained in contact with members of his target group, including ‘Lizzie’, after his deployment had ended, and this was eventually discovered. There is evidence that Detective Sergeant Chitty went so far as to propose marriage to ‘Lizzie’.

Lambert admits to having sexual relationships with at least 4 women while undercover between 1984-1989, including fathering a child with an activist known as ‘Jacqui’. Lambert has told the Inquiry that he informed his manager (DI Barber) of this pregnancy in the pub. Barber allegedly decided not to report it and left Lambert ‘to deal with the situation’. (‘Jacqui’ will give evidence on 28 November)

Lambert went on to have a nearly 2-year relationship with Belinda Harvey starting in 1987. Harvey states Lambert ‘often professed his love for her, expressed a desire to have children with her and had planned with her to settle down in a home of their own.’ She describes being ‘deeply troubled’ when Lambert suddenly claimed he had to flee the country. (Belinda Harvey will give evidence on 26 November).

Dines admits to a sexual relationship with activist Helen Steel while undercover from 1990-1992. Dines claims in his statement that he used Steel ‘to maintain his cover and obtain intelligence.’ Barr pulled no punches, describing Dines’s behaviour as ‘cold, calculating emotional and sexual exploitation.’ (Helen Steel will give evidence on 27 November).

‘Lipscomb’ admits to multiple instances of sexual activity with female activists, including ‘sexual fumbling’ while sharing beds in activist squats.

Coles is accused of having had a sexual relationship with a 19-year-old activist known as ‘Jessica’ in 1992, when he was actually 32 and married. Barr noted that Coles denies this. However his statement went on to give detailed accounts of how he initiated sexual contact and a relationship with ‘Jessica’. (‘Jessica’ will give evidence on 12 December)

Barr mentioned other women who recall unpleasant incidents where Coles ‘lunged’ at them, and chased them around. Fellow officer ‘Matt Rayner’ also confirmed in an interview that a woman he spoke to at the time described Coles as ‘creepy’ in his undercover persona:

‘it felt like she described him with a shudder.’

‘Rayner’ admits to a sexual relationship with activist Denise Fuller from 1993-1995. He describes his feelings as ‘genuine’ despite being married in his real identity. However Fuller draws attention to his contemporary intelligence reports about her which suggest his claims of ‘genuine feelings’ are a lie. (Denise Fuller will give evidence on 6 Jan 2025)

Management knowledge of sexual relationships

A key issue is the extent to which SDS managers knew about and condoned these relationships. Several officers claim managers must have been aware. DS Chitty is recorded as telling ‘Operation Herne’ that Lambert bragged about fathering a child through a relationship whilst deployed. Lambert states he believes managers knew about his relationships with both ‘Jacqui’ and Belinda.

Dines explains in his statement that ‘he believes that his managers knew about his sexual relationship with Steel.’

HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’ states relationships:

‘were seen as a grey area – they were not advised or encouraged… but they were not prohibited either. This understanding was reinforced by the fact that my managers were aware of [my] situation and did not tell me to stop.’

‘Rayner’ had quite a lot to say about back-room knowledge of sexual relationships. Barr explained:

‘Rayner’ also overlapped with officers whose deployments will be considered in Tranche 3. HN26 ‘Christine Green’ [was] deployed at the same time as ‘Rayner’ into animal rights circles… ‘Rayner’ states that he knew of her ‘friendship’ with an activist ‘and assumed it was sexual… The office would have known’.

‘Rayner’ further recalls that HN14 Jim Boyling ‘Jim Sutton’ made reference to being in a relationship whilst deployed and acknowledges that he also knew that HN15 Mark Jenner ‘Mark Cassidy’ was having a sexual relationship whilst deployed.

‘Rayner’ later acted as mentor to HN16 James Thomson ‘James Straven / Kevin Crossland’, another officer who went on to form intimate relationships in his undercover identity, albeit ‘Rayner’ denies knowing about them.’

Barr’s account here is quite striking, giving one of the clearest impressions to date of how prevalent sexual relationships were within the SDS, and how generalised and widespread knowledge about them must have been within the unit.

Barr made it very clear that there will be no consideration in this Inquiry of whether these relationships could have been justified:

‘We shall need to examine the utility of the deployment in order to help answer the question whether it was capable of justification. That does not mean that we will be examining whether sexual deception was justified. It was not.’

Identity theft

‘Bob Robinson’ (Lambert) and ‘John Barker’ (Dines) were cover names stolen from the identities of deceased children.

The cover name ‘Neil Richardson’ (HN122) was derived in part from the life story of Neil Robin Martin who died aged 6.

Neil’s mother, Faith Mason, has provided a powerful witness statement which tells his story and describes the impact on her and her family of learning his identity had been used in this way. There is evidence that HN122 traveled to the area where Neil’s family lived.

Coles used the first name and date of birth of a deceased child and added the surname ‘Davey’, to form his cover name ‘Andy Davey’.

HN1 used the identity of Matthew Edward Rayner, who died of leukemia at the age of 4. Matthew’s brother has provided written evidence to the Inquiry and his older sister, Kaden Blake, will give evidence about her brother and the impact the use of his identity has had on the family. (Kaden Blake will give live evidence on 22 October)

Officers committed serious crimes

A major issue to be examined during this Tranche will be about undercover officers who incited or participated in serious crime.

Andy Coles claims he participated in animal liberations and other criminal activity to maintain his cover.

‘Matt Rayner’ is accused by Geoff Sheppard of encouraging him to use a firearm to shoot a vivisector and offering to act as driver.

Bob Lambert is accused of perpetrating an arson attack on a director’s home and writing leaflets inciting criminal acts.

Witness Chris Baillie alleges that Bob Lambert drove him to a butcher’s shop where another activist threw a brick through the window. Baillie was then arrested and convicted, while Lambert was not. (It is expected live evidence about these allegations will emerge throughout the T2 evidence hearings).

Most significantly, Lambert is accused of planting an incendiary device at the Debenham’s store in Harrow on the night of 11 July 1987. Barr noted that DS Chitty is recorded as telling ‘Operation Herne’ that he believed that DS Bob Lambert had led the cell which attacked Debenham’s stores. Core Participant Paul Gravett accuses Lambert of being

‘involved from the start and of being the person who attacked the Harrow branch.’

Geoff Sheppard also states:

‘Lambert was deeply involved and committed the attack in Harrow.’

Helen Steel and Belinda Harvey provide corroborating accounts of Lambert’s alleged involvement. Lambert claims he had no advance knowledge of the action. However, the convictions of Andrew Clarke and Geoff Sheppard for the attacks are currently under appeal ‘based upon DS Lambert’s alleged actions and undisclosed role.’

(Paul Gravett will give evidence on 13 and 14 November and Geoff Sheppard will give evidence on 14 and 15 November)

Undermining the justice system

Barr cited multiple instances where officers were arrested or appeared in court using their false identities, without disclosing their true identity or status to the court.

Lambert was arrested and bound over in court for a protest at a meat market in 1985. Documents show a senior police officer was informed of Lambert’s true identity but there is no record of the court being informed.

Dines was arrested at the Poll Tax riot in 1990 and charged under a false name. Managers directed him to fail to appear in court and ‘cancel all records’, suggesting contact with the court or prosecution.

HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’ recalls giving evidence in court as a defence witness for two activists, without disclosing his true identity to the court. His manager Bob Lambert commented he had ‘behaved in a thoroughly professional manner throughout.’

Coles was arrested and charged under a false name at a hunt saboteur demonstration in 1994. His managers instructed him not to appear in court.

Barr noted that:

‘The Inquiry will explore further with SDS managers in tranche 3 [hearings next year examining 1993-2008] what this reveals about their attitude to the criminal justice system.’

He describes the hierarchy of SDS interests:

‘the first and primary interest being to ensure that deployments were not interrupted by overt involvement in the criminal justice system, even if that meant providing a false name to a court, and/or failing to provide significant information to the prosecution or a court (vis. that a defence witness was in fact a police officer).’

There are also concerning allegations about officers’ reporting and conduct towards Black justice campaigns.

The Rolan Adams Family Campaign and Trevor Monerville Defence Campaign, both involved Black teenagers who died in racist attacks. Rather than properly investigating these murders, the SDS sent officers to report on the justice campaigns.

(Richard Adams, father of Rolan Adams, and John Burke-Monerville, father of Trevor Monerville, will both give evidence on 24 October)

The Security Service

The Inquiry is also investigating the SDS’s relationship with the Security Service (MI5). Alongside CTI’s Opening Statement, the Inquiry also published the written statement by someone known only as ‘Witness Y’, on behalf of MI5.

Barr described how the Security Service’s assessment of subversion as a threat declined significantly during the T2 period.

Witness Y explains the Security Service ‘scaled back’ counter-subversion work in three steps in 1988, 1992 and 1996. By 1996, subversion was assessed as a ‘low to negligible level’ threat.

Despite this, undercover deployments into activist groups continued throughout this period. Documents show regular discussions about targeting took place between the two agencies.

A 1989 Security Service briefing described the SDS as ‘sympathetic and responsive to the needs of the Service,’ and stated it was ‘extremely important that everything possible’ be done to maintain SDS coverage of certain groups.

Justification

As noted above, despite recognising that aspects of police behaviour could never be justified, the Inquiry does intend to investigate whether the targeting and infiltration of these activist groups was ‘capable of justification’.

However, Barr noted that several officers’ statements cast doubt on whether the groups posed a serious threat.

HN87 ‘John Lipscomb’ states in his witness statement that he ‘doubted the utility of his reporting’ on animal rights activists.

HN122 opined at the end of his deployment that ‘the threat to national security from CWO and CWF was very low.’

Barr said:

‘the question that arises is… whether he should not have been deployed into these groups at all?’

An SDS report authored by HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’ in 1996 asserted there were only ‘about 20’ committed Animal Liberation Front extremists in the UK and stated ‘the overt groups such as LAA [London Animal Action] are only of passing public order interest, not significant in its own right.’

In all, there was a sense in Barr’s delivery that he gave rather short shrift to the police interpretation that these deployments were justifiable. He ended a long list of misconduct allegations in Lambert’s deployment with the observation that:

‘Lambert’s deployment was regarded as an outstanding success by his managers such that he was awarded a Commissioner’s Commendation.’

However, whether the deep irony of that comment was intended is difficult to assess. Barr’s delivery is always very dry; and what the Chair of the Inquiry’s view will be of the justification or not of these blighted operations remains to be seen.

More evidence uploaded

Barr also mentioned several hundred new pieces of evidence being uploaded onto the Inquiry website.

These include correspondence between the United States Air Force and the Ministry of Defence in 1983, on the subject of ongoing protests at RAF Upper Heyford and the potential ‘political repercussions’ if an American serviceman were to shoot a British peace protester on the base.

Another item is a report which lawyers acting for the ‘Category H’ (individuals in relationships with undercover officers) victims had recommended for Mitting’s reading list back in Tranche 1, and the lawyer acting for the Met referred to in the last set of hearings.

Entitled ‘The police in action’, this is a detailed study carried out by academic researchers and published by the Policy Studies Institute in 1983. It describes the pervasive sexism and racism found in the force.

2) Peter Skelton KC

Next we heard Peter Skelton KC deliver an Opening Statement on behalf of the ‘Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis’, ie the Metropolitan Police as an institution.

A longer, written, Statement is available on the website; this was a much shorter, oral, submission.

Skelton only spoke for around 15 minutes, but used much of this time to apologise on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to various Non State Core Participants.

Apology number 1

He began by thanking two more families for speaking about the distress they had suffered after making the shocking discovery that spycops had stolen the identities of their loved ones.

The Met apologised to Francis Bennett and Honor Robson for the theft of their brother Michael Anthony Hartley’s identity by HN12, and to Marva Lewis and Judy Lewis for the theft of their brother Anthony Lewis’ identity by HN78. There were assurances that this sick practice is no longer being used to create cover identities, and ‘will never be used again’.

Apology number 2

There were also apologies for ‘Bea’ and ‘Jenny’, two women who gave ‘moving accounts’ of the impact of discovering they had been deceived into sexual relationships by HN78 Trevor Morris during Phase 1.

According to Skelton, the Met was ‘profoundly disappointed’ by his failure to ‘take responsibility for his actions and to apologise for the hurt he has caused them’.

Apology number 3

Finally, apologies were made to two Black families whose justice campaigns were spied on: the families of Rolan Adams and Trevor Monerville. The Met now say that they were spied on due to undercovers ‘following their existing targets into them’, but admit that this reporting should have stopped earlier and the information gathered should not have been retained.

Smearing the animal rights movement

Apologies over, Skelton went on to talk about the police’s justification for infiltrating animal rights groups. He spoke of a growth in ‘militant’ animal rights activism during the 1980s and ‘90s, describing direct action as ‘serious crime’.

He name-dropped groups such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Animal Rights Militia (ARM), and suggested that these ‘attacks’ were ‘violent’, ‘prevalent’ and ‘widespread’, claiming this justified the deployment of long-term undercovers in the animal rights movement.

However, he went on to acknowledge that these deployments were marred by officer misconduct, particularly regarding deceitful sexual relationships. Every single officer sent in to the animal rights movement during this period (1983-1992) engaged in sexual activity while undercover.

Apology number 4

The first was HN10 Bob Lambert, whose deployment lasted over 4 years. During this time, he had relationships with at least four women, fathering a child with one of them. The Met now also apologised to that child, now a man known as ‘TBS’, for the distress he has suffered

Details were given of the other officers:

• HN11 Mike Chitty, who had a sexual relationship with ‘Lizzie’ between 1985-87, and has admitted other ‘sexual impropriety’
• HN87 ‘John Lipscomb’ admitted to sexual activity with at least four women
• HN5 John Dines had a serious long-term relationship with Helen Steel
• HN2 Andy Coles had a relationship with ‘Jessica’
• HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’ had a relationship with Denise Fuller.

Apology number 5

Skelton reaffirmed that the Met ‘unreservedly apologises’ for these relationships, and the ‘widespread culture of sexism and misogyny’ they represent. Again, there is disappointment about the failure of some of these officers to provide oral evidence and/or witness statements to this Inquiry.

According to the police, and contradicting the level of ignorance claimed by previous witnesses, SDS managers knew, or should have known, about these relationships. There should have been ‘vigilance, critical enquiry, explicit prohibition and training’ but there wasn’t.

More management failures

The Met’s statement details a number of instances of undercovers being arrested, and sometimes charged and taken to court in their false identities.

They now admit that proper disclosure should have been made, to investigators as well as prosecutors and courts, and that miscarriages of justice are the inevitable result of their failure to do so. The unit’s managers failed in their duties and responsibilities, to protect fair trials and not allow courts to be misled.

Skelton also made some comments about the welfare of undercover officers, pointing out that the SDS managers could have been more proactive about intervening to offer them support (perhaps with trained psychologists). He stated that each manager had their own unique style of management, meriting individual examination, but admitted that there were ‘systemic management failings’ that the Met could take corporate responsibility for.

One of these was a failure to intervene when it came to the ‘overall tone and content’ of reporting. Another was what seems to have been an ‘aversion to discipling wrongdoing’, which, coupled with commendations and praise for Lambert, contributed to a growing culture of impunity for increasingly serious misconduct.

Justification

Before ending, Skelton reiterated that the animal rights movement was viewed as ‘subversive’ and dangerous, and the covert infiltration of these groups was therefore necessary. He suggested that any final assessment of the justification and value of these deployments, and the reports they generated, could only be done by consulting the ‘wider intelligence community’, and mentioned the statement from ‘Witness Y’.

3) Oliver Sanders KC

Our final speaker in the morning session was Oliver Sanders KC, who represents the ‘Designated Lawyers’ group of former officers.

These are two undercover officers, whose real names are being kept secret: HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’ and HN122 ‘Neil Richardson’.

The rest worked behind the scenes. These were HN32 DS Michael Couch, and three managers: HN39 Michael Docker, HN69 (Malcolm MacLeod), and HN109 (whose real name we don’t know).

Again, there is a much longer written Opening Statement but this was quite a short speech.

Whinging about the Inquiry itself

Sanders began by complaining on behalf of his clients about the Inquiry and how it was being conducted.

To the amazement and disgust of listeners, who reacted furiously on social media, he ended up spending approximately half of his time on this topic. He claimed that the Inquiry was now a ‘two tier process’, and that former officers were being maltreated, ‘belittled and sneered at simply because they served as police officers in a different era’.

They felt that they were being subjected to ‘heavy adversarial challenge’ (translation: they were asked questions, by David Barr on behalf of the Inquiry – unlike most public inquiries, the Non State Core Participants in this one are not being allowed to ask questions, either themselves or via their own lawyers).

In comparison, they thought that ‘civilian witnesses’ (i.e. those they spied on) were being allowed to share their experiences without being challenged at all (which viewers of the Tranche 1 hearings will know is not true).

He complained about the length of time each hearing took, and about the fact that some of the recent hearings in the summer went on past 6pm (going so far as to produce a table in the written document detailing exactly how many minutes each witness spent giving evidence).

He pointed out that many of the officers are now in their 70s and so a long day is tiring for them – obviously many of those they spied on are also getting older now, as is Mitting himself! – and was anxious to tell us how they had ‘voluntarily given up their time’ to provide witness statements.

Many of the Non State Core Participants have still not received any disclosure from the Inquiry, or the police, despite repeatedly requesting their files for the past ten years. As a result, even though they were involved in groups known to have been spied on, they may never find out the identity of the undercovers who infiltrated those groups (because these officers have been granted full anonymity).

In Sanders’ view, it’s a waste of time to give space to anyone who can’t specify which officer reported on them. He tells us that the Inquiry need not bother hearing oral evidence from such members of the public ‘simply for the sake of it’.

He went on to say some stuff about how public order policing wasn’t just about violence and riots, but about preventing any disruption to a ‘tranquil state of affairs’.

Sexual relationships are not the same as each other

He started well, saying that ‘all sexual misconduct’ by officers was wrong, and should be condemned, not condoned. But he quickly went on to tell us that his clients are upset that their sexual activity (described variously as sexual fumblings, one-night stands and oral sex) might be thought of as some kind of ‘sexual relationship’. It seems they are keen not to be seen as ‘on a par with Bob Lambert’.

Spycops campaigners were astounded to hear him use what was quickly termed ‘the Bill Clinton defence’.

According to him, as so far, we only know about six officers committing some kind of sexual misconduct, the other 30 who served in the SDS during these years are therefore all innocent of such deeds. He claims this would have made it harder for managers to spot the problem.

Furthermore, he says his clients don’t recognise the description – of an institutional ‘culture of sexism and misogyny’ – as something they were part of in the 80s (despite the Met themselves using these words).

He went on to talk about more about ‘sexual attraction’, saying it wasn’t just heterosexual male officers who committed sexual misconduct (as we’ll hear about women officers in future Tranches, and there is one known case of a gay male officer infiltrating the far-right).

Tradecraft Manual

Sanders ended by saying that he was keen to ‘dispel any myths’ about the SDS ‘Tradecraft Manual’ that’s come to light since this Inquiry started.

According to him, it’s just an ‘unfinished draft’, and was never ‘officially endorsed’. However one of the authors of this text, Andy Coles, is scheduled to make an appearance as a witness in December, so he can be asked about this.

4) Neil Sheldon KC

After lunch, we heard from Neil Sheldon KC, who represents the Home Office. The Home Office is considered a Core Participant in the Inquiry, and separately is responsible for funding the Inquiry – no conflict of interests there!

We heard that the Home Secretary awaits the findings and recommendations of this Inquiry with great interest, and has noted Mitting’s ‘public commitment’ to wrap it all up by producing a final report before the end of 2026.

Interestingly, the current Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, is the first Labour Home Secretary since this Inquiry was first announced by Theresa May. There have been many reshuffles since then, with six different Tories occupying the post in the intervening years, but as we’ve already heard, many Labour MPs were reported on by spycops, and it’s entirely possible that they targeted Cooper (or her father, a prominent trade unionist) at some point.

Their written Opening Statement is online. This has been written to address both Parts of Tranche 2, citing the 2024 General Election as their reason for not submitting a separate statement for Part 1. They hope to add more evidence before Mitting reaches Tranche 5.

It’s all changed now

They fully agree with Mitting’s earlier comments, that:

‘the arrangements for overseeing undercover policing deployments are now very different from those which obtained in the past’.

In the Tranche 2 era (1983-1992), there was no statute law in place to govern the use of undercover officers. Since then, we have seen the enaction in 2000 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), followed by the Investigatory Powers Act of 2016. The fact that undercover units’ abuses continued well after RIPA came into force shows that it had no real effect on political undercover policing. The problem isn’t what the rules say, but that polce officers ignore the rules with impunity.

Sehldon said that any use of undercovers nowadays must be considered ‘necessary and proportionate’, and be formally authorised at a more senior level than before. Deployments lasting longer than 12 months require the approval of a judicial commissioner.

The law was further amended in 2021, and there is now even more guidance governing criminal conduct by what are now termed ‘Covert Human Intelligence Sources’

The Home Office is keen to prove that ‘the picture is dramatically different today’ from how it was in the years 1983–1992.

Home Office ignorance

Sheldon went on to make a few comments about the evidence seen so far. The Home Office provided annual authorisation – and funding – for the SDS, and correspondence up till 1989 shows that in return they received what he terms ‘a high level description’ of the unit’s work, with reassurances about issues such as officer welfare and supervision, and a few examples of the spycops’ successes.

However, they state that they did not seek to direct or monitor the way the unit worked and had very limited knowledge of the actual operations. It was suggested that ‘operational partners’ deliberately kept any concerns to themselves, as they were anxious to avoid the Home Office examining Special Branch/ the SDS too closely.

He says the Home Office did express a direct interest in two particular movements during this era; anti-fascist action and the animal rights movement. He understands that this set of hearings will focus on the officers who infiltrated the animal rights movement.

He reiterated that the Home Office was not aware of any of the ‘deeply disturbing behaviour and conduct’ (by which he meant sexual misconduct, the theft of deceased children’s identities, and any conduct which might have led to miscarriages of justice).

Back in 2020, the Opening Statement provided by the then-Home Secretary referred to a report produced by Stephen Taylor in 2015. According to this, a small number of Home Office officials knew about the SDS’s operations (especially in 1983-86), the identity of some of the groups being targeted and the type of information being gathered about them.

However they were not aware of the issues listed above, and there has been no new evidence since to suggest otherwise (partly because the Home Office has been purged of every document relating to the SDS).

Requests for the Inquiry

The Home Office would like witnesses who make references to ‘the Government’ to be pressed to clarify which branch of the government they are referring to, and not be allowed to use ‘the Home Office’ as a shorthand for the entire apparatus of the British State.

Sheldon’s final point was about an assertion made by HN78 Trevor Morris ‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis (also aka Carlton King) in his witness statement, about the Home Office deeming the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) to be a ‘subversive organisation’.

When questioned by Counsel to the Inquiry in July, Morris was unable to provide any evidence of this. The Home Office hopes the Inquiry continues to ‘rigorously test’ and seek corroboration of any such allegations in future.

5) Quincy Whitaker

Quincy Whitaker appeared on behalf of John Burke-Monerville, who has also submitted a written Opening Statement for this Phase.

What happened to Trevor

 

Whitaker began by relating the tragic story of what happened to John’s son, Trevor Monerville. On New Year’s Eve 1986, as a teenager of 19, he went out with his aunts to a nightclub in Hackney. He was seen outside the club, then disappeared, and was found, badly injured and semi-conscious, inside a car parked on a nearby estate.

Instead of taking him to hospital, the police arrested him. His father visited Stoke Newington police station while out looking for his son, and was told he was not there – a lie the police later apologised for.

Over the next few days, Trevor was transferred from custody to Homerton Hospital’s A&E unit and back again several times. Because he was too unwell to attend court, a magistrate visited him in his cell to conduct a remand hearing. From here he was sent to prison – HMP Brixton – with yet more hospital visits, culminating in emergency brain surgery on 6 January.

Medical evidence suggests that his injuries, including the blood clot in his brain, and the memory loss and epileptic fits that plagued him for the rest of his life, were caused by him being beaten ‘multiple times’.

The Crown Prosecution Service finally dropped the charges against him on 8th January, but despite this, Trevor was frequently stopped by the police. By the end of 1988 he had been arrested five more times, although each case was dropped or ended in an acquittal.

His family were so desperate to help him escape this near-constant police harassment that they put out a fundraising appeal to help him leave the country. He lived in St Lucia for a number of years, but had to come back to London when his epilepsy worsened.

In 1994, Trevor was stabbed 10 times on his way home, in front of witnesses, and died as a result. Nobody has been brought to justice for his murder.

Another of John’s sons, Joseph Burke-Monerville, was shot and killed in 2013, but due to police failings, those responsible were never put on trial.

A third son, David Bello-Monerville, was fatally stabbed in 2019, and the perpetrators found guilty the following year.

As Whitaker put it, this family’s entire lives have been ‘blighted by tragedy, stonewalling, and the consequences of endemic racism’.

The family’s campaign for justice

Understandably, the family have been asking for answers, and accountability from the police, ever since Trevor was first injured, all those years ago. They set up the Justice for Trevor Monerville Campaign (JTMC) and campaigned for a public inquiry.

The entire family have suffered police harassment. Even John’s mother, in her 70s at the time, was arrested on trumped up charges, and successfully sued the police for malicious prosecution.

Burke-Monerville met with ‘Operation Herne’ (an internal police investigation into the spycops operations) in 2016, and was shown a document which mentioned the JTMC, listing it as a group which had been ‘directly penetrated, or closely monitored’ in 1987.

They told him that this didn’t mean that officers had infiltrated his family, just attended meetings around the campaign, adding that the SDS might have made it up anyway, to help justify their operations.

According to them, there were no other records relating to JTMC; they had all been destroyed. The Met then sent him an apology for retaining that document, but not for spying on him and his family in the first place.

More reports have come to light since then, making it clear that the campaign was spied on for at least 9 years. These date from March 1987 – a report in which HN95 Stefan Scutt ‘Stefan Wesolowski’ describes the JTMC and its entirely legal aims – up till February 1996 – a report into preparations for a memorial event on the second anniversary of Trevor’s death.

Interestingly, this last report shows that the campaign had now been allocated a Special Branch reference number of the kind given to people with files for active ongoing monitoring – John wonders why.

We now know that another undercover officer, HN15 Mark Jenner ‘Mark Cassidy’ attended the first such memorial, in March 1995, something John considers a ‘gross violation’ of his family’s privacy.

Burke-Monerville also learnt for the first time in 2016 that the inquest into Trevor’s death had resumed in 1996, concluding on the same day. None of the family were there. The police told the Coroner that they could not be contacted, and so they were neither invited nor informed. John had lived and worked at the same addresses for many years, and the intelligence report proves that the police knew exactly where the family were in 1996.

He would like this Inquiry to get to the truth of all of these matters. He wants to know why his family’s campaign was targeted by the police, instead of being assisted in their quest for justice. He is keen to hear from anyone with information about any of his sons’ deaths, describing racism in the police as ‘the rotten thread that mats these tragedies and police failings together’.

Despite what the police have said, it is clear to Burke-Monerville that his family was directly targeted by the spycops. There is no evidence that the campaign posed a threat to public order, or that it had been infiltrated by ‘left wing extremists’ (two reasons they’ve given in the past to explain why such groups might have been spied on).

He believes that police racism ‘was at the heart of the police brutality and corruption that the black community experienced’ and ‘underlay the targeting of black justice groups seeking accountability’ for this.

The police don’t like being criticised or held to account

Whitaker drew the Inquiry’s attention to the Met’s ‘excessive interest’ in any groups which criticised the police, especially those who sought to raise concerns about institutional or individual racism in the police.

The Inquiry’s Chair, Sir John Mitting, was reminded that he’d said that he ‘must examine the possibility that the deployments into black justice groups were influenced by conscious or unconscious racism’.

The Inquiry has now published excerpts from the Met Commissioner’s annual reports (covering the years 1983-1994), and these provide evidence of the police’s attitudes towards any groups seeking accountability for police misconduct, who are all seen as ‘anti-police’.

For example, the 1985 report includes a section entitled ‘Divisive Activity’ and later draws a distinction between statutory police ‘consultative’ groups (set up in the wake of the Scarman report) and the other, independent, police monitoring groups, often associated with the GLC Police Committee, described here as ‘purposively hostile to the police’ and not ‘constructive’ enough in their criticism.

Whitaker noted that there was detailed evidence of police officers using extremely crude, derogatory, racist language, and that this went unchallenged, with displays of racist prejudice being ‘expected, accepted and even fashionable’, according to the 1983 report mentioned by Barr this morning. More recent reports (such as Baroness Casey’s review in 2023) find that the Met continues to suffer from a problem with institutional racism.

Now in his 80s, John Burke-Monerville is tired, and considers this Inquiry his last chance for the truth; he hopes it can provide some answers so that future generations don’t have to go through what he has been through.

6) Rajiv Menon KC

Rajiv Menon KC appeared next, representing Richard, Nathan and Audrey Adams, yet another Black family who had been forced to campaign for justice. A racist attack on two of their sons in 1991 resulted in the death of Rolan Adams. Nathan survived this attack, and together with Richard and Audrey, his parents, has submitted a written Opening Statement to the Inquiry.

The origins of racist policing

Menon began by stating that ‘one of the defining features of British policing in the last 50 plus years has been its racism’, and went on to provide the Inquiry with a long and comprehensive list of how this institutionalised racism manifested itself.

He explained that this embedded racism had its origins in Britain’s Empire. A significant number of British police officers in the 20th century – including many Metropolitan Police Commissioners and other senior officers – had backgrounds in colonial and/or military policing.

As Menon pointed out, these colonial police forces were often used to enforce ‘racial, discriminatory and authoritarian laws’. Any opposition to British rule was viewed as ‘sedition’. The police ’had paramilitary training and draconian powers’ and were rarely held to account for abusing those powers.

As the Empire shrank in size, many of these men came back to Britain and took up posts in the Met and other police forces around the UK, binging these attitudes with them.

In Menon’s submissions:

‘Sir Kenneth Newman’s reign as Metropolitan Police Commissioner was a particularly grim time.’

During these years (1982-87) those who opposed racist policing, young black people in particular, were targeted and blamed for the public’s lack of confidence in the force.

Undercover policing was ’blighted by the same racism that blighted every other area of policing’ and there is a danger of this Inquiry ‘reproducing this blight’ unless it starts seriously considering the impact that racism had on the spycops operations.

The attack on the Adams boys

The way that the Adams family were spied on, following the racist murder of Rolan and racist attack on Nathan, are a clear example of the way that racism affected the police response.

A photo of the Adams family was shown on screen, as Menon explained the events of 21st February 1991. Rolan and Nathan (aged 15 and 14) had gone to a youth club in Thamesmead to play table tennis. On their way home, they were chased by a gang of 12-15 white youths, shouting racist abuse, who caught up with Rolan and stabbed him in the throat. Nathan was chased but managed to get away, and came back to find Rolan dying.

This was not the first case of racist violence in the area. Other black boys were attacked, hospitalised and in some cases killed in similar racist group attacks. Community groups, such as the Greenwich Action Committee Against Racial Attacks (GACARA), the local council’s Racial Equality Committee and even youth workers from the youth club, had all tried to raise the problem but the police failed to act, or even to recognise the threat posed by far-right and racist criminal groups.

The gang responsible for this incident – who called themselves the ‘Nazi Turn Outs’ – were all known to the police, and described as ‘something of a British National Party (BNP) youth group’.

Even after Rolan’s murder, they were arrested and released on bail, and only one of them was charged with murder. Menon compared this with the police and Crown Prosecution Service’s enthusiastic over-use of ‘joint enterprise’ against other groups of young people. Nobody was ever charged with attacking Nathan.

The police were reluctant to treat it as a racist crime, insisting that it was some kind of deracialised dispute over territory. However the trial judge recognised that this was a racially motivated murder, and said so in his summing up.

Nathan began to be harassed by the police shortly after the attack: as well as being stopped and searched, he was arrested and told that he was banned from going to Thamesmead. The police demonstrated their hostility towards the Adams family in other ways, for example, stopping friends and relatives on their way to visit them.

The Rolan Adams Family Campaign was set up in the aftermath of Rolan’s murder to support his family as they fought for justice. A campaign leaflet was shown on screen. They organised memorial marches and demonstrations, and campaigned for the closure of the controversial BNP bookshop. They reached out to other victims of racist violence and prejudice.

They did not trust PC Fisher, the ‘Family Liason Officer’ assigned to them. They felt that he only pretended to show any ‘empathy’ and tried to ‘tease out information’ from them when he showed up, unannounced, at their home.

They kept getting threatening phone calls, gloating about Rolan’s death, and just a few months after the murder, were advised by the local council that they were in such danger that they should move house immediately. Why did the police not offer them any protection from these threats?

Richard Adams wants an explanation for why the police chose to spy on him and his wife, parents who had just lost a child, law-abiding citizens who just wanted justice after the murder of their son. He asks if a white family would have been spied on in these circumstances.

He says that they long suspected that they were being spied on and that their phones were bugged, but were told they were being paranoid. Nathan now says ‘learning I had been spied on made me a bit sane again’. He goes on to add:

‘I want the Inquiry to get to the truth, to be transparent and to hold people in high places accountable’.

The Adams family feel let down by the police, the justice system and politicians. They believe that if the police had taken more action to tackle racist violence, they could have prevented other murders, like those of Rohit Duggal and Stephen Lawrence, in the following years.

‘Puzzled and angry’ about this Inquiry

They are ‘puzzled and angry’ about a number of issues. They say they have received so little disclosure that don’t know much more now than they did back in 2019, when they were granted Core Participant status.

They reiterate that there is no way that this Inquiry can possibly ascertain the role and contribution of undercover policing towards detecting or preventing racist crime, something which should be of ‘overwhelming public importance’, unless it openly and publicly investigates the undercover policing of far-right and racist criminal groups.

Mitting previously told them that the issue of racist criminal groups would not be covered in Tranche 2 because the SDS did not infiltrate such groups, begging the question ‘why not?’ SDS managers should be asked to explain their targeting decisions.

They note that the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference clearly state that it will:

‘include, but not be limited to, the undercover operations of the Special Demonstration Squad and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit’ (NPOIU)’

The Inquiry is still due to examine undercover policing by units other than the SDS and NPOIU, in Tranche 5, and the Adams family would like confirmation that this issue will be covered then.

So far we have only heard about one deployment involving a far-right group, and this was about HN56 ‘Alan “Nick” Nicholson’ spying on a ‘fairly inactive BNP branch’ in Essex. Mitting has said that the infiltration of far-right groups will only be discussed in ‘closed’ hearings.

The Adams family contend that it is important to hear from as many spycops as possible in open, public hearings. They says there is no value to Non State Core Participants, or the wider public, in the Chair hearing these witnesses’ evidence in secret, and using Restriction Orders to prevent everyone else from accessing it. They ask again for a proper explanation of this level of secrecy in what is supposed to be a ‘public inquiry’.

Mitting popped up on screen to respond to Menon (as always). He confirmed that the SDS had indeed infiltrated right wing groups from the 1980s onwards, but repeated that ‘for reasons that I would hope would be obvious’ that he still intended to hear about these in closed hearings.

For most of us, it is not obvious why this material cannot be heard in public. Plenty of other officers have been granted anonymity and the Inquiry is using screens and voice modulation to protect some from identification. It is unclear why this cannot be done for these deployments, and what the real risks would be.

7) Charlotte Kilroy KC

Charlotte Kilroy KC represents the ‘Category H’ Core Participants (women who were deceived into relationships by spycops).

‘Married 32-year-old undercover police officer (UCO) Bob Lambert dropped five years from his age when, in 1985, he stole a deceased child’s identity as his ‘undercover persona’. During a four-year deployment… he had sexual relationships with four women, fathering a child…

‘In 1987 Lambert’s close SDS colleague 32-year-old UCO John Dines also dropped five years from his age when he stole a deceased child’s identity to infiltrate the same group of activists. He befriended Helen Steel when she was 22 and pursued her as a 24-year-old with propositions of love for months… eventually persuading her in 1990 to enter into a relationship…

‘Dines trained UCOs Andy Coles and HN1… [who] assumed the names and birthdays of deceased children, also losing more than 5 years from their real age…

‘Married police officer HN1, had a year-long sexual relationship with Denise Fuller in his cover name ‘Matt Rayner’…

‘When aged 32, married police officer Andy Coles had a year-long sexual relationship with 19-year-old Jessica, for whom he was her first boyfriend. He has since risen to high ranks within the police…’

The opening paragraphs of Charlotte Kilroy KC’s written Opening Statement hit like punches to the guts. She outlines the misconduct of SDS officers, one after another, until we were left with the impression of something more akin to a predatory sex ring than a unit investigating crime: officers knocked years off their ages and used their training and trade craft to groom and manipulate young and vulnerable women.

In her oral opening statement, Kilroy looked at the devastating impact of that abuse. Her statement focussed on four women: Belinda Harvey, Helen Steel, Denise Fuller, and ‘Jessica’, all of whom will give evidence in the coming months.

Kilroy highlighted the deeply personal and long-lasting trauma caused by the deceptive relationships, exposing the systemic issues of misogyny and institutional indifference within the Special Demonstration Squad and the Metropolitan Police Service.

Bob Lambert and Belinda Harvey

Bob Lambert, a 32-year-old married officer, fathered a child with a woman named ‘Jacqui’ while infiltrating activist groups, before starting a relationship with Belinda Harvey, who was not involved in any of the groups targeted by the SDS.

Harvey, a 24-year-old aspiring accountant, met Lambert at a party in 1987. Lambert, using the cover name ‘Bob Robinson’, quickly pursued her, initiating a romantic relationship within days.

He manipulated her emotionally, altering her lifestyle and encourage her to abandon her career aspirations. Over two years, Lambert maintained the deception, making Harvey believe she had found her life partner.

SDS managers were fully aware of Lambert’s behaviour. They knew he had fathered a child with another woman during his deployment. Kilroy explained:

‘For the Metropolitan Police and SDS management, Belinda’s life and body had little value’

John Dines and Helen Steel

Dines, another married officer, deployed alongside Lambert, targeted Helen Steel, a 22-year-old environmental and social justice campaigner. Ten years older than Steel, Dines befriended her in 1987, apparently at Lambert’s suggestion, and mounted an elaborate campaign to seduce her.

Like Lambert, Dines used various tactics to manipulate Steel, including fabricating stories about his parents’ deaths and even staging a fake arrest to gain her sympathy. Once Steel succumbed to his advances, Dines showered her with love notes and promises of a future together. The relationship lasted two years.

When the time came for Dines to exit his deployment, he pretended to have a breakdown, drawing out his disappearance over several months, even after his deployment ended, leaving Steel devastated.

Kilroy emphasised the cruelty of Dines’ actions, noting that Steel spent years searching for him, genuinely concerned for his well-being, unaware that his entire identity was a fabrication. The SDS, rather than offering Steel any protection or compensation, assisted Dines by moving him and his family to Australia to avoid discovery.

Dines has shown no remorse for his actions, filling his witness statement with insults and false allegations against Steel, furthering her suffering. Kilroy described Dines as a man with ‘so little empathy for other human beings and so much hatred for women,’ calling for a closer examination of how someone so callous could be allowed to operate unchecked.

‘Matt Rayner’ and Denise Fuller

Like Lambert and Dines, ‘Matt Rayner’ exploited Denise Fuller’s vulnerabilities, using her mental health concerns as a means of gaining her affections. He portrayed himself as caring and supportive, but his reports to his SDS colleagues are filled with sarcasm and contempt.

‘Rayner’ initiated a sexual relationship with Fuller immediately after a traumatic life event, and reported on her continuously throughout that relationship, which lasted more than a year. He was encouraged by his managers and his relationship with Fuller was no secret within the unit.

Kilroy highlighted the ongoing injustice Fuller faced, pointing out that Rayner had managed to conceal his real name from both Fuller and the public, maintaining his privacy while she continued to suffer the emotional and psychological consequences of his deception.

Andy Coles and Jessica

The final case Kilroy discussed was that of Andy Coles, who, at the age of 32, posed as a 24-year-old and began a relationship with ‘Jessica’, a vulnerable 19 year old, having had a difficult childhood.

Coles used manipulative tactics to gain her trust, visiting uninvited and hanging around until he could initiate a relationship. Coles groomed Jessica into an awkward sexual relationship – her first – which lasted a year. ‘Jessica’s’ lack of confidence made it difficult for her to resist Coles’ advances.

Coles had since risen to high ranks within the police, becoming head of training for the Association of Chief Police Officers and later deputy Police and Crime Commissioner, all the while callously denying the relationship with Jessica and trying to discredit her with false claims.

Difficult and uncomfortable questions

Kilroy then went on to discuss the ‘difficult and uncomfortable questions’ arising from the evidence, which go beyond the misogyny and sexism of the police and the culpability of individual undercovers and SDS managers. Misogyny alone cannot explain the way the officers behaved.

There is a further sinister and disturbing dimension: while undercover, officers were liberated from ordinary moral codes and:

‘they indulged themselves in a wide range of fantasies, apparently untrammelled by any sense of moral or ethical responsibilities towards other people…

‘They toyed with their victims’ feelings. They often wielded the extraordinary power they were given with breathtaking cruelty or recklessness…

‘Their experiments with these women have left a trail of emotional devastation which continues to reverberate up until the present day.’

Kilroy made the point that undercover deployment in alternative personae effectively released undeercovers from the moral constraints and supervision ordinarily applied by their communities and families, thereby unleashing:

‘a range of dark behaviour for which the men faced no real consequences.’

The SDS leadership, along with the higher echelons in the Met, the Home Office and MI5, should all have been aware that the serious dangers inherent in this kind of undercover operation means such long-term deployments are unlikely to ever be appropriate. They certainly could never be justified in the context in which they were used by the SDS.

It is deeply concerning that they experimented with the lives of the general public and either were not aware, or did not care enough to avoid the obvious dangers.

Kilroy concluded:

‘the Commissioner suggests that the SDS’s infiltration of what he describes as the militant aspects of the animal rights movement was justified, but marred by the misconduct of its officers. He also suggests further justification comes from the evidence of Witness Y, for MI5.

‘This is wrong. It indicates the Commissioner still does not appreciate the serious inherent risks involved in these kinds of long-term deployments. Such deployments are too intrusive and too dangerous ever to be justified in this kind of context.’

The ‘James Bond’ effect

Kilroy also highlighted the role of MI5 in ‘soliciting and perpetuating the conduct of UCOs which led to the abuse of women’.

MI5 were ‘eager and appreciative consumers’ of SDS intelligence and ‘they must have been aware of the tactics used’.

She argued that MI5’s encouragement caused officers to believe they were domestic James Bonds:

‘There is no doubt though that many revelled in the perception that they were a “secret and reliable source”. The idea that they could, like Mr Bond, play fast and loose with both women and the rules seems to have been a powerful fantasy for more than one UCO.’

The culture of ‘backing up’

Kilroy notes that many undercover officers:

‘continue to conceal their own sexual misconduct or that of their colleagues. To this day they feel little or no remorse or empathy for the Cat H CPs [women deceived into relationships by undercover officers].’

She notes how much other undercovers and managers must have known about the relationships and the fact that:

‘the longstanding culture of “backing up” which requires police officers to cover up for each other, even when there has been wrongdoing, continues to take priority over the public interest’.

Eliminating this culture must become an Metropolitan Police goal.

Apologies

The women deceived into relationships are critical of the lack of genuine apologies or acceptance of responsibility from most of the undercover officers.

Coles denies the relationship occurred, Chitty and Dines have declined to cooperate with the Inquiry. Trevor Morris refused to apologise when given the opportunity to do so. Even those who have offered apologies, like Lambert and ‘Matt Rayner’, have done so in ways these Core Participants consider insincere or inadequate.

They welcomed the apologies and admissions made by the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police in his opening statement, including accepting that at least nine SDS undercovers, including all the officers targeting animal rights campaigns, had engaged in sexual activity with women in this period, which were, in the Met’s own words:

‘a gross violation of the women’s dignity and human rights’.

However, Kilroy noted it:

‘should not have taken until 2024, well over a decade since the revelations about police misconduct became public, for these apologies and admissions to be forthcoming.’

Taking a trauma-informed approach

Kilroy ended her statement by highlighting the profound trauma caused to the women by engaging engaging with the Inquiry itself. It was always going to be hard to read and respond to the evidence of the undercovers who abused them, and to confront their abusers in hearings.

But this inevitable pain has been compounded by lengthy delays followed by extreme pressure to produce evidence in short time frames.

They have been distressed by strict rules prohibiting them from communicating with each other, disregard for their privacy concerns, and disparities in the approach taken to police witnesses.

They are disappointed that no panel members with relevant experience will be appointed to consider recommendations.

They do not consider that the Inquiry has taken a trauma-informed approach, which recognises their special need as victims for fairness and due process. They have suffered as a result.

‘They continue to hope that improvements can be made to the Inquiry process which properly recognise their status as victims, and accord them the special care and respect they need.’

8) James Scobie KC

To end the day, we heard brief opening submissions from James Scobie KC, representing the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), a former leading member of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), Lindsey German, and Michael Chant of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist). The Inquiry has published a written Opening Statement.

Scobie already made opening submissions on behalf of these clients in Tranche 2 Phase 1 hearings earlier this year, and plans to make more in future. Today’s submissions relate to CND, specifically addressing the continued attempts by both the security services and the police to justify the infiltration of this group.

Those justifications are not supported by the evidence that has now been released. The security service witness, known only as ‘Witness Y’, weakly claims that CND was assessed to have been infiltrated by communists and that it took MI5 until 1985 to work out this wasn’t true.

However, the SDS assessment in February 1982 was that the Communist Party’s influence within CND, and in particular its national council, had waned quite dramatically and was unlikely to grow again. MI5 agreed with that assessment. Witness Y conceded that MI5 did not consider CND to be a ‘subversive’ organisation. So why were they still being spied on?

Witness Y tries to imply that spying on the peace movement was more acceptable then than it would be nowadays. But as early as 1963, Lord Denning said that for most British people it would be:

‘intolerable to us to have anything in the nature of a Gestapo or Secret Police, to snoop into all that we do’.

Spying on CND would have been considered an unacceptable intrusion, a waste of resources and an egregious example of state interference in the democratic process, even at the time.

The most damning proof of that, Scobie asserts:

‘is the Security Service’s own collusion in deceiving the public by stating that they and the Special Branch did not cover law-abiding non-violent activities like CND activities. They plainly did.’

Scobie highlighted the ‘evidential void’ surrounding the decision to target CND:

‘The senior police officers in charge of the SDS between 1981 and 1986 have not assisted the Inquiry. Most of the officers who managed CND deployments have passed away. The documents associated with their period as managers disclosed by the Met Police and Security Services are silent as to both justification and authorisation.’

Chief Inspector Malcolm MacLeod – who has now said that the infiltration of CND was not justified – referred at the time to the decision to target CND ‘coming from his masters’. Those masters were clearly not MI5, because he used that term in documents addressed to them.

Scobie notes that:

‘MacLeod claims that he cannot now remember who he was referring to. In respect of CND, whoever was pulling the strings was bypassing MI5.’

Scobie looked in some detail at internal discussions between the SDS, Special Branch and MI5 about the deployments into CND from 1984 on, particularly the fact that MI5 requested a new officer, ‘Timothy Spence’, be deployed into the SWP. Very unusually, the SDS refused MI5’s request, and insisted he be sent into CND. Once again the ‘masters’, whoever they were, were bypassing MI5 on CND targeting.

The Home Affairs Select Committee set up an inquiry into Special Branch’s activities in 1984, and a number of other incidents around that time raised serious questions about the targeting of CND.

There was widespread public denunciation of the investigations into Madeleine Haigh. Haigh was a CND supporter who wrote to her local newspaper protesting about the cancellation of an anti-nuclear event in Worcester. Shortly afterwards she was visited by two policemen who claimed to be investigating a mail order fraud, but turned out to have come from Special Branch.

Cathy Massiter was an MI5 intelligence officer who was tasked with investigating left-wing subversive influence within CND, and became a whistle-blower after leaving the job. In 1985 she appeared in an episode of Channel 4’s 20/20 Vision programme, entitled ‘MI5’s Official Secrets’, saying:

‘We were violating our own rules. It seemed to be getting out of control. This was happening, not because CND as such justified this kind of treatment but simply because of political pressure; the heat was there for information about CND and we had to have it.’

Chief Inspector Wait claims not to recall any discussions with senior Special Branch managers about the justification for infiltrating CND, and not to recall why he refused to go along with MI5’s requests to deploy ‘Spence’ into the SWP.

Astonishingly, there is no mention of Cathy Massiter in his statement, even though he acknowledged the breach of SDS security in an Annual Report at the time, and as Scobie says, the impact of her revelations would have caused ‘unforgettable’ panic within Special Branch at the time.

Scobie asserted that the Inquiry has received ‘no assistance’ from SDS managers ‘on the issues of justification and authorisation’.

The Met has offered two outlandish suggestions as possible justification:

‘concern that CND could be infiltrated by communist groups and the KGB’ and ‘venturism around the US air bases could lead to protestors being shot.’

Neither assertion is backed up by the evidence. If evidence does exist, the Commissioner should look to the Met Police’s own documents and disclose them.

Scobie then reached the heart of the matter:

‘The Commissioner submits that the Metropolitan Police Special Branch was obliged to monitor the CND, linking that obligation to significant government and military interests in the 1980s. That is the firmest indicator yet of where the authorisation for the CND deployments came from. Government targeting.’

Scobie examined relations between the Met Police and the Home Office in the early 1980s, and described a rift which developed around 1983.

That year, Special Branch produced a report with the title ‘Political extremism and the campaign for police accountability in the MPS district’, about the efforts of the Greater London Council (GLC) police committee and others to hold the police accountable for their actions. The report was politically partisan, and the response from the Home Office expressed ‘very serious concern at the breadth and tone of, and market for, that report’.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Hewett replied on 4 March 1983:

‘We are dealing here with a broader concept of public order intelligence, and on this particular aspect I probably had gone as far as the Special Branch should go.’

There was nothing in the report that could be said to relate to public order. The Home Office saw that the response did not stand up to examination, and it was Hayden Philips’ view that Special Branch had gone too far, by looking into legitimate political activity which could not be considered subversive.

What is most interesting about this is that the most senior Special Branch officers had decided not only that they could use Special Branch resources, including the SDS, to resist lawful attempts by a democratically elected council to make the police accountable to the community they were supposed to be serving, but also that they could do so despite having been told by the Home Office that they could not, and having said that they would not.

Scobie made clear:

‘This was a wilful assault on democratic activity, acting beyond police powers with knowingly unsustainable justification, in contravention of an order from a Government Ministry…

‘They would not have acted in this manner unless they were confident of support from an authority higher than the Home Office.’

There is evidence that in February and March 1983, Special Branch were engaging directly with the highest levels of government. Margaret Thatcher made a direct and specific request to the police in respect of intelligence on the police accountability movement.

The same appears to be the case for CND. Chief Inspector Martyn MacLeod has indicated that he would not be surprised if the Prime Minister had a role in tasking because ‘the whole thing became very politicised’.

National Archives releases from 1983 show a government scared of losing the battle of public opinion on disarmament. The Prime Minister’s office was devising ways of neutralising CND.

It seems MI5 let the Government down by rightly refusing to cooperate on party political issues targetting law-abiding groups. The evidence now suggests that the Met stepped into that void.

This evidence comes on top of the arguments outlined by Scobie earlier this year in his opening statement to Tranche 2 Phase 1 about the creation of the Ministry of Defence DS19 Propaganda Unit, and Michael Hessletine’s use of SDS intelligence to undermine opposition to the government in the general election of 1983.

The 1984 SDS annual report has a section on CND, but its focus was not on public order or subversion; it was on (a) membership numbers; (b) the political position, noting the Labour Party’s official espousal of unilateral nuclear disarmament; and (c), that:

‘CND has skilfully manipulated public opinion over issues about which people are genuinely concerned.’

He ended his submissions with some comments on disclosure, or rather, the lack of it.

The evidence provided MI5 is ‘woefully inadequate on an issue of such importance.’

In respect of the Met Police, there is evidence of ‘a high level Special Branch directive that led to all files on CND being destroyed. While there may have been some justification on the basis of the Home Office guidelines for destroying files on the individuals, there can be no justification for the destruction of files on policy, liaison, authorisation and justification.’

Scobie urged the Inquiry to investigate this political interference further and to focus not only on the role of the Home Office but also on the engagement between the Met and the Ministry of Defence, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister’s office, noting that:

‘[CND] had hundreds of thousands of members in local branches and nationally. The CND was a mass democratic movement of ordinary people, but like governments before, and since, the Thatcher Government was terrified of two things: first, a mass movement of people; and, secondly, democracy itself.’

PRESS RELEASE

The Undercover Policing Inquiry is back this week to hear much-delayed evidence about some of the most controversial events in the history of the highly criticised spycops unit, the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS). Live hearings begin this Monday 21 October at 2pm, and will look at deployments from 1983-1992.

Witnesses, victims and campaigners will rally outside the International Dispute Resolution Centre at 1pm and will be available to comment on the upcoming evidence.

These much-awaited hearings were twice postponed by an Inquiry beset by the demands of the police and the Security Service to keep material out of the public gaze.

‘Jessica’ from Police Spies Out of Lives commented:

‘The glimpses we saw during Opening Statements of the evidence to come gives us an idea why the State wants to keep this stuff secret: these officers were sexual predators and Met Police hid the truth from the children they fathered.

‘Undercover officers acted as agent provocateurs. They rigged the justice system and lied to the courts, spying on defence campaigns. They didn’t just report on activists, they reported on lawyers including the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer and Circuit Judge, Timothy Greene.

‘We already know the SDS was out of control, but that reached new heights in the 1980s, and that is the evidence we are about to hear.’

Officers in this tranche of hearings are accused of orchestrating and committing serious crimes. There is compelling evidence that the Metropolitan Police colluded with the highest levels of government to subvert democracy, and they were working with companies like McDonalds, effectively acting as corporate spies.

On 14 October the police issued yet more apologies to victims of their abuses. Both the Met and the Inquiry concede that the police behaviour was unjustifiable. Nevertheless, incredibly the Met have asked the Inquiry to conclude that some of their spying could be justified in this tranche.

For more details read on & follow UCPI T2P2 evidence hearings which will run into January 2025.

Explosive New Evidence

Police officers were sexual predators

Many undercover officers in this era, and all the officers targeting animal rights campaigns, deceived women into sexual relationships during their deployments.

On Monday we heard Counsel to the Inquiry describe officer John Dines‘s ‘cold, calculating emotional and sexual exploitation’ during his deployment.

We also heard from numerous women about the unwanted attentions of spycop Andy Coles. Fellow officer ‘Matt Rayner’ confirmed a woman at the time described Coles to him as ‘creepy’:

‘it felt like she described him with a shudder.’

The Inquiry will hear evidence in this tranche of how 32-year-old Coles (later a Conservative Councillor for Peterborough) groomed and deceived 19-year ‘Jessica’ into her first ever sexual relationship, while he was in his undercover role (a fact accepted by the Metropolitan Police).

Charlotte Kilroy KC, on behalf of women deceived into sexual relationships, described how officers ‘indulged themselves in a wide range of fantasies’ during deployments that ‘unleashed a range of dark behaviour’ for which they faced no real consequences.

Officers fathered children and the Met hid the truth

Bob Lambert notoriously fathered a child whilst undercover. In a deeply moving opening statement on behalf of his son, we heard how ‘TBS’ was born in 1985 and abandoned by Lambert.

Left in the dark about his father’s true identity for 24 years, he tragically sought to learn more about the fiction that was ‘Bob Robinson’.

He said:

‘as an organisation the Metropolitan Police Service were happy for me to go through my whole life without knowing the true identity of my biological father.’

He points to evidence there were other children born of abusive relationships:

‘At a bare minimum, sir, it is the Commissioner’s responsibility to assure you that no other human being is living a life with the truth obscured from him or her as it was from ‘TBS’ for more than two decades.’

Officers committed serious crimes

Numerous witnesses allege undercover officer Bob Lambert placed an improvised incendiary device in the Harrow branch of Debenham’s on the night of 11 July 1987.

On Tuesday, James Wood KC told the Inquiry:

‘CCTV from the Harrow store was recorded as having been obtained by police. The original exhibits officer has a clear recollection of Special Branch officers attending and taking custody of the exhibits in the case. After this point the CCTV appears to have gone missing.’

Did the Metropolitan Police set fire to a department store and conspire to cover it up?

This tranche of the Inquiry will examine evidence of this and multiple other instances of police deceiving the courts, nobbling the criminal justice system to ensure their officers were not brought to trial, posing as friends and supporters to visit defendants in prison, spying on justice and defence campaigns, and violating legal professional privilege to report on strategies for trials.

Police colluded with government to subvert democracy

On Monday James Scobie KC delivered an Opening Statement on behalf of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), highlighting the ‘evidential void’ surrounding the decision to target CND.

At the time, an SDS manager documented CND targeting decisions ‘coming from his masters.’

Those masters were not MI5. National Archives releases from 1983 show a government scared of losing the battle of public opinion on disarmament. The Prime Minister’s office was devising ways of neutralising CND; Special Branch were engaging directly with the highest levels of government and Margaret Thatcher was making direct and specific requests.

It seems MI5 let the government down by rightly refusing to cooperate on party political issues targetting law-abiding groups. The evidence now suggests that the Met Police stepped into that void.

On Tuesday, we also heard from lawyers representing Sharon Grant OBE, Diane Abbott MP and Dame Joan Ruddock about how police also spied on elected Members of Parliament on the Left, raising further concerns about racist discrimination and police interference with the democratic process.

Police acted as corporate spies

Also on Tuesday, the Inquiry heard directly from Dave Morris on behalf of the McLibel Support Campaign about how SDS officer Bob Lambert was a co-author of the original ‘What’s Wrong With McDonald’s?’ flyer, and how the SDS blatantly interfered with the legal process to ensure that Lambert’s successor, John Dines, was not named on the ensuing libel writ.

Dines reported to his bosses Keir Starmer’s confidential legal advice to defendants in what became the longest trial in English history.

James Wood KC also expressed concern at the level of information sharing between undercover officers and corporate spies and the subsequent use of this information in civil proceedings.

Kirsten Heaven KC summed up her statement on behalf of cooperating non-state core participants with a call for the Inquiry to investigate the:

‘more controversial recipients of SDS reporting. These include, for example, private companies, employers and foreign governments… [or] departments of state being customers of SDS reporting such as the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and the office of the Prime Minister.’

Police apologists seek to justify their spying

The Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police issued yet more apologies on Monday, to Bob Lambert’s abandoned son ‘TBS’, and to women deceived into sexual relationships; to the family of Michael Hartley for stealing his identity and to the families of Rolan Adams and Trevor Monerville for targeting black family justice campaigns.

They also apologised for the tone and nature of their reporting; and for the ‘culture of impunity’ created within the SDS.

However, despite apparently accepting that the conduct of their officers was unjustifiable the Met still sought to justify their actions, claiming that although in practice SDS’s deployments were marred by misconduct, there was still a justification for covert infiltration in this tranche, because it included spying on ‘militant animal rights’.

Kirsten Heaven KC made clear in her Opening Statement that the police are wrong:

‘Put simply abhorrent behaviour and systemic managerial failure are matters that clearly go to the heart of the question of justification…SDS managers directed undercover officers to engage in speculative deployments characterized by extensive collateral intrusion.

‘They knew UCOs [undercover officers] were involved in criminal activity and taking on positions of responsibility, that they were cohabiting with activists and engaging in duplicitous sexual relationships.

‘SDS managers even directed undercover officers to mislead the court and facilitate miscarriages of justice. Many of these behaviours have been defended by undercover officers in this Inquiry as being essential to doing their job.’

Invoking the Judgment of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and the Inquiry’s own Interim Report, Heaven made clear:

‘the widespread fishing expeditions engaged in by [the SDS] could never have been justified even despite the so called “militant aspects” of the animal rights movement.’

Core Participants who were spied on for their involvement in animal rights campaigning have responded with a statement.

---

NOTES:
1. The UCPI was established in 2015. It is investigating undercover policing operations including secret political policing by the SDS and NPOIU, spying on more than 1000 left-wing political groups between 1968 and 2014. Hearings can be attended in person and some will be broadcast on the Inquiry Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@undercoverpolicinginquiry9441/streams

2.  Hearings are being held at the IDRC, 1 Paternoster Ln, London EC4M 7BQ, United Kingdom. Opposite St Paul’s Cathedral. The rally is supported by:
• Police Spies Out of Lives (PSOOL): www.policespiesoutoflives.org.uk
• Undercover Research Group (URG)
• The Monitoring Group (TMG): www.tmg-uk.org
• Blacklist Support Group (BSG): www.hazards.org/blacklistblog/

3.  Read Kilroy’s full Category H Opening Statement here. Women deceived into sexual relationships will give evidence on 26 November 2024 (Belinda Harvey), 27 November 2024 (Helen Steel), 28 November 2024 (‘Jacqui’) and 12 December 2024 (‘Jessica’).

4. Read TBS’s full opening statement here. His mother ‘Jacqui’ will give live evidence on 28 November.

5. Evidence of serious criminality by officers such as Bob Lambert and Matt Rayner will emerge throughout these hearings. Lambert will give evidence himself from 2-5 Dec 2024 and Rayner from 7-9 Jan 2025

6. Read Scobie’s full statement here. The SDS officers involved have refused to give evidence to this Inquiry. Read the full statement for Sharon Grant here and Diane Abbott and Dame Joan Ruddock here.

7. Read the full statement by Dave Morris on behalf of the McLibel Support campaign here. Morris will give evidence on 5 November 2024.

8.  These apologies are added to those made back in July for targeting anti-racist and justice campaigns. You can read the full statement on behalf of the Commissioner here.

9. Read the full statement on behalf of ‘Category F’ families here.

10. Richard Adams and John Burke-Monerville will both be giving evidence on 24 October 2024.

11.  IPT ruling in Wilson v MPS: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/wilson-v-mps/

12. Undercover Policing Inquiry Tranche 1 Interim report: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/undercover-policing-inquiry-tranche-1-interim-report

A protest and press briefing will be held outside the Inquiry venue on the opening day of in-person hearings, 1pm on 21 October 2024, at International Dispute Resolution Centre, 1 Paternoster Lane, St. Paul’s, London, EC4M 7BQ.

A number of core participants at the spycops public inquiry have issued this statement:

Tranche 2 Phase 2 of the Undercover Policing Inquiry sees the animal rights movement come to the fore as one of the main targets of the Metropolitan Police’s secret undercover unit, the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS).

Why? Because animal rights enjoyed massive growth in support in the 1980s as people protested against experiments on animals, hunting, the meat and fur industries, circuses and zoos. Alongside this came public approval as evidenced in opinion polls and, initially at least, a lot of positive media coverage.

All this success did not go unnoticed by those in power. Scotland Yard began taking an interest and the SDS’s Annual Report for 1982 said ‘inroads’ would be made into the movement. The following year the first of many undercover police officers was deployed against groups and individuals who were overwhelmingly peaceful and campaigning within the law.

HN11 Mike Chitty, HN10 Bob Lambert, HN87 ‘John Lipscombe’, HN5 John Dines, HN2 Andy Coles and HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’ are ones we know about. There may well have been others whose identities are kept secret.

Some of the officers acted against us, some encouraged us, others framed us, had us arrested and jailed. Some officers enabled us, drove us to demos, broke into places and saved the animals with us. All slept with female activists who would never have consented had they known who they really were.

Bob Lambert even fathered a child. He also placed an incendiary device in a Debenham’s department store as part of an Animal Libertation Front action which caused £9m damage, and framed two activists. Another spycop, ‘Matt Rayner’, offered to drive an activist in order to kill a vivisector with a shotgun.

These officers were corrupt con men, using idealistic and mainly young people as a means to further their careers. Corruption and misconduct in public office are nothing new to the Met and other forces, they are endemic in policing, especially when dealing with working class people and ethnic minorities. In the SDS’s case, this was sanctioned at the highest levels of government and carried out on an industrial scale.

Yet the good news, for animal rights at least, is that the movement was not defeated and over the last 40 years it has seen a number of advances, not least the ban on fur farming, the outlawing of hunting with hounds which – while far from perfect – is at least an expression of widespread public revulsion at bloodsports, the closure of many laboratory animal breeders, the end of wild animals kept imprisoned in circuses and, last but not least, the growth in veganism.

Finally, much will be made by the spies and those representing them of how dangerous and violent the animal rights movement is and how the Animal Liberation Front, the Hunt Saboteurs Association and other direct action groups are ‘terrorist’ in nature.

In fact in all the thousands of actions carried out by these groups, not one person has ever been killed. Activists Mike Hill, Tom Worby and Jill Phipps were killed and hundreds of others were seriously injured. We will always remember those who paid the ultimate price for their compassion and never forget how the state sent the spycops to try and disrupt and destroy our movement. They failed.

– Some Core Participants in the Undercover Policing Inquiry

The Undercover Policing Inquiry is about to resume hearing live evidence. The week starting 1 July will see Opening Statements from Core Participants delivered online. Live witness evidence will begin on 8 July (and victims of police spying will be holding a press conference – see below).

This second tranche of hearings will cover the 1980s and 1990s, which saw a massive escalation in the use of abusive police tactics, as police spying expanded to include civil society groups such as CND, London Greenpeace, Freedom Press and the Socialist Workers Party, who will all be giving evidence this summer.

This period also included some of the most controversial deployments, including (but not limited to) officers such as Bob Lambert, Andy Coles, John Dines, and ‘Matt Rayner’, who all deceived women into long-term intimate relationships.

Lambert fathered a child whilst undercover, and is accused of planting an incendiary device in a department store to further his undercover ‘legend’, before withdrawing from the field to take over management of the entire Special Demonstration Squad (SDS). Coles went on to write the training manual for the SDS and train officers in the later undercover unit, the NPOIU.

INQUIRY IN CRISIS

However, the Inquiry is facing a growing crisis. Hearings about the most controversial deployments in Tranche 2 have already been postponed due to the inquiry’s ongoing failure to provide full disclosure of the underlying police documents, and tens of thousands of pages of evidence are being published at the absolute last minute.

This makes it impossible for the victims (or indeed journalists) to effectively respond, or properly analyse the material to expose the full extent of police wrongdoing, which was the original purpose of this Inquiry.

After spending nine years and over £82 million on lengthy processes behind closed doors (plus Metropolitan Police spending an additional £62 million to defend the indefensible), Britain’s most secretive ‘public’ inquiry appears to be running out of time and political will.

Having heard only the first decade’s worth of evidence in an investigation that ought to span fifty years, the Chair published an interim report in June 2023. His findings were absolutely damning. The secret political policing operations were unjustifiable and should have been shut down in the 1970s. Instead they were covered up and sanctioned at the highest levels of government.

AFTER THE DELAYS, THE RUSH

Following that report, the government is bringing intense pressure to bear on the Inquiry to hasten its investigations to an end. The Inquiry is now required to hear all remaining evidence and deliver a final report by the end of 2026, leading to an apparent rush to judgment. Corners are being cut, and the victims of these police abuses are being held to impossible deadlines, or simply squeezed out altogether.The public inquiry into Britain’s political police, having wasted years in dealng with police delays and granting guilty officers anonymity, is now being rushed to finish, excluding many of the key campaigns that were infiltrated.att

Core Participants are becoming increasingly restless. It is clear, as we move towards the investigation of more recent police practices in the 21st Century, that the Inquiry barely intends to scratch the surface.

Tranche 3 disclosure has already begun, but the Inquiry has said it intends to focus on individuals and will not be providing disclosure or seeking evidence about spying on some of the most influential political groups: environmental direct action groups such as Climate Camp, Earth First!, Greenpeace or the Newbury Bypass and other road protest campaigns; Disarm DSEi and anti-war campaigners; social centres, such as the Sumac Centre or squatted social centres in London.

All of them will be excluded from the investigations despite having been specific targets of multiple undercover operations over many years.

JUSTICE RUSHED IS JUSTICE DENIED

At the start of this Inquiry, Lord Justice Pitchford, the original Chair, said:

“My overall duty in the conduct of the Inquiry is to act fairly.”

That duty of fairness has now been sacrificed to a new Home Office imperative of closing the book on uncomfortable revelations as fast as possible.

However, we, the victims of these abusive policing operations, will not allow the truth to be sidelined. So if you are finding it all a bit hard to follow, do not despair.

Campaigners and victims of spycops abuses will be picketing the inquiry venue and on the first day of in person hearings, and we will hold a press briefing at 9am on 8 July, outside the International Dispute Resolution Centre, 1 Paternoster Lane, St. Paul’s, London EC4M 7BQ.

For more about the Undercover Policing Inquiry, see our UCPI FAQ.

A Metropolitan Police investigation has upheld a complaint by a woman deceived into a relationship by former undercover officer Andy Coles.

The Met have found Jessica’s claims credible and ruled that Coles would face charges of gross misconduct if he were still a serving officer.

It’s a huge blow to Coles, who has consistently denied Jessica’s account of his abuse as he tries to shore up his crumbling credibility as a city councillor and public figure.

ANDY COLES: LYING THEN

Andy Coles was a member of the Metropolitan Police’s disgraced Special Demonstration Squad. In the 1990s he spent four years undercover as peace and animal rights activist ‘Andy Davey’. Like many other officers in Britain’s political secret police, Coles abused his role to deceive women into sexual relationships. The most significant of these was a woman known as ‘Jessica’.

Jessica was, as Coles knew, a vulnerable teenager at the time. He told her he was a 24 year old who shared her worldview and became her first proper boyfriend. In reality, he was 32 and married, paid to be sent into her life to betray the values she held dear.

The relationship lasted a year. Two other women, Emily and Joy, have also spoken about being the target of his unwanted sexual attentions during his deployment.

Coles went on to have a career in Special Branch, managing and training other officers for the same role as he’d held.

He retired from the police in 2012, about a year after the spycops scandal broke. In Peterborough he became a Conservative member of the City Council for Fletton and Woodston ward, and was appointed to the post of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Cambridgeshire.

When he was exposed in 2017, Coles resigned as Deputy PCC within hours without explanation. However, seemingly believing lower standards apply to councillors than Deputy PCCs, he did not step down as a councillor. Every council meeting since then has seen protests calling for his resignation. His seat will be up for re-election in May this year.

ANDY COLES: LYING NOW

A year later, in 2018, the Undercover Policing Inquiry confirmed that he had indeed been a Special Demonstration Squad officer. Coles released two prepared statements to the press, which only confirmed what the Inquiry had said, and flatly denied what he called the ‘lurid allegations’ made by Jessica:

‘The allegation the ALF activist known as “Jessica” makes that I had a sexual relationship with her for over a year while undercover are [sic] completely untrue’.

The Undercover Policing Inquiry, which has access to secret police files, had already granted Jessica ‘core participant’ status in August 2017. They have only given that designation to around 200 of the most seriously affected victims of spycops. Clearly, they find her account credible too.

Through his lawyer, he told the media yesterday that he still denies having ‘an inappropriate relationship’ with Jessica.

Now that the relationship is officially regarded as credible, he is perhaps trying to insert some room for manoeuvre and suggests that even if he did have a relationship it was somehow ‘appropriate’. That quite plainly cannot be true, as has been repeatedly and unequivocally established by a range of senior officers and official investigations.

NEVER APPROPRIATE

Chief Constable Mick Creedon produced a series of reports on the political secret police under the aegis of Operation Herne, and in 2014 he was clear:

‘There are and never have been any circumstances where it would be appropriate for such covertly deployed officers to engage in intimate sexual relationships with those they are employed to infiltrate and target. Such an activity can only be seen as an abject failure of the deployment, a gross abuse of their role and their position as a police officer and an individual and organisational failing.’

Operation Herne – Report 2: Allegations of Peter Francis (Operation Trinity)

When the Metropolitan Police gave their landmark apology to women deceived into relationships in 2015, two years before Jessica found out the truth about Coles, they said:

‘some officers, acting undercover whilst seeking to infiltrate protest groups, entered into long-term intimate sexual relationships with women which were abusive, deceitful, manipulative and wrong… these relationships were a violation of the women’s human rights, an abuse of police power and caused significant trauma. The forming of a sexual relationship by an undercover officer would never be authorised in advance nor indeed used as a tactic of a deployment’.

Jon Murphy from the Association of Chief Police Officers explained it when the scandal broke in 2011, at a time when Coles was employed by the Association:

‘It is grossly unprofessional. It is a diversion from what they are there to do. It is morally wrong because people have been put there to do a particular task and people have got trust in them. It is never acceptable under any circumstances… for them to engage in sex with any subject they come into contact with.’

When his deployment ended in 1995, Andy Coles updated the Special Demonstration Squad’s Tradecraft Manual to incorporate his experience and methods, including tips on conducting the kinds of relationship he now denies having.

After this, he trained the first undercover officers in the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU), a new sister unit to the Special Demonstration Squad, teaching them to steal the identities of dead children. He went on to become Head of Training for the NPOIU’s oversight body ACPO-TAM as they deployed a number of the most notorious spycops who committed the same kind of abuses, such as Mark Kennedy.

WHAT’S HE GOT TO HIDE?

During the Met’s investigation into Jessica’s complaint, Coles was interviewed twice under caution and both times he supplied a prepared statement. He refused to answer questions.

Why did he resign as Deputy PCC? Why did he refuse to answer questions put to him by his old colleagues at the Metropolitan Police? Why does he continually refuse to comment, except to confirm what’s officially concretely established and deny the rest?

These are not the actions of someone who believes they have done nothing wrong. They are more like the response of someone who is desperately trying to hide from the truth.

The fact that his old colleagues at the Met, not known for their bias against themselves, have found Jessica’s report of a relationship credible makes Coles’s desperate denials appear transparently false.

He has doubled down, telling today’s Peterborough Telegraph:

‘The Metropolitan Police has taken no further action against me’

That’s an extraordinary response to the Met upholding a complaint against him and announcing that they would bring the most serious disciplinary charges against him if only it were still in their power to do so.

Despite the Met’s investigators having spoken to many people who knew Coles and Jessica at the time, and seen documentary proof such as contemporaneous letters, Coles desperately repeats his lie:

‘I deny the accusations made completely. I denied them when they were first made, I deny them now’

While his current friends and colleagues on the council may forgive his abuse of a woman thirty years ago, if he admits it happened it means he has been lying to them since 2017. They would not look so benevolently on that. So he goes on, as the evidence piles up all around him, lying to his peers and compounding the damage he has done to Jessica.

STALLING AS HIS LIES ARE FALLING

Coles is still refusing to answer, merely saying through his lawyer that ‘it would not be appropriate to respond outside of the Inquiry’.

He talks as if the Inquiry is a court and he might prejudice a fair trial. It’s yet another deceit he is playing on the public. He knows full well that the inquiry process does not restrict him at all and that he is at liberty to say what he wants. Any number of former spycops have given interviews to television and press, made public appearances, one even hired a publicity agent.

Coles knows this is merely a way to kick the can down the road. Though the Inquiry is not a court of any kind, it is as slow as any process in the judicial system. Initiated six years ago and originally scheduled to conclude in summer 2018, it has yet to begin. There are no dates set for officers from Coles’ era to give evidence, and the whole thing is not expected to finish until 2025 at the earliest.

It leaves Coles continuing in his respected public role while Jessica – and the wider public – still wait for the truth about full extent of Britain’s counter-democratic secret police units.

Jessica said:

‘I’m pleased the complaint was upheld however I am disappointed at the lack of accountability. Andy Coles was allowed to retire in 2013 at a time when the revelations about undercover officers having sexual relationships and even children with unsuspecting women had started to come out. I would like to know what his superior officers knew or ought to have known about our relationship. Was he properly supervised?

‘Kate Wilson is in court later this week fighting to find answers to what happened to her. Her relationship with an undercover police officer happened a decade after mine. This is not historic abuse. It’s systematic and institutionalised sexism in the police.’

Men who abuse their public roles to violate women should not be in positions of civic trust. This isn’t just about what he did 30 years ago, appalling as that was. This is also about his unrelenting deviousness and lack of integrity today.

The Sack Andy Coles campaign has protested at every Peterborough Council meeting since the truth was revealed. Join us at the next one on Wednesday 4 March 2020, 5pm at Peterborough Town Hall.

And whether you can be at the protest or not, please sign and share the petition launched by one of Coles’ fellow councillors calling on him to resign.

---

Originally published by Sack Andy Coles

What: Demonstration outside Peterborough City Council meeting calling for former abusive spycop Councillor Andy Coles to resign.

Where: Town Hall, St Peter’s Road, Peterborough PE1 1YX (rear entrance; the main Bridge Street entrance is not usually used)

When: 6pm, Wednesday 6 March 2019

Why: Andy Coles deceived a teenager into an intimate relationship when he was an undercover officer. He is a city councillor in Peterborough, a position unfit for someone who abuses a role of public trust to violate fundamental human rights.

In May 2017, Andy Coles, Deputy Police & Crime Commissioner for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough City Councillor, was exposed as a former undercover Special Demonstration Squad officer. It was revealed he had deceived teenager “Jessica” into an intimate relationship, telling her he was 24 years old, when he was 32. “Jessica” has said she feels like she was groomed:

“Although not legally underage, I feel that my youth and vulnerability were used to target me. I was groomed by someone much older, and far more experienced… I was manipulated into having a sexual relationship with him. I didn’t even know his real name.”

It is entirely inappropriate for someone who has committed these admitted human rights abuses to be in a position of respect and authority. Andy Coles has resigned his post as Deputy Police & Crime Commissioner, and he must now step down from his post as Councillor as well.

Previous demonstrations have seen a broad spectrum of people attending, and calls for his resignation have attracted cross-party support on the council.

It is important that the Andy Coles and the Council see the public outrage at these revelations. Without this, they may be able to sweep it under the carpet.

Coles is one in an ever increasing line of undercover police revealed to have abused women in this way, and it is essential that we demand accountability for these actions.

Join us outside the next Peterborough Council meeting on Wednesday 6 March at 6pm, ahead of the council meeting at 7pm.

What: Demonstration outside Peterborough City Council meeting calling for former abusive spycop Councillor Andy Coles to resign.

Where: Town Hall, St Peter’s Road, Peterborough PE1 1YX (rear entrance; the main Bridge Street entrance is not usually used)

When: 6pm, Wednesday 23 January 2019

Why: Andy Coles deceived a teenager into an intimate relationship when he was an undercover officer. He is a city councillor in Peterborough, a position unfit for someone who abuses a role of public trust to violate fundamental human rights.

In May 2017, Andy Coles, Deputy Police & Crime Commissioner for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough City Councillor, was exposed as a former undercover Special Demonstration Squad officer. It was revealed he had deceived teenager “Jessica” into an intimate relationship, telling her he was 24 years old, when he was 32. “Jessica” has said she feels like she was groomed:

“Although not legally underage, I feel that my youth and vulnerability were used to target me. I was groomed by someone much older, and far more experienced… I was manipulated into having a sexual relationship with him. I didn’t even know his real name.”

It is entirely inappropriate for someone who has committed these admitted human rights abuses to be in a position of respect and authority. Andy Coles has resigned his post as Deputy Police & Crime Commissioner, and he must now step down from his post as Councillor as well.

Previous demonstrations have seen a broad spectrum of people attending, and calls for his resignation have attracted cross-party support on the council.

It is important that the Andy Coles and the Council see the public outrage at these revelations. Without this, they may be able to sweep it under the carpet.

Coles is one in an ever increasing line of undercover police revealed to have abused women in this way, and it is essential that we demand accountability for these actions.

Join us outside the next Peterborough Council meeting on Wednesday 23 January at 6pm, ahead of the council meeting at 7pm.

UPDATE 14 DECEMBER: The AGM – and. thererfore, Andy Coles’ talk about policing – have now been postponed to an unspecified future date.

************

When the truth was exposed about Andy Coles’ history as an undercover police officer, he immediately resigned as Cambridgeshire’s Deputy Police & Crime Commissioner.

He spent four years undercover infiltrating peace and animal rights campaigns, and deceived a vulnerable teenager, ‘Jessica‘, into a year-long relationship. Such activity by the Special Demonstration Squad is one of the darkest parts of Metropolitan Police history, and Met lawyers admit it breaches the fundamental right to freedom from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.

When his deployment ended, Coles wrote the Special Demonstration Squad’s Tradecraft Manual, which gives instructions on how to conduct sexual relationships with women they’re spying on, and how to steal the identities of dead children.

On exposure on May last year, he locked all his social media accounts. Though he resigned as Deputy PCC, he retains his seat on Peterborough City Council. He has still given no interviews to explain himself, merely several short prepared statements.

However, in recent months he has unlocked his social media and now he is booked to speak on policing issues to the AGM of the Longthorpe and Netherton Residents Association.

Astonishingly, he is speaking alongside the person who took over the Deputy PCC role after Coles was forced to resign, Ray Bisby.

Men who abuse their public roles in order to violate citizens should not be in positions of civic trust. Most especially, they should not be seen as credible voices on the work of the very institution whose power they abused.

Join us to protest about Coles’ continued role in public life. 

DATE: [scheduled for 19 December, now postponed]

PLACE: St. Jude’s Church, Cranford Drive, Peterborough PE3 7EW