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 also raised the issue of Lambert setting devices elsewhere, something he’s written about on his blog. He told the hearing that on an occasion when he and Lambert were in the London Greenpeae office, Lambert said he had planted an incendiary device in Selfridges on Oxford Street in August 1988. He said he had sent a press release about it to the ALF Supporters Group.

Gravett collected the ALFSG mail at the time, and sure enough Lambert’s press release arrived a couple of days later.

Hudson’s Bay was the world’s largest fur company and had announced it would be relocating to Hackney. This attracted the attention of animal rights activists. Two months after the Selfridge’s confession, Lambert told Gravett he had sent a statement from the ALF to the Hackney Gazette:

‘We have a very simple and clear message – if the Hudson’s Bay Company moves into the old Lesney toy factory we will burn the building down.’

There was also a campaign by the local animal rights group, and the following year Hudson’s Bay decided to move abroad.

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, Sheppard was arrested with another activist, 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 returned to give a final day of evidence to the Inquiry on Monday 25 November. Here is our report of that.

 

Tranche 2, Phase 2, Week 3

4-7 November 2024

This summary covers the third 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

The week was overshadowed by the Inquiry’s shock decision to suspend livestreaming. They say it is in order to prevent any unfounded allegations reaching the wider public.

However, the Inquiry has long used a ten minute delay on its livestreaming, and this has been sufficient to prevent any ‘blurts’ of secret information being broadcast. There is no reason why they couldn’t continue with that. Instead, they exclude the public from a public inquiry.

The Inquiry promised suitably edited transcripts of hearings by lunchtime the next day, and videos within five days. Despite very little of the testimony breaching the orders and needing any editing, they have not kept their word on either point.

All the testimony this week came from activists in London Greenpeace in the mid 1980s.

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. It also held larger meetings with guest speakers, usually attended by 20-50 people.

It was infiltrated by Special Demonstration Squad officers including HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’ and HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’.

Lambert co-authored the group’s ‘What’s Wrong With McDonald’s?’ leaflet. The police gave briefings about the group to McDonald’s, and the corporation threatened to sue five named members of London Greenpeace for libel. Two members, Dave Morris and Helen Steel, fought the case. Known as McLibel, it became the longest trial in English history.

Despite the huge disparity in resources between the two sides – with McDonald’s spending huge sums on barristers while the defendants had to represent themselves – the court found that much of the leaflet’s assertions were true.

The fact of Lambert’s involvement, and of Dines having deceived Steel into an intimate relationship and so being party to her plans for the defence, were kept from the court.

The Undercover Policing Inquiry has found many of the officers’ secret police reports from the time. They are saturated with inaccuracies, exaggerations and outright false allegations about London Greenpeace and its members. The officers have made formal statements to the Inquiry and these too are full of such lies.

CONTENTS

Martyn Lowe

Dave Morris

Chris Baillee

Gabrielle Bosley

---

Monday 4 November 2024
Evidence of Martyn Lowe

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Martyn Lowe is a long-term anarcho-pacifist who has been involved in a number of groups over the years. Mr Hudson asked questions on behalf of the Inquiry.

Lowe has provided a written witness statement [UCPI036683], but this still has not been made available on the website.

The hearing began with him confirming his involvement in the Peace Pledge Union, part of War Resisters International (WRI), a pacifist organisation with sections across the world. They are recognised by the United Nations as an organisation which supports and promotes conscientious objection.

Asked to describe what he meant by ‘nonviolence’, he explained that this, for him, was:

‘a pacifist philosophy of not hurting or causing to be hurt or killed or damaged any individual’

He emphasised that he would not be willing to join any group that advocated violence.

The Inquiry is focussing on one of the many groups that Martyn has been part of during his life: London Greenpeace (LGP). This group was infiltrated by members of the Special Demonstration Squad, including HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’.

Lowe recalls getting involved around the time of a London to Paris anti-nuclear march, which took place in 1973, a couple of years after LGP was first founded. He remembers it having a democratic, non-hierarchical structure. The group had a series of shared aims and made decisions together at their weekly meetings.

The Inquiry was keen to learn if the entire group spoke with ‘one voice’ on any issues. Lowe remembers that many of the members at that time were opposed to nuclear testing in the South Pacific. They held demonstrations, for example a die-in outside the French Embassy. They distributed a broadsheet; originally this was published within Peace News.

He explains that the purpose of these demonstrations was to get their ideas across and persuade people that change was necessary. He says public disorder ‘was never on the agenda’ and can’t recall any occurring at LGP demos. In his witness statement, Lowe had mentioned a campaign against the construction of a new nuclear reactor at Torness in Scotland, and the Torness Anti-Nuclear Alliance which formed.

He remembers that the different groups involved in it had an agreement not to sabotage or destroy property on the site during the mass protests there, and different forms of direct action were debated.

He points out that ‘some property should never be produced in the first place, so destroying it I’ve got no problem with’.

He doesn’t consider property damage a ‘violent act’, especially when the aim is to immobilise an item and prevent it being used to cause harm.

The War Resisters International logo features a broken rifle, an apt symbol of their beliefs, but actually breaking a weapon is not as ‘straightforward’ as the image suggests, and he says this kind of action shouldn’t be romanticised. It is not something he’s ever done himself.

We were shown a description of the work of LGP, written for a WRI conference. Lowe recognised this. Asked who had written this text, he explained that a number of different versions were produced over the years, and various people would have been involved in what was a collaborative process. One person might produce a draft and others would contribute ideas and comments. Such texts would be discussed at the group’s meeting and they generally reached agreement about the content of leaflets before printing them.

SPYCOP LAMBERT

Lowe first met HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’ at one of the group’s meetings, and remembers that ‘he just turned up’. He still remembers him as ‘highly intelligent and very amiable’.

We know that Lambert’s deployment began in June 1984. How was Lowe’s relationship with him over those first 6 months? ‘Very friendly’. They tended to go to the pub and drink together on Thursday evenings, after the group’s weekly meetings.

The Inquiry wanted to know more about Lambert’s influence on LGP, and the roles he took on within the group, and how his age compared with other activists.

Lowe recollected that Lambert kept trying to persuade him to get involved in hunt sabotage. He would bring up issues in the group, but didn’t take on any ‘formal tasks’ (such as dealing with finances). They were around the same age as each other (35) and at the time the majority of the group were probably in their late 20s/ early 30s.

He was next asked about the direction taken by LGP over the years. Lowe left LGP in around September 1985, after being involved for over a decade. He recollected an incident which made him notice that the group had ‘really changed’. This was the derailment of a train carrying a nuclear flask in Stratford, East London.

When he first joined LGP, it had been very much an anti-nuclear group, but he encountered ‘disinterest’ in the group when this happened.

ANIMAL RIGHTS

Almost all of the rest of the questioning of Lowe was about Lambert, animal rights and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and non-violence.

Lowe realised that many of the newer people, who he thinks were influenced by Lambert, were more interested in the issue of animal rights:

‘that’s the point at which I really started thinking: why am I here?’

LGP had been interested in a very wide range of issues before then, and although many activists were vegan or vegetarian, the group didn’t focus its attention on animal rights. It had a more holistic understanding of the way that issues were interconnected, e.g. war is not good for the environment, and harms animals just like it harms humans.

Ronnie Lee was a founder of the Animal Liberation Front in the mid-1970s. He was imprisoned in the 1980s for his part in animal rights actions. Lowe remembers coming across him in the peace movement, and then briefly seeing him at LGP meetings in around 1974.

Over the years Lee would occasionally drop in at meetings or demos, as did other people, but never got involved in running the group.

Lowe recalls being ‘somewhat taken aback’ to hear about Lee’s arrest; his main memory is of Lee’s work with an organisation called Vegfam (a charity set up by Christians in 1963 to distribute plant-based food and fruit trees to people in need around the world).

According to Lowe’s witness statement, the issue of animal liberation wasn’t usually brought up at LGP’s meetings, at least not until Lambert showed up.

The Inquiry then displayed some leaflets produced by LGP. One of these leaflets, dated April 1980, sought to address the confusion about the relationship between ‘London Greenpeace’ and the newly-established ‘Greenpeace UK Ltd’. It explained the philosophical, organisational and political differences.

The Inquiry asked if this leaflet was aimed at people involved in animal rights. Lowe explained that at that time, the philosophy behind animal rights and liberation was still developing, but many pacifists were also vegetarians – the two went ‘hand in hand’.

The LGP leafelt said that ’The one group which which we can express political agreement is the Animal Liberation Front’. It described Ronnie Lee as ‘an ex-group activist’.

Lowe explained that the ALF always checked to ensure that nobody was hurt in their actions, and were non-violent.

Did this leaflet not show that LGP was closely aligned with the ALF as early as 1980, before Lambert arrived? Lowe says no, this was just one of many briefings produced in this era to share information about the range of campaigning groups which existed. There was no ‘working relationship’ between the two groups.

An intelligence report [UCPI020790] submitted by HN11 Mike Chitty ‘Mike Blake’ (deployed to spy on animal rights campaigners in South London) in April 1984 tells of a ‘dramatic increase’ in animal rights activity, increased public concern and support for the movement.

Lowe says he wasn’t especially aware of the issue at the time, so can’t comment on the accuracy of this report. This wasn’t an issue that LGP was concerned with – they were busy in the early 1980s producing a range of educational factsheets, campaigning against the Falklands War, and protests against financial institutions including supporting the ‘Stop The City’ series of protests.

The same report suggests an upsurge in direct action:

‘in the main confined to younger anarchist members of the movement, most of whom will be unemployed and prepared to spend some time in police cells.’

Was LGP’s new interest in animal rights driven by the younger people joining at this time? Lowe believes it was in fact driven by Lambert going out and recruiting people who were interested in animal rights to come along to LGP.

In his statement Lowe recalls being suspicious about Lambert’s involvement in opposing the deer cull which took place in Richmond Park over several summers in the 1980s. He clearly remembers sitting in a meeting, listening to Lambert talking about locking the gates of the park, and thinking ‘he knows more about this than he’s saying’ to the group.

LAMBERT FRAMING OTHERS

We moved on, and saw a handwritten notice about a demo which took place outside the AGM of dairy company Unigate, held at the Dorchester Hotel in September 1984. Lowe is absolutely certain that this is Lambert’s handwriting, and so is the leaflet handed out on the day, titled ‘Unigate Murders Animals’.

However a police intelligence report [UCPI020434] submitted by Lambert dated 31 August 1984 says Martyn Lowe was organising ‘support and publicity’ for this demo. Lowe denies doing anything of the sort; he remembers this as a demo organised by Lambert himself.

Another SDS report [UCPI020189], produced after the demo, lists the names of those who attended, and calls Martyn Lowe the ‘organiser of the picket’. All he did was turn up. A picture exists of ‘Bob’ at the demo.

 

In another report [UCPI020220], Lowe is describing as organising another demo that same month, this one a picket to protest fur fashion shows held at Claridge’s Hotel. He is adamant that this is not true, and he didn’t even attend that picket, as he was at work until late that day.

His name crops up in relation to a similar Claridge’s demo in one more report [UCPI020230] and again he denies being involved in any conversations about the planning for this protest, and wonders if names like him were just added later by SDS back-room staff.

This was a point that recurred in the other testimony later in the week – Lambert organising animal rights activities but then writing reports attributing them to others.

According to the report of an LGP meeting, Lowe had also expressed concerns about Stop the City being a ‘potentially violent’ demonstration. He denied this. He didn’t have a problem with Stop the City, and saw it as a way of bringing anti-militarist action out of rural areas and into the city where the arms companies were based.

McDONALD’S

How did LGP come to highlight McDonald’s?

Lowe remembers Lambert making a comment in the pub one night, suggesting that it was time to target fast food companies. As a result, he was inspired to draft a spoof leaflet when he got home, referring to McDonald’s as ‘the sawdust people’. This became the basis for a flyer advertising a day of protest vs McDonald’s in January 1985.

It mentions ecological concerns as well as the treatment of animals. Lowe recalls contributing the lines about sawdust, but can’t be sure who added which other bits.

That demo went ahead on 19 January 1985 and Lowe did not attend it. He says he wasn’t involved in organising it either, but an SDS report [UCPI014460] says that he, Dave Morris and Albert Beale were all involved in this.

After Martyn left the group, ‘Bob’ continued to correspond with him, sending him gossipy letters. Some of these have been provided to the Inquiry as exhibits.

One from April 1986 was shown, it contains lots of encouragement to come back to a LGP meeting sometime, or at least join the group in the pub one night. It also asked about getting hold of a book (‘Big Mac: the Unauthorized Story of McDonald’s’). Lowe worked as a librarian at the time. This showed Lambert’s involvement right at the start of the creation of the ‘Whats Wrong With McDonald’s?’ Factsheet, which later led to the McDonald’s libel action.

Lowe did not see Lambert again in person until LGP members exposed him in October 2011.

WITHDRAWING SUPPORT

After a short break, we returned to hear about a LGP meeting that had taken place in January 1985.

According to the SDS report of it [UCPI014474], Lowe proposed that the group, as an anarcho-pacifist one, ‘withdraw its support for the Animal Liberation Front‘ (ALF), following a number of actions which he did not agree with.

He couldn’t remember the exact words he’d used at the time but clearly still felt the same way about those actions, referring to one as ‘stupid’.

The Inquiry was very keen to explore this issue further, and asked if this implied that LGP had therefore supported the ALF up till this time.

Lowe drew a distinction between the non-violent position of the ALF and the more violent tactics of the Animal Rights Militia (which no-one seemed to know anything about). He went on to claim that the ALF had put out ‘a leaflet or a document’ around this time which he took to mean they now supported the use of some violence.

He knew that many LGP activists were sympathetic towards the ams of the ALF, but had no idea if anyone was actually involved in taking that sort of action.

He went on to say that after attending LGP meetings week after week for so long, he had grown ‘tired of it’. There wasn’t anything specifically objectionable about the group; it was the ‘general attitude’ that he struggled with. He saw punk as a trend and for some people a ‘style statement’.

According to the report, ‘Lowe’s comments were met with derision’. Lowe doesn’t remember derision, or exactly what people said, but remembers that they disagreed with him. He doesn’t recall if Dave Morris argued for the group to continue to support the ALF.

LOWE LEAVING

It is reported [UCPI028493] a full year later that Martyn Lowe has now left the group, in December 1985, following ‘many arguments’ with Dave Morris and others. Lowe is clear that he and Morris often disagreed and argued about politics, but he still liked the man. They just had different approaches. He knows that Morris ‘has always been more in favour of doing direct action’.

Even though the type of action used as an example in this report (some butchers’ windows being broken by ALF activists) might be described as ‘non violent direct action’, it is obvious that this is not a form of action Lowe would choose to take himself. He does not consider it ‘wise’ and is very conscientious, pointing out that someone might have cut themselves on the broken glass.

In his statement to the Inquiry [UCPI035081], Lambert says that the reason he was reporting on Martyn Lowe (someone who had been of interest to Special Branch since at least as far back as 1978) was his involvement in LGP, and that his departure from the group was worth reporting too:

‘if Lowe ceased to be involved in supporting violence, future reporting might not be necessary’

Martyn Lowe is adamant that he has never supported violence:

‘I have been a pacifist all my life’.

Lowe was asked for his views on Class War at this time. They ‘had no qualms about using violence’ says Lowe. He felt they were overly confrontational and ‘gave anarchists a bad name’. He never had these concerns about LGP.

We saw one more letter, sent to Lowe in January 1986. It was read out in full, for some reason. In it Lambert mentions Dave Morris, and says he is now in Amsterdam, having been fined £100 in court for shoplifting ‘booze’ (despite being teetotal). [See below for Dave Morris’s testimony the following day, which tells the interesting story about this.]

Asked by the Inquiry to comment on both of these men, Lowe agrees that Morris was a ‘dominant figure’ in the group, with a ‘strong personality’.

He says that in retrospect he’s seen how Lambert exerted influence in a different way, ‘by being the nice guy, the friendly bloke’ who targeted individuals one by one, adding that ‘I just regret that I didn’t pick up on this at the time’.

LAMBERT’S RELATIONSHIPS

Lambert had a number of sexual relationships while he was undercover. The first was with a woman known in this Inquiry as ‘CTS’. She came along to LGP meetings, and Lowe recalls her turning up for the first time about 6 weeks after ‘Bob’.

He says she was ‘very pleasant, and concerned about, you know, changing the world for the better’, and ‘about 19’ at the time. Lambert was a married man in his 30s.

It soon became obvious that she and ‘Bob’ had become a ‘devoted couple’ sometime that summer, but Martyn can’t be sure of the exact date. We can see from Lambert’s report that she was present at the Unigate demo.

They both came over for dinner, he recalls. Again, he can’t give an exact date, and only has his impressions, of them being ‘devoted to each other’. He saw them together at meetings but doesn’t know how much time they spent together.

Lowe is shown a photograph that he took of the couple at his home. There is a second photograph, taken on the same occasion. Asked what these two images tell us about the nature of their relationship, Lowe gave the same answer both times: they were ‘very close’, and ‘devoted’.

‘CTS’ went off to university in October 1984, and came back to London that Christmas. She and Lowe met up, and he had the impression she was planning to see ‘Bob’.

Lowe is not sure when they broke up, or when he learnt of this. It’s not clear exactly how long the relationship lasted but it seems to have been over by the end of 1984. Almost two years later, in September 1986, Lambert mentioned this young woman in another of his letters, saying ‘let me know instantly’ if you see her.

Next, Lowe was shown Lambert’s own witness statement. His version of events is that he formed ‘a friendship’ with ‘CTS’ during the group’s trips to the pub in around July 1984. He claims this became a ‘short sexual relationship’, lasting just one month, before she left town in late September. He says she came back to visit once, ‘probably early October’ , he can’t remember what they did then but hasn’t seen her since.

Why does Lowe believe Lambert ‘ditched’ her? (the word he used in his statement). Lowe explains that he had got this impression, along with the idea that the ditching took place in December, but doesn’t know for sure who ended the relationship. However he believes that Lambert treated ‘CTS’ ‘really badly’. And is still ‘really upset that anyone could behave that way’.

He recalled that after the relationship ended, ‘CTS’ no longer wanted anything to do with the LGP group.

‘She got badly hurt, that’s the only way I can describe it’

Lowe didn’t see her again for a long time. He tried to track her but wasn’t able to find her.

It was only after she saw a story in the Guardian in 2011 that she got in touch with Martyn, via journalist Rob Evans.

How does he feel now about Lambert’s infiltration of the group?

‘I’m not angry, I’m just disappointed that we’ve had to go through this whole process’

YouTube video of Martyn Lowe’s hearing

---

Tuesday 5 and Thursday 7 November 2024
Evidence of Dave Morris

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence of Tuesday 5 November

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence of Thursday 7 November

Tuesday morning was due to start with Dave Morris’s evidence, but was instead taken up with an emergency hearing where the Inquiry heard legal objections to the Inquiry Chair’s sudden shock decision to not allow livestreaming of hearings for the next four weeks. A bizarre turn of events for a Public Inquiry.

The Inquiry has, up to now, been livestreaming with a 10 minute delay in case a witness mentions something that shouldn’t be said. This has been deemed necessary to protect police secrets and national security. It has been very successful in that, yet this same method is apparently not enough to prevent personal details leaking out about a few named people. That is, obviously, bollocks.

The Inquiry Chair rejected a proposed range of practical options put forward by Core Participants (CPs) and their lawyers for protecting privacy during livestreaming.

The Chair stuck by his controversial decision, but conceded that CPs, their lawyers and accredited media – but not the wider public – would be able to access a livestream through a special Zoom link. They would need to agree to be bound by any Restriction Orders. This would only start on Thursday.

DAVE MORRIS OVERVIEW

The afternoon session was Dave Morris’s second appearance giving evidence as a witness at the Inquiry. Morris had previously given evidence on 8 July 2024, regarding activities of groups spied upon during the mid-1970s to the early 1980s – eg London Workers Group, Anarchy magazine, Person Unknown defence campaign, Torness anti-nuclear protests, and ‘Stop The City’ events.

In this phase of the Inquiry he was giving evidence about London Greenpeace, the McLibel case, and the Poll Tax/ Trafalgar Square Defendants Campaign.

He had given an Opening Statement to this phase of the Inquiry in October:

ORGANISING IN HIS LOCAL COMMUNITY

Tuesday’s session began by Morris verifying his Witness Statement and Section D of his written Opening Statement. Elements of those have been incorporated in this report.

The Counsel to the Inquiry, Emma Gargitter, posed the questions, initially exploring Morris’s local activism in the North London borough of Haringey in the 1980s. His main activism throughout the decade was with Tottenham Claimants Union (TCU).

Dozens of local Claimants’ Unions had existed throughout the country since the early 1970s, linked through a Federation and regular national conferences. They were made up of people on benefits (pensioners, unemployed, people with disabilities, single parents, etc), supporting each other, promoting solidarity and campaigning for people’s needs.

For example, a May 1988 secret police report detailed a planned protest by the Tottenham Claimants Union protesting against a National Front activist being employed at a local Social Security office. The TCU was based in an Unemployed Centre and then set up their own Haringey Unwaged Centre (which later hosted the local anti-poll tax campaign, featured below at the end of his testimony).

A MAN OF CONVICTION

Note: At the end of his evidence, Morris took the opportunity to respond to a letter that spycop HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’ had sent to Martyn Lowe in 1987 which had been read out during the questioning of Lowe. It had included reference to Morris being fined for shoplifting.

Morris felt he should therefore explain the full story. A member of the Claimants Union with learning difficulties had been able to get a specially protected job at a local Tesco’s.

However, in the run up to Christmas he was sacked ‘due to not working fast enough’. This outraged union members, who launched weekly ‘Reinstate Steve Now’ protests at the supermarket, including members secreting leaflets on the shelves throughout the store.

Just before Christmas, Morris was helping organise a Claimants’ Union Christmas party, and went to buy provisions at the store. He knew Steve would be attending and decided to get him a bottle of cognac as a present. Morris himself is a non-drinker. Due to what had happened to Steve he thought it only fair not to pay for that and hid it in his jacket.

However, a store detective had recognised him from the previous CU protests and was following him around the store in case he was distributing leaflets. Arrest and fine unfortunately followed! In the end the ‘Reinstate Steve’ campaign was unsuccessful.

Morris was also involved in Haringey Community Action, an open collective supporting a wide range of local campaigning. The Inquiry examined a police report about a bulletin HCA supported called ‘Haringey Anarchist News’.

LONDON GREENPEACE

Organising in his local community had been, and continues to be, the primary focus of Morris’s activism, although occasionally getting ‘side-tracked’ for example by the long McLibel court case and campaign in the 1990s. That case came out of his other key focus in the 1980s, London Greenpeace (LGP).

An early police report, using terminology with the disdain typical of the spycops, (mis)characterised Morris’s ‘naivety and childish enthusiasm’ that supposedly allowed him to be accepted by younger activists despite being an ‘old hippy’. Morris simply shrugged this off, noting that he had been 36 and ‘everyone is entitled to their point of view’.

LGP was Europe’s first Greenpeace group which had formed in the early 1970s. It decided to remain independent when Greenpeace International set up a UK branch in 1977.

Morris joined in 1982 during opposition to the Falklands War, as it was one of the few groups in London explicitly opposing both sides in the war – the UK and Argentina. He already knew some members from his campaigning against nuclear power in the late 1970s.

When questioned about the group’s politics and ‘loose’ organisation, Morris emphasised that, despite the lack of formal structure, they were very focused and effective. The group met weekly with an open agenda and replied conscientiously to more than 50 letters from the public every week.

He detailed how LGP produced numerous leaflets and factsheets on various topics, and included them in regular mailouts. The group’s politics centred on anti-militarism and anti-nuclear campaigns up to the early 1980s, and then with an additional focus on environmental issues, anti-capitalism and class struggle in the mid-1980s.

They were always keen to also promote examples of alternative ways people could use to run society themselves – although anarchist ideas were more implicit than explicit. Animal rights campaigns, which had not featured at all in the group in the 1970s, began to feature in the mid-late 1980s.

He explained their open meeting structure, noting that there was nothing to stop a spycop secretly attending and then disappearing – no-one would have noticed. The agenda was formulated by passing around a piece of paper anyone could write on.

INFILTRATION BEGINS

Undercover police officer HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’ infiltrated the group and was felt to be highly influential, using full access to set agenda items, suggest topics for discussion at public meetings, help to write leaflets and organise activities, and network with others outside the group.

Morris noted that Lambert was particularly keen on the regular post-meeting gatherings in the pub (which included people not attending the meetings), though Morris himself didn’t drink and was too busy to attend those.

There was also an office that people in the group used for answering letters and ad hoc meet ups, though Morris rarely visited. Looking back now, Morris concluded that Lambert was manipulating and exploiting for his own ends those who trusted him, both within and outside the group.

When asked about LGP breaking the law, Morris’s witness statement indicated the group generally organised peaceful traditional protests including pickets, leafleting, posters, stickers, sit ins, etc.

Morris was questioned about the role of treasurer, particularly as spycop HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’ had held this position of trust and therefore had access to private information on those making donations.

A secret police report of Lambert’s from January 1985 suggested three ‘leading’ figures in LGP: Martyn Lowe and Albert Beale (both involved since the early years of the group), and Morris.

While Morris acknowledged his influence due to his strong personality and commitment, he emphasised that none of them held any real power, explaining that very many people in the group contributed in different ways and all were equally important.

He described how he brought his priorities of community organising and class struggle to the group while respecting its established nature. In particular, he encouraged the group to reach out to new people as much as possible. This included encouraging the environmental and peace movements to support mining communities during the historic 1984-5 miners’ strike.

Morris noted one ‘very worrying’ report by Lambert, sent to MI5, that had detailed information on his planned visit to Poland to meet anti-government activists there. Morris explained that, bearing in mind the savage repression at the time in Poland, this could have put people there (including some mineworkers he met with who were hoping to link up with miners in Britain) at serious risk.

EXAGGERATION AND FABRICATION

A report by Lambert dated 30 January 1985 (mis)described Morris as ‘a supporter of any action that could be described as anti-establishment’. Morris flatly rejected this, as he judged each activity on its merits.

He emphasised that the fight for a better world wasn’t just about being ‘anti’, but also about finding positive and better alternative ways of doing things, and showing by example.

In the mid-late 1980s numbers attending LGP meetings rose significantly. This, Morris felt, was due to the inclusive and welcoming nature of the group, the many public meetings, and the wide range of issues discussed and campaigns supported.

In a recent interview by the police investigating Lambert’s controversial deployment, Lambert had portrayed Morris as a veteran of LGP and the London anarchist scene, claiming he had a ‘violent anarchist vision’, an assessment Morris disputed.

We’d already heard in Martyn Lowe’s testimony how Lambert exaggerated and invented his descriptions of activists, and it was something we’d hear again too.

Lambert’s reports sometimes alleged the Stop The City protests of 1983 and 1984 to be ‘violent’.

Morris rejected this, explaining they were billed as a ‘carnival against war, oppression and destruction’ and a ‘celebration of life’, and were largely a range of decentralised educational and festive activities and protests to challenge and reclaim the financial district of London.

Despite their almost entirely peaceful nature, the police had seen fit to arrest hundreds of participants in order to try to protect ‘business as usual’.

Lambert’s reports tried to portray Morris and Lowe as at loggerheads, yet Morris noted they agreed on 95% of political issues, and respectfully disagreed on a few points.

Morris criticised the spycops for having what he called a ‘childish view’ of how people operated and how relationships developed, often inventing or stirring up serious personality clashes and power struggles.

The spies fantasies of supposed command structures, and their competition to impress their managers, says more about the officers and the police than it does about the group they’re reporting on.

OPPOSING CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

The Inquiry then spent an hour or more exploring in minute detail London Greenpeace’s connections to the animal rights movement and their campaigning against animal cruelty.

Morris had never been involved in that movement but was somehow expected to answer a raft of questions about it. He noted he’d been vegetarian for nearly 50 years, and only managed to be vegan for a few years in the 1980s ‘out of weakness’.

The Inquiry, just like the establishment and media hysteria at the time, apparently regards the animal rights movement as potentially ‘violent’ or even ‘terrorist’ irrespective of what they actually stood for and actually did.

Morris had at one point attended two hunt sabotage events (shock, horror!) to see what they were all about. One such event involved Bob Lambert’s arrest and release without charge, though Morris couldn’t recall the specific incident.

Morris praised the efforts of thousands of activists going out into the countryside every weekend to try to save the lives of individual foxes being terrorised and killed for supposed sport. He pointed out that these selfless efforts over decades eventually led to such hunting being made illegal.

Animal rights had gradually become one of the key issues in LGP between 1985 and 1988, Morris confirmed. He felt that after the inspiring the Stop The City protests in 1983-4 many new people, especially younger people, became interested in the group’s open and accessible meetings and its radical and non-sectarian ideas.

At one time about 20 people were attending the regular weekly meetings, and 40 or more at public meetings with guest speakers that were monthly.

Lambert – who, like all Special Demonstration Squad infiltrators, was obsessed with identifying sinister ‘leaders’ – implied in a report this influx was down to Morris’s personal ‘vision’.

However, Morris described how many young people at the time, particularly in the ‘punk’ movement, were attracted to DIY politics, veganism, anarchism and pacifism – especially through the widespread influence of the anarchist band Crass. And it was clear that Lambert himself was strongly influencing things.

During this period, LGP was invited to do stalls at punk gigs, reaching a new audience.

Morris now believes LGP served as a platform and ‘a sea to swim in’ for Lambert, who showed particular interest in new attendees.

The Inquiry examined a 1980 leaflet titled ‘Greenpeace, Animal Liberation and the Rest’. At the hearing the day before, Martyn Lowe had explained that he had drafted it in response to Greenpeace International’s recent arrival in the UK, to try to clarify some of the confusion this had created.

The leaflet detailed the distinction between the need for rights for all animals and for veganism, in contrast to Greenpeace UK’s focus on conservation, eg regarding whales.

Morris explained that LGP had for many years supported and sent donations to the Sea Shepherd anti-whaling ship which had split from Greenpeace International over this issue. He also noted that Ronnie Lee, who later helped found the Animal Liberation Front, had briefly attended London Greenpeace meetings in 1974 but didn’t stay involved.

The intense and narrow questioning continued. Morris emphasised that LGP was never directly involved in Animal Liberation Front (ALF) direct action activities, though a few individual members may have been. He highlighted the ALF’s non-violence policy, and that none of its actions were to cause any harm to people or animals.

He described Bob Lambert’s significant influence in LGP, noting his focus on animal rights and his pushing for activists to engage in animal rights activities and direct action.

In reality, the group’s support for the ALF was mainly through including ALF Supporters Group leaflets in their regular paper mailouts, which contained a wide range of political educational literature.

A police report of Lambert’s from January 1985 mentioned some concerns raised at a meeting about the ALF’s direction and the group’s continuing support. Martyn Lowe was said to be leaving LGP after 12 years following ‘many arguments with Dave Morris and other group members’ – Lambert again personalising things inaccurately.

Morris explained there was a duplicator printer in his house that he shared with others, which he taught and encouraged others to use. He said a wide range of materials of all kinds would have been printed there, but he couldn’t recall any printing of specific ALF documents.

Morris repeatedly emphasised that while his lack of involvement in the animal rights movement wasn’t a criticism of it, he simply wasn’t involved, just as he wasn’t involved in the anti-apartheid movement, and so on. He did say that, in that house, someone looked after some rescued laboratory rats for a short while.

Morris estimated that by this point, animal rights issues occupied on average about 10-30% of the time during the group’s meetings. He dismissed outright Lambert’s claims that a majority of LGP members were ‘long-standing ALF activists’, calling it ‘total rubbish’.

In contrast with Lambert’s reports and the Inquiry’s line of questioning, in 2011 Lambert himself described LGP as ‘a peaceful campaigning group’ and apologised to members for his deception.

Morris described how Lambert, as an influential character, was seemingly exploiting and manipulating LGP, its meetings, its office, and related gatherings in pubs for his own agenda. He wanted to promote militant direct action and act as an agent provocateur.

DEBENHAM’S

The Inquiry examined a July 1987 Lambert report about a regular weekly LGP meeting. It followed media news of timed incendiary devices being planted at three Debenham’s shops to trigger sprinkler systems in their fur departments in protest at the chain selling fur.

The report claimed an older pacifist was critical while everyone else supported the ‘arson attacks’.

Morris, in the witness box and in his written statement, disputed that these were ‘arson’ attacks, and felt that most ‘support’ was likely to be for the aims not the tactics employed.

In fact, we now know that there’s a huge amount of evidence that Lambert himself was involved, even the driving force, behind the Debenham’s action.

Throughout the testimony, Morris had emphasised that LGP maintained a broad and inclusive range of concerns and activities despite the spies’ attempts to portray it otherwise.

YET MORE ON ANIMAL RIGHTS

The questioning during the first part of Dave Morris’s second session, two days later, continued to focus on animal rights campaigning.

There seemed to be an unspoken assumption from the Inquiry’s legal team that such campaigning was itself somehow potentially incriminating.

Morris said that he’d always been supportive of animals having rights, and that they shouldn’t be exploited and killed, but he affirmed yet again that he had never been personally active in the movement.

A police report from January 1988 described Morris preparing a draft LGP statement supporting Geoff Sheppard and Andrew Clarke who were by that time on remand for the incendiary device damage to Debenham’s shops.

Sheppard and Clarke were involved in various animal rights groups and had attended some of the LGP meetings.

Morris explained that movements should always support arrested activists going through the judicial process, but it didn’t necessarily mean support for any specific acts alleged or whether defendants were even going to plead guilty.

And, he pointed out, no serious defence campaign could condemn any alleged action of a defendant. Morris said he made a visit to Clarke in prison to offer moral support.

In March 1988, police reported on a LGP public meeting of 43 people with guest speaker Robin Lane, former press officer of the ALF Supporters’ Group. The report claimed that the Debenham’s incendiary campaign was praised.

Morris couldn’t recall the exact meeting but confirmed some speakers occasionally attended LGP meetings to speak in support of the aims of the ALF (and indeed many other issues). He added that he was not in principle opposed to nonviolent direct action that damages property, but it had to be looked at on a case by case basis and at no risk to the public.

In his witness statement he noted how there were now statues of Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and the Pankhurst sisters in Westminster unveiled with great acclamation from the government and public, yet their direct action movements (against apartheid, for Indian independence, and for women’s right to vote) had been panned as ‘terrorist’ at the time they were involved.

A police report also claimed that the ALF Supporters Group shared an office with London Greenpeace. Morris wasn’t aware of this at all, and doesn’t remember them having any meetings in the office, though they may have used the address for a time for receiving mail.

Morris was consistent and clear; LGP was entirely open and transparent. Animal rights campaigning by the group was perfectly legitimate and only ever a minority theme of the group’s activities.

McLIBEL

The questioning at last moved on to other matters that Morris had actually been significantly involved in, including the two issues he could most help the Inquiry about – firstly, the anti-McDonald’s campaign, and then the Poll Tax movement (about which Morris is the only witness to testify in the Inquiry).

In the mid-late 1980s London Greenpeace organised a number of anti-McDonald’s events, which largely amounted to talking to the public and handing out leaflets in the street outside a branch of McDonald’s. They focused on McDonald’s as a prime example of what was wrong with the consumer-capitalist worldview. It went down very well with the public.

McDonald’s had been separately criticised by trade unions over workers’ rights, by ecologists for environmental damage, by nutritionists for health impacts, by child welfare campaigners for their advertising targeting kids, and by animal rights organisations for the cruelty inherent in factory farming. But LGP was the first to bring the criticisms together to reveal the bigger picture.

Morris would eventually end up as one of the two defendants in the ‘McLibel’ case. The burger corporation served libel writs on five LGP activists. Faced with a horrendously unfair and expensive uphill battle, three of the five reluctantly ‘apologised’.

But Morris and Helen Steel, with the ‘pro bono’ support of young barrister Keir Starmer behind the scenes, refused to do so. So the case went ahead and eventually became the longest and one of the most controversial in English legal history.

The McLibel Support Campaign organised practical support for the defendants, raised funds, helped trace witnesses, generated huge support and much publicity, called a range of ‘days of action’ protests (including a national march) and, perhaps most importantly, launched a coordinated and successful defiance effort to ensure anti-McDonald’s leaflets would continue to be distributed outside McDonald’s stores in their millions all over the UK and throughout the world.

In summary, the McLibel case ran from 1990-2005, encompassing the longest trial in English legal history. Morris and Steel, the ‘McLibel 2’, were denied Legal Aid and jury trial. They represented themselves at 28 pre-trial legal hearings, some lasting as long as 3 days. The trial itself consisted of 313 days from 1994-1997, interspersed with 7 trips to the Court of Appeal.

They again represented themselves at their Appeal in 1999, which lasted 23 days.

The ‘McLibel 2’ finally got legal aid for taking the British Government to the European Court of Human Rights where they were formally represented by Keir Starmer.

In the end it was ruled that McDonald’s:

• ‘exploited children’ with their advertising
• produced ‘misleading’ advertising claiming their food was ‘nutritious’
• regular customers faced an increased risk of heart disease
• were ‘culpably responsible’ for cruelty to animals
• were ‘antipathetic’ to unionisation
• helped to lower wages in the catering industry

It was also ruled that it was true or fair comment to say McDonald’s workers suffered poor pay and conditions.

And in 2005 the European Court ruled that the UK government’s defamation laws had breached Steel and Morris’s fundamental rights to a fair trial and freedom of speech.

But there was also a shocking and sensational hidden story waiting to unravel…

Morris described how in 1984 LGP first produced a short and semi-spoof flyer ‘The Sawdust People’ – shown on the Inquiry screens – calling for protests against McDonald’s.

Morris’s only contribution had been to write by hand the words ‘Campaign for Real Life’ in a corner.

Incredibly, in response, LGP received a letter from McDonald’s threatening legal proceedings if certain statements about McDonald’s weren’t withdrawn. The letter advised the group to contact and take heed of others, including Prince Philip, who had withdrawn criticisms they’d made of the junk food multinational.

LGP ignored this letter and the campaign began to take shape and grow.

A number of spycop HN10 Bob Lambert’s reports of anti-McDonald’s protests were brought up, many fantasising about potential disorder – which never seemed to have materialised.

Morris explained that ‘disorder’ was never intended, and it would have been counterproductive. As history shows, their protests were about distributing leaflets and communicating with the public.

However it was clear a more coherent and detailed leaflet would be needed.

The Inquiry then brought up on screen a personal letter from Lambert to Martyn Lowe, dated 22 April 1986.

In it, Lambert asked Lowe, a librarian, to help him track down a copy of a US book ‘Big Mac: The Unauthorized Story of McDonald’s‘ by Max Boas and Steve Chain. This book was a vital source of information for a new ‘What’s Wrong With McDonald’s? Everything they don’t want you to know’ Factsheet, which Lambert was clearly helping to research and write.

In fact Morris held up the actual book, which had been obtained in 1986, and passed on to him years later for research in the build up to the McLibel trial. He read out a key passage in the book about McDonald’s paper packaging, and showed how it had found its way into the Factsheet almost word for word.

Morris referred to other witnesses who recalled Lambert boasting about and being very proud of his role in writing this Factsheet, usually carrying copies around with him.

Lambert has recently tried to play down his role, but in the extensive interview he gave to Channel 4 TV broadcast in October 2011 after Morris and other members of London Greenpeace had publicly exposed him as an undercover police officer, he openly admitted it.

‘I was certainly a contributing author to the McLibel leaflet. Well I think the one I remember making a contribution to was called ‘What’s Wrong With McDonald’s?’

The campaign became very popular. After Bob Lambert ‘handed over’ his deployment in the group to HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’ – and then disappeared himself – LGP began to be also secretly and shockingly infiltrated over an 18 month period by seven private investigators hired by McDonald’s. Some meetings had as many spies as genuine campaigners.

The Inquiry viewed a report of Dines’s from July 1990, two months before McDonald’s served the McLibel writs, noting that McDonald’s were sending ‘occasional interlopers’ to the meetings. Yet Dines later claimed he only found out about McDonald’s hiring private spies after the writs were served!

Dines admitted, in his internal SDS ‘exit’ interview in December 1991, that he knew in detail about the McDonald’s agents who had infiltrated LGP during 1989-1991. Dines says:

‘McDonald’s made mistakes too. Some of their agents were too old, too heavy; others were in too much of a hurry; all were politically unaware… four or five people, employees of a private detective agency, tried to infiltrate LG, but only the last one, a girl, got close.’

It should be noted that the ‘girl’, Michelle Hooker, was an ex-police officer and had a six month sexual relationship with someone in LGP. She stayed in the group until May 1991, 8 months after the writs had been served.

The Inquiry brought up a clip from the McLibel documentary which had been included because it showed McDonald’s private spy Michelle Hooker distributing the leaflet at a 1989 LGP protest outside McDonald’s HQ in Finchley.

It’s of even more interest now we know it also includes undercover officer John Dines (seen in a red lumberjack shirt at 08:35).

Additionally, Morris revealed, just out of shot in the footage was McDonald’s Vice President Sid Nicholson (an ex-Chief Superintendent of Brixton police) and Special Branch officer Brendon O’Hara standing together at a ‘perch’ in the building watching and chatting about the protesters. This had been established during the evidence in the McLibel trial, as was the fact that Nicholson had taken personal responsibility for the hiring of the McDonald’s spies.

During that trial Steel and Morris had uncovered a small part of the scandal after it was revealed that one of the McDonald’s spies had met twice with a Special Branch officer. They successfully sued the Met in 1999 over that alone, and the police settled the case ‘to avoid a difficult and lengthy trial’. But the police had concealed the full, shocking scale of their own spying and high-level collaboration with McDonald’s.

Writs had been served by McDonald’s in September 1990. The week after, Dines reported on what he called a ‘closed’ meeting of the five people named in the writs. He was apparently aggrandising, trying to impress his superiors with his access to private and legally-privileged information.

Morris pointed out that the material must have come to him via Helen Steel, as Dines had engineered a deceitful relationship with her a short time earlier.

Dines later reported on another meeting that the five LGP members named in the writs had with their lawyers.

In that report, Dines asserts that three of them (including Steel and Morris) had very little to do with the leaflet. It raises the question of how much the police had encouraged McDonald’s to sue, who really chose who to sue, and why.

In the first two years after the service of the writs, the most important period in terms of setting the direction of the case, Dines was living with Steel. He was getting details of all the confidential legal advice and strategy following the private legal meetings she and Morris held with their lawyer Keir Starmer.

As Dines admitted in his recent Witness Statement to the Inquiry:

‘It is accurate to say that I was ‘by the side’ of Helen Steel and Dave Morris in 1991 and relaying the legal advice [ie from Keir Starmer] back to my ‘bosses in the SDS’ .’

Dines then faked a ‘breakdown’ and disappeared supposedly abroad. This greatly distressed his partner Steel. Worried about his wellbeing, she began a long search to find him. It was only after years of trying to find him that she discovered the appalling truth that he was actually a police officer.

SHOCKING MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

A Special Branch ‘File Note’ from 18 December 2002 was brought up on screen. It revealed the explosive information that Dines’ name had been ‘deliberately omitted from the McDonald’s libel writ list’ to protect the Special Demonstration Squad. This underlined the blatant interference with and manipulation of the legal process.

In September 1995, with the trial in full swing, Bob Lambert was now managing the Squad. He knew that Helen Steel, still searching for the truth about her disappeared partner, had attempted to contact Dines’s real parents and might be about to discover the facts.

The Inquiry showed an ‘SDS only’ briefing note Lambert authored that bordered on panic about the fact that if Steel confirmed Dines was a spycop then ‘they’ (ie Steel, Morris and Starmer):

‘would give serious consideration to subpoena-ing John Dines and/or the Commissioner to give evidence at the McDonald’s libel case.’

Morris said there was no doubt Dines and Lambert could have been either forced to give evidence during the trial, or been joined to the case as ‘co-defendants’ because of their responsibility for the publication of the McDonald’s Factsheet.

The police would have had to reveal the full truth about the role of the SDS and the entire trial may well have had to have been abandoned as a serious abuse of legal process.

Morris said that fundamentally, the Met had collaborated with McDonald’s at a high level and in doing so it had misled not just the defendants and Keir Starmer, but also the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords, and the European Court of Human Rights. It was a massive miscarriage of justice organised and covered up by the police.

The damning evidence about McDonald’s and general publicity around the trial made the increasingly controversial lawsuit backfire on McDonald’s spectacularly. It was described as ‘the worst corporate PR disaster in history’. People around the world printed and distributed anti-McDonald’s leaflets in huge numbers, making it probably the most famous and well-distributed leaflet ever published.

In March 1991, a secret police report by Dines said that LGP had then been reduced to mainly just four activists. Morris confirmed that the McLibel trial had taken everybody’s effort and focus and the wider group had significantly dwindled.

This, he said, is one of the reasons that corporations and others sue campaigning groups, to tie them up in long and complicated legal action, to put them out of business, to eradicate criticism. He noted that even Parliament recognised this as there was currently a bill going through to try to prevent vexatious litigation in future.

SNEERING LIES AND CYNICAL ABUSES

By 1989, Morris had become a new parent and so had less time to commit to London Greenpeace. He’d also become very active in the new and fast-growing anti-poll tax movement.

Dines reported that fatherhood had reduced Morris’s activism, claiming he was being forced into ‘occasionally undertaking’ parental responsibilities reluctantly.

Morris was aghast, decrying the description as ‘absolute lies’. It was clear that Dines just couldn’t resist slagging him off for no reason whatsoever. Morris told the Inquiry that he had co-parented for the first two years and then been a single parent for the next 18 years.

During the McLibel trial, supporters organised a rota for childcare for Morris’s son. His next door neighbours did some of that in his house. It just so happens that spycop HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’ deceived a woman activist next door into a relationship and was thereby able to access Morris’s home.

At the same time, HN5 John Dines had engineered the shocking long-term fake partnership with Helen Steel and they were living together in a flat that he’d rented in Tottenham. It just so happened to overlook the family home of Winston Silcott who’d been framed for the murder of a police officer during the Broadwater Farm riot/uprising. The family were campaigning for justice, and Winston eventually had his conviction quashed.

It’s a snapshot of the cynical and shocking tactics with which the out-of-control spycops were able to use and abuse people, invading lives and homes.

POLL TAX

The poll tax was one of the most unfair and hated policies of the Thatcher government (and that’s quite a crowded field). The Prime Minister had called it her ‘flagship policy’. It replaced local council rates – taxation based on property value – and replaced them with a fixed charge per person. A family of four adults in a terraced house would pay four times as much as a single person living in a mansion.

Morris is the only witness to testify to the Inquiry about the epic and historic struggle to scrap the tax. He helped set up Tottenham Against Poll Tax (TAPT) from 1988. The group organised weekly stalls in the high street and distributed tens of thousands of leaflets door to door.

There were thousands of local groups being established across the country, and TAPT – especially as part of Haringey Anti-Poll Tax Union (HAPTU) – was strong and influential, helping to bring together and coordinate the London and national campaign.

TAPT, with Morris as its delegate, was the secretarial group of the London Federation. Morris and HAPTU activists had a key role in organising the first national meeting of anti-poll tax groups in the summer of 1989.

The movement called on people not to register for or pay the Tax, and council workers not to collect it. There were hundreds of large and angry demonstrations outside local town halls (including 1,000 people in Haringey which set the highest charge to pay in the whole country), and people publicly burning their bills.

Morris was asked about the 200,000-strong demonstration on 31 March 1990, on the eve of the Poll Tax implementation the following day.

Undercover reports revealed that SDS officers had met up to ‘pool’ their ‘intelligence’ and had forecast around 20,000 to attend. It was at least ten times that. This was a massive failure by the SDS, and may well have contributed to what became one of the most significant incidents of public disorder of the 20th century.

Morris explained how it further highlighted the SDS’s inability to comprehend what they infiltrate. They’re obsessed with finding individuals and leaders, and sinister or secret plots. They can’t bring themselves to believe that ordinary people can have genuine valid concerns and then mobilise themselves in huge numbers. Radical groups are, he said, a small but useful support to wider movements, no more and no less.

The peaceful and festive demonstration ended in a riot in Trafalgar Square and the surrounding streets. Morris explained that the general view was that the police had provoked the demonstrators and then completely lost control with police vans and horses driving into demonstrators.

Spycop John Dines was at Trafalgar Square that day too, and was arrested with marbles (apparently to use as missiles, or to throw under police horses so they couldn’t run – a controversial tactic generally opposed by most activists). Morris knew nobody else who’d taken marbles.

Dines boasted to activists about his arrest and wrote an account, openly published at the time, saying he had been ‘beaten up’ by police.

TRAFALGAR SQUARE DEFENDANTS CAMPAIGN

About 500 arrests were made. Morris was active in setting up the Trafalgar Square Defendants Campaign (TSDC) to support those arrested, and to reassure the movement that it wasn’t going to be terrorised or divided by government or media hysteria.

The TSDC played a vital role in maintaining the unity, solidarity and resolve throughout the ever-growing movement in the face of repression of protests and jailings of non-payers (which he recalled was maybe around 2,000 people).

Morris described media attempts to split the movement into ‘radical’ and ‘moderate’ factions, a division he said was false. This also seems to be a classic SDS tactic, if not its very purpose for existing.

At this point in the hearing, Morris paid tribute to Alistair Mitchell, one of the key people who’d set up the TSDC. He had been due to give evidence to the Inquiry but sadly had passed away in 2019.

Mitchell had been arrested at Trafalgar Square for complaining to police who were assaulting a demonstrator. He himself was then assaulted and arrested, and later found guilty of ‘biting a police officer’.

However, this was overturned on appeal as expert evidence proved that the photos of the ‘bite’ showed the teeth marks could not have been Alistair’s – this case achieved notoriety as ‘the only person in British history convicted for biting a police officer with someone else’s teeth’ – presumably the police officer had done it himself to frame Mitchell. Mitchell later qualified as a barrister.

Minutes of the second TSDC legal meeting, held at the Haringey Unwaged Centre on 10 May 1990, were taken by Morris and shown on screen at the hearing. The meeting was well attended by defendants and solicitors in order to discuss legal matters and strategy.

Dines attended as a ‘defendant’ although later documents revealed that a police Commander ‘pulled’ his case to protect the SDS and the case’s documentation was ‘destroyed’. Once again, the SDS perpetrating an abuse of legal process.

At the end of the minutes, which were circulated throughout the whole movement, Morris had written that the TSDC would ‘expose how the police rioted and ran amok in Trafalgar Square, and ensure that protests and non-payment of the Poll Tax will defeat this hated government measure’.

The movement continued to grow. In Haringey there were 20 local neighbourhood-based solidarity groups at one point, every home in the borough was leafleted 3 or 4 times, and 97,000 were refusing to pay despite threats, widespread use of bailiffs, and even jailings of non-payers. Across the country it was estimated that there were 14 million non-payers.

Morris criticised the poor quality of Dines’ reports on the TSDC and the movement. These unprofessional and inaccurate reports, like so many SDS reports, fixated on sneering at and slagging off personalities, and mischaracterised and underestimated the campaigns and movements they were part of. Dines was obviously trying to impress his bosses and MI5, aiming to justify the continuation of the SDS.

The media continued its attacks on the anti-poll tax non-payment movement, and there were calls for a ban on future poll tax demonstrations in central London. The TSDC, however, was determined to defy this pressure and persuaded the London Anti-Poll Tax Federation to organise a march to Brockwell Park on 20 October 1990. 20,000 people attended on the day.

The TSDC itself organised a 1,500-strong protest beforehand at Horseferry Road Court where poll tax cases had been prominent. It was thought to have been one of the largest court pickets of the 20th century, and was followed by a ‘feeder march’ to join the main rally. After the rally the TSDC organised a 3,500-strong march to Brixton prison in solidarity with poll tax prisoners there and elsewhere.

Morris explained that the arrangements had been agreed with the police in advance. He revealed that the Commander of the police operation noted to the organisers that there was ‘talk’ from some police that they (the police) were looking for a ‘re-match’ for what happened at Trafalgar Square. He assured all that this ‘would not be tolerated’.

TSDC took no chances and arranged an unprecedented, sophisticated and full scale monitoring and videoing of the events.

The day had gone to plan until the end when the TSDC march halted outside Brixton prison as agreed. An hour before the large crowd was due to disperse police started to get aggressive.

Morris was the key TSDC coordinator present at this point and tried to find a police commander to restrain his officers – but all senior police personnel had mysteriously disappeared. The police attacked the crowd, including truncheoning Morris on the head. Inevitably this led to a battle and many arrests.

The police issued press statements blaming the demonstrators and there was more predictable hysteria from MPs and the media calling for bans on future demonstrations. But a week later the TSDC held a press conference to reveal a detailed dossier on what had really happened. This got a lot of publicity, and the Met were forced to launch ‘an investigation’.

THATCHER FORCED TO RESIGN

With alarm growing in the Conservative Party about the poll tax, including them losing some ‘safe seats’ due to this issue, Margaret Thatcher was forced to resign in November.

The anti-poll tax movement planned another national march through Westminster on 23 March 1991. The TSDC booked Trafalgar Square. The stakes were very high. This was John Dines take on it all:

‘anarchists and “travellers” alike are just occasionally realistic and recognise that they are unlikely again to create mayhem and destruction in Central London without facing the consequences from a Police Force whom they expect to be buoyed up for retribution’

As Morris explained, aside from showing that the police think in vengeant terms, this ridiculous ‘analysis’ was completely wrong. In fact nobody on any side wanted to get the blame for any breakdown in ‘public order’ and what that might lead to.

Tensions mounted in the weeks before that until, just two days before the march, the Prime Minister, John Major, announced the poll tax was unenforceable and would be scrapped. As a result the demonstration was re-christened a Victory March, much smaller numbers attended, and there were no incidents at all.

TSDC continued in its defence campaign work for the next couple of years, and Morris was then able to properly focus on the McLibel case during its very many pre-trial legal hearings.

---

Wednesday 6 November 2024
Evidence of Chris Baillee

Click here for transcripts and written evidence

Chris Baillee gave his evidence remotely, and was questioned by John Warrington. He was in very poor health but was determined to contribute to the Inquiry to help it understand the truth about the issues and how he was manipulated by Lambert.

He has supplied a written witness statement to the Inquiry but this still hadn’t been published before this summary was written.

Baillee has supported animal rights for many years. He became politically active around 1980, handing out leaflets and attending meetings, and later got involved in things like graffiti. He described himself as an anarchist.

As a committed vegan, he was also committed to only taking non violent direct action.
He didn’t want to risk harming any animal (and specified ‘humans are animals too, as far as I’m concerned’) and says he was ‘totally against’ the use of incendiary devices. Everyone knew his views.

In 1986, a Daily Express journalist, Eileen McDonald, published a sensationalised account of her alleged infiltration of a secret Animal Liberation Front (ALF) ‘cell’. HN11 Mike Chitty ‘Mike Blake’ included a story in his report [UCPI021974] about her joining Baillee and others at a demonstration against the use of animals in a circus.

Baillee remembers that he and other animal rights activists had to intervene at some point to prevent this reporter from being beaten up by circus ‘heavies’. He also says the activists realised that she was a reporter pretty early on, and said things ‘to wind her up’.

When he wrote his witness statement, Baillee was asked by the Inquiry to list the groups that he was involved in during this era, and comment on whether or not they advocated or supported public disorder, violence, criminal activity or the overthrow of parliamentary democracy. For the most part they didn’t. They did exercise their right to protest, which led to some ‘low level public disorder’, and might have occasionally obstructed the highway.

Class War was an exception. But Baillee says he never got involved in any of their public disorder or violence. He mostly just wrote articles for their newspaper, and went along to a meeting every few months (in marked contrast to what Lambert says about him going to political meetings and protests seven days a week!).

The Inquiry went through some of the reports they had uncovered relating to these groups.

Another report by Chitty [0746458], about a South London Animal Movement (SLAM) meeting in January 1985, described Chris Baillee as an ‘ageing punk anarchist’. SLAM aimed to raise awareness of the mistreatment of animals, and often leafleted and demonstrated outside slaughterhouses, fast food restaurants like McDonald’s and Wimpy. Baillee said that the police sometimes turned up and ‘stopped people protesting peacefully’.

Chitty also reported on the Streatham Action Group, a small closed group of friends who met up every month or so in each other’s houses. There was a leaflet attached, calling for autonomous, localised ‘Stop the City’ style protests to take place on 30 April 1985.

Bailiee was part of this group for around three years, until he moved away from the area up to North London. He rejected Chitty’s description of it as an ‘anarchist’ group, saying its members had a mixture of politics (some were even Labour Party members!).

They sometimes organised public speaker meetings, they put out a magazine, they advertised demos and political campaigns. He laughed off the report’s suggestion that he was responsible for the line ‘stop business as usual’, saying it came from London Greenpeace:

‘I can’t take the credit for that’

Chitty also reported that Baillee and his ‘girlfriend’ were both very involved in a growing campaign against the Leydon Street Slaughterhouse. He points out that this woman was not his girlfriend, she was just one of his housemates. And he wasn’t ‘part of this team’ coordinating the campaign. He says he wasn’t an ‘activist as such’, he only went along occasionally. He recalled that some of the protests started becoming ‘weird and anti-Muslim’ and this put him off going.

The Fur Action Group (FAG) would organise leafleting and sit-ins at places that hosted fur fashion shows or sold fur products. Baillee sometimes took part. All the group did was sit still but this made it hard for shoppers who wanted to look at the furs, and tended to annoy the fur store owners. The owners soon hired security guards and ‘heavies’ and as a result there were some ‘scuffles’.

HUNT SABOTEURS

We moved on to hear about hunt sabbing, and reports written by HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’. London Greenpeace activists often took part in this lawful form of direct action. Hunt saboteur groups from across South-East England often tried to coordinate their efforts and work together.

As the reports show, the police frequently stopped and searched their vehicles, using road blocks and even a police helicopter to prevent them them from getting near the hunts. ‘Heavies’ associated with the hunts were known for their extreme violence, and as one police report makes clear, had ‘hospitalised’ animal rights activists in the past.

These reports are written in Lambert’s typical style, and contain such unfounded notions about the sabs, such as ‘they might, for once, have shaken off their pacifist inhibitions’. He claims that some ‘chose to carry offensive weapons in their vehicles’ and says that some were arrested for public order offences.

Baillee said that he went sabbing regularly for around two years. Sabs tried to get in the way of the hunt, using scents to distract the hounds. He never saw a hunt sab using any kind of weapon, saying:

‘I would never dream of being associated with anyone who used a weapon at all, because I am very anti-violence’

He was badly beaten by hunt heavies, hired from a local rugby club and armed with sticks, and had to have stitches to his lips in hospital. Baillee rejects Lambert’s suggestion that he knew anything about an incendiary device being planted outside the home of the Master of a controversial hunt.

Baillee was part of a short-lived group called ‘Anarchists for Animals’ (AFA), explaining that it had been set up as a result of some anarcho-punks not feeling at home in some of the more mainstream animal rights groups. He rejects the idea that he was a ‘founder’ though.

LONDON GREENPEACE

He regularly attended London Greenpeace (LGP) meetings. He went to some London Boots Action Group demos against animal testing. He admits to acting on his own initiative and sometime doing graffiti (on butchers and fur shops, for instance) but wouldn’t describe himself as ‘ALF’.

Another report describes Chris Baillee as having ‘close links with Ronnie Lee’, the ALF founder who was on remand at the time. He says he didn’t visit Ronnie in prison, as it claims, but went there to visit someone else. They weren’t close at all.

He is not happy about all these reports, emphasising that you can’t believe what trained liars like Lambert say. However the description of him being ‘one of the most energetic anarchists in London’ may well have been true! He comes across to observers as incredibly sweet and caring.

Chris Baillee was reported on by multiple Special Demonstration Squad spies.

Baillee has a vague memory of the name ‘Mike Blake’ but can’t remember much about him. He now knows this was the cover name used by HN11 Mike Chitty, and thinks he would probably have seen him in the pub after a SLAM meeting. He says he wasn’t aware of the relationship between him and ‘Lizzie’.

He had no memory of anyone called ‘John Barker’ (a name used by another of the undercovers, HN5 John Dines). He knew Helen Steel, but never asked her about her personal relationships, so didn’t know she and John were a ‘couple’.

He remembers HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’ quite well. But didn’t know him very well, and had no knowledge of the relationship he had during his deployment, with Liz (or Denise) Fuller. He admits that he never paid much attention to other people’s relationships!

‘I wasn’t very keen on relationships. They come and go’.

He met HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’ at London Greenpeace meetings, at which they were both regulars. ‘Bob’ was involved in many of the same groups as him, and Baillee recalled that ‘he used to take us all over the place in his van’, never asking for money.

He got the impression that ‘Bob’ helped out with the Animal Liberation Front Supporters Group (ALFSG) when Ronnie Lee was away, and says he was always ‘trying to get involved with as many people as possible’. He remembers him as seemingly a ‘likeable character’, but also ‘a very persuasive person’.

As time went on, he ‘became more dominant. He started to suggest things’. One such thing was the idea of demonstrating at Murray’s meat market in Brixton. This led to five activists appearing on trial at Camberwell Magistrates’ Court.

Baillee is listed as having appeared as a witness in this case. ‘Mark Robinson’ (another pseudonym used by Lambert) was one of the defendants. Baillee doesn’t have any recollection of ‘Bob’ giving evidence at this or any any court case.

He does remember ‘Bob’ organising benefits for the ALFSG, including one with the band Chumbawamba.

In 1987, two activists, Geoff Sheppard and Andrew Clarke, were arrested for their involvement in ALF activity, and sent to prison on remand. Many people visited them in prison, and Baillee remembers visiting Clarke. He’s not sure if ‘Bob’ did.

The two men were accused of being part of an incendiary device campaign. Baillee says that he would have been ‘totally against’ such a campaign, and if he’d known about it beforehand, would have tried to talk them out of it. He had no idea that Lambert was involved.

Another report surfaced, this one written by HN5 John Dines in 1988, saying that Baillee had also been to visit Geoff Sheppard. It contains a detailed account of their conversations. However Baillee is adamant that he would not have talked about the case or upcoming trial on these visits, with prison guards listening in.

We moved on to hear about Baillee and other LGP activists handing out ‘What’s wrong with McDonald’s?’ leaflet. He had heard that ‘Bob Robinson’ was involved in formulating these leaflets.

He says again that he didn’t pay much attention to rumours about relationships:

‘I couldn’t care less who was going out with who, really’.

He remembers hearing rumours at the time about ‘Bob’ and a series of women: ‘CTS’, ‘Jacqui’, ‘RLC’ and Belinda Harvey.

He got a laugh from the public gallery when he said:

‘I have enough trouble finding my own girlfriend without looking to other people’s.’

Some of Lambert’s reports name Chris Baillee. We looked at one, about an action taken against deer culling in Richmond Park (a D-lock was used to lock the gates for a short time). Allegedly this was the work of Anarchists for Animals (AFA), and Baillee was involved in reading out a communique from the group, threatening more action, to the media.

He says he was not involved in the action at all, and didn’t know about it at all, before or after it occurred. He then asked who had written this report. When told it was one of Lambert’s, he responded:

‘That explains it. He was a trained liar, basically’.

SET UP FOR ARREST

The same report also claims that Baillee plans to commit criminal damage against the butcher’s where the culled venison would be sold. Asked if he’d planned to do anything to the butcher’s he said it would have been some graffiti, and possibly a broken window later, but nothing ‘more severe’. He freely admits to spray-painting another butcher’s and supergluing the locks, and says ‘Bob’ knew he’d done this.

A few weeks later, ‘Bob’ told Baillee that he ‘wanted to get things sorted with the deer cull and the venison shop’ and gave him the impression he wanted something done quickly.

Baillee and another person (who he calls ‘Person X’ in his witness statement) were both invited around to Bob’s flat one night. When they got there, they were given a meal and ‘lots of strong drink and cannabis’ by Bob.

Bob drank and smoked too, and kept talking about the butcher’s shop, suggesting they ‘do it tonight’. Baillee said they should have a look first, so the three set off in Bob’s van, to see this shop in Roehampton.

Baillee is very clear that he just wanted to see what it was like. He remembers Bob being very insistent that they do something that evening, something ‘drastic’, but when they got there Bob stayed in the van. The other two got out and walked towards the shop.

Baillee remembers seeing lights on above it, and when Person X picked up a ‘boulder’, with Baillee telling him that this wasn’t a good time to do anything. Despite trying to talk him out of it, Person X threw this ‘slab of concrete’ through the shop’s window, and catching sight of a plain-clothes cop approaching, ran back to the van. Baillee couldn’t run as fast and didn’t make it in time. The van sped off.

He was grabbed by this plain-clothes officer (who seems to have been an aikido expert) then taken off to Wandsworth police station by uniformed police. They claimed to have witnesses who’d seen him throw a missile through the window. He was refused police bail, so kept in all weekend.

When searching his home, they came across A-Z maps with schools circled by his wife (who was looking for work in schools at the time) and suggested that he had circled these as some sort of targets. When it got to court the judge threw this part out, saying it was laughable.

However Baillee was fined a substantial amount (£300) for the criminal damage. He maintained his innocence, and told them that it hadn’t been him who broke the window, but was unwilling to give them the name of X – ‘it wasn’t the thing to do, really’.

Baillee saw ‘Bob’ at LGP meetings before and after his trial. He says Bob blamed the arrest on X, saying he couldn’t be trusted, as ‘he was off his head most of the time, on drugs’. He also said the conviction was unfair.

Baillee says that X wasn’t someone he trusted, he was someone who tended to brag about what he had done. He didn’t see X at all between the arrest and the trial, and didn’t try to make contact with him.

However, about six weeks after the trial, X said he had problems with his girlfriend, and nowhere to go, and actually ended up staying in Baillee’s house for several months. Baillee remembers telling him to leave, as ‘he was opening my mail for a start’; and ‘very uncooperative’.

In later statements to the police, Bob Lambert has insisted that he didn’t give cannabis to anyone, or use it himself, while he was working undercover. He says he may have put on a show of smoking it, but never inhaled. He says he never drove his van while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. He says that going to the butcher’s shop was Baillee’s idea, and he didn’t witness him being arrested that night.

Baillee’s retorted:

‘it’s a complete pack of lies’.

He believes now that Lambert deliberately tried to set him up to be arrested, as he and the SDS would get credit for this. In response to later questions, he confirmed that the van was parked fairly close to the shop, with the windows open, so Lambert would have had a clear line of sight and be able to hear the glass breaking.

Baillee recalls receiving a warning at work about his involvement in animal rights activity. The police had actually written to his employers to tell them that he was part of the ALF. The judge at his trial warned him that if he ended up in court again he might well go to prison.

After his trial he was more careful. He stopped going to LGP meetings:

‘I wasn’t involved any more. I just ditched the whole thing. I didn’t trust anyone really’.

HN5 John Dines filed a report in September 1988 stating that Baillee was then much less active in political campaigns or initiatives, and that his:

‘current activities mainly involve the consumption of large quantities of alcohol and what might be some illegal substances’.

Baillee disagrees with this report’s insulting assertion that he was drinking himself into ‘oblivion’ at this time.

In 1993 HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’ submitted a report about Baillee:

‘his affection for alcohol is undiminished’.

Baillee was angry about this. He says he was just an occasional social drinker, and only smoked joints socially, at parties.

One of Lambert’s reports includes a list of names and contact details that seem to have been lifted straight out of Baillee’s address book. The vast majority are family and friends with no involvement in any campaigning. He doesn’t know for sure how Lambert got this data, and assumes he or one of his friends must have stolen this book.

Lambert, in his statement, says he does not know how the police gained access to what he called a ‘diary’, and doesn’t believe it was through him.

There was one more issue that the Inquiry wanted to explore. Baillee worked for British Telecom (BT) for 30 years, in the accounts department of their international section. They wondered if Helen Steel or anyone else had ever asked him to use his work access to help locate her partner ‘John Barker’ (HN5 John Dines) after his disappearance.

No, nobody asked him for such help. If they had, he would have said no – he had signed the Official Secrets Act and knew this would be a breach of his professional obligations. In any case he wouldn’t have had access to consumers’ call records. He mostly worked on ship to shore calls.

Another report reveals that Bob Lambert, by this time a Detective Inspector, was concerned enough about the possibility of Dines being tracked down that he contact BT to check if Baillee might have been able to access any relevant information.

About Lambert, he said:

‘Oh he knew everything. He always asked people questions, probing questions, and he got to know things before I did’.

He ‘never suspected for a moment’ that Lambert was a police spy. Looking back now, Chris Baillee repeatedly says that he is ‘upset and annoyed’ to realise that these undercover officers had infiltrated the groups he was part of.

The Inquiry Chair, Sir John Mitting, thanked Baillee witness for taking part in the Inquiry. He reminded us that part of his role is to identify any possible miscarriages of justice. He intends to question Lambert in December about his role in Baillee’s arrest in order to make a decision about this. He asked for Baillee’s permission to share details of his health with the court in order to speed up the process of reviewing the case.

---

Thursday 7 November 2024
Evidence of Gabrielle Bosley

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Lastly for the week, on Thursday afternoon we heard live evidence from Gabrielle Bosley. Like Dave Morris, she was a ‘member’ of London Greenpeace (LGP) at the time it was infiltrated by HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’.

Unlike Morris, she was not an especially driving force in the group. In fact, for the first part of her questioning it was unclear why she was even mentioned in the spies’ secret reports. She appeared to have done very little that even the most paranoid of spycops could have considered subversive.

It all became clear when the Inquiry started quoting from Lambert’s secret police reports of the time. He had named Bosley as being involved in things she’d never been to, and supporting action she’s never approved of.

Once again, the secret intelligence reports that were the supposed core purpose of the Special Demonstration Squad – the thing that was supposed to justify its intrusion, violation of citizens, criminal activity and all the rest of it – were a load of twaddle.

Were the officers in such a mindset that they genuinely saw fake threats and hidden command structures when none existed? Or did they see the truth but spice it up to please their bosses and validate their deployments? Either way, Bosley’s testimony exposed a catalogue of Bob Lambert’s lies.

The Inquiry’s questioning of Bosley came from the same standpoint as the earlier sessions with Dave Morris, with a solid basis that a belief in animal rights or anarchism was in itself a sinister threat and fair game for state spying.

Bosley first went to LGP meetings in late 1985, and stopped in 1988. She described herself as being in her early 20s and ‘a bit daydreamy’ with an interest in animal welfare and social justice.

LGP meetings were local to her. She liked its diversity of focus as part of an overarching worldview. It was a spontaneous, fluid group with no real structure. Meeting agendas was made on the day collectively.

She’s since gone on to work for various charities.

Bosley often did stints dealing with correspondence before the weekly meetings – administering donations, and responding to questions about the group, inlcuding asking ab out membership (which didn’t formally exist). This was such a common request that the group produced a leaflet entitled ‘Don’t Join Us’, encouraging sympathetic people to form their own small-scale groups.

‘what we wanted to do was to empower and encourage people to do their own thing wherever they lived about the issues that mattered to them’

After meetings many people went to the pub together, but Bosley – having been there early processing letters, and being teetotal – only went once.

Lambert claimed that hunt saboteurs had clandestine meetings at the LGP office. Bosley was baffled.

‘hunt saboteur actions, people could just phone each other or discuss it at the public meetings, as it wasn’t an illegal activity. It wasn’t something that people were trying to hide’

Asked if London Greenpeace were anarchists, she said that some people may have described themselves as such, some wouldn’t. It wasn’t the purpose of the group, they were based on a more general view that people are at their best when they’re driven by their sense of community responsibility.

A report saying LGP was the only grouping in London with potential to mobilise anarchists in large numbers was dismissed out of hand. It misunderstood the group, anarchism and mobilisation.

Asked if it was accurate for the police to describe the group as anarchist, she took the question head on and then explained how, yet again, the police failed to understand what they were seeing:

‘Well, some people may have described themselves as anarchists. Some people may not have described themselves as anarchists. Personally I didn’t describe myself as an anarchist, and I didn’t have a perspective of viewing events or discussions from a particularly anarchist point of view.

‘I think there was a general feeling within the group that people were at their best when they are driven by their own sense of social justice and compassion and care about the world. And for that reason London Greenpeace did not get involved in party political debates or academic discussions about politics.

‘It was very much a focus on grassroots campaigning, some of which could be defined as anarchist by some people, other people may have just seen it for what it was, which was grassroots campaigning by ordinary people, really.’

Police descriptions of London Greenpeace as ‘dominated by anarchist ALF activists and supporters’ and ‘unreservedly supports the activities of the ALF’ were simply not true, she said.

Another report says the ALF Supporters Group shared the London Greenpeace office. Bosley never heard about that, despite being there weekly. She’s named with others as performing clerical duties of both groups:

‘This is nonsense as far as my role in this. I had no 3 role. I had no connection with it [the ALF]. And I wasn’t aware of it. I don’t know if it even happened. Perhaps it’s 5 just completely made up, I don’t know.’

Asked about Geoff Sheppard and Andrew Clarke – who, along with Bob Lambert, had organised the placing of timed incendiary devices in Debenham’s shops as a protest against the sale of fur – Bosley said she knew nothng about that, that she rarely even saw the two of them in the same meeting and didn’t realise they knew each other well.

A July 1987 report on the London Greenpeace meeting where she heard news of the Debenham’s attacks was also false, she said. Lambert described how one person argued that they shouldn’t support the attacks, but claimed that everyone else rejected this and said the group should support them.

Bosley explained that a lot of people were like her and hadn’t heard or thought about it so wouldn’t have had an opinion to express. She would remember if there was a consensus of support. She doesn’t.

As with Morris, she highlighted this total misunderstanding of how the group worked, that nobody could speak on behalf of the group.

‘anybody could come along and state anything. It wouldn’t mean that everybody else at the meeting agreed with that… I don’t believe there was any agreement with that. I think that’s been made up.’

Lambert’s witness statement says there was:

‘significant overlap between those who attended London Greenpeace meetings and London Greenpeace events, and those who are involved in the Animal Liberation Front’

Bosley was a London Greenpeace regular, and went hunt sabbing so had an overt focus on animal welfare, yet was never approached for the ALF:

‘It certainly wasn’t some kind of recruiting ground, not at all.’

Lambert’s description of open public meetings having ‘dominant characters putting cogent arguments for animal rights’ is also skewed. There was discussion on things, but nobody dominated, Bosley explained. And either way, that’s not the ALF which was a clandestine organisation.

As for Lambert himself, she pointed a finger at his active participation in crime:

‘How can he have known all these ALF activists unless he was involved himself?’

Police reports claim that London Greenpeace received money intended for Greenpeace International and wrongfully kept it. Bosley, who handled admin for a time, said all donations were acknowledged, people were given full and accurate details about the group, and she can’t recall any objections.

The implication that the police find Greenpeace International respectable will no doubt be seen by them as quite ironic, given their commitment to anti-whaling direct action at sea and the long history of police spying and undermining of that organisation. This hasn’t just happened in London but has been and international effort – on 10 July 1985, French secret agents bombed the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour, New Zealand, killing photographer Fernando Pereira.

Bosley said a small cheque from pharmaceutical company Ciba Geigy arrived for Greenpeace International and Lambert said it should be cashed and donated to the ALF, and they should tell Ciba Geigy. She’s not sure how serious he was or if it happened.

Lambert pretended to be a friendly, sociable, quite committed person. Bosley was never close to him, but found him appearing enthusiastic and encouraging.

LAMBERT’S PRETEND VERSION OF GABRIELLE BOSLEY

One of Lambert’s reports from November 1986 characterises her as a ‘leading member’ of London Greenpeace and involved in producing the group’s Unilever factsheet. She wasn’t.

Another report from the same time is wholly devoted to her. She’s described as ‘an anarchist animal rights campaigner’. She has never even claimed to be an anarchist.

She was described as a supporter of the ALF who housed animals they rescued. That’s not true. She has only ever had pets or foster animals from registered charities.

She was supposedly the treasurer of a housing co-operative. She wasn’t.

Lambert claimed that there were suspicions about an informer and Bosley took part in a ‘secret investigation’. She put the record straight – she knew nothing about it.

Bosley was apparently prevented from ‘committing serious crime’ because she had 18 pet cats that she was responsible for. She’s never had that many cats, nor the criminal intent:

‘absolutely ridiculous… I don’t know what the less serious crime he’s trying to imply is, but I wasn’t really willing to participate in any crime. So I don’t know why he’s saying “more serious crime”.’

It said Bosley had a leading role in the animal liberation movement. She laughed out loud at this. She readily agreed that she had an interest in animal liberation, but said she also has an interest in architecture and it doesn’t mean she’s a prominent architect.

She was supposedly scheduled to speak on behalf of London Greenpeace at a Campaign Against Police Repression conference:

‘Not true. I never agreed to speak at any CAPR conference at all, ever… What would I speak about?… It wasn’t something I was expert on… Even if I did know quite a bit about the topic, I think I would probably have been lacking in confidence… It just seems bizarre.’

She was supposedly regularly visiting someone in prison for action against Unilever. She went twice as she’d heard this lad in his late teens wasn’t getting any visitors.

It said she had been arrested and convicted in August 1985 at Alconbury air fair.

This was true. Bosley explained that Bob Lambert had announced at a London Greenpeace meeting that there was an arms fair at RAF Alconbury, that he was going and wanted others to come with him. She and a couple of others went in his van.

She had never seen an arrest before. A group of police all jumped on a man, she went over and told them to leave him alone, and was grabbed and arrested. She got a small fine.

Lambert reported that Bosley was the girlfriend of Andrew Clarke (who’d been jailed for the Debenham’s attack that we now know Lambert was up to his neck in):

‘Complete nonsense’

She described how she was in a long-term monogamous relationship at the time and wasn’t affectionate with Clarke.

‘I had no intimate or romantic relationship with Andrew Clarke at all… I never held hands with him, I never hugged him. I had no romantic or intimate relationship with him whatsoever.’

In a 2014 interview with police, Lambert repeated it.

Bosley said the only conclusion is that Lambert has been consistently ‘deliberately trying to mislead’.

ETCHING FLUID

In 1986 Lambert approached her at the end of a London Greenpeace meting and took her to one side. He asked if she’d help with something. She said she was always happy to be helpful so agreed, and he asked her to buy etching fluid from an art supply shop.

She hadn’t heard of it before. It’s a corrosive liquid that affects glass and metal. Lambert said it was for the animal liberation struggle, Bosley presumed it was for graffiti.

‘the way he asked me… I felt like I couldn’t sort of backtrack’

He said that he’d already bought some so didn’t want to go too frequently as it might arouse suspicion.

‘In retrospect I think he was sounding me out and sort of exploring how far I would be willing to go in my campaigning. And that was a cut-off point for me. I certainly wasn’t willing to go any further’

Bosley bought three bottles for him. She refused reimbursement and made it clear that she wouldn’t do it again.

‘I didn’t like it, the fact that it was secretive. Because I don’t like to have to keep secrets or behave in a secretive way’

She spoke about her personality at the time. In her mid teens she and a neighbour had been first on the scene at a catastrophic road collision. She described desperate and traumatic attempts to resuscitate a dead person and reassure people trapped in the car.

A while after, her best friend was murdered by a burglar at her friend’s parents’ house. The lack of support for what we now call post-traumatic stress left her at the mercy of some difficult feelings and changed her demeanour:

‘at the time, people didn’t really talk about that sort of thing. The prevailing attitude was, with traumatic experience, best just to forget about it and not talk about things…

‘it made me a little bit distracted, a little bit more daydreamy than perhaps I would have otherwise been’

She recently read an account by undercover officer who’d worked in drugs and murder gangs who said that when infiltrating:

‘you always look for the most vulnerable person because they are the easiest to manipulate.’

She wonders if this is why Lambert approached her, ie whether he was using her trauma against her. And if so, whether it was not just deliberate but trained tradecraft. It is something that tallies with other officers, such as HN2 Andy Coles targeting Jessica for a relationship.

LAMBERT AND SON

Bosley knew about Lambert’s relationships with women, though wasn’t close to them. She knew he’d got a young son, ‘TBS’, who he had with an activist known as Jacqui.

Bosley saw Lambert with ‘TBS’ at Hopefield animal sanctuary in Essex when a group of volunteers went there to help clear up the site.

‘He obviously felt that we were such a nice gentle bunch of people… it is entirely at odds with the way he’s described us’

She recapped the volatile violent caricature of animal rights activists that Lambert had played on in his reports.

‘if you really believed that you wouldn’t bring your child along to an environment with people like that, would you?’

There was one time when she became suspicious of Lambert’s true role. In Stoke Newington’s Stamford Hill estate, the council wasn’t doing repairs on its housing.

Tenants were leaving, squatters were moving in and not only fixed places up for themselves but were doing repairs for official tenants. There were rumours of undercovers staying on the estate.

The local police station was notorious at the time for racist policing. Indeed, it still is. There was a protest at the police station after another death in custody there.

Someone was talking about it and, on impulse, Bosley jokingly said to Lambert that he would be picking up little brown envelopes of cash as an informer. Rather than finding it funny, as she’d expected, he went bright red. She mentioned it to two group members but they both felt sure he was sound.

She was asked about spycop HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’, who’d got involved with London Greenpeace. He said he’d recently arrived from New Zealand. She was phasing out of the group at the time so didn’t have a lot of interaction. He also pretended to be amiable, relaxed and chatty.

DEBT CRISIS LEAFLET

Dines reported that Bosley had helped to draft a factsheet on the debt crisis in June 1989.

This was true, she said, though of no concern to the police. It had nothing to do with any crime, nor with the animal rights movement they were so preoccupied with. It wasn’t even part of London Greenpeace, who she’d stopped having active involvement with, but just something Bosley hoped the group would take up – which it did.

It was an early instance of growing outrage and campaigning against the so-called debt third world countries were saddled with – campaigns that would become mainstream in the mid-2000s with the likes of Make Poverty History.

The focus was how the banking system – especially the International Monetary Fund and World Bank – caused huge suffering due to loans made to poor countries who were charged interest they could never pay off. This then left them vulnerable to the IMF imposing austerity and other harmful policies. It was a humanitarian crisis.

The leaflet was written in two sessions at Bosley’s home, by her and two other people, one of whom was spycop John Dines. Bosley said that he had ‘invited himself along’ and his role was quite minimal.

She emphasised to the Inquiry that this was a legitimate topic of concern; cruel and unnecessary policies having an egregious effect on people in poorer countries.

She scoffed at a police report of a visit to a World Bank office, correcting Dines’ melodramatic description with the actual facts. 5-7 people went in and had a chat with several employees. It was so polite that one of them said Bosley should come and work for them.

One of the protestors, who had green hair, sat down at an empty desk. When the police arrived they went over to him and asked ‘are these people [the protesters] bothering you, sir?’

At the end, Bosley hit a sentiment we’ve heard from so many people who were spied on and abused by the Special Demonstration Squad:

‘Why would they want to say things about people that weren’t true? What’s to be gained from it?’

Tranche 2, Phase 2, Week 2

21-24 October 2024

This summary contains descriptions of child deaths, serious injuries, and a strong racist slur.

The summary covers the second week 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.

INTRODUCTION

The week brought a lot of harrowing testimony from people whose children died in awful circumstances, and whose agonies were then intensified by the abuses of the Special Demonstraton Squad.

Before that, the first day of live evidence in this set of hearing was not broadcast. Proceedings were covered by strict reporting restrictions, so there is very little we can say at this time about the evidence of ‘ZWB’. He was a civilian witness. The Inquiry has said it will be producing a ‘gisted transcript’ of his evidence, but it has not yet done so.

The evidence that was broadcast this week was truly harrowing stuff. Witness after witness was made to relive deep family tragedies, in order to recount the awful behaviour of the police towards their families. They did so with overwhelming dignity and grace.

The one exception was Wednesday’s evidence from officer HN122 ‘Neil Richardson’. His real name is protected and the cover name he used was stolen from someone’s dead child, who you can read about below.

There was no video feed of his evidence, in order to protect his identity, and the audio broadcast was outstandingly dull. Nevertheless the Inquiry sat late that day. He is the last officer we will hear from until HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’ gives evidence (2-5 December).

Many of the officers in this tranche, examining 1983-1992, have refused to appear.

This week (beginning Monday 28 October) is half term so there are no hearings.

Live evidence hearings return on Monday 4 November with the evidence of Martyn Lowe.

CONTENTS

Kaden Blake, sister of Matthew Rayner
Faith Mason, mother of Neil Martin
HN122 ‘Neil Richardson’
Richard Adams, father of Rolan Adams
John Burke-Monerville

---

Tuesday 22 October 2024
Evidence of Kaden Blake

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Kaden Blake is one of four children. Matthew Rayner, her youngest brother, died when he was four years old.

His identity was stolen by the Metropolitan Police Special Demonstration Squad to create the cover identity of officer HN1, who got a criminal record and abused a woman while using Matthew’s name.

Kaden gave oral evidence remotely, supported by her partner. She has also provided a 28-page written statement with exhibits, including photographs of Matthew as a child, letters and Kaden’s own artwork showing the end of her brother’s life, in his father’s arms.

She was about nine when Matthew was born.

He was a a calm baby, not fractious, even when he became ill:

‘I loved helping out my mum and looking after him, and just watching him play.’

Matthew was around two years old when he became poorly. The diagnosis was leukaemia.
He had short stays in hospital, but his father tried to keep him at home as much as possible. It was very difficult for the family.

‘we didn’t know how ill he was but obviously my parents did so it must have been an incredible strain on them…

‘it was difficult to live around that as a child… at my age I hadn’t necessarily processed in my mind that it – you know, that he would die… I just thought he would get better…

‘over time obviously I did realise that he was getting progressively ill. Just looking at him you could see that…

‘it was difficult to have a normal childhood… because it was always in the back of your mind.’

In early 1972, after many unsuccessful treatments that had increased Matthew’s suffering, his parents made the agonising decision to bring him home.

On 25 January 1972 he died in the family home.

The family moved out of the house shortly afterwards.

‘[it was] mostly my father’s decision, my mother wasn’t capable really at that point in time… it must have been the way my father intended to cope with things I think… And he perhaps thought he was protecting us from any more pain.’

However, for Kaden it was as thought she never got to say goodbye. They moved around for months, stopping in bedsits.

The Inquiry asked about her mother.

‘She was devastated isn’t a good enough word, it’s not… I even remember distinctly her saying that she didn’t feel that she could ever laugh again. That’s how she felt at the time and now I understand it but hearing that as a child as well made you feel totally inadequate… I know that wasn’t her intention at all and that was her grief speaking…’

Kaden and her brothers didn’t dare talk about Matthew after he died because of how much it hurt her mother:

‘we just wanted to save her from any more pain.’

In the early 1990s the family home was burgled. A few days later a small cardboard box was left near the gate. It was her brother’s ashes.

‘whoever took them obviously realising what it was at least had the decency to return them.’

Seemingly there was more honour among house thieves than in the identity theives of the Special Demonstration Squad.

Matthew’s identity was stolen by officer HN1 as his cover identity during his infiltration of the animal rights movement in London between 1992 and 1996.

In 2018 an official-looking gentleman showed up at Kaden’s door to let her know.

‘It felt unreal… I didn’t know what reaction to give. I’d never heard anything like this before.’

Her brother James has written a letter to the Inquiry setting out how the news affected him. Both her parents had already passed away.

‘My mother would’ve taken it really badly. My father was a strong stoic person so his reaction could have been different, could have been quite angry actually. But my mother would’ve been mortified so at least she was spared that.’

Officer HN1 chose Matthew’s identity from the register of births and deaths.

He described the process in his witness statement, going to the Registry and finding a few death certificates of children of roughly the same age which he submitted to the Special Demonstration Squad’s back office, who would eliminate unsuitable names from the list.

‘They would do checks to make sure you had not selected a person whose parents were traceable or otherwise posed a risk of detection. Once approved the name was used as a cornerstone of documentation’

Kaden says that description makes her emotionally sick. She also notes that her parents were easily traceable at the time, so it doesn’t make sense.

She also commented on HN1 visiting Sheffield for a day, to shore up his back story.

‘That felt really strange and sort of creepy and then I was wondering if he’d been to the house, 44 Psalter Lane, and then any schools or anything. I didn’t know how far he’d taken it.

‘I know he said he only went there once but to think that he possibly went to the actual house where we were living at Matthew’s death is very unpleasant to think about that…

‘did he find out what schools we all went to, did he mention our names, you know, the siblings all my siblings’ names as well, in conversation? Which does naturally occur if you’re talking to somebody. You say do you have any brothers and sisters. And that felt really creepy, really creepy.’

HN1 used to celebrate his ‘birthday’ using Matthew’s date of birth.

‘it feels so raw… that should have been a family occasion for the real family, not for somebody pretending to be him.’

We were shown a document (MPS-0746169) outlining HN1’s cover identity: It sets out the name and date of birth of Matthew Edward Rayner, born 16 September 1967, the address where he was born, details of his parents: father, Allen Alfred Rayner, with his date of birth, his job, and his parents names; and mother, Florence Jean Rayner, maiden name Smith, with her date of birth and the details of her father, his occupation and her mother.

There is a note which says:

‘All grandparents now deceased. Father is now retired and both parents now live at Thorganby House, Thorganby North Yorkshire.’

This was all real information about the family in 1991-92 and includes far more detail than would be found on a birth or death certificate, suggesting detailed and invasive research was done into the bereaved family.

It also shows that the family were not only traceable, but traced by police. The risk to the family that someone who was spied on by the officer and became suspicious could have shown up looking for ‘Matthew’ was obviously very real.

The questioning then moved on to HN1’s actions during his deployment. He was arrested in 1995 and charge with threatening behaviour. Kaden described this as ‘horrible’.

The arrest took place in North Yorkshire, the county where her parents were living. She pointed out:

‘the name could have been mentioned in or on the press [for being arrested].’

It could have put her parents, particularly her mother, at risk of great upset. Yet the hearing was shown an internal management document which stated:

‘This incident presents us with no particular difficulty; the officer maintained his cover and is none the worse for his short incarceration. Indeed we may well accrue longer term benefits from his arrest in terms of contacts made and intelligence gleaned.’

Meanwhile, somebody with Kaden’s brother’s stolen name now had a criminal record.

HN1 also appeared in court as a defence witness during his deployment giving evidence using Matthew’s name.

Kaden said:

‘I’d like to wash his mouth out with soap.’

HN1 entered into a relationship with a woman, Denise Fuller, whilst he was undercover, yet another sullying of Matthew’s name.

Kaden expressed sympathy for the woman involved and added:

‘It’s a very, very surreal thing to think about… if my brother lived he should have had a proper relationship with somebody. You know I’d have had nephews and nieces hopefully, you know, and a sister-in-law but that was obviously never to be.’

HN1 was asked about using Matthew’s identity. His witness statement was read aloud:

‘I have been asked whether consideration was given to the particular personal circumstances of the bereaved family and the likely consequences for them if the use of their loved one’s identity became known to them or to others. This consideration did not feature in my conversations with the back office.’

Kaden responded:

‘He says “loved one’s identity”, well, I hope he realises what that means.’

Counsel to the Inquiry then read from the Special Demonstration Squad tradecraft manual:

‘By tradition the aspiring SDS officer’s first major task on joining the back office was to spend hours and hours St Catherine’s House leafing through death registers in search of a name he could call his own.

‘On finding a suitable ex person, usually a deceased child or young person with a fairly anonymous name the circumstances of his or her untimely demise was investigated.

‘If the death was natural or otherwise unspectacular and therefore unlikely to be findable in newspapers or other public records, the SDS officer would apply for a copy of the dead person’s birth certificate.

‘Further research would follow to establish the respiratory status of the dead person’s family, if any. And, if they were still breathing, where they were living.

‘If all was suitably obscure and there was little chance of the SDS officer or more important one of the wearies running into the dead person’s parents/siblings et cetera the SDS officer would assume squatters’ rights over the unfortunate’s identity for the next four years.’

(Emphasis added by Kaden Blake for her witness statement)

Kaden commented on this:

‘My brother’s memory was abused and all our grieving meant for nothing, and some of the words used are extremely callous…

‘they looked at so many death certificates of children, did it not tweak any emotions in them of what they were doing? They were looking at people’s utter grief, and where that didn’t matter, because although these children are dead they’ve had such impact on the relatives…

‘it affects the rest of your life, your behaviour, your self-worth, everything… such a callous way of doing things and like I’ve said before for such a — I’m not saying invaluable reason but very low value reason I think.’

Kaden Blake was offered an apology from the police. She did not accept it.

The Metropolitan Police apologised anyway, but she was very clear:

‘I feel it’s worthless and it is only, you know, in hindsight that they’ve issued it… they’re saying they didn’t realise the hurt that it will cause until after they were told the hurt it caused. Any human being surely has compassion and has the ability to put yourself in a situation…

‘It’s an extremely callous thing, not to be able to put yourself in in somebody else’s situation especially grief.’

At the end, the Inquiry Chair, Sir John Mitting, made a point of personally thanking Kaden Blake for giving live evidence:

‘It brings to life what the use of a technique, which I think all now accept should never have been used by a police officer, can have on real people.’

He also acknowledged the distress caused by the Inquiry alerting her to the use of her brother’s name.

Officer HN1 is expected to give evidence on 6, 7 and 8 January next year.

---

Evidence of Faith Mason

‘I am desperate to find out the truth of what happened and get justice for my Neil.’

Officer HN122 infiltrated Class War and the Revolutionary Communist Party from 1989 to 1993 using the name Neil Martin Richardson, an identity stolen in part from a boy, Neil Martin, who died young of a rare disease.

In 2019, the Solicitor to the Undercover Policing Inquiry turned up on the doorstep of Neil’s mother, Faith Mason, to inform her. The news was devastating.

Faith Mason did not give live testimony. She provided a written statement to the Inquiry, but she was not called to give evidence, nor were her words summarised to be read onto the public record. The statement was simply released on the Inquiry website.

Nevertheless, we have opted to including a summary of her powerful testimony here.

Neil Robin Martin was born on 5 September 1963 in County Durham. Faith was 16 at the time. Neil was a happy baby, but after she gave birth to her second child she started noticing issues:

‘He would start throwing his leg out to the side, would not walk properly and would limp.’

She made an appointment for Neil at the local doctor’s surgery to find out what was wrong. The doctor initially said there was nothing wrong, but Neil got worse.

‘I found it so hard to be taken seriously… they just would not listen to me. It makes me sad to think that most of Neil’s short life was spent in doctor’s appointment after doctor’s appointment, tests after tests and constant trips in and out of hospital… His condition seemed to baffle doctors, who could not work out what was wrong.’

Neil’s health declined and he was in hospital for long periods, kept physically apart from his mother:

‘He could not walk. His spine was bending up and his back was arched over. He could only move around by dragging himself on his bottom. His hands were all rough from him having to drag himself everywhere. The skin on his hands became very thick, like a pig’s hoof…

‘once, he was sat on the sand, watching the builders and his brothers, and he looked at me and said “I can’t walk like them.” It broke me.’

Neil was completely disabled by the summer of 1969. A doctor told her he was ‘going downhill.’

‘I just kept saying “no, no, no, no”. I refused to believe it… I just believed he was going to live, even though the doctor was telling me he was going to die. I just would not accept it.

‘The day before Neil’s passing was a strange day. I remember feeling very happy and hopeful as Neil seemed to be doing well…

‘I had Neil in my arms. The song “He Ain’t Heavy, He’s My Brother” by The Hollies was playing on the radio. I was holding Neil close to me, singing to him, “He’s not Heavy, He’s my Son”. He was laughing and smiling. I was so happy. I thought he was on the mend.’

She had been in the hospital for a week, refusing to leave Neil’s side, sleeping in a chair. That day, a doctor convinced her to go home and get a proper night’s rest. At 7.45am the following morning police officers knocked on her door to tell her Neil was unwell and she should go to the hospital.

‘I arrived at the hospital and rushed down to Neil’s room and saw a nurse and a doctor standing outside. I knew then that he had died.’

Neil passed away in his sleep, aged six years old, on 15 October 1969. A post-mortem showed he had Progressive Cerebral Sclerosis – a rare disease, especially in children.

‘My heart shattered when Neil died… My flat was just opposite the cemetery… I would go to the cemetery every single day and just sit with Neil from morning till night… I couldn’t bear thinking of him being alone in the cold. This lasted for months and months…

‘There were some days I would climb into the cemetery at midnight just to sit with him. Over the years I visited the cemetery less frequently, but knowing where Neil was and where his gravestone was, was of deep importance to me.’

On 13 January 2019 there was a knock on her door. Piers Doggart, the then Solicitor to the Inquiry, explained that a Metropolitan Police officer had stolen Neil’s first and middle names and date of birth to create the fake persona Neil Martin Richardson.

‘It felt like I had crashed into a brick wall. I was in a state of absolute shock. Mr Doggart was talking to me and explaining, and I was listening but I was not really hearing the words…

‘I just could not believe that in this day and age someone could do something so vicious and heinous as that, especially policemen.’

The news impacted her so much that she went to see a doctor in April 2019.

‘I would say that the stress, upset and anxiety caused by finding out about this situation has put my health in serious danger…

‘I am a 72 year old woman… I am grieving Neil all over again… There is something particularly painful about an adult man taking my Neil’s identity, to live in a way that he would not have lived. I wanted so desperately for my Neil to get to grow up, but he couldn’t.

‘HN122 took that future and lived it as if he was Neil, and that makes the loss all the worse…

‘I am back to a place where I can no longer speak or think about Neil without feeling absolutely heartbroken and breaking down… any happy memories that I was able to enjoy about my Neil only feel painful now since finding out about HN122.’

HN122 also went to Durham to research the identity.

‘I have been told that the officer might have looked up background information about Neil. I realised that the officer could have visited Neil’s grave. This horrified me as Neil’s grave was the most special place to me…

‘it made me feel like the police had dug up Neil’s body and stolen it… for a long time I could not go back to the cemetery as it was too painful. In February 2023 I had Neil’s headstone replaced. It felt like some closure and some healing, after feeling all my memories had been tainted by HN122.’

Neil’s uncle was a policeman. She used to look up to the police, admiring the work they did.

‘every time I see a police officer now, I feel like shaking them and asking them “do you know what you have done to me?”…

‘I do not want to be someone that feels bitter towards the police, but learning about the Inquiry and what all these officers did, and the more you hear on the news, it is hard not to.’

She criticised both undercover officers and their managers:

‘These were adult men in positions of power that should have had consciences to speak up about doing something wrong. If we cannot trust police officers to challenge things that are immoral and cruel to innocent children and their families, who can we trust?’

In November 2021 Faith lost another son, Paul, to a heart attack. He is buried next to Neil. She feels she has not been able to grieve him properly due to the impact of the grief she was reliving over Neil.

She had hoped HN122 would express remorse as Peter Francis did, however HN122 merely said that he did not intend to cause offence but the use of such identities was a necessity and was carried out for legitimate purpose.

To this she says:

‘I am not offended, I am horrified and devastated and feel that my child and his memory have been tainted. I feel that HN122 used the most awful tragedy to his advantage, treating my child’s identity like it was nothing. What ‘legitimate purpose’ could there possibly be?’

Like Kaden Blake, Faith also referred to the horrible language used in the SDS Tradecraft Manual.

‘My Neil was not an “ex-person” whose name HN122 could call his own. He was a real child who suffered and deserved to live. His unexplained, incurable illness and death were not ‘unspectacular’; they were tragic and traumatic, impacting my whole life…

‘It is as if the police as a whole and the SDS officers specifically did not see us as human beings, but just objects to be used as they liked, and to be joked about. It is so disrespectful and dehumanising.’

Faith is clear in her position about apologies from the police.

She told the BBC four years ago

‘I don’t want an apology, I just want to know who stole my little boy.’

In 2024, she is no nearer the truth. And she is still adamant:

‘I don’t want an apology, I want the truth. The more I find out about the practice of taking deceased children’s identities, the more I feel that the police are only apologising because they have been caught…

‘they are just saying sorry because they know normal decent people are horrified by what went on, and they don’t want to get into more trouble…

‘What I want is accountability from the police and for the Inquiry to facilitate me and other families in getting answers’

She believes the personal safety of herself and her family was put at risk.

‘I have seen that so many officers have been granted anonymity by the Inquiry because they have said their personal safety would be threatened…

‘There was no thought about my family’s personal safety, let alone respect for our private and family life. And there is no consideration of my right to know the real identity of the man who stole my child’s identity. It seems to me that it would be justified and proportionate for me to know this, but I have not been allowed.’

She wants justice and answers for her son and for all the other families.

‘I think of the other families often. I know there are lots of families who did not feel able to participate in the Inquiry, who may not even know that their loved one’s identity was stolen.

‘I feel that I am seeking answers and justice for those children and families, as well as for my Neil. I am grateful for all the other families who are fighting for this alongside me.’

---

Wednesday 23 October 2024
Evidence of HN122 ‘Neil Richardson’

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Wednesday’s hearing was devoted to the oral evidence of one of the spycops, HN122 ‘Neil Richardson’. He appeared in person, and was questioned by one of the Inquiry Legal Team (barrister John Warrington) about his time in the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS).

HN122 was deployed undercover for four years, from 1989–1993. He was tasked first with infiltrating the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), and then Class War. He spent a number of years in Special Branch, and was approached in late 1988 about joining the unit.

Recruitment and training

According to the SDS’s Annual Report, sent to the Home Office in May 1989, the unit’s DCI had been told to review ‘recruitment, operational deployment and supervisory aspects’, and as a result there were now ‘selection criteria’ in place, to ‘ensure that potential recruits were equipped psychologically and emotionally to cope with the pressures of this posting’.

However the recruitment process described by HN122 consisted of an informal interview with DCI Gray and another manager (HN109). He was told that his deployment would run for 4-5 years, and would entail a lot of time away from home.

In his witness statement, supplied to the Inquiry in 2021, HN122 said he considered it:

‘an honour to be thought capable of gathering intelligence because this was the pinnacle of Metropolitan Police Special Branch work’

However, he said that he was not confident about his ability to do it. They reassured him about this, and said he could walk away if it didn’t work out.

These two also paid him a home visit, and asked him and his wife some general questions about how long they’d been married, but there was seemingly no in-depth assessment, formal testing or psychological evaluation. It was considered important to check that an undercover’s family would pose no security risks, and carry out basic background vetting.

Standard SDS procedure was for new recruits to spend about six months in the back office, familiarising themselves with their target groups and creating their cover identity. During this time, they would have the opportunity to talk to the officers who were already in the field, and see their reporting. There was ‘intensive discussion’ but no training as such.

He says he was not given any guidance about how much he could or should involve himself in his targets’ lives, or where to draw the line.

He thought it was fine to visit homes, meet families and socialise with them, saying ‘it was a necessary part of the job to become on friendly terms with these people’ but says that he had no intention to form ‘intimate relationships’ with anyone he spied on.

HN122 says in his statement that he only saw the SO10 ’Code of Conduct for Undercover Officers’ after his deployment had ended. Despite being provided with a copy when he wrote his statement, over three years ago, he says now that he still hasn’t read it ‘in detail’. There was no other training, manual, or written guidance, to prepare him for his new role.

Sexual relationships

Asked about officers having relationships while undercover, HN122 stated that it there was an obvious risk of extra-marital affairs occurring in any job which entailed men working away from home for long periods of time, and it would be ‘naive’ to think otherwise.

He was able to come up with a list of tactics to rebuff any advances. He says he never discussed this issue with his managers, and only did so with one other SDS officer, who shared his view that such behaviour would be morally wrong.

He claims not to have known – or even heard any rumours about – about any SDS officer ever having such a relationship, with the exception of HN11 Mike Chitty ‘Mike Blake’ (deployed in the 1980s) during his time in the unit.

He says he ‘had no idea’ and was shocked to later learn that many (at least seven) of the officers who served at the same time as him had done so. He was interviewed by ‘Operation Herne’ (an internal police spycops inquiry) in 2013, and the handwritten notes taken then suggest that he knew that HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’ had a relationship with Helen Steel.

We heard that the SDS operated an informal mentoring scheme. Those who joined the unit were given a ‘point of contact’ – a more experienced officer they could call on for advice.

HN122’s ‘mentor’ was HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’; they met in a pub for a chat every six months or so.

Later on, he served as the point of contact for another undercover: HN15 Mark Jenner ‘Mark Cassidy’. According to HN122, Jenner was reluctant to meet up or engage. The scheme was just supposed to offer an extra ‘channel’ of support for officers who needed it, so he didn’t feel it was appropriate to push it, and their meetings petered out within a year or so.

He says Jenner didn’t confide in him about any problems, in his personal life or in his work. He certainly didn’t mention that he’d started living with ‘Alison’, the woman he deceived into a long-term relationship, and had even gone travelling abroad with her.

HN122 is adamant that there were no indications of this, and that he didn’t learn about this relationship until it became public knowledge, many years later. He said if he’d known at the time:

‘Well, I’d like to think I would’ve reported to the office immediately’.

Other inappropriate conduct

He admitted regularly staying over at activists’ homes, especially during his time in Class War.

In 1991, he was invited to the wedding of an RCP supporter, and attended it, claiming that the bride-to-be thought he was ‘not as fanatical’ as the Party members, who she felt ‘intimidated’ by. Under questioning, he admitted that he could have made up an excuse rather than intruding on such a personal occasion.

Although HN122 understood the phrase ‘legal privilege’ (as referring to confidential communication between a lawyer and their client) he doesn’t remember any training about this issue after he’d joined the SDS. He freely admitted that if he’d come across any such information he would have put it in his reports anyway.

He says he never received any feedback about the content of his reports, and always included all the ’relevant’ details, but never used his own judgement about what was appropriate. He left these decisions to more senior officers.

Reports were routinely ‘sanitised’ (stripped of information that might identify the ‘reliable source’, i.e. the undercover) before being sent to their ‘consumers’, but he claims to have only done this ‘under supervision’, when he worked in the back office.

He felt that taking part in ‘low level’ criminality, such as fly-posting, in his cover name was acceptable. He said he believed that if he was caught doing so, he should give his cover name, and the office would pay any fine that resulted.

However, he says he hadn’t thought about how this could entail misleading a court – something that the Home Office insisted should never happen under any ircumstances, even if it meant an officer’s depoyment beng ended early or their cover being blown.

Asked about racism in the Met, he said he witnessed police officers outside of Special Branch making ‘derogatory comments about Black or Asian people’, and claimed that he would challenge and report them.

However he denied that there was a problem with the fact that Special Branch had a ‘Blacks and Browns desk’. According to him, its remit was to study a range of anti-racist groups because they were ‘victims of extreme left wing infiltration’. He repeatedly claimed that the groups themselves (most of whom were engaged in police monitoring) were not the police’s focus, saying the desk’s name was ‘simply shorthand’.

Similarly, he openly admitted hearing police officers making derogatory comments about women, but claimed that he didn’t encounter this kind of sexism within the SDS.

Creating his cover

Like other spycops, HN122 trawled through the records at St Catherine’s House to find details of a suitable deceased child’s identity, eventually selecting that of Neil Robert Martin.

In what he seemed to consider clever tradecraft, he combined that child’s first name and date of birth with a different surname, lifted from somewhere else. He claimed this gave him a ‘safety net’, that this would make it harder for anyone to find the birth certificate but still allow him to obtain a particular document.

He says that although he felt ‘uncomfortable’ about using any part of a dead child’s identity, and ‘it would have been much preferable’ not to do so, he felt he had ‘no option’.

The Inquiry then told him about other SDS officers (including the one he mentored, HN15 Mark Jenner ‘Mark Cassidy’) who used wholly fictitious names. Having now seen the statement provided by Neil Martin’s mother, he says he is aware that ‘an apology would not assist her’.

He knew that unlike some other groups, the RCP took security very seriously. Each branch had a security officer, and new supporters were interviewed, their identity documents and address checked. They would be invited to attend meetings, and political education sessions, but not everyone was then selected to become a Party member.

HN122’s cover ‘legend’ was that he worked as a carpet cleaner, so an RCP member invited him to do this at their house. He snooped around while he was there and came across a list of supporters, which he copied and included in his report. He couldn’t explain what lawful authority he had to do this; he claimed that this was this a ‘perfectly legitimate way of operating’ as the rules only applied to ‘evidential searches’ and this was a case of him searching for intelligence rather than evidence, a defence which prompted audible reactions from the public gallery.

Reporting

Many RCP activists had aliases that they used within the party, and HN122 considered figuring out their real names to be one of his main roles, saying this information would have been important ‘for vetting purposes’.

He estimated that he’d produced between 400-500 reports during his four years undercover. The Inquiry has unearthed some of these. He included all sorts of information about individuals: their education, employment, living arrangements, intellect, interests, parentage, death, bereavement, relationships, marriage, pregnancy, children, wider family, attraction to others, sexuality, serious illness, alcoholism and drug use, victims of crime and previous criminal conduct.

Some of the reports and photographs he submitted related to under-18s, including teenage supporters of the RCP. One such report related to a school boy, described as ‘an immature individual’.

Another of his reports suggests a teenage school girl’s recruitment may have been due to a ‘crush on her teacher’.

When questioned about these, he retorted that they were young people rather than children, insisted that they were a threat as they were bound to become full members of the Party in future, and caused a stir with his claim that in this second case ‘there are obviously safeguarding issues that needed to be addressed’.

Even the Inquiry’s barrister raised an eyebrow at this, asking pointedly if safeguarding fell ‘within the SDS remit’?

We also saw a report about a young woman which noted that she was a ‘lesbian’. Asked why her sexuality was included, HN122 said it was to help with identification, going on to add that vetting was different back then, and ‘you’d have to ask the Government’ why sexual orientation was ‘one of the criteria set for national vetting’.

We were shown some reports about public order situations involving the RCP, sometimes in the guise of their front organisations, such as the ‘Hands off the Middle East’ (HOME) committee or ‘Workers Against Racism’ (WAR).

HN122 sometimes acted as an RCP steward at demos, and was part of a ‘protect the banner’ group at an anti-racism march in November 1991, when the WAR contingent tried to run an alternative rally in Altab Ali Park, and were attacked by some Class War people. He said if there was disorder he ‘would have to act the part’ but tried to avoid committing any offences.

He considered the RCP to be ‘subversive’ but not much of a threat to public order.

By the beginning of 1991, the Security Service had decided that the RCP wasn’t much of a threat to national security either. There are reports of them meeting with SDS managers and saying they were now only really interested in hearing about the activities of another of RCP front, the Irish Freedom Movement (IFM).

HN122 supplied reports about several IFM events that year but says his managers never told him to stop reporting on the RCP, and he wasn’t redeployed elsewhere until a whole year later.

Spying on a very different group

In early 1992 he was retargeted to spy on a completely different group, Class War, and we heard more about this in the afternoon session. His transition from one group to the other was rushed, taking weeks instead of the three months he requested, because there were worries about Class War holding another ‘Summer of Discontent’ that year.

He says the Class War Federation (CWF) was disorganised and divided. He travelled around the country for Class War meetings and demos, taking a sleeping bag so he could stay on activists’ floors (and memorably once in the home of Chumbawumba band members).

He was at the national conference in Leeds in November 1992; he reported the split (‘considered permanent’) caused by Tim Scargill’s departure from the organisation. Scargill is said to have taken ‘roughly half of the useful membership’ (estimated to be 20-25 committed people) with him. According to the ‘consumer comments’ section, the Security Service considered this report ‘most useful’.

The SDS went on to produce a fuller briefing entitled ‘Developments in the CWF’ that December, which described the rift, and the two factions that emerged, in more detail. Scargill is said to have wanted a ‘more disciplined’, committed group with more structure, and a more ‘rigorous and energetic approach’.Its conclusion is that his group ‘will be the dominant one’.

HN122 says that following this report, he was tasked to stick with Tim Scargill, who he was already close to. However Scargill’s new Class War Organisation (CWO) dwindled in size until there were only three core activists left, all based in London – Tim, ‘Neil’ and one other.

It’s been alleged by a witness involved in Class War at the time that ‘Neil’ had ‘played an active role’ in its break-up, but he denies this. He admits that it became increasingly hard not to ‘influence’ the group as it got smaller. He represented Class War at anti-racist networking meetings, and wrote what he says was an ineffective industrial strategy for them.

The end: his exfiltration

It is clear that neither the CWF or CWO really recovered from the implosion, and even the SDS managers seem to have realised there was little point in continuing to spy on them. In June 1993, they told the Security Service that HN122’s deployment was due to end in September, but it’s unclear when the officer himself was told.

A former member of Class War, Phil Gard, remembers a fractious phone call around this time, during which he accused ‘Neil’ of being a cop and engineering the split in Class War. He wondered if this is the reason he never saw ‘Neil’ again.

HN122 denied ever being accused of being a police officer, and reverted to a line he used a few times, saying that Phil must have confused him with someone else. However he can’t think of anyone he might have been confused with, and doesn’t remember anyone else being accused of being a cop. He claims to have exfiltrated himself without raising suspicions, feigning gradual disinterest then telling comrades that he’d met a girl, and was going off to Wales to live in a commune.

He claimed throughout that he had no knowledge of the feedback or ‘briefs’ given to his managers by the Security Service, and says he only realised they were interested in Class War at the time of his post-deployment debrief with them.

Overall, HN122 claimed not to ‘recall’ lots of specific events, and gave vague, non-committal answers to the Inquiry’s questions. He maintained that he just did what he was told by managers

He was asked about overtime payments. HN122 recalled that there was a ‘cap’ on how many extra hours an SDS undercover could claim for each month (an average of 115) and as a result, he often worked more hours than he was paid for.

The day’s testimony ended with HN122 looking exhausted, having faced hours of questioning about his actions and their justification. His final responses remained as evasive as his first, leading Chairman Sir John Mitting to dismiss him just as he appeared ready to offer one last ‘I can’t recall’.

Those who sat through the day’s hearing described it as ‘dry and difficult’.

---

Thursday 24 October 2024
Evidence of Richard Adams

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

On Thursday morning we heard evidence from Richard Adams. He has supplied the Inquiry with a written Witness Statement. The family (he, his wife Audrey and son Nathan) contributed an Opening Statement as well

His two sons were attacked by a racist gang in 1991, resulting in the death of the older boy, Rolan, who was just 15 at the time.

Aphra Bruce-Jones, the Inquiry’s barrister, led Richard through his statement, starting with his memories of Rolan’s birth and boyhood, giving us a rounder picture of him and his interests. These included making music and playing football. He was close to Rolan; the two brothers were also close, just one year apart in age.

The family lived in Abbey Wood, next to Thamesmead. On the day of the attack, 21 February 1991, the boys went there, to play table tennis at the Hawksmoor Youth Club and collect some records. As they were waiting at the bus stop to catch a bus home, they were confronted by a group of aggressive white youths.

Nathan’s account of the incident was recounted. He remembers Rolan starting to run – and telling him to run too – whilst holding his neck. The brothers split up to evade the gang, and by the time Nathan saw Rolan again, he was lying on the ground. He had been stabbed in the neck.

An ambulance arrived, and tried to treat Rolan, eventually taking both boys to hospital. Upon arrival, Rolan was taken off somewhere. Medics told Nathan that his brother had died of his injuries.

Instead of treating him sympathetically, or taking him home, the police who were present restrained him, put him in a headlock and hauled him to the police station. There he was questioned and swabs were taken. Despite being injured himself, and covered in his own and his brother’s blood at the time, they treated him as a suspect rather than as a victim.

The family soon learnt more about the youths responsible for Rolan’s murder. They were members of a gang, who called themselves the ‘Nazi Turn Outs’, KKK and/or Goldfish Gang, and were described as ‘something of a British National Party (BNP) youth movement’.

Rchard explained that this gang had caused problems for years, terrorising other Black families locally and carrying out a string of racist attacks. It wasn’t until Rolan’s death that the media took any interest. Richard said that if he’d known about the level of violence being endured by Black people in the area, he would never have moved his family there.

The racists congregated next to the Wildflower pub, close to the youth club. This pub was known as a meeting point for BNP members and a centre for drug dealing.

Nine people were arrested following this incident, but only one of them, Mark Thornborrow, was ever charged with murder. Four others were charged with violent disorder; nobody was charged with the attack on Nathan.

The police and Crown Prosecution Service refused to consider this a racist crime (despite the white boys saying ‘kill the nigger’ as they carried it out – Richard gave the Inquiry permission to quote their use of this word).

Richard says he is very grateful to the judge at that trial for ruling that it clearly was a racist murder, and for sentencing Thornborrow accordingly.

The family sought justice, set up a campaign, and organised a march on 27 April 1991. The flyer for this was exhibited.

Richard explained why this said Rolan had been ‘slaughtered by racist society’ – because they considered it a societal problem, of institutional racism, that the only person in authority who recognised this as a racist murder was that one judge.

‘We knew from the outset that, you know, we weren’t going to get justice’.

There was a youth worker at the Hawksmoor, Anne Brewster, who had become increasingly concerned about the rise in racist attacks, and gone to both Greenwich council and the local police to raise this. After Rolan’s death, the youth club was firebombed.

The family didn’t know who to trust. After Rolan’s death, they started receiving anonymous phone calls, day and night, some of which specifically threatened Nathan, who was in hospital at the time. Rihard told the police that if they didn’t provide any protection for Nathan he would organise this himself, and so the police finally sent one officer to the hospital.

As well as the arson attack on the youth club, wreaths laid by the family to mark the spot where Rolan fell were also burnt. As a result, they felt that they had to bury him outside of the borough, to avoid his grave being desecrated. They were well aware that the BNP knew where they lived, so were afraid of being the targets of more violence themselves.

In April 1991, just a few months after Rolan’s murder, while they were still deep in grief and trauma, his family were informed (by Ros Howells – now Baroness Howells – Mavis Clark and Noel Penstone, all connected to Greenwich council at the time) that they were in imminent danger. They moved out of their house that night.

The Rolan Adams Support Campaign, which later became the Rolan Adams Family Campaign (RAFC), was set up ‘to campaign on many fronts’.

According to the minutes of their inaugural meeting, they aimed to combat racist attacks and harassment. They planned to raise awareness, provide practical support and solidarity to other victims, and even help families who wanted to move out of the area.

Richard said:

‘We were there trying to use our grief and our pain to help others, you know. There’s nothing we could do for Rolan’

Those involved in the campaign were anxious to prevent any more children becoming victims of violence, or becoming perpetrators.

One of the issues they campaigned about was the BNP’s bookshop/ headquarters in Welling. Since it opened in 1989, there had been a noticeable rise in racist attacks in south east London. Another Black boy, Orville Blair, was stabbed to death in Thamesmead three months after Rolan. An Asian boy, Rohit Duggal, was similarly murdered in nearby Eltham a year later. They supported Rohit’s family, and later Stephen Lawrence’s family.

Richard stated that the family ‘had a clear agenda on what we wanted’. They would have ‘open and frank discussions’ with anyone who came along to their meetings, including members of Anti-Fascist Action, as minuted.

One of the spycops, HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’, mentioned the RAFC in a report in September 1991. He said they had called for a picket outside the court when Thornborrow’s trial began on 7 October, and this has been advertised in the pages of the Socialist Worker newspaper.

Richard was unconcerned about this. He explains that the family were on friendly terms with a number of Socialist Workers Party members, as individuals, adding that ‘some of the members are still a friend of mine now to this day, 30 years later’.

The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) had been extensively infiltrated by the Special Demonstration Squad for decades by this time, and any groups the SWP supported became suspect to the Squad.

We moved on to hear that Reverend Al Sharpton had also supported the family, and remained in contact ever since. Asked about the campaign’s attitude towards physical confrontations with fascists, Richard explained that they had a ‘mantra’ of non-violence:

‘Everything about the literature that we’ve ever put out and everything that we’ve ever believed in, it was about ensuring that our young Black men stayed out of trouble’.

Minutes from another RAFC meeting, in February 1992, mention the Anti Nazi League (ANL), a group that the Special Demonstration Squad had long targeted.

We heard more about how the ANL had been reinvigorated after Rolan’s murder, and swung into action to mobilise around RAFC, in particular their campaign to close down the BNP bookshop.

There were other organisations and networks that supported RAFC’s aims and demonstrations, including Anti Racist Action, and Richard explained again that he and his wife tended to form personal relationships with individual supporters, and that was more important to them than people’s party allegiances.

The Inquiry seemed very keen to understand their attitude towards ‘violence or physical confrontation’ at such demonstrations and kept asking Richard about this, forcing him to repeat what he’d said earlier.

‘We often felt that we were under some sort of surveillance’.

The family had suffered break-ins when nothing valuable was taken, something familiar to those whose campaigns are disliked by Special Branch.

They didn’t know whether it was the local police or some ‘special squad’, but were not surprised to learn years later that they had been the subject of SDS reports.

Richard says now:

‘we felt more vindicated to know that what we thought was true, was in fact true’

His son Nathan’s statement echoed this, saying:

‘he realised that he wasn’t paranoid after all’.

After the Inquiry had asked all their questions, the family’s barrister, Rajiv Menon KC, asked a few more.

Richard remembers the police sending a Family Liaison Officer, a PC Fisher, to their house. He only found out afterwards that Fisher was supposedly the local ‘Racial Incidents’ officer.

The family didn’t warm to him. He would turn up uninvited, without warning. He didn’t really support them:

‘there wasn’t any empathy or any genuine warmth or anything like that’.

Fisher tended to pump them for information about their visitors and campaigning. He kept telling them that suspects were being released on bail or their charges were being dropped.

Rather than the police using their resources to investigate racist crimes, they regularly stopped and searched friends and relatives on their way to visit the Adams family, including Richard’s brother. He recalls being angry about this, but also frightened – how did the police know which people were visiting him?

Richard went on to make some comments about how ‘effective policing’ might have prevented the deaths of his son and other sons. He wants to know who made the decisions about undercover policing and why the spycops were directed to spy on him, rather than on the BNP and other racist criminal groups. He believes ‘the wrong people were being policed’.

Richard wants this Inquiry to provide answers to the questions he and his wife have been asking for years, and believes the public needs these answers too.

The Inquiry chair, Sir John Mitting, appeared again after this, and repeated what he said last week – that he intends to investigate these matters in ‘closed’ hearings, and it is likely that any resulting report will also be ‘closed’ (i.e. kept secret). He warned Richard plainly:

‘you may not learn the outcome’.

---

Evidence of John Burke-Monerville

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

John Burke-Monerville came to talk about the Trevor Monerville Defence Campaign, set up to pursue justice for his son. He has also made a written statement.

His wife Linda sat beside him while he gave evidence:

‘She asked me this morning could she be near me to cuddle me if I break down.’

He placed a photograph of Trevor in front of him while he spoke, although he explained that he personally has no photographs of Trevor:

‘I find it too painful looking at him day after day. So I keep no photograph of him at all. I just want to remember him the last time I saw him alive.’

Now in his eighties, John gave powerful testimony and showed more dignity and humanity in a few minutes than we have seen in the countless hours of evidence from all the undercover officers combined.

Trevor was born in 1967. John struggled to remember Trevor’s birthday, but he remembered the day he died, 18 March 1994. He was 26 years old.

Trevor was injured when he was 19 years old. An active young man in good health, he was out with two aunts on New Year’s Eve 1986-87. They went into a club and Trevor waited outside, and when they came out, they couldn’t find him.

The family was unable to track Trevor down until Sunday 4 January:

‘The first thing I did [on 1 January] was I walked into Stoke Newington Police Station, and asked them if they had Trevor in custody. And they said they did not have him.’

On 2 January 1987, John filed a missing persons report with Stoke Newington Police.

‘I went to the police station to make enquiries again with a photograph of Trevor… They still maintained they did not have him in custody… We had members of the family phoning hospitals…

‘I was told that he’s a 19-year-old by the custody officer, maybe he has scored for the night. That is what I was told.’

They finally found Trevor in Brixton Prison. He was incoherent and had soiled himself. He was covered in bruises and congealed blood. His left eye was black and puffed up. His right eye was in an abnormally fixed position. His mouth was slack and open, and the inside was swollen.

‘It turned out to be Trevor. I was shocked. Truly, truly, truly shocked. The only thing I could say to him, “Boy you got a good body on you, hold on in here I’ll be back” and he asked me “Why dad? Why did they arrest me?”

‘I went back to Stoke Newington Police Station and asked questions about Trevor… they realised that I’d found Trevor, and they had him in the prison’

The custody record shows Trevor was arrested at 22:40 that night, having been found unconscious in somebody’s car. It records him continuously sleeping, incapable of being aroused, refusing food. He wasn’t provided with legal representation.

He was seen by three different police medics, on five separate occasions. He suffered a number of seizures whilst in police custody, and had been taken to Homerton Hospital twice. The Accident and Emergency department doctor advised he just needed to sleep off whatever it was.

He was charged with criminal damage on the evening of 2 January. Six police officers restrained him to take his fingerprints by force. Within two hours of the fingerprints being taken and Trevor being found ‘fit to be detained’, he was again admitted to hospital.

On 3 January he was produced at the magistrates’ court, but wasn’t well enough to be physically brought into the courtroom. The judge remanded him to Brixton prison anyway.

When his father was able to visit he kept saying ‘Why did they arrest me, dad? why did they arrest me, the bastards’.

Soon after that he was rushed to the Maudsley hospital with a suspected brain injury. There was a police officer at the hospital, guarding his bed, but eventually he informed the family that charges had been dropped and they were able to see Trevor.

He had a fracture to the right temporal lobe and a haemorrhage, and swelling to the right side of his brain. He had to undergo emergency brain surgery. He was in hospital for around three weeks.

Doctors informed the family’s solicitors that Trevor had a degree of brain damage, skull fracture, injuries to the left eye, nose, elbows, knees and shins; such multiple injuries was inconsistent with a fall. A medical report was later prepared by a neurosurgeon. Trevor sustained an intracranial clot caused by assault. Blows to the head. Not a fall.

Trevor was unable to take care of himself when he left the hospital.

‘He wasn’t be able to talk properly. He wasn’t even interested in going to the loo. All these things I had to teach him to do them again… Feeding him was like a baby, feeding a baby… he could walk but on a side with his head bend on the side…

‘his questions to me was, why did they arrest him, why did they beat him up, why did they assault him…

‘I do not know who arrest him. I ask for the arresting officer’s detail, but nobody gave me anything.’

The police went on to claim that Trevor’s behaviour and his comatose state was due to drink and drugs. It was insinuated that he must have had some sort of pre-existing brain condition or brain tumour.

‘there was absolutely nothing wrong with Trevor… It made me believe that Trevor had an encounter with the police at the time and they were lying about everything to us…

‘the thing is that that particular station has been a very notorious place for a long time… my suspicion was that something was wrong and I wasn’t being told the truth’

After those events, Trevor became the subject of continuous stops by the police. He was arrested five times in less than two years, while he was still suffering the after-effects of the surgery, including epileptic fits.

In November 1987, he was arrested and charged with 11 offences, all of which were either not pursued, dismissed at court or found not guilty. In 1988 the police apologised for yet another wrongful arrest.

‘It was constant harassment… these sort of things were very painful to cause a boy at this time after his operation. He wasn’t functioning properly then…

‘I believe the prognosis of the doctor they were frightened of it… they were sure that Trevor would get his old memory back and he will be able to say everything that happened to him… whoever it is that caused Trevor’s injuries was pretty worried.’

Trevor was sent to stay with family in St Lucia.

‘I cannot remember exactly how long he spent there, but that was his happiest time… as soon as he got back here it all started again… it resume itself just as ugly as before.’

The Trevor Monerville Defence Campaign

John instructed solicitors to liaise with the authorities. Legal action was taken on Trevor’s behalf against the City and Hackney Area Health Authority, the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office.

The family ran the campaign. The aims were to learn the truth about what happened to Trevor, how he got his injuries, why he didn’t receive proper medical assistance, why he got no legal assistance whilst in custody, and whether the police were covering anything up.

There was also a wider aim to expose racist policing in Stoke Newington and Hackney, and provide support to other campaigns for Black youths who had been either hurt or killed while in police custody.

Two of John’s sisters, Annette and Cassie, were significantly involved in the campaign, along with Dr Graham Smith, who Inquiry counsel described as ‘a prominent civil rights activist in the area’.

John corrected him there:

‘I wouldn’t say he was a civil activist – but he was a very nice person, who wanted to help those suffering.’

The campaign made a number of public appeals and organised demonstrations outside Hackney Police Station, Dalston Police Station and Stoke Newington Police Station. Always peaceful. Nevertheless, the Inquiry asked John three times whether the campaign was ever disorderly or violent.

The campaign attracted significant wider support, including interest from Tommy Sheppard, member of the Hackney London Borough Council and chair of the council police committee at the time.

Sheppard spoke to the press and publicly questioned the behaviour and accountability of the local police. MPs such as Diane Abbott, Paul Boateng, Bernie Grant all lent their support to the campaign. Ken Livingstone raised the question in Parliament in April 1988.

The MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch, Brian Sedgemore, wrote to the then Commissioner of the Met, Sir Kenneth Newman and to the Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, from whom John received a strange reply:

‘I had a very strange letter from Douglas Hurd, paying me condolences for Trevor’s death while he was still alive… but like everything else that was at the back of my vehicle, the letter disappear…’

Counsel asked whether the theft was reported to the police. John replied ‘what for, sir?’

He clearly believes it was the police who broke into his car, and he may well be right. They were certainly spying on the campaign.

We were shown posters and fliers from the campaign, which included a graphic photograph there of Trevor taken at the time.

John commented:

‘We did break the law there because we sneaked into the hospital with a camera and took that picture.’

The Inquiry reassured him, ‘you may have broken the rules but I’m not sure you’ve broken the law.’

‘All these years I thought that we broke the law,’ John replied.

The campaign received a public apology from the officer in charge of Stoke Newington police station.

‘He apologised for not telling us, well telling me and the rest of my family and the crowd that was supporting us at the time that Trevor was in their custody. So he’s sorry for not letting us know.’

However no satisfactory explanation as to how Trevor sustained his injuries was ever given. Whilst the Campaign was active, the family was treated very badly by the police. The police arrested John’s parents.

‘My mother was treated very badly… my father was 79. And my mother was 73.’ No charges were brought.’

The campaign was wound down while Trevor was in St Lucia.

Bak in London, Trevor was stabbed in the street and killed on 18 March 1994. The police did nothing at all. The inquest into Trevor’s death concluded on 13 March 1996. The family wasn’t informed.

Spycops spying on the campaign

At this point in the hearing, the Inquiry began to exhibit intelligence reports filed by the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS).

In February 1996, the police were filing secret reports about a demonstration for Trevor due to take place three days after the inquest, yet they failed to notify the family that an inquest was taking place.

The police claimed:

‘The original FLO [Family Liaison Officer] was apparently unable to contact Trevor’s father prior to Inquest.’

John still lived in Hackney at the time.

A police report closing the investigation into Trevor’s murder was dated 2 March 1995. It was not made available to John until September 2023.

Asked how he felt that it took 28 years for him to learn of the report into Trevor’s murder, John replied:

‘I couldn’t answer that, sir, because the anger that bring on, it would take angry language to discuss that.’

The Inquiry then showed suggestions from the time, made by Stoke Newington police, that the Trevor Monerville Defence Campaign was being manipulated by political agitators. That was untrue.

John explained that the campaign did receive support from other groups.

‘I suppose [some of those groups] wanted to try and manipulate us… then they had to take a walk and all.’

Nevertheless, this suggestion that the group was being manipulated was revived by the Metropolitan Police to try to justify SDS reporting on the campaign. The extent and nature of the reporting we were shown totally undermines that claim.

SDS officer HN95 Stefan Scutt ‘Stefan Wesolowski’, who infiltrated the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in Hackney South between 1985 and 1988, reported:

‘The parents of Trevor Monerville are understandably still extremely distressed… They will seek public support only in pursuing their objective, for example an independent inquiry’

His report indicated that the Trevor Monerville campaign had Special Branch ‘Mentions’, ie previous reports by other officers had mentioned them.

On 9 September 1988, HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’ also reported on the Hackney Community Defence Association, who supported the campaign, describing it as a ‘front organisation’.

John said of Bob Lambert

‘He’s the greatest liar I’ve ever heard speak.’

On 13 December 1988, HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ filed a report concerning the Broadwater Farm Defence Campaign and a picket that was held at Wormwood Scrubs Prison, noting chants at the picket in support of the Trevor Monerville Defence Campaign as well as other causes.

A report dated 13 February 1996, attributed to HN15 Mark Jenner ‘Mark Cassidy’, notes an event to mark the death of Trevor Monerville, who he describes as

‘A black man who died allegedly as a result of his treatment at the hands of Stoke Newington police.’

Counsel to the Inquiry questioned the claim that Trevor died as a result of his treatment at the hands of Stoke Newington police, but John set him straight:

‘It is quite right. That is my belief. And I can’t see any other way but that. If they didn’t do it their self… in my mind they had something not quite right to do with it.’

By February 1996 it is clear that the Trevor Monerville Campaign had its own Special Branch Registry File, number 400/87/146.

We also heard how HN15 Mark Jenner ‘Mark Cassidy’ infiltrated a meeting held by the family on the first anniversary of Trevor’s death, and how whistleblower SDS officer HN43 Peter Francis subsequently told John that he was also on the campaign before being sent over to the Stephen Lawrence campaign.

SDS interest in the Trevor Monerville Defence Campaign was extensive and spanned at least five different undercover officers, and at least eight years.

Notes from a meeting between Operation Herne and HN2 Andrew Coles ‘Andy Davey’, who infiltrated the animal rights movement, record him commenting:

‘I know about Trevor Monerville.’

John’s frustration at this was clear.

‘All these people know about Trevor Monerville, but no one is telling the truth about what they know. What does he know about Trevor Monerville? He should have the decency of letting me know what he knows about my son. He must know as a father that I would love to hear what he knows about my son… Because I am in the dark.’

On 26 August 2014 Operation Herne contacted the family about the spying and they later received an apology.

‘The Metropolitan Police Service fully accept that a significant amount of information was incorrectly gathered, recorded and retained as a direct result of the way in which the Special Demonstration Squad operated…

‘we fell so far short of our responsibility to properly handle information.’

However, Operation Herne told the family very little documentary information had been found, just one document, two or three lines. That was untrue.

In fact, as early as 1987 the SDS Annual Report included the Trevor Monerville Defence Campaign in a list of organisations directly penetrated, or closely monitored, during the year (redacted by the Inquiry in the report, they nonethelss confirmed it in the hearing).

John is being forced to relive the horrific memories of his son’s brutalisation now because undercover police deliberately targeted his family for seeking answers and justice in respect of police violence, racism and corruption.

Nevertheless, John explained:

‘I do not have any mis-feelings about police. I believe in law and order. When I was a young man when I first arrive in this country my initial thoughts was to join the police force and become something in it and then rush back to Saint Lucia and become a big boy…

‘I was told I was too short. And when I was told that they are recruiting at my height… I couldn’t live on the police cadet wages…

‘I do regret it. But I had two sons to take care of. I have no ill feelings about the police. But I do not enjoy what they practise.’

The understatement of those words.

We were told how John had other sons: twins, Joseph and Jonathan were born just six months before Trevor died. Educated in Nigeria, they returned to London just before they turned 19.

On 16 February 2013, Joseph and Jonathan were with another brother, David, at a gym in Hackney. They were approached by two men and shot at, in a case of what the police later concluded to be mistaken identity. All three boys were injured. Joseph was shot in the head and died.

At this point John left the room for a moment to be with his wife.

In fact, John has had to engage with the Metropolitan Police in tragic circumstances involving three of his children. His son David was killed in a violent robbery in 2019. Only David’s killer was ever brought to justice.

Three men were charged in connection with Joseph’s killing but the prosecution didn’t proceed. At that time, the Family Liaison Officer brought up Trevor’s name, telling John that Trevor was a strong boy; that it took six officers to restrain him, and asking to be provided with a Monerville family tree.

The pain of all this was evident throughout the testimony.

John told us:

‘When you are done with me and things have quietened down a bit that I have to go and rest my head for three reasons: my son Trevor, my son Joseph, and my son David. I have not left this country for the last 14 years and yet they couldn’t find me…

‘The last time I was away was 2010… all of Trevor’s jewellery that he always wear, including his clothes, phone, jacket, never got any of it back’

We were left in no doubt about the root causes of so much grief. Charlotte Kilroy read aloud from John’s written statement:

‘The behaviour of the police towards Trevor, me and my family since he sustained his life changing injuries – the failure to look for him when I reported him missing, to tell me he was at the police station or to investigate what happened to him, the harassment of Trevor and my family afterwards, the spying on my campaign, the exposure of racism in the Metropolitan Police Service then and since – it all supports our view that Trevor was assaulted by the police and that we were spied on because of our campaign to expose that.’

He added to that in his oral evidence:

‘At the end of everything that has been said, I truly believe racism by the police force and those in authority that control the police are to blame… They are to blame for not investigating properly… police is responsible for the beginning of Trevor’s trouble and it leads up to his death… we do not believe that we will ever get satisfaction. But we are still hoping for a surprise.’

He concluded his evidence by saying:

‘I don’t think you have gone far enough with me because there are many things in my heart I would like to get off my chest…I thank everybody for coming and sitting patiently to listen to me. Thank you all. On behalf of myself, my wife and my family. Thank you.’

Finally the Chair, Sir John Mitting, closed the session with these words:

‘Mr and Mrs Burke-Monerville, may I thank you sincerely for performing the very difficult task of giving evidence about matters that no family should ever suffer in peacetime…

‘Everybody who has listened to your evidence – I speak I am sure for everybody – has been deeply impressed by the calmness and dignity with which you have given it. Thank you for performing a serious and valuable public service.’

For once, Mitting actually got it right.

This summary covers the fourth week of Tranche 2 hearings of the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI), which continues to examine the activities of the Metropolitan Police’s secret political unit, the Special Demonstration Squad, from 1983-92. It was the final week of ‘Tranche 2 Phase 1’. Phase 2 hearings will begin in October, covering the officers from the same period, 1983-92, who were sgnificantly involved in animal rights campaigns.

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

The final week of Tranche 2 Phase 1 hearings dealt with the deployment of officer HN78 Trevor Morris, who used the stolen identity of Anthony Lewis, a child who died, as well as his own alias, ‘Bobby McGee’.

If you want to know more about Morris and his extreme narcissim, we recommend you listen to the episode of the Spycops Info podcast: We Need to Talk About Carlton King.

On the Monday 29 July we heard the powerful testimony of two women, referred to as ‘Bea’ and ‘Jenny’ for privacy reasons, who Morris had deceived into intimate relationships. The proceedings were audio-only, with voice modulation for the afternoon session to protect the witnesses’ identities.

There was one day break and then Wednesday started with a summary of evidence provided by the family of Anthony Lewis, who died as a child and whose identity was stolen by HN78 Trevor Morris ‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’.

Morris then began giving live evidence on Wednesday, and continued into Thursday and Friday.

Observations

The courage of ‘Bea’ and ‘Jenny’ in coming forward and sharing their experiences was deeply moving. The use of a voice modulator to disguise ‘Jenny’s voice made the evidence it challenging to follow at times, but the emotional impact of her words remained clear. Both testimonies highlighted the long-lasting trauma inflicted by the abuses of these undercover operations. This was underscored further by the experience of the Lewis family.

Coming after these accounts, Trevor Morris’s own evidence was shocking, revealing just how disgusting he really was. He was given two and a half days to dig his own grave, and his narcissism revealed itself in every answer as he strived to justify everything the basis of being special, protecting national security, and performing a dangerous job that deprived him of his family.

Morris claimed he felt ashamed of the ‘strong friendships’ he made while undercover, but still insisted it was necessary. He portraed himself as the real victim again and again. Complaining that the Inquiry existed at all, he spent time lamenting that he had been promised this day would never come and ‘no one will ever know who you are’.

He peppered his evidence with oblique references to the Securit Service and ‘red areas’ which were subject matters he had apparently been told not to mention, but repeatedly did.

The video feed (run by the Inquiry with a ten minute delay so they can cut any inappropriate revelations) was disrupted over and over again to deal with his breaches. So much so, that only 20 minutes of the afternoon of the final day was actually broadcast, and the transcripts contain ten redactions.

It is worth noting that Morris seemed obsessed with SWP officials Julie Waterson and Chris Bambury, claiming to know them well and to have been privy to their conversations. It’s therefore odd that the Inquiry hasn’t thought to call Chris Bambery to give evidence.

Contents

Monday 29th July (Day 15)
Live evidence: ‘Bea’
Live evidence: ‘Jenny’

Wednesday 31st July (Day 16)
Summary of evidence of the Lewis family
Live evidence: Day 1 of HN78 Trevor Morris ‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’

Thursday 1st August (Day 17)
Live evidence: Day 2 of HN78 Trevor Morris ‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’

Friday 2nd August (Day 18)
Live evidence: Day 3 of HN78 Trevor Morris ‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’

---

Monday 29th July 2024 (Day 15)

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Live: Testimony of ‘Bea’

Background

Bea told us of her lifelong commitment to activism, reflecting that ‘if you are not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.’ She said:

‘I am proud of the fact that I have played my small part in trying to make a more just society, a more fair and equal one, and been involved in many campaigns that I think are absolutely relevant and important and wanted to make the world a better, fairer place.’

Bea explained she had always been a protester but at that time probably less than at other times because her children were still small. When asked to say how much time she dedicated to activism she said, ‘maybe 10 per cent. I have a life as well.’

Bea explained her personal circumstances:

‘I had just separated from my ex-husband six months previously. I moved to Hackney, didn’t really know anybody there… So I had just become a single mother… I was like completely consumed, really, with bringing up my children on a very small income.’

Joining the Socialist Workers Party (SWP)

In March 1992, Bea joined the SWP, shortly after starting part-time work in their print shop. She was at a vulnerable point in her life, and described joining the SWP as finding her tribe:

‘I had found a group of people who felt the same way that I did and were actually getting things done.’

The SWP provided both political and social support:

‘I felt like I was part of the community. It was wonderful, really. So it gave you emotional support as well as giving you an outlet for campaigning and wanting to make the world a better place.’

She did a remarkable job promoting the SWP, claiming:

‘It changed my life in many ways, because I felt I was able to be an active member of society again and be able to be active in campaigning and in generally trying to promote social justice.’

Bea clarified the SWP’s approach to social change as a belief that ‘change comes from below and is not imposed from above.’

She also addressed the concepts of revolution and democracy:

‘socialism from below is absolutely democratic. More democratic than our current parliamentary system can be particularly without proportional representation.’

Regarding the SWP’s goals, Bea explained:

‘obviously it was a revolutionary party, but I am not sure how many of us actually believed that we were on the brink of revolution.’

She strongly refuted claims of violent intentions emphasizing the SWP’s focus on community engagement:

‘if the news that the nursery was going to be closed locally, we were very quickly able to organise people to campaign for that.’

Relationship with HN78 Trevor Morris ‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’

Bea recounted meeting Morris at her first SWP meeting:

‘it was probably afterwards we all went down to the bar where the meeting was, and everyone was talking to everyone. I think we struck up a bit of a bond quite quickly.’

She described her state at the time:

‘I was in probably the most vulnerable point of my life. I had left a relationship, a marriage… where there had been domestic violence ultimately just six months before.’

Bea detailed the development of the relationship:

‘He seemed very keen.. But he didn’t jump on top of me, I mean I didn’t jump on top of him either. You know, it was a talking, sort of friendly sort of relationship to start with and, you know, entirely consensual.’

The relationship progressed quickly. For the first few months he spent three or four nights a week at her flat. She said Morris didn’t really interact with her children, ‘I don’t remember sort of doing family things with him.’

She said he’d mostly come around in the evening and leave in the morning. He told her his marriage had failed due to infidelity with his wife’s sister, implying it was a traumatic experience. This was a fabrication and reiterates an established pattern of undercover officers inventing disturbing backstories and leveraging them to elicit sympathy, create emotional closeness and avoid difficult questions.

Bea also explained that he did disappear one time, a few months into the relationship:

‘We were supposed to spend the weekend together, and in those days there was no mobile phones or anything, just a pager.’

This disappearance led Bea to question who Morris really was, though she didn’t suspect he was an undercover officer at that point.

The relationship changed over time.

‘He told me that the relationship was over. Because of a sexual indiscretion of his which I won’t repeat… We kind of split up and then just drifted back together again, but in a more casual way.’

Eventually, in the summer of 1993 she met another comrade in the Socialist Workers Party and started a relationship with him, and stopped seeing Trevor Morris.

Regarding Morris’s lying to her about his relationship status, Bea was unequivocal:

‘I would not have got into a relationship with a married man.’

Morris’s Infiltrations and the Welling Protest

Regarding Morris’s political engagement, Bea noted:

‘He was quite naive in some ways… he wasn’t sort of well read about, he didn’t really have a great understanding of the left. But he was very interested in the day to day things, you know, the campaigns, the demonstrations, the Anti Nazi League particularly because he put a lot of his time into the Anti Nazi League.’

Bea’s testimony also revealed a pattern of self-aggrandisement among undercover officers with Morris exaggerating his role and importance within the organization and claiming to be closer to decision-makers in the SWP than he actually was. This aligns with similar behaviour observed in other undercover officers.

Bea pointed out:

‘He never did the kind of things that the leaders would do, like write books and, you know, lead meetings, do meetings at Marxism [conferences]. He had no sort of particular intellectual or political experience.’

Bea described Morris as often dressing in a stereotypical leftist manner, like a parody. He had a pager, which was unusual at the time, and was secretive about his past. Bea also noted a peculiar detail about Morris’s behaviour at demonstrations, noting that the only person she ever knew who went to demonstrations with a weapon was Morris, who carried a sharp umbrella.

Bea provided a vivid account of the 1993 Welling protest against the British National Party, highlighting a sudden shift from peaceful demonstration to chaos:

‘the junction was cut off by a row of sort of heavily armed riot squad sort of police officers, and police horses… suddenly there was sort of fear and pandemonium, and Julie Waterson, who had a megaphone, was asking people to sit down… I just remember running… climbing a wall and jumping in the cemetery and just being immensely relieved because it was terrifying.’

This account underscores the intensity of the situation and the over-policing that Bea attributes to Morris’s exaggerated reports:

I do hold him responsible…. he seems proud of doing this, of being responsible for this.’

Morris’s Exit and Discovering His True Identity

Following the standardised approach used by the Special Demonstration Squad by the mid-1990s, Morris sent Bea a letter with a foreign postmark.

‘I was then really surprised to get a letter from him sent from Egypt in 1995, saying that he had gone to Egypt… in retrospect it was bizarre, because he said he was sort of working in the bazaars in Egypt and that he wanted to save some money and travel round Africa.’

Bea didn’t believe at first that Morris was an undercover cop when a friend showed her photos on Facebook. The Inquiry contacted her in 2019, which left her shocked, shamed, and paranoid. The revelation deeply affected her:

‘I felt stupid that I hadn’t realised, even when there were all these pointers… I feel that there was trespass in my house. There was trespass into my family. My privacy, my right to privacy was completely overridden. I believe that the intimacy between us was un-consensual on the grounds that the person that I was with was not the person who I believed them to be.

‘I was horribly used and it was just so wrong in many, every way. In every way. It was indefensible.’

She elaborated on her feelings of betrayal

‘I felt shame because I had inadvertently provided cover for somebody who might have got friends of mine into trouble, who might have told lies about us, about me, about my friends. I didn’t want people to know. I felt it made me into a suspect myself.’

‘I felt maybe my phone was tapped. Any sort of suspicion that somebody may have been inauthentic made me wonder who they were, or wonder if they were working for the police.’

The concerns extended to her family, ‘we were all worried about being followed, or people knowing where we were.’

The revelation had a profound effect on her children as well:

‘It was radicalising for them… they know now from a much earlier age that that’s how, you know, that this shit happens.’

Although she initially felt more angry with the British state than with HN78 Trevor Morris ‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’ himself, Bea explained that

‘my anger for Bobby has grown since then… my initial reaction was oh my god, his wife, what must she have gone through, what must she still be going through. And his own children and him…

‘and I re-read the statement and understood the part that he had played in the social justice campaigns in Welling, particularly in Welling because he has stated exactly what he told his minders about Welling and I was there and I know what happened. That he has been brainwashed in a way to believe that his allegiance is to the establishment and the state, and the status quo as opposed to his class and his community and his family.’

The impact of discovering Morris’s true identity was so profound that Bea ultimately decided to move abroad. She explained:

‘If the state will go to the extent of sanctioning infiltration at this level of decent people trying to make society better, whilst ignoring organisations on the far right where real hatred and real danger lies, then how, how corrupt is that society?’

 

Live: Testimony of ‘Jenny’

Jenny described the political climate that drove her activism:

‘the mid to late 80s were very, very difficult times. We had Margaret Thatcher in power. We had what felt like a steady roll back of the rights that we had… nuclear war was the big fear at the time. Apartheid was a terrible catastrophe that many of us felt really passionately about.’

Between 1984 and 1987, Jenny was involved in a number of different campaign groups.

‘I never felt one thing was more important than anything else, I felt equally strongly about feminism and social justice and ending oppression of people at work and defending trade union rights and being opposed to racism.’

Socialist Worker’s Party Aims and Methods

Jenny disputed Morris’s claims that the SWP had violent intentions and emphasised the focus on mass mobilisation:

‘it was about mobilising as many people as possible to deliver change by strength of opinion and strength of numbers… It wasn’t a single issue movement. It was very broad based and it sought to build a mass movement to tackle all of these issues and many more. And to work towards a more just society.’

Jenny also addressed the issue of a potentially violent revolution:

‘There might be some need to engage very directly when vested interests defend their vested interests. But in practical terms, yes, that was a long, long, long way off.’

Relationship with HN78 Trevor Morris ‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’

Jenny vividly recalled her first encounter with Morris, describing him as ‘straight from central casting’:

‘The door of the kitchen burst open and this figure came in like a cannonball… He had a black beret, he had the biggest beard ever.’

She also noted the red stars pinned to his beret.

‘Having not seen him before, after that night he was suddenly everywhere. So on every demonstration I went to he was, every social and fundraiser there he was. Sometimes he was there as a DJ. Sometimes he would just make a beeline for me and my friends.’

She described him as larger-than-life, funny, and well-liked, which made it particularly difficult for people to suspect him of being an undercover officer. ‘I would never have guessed it was Bobby Lewis in a million years.’

She did however find it unusual that Morris didn’t engage in theoretical political discussions. She also noted:

‘He was really good at observing… It felt like he was really good in reading the mood of the march whereas the rest of us would be more interested in talking to our friends or waving a placard or shouting whatever people around us was shouting, and he was constantly looking back, seemed to be observing the crowd.’

Jenny recounted a specific incident that stood out when Morris started throwing the eggs at British National Party members and hit a police officer in the process before running off.

Morris stood out because he had a car, which was unusual at the time for a member of the SWP. He was also the first person she knew who had a pager. She observed his efforts to get close to SWP leadership:

‘Trevor Morris would brag about how he got close to the leader of the SWP Tony Cliff by giving him lifts after meetings.’

The Sexual Encounter and Its Context

Jenny recounted that in July 1995, after a period of being less involved in activism, she had impulsively visited a bar in central London after the annual Socialist Workers Party conference. Morris was there and greeted her enthusiastically.

While having drinks together (Jenny drank while Morris did not, he was mostly teetotal), Morris told her that he was trying to reunite with his wife and planned to move to Spain for a fresh start (which differed from what he told others about going to Egypt or Germany).

When they left the pub, Morris offered Jenny a lift, and during the journey, he suggested they go back to his bedsit for a cup of tea and to continue their conversation. Jenny agreed, partly because Morris said this would be the last time they’d see each other.

At his bedsit, Jenny noticed a lack of personal belongings, with only a tube of Ponds Cocoa Butter visible. They talked for a long time on the sofa, with Morris gradually moving closer to Jenny and becoming flirtatious. He initiated a kiss, which Jenny reciprocated, and they ended up sleeping together.

In the morning, Jenny gave Morris a gift of a book called ‘My Traitor’s Heart’. They parted on good terms, with Jenny wishing him well and giving him a hug before they went their separate ways. This was their only sexual encounter, and Jenny had no further contact with Morris after this meeting.

Jenny emphasised that she would never have consented to sleep with Morris if she had known he was an undercover police officer. She described the encounter as manipulative, given that Morris used his fake identity and impending departure to create a situation where they slept together.

Coming as it did, at the very end of his deployment, this sexual encounter could have no possible operational value, and appears to have been an entirely gratuitous abuse of Morris’ position for his own gratification.

Discovering Morris’s True Identity

Jenny discovered Morris’s true identity through a Facebook post shared by a friend, just before the COVID-19 pandemic began. The timing left her feeling particularly isolated as she grappled with this revelation.

She described the experience:

‘I was lazily scrolling through on an afternoon and it hit me between the eyes like a freight train.’

The revelation profoundly impacted Jenny:

‘Something I was very certain about was no longer true… I now question everybody I know. I think about people’s motivations, I wonder who they really are.’

She described her physical reactions:

‘I was walking through the middle of my town and there was a police helicopter nearby and on a rational level I know that this is really stupid but on a really basic level of fear and panic.’

She talked of her longer term struggle:

‘I feel massive amounts of paranoia, shame, guilt. It’s not something that I like to talk about at all. I am really grateful that I got to meet the other women and the other core participants who understand from the inside how this is.’

Jenny elaborated on the ongoing destabilising effects:

‘I have a shortlist in my head of probably four people from my past who I wonder were undercover officers. And because I have had no disclosure I guess I am going to wonder to the end of my days about who was and who wasn’t who they said they were.’

Reflections on Abuses by Undercover Police Units

Jenny powerfully characterised the officers’ actions:

‘I think sex without consent is rape. I did not consent to sleep with officer HN78. I did not consent to sleep with Trevor Morris. He used his fake identity to manipulate me and at least one other woman into sleeping with him, where none of us would have slept with him. And he’s lied and he’s fudged and he’s not giving straight answers and I don’t feel he’s being held to account.

‘But beyond him is a police structure and powers of authorisation and the Metropolitan Police and this didn’t just happen to me, this didn’t just happen to ‘Bea’, this has happened to 60 women.

She also expressed her feelings about Morris’s actions:

‘I feel dirty and disgusting and used. And what I feel on a larger level is that he slept with me because he could. Because he was working for a body of the state that had no checks and no balances in place to stop this behaviour.’

Jenny expressed feeling sorry not only for herself and other deceived women but also for Morris’s wife and children, highlighting the wide-reaching impact of these undercover operations.

She also stressed the wider responsibility of the authorities:

‘beyond him is a police structure and powers of authorisation and the Metropolitan Police, and this didn’t just happen to me… this has happened to sixty women at least!’

Jenny pointed out significant contradictions between Morris’s statements to Operation Herne and his later statement after she came forward. These inconsistencies further undermine Morris’s credibility and suggest he was more concerned about being caught than genuinely remorseful for his actions.

She also notes that Morris claimed, in his written statement, that he couldn’t remember her name, leading her to wonder how many similar encounters he had during his deployment.

‘I think there was a whole culture either don’t ask don’t tell, or these men were egging each other on and bragging about their exploits and I think all of us would really love to know which.’

She also called for accountability:

‘I don’t want any woman to go through this again. It has to stop.’

Wednesday 31 July (Day 16)

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Morning Session

Summary of Evidence of the Lewis Family

Marbel Lewis, the sister of the deceased child Anthony Lewis, provided a powerful witness statement, endorsed by another surviving sister, Judy Lewis, also a core participant.

The statement, read aloud by a lawyer, described how their parents and another sister found it too painful to engage with the Inquiry, and that they hoped their participation would lead to some answers and accountability for the wider family.

Marbel told us that Anthony was the first child of Hyacinth and Clinton Lewis, a happy boy with sickle cell anaemia. Despite his illness, he aspired to be a doctor but died at seven from complications on 31 July 1968. His death deeply affected the family and continues to impact Marbel, a nurse who finds it distressing to care for sick children.

In June 2019, Marbel’s sister was informed that HN78 Trevor Morris used Anthony’s name and birthdate during his deployment from 1991 to 1995.

Anthony’s family believes race played a role in selecting his identity for use by a Black SDS officer infiltrating anti-racist groups. They wonder if Morris researched their family background as he reportedly claimed that his family also originated from Jamaica.

She spoke of racism within the Special Demonstration Squad, and racist officers protecting racist groups, questioning how a Black officer could spy on anti-racist groups while protecting racist ones.

The family believe the infiltration undermined efforts to combat racism, shattering the family’s trust in public institutions, including the police, and made her family, as Black individuals, feel less secure.

Live: HN78 Trevor Morris ‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’

HN78 Trevor Morris ‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’ is the only Black Special Demonstraton Squad (SDS) officer in this tranch (covering 1983-1992).

He began giving live evidence on Wednesday 31 July, describing his background in C Squad before joining the SDS, claiming he wasn’t initially aware of the unit or ‘the Hairies’ as they were known. He believed he would have previously received SDS intelligence without knowing where it came from.

‘I knew it was from a secret and delicate source, which meant potentially an agent.’

He was approached to join the SDS while on E Squad and had an induction meeting with his wife and two officers, HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ and HN86 (cover named not published). He denied there was any mention of sexual issues during discussions about pretending to be single in mixed company. His wife initially opposed his role, saying it would take ‘an inordinate amount of time.’

Safe House Training and Guidance

At the safe house before deployment, Morris felt underprepared despite discussing fieldcraft with other undercover officers:

‘Not because of the role of the organisation in preparing you, but because you cannot prepare for the task.’

He said sexual advances or activities were not discussed. When questioned about adhering to the police code of discipline while undercover, Morris said, ‘I don’t think that was ever broached,’ and he implied that he thought different rules might apply to ‘a Special Branch intelligence only operation.] He was shown a 1993 Code of Conduct for Special Branch Officers which he said he hadn’t seen, but that he worked to its ‘spirit’.

Building an Undercover Identity

Morris wanted to use his DJ name, Bobby McGee, but was instructed to adopt a deceased child’s identity, Anthony Fitzgerald Lewis, instead:

‘I think they probably said something like you need to use the Jackal system.’

When the SDS was founded in 19868 officers chose their own cover names but in the early 1970s, soon after the book and film The Day of the Jackal included the theft of dead children’s identities, SDS officers started to do the same. They refererred to the process of finding an identity this way as ‘the Jackal run’.

Perhaps predictably, several years later this led to an officer (HN297 Richard Clark ‘Rick Gibson’) being confronted with ‘his’ death certificate by suspicious comrades. Despite this, SDS offiers continued doing it for another 20 years or so until the online era made it too easy for others to check an identity.

The last known instance was in 1999. HN596/EN32 ‘Rod Richardson’, one of the first offiers in the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, was trained by old school SDS officer HN2 Andy Coles who hadn’t realised identity theft was obsolete.

When HN78 Trevor Morris was asked about concerns over stealing identities, he replied

‘it wasn’t perceived as wrong, and every other agency utilised that same system.’

Asked if he chose this identity because Anthony was likely Black (based on his cause of death involving sickle cell anaemia), Morris claimed he couldn’t remember. He said

‘I didn’t require that. I wanted the identity that I had, that I was comfortable with.’

He said he did not research Anthony’s family and also denied claiming Jamaican heritage, suggesting that he probably told people he was from the Windward Islands. The Lewis family, who found his use of their son’s identity morally repugnant, pointed out contradictions in claims, which Morris shrugged off with a comment about his bad memory.

Targeting and Tasking

Morris’s early reports covered an array of left-wing and anti-fascist groups in Hackney and Stoke Newington. He explained ‘the net is cast very wide’ and his targeting was ‘ad hoc and depending upon what was happening.’

Morris was expected to report on strategists, leaders, and potentially violent individuals, aligning his work with the Security Service’s interests.

Infiltrating the Socialist Workers Party

Morris focused on infiltrating the SWP, initially ‘playing hard to get’ to encourage recruitment. He joined the Hackney South branch, eventually becoming a committee member.

He described his approach as ‘kind of protesting, being a Black nationalist rather than a left-wing socialist.’

Morris was questioned about reports on individual SWP members, particularly women. He highlighted the significance of a militant fire woman’s trade union activities and described another woman as ‘a sad case’ who he said epitomised the party’s unsavoury recruitment policies, and said he reported this because she might have been ‘groomed’.

Justifying his reporting of SWP official Julie Waterson as ‘aggressive’, he clarified:

‘If you needed moving around on a picket or whatever, she would physically move you around if you didn’t move around.’

When questioned about why these early reports were mostly about women, Morris suggested there must have been reports on men as well, speculating, ‘I am possibly still looking at who’s active.’

The Anti Nazi League and Morris’s Involvement

Morris reported on the SWP’s plans to relaunch the Anti Nazi League (ANL) in late 1992. A report dated 18 December 1991 detailed the SWP’s plans to relaunch the ANL ‘to counter the rise of Nazism in Europe and prevent it getting a toehold here.’

Morris suggested that the SWP wanted to relaunch the ANL to attract supporters from the Anti-Racist Alliance, which was gaining traction among Black people.

Contrary to several witness statements suggesting he was only a rank-and-file member, Morris claimed to be an ‘organiser’, detailing responsibilities like speaking, attending demonstrations, and organising people from Broadwater Farm for the Welling demonstration.

He reported on various ANL events, including the ‘Battle of Waterloo’ in September 1992, referring to members’ instructions and their apprehension about physical confrontation, as well as the ANL’s leadership, decision making processes and fundraising efforts. This included a financial appeal signed by Bernie Grant, Arthur Scargill, and Peter Hain. He explained the importance of reporting on such activities; ‘without finances you can’t do anything.’

SWP’s Approach to Public Disorder and Conflict

Morris described the SWP’s relationship with public disorder as ‘extremely complicated’. He explained their participation in events to maintain visibility:

‘If you’re not present there and others are there and take the glory for being there, you’re missing out.’

He said the SWP’s viewed the police as ‘class traitors’ first, and ‘racist’ second. He defended his assessments of figures like Lindsey German and Chris Bambery. He spoke of Bambery’s admiration for Trotsky’s ‘martial endeavours'” explaining, ‘I am alluding to street activity, and, to be fair, to the day of the revolution’.

Morris claimed that the SWP’s Malcolm X rallies had been an attempt to recreate the Los Angeles riots in the UK, noting, ‘That’s why we brought in Bobby Seale to speak. He was from the Black Panther movement for self-defence, in the 60s.’

Reporting on Other Political Activities

Morris was unrepentant in justifying reporting on the Union of Jewish Students because of ‘entry-ism’, and also defended reporting on serving MPs, citing national security:

‘The Special Branch is a national security organisation that doesn’t slide away from the fact that an MP is involved in something. You just report what there is.’

He said he saw ‘hundreds’ of reports on MPs inside Special Branch.

Very significantly, he justified a report on a civil servant in the SWP that focused on the individual’s sexuality and frequenting of gay clubs:

‘It’s a ploy, or was a ploy, of many intelligence agencies… to try to entrap people in such places.’

This chimes with the evidence of HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ that the SDS would collect information that could be used to blackmail people into becoming informants.

Discussing anti-apartheid activities, Morris said:

‘It is fair… it’s reporting because, you know the knowledge. I was on the South African desk… and BOSS, Bureau for State Security of South Africa, was very active in London.’

He seemed to think this was a justification, however, he is implying that the police could have been providing intelligence to the notoriously corrupt South African intelligence services who were reponsble for violence in London including bombing the ANC offices.

Impact on His Personal Life

Morris claimed he had never registered with a GP during his deployment and that his managers were aware of the extensive time he was spending in his cover identity but expressed no concern about the effect on his family life.

He explained that he spent most of his time at his cover address:

‘Basically I lived that life as my real life and my proper life was relegated… I wouldn’t laugh at home, because I have a distinctive laugh. I wouldn’t walk the streets with my children. I wouldn’t go to my children’s schools, I never went to the, any of the, you know, festivities, be it Christmas, be it New Year, be it Easter, be it sports day, be it whatever. I never went.’

Thursday 1 August (Day 17)

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Day 2 of Live Evidence from HN78 Trevor Morris ‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’

The session opened with a report by Morris from 27 July 1992, concerning a leaflet distributed at the Hackney Show by human rights organisation Liberty. The report listed the contents of the leaflet and the plans to launch a local branch.

Morris claimed he didn’t remember it, but went on to explain how reports like this would be used by Special Branch. He started with a brief history of the unit, noting with pride that ‘Britain ran a third of the world’, and frequently used the phrase ‘et cetera, et etera, et cetera’.

David Barr KC, Counsel to the Inquiry, interrupted him, asking him to stay focused.

Morris retorted ‘it’s not always necessarily straightforward’ and went on to justify spying on Liberty by claiming:

‘Liberty is working within an area where others attempting to get into those areas may well be’ and that ‘fissures and fractures’ in communities could ‘undermine the fabric of our nation.’

Another report, from 11 October 1992, detailed an Anti Racist Alliance (ARA) film showing at the Rio Cinema in Dalston. This report included a speech by Marc Wadsworth, and a leaflet from the Hackney Community Defence Association about police corruption and an upcoming public meeting.

Morris claimed that members had shown him documents about police corruption and that his motivation for writing reports on them was to stamp out police corruption.

Barr pointed out there was no record of Morris passing on any such information on, but despite so often referring to his inability to recall things, on this occasion Morris insisted he was sure of his memory.

Reporting on Family Justice and Defence Campaigns

Morris reported on the Rolan Adams family campaign, the Newham Monitoring Project, the Wilson Silcott Defence Campaign, the Stephen Lawrence family campaign, the Justice for Brian Douglas campaign, and the Justice for Joy Gardner campaign, among others.

He agreed that racist murder was horrific, but nevertheless sought to justify all his spying and reporting, talking about ‘street activity’ and possible public disorder, the fact that the Anti-Nazi League supported the Rolan Adams family.

He claimed that the presence of the SWP in any of these campaigns was a ‘national security issue’.

A report from 6 June 1995 on SWP involvement in a demonstration by the Justice for Brian Douglas campaign claimed SWP and Militant only sent Black comrades, showing they ‘used Black issues for their own right.’

He also reported on a speaker tour by Bobby Seale of the Black Panthers. He called Seale ‘fantastic’ and a hero. He suggested that there might have been a Special Branch officer or an agent of the Security Service at the Bobby Seale event, but he attended because he was in the area, implying that his presence, spying and reporting at the event was not necessary. He justified spying on Black protesters by referencing current white racist violence in Southport.

The Mark Ellison review on the Stephen Lawrence campaign showed extensive reporting by Morris on the campaign, focusing on demonstrations related to it. Morris claimed the SDS didn’t take an interest until it became a ‘cause célèbre’.

When asked about whistleblower SDS officer Peter Francis’ admission of gathering evidence to smear the Lawrence family he replied:

‘Nonsense. That’s not what we are about. We are about gathering intelligence not smearing individuals. That’s a Security Service job, let them do that.’

By then, Morris had clearly realised he was speaking out of turn. He suggested they ‘scrap that last bit’. He was asked if he could definitively say whether the Security Service was seeking to smear the Lawrence family, then the Inquiry cut the live feed of the hearing.

 

The morning ended with examination of a report by Morris into the Justice for Joy Gardner Campaign.

Mature student Joy Gardner had her north London house raided by immigration officials in June 1993. When she resisted attempts to put her in a 4-inch wide restraint belt with attached handcuffs she was shackled, gagged, and 13 feet of adhesive tape was wrapped round her head. She rapidly suffered respiratory failure and died four days later without regaining consciousness.

Three police officers were charged with manslaughter. Though four pathologists agreed on the cause of death, police found one who would give an alternative cause, and no officers were convicted. The use of gags was banned shortly after, but no admission has ever been made that it was part of the cause of Joy’s death.

One of HN78 Trevor Morris’s reports at the time referred to Gardner as ‘the Jamaican illegal immigrant’ and reported on speeches by Bernie Grant MP and Linda Bellos.

Another of his reports described a meeting and recorded speeches by Lee Jasper, Neville Lawrence, Bernie Grant MP, and Nicky Johnson of the SWP. Resolutions passed at the meeting called for a public inquiry, the Police Complaints Authority report to be made public, setting up a ‘Human Rights Commission for Blacks’, and more legal campaign actions.

Morris felt they were entirely correct, feeling the anger himself. The Joy Gardner case moved Morris, especially hearing that she was ‘trussed up like a slave’.

That didn’t stop him from claiming that the Justice for Joy Gardner meeting could destabilise London, the UK’s most prosperous city, and repeatedly reporting intentions to ‘riot’. At one point David Barr KC pointed out that he was referring to a large demonstration organised by people who didn’t want trouble. Morris claimed his reporting added ‘context’, saying ‘they don’t understand the mood.’

He reported that the Joy Gardner verdict didn’t surprise Black youths, while older middle-class Blacks felt cheated and angry, and the political activists would try to incite riots.

Barr then read out a section of a report by Morris about a Justice for Joy Gardner meeting:

‘Most Black people are familiar with the horrors of the slave trade. They do not share the benign image of Black workers singing in the fields of a southern plantation, but they see the atrocity and the horror and the anger…

‘The police have a special role in the relationship between Blacks and whites. They are seen as the visible arm of the State. Many young British Blacks are descendants of immigrants who came to Britain from the Caribbean. The parents and grandparents of the young British Blacks have memories of the colonial police in the Caribbean who upheld a system that was apartheid in all but name. Blacks who joined the police were seen as stooges of the white ruling elite who curtailed the rights of Blacks to freedom of movement or to development, decent housing, employment or education.

‘When Blacks migrated to Britain it was unfortunate that many were treated with suspicion, disrespect, and hostility by the British police. It is this common experience of parents and children of ill-treatment at the hands of the police which has moulded the difficult relationship between the Black community and the police today.’

Having this report read to him caused Morris to break down, leading to a long uncomfortable silence in broken only by the sound of Morris quietly crying, until the Inquiry Chair, Sir John Mitting, awkwardly suggested they break for lunch.

Special Branch and National Security

Despite apparently realising the awfulness of his role before the break, Morris came back having fully recovered his arrogant and narcissistic persona.

David Barr KC, Counsel to the Inquiry, read him the recent unreserved apology by the Metropolitan Police for spying on justice campaigns for Black and Asian communities.

Morris dismissed the apology, saying that unfortunately the Commissioner had no experience in Special Branch and suggesting that the Commissioner simply didn’t understand the remit.

We also saw evidence that Morris’s reporting with was shared with French police, and a report on a planned protest at the Greek Embassy was distributed directly to the Met’s Public Order Operational Command Unit for comment. Morris said it would normally be sanitised.

1993 Welling Demonstration

Morris submitted a significant number of reports in the run up to the Welling demonstration on 16 October 1993 when thousands of antifascists protested at the offices of the British National Party.

David Barr KC identified three tiers of groups organising the Welling demonstration from Morris’ reporting:

• those wanting to stay away from the BNP HQ
• those wanting to go past it without trouble, and
• those like Anti-Fascist Action and Red Action that the others didn’t want involved

A report from 23 July 1993 on the building for the Welling demonstration hoped for 10,000 attendees, targeting schools for teenagers. A report on a planned demonstration at a BNP mass paper sale on Brick Lane for 26 September 1993 mentioned high tensions. Morris claimed he got this information from Chris Bambury.

A report from 22 September 1993 on a protest against the BNP paper sale on Brick Lane claimed eggs and potatoes were thrown at the BNP. Morris himself denied throwing eggs, citing his ‘fear’ that the racist police might have picked him up. He said it might be ‘Jenny’s’ recollection but insisted he didn’t throw eggs, again suddenly claiming to have an ‘exceptional memory’, seemingly having forgotten his previous claims of having ‘serious memory problems’.

A report from 29 June 1993 on the SWP and ANL’s involvement in the Unity demonstration at Welling commented that the ANL was interested in recruiting into the ANL and SWP.

David Barr KC pointed out that one could recruit people to the SWP and still be an anti-racist without contradiction. Morris agreed but said the SWP would see Obama as a traitor, then added that he wasn’t being cynical.

A handwritten note on a Security Service comment sheet mentioned the percentage of Black people on the Welling march. Morris claimed he would have reported that.

Perhaps most significantly, Morris claimed that the plan was to shut down the BNP HQ forever, listing all the groups involved, including the anarchists. Morris claimed it was the plan of the ANL and all the other organisations to physically attack the BNP HQ on the protest day. Barr suggested there might have been an element of bravado in what people said. Morris disagreed, saying they were planning on physically attack.

Morris reported that the SWP made 50,000 placards but expected 20,000 attendees. When pointed out the contradiction, Morris said they were just making sure they had enough placards made. Morris claimed all ANL members were ‘up for a fight; at Welling, including school children.

A report from 5 October 1993 on preparations for the 16 October 1993 demonstration claimed everything in the ANL was riding on a show of strength. Morris advised that the only way to avoid violence at Welling was a large, visible police presence in full riot gear at the assembly point.

When questioned about his contradictory reporting of SWP policy on physical combat with the BNP, Morris claimed that ‘in private’, many were planning for a fight. He then went on to offer a rambling history lesson about Trotsky leading the Red Army in street confrontations. When David Barr KC politely redirected him back to the streets of London, it drew laughter from the room.

Morris reported it was an open secret that Chris Bambury planned to attack and destroy the BNP bookshop on the day of the Welling demo. The concept of a “hitters” group of 60-70 was introduced. Morris claimed he heard this from SWP National Organiser Chris Bambury and others, planning a group like Red Action/ Anti-Fascist Action/ Away Team. One report suggested the plan was to ‘tear down’ the BNP HQ.

Morris couldn’t recall the exact words but was sure Bambury wasn’t using hyperbole, claiming he was ‘a committed activist’, though this seemed delusional. Barr noted Morris’s suggestion that Bambury was planning violence with the police and targeting children. Morris confirmed this, unaware of how ridiculous he sounded.

Given the extent of contradictory and incredible reporting about Bambury, it is quite notable that the Inquiry has not asked him for his own account.

A lot of Morris’s answers simply didn’t make sense. When asked about references to ‘coded’ communication, he replied:

‘you can see it for yourself – and you probably can take away from that what you wish to take away from it. But I know what I took away from it.’

Barr suggested that Morris had exaggerated in his reporting, including speculation that Dutch anti-fascists might have been tagged on entry into the UK. There was no evidence for this or any other information beyond Morris’s own imagination. There was no mention of arson in any reports from the time. The first mention of any arson plan was in a statement by Morris in 2013 to Operation Herne, the Met’s internal inquiry into the spycops scandal.

Morris claimed to have been a steward at the Welling demo. He couldn’t recall a sit-down protest by SWP official Julie Waterson but stressed that if he reported it, he saw it. He claimed the Youth Against Racism in Europe stewards fled early and that violence was started by a group of ‘crusties’ including anarchists and hunt sabs.

Morris claimed all injuries from the Welling demonstration were caused by bricks, suggesting Waterson was hit by a ‘friendly brick’, despite the police having settled a claim for beating her.

Friday 2nd August (Day 18)

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Day 3 of Live Evidence from HN78 Trevor Morris ‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’

The final day of this round of hearings began with the Inquiry Chair, Sir John Mitting, giving his usual speech about the ten-minute delay in broadasting proceedings so that they an prevent inappropriate material being published. Then almost immediately there was a breach and the proceedings paused. Throughout the day, there were multiple breaches, causing the broadcast to be repeatedly suspended.

Morris was asked a few more questions about the SWP, and his reporting of their contacts in the Labour Party, including Bernie Grant MP, Jeremy Corbyn, Tony Benn MP, and Peter Hain. However, the vast majority of the day was concerned with his sexual behaviour.

Relationship with ‘Bea’

Morris admitted to having sexual encounters with ‘Bea’ for ‘quite a long time on and off’ but claimed he ‘wouldn’t describe it to be a relationship.’

He said he never knew her full first name. He claimed he doesn’t know if he made the first move and that he does not remember how they met, using phrases like ‘if she said…’ as if seeking to imply that we shouldn’t necessarily believe her, but the he could not or would not offer another version of events.

He denied writing reports about ‘Bea’, despite his name being on them. When shown a report about ‘Bea’ getting a job at the SWP print shop, Morris bluntly said ‘I didn’t write the report’.

Morris admitted to knowing ‘Bea’ was a single mother with two young children but denied knowledge of her previous violent relationship and claimed to know ‘nothing about the relationship between Bea’s kids and the father.’ He also said he didn’t know about the childcare facilities for Bea to attend meetings.

Morris denied telling ‘Bea’ that his relationship was over but admitted telling her he had two young children and had ‘ruined his marriage and made a grave sexual indiscretion’.

Morris confirmed telling ‘Bea’ he was a DJ in Germany and ‘may have’ said he had sex with many German women while married. When asked about incorporating this into his cover story, Morris said it ‘might have been in the legend from the start but didn’t use it straight away’.

David Barr KC asked if he presented himself as ‘not a long term prospect’ from the very start in anticipation of sexual activity. Morris denied this, saying it was fluid.

Lack of Remorse

The Inquiry revealed that Morris didn’t admit to sexual activity when questioned by Operation Herne, the Met’s investigation into spycops in 2013. Morris claimed, as far as I recollect, I probably didn’t. They never asked me,’ a claim met with incredulity.

When asked if he was sorry about using Bea, Morris replied, ‘incorrect, I didn’t use her’. He insisted ‘she and I hit it off,’ claiming it was ‘totally and utterly real circumstances’.

Morris did not accept it was completely wrong for him to deceive Bea into having a sexual relationship with him, refusing to apologise, he could barely bring himself to utter any regret, saying only:

‘I regret [the sexual relationships] because it would be better for everyone if they had not happened.’

When told that ‘Bea’ wouldn’t have consented to sex if she knew he was a police officer, Morris responded, ‘I don’t know that’.

David Barr KC pointed out that Bea has given evidence saying she would not have consented. Morris replied:

‘She may have done. I mean, but it never happened so she never had that circumstance. That’s like saying that no woman in the Second World War who was a Brit ever went with a German’.

Very much like Mark Kennedy testifying to the Home Affairs Select Committee, Morris claimed he wasn’t able to tell if he was a police officer or an activist at the time.

When asked if he thought about being a police officer when starting the sexual relationship, Morris replied:

‘my primary perspective of myself was that I was an activist in the Socialist Workers Party’.

He claimed that by the time he met ‘Bea’ he was ‘entirely an activist, fully entrenched’, despite being only a few months into his deployment.

Oddly, he also asserted:

‘at maximum I was concerned with maintaining cover, but I don’t even think that’s true’.

He justified having deceitful sexual encounters by saying it was somehow different for him.

He stressed that he did not think it was ‘unlawful’ to have sex with his targets while undercover because he was a Special Branch officer (he said this a lot as though all wrongdoing became right because he was ‘Special’). This comes despite the fact that courts have ruled that such relationships, and the broader political spying, are indeed unlawful.

Morris also used the term ‘national security’ as though it were a get out of jail free card. His excuses were endless:

‘I believed this was a subversive organisation and I was doing it for the good of the nation.’

This completely ontradicts his claim that he was a fully entrenched activist so didn’t count as a cop when targeting women for sex.

He also talked a lot about his mindset at the time as though that were a justification for his sexual behaviour. When questioned about whether it was unethical to have sex when deployed undercover, he responded ‘possibly.. probably,’ but as usual he prevaricated, passing the blame onto management:

‘there was zero guidance on that issue, and no assistance, actually.’

He stressed that he had requested a ‘female partner’, apparently to pretend to be his girlfriend, but been refused. The blame always fell elsewhere and the real victim, he would have us believe, was always him.

At the start of the current round of hearings, the Met’s Commissioner gave a statement unreservedly apologising for spyops deceiving women into sexual relationships. It described it as ‘abusive, deceitful, manipulative and wrong’.

When asked if he agreed with it, HN78 Trevor Morris almost threw a tantrum, vehemently disagreeing in an extended rant that concluded that it was:

‘unacceptable that the Commissioner just off his tongue just says that as though it means nothing to him. Was he in that role? Did he ever do that job? No, he didn’t… It is outrageous.’

Unrepentant for his sexual abuse of women, HN78 Trevor Morris typifies the callousness, cruelty, sexism, egotism and arrogance that is endemic among the spycops. We can expect to hear more when the Inquiry returns in mid October.

This summary covers the fourth week (22-25 July 2024) of Tranche 2 hearings of the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI), which continues to examine the 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.

CONTENTS
Introduction
Observations

Monday 22nd July (Day 11)
Live: HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’
1987-1991: Troops Out Movement / Haringey, and Broadwater Farm Defence Campaign

Tuesday 23rd July (Day 12):
The Case of HN95 Stefan Scutt ‘Stefan Wesolowski’
1985-1988: Socialist Workers Party / Hackney

Live: HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’
1988-1992: SWP / South London

Wednesday 24th July (Day 13)
Live: HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’
1990-1991: British National Party, Loughton

Thursday 25th July (Day 14)
Live: Lindsey German, Socialist Workers Party

INTRODUCTION

This week’s hearings over-ran from the expected three days into four. In the first three we heard live evidence from three former SDS undercover officers:

• HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’, deployed in Haringey against the Troops Out Movement and the Broadwater Farm Defence Campaign in the late 1980s and early 1990s
• HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’, who infiltrated various Socialist Workers Party branches in South London in the late 1980s and early 1990s
• HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ who was briefly deployed to infiltrate the British National Party (BNP) in Loughton 1990/91

We also had the unusual presentation of the case of HN95 Stefan Scutt ‘Stefan Wesolowski’, a former SDS officer. He was deployed into the SWP in Hackney 1985-88, but is not cooperating with the Inquiry. His troubled time in the SDS and subsequent mental health issues caused something of a crisis within the unit.

On the fourth and final day we heard powerful testimony from Lindsey German, for 30 years a key figure in the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and currently the convener of the Stop the War Coalition.

German, who had been on the SWP’s central committee from 1979-2009, provided crucial insights into the party’s activities, its involvement in various social justice campaigns, and the impact of undercover policing on political groups.

She offered a refreshing counterpoint to the police narratives heard earlier in the week, challenging the inaccuracies and bias in the secret police reports, the offensive characterisations of activists, and highlighting the long-term consequences of surveillance on political organisations and civil liberties.

OBSERVATIONS

The case of Stefan Scutt was extraordinary, both for the significant ethical and operational breaches that occurred during his deployment and for the handling of his subsequent mental health crisis, details of which were kept secret from both the Home Office and the Security Service.

Another interesting departure from the norm in these hearings was the evidence of HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ who, unlike every officer to give evidence so far, was deployed (albeit briefly) against the far-right rather than against the left. It was bizarre that the local British National Party group he was ordered to infiltrate was virtually dormant.

Perhaps the most striking moment of his evidence was his revelation that for some of the time he was undercover he was terrified he might be ‘outed’ by a fellow police officer who may have had far-right sympathies.

The other two undercover officers (HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’, and HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’) hammered home more familiar themes of minimal training and unclear guidelines.

Evidence continued to reveal the shocking breadth and depth of reporting of private and personal information with questionable relevance to policing concerns, with the striking admission from HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ that one reason for recording such personal details was for the potential it created to ‘recruit informants’ (ie through blackmail).

Yet again questions were raised about the ideological and political (rather than policing) motivations behind a lot of the surveillance, particularly in relation to the Socialist Workers Party, and the events and campaigns it supported.

Throughout the week we saw a profound disconnect between perceived or alleged ‘public order threats’, and observed reality. In many cases, the groups under surveillance for alleged public order concerns were described as non-violent and posing little actual threat, raising yet more questions about the necessity and proportionality of the operations.

Indeed, once again it demonstrated the police’s unacceptable and anti-democratic efforts to snoop on and undermine people committed to promoting and defending the interests and rights of the public, and to challenge oppression and injustice in our society.

Monday 22nd July (Day 11)

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Live: HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’

HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ provided testimony about his infiltration of the Haringey Troops Out Movement and the Broadwater Farm Defence Campaign in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

He joined the Metropolitan Police in the early 1980s, initially working with C Squad investigating the extreme right wing before moving to B Squad, which focused on Irish nationalism. He then joined the SDS.

Recruitment and Training

His path to the SDS began with gossip and innuendo in the police canteen. Despite being in Special Branch, he claimed not to know exactly what the SDS was, though he was aware of intelligence coming from covert sources. He noted that officers would disappear and reappear after a couple of years, hinting at undercover activities.

The recruitment process for the SDS was informal, relying on word of mouth. HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ volunteered because he was ‘interested in politics and how society worked’. He spoke to HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’ at a social gathering about putting his name forward and also discussed applying with HN350 Paul Croyden, with whom he had worked previously.

He didn’t feel the need for any special preparation for his SDS interview, stating that he ‘always kept a close eye on political issues’. The interview, conducted by three senior officers, focused on his motivations to join and what he thought would make a good undercover officer. Notably, the legal and ethical parameters of the role were not discussed during this process (nor it seems at any time afterwards).

HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ described joining the SDS as prestigious, calling it ‘the ultimate for a Special Branch officer’.

Training and Preparation

He described the SDS tradecraft manual as ‘formal’, which is quite hilarious considering its content. He (incorrectly) emphasised that it did not contain any guidance on sexual relationships, saying, ‘it was very safe advice’. He believed lying was sometimes necessary for the greater good:

‘As a policeman you are given tremendous powers. You are in many ways implementing the law which fundamentally requires honesty’

Asked about the dishonesty inherent to his undercover role, he said:

‘It comes back to the greater good, the necessity to sometimes lie in order to achieve issues’

Before his field deployment, HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ worked in the SDS back office, handling administrative reports. He stated that he never edited the content of reports and, when unsure about the value of information, would ‘err on the side of caution and report it’. This approach would later be reflected in his own extensive reporting during his deployment.

Cover Identity and Infiltration

Like many SDS officers, HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ stole the identity of a dead child. He followed the tradecraft manual in this process, despite feeling uncomfortable due to his own mother having lost a young child.

He shockingly defended the practice:

‘You would hope you would do justice to the youngster involved’

Stealing not only the child’s name but also parts of his life story, HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ travelled to Newcastle to familiarise himself with the area where the real Kevin Douglas had been born.

The ghoulish advice he says he was given was that the longer the child had survived, the better for using the identity as cover (as it would be harder for anyone to research and find a death certificate). Incredibly, he was not asked to hand back the stolen birth certificate at the end of the deployment, so he kept it.

HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ went to great lengths to change his appearance for his undercover role. He mentioned getting a perm, growing and dying his hair, and acquiring a new wardrobe.

During his deployment, he lodged with a family in Ponders End, eating meals and watching TV with them. He even attended a baby’s christening with them, explaining that it would be rude not to. Despite feeling uneasy about this arrangement (ie lying to them about who he really was), he had trouble finding somewhere else that suited him.

Infiltration Activities, Reporting Practices and Personal Views

HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ infiltrated the Troops Out Movement (TOM) in Haringey, but took five months to make contact, claiming there were no public events to attend in that period.

Once embedded, he provided extensive reporting on the group’s activities (including the people active at London and national level), membership numbers, and potential physical threats against TOM members by right-wing groups.

Notably, HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ admitted that the Troops Out Movement did not pose any kind of public order risk:

‘They would not be the aggressors’

Despite this, he continued to report on their activities, as well as on various justice campaigns, including those for the Tottenham Three, Birmingham Six, and Guildford Four, linking them with terrorism in his reports, despite the fact that all those concerned were innocent.

He attended and reported on a local public meeting of over 500 people, including a disparaging summary of a speech by local MP Bernie Grant.

He reported on the Broadwater Farm Defence Campaign, referring to the Tottenham Three as the ‘convicted murderers of Police Constable Blakelock’ even though the convictions were quashed in 1991.

He was also concerned that TOM and the various defence campaigns seemed to be communicating with and supporting each other.

When questioned about this he claimed that it was ‘all part of what was seen as an anti-colonial broad front, Ireland being the original colony in the view of Troops Out Movement’.

Challenged on his dismissive tone, he said he makes ‘no apology for that’. He also admitted, without irony, that part of his role was to ‘prevent embarrassment… not just to the Government but to the United Kingdom’.

Despite the Metropolitan Police apologising at the start of these hearings for this kind of unacceptable reporting on justice campaigns, HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ claimed he saw no problem with it, not even with his continued reporting on those groups after the Court of Appeal granted the release of those imprisoned as they had been framed by police.

In his first witness statement to the Inquiry he had justified spying on justice campaigns by suggesting it would ‘make the job of the uniformed officers more straightforward’, a sentiment he defended when challenged.

Sexual Relationships

A significant part of the questioning was about his 2013 statement to Operation Herne, the police’s internal inquiry into spycops before the Undercover Policing Inquiry was ordered. In it, he admitted to regular occurrences of sleeping with women and suggested senior management knew about it.

Some of his reports included sexist comments about women activists, described as ‘attractive’ or ‘well-built’.

‘There was a regular occurrence in respect of sleeping with women. It wasn’t regarded as wrong at the time, the person would have to undertake a dynamic risk assessment. I feel sorry for the woman Bob [Lambert, HN10] slept with who was not a target as such’

In fact HN10 Bob Lambert had four sexual relationships, including fathering a child.

In that statement to Operaton Herne, HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ had written:

‘The Senior Management Team probably suspected that these relationships took place and that it was not an issue. Most knew of it “in play”. There was nothing direct in place as to not conduct such practices’

He claimed he was mixed up with Bob Lambert to show Lambert wasn’t a rogue officer. He suggested officers used sex to gather intelligence, a justification he later denied.

He told Operation Herne:

‘I think bringing a child into the world as part of an operational decision is wrong’

HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ was asked about the accusation that HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’ had placed a timed incendiary device in the Harrow branch of Debenhams while undercover in an animal rights group opposed to the sale of fur. The incident resulted in major damage.

HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ claimed he wasn’t privy to discussions about the incident, but was aware of Lambert’s infiltration of the Animal Liberation Front. He noted that HN10 Bob Lambert was the only SDS officer who visited a certain Special Branch building in Vincent Square and that he had to check Lambert wasn’t being followed.

HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ also mentioned HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’ had a fraudulent sexual relationship with Helen Steel, learning about it through gossip.

He wasn’t particularly surprised, outrageously claiming that it was to be expected because:

‘it was more the area he was employed… a place of squats, of that sort of living’

He backtracked on some of these statements during his time in the witness box. He insisted that Operation Herne ‘was meant to go nowhere fast, and not leave the room’, ie never see the light of day.

This is very revealing, as Operation Herne, the police investigation into undercover policing, has long been criticised by victims of undercover policing as essentially a cover up allowing the police to ‘mark their own homework’.

HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ appeared visibly stressed when confronted with his Herne statement, talking over the questions, moving back and forth in his seat, sweating, and red-faced in his anxiety to retract the answers he gave in 2013.

Post-Deployment Activities and Reflections

After his deployment, HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ mentored new officers for over six years. He believed it was important to pass on knowledge:

‘If you feel you can do some good, and they think you’ve got something relevant to say, I think it is important that you do that’

His mentoring of the first undercover officer went well, but he experienced difficulties with the second and third, possibly due to concerns about the official caveat that information obtained could be passed to senior management.

Reflecting on the impact of undercover work, HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ described the difficulty of living a double life:

‘You live in a world of lies. It’s not easy to do and it’s not pleasant to do… the problem being undercover is you tell one lie, you have to tell 100 lies’

We are not entirely sure how he resolved this against his previously expressed view that it would be a huge dislocation to have a police officer who didn’t believe that honesty is the right course.

Tuesday 23rd July (Day 12)

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

The Case of HN95 Stefan Scutt

The Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) deployment of HN95 Stefan Scutt ‘Stefan Wesolowski’ was marred by significant ethical and operational breaches.

He reported on the Socialist Workers’ Party in Hackney and related campaigns, including the year-long industrial dispute in Wapping against the mass sacking of 5,000 printworkers by newspaper bosses.

He informed another officer about sexual misconduct by an undercover operative, hinting at the widespread nature of such unethical behaviour.

After his withdrawal, it was claimed that Scutt had apparently embellished his army career on his application to the SDS (claiming he’d been involved in intelligence in Northern Ireland), was allegedly secretly living with a partner and children in Norfolk while supposedly undercover, falsified entries in his SDS rent book, and claimed overtime he wasn’t entitled to.

In May 1988, Superintendent Evans identified the root of Scutt’s problems as a breakdown in his relationship with his superior officer Detective Inspector HN109, noting they were ‘not complementary characters’.

Despite these issues, HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’, HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’, and HN8 (names withheld) defended Scutt and sought more time for his withdrawal, revealing the unit’s reluctance to address internal problems.

The toxic atmosphere within the unit was further exemplified by reports of HN10 Bob Lambert physically confronting HN109, allegedly pushing him against a wall and making threats if he didn’t leave ‘Stef’ alone.

Mental Health Crisis and Mishandling

Following his withdrawal, Scutt experienced a significant mental health crisis. Superintendent Evans described him as ‘looking grey and drawn’ and ‘quite ill with worry’.

Scutt was removed from the list of authorised firearms officers and subsequently went absent without leave. He was eventually found disoriented in the grounds of York Cathedral, where he disclosed details about his deployments to uniformed officers.

Scutt was later diagnosed with an ‘alter ego problem’. However, management had intervened to protect the unit by insisting this diagnosis pre-dated his deployment.

In the face of these serious issues, Special Branch decided against disciplinary proceedings. DCS Parker justified this decision by arguing that it would be complicated to establish the facts and risked exposing the unit to unwelcome publicity. The events surrounding Scutt’s withdrawal were kept as quiet as possible. Though documents show the Director General of the Security Service was informed, a note from the agency shows:

‘the SDS consider this to be an internal matter only. They may decide to allude to it in their 1988 annual report but were very exercised at the idea of the problem being brought to the immediate attention of the Home Office’

Scutt’s case had broader implications for the SDS. The controversy was followed by changes in how the SDS was funded, with the Home Office switching from annual to rolling funding, effectively reducing oversight.

SDS managers feared that if details of Scutt’s case became public, it could lead to the unit being shut down. We note that the Inquiry, in its Interim Report in 2023, has already concluded that the unit should have been closed down anyway, way back in the early 1970s.

Live: HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’

HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ testified about his infiltration of various Socialist Workers Party branches in South London in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Recruitment and Training

HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ joined the Metropolitan Police in the early 1980s, serving in uniform before joining Special Branch in the mid-1980s. His path to the Special Demonstration Squad began with a casual conversation with a colleague in April 1988, highlighting the informal nature of SDS recruitment.

During his selection meeting, HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ had expressed his views on protest:

‘I said that I believed that people had a right to protest, and I had no problem with that. However, because of the disorder that, you know, I had seen, I didn’t believe that protesters had perhaps the right to impact so much on other people’s lives’

Like HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’, HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ received minimal training for his role. He confirmed that there was ‘no formal course or training’ while inside the SDS. Instead, preparation for deployment involved regular meetings and conversations with experienced undercover officers and managers.

After his deployment, HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ went on to serve as a mentor to undercover officers, attending training sessions to prepare for the role, including one with a psychologist. However, he felt the mentoring scheme had limitations:

‘we may have been ex-field officers but at the end of the day, we weren’t counsellors. So didn’t have, obviously, the benefit of psychologist training or something similar’

This lack of formal training and guidance is a recurring theme in evidence from officers in the SDS.

Stolen Identity

As was standard SDS practice, HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ stole the identity of a dead child for his time undercover. He conducted research into the real Mark Kerry’s background, including visiting the area where the boy had lived.

‘It was simply so I could familiarise myself with the locality. So if at some point I should be asked on where I was born, et cetera, then I would at least be able to describe something of, you know, where I had been born and brought up’

Influence, Intrusion and Blackmail

HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ first infiltrated the City of London Anti-Apartheid Group, who had a permanent 24hours-a-day protest outside the South African embassy.

He then infiltrated various Socialist Workers Party (SWP) branches, including Lambeth South, South-West London, Kingston, and Lambeth North. He played an active role in SWP activities, even helping to establish a new branch in Kingston.

As with colleagues who took roles of influence on the groups they spied on, he was at pains to downplay it. When questioned about the appropriateness of his level of involvement, he unconvincingly claimed:

‘my contribution would have made no difference to whether that group would have carried out that activity at Kingston or not’

His deep involvement in SWP activities included attending the party’s annual 2,000-strong rally/social gathering at Skegness, where he shared accommodation with other activists. He drove at least one activist to the event and rented a caravan with three others.

HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ appeared to be completely oblivious to the inappropriateness of this, responding when asked ‘I just simply didn’t see it as an intrusion’

He provided extensive reporting on SWP activities and members’ personal lives. He consistently argued that all information was potentially valuable and that it was standard practice to report everything he could remember.

Asked about the necessity of reporting all this information, he responded

‘I think really I included everything that I thought was relevant to the character of that person, or to the physical appearance of that person’

His reports often included sensitive personal information. For example, one report from March 1992, detailed someone described as a ‘practising homosexual’ who was no longer a member of the SWP.

HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ defended reporting such information:

‘It was relevant to report that this ex-member of the SWP went to events about “homosexual rights” despite the fact these events were not subversive of public order issues’

Most significantly, he acknowledged that a range of such personal information (including regarding sexuality and family issues) would be reported because:

‘this might be useful for anyone seeking to recruit [the person] as an informer’

When asked if it was within his remit to report such information, he responded:

‘Sometimes it was, yes’

He claimed someone had undertaken a ‘marriage of convenience’, and ‘this sort of information may have assisted with any efforts to recruit the individual as a source’, ie coerced into becoming a police informant.

The only possible conclusion of this shocking admission is that the SDS was routinely collecting such information on hundreds if not thousands of people to be potentially used by police or security services to threaten and blackmail vulnerable people into becoming informants.

It will be interesting to see how many future SDS witnesses, including managers, admit to this vile tactic.

The Poll Tax Demonstrations

As the grassroots movement against the Government’s poll tax continued to grow hugely in 1989 and early 1990, SDS officers monitored the many local protests, especially the mass protests at local Town Halls setting the ‘rates’.

There was planned a national demonstration to Trafalgar Square on 31 March 1990, the day before the new tax was to be implemented. SDS officers met to pool their ‘intelligence’ on the numbers expected.

The SDS’s ability to provide such pre-demonstration estimates is regularly used to try to ‘justify’ its extensive and intrusive spying. The officers came up with an estimate of 15,000 people.

HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ stated:

‘I said, personally, it was going to be as big as the CND demonstration of – I forget how many years before. So my estimate was probably around 30,000 people.’

In fact, over 200,000 attended. So much for SDS ‘intelligence’.

HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ said that he was aware that fellow SDS officer HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’ had been arrested during what had turned into a riot in and around Trafalgar Square (Dines later boasted of the event, writing an article and making a poster)

HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ recalled:

‘he had, I think, marbles in his pocket in the riot. I don’t know how that came to police notice, but I understand he was arrested’

HN90 explained that marbles could be thrown in front of police horses (to deter mounted charges).

‘Justification’?

Throughout his testimony, HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ appeared to have no concept of the inappropriateness of police interfering in political processes. He defended the SDS operations as necessary for maintaining public order and assessing the potential for subversion.

‘I didn’t see that the SDS was trying to achieve a shutdown of political organisations, but more to monitor what was going on and to report back’

When questioned about reporting on democratically elected representatives, he responded

‘I was just simply reporting, you know, on their appearance at a public event and what they had to say. So I didn’t see that as any problem whatsoever’

Unlike some previous officers who expressed regret in hindsight, HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ remained steadfast in his belief that all his actions and infiltrations were fully justified, even when viewed from today’s perspective. When asked if his infiltration of the Socialist Workers Party remained justifiable on public order grounds, he responded, ‘Yes, I do’.

Relationships with Management and MI5

Meetings between SDS managers and the Security Service were regular occurrences, with the Security Service providing assessments of the value of SDS intelligence. HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ acknowledged regular contact with his managers and noted the Security Service’s interest in his deployment, describing them as ‘one of our main customers’.

The Security Service played a significant role in influencing targeting decisions for undercover officers, showing interest in specific groups and individuals, and making regular requests for information.

HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ was aware of these interactions:

‘I knew right from the outset that the Security Service, you know, was an important customer, shall we say, of our intelligence reports’

Spying on the Lawrence Family

While working in C Squad in Special Branch after his deployment, HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ admitted seeing SDS reports on the Stephen Lawrence family campaign, which was seeking justice for their son who was murdered by a gang of racists.

‘Yes, I – I do [recall seeing such reports], because that was – that was something that, um, obviously the Metropolitan Police were interested obviously in the murder and that question there, whether or not there was any extreme right wing involvement in that. So that was – so any reporting that concerned that campaign, I would sometimes see that material’

He claimed that such reports were ‘very, very, very rare’.

The Inquiry failed to question him further about this highly controversial issue, and one of the key controversies fundamental to the setting up of the whole undercover policing inquiry. We know that former SDS officer Peter Francis has stated that the SDS were spying on the family campaign, trying to ‘find dirt’ with which to smear them.

C Squad was clearly investigating if the racist assailants who murdered Stephen Lawrence had connections with right-wing political groups, and yet were getting the SDS secret reports on the family campaign. Why were such reports written, and how were they used? Why did the police investigation fail to nail the murderers?

Wednesday 24th July (Day 13)

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Live: HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’

HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ was a notable witness as, unlike all the other officers giving evidence in open hearings about spying on the political left, he was deployed to infiltrate the far-right.

In 1990, he was sent to spy on the British National Party (BNP). His deployment was remarkably short lived, lasting less than a year, and therefore sits in sharp contrast to the officers who were deployed into left wing groups for years on end.

Bizarrely he was ordered by the SDS, backed by the Security Service, to join an inactive, even dormant, BNP branch in Loughton. Was this just a token deployment to pretend to ‘balance’ the widespread targeting of the left? Or was it more the case, as we had heard during the evidence in Tranche 1 of the hearings, that fascist groups weren’t infiltrated as they were ‘too violent’?

The testimony of HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ revealed the SDS as a highly secretive unit, even within the Metropolitan Police. He described first noticing SDS officers as ‘strange people’ with ‘long hair and beards’ appearing in the office, but ‘nobody would really talk about it’.

The selection process was equally opaque, ‘unlike any sort of selection board I had been through before’.

Once in the SDS, officers worked largely in isolation. Training was informal, as HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ described:

‘I believe all of my pre-deployment knowledge was gained through discussions with the officers already in the field’

These discussions often occurred during twice-weekly meetings. HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ emphasised the lack of structure as he corrected the implications of the Inquiry’s questioning:

‘Unfortunately you make it sound like a lecture. It isn’t, it’s like a cup of coffee chat’

HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ did not steal a dead child’s identity, contrasting with a significant proportion of earlier officers. He also revealed the interesting detail that SDS officers did not know each other’s cover names and that it was considered ‘taboo’ to ask.

Infiltration of Far-Right Groups

The deployment of HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ into the British National Party provided insights into the SDS’s approach (or lack of it) to far-right groups.

He seems to have been selected for this role due to being ‘a black belt in Karate’.

At a national BNP rally, he reported hearing a speech claiming that ‘obviously a large number of police understood the sentiments if not supported the British National Party’” and that:

‘if these officers did not soon cast off their uniforms and throw in their lot with the British National Party and join in the struggle for racial purity they would find themselves the targets of British National Party wrath when it finally achieved power – an hypothesis which was greeted by almost deafening agreement in the form of applause by the audience’.

HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ also reported on a speech by BNP chairman John Tyndall, who said that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner ‘was no more than a puppet dancing to the tune of the [Jewish] British Board of Deputies’.

Despite the BNP’s well known anti-semitism, HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ was renting a flat from a Jewish family. BNP members visited him there, and the Inquiry questioned him about the potential risk to his landlords – he said that the visitors were unaware of the situation.

He admitted to witnessing a brazen physical assault on a left wing supporter by a BNP activist at a march without reporting it, rationalising, ‘there was no point in me trying to report’.

When questioned further, he attempted to justify his inaction:

‘Well, there may have been a crime, whether it was a common assault, actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm, I couldn’t tell’

He later said that he had ‘significant discretion’ in what he reported, but also claimed he would report ‘anything, really, that was going on that was of interest to the police’.

The deployment of HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ focused on the Loughton branch of the British National Party, which he described as ‘moribund’, maybe just one or two activists selling the BNP paper.

This led to periods of limited reporting, causing some concern among his managers about his productivity. He explained:

‘they were not doing anything… I found it quite boring to be perfectly honest’.

He told the Inquiry that the BNP members he interacted with were ‘quite a law abiding bunch of people’ and that he didn’t witness organised attacks, which contrasts somewhat with his statements about the broader far-right being prone to violence.

At a BNP ‘Rights for Whites’ demonstration HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ saw that one of the leaders was talking conspiratorially with a member of the Loughton branch, and pointing over at him. He believed that he may have been identified as a policeman. He reported that he was followed twice whist driving in his car.

After being asked by the SDS to attend a BNP branch meeting elsewhere in East London, he refused as he felt was too dangerous. ‘I was concerned that I could have been killed’, he explained.

‘It would have been suspicious for a Loughton British National Party member to turn up to another group’s meeting out of the blue’

HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ said that after this the managers turned on him.

This, combined with his earlier safety concerns, led to his unilateral decision to withdraw from the operation. HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ ended his own deployment, cleared out his operational flat and reverted to his usual appearance. SDS managers were ‘horrified’ about this, but could do nothing.

He was questioned about an incident from his written evidence where he described a ‘complicated relationship’ with one of the other SDS officers:. He suspected that the colleague done things which could have exposed him. The colleague had asked HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ for his cover name at a biweekly meeting. Afterwards two other officers had expressed their shock, because asking for someone’s cover name was taboo.

The implication here is that an officer with right wing sympathies, or maybe an axe to grind, may have sought to expose HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ to the BNP.

Sexual Relationships

His testimony highlighted numerous ethical complexities. He admitted to wearing a wedding ring partly as a ‘deterrent’ to romantic entanglements in his cover identity. However, he claimed ignorance of any sexual relationships between SDS officers and targets until media revelations years later:

‘I had never, ever heard of a relationship with a woman’

This claim seems at odds with the widespread nature of such relationships later revealed. When asked about his reaction to eventually learning about HN10 Bob Lambert‘s abuses, he said he had been ‘astonished’:

‘It just seemed ridiculous that he could have been so stupid and irresponsible, and, if you want, immoral. That he could do that to his family’

Nonetheless, he described Lambert as ‘a very capable police officer… a very intelligent man… the most professional SDS officer ever’

That’s certainly a novel view of one of the most controversial of all the spycops.

Management, Oversight and the Impact of Undercover Work

Like so many officers at the Inquiry, the evidence of HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ illuminated significant failings in SDS management. He provided insights into his own relationship with other officers and managers. He described HN109’s management style as ‘very difficult’ and said he ‘mistrusted him’.

In contrast, he praised Detective Chief Inspector Martin Gray as one of the best managers he ever had. About Chris Hyde, he said he was ‘one of the boys… not really a very good manager’. When asked if he felt supported after his deployment ended, HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ replied simply ‘not at all, no’.

He highlighted the lack of formal support structures within the SDS, both during and after deployments. His experiences suggest a unit that often operated on informal practices and personal relationships, rather than established protocols. Regarding welfare support, he said:

‘There was no welfare or support for me as a former undercover officer. With hindsight, it was not adequate for my needs although I was able to quash any rumours about my deployment’

When he ended his own deployment, HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ felt unsupported by management, describing ‘a couple of unpleasant months at work’ where he was ‘treated with some disdain by some colleagues’.

He left us with an impression of a culture where management was quick to blame individual officers rather than examine systemic issues, recounting a particularly telling interaction with superintendent in the corridor in Special Branch:

‘he shook my hand and said “it takes a brave man to admit that he is not up to the job” ‘

The psychological toll of undercover work was evident in the evidence HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’, which highlights the intense pressure and isolation felt by undercover officers.

He mentioned officers who left the police immediately after their deployments, and spoke about one officer, HN4, who ‘took to drink’ following his undercover work. When asked about HN4’s struggles, HN56 said ‘it was obvious. He got into trouble’.

His account of how fellow officers confronted HN4 about a drink driving arrest was interesting, revealing a deeply dysfunctional approach to internal discipline. He described a ‘self-appointed “Court of the Star Chamber” ‘ in which HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’ and another officer asked managers to leave the room (which they did):

‘they were interrogating HN4 over his behaviour… and it wasn’t just the drink drive’

HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ also expressed scepticism about HN5 John Dines claiming to having been beaten up by police following being arrested at the Trafalgar Square poll tax demonstration.

He was present when HN5 John Dines came into the SDS office and said it looked like he’d faked it in a bid for martyrdom credibility:

‘The injuries that he sustained, in my mind, were not consistent with having been beaten up in the back of a police van. In other words, they were self-inflicted, in my opinion. The injuries I witnessed on his face did not resemble being battered’

Taken as a whole, his evidence suggested a toxic culture where officers (for example Dines) took discipline into their own hands and may have exaggerated incidents for ‘glory’ or ‘notoriety’.

While he denied any difference in attitudes towards women or racial minorities between police and non-police organisations, he belied this by suggesting that officers who joined the police young were ‘less likely to recognise’ sexist behaviour as problematic, describing it as ‘the norm’ in some instances. He attributed his own different perspective to his background:

‘Because I think – because I was a late joiner, I was not moulded by the Metropolitan Police like a young man can be when they join at 18’

This is an implicit admission that sexism and racism are normalised and instilled by the police. It is an institutional problem.

Financial Incentives

Documents showed HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ received significant overtime payments of over £1000 per month.

When asked if this was a substantial amount in 1990, he confirmed ‘yes, huge, yes’. He insisted money was not an incentive, because ‘if it had been an incentive I would have stayed on’.

Nevertheless, the substantial sums involved raise questions about other officers motivations for undertaking, and seeking to extend, undercover operations and continue useless, potentially traumatic or ethically dubious deployments.

The fact that this officer had collected so much money for infrequent reports and failure to infiltrate any group properly shows how easily the overtime and lack of oversight could add up to a cushy scam.

Thursday 25th July (Day 14)

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Live: Lindsey German
Socialist Workers’ Party

The final day of the week’s hearings featured testimony from Lindsey German, for 30 years a pivotal figure in the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and currently the convener of the Stop the War Coalition. German’s testimony provided a crucial counterpoint to police narratives heard earlier in the week.

German was elected to the SWP central committee in 1979 and remained in the role throughout the Inquiry’s Tranche 2 period (1983-1992). She was involved in organising meetings, editing publications, and supporting campaigns, demonstrations and strikes.

German said that the committee met weekly to discuss strategic matters. She also mentioned her regular attendance at national demonstrations, though she was less frequent at local protests. She described how the SWP also supported a range of social justice causes, from the Poll Tax protests to the campaign against the 1994 Criminal Justice Bill.

She discussed the annual ‘Marxism’ events organised by the SWP, describing them as public, academic gatherings that attracted a wide range of people, over 6,000 attendees, including many non-SWP members.

2,000 people, including children and many non-members, also attended the SWP’s annual gathering at Skegness. She bluntly condemned the heavy SDS surveillance of all these events:

‘The idea that there was any need for any kind of undercover policing is just ludicrous really’

SWP Activities and Police Mischaracterisations

A significant part of German’s testimony was dedicated to examining documents like the Security Service’s ‘Brief Guide to Subversion in Great Britain’ from 1985 and 1995, which described the SWP as a Trotskyite organisation advocating for the overthrow of the capitalist system, aiming to replace it with workers’ councils.

German agreed with the general description but emphasised the SWP’s commitment to democracy:

‘We believed that you could only achieve socialism, I still do believe this, by an organic movement based on working class people organising themselves, and therefore presenting an alternative to existing government’

German strongly rejected characterisations of SWP members as aggressive or disruptive in police reports.

She pointed out the inaccuracies in many of the reports, and their often derogatory comments – for example she criticised an SDS officer’s description of Wayman Bennett, a university-educated black man, who had been characterised as being ‘not particularly intelligent’.

The relaunch of the Anti-Nazi League (ANL) in the early 1990’s was also addressed with German explaining the SWP’s role in this, emphasising that while the SWP initiated the relaunch, the ANL was a broad organisation with many non-SWP members.

German addressed SDS officer claims about the alleged formation of a group of ‘hitters’ within the SWP or ANL – a supposed group of activists set up to physically defend events from fascist attacks. She denied any knowledge or approval of such a group:

‘I don’t think that would have been sanctioned by the central committee’

The Welling Demonstration and Police Tactics

A significant portion of German’s testimony focused on the mass anti-BNP demonstration at Welling on 16 October 1993. It was organised by a range of groups, and up to 40,000 attended, calling for the closure of a BNP ‘bookshop’ in the area.

The establishment of this ‘bookshop’, in reality an organising base for racists and fascists, had led to a massive growth in racist attacks on local black residents, including murders (for example of Stephen Lawrence).

German explained how the police had banned the march from going past the ‘bookshop’, and agreed an alternative route with the organisers. However, on the day the police halted and surrounded the march at a junction, and then attacked it.

She described the events as a ‘medieval battle’, noting the aggressive police presence, including 83 mounted officers, which was more than twice the number used at the notorious Orgreave miners’ demonstration attacked by police in 1984.

German recounted how the police cordoned off all exits, creating a chaotic and dangerous environment.

A fellow SWP Central Committee member, Julie Waterson, was badly injured.

‘People were injured by police truncheons in numerous police charges. It was extremely fortunate that no one died from police charges that day’

This view was based on her personal experiences, having been present at the 1974 Red Lion Square anti-fascist protest when Kevin Gately had been killed by police, and at a 2001 protest in Genoa, Italy, where anti-capitalist demonstrator Carlo Giuliani was shot dead by police.

German dismissed allegations that the SWP planned to incite violence at the demonstration, including the supposed intention to burn down the BNP bookshop. She explained that the police’s violent tactics, not the demonstrators’ actions, led to injuries and chaos. German emphasised the pattern of police instigating violence at certain demonstrations, a recurring theme in her testimony.

German’s testimony also covered the SWP’s support for various justice campaigns, including those for the Tottenham Three, Joy Gardner, Brian Douglas, and Stephen Lawrence. She explained that the SWP’s involvement was driven by their politics, which opposed injustice and supported those wronged by the system. German firmly rejected SDS slurs that the SWP supported these campaigns for their own political gain.

Reflections on Impact of Undercover Policing and Social Justice

German’s testimony concluded with broader reflections on the role of policing in society and the importance of social justice movements. She discussed the SWP’s view on the role of the police in maintaining capitalist power structures and defended the SWP’s support for industrial disputes, emphasising their role in standing up for better wages and working conditions, and trade union rights.

German was critical of the undercover policing operations and the reports they produced:

‘there is such a level of self-promotion, aggrandisement and inaccuracy about these reports’

She described the emotional toll of undercover policing on activist groups, including a pervasive sense of mistrust and suspicion that lingered long after the operations ended, undermining the work of social justice organisations.

German also touched on the changing nature of protest and political activism over the years, noting the impact of events like the Poll Tax protests and the rise of the BNP on SWP membership and activities.

Her testimony provided valuable historical context for understanding the political climate in which the SDS operated and the motivations of the groups and campaigns they targeted.

This summary covers the third week of Tranche 2 hearings of the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI), which continues to examine the activities of the Metropolitan Police’s secret political unit, the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), 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

This week’s hearings focused on the infiltration of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and various peace groups including the Greenham Common women’s peace camp, revealing the extensive and often invasive surveillance carried out by undercover officers, along with the clearly political motivations for the deployments.

Campaigners feared nuclear war with the Soviet Union during heightened cold war tensions, and opposed the Government’s plans to expand the UK’s arsenal of nuclear weapons and station US nuclear missiles on British soil.

In the early 1980s this outrage led in the early 1980s to protests hundreds of thousands strong, and blockades at military bases around Britain involving tens of thousands.

With public opinion at that time posing a significant challenge to government policy and a threat to the re-election of the Conservative Party in the General Election in 1983, at least five spycops were deployed into the anti-nuclear movement.

The Special Demonstration Squad specifically recruited a woman police officer, HN33/HN98 ‘Kathryn Lesley “Lee” Bonser’, to infiltrate the peace camp at Greenham Common. She was told that the prime minister, Margaret Thatcher at the time, wanted to know what the ‘Greenham women were doing’.

The Inquiry heard allegations that intelligence from spycops was exploited by Thatcher’s government to attempt to discredit and undermine anti-nuclear campaigns and the Labour Party’s support for unilateral nuclear disarmament just before the general election.

This week’s Undercover Policing Inquiry hearings featured detailed testimonies from three of the undercover officers involved and four of the activists they spied on.

Common themes from the police testimonies revolved around the supposed ‘justification’ for surveillance based on perceived public order ‘threats’ and the lack of clear guidelines and oversight of the deployments.

In contrast, the activist testimonies highlighted the government using the police for political ends and the outrageous targeting of this important movement for world peace, as well as the personal and community impacts of being subjected to covert surveillance, the breach of trust, and the ongoing repercussions of these operations.

OBSERVATIONS

It’s worth pointing out that on the third day of hearings, Greenham Common activist Rebecca Johnson’s witness statement was read out by a lawyer while Rebecca sat in the public gallery, an observer to her own testimony. Despite her willingness to testify and her crucial role in the events under scrutiny, the Inquiry chose not to call her for questioning. This exclusion was particularly striking given how often others referred to her expertise and experiences.

Hilary Moore, another activist, repeatedly drew attention to the ridiculousness of the Inquiry’s omission by suggesting the person to ask instead would have been Rebecca, who was after all actually living at the camps, ‘it would trip off the edge of her tongue.’ she said.

Asked to explain the structure of Greenham Common camp, Hilary responded, ‘Rebecca would be better at explaining this too.’

Asked what extent were actions planned or spontaneous she again replied, ‘I don’t think I can help with that really. I think, again, Rebecca is the better one there.’

The failure to engage directly with Johnson’s testimony raises serious questions about the thoroughness and fairness of the Inquiry, especially considering her significant contributions to the peace movement and her extensive first-hand knowledge of the issues at hand.

CONTENTS

Monday 15th July (Day 8)
Live: Kate Hudson – Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

Tuesday 16th July (Day 9)
Summary of written evidence:
HN33/HN98 ‘Kathryn Lesley “Lee” Bonser’
HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’
Live: HN65 ‘John Kerry’

Wednesday 17th July (Day 10)
Summary of written evidence:
Rebecca Johnson
Live: Hilary Moore
Live: Jane Hickman

Day 8: Monday 15 July

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Monday’s hearing focused on the infiltration of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) by undercover police officers during the 1980s and early 1990s.

Kate Hudson

Kate Hudson gave live evidence on behalf of CND. She started out as a supporter and is now the general secretary and author of a history of the organisation.

Hudson was questioned by John Warrington whose uncharismatic approach made the live evidence about this quite fascinating chapter of spycops infiltrations surprisingly dull and difficult to follow.

They began with her background and a history of CND since it was set up in 1957. Hudson explained the motivations behind CND’s campaigns, which were rooted in international law, concluding:

‘CND is in essence an enormously moral organisation determined to preserve life, to prevent further use of nuclear weapons, and of course to prevent nuclear weapons testing too.’

She emphasised that CND was a:

‘very broad church, including people from all walks of life, all faiths and none, different political perspectives and none.’

She detailed CND’s rapid growth in the 1980s, from a few thousand to over 100,000 members, driven by growing fears of nuclear apocalyse:

‘I think anyone who was around at that time would remember being in great fear and anxiety about the possibility of nuclear war.’

She described the structure of the organisation, with autonomous local and regional groups organised within a national framework.

CND’s primary objectives during the period examined by Tranche 2 of the Inquiry (1983-1992) were to oppose the introduction of Trident nuclear weapons and the deployment of US Cruise and Pershing missiles in Britain and Europe. Campaigning activities ranged from local efforts such as leafleting and petitioning to national demonstrations and parliamentary lobbying.

Warrington dedicated significant questioning to the organisation’s involvement in Non-Violent Direct Action (NVDA).

Hudson explained that NVDA was driven by morality and principal, and had always been a core part of CND’s activities. It took many forms including peace camps, occupations, blockades, sit-ins, blocking roads, and cutting fences at military bases.

Hudson strongly emphasised:

‘Non-violent direct action has never been a secret thing within CND. It’s a kind of strand of activity that we’ve supported since the early days, and at different times it has been more or less salient.’

She acknowledged that for some NVDA activities, advance notification to police might not occur:

‘In certain cases, where individual campaigners are prepared to take what might be described as illegal action, so for example blocking a road and willing to risk arrest and to do that on the basis of the defence of necessity… obviously one wouldn’t inform the police about those, because you would want to be able to get into place in the road before you were moved.’

The Inquiry presented several documents related to CND’s NVDA training and workshops. Hudson expressed approval of these efforts:

‘I think it is very impressive… how seriously the local groups and local campaigners were taking non-violent direct action, in the sense of preparing properly for it… really taking it seriously, so that would have been with due regard for legal questions, health and safety, making sure that the individuals themselves were safe and knew that they knew about breaking the law and what that might entail.’

SPYCOPS IN CND

CND was infiltrated by two undercover officers, HN65 ‘John Kerry’ and HN18 ‘Timothy Spence’, who attended national conferences and gathered intelligence.

Their reporting showed extensive surveillance of CND’s activities, including internal training sessions, meeting reports and personal, sometimes derogatory, comments about CND members’ private lives, including details about relationships, sexual orientation, drug use, and personality assessments.

The Inquiry examined reports that included subjective and potentially offensive characterisations of CND members. One report described a retiring chairman as ‘deeply enamoured with the sound of his own voice’ and ‘petulant.’

Another referred to a woman elected to a position as deriving her support more from her ‘ ‘glamour’ image’ than ‘any real ability.’ Hudson described this reporting as ‘incomprehensible’ and ‘quite shocking’, noting that the tone is ‘offensive and deeply subjective’. She expressed particular concern about undercover officers entering members’ private homes.

In their undercover roles, HN65 ‘John Kerry’ was chair of Hampstead CND, while HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’ was secretary of Hackney CND.

Hudson described these as positions of authority and responsibility within local groups, explaining that the chair would make decisions about agendas and meetings, while the secretary would handle communications and logistics. She noted that as delegates to regional or national meetings, these officers could have wielded multiple votes depending on their group’s size. She said it was:

‘entirely reprehensible to pose as someone acting in good faith amongst a group of thoroughly decent people.’

The Inquiry examined CND’s cooperation with the authorities during large-scale actions. A 1983 report about a planned ‘Peace Chain’ event noted extensive liaison with police and park authorities.

Hudson confirmed this was typical:

‘Ensuring the safety of the marchers is absolutely paramount, and stewards are very well briefed to make sure that they ensure that the march carries off in a peaceful fashion.’

This is significant because one of the roles HN65 ‘John Kerry’ took within the organisation was that of Chief Steward. In his witness evidence he claims all he did was set up a PA system, but Hudson pointed out that would be a serious dereliction of duty as the Chief Steward had ‘an enormous amount of responsibility’ for coordinating with police and ensuring participant safety.

Documents were presented showing CND’s instructions to stewards, emphasising peaceful conduct and cooperation with police. In the end tens of thousands successfully formed a 14 mile human chain between Greenham Common and Aldermaston nuclear research centre – which passed off peacefully.

ELECTION INTERFERENCE

The Inquiry also examined the then Conservative government’s keen interest in undermining CND, noting a report from October 1982 about CND’s plans for the upcoming election:

‘London region of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has prepared plans for a campaign at the next general election. In order to provide more information about the campaign the following decisions have been taken.
1. a pilot campaign will be launched for one weekend in February 1983 and will involve petitioning and door-to-door canvassing in the Prime Minister’s constituency of Finchley.

2. a general election fund will be set up.

3. an election pledge will be taken by people who would be prepared to take a week off work to campaign prior to the election.’

Warrington asked Hudson if she had any observations about what she’d seen of undercover police reporting about CND’s plans in advance of a general election.

‘Well, it makes one think, of course, that there was a kind of a political motivation.’

Her written statement pressed this point firmly home, quoting extensively from MI5 whistle-blower Cathy Massiter:

‘It was a very important party-political issue. Unilateral nuclear disarmament had been adopted as policy by the Labour Party, a General Election was in the offing, and it had been clearly stated that the question of nuclear disarmament was going to be an important issue there. It did begin to seem to me that what the Security Service was being asked to do was to provide information on a party-political issue…

It is clearly not a legitimate function [of the Security Service] because it directly contravenes the Charter.’

New evidence emerging in this Inquiry shows that not only the Security Service, but also the police were being used for party-political ends.

As Hudson explained:

‘There are reports from ‘John Kerry’ that serve no purpose other than assisting the [Conservative Party] 1983 General Election campaign.’

Her testimony underscored the invasive nature of the surveillance and its impact on CND, reaffirming the organisation’s commitment to peaceful protest and public advocacy. She highlighted the disconnect between the undercover officers’ perceptions and the actual operations of CND, suggesting that the surveillance was politically motivated to undermine CND’s democratic right to campaign.

Additionally, she noted that around 1983 spying on CND seemed to shift away from simply observing the activities of the group to a ‘’much more interventionist or surveillance approach,’ and that there was a ‘political campaign against CND to try and discredit its democratic right to campaign peacefully to change the path of government policy.’

Day 9: Tuesday 16 July

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

HN33/HN98 ‘Kathryn Lesley “Lee” Bonser’

Tuesday started with a summary of written evidence from HN33/HN98 ‘Kathryn Lesley “Lee” Bonser’ who was deployed between 1983 and 1986.

She joined Special Branch in the early 1980s and was recruited into the undercover unit after working as a plain clothes officer on a CND march. She recalled meeting with a superintendent about her recruitment:

‘he indicated that the Prime Minister [Margaret Thatcher] wanted to know what the Greenham women were doing, and so, the superintendent was asking whether I would be interested in helping the police to find out.’

HN33/HN98 ‘Lee Bonser’ worked in the back office before being deployed and claims she was the only woman doing so at the time. Like other spycops, she stole the identity of a deceased child, Catherine Leslie Bonser, and created a backstory of leaving an abusive husband, friends, and family before moving to London.

This particularly manipulative tactic of inventing trauma to cover gaps in backstories was common among officers of both main spycops units, the Special Demonstration Squad and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit.

She said she had received no guidance against police conducting abusive sexual relations or breaching legal professional privilege. Notably, she was not shown the ‘Informants who take part in crime’ document that prohibits involvement in court cases, nor the SDS Tradecraft manual before her deployment. She described the training:

‘Undercover officers would learn from fellow undercover officers and the SDS managers on the job.’

HN33/HN98 ‘Lee Bonser’ attended SDS meetings at a safe house twice a week. Claiming to have rarely discussed her deployment with other undercover officers, she said that if they did, it was:

‘kept quite light and we did not get into the nitty-gritty but we might have shared a story from which we could all learn.’

Regarding her targets, she said:

‘Lambeth Women for Peace were not looking to overthrow the government and so were not subversive. They were against the nuclear bombs and probably would have preferred a Labour government. I had some sympathy for their cause, but they also represented a challenge to public disorder in their numbers and ability to cause disruption.’

HN33/HN98 ‘Lee Bonser’ emphasised that she reported everything she observed, no matter how small:

‘I would report most actions. ie the group going out to do something. It could be a matter of public order, no matter how small. There may not have been violence, but there may have been disruption. So I reported it for someone else to consider the appropriate police response.’

Her reports covered addresses, telephone numbers, employment details, relationship statuses, and vehicle information of group members.

One report dated 13 July 1984 referred to her facilitating a meeting of the Lambeth Women for Peace. Another dated 28 October 1983 showed her providing bank details of the group Greenham Women Against Cruise, though she couldn’t recall how she obtained this information.

By June 1986, HN33/HN98 ‘Lee Bonser’ was redeployed to report on the Socialist Workers Party, attending only a few meetings over a couple of months. Her withdrawal strategy from Lambeth Women for Peace included pretending to emigrate to Australia.

She maintained that she did not form especially close bonds with individuals in her target groups and only participated in criminal activity once, entering the Greenham Common airbase alongside many others. She was never arrested or charged with any offences during her deployment.

Like so many of these undercover officers, HN33/HN98 ‘Lee Bonser’ said that, in the grand scheme of things, she did not think her reporting contributed much to policing.

HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’

The Inquiry summarised the written evidence of HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’, as he declined to give live evidence and, because he lives abroad, cannot be compelled to attend.

He was deployed between September 1983 and November 1986 in Hackney and Stoke Newington. He stole the identity of a dead child as the basis of his undercover persona.

Attracted by the excitement of the role and the significant income boost due to overtime, HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’ joined the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) after being approached by Bob Potter and subsequently interviewed by an SDS inspector. He received no formal training but had access to a guidance binder on creating a cover identity.

Although he received no specific guidance against engaging in abusive sexual relationships or serious criminal activities, he claims to have understood that such actions were unacceptable.

AVOIDING RELATIONSHIPS – WHY DIDN’T THEY ALL DO THIS?

To avoid relationships and provide cover for absences, he used a close contact as a pretend girlfriend, taking her to his cover accommodation without introducing her to activist groups.
This is particularly significant detail. The police have claimed officers were essentially compelled to deceive women into relationships otherwise they would have seemed odd in the social group they infiltrated.

Leaving aside the fact that most social groups include people who aren’t in relationships who aren’t suspected of being cops, this shows that even if the police did believe that they had an effective tactic to get round it.

It’s something used later by other officers. HN596/EN32 ‘Rod Richardson’ (deployed 1998-2003) and EN34 ‘Lynn Watson’ (deployed 2003-2008) talked of their partners who lived elsewhere and occasionally attended social events with them (played by a police colleague).

This means that deploying spycops without a pretend partner was a deliberate choice. Why else would they do that, unless they wanted the officer to deceive women into relationships?

POLICE INFILTRATING THE POLICE MONITORS

Tasked by Detective Chief Inspector Short to monitor Hackney and Stoke Newington due to potential public order issues, HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’ focused on the Hackney Campaign Against the Police Bill, which later became the Hackney Police Monitoring Group.

He reported on various police monitoring and anti-racist groups, including the East London Campaign Against Racist Attacks and Police Harassment. His cover job as a van driver facilitated his interactions with activists, allowing him to transport them to various events.

HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’ detailed his involvement with these groups, noting their activities like campaigning against police presence in schools, critiquing police actions, and organising mass pickets. His reports included information on MPs’ speeches, individuals’ employment, foreign travel, and even personal details like sexuality.

It is worth re-emphasising here that at the start of these hearings in July the Metropolitan Police were forced to apologise for and condemn this kind of targeting regularly carried out by SDS spies.

The Met Commissioner admitted:

‘there was unnecessary reporting on political and social justice campaigns, family justice campaigns, community organisations as well as groups that were campaigning for police accountability…

It is particularly indefensible that many of the anti-racism campaigns mentioned in SDS reports were seeking justice for members of the Black and Asian communities in London and were attempting to hold the MPS itself accountable for the way in which it policed those communities.

The MPS accepts the corrosive effect this type of discriminatory policing has on public trust and apologises unreservedly for this. It is an example of unacceptable political policing’

In February 1984, HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’ joined the Hackney Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), participating in significant events like Greenham Common protests and a protest walk around Molesworth RAF base.

As the secretary of Hackney CND, he attended and reported on various meetings and events, including the 1985 CND national conference. Despite his extensive infiltration, he did not consider the groups subversive, viewing their activities as minor criminality focused on public order.

During his deployment, HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’ faced three near compromises of his secret identity, four road traffic collisions, and minor infractions like driving violations, all of which were smoothed over by his managers.

He maintained his cover without facing significant consequences. He asserted that he did not engage in sexual relationships while undercover, and his ‘criminal’ activities were limited to flyposting and highway obstruction without any arrests or court appearances.

HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’ mentioned a visit by Commissioner Sir Kenneth Newman to the SDS premises, where undercover officers were congratulated.

While he found the informal welfare monitoring during his deployment sufficient, he noted the long-term effects on his personal life, including unnecessary lying and contributing to his divorce.

Notably, HN88 said seeing how the police treated people whilst he was deployed undercover made him rethink his commitment to policing.

HN65 ‘John Kerry’

The bulk of Tuesday’s hearing was devoted to the live evidence of HN65 ‘John Kerry’.

David Barr KC, Counsel to the Inquiry, questioned him, and began by discussing his time in Special Branch before joining the SDS.

Regarding his recruitment into the SDS, HN65 ‘John Kerry’ was approached by HN126 ‘Paul Gray’, who told him that they only recruited married men as being married with children ‘is what brings you home.’

HN65 ‘John Kerry’ explained:

‘there was a concern, I believe, that when you are so integrated into your groups that you could go ‘native.’ And the idea that you had a family to come back to would be something that would keep your feet firmly on the ground.’

This clearly failed to prevent the many fraudulent sexual relationships with women activists. Beyond that, the work often devastated their home life and a huge proportion of spycops got divorced soon after their deployment ended.

HN65 ‘John Kerry’ admitted to being excited about joining the SDS:

‘it fascinated me. I thought how exciting to actually be doing undercover work.’

Like his colleagues, he stole the identity of a dead child. He expressed discomfort about this practice but when asked if he considered how the family might feel, he admitted:

‘I am not sure, I am sure they would be not very pleased with it.’

He described visiting Manchester to familiarise himself with his cover identity’s birthplace:

‘It was very uneventful. It was almost a waste of time. The road where the child had been born no longer existed and there was nothing else for me to do up there…

it seemed that that was required of everybody, that at least you went to where you were meant to have been born, so you would have some knowledge of it.’

His deployment initially focused on the International Marxist Group and the Campaign Against Racist Laws (CARL) which he claims to have targetted because he thought it was a recruitment tool for the League for Socialist Action.

He was ‘absolutely dumbfounded’ when he witnessed a large demonstration in London, revealing significant opposition to racist leglislaton. His reports on their activities were accepted by his superiors without question.

He soon shifted focus to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). He explained:

‘CND at that stage wasn’t of any great interest. The interest of CND arose primarily during 1981, with the imminent arrival of cruise missiles… their membership just flourished, it just blossomed, because of the antipathy to Americans bringing their weapons and placing them in our country.’

HN65 ‘John Kerry’ became deeply embedded in CND, and like other spycops he gravitated towards a major role, eventually becoming chairman of the Hampstead branch. Like other spycops at the Inquiry, he played down any suggestion that he actively sought out a position of authority:

‘they press ganged me into it, I said I would not be chair, I would only be a facilitator. Because that was the image that I was creating at the time. I said I didn’t want to control it, I didn’t want to manage the group. I wanted just to facilitate what we were doing.’

Throughout his deployment, he reported extensively on group activities, internal dynamics, and decision-making processes, and attended multiple CND national conferences.

When questioned about the appropriateness of some of his reporting, particularly on peaceful activities, he defended the practice:

‘it is one thing you learn quite early in Special Branch careers, that it is just as important to know when something is not going to happen as when something is going to happen.’

Of course, on that basis they could justify spying on every person in the country.

Regarding CND’s nature, he said that they were not trying to overthrow the state ‘whilst I was there’ and admits it was not subversive, but was too large. He added:

‘they really were nice people. I mean that sincerely.’

HN65 ‘John Kerry’ also reported on local councils and the Greater London Council in relation to their nuclear-free zone policies. When questioned about the appropriateness of this he admitted:

‘There are [SDS] tentacles everywhere and some might have reached too far.’

Regarding the potential political use of intelligence, he said:

‘You could ask that question of any report written in Special Branch at any time by any squad, unfortunately. That’s the name of the game with us. So the answer is yes, it might have been. Because that’s what happens to Special Branch reports.’

Throughout his testimony, HN65 ‘John Kerry’ grappled with the ethical implications of his work. When asked about the consequences of his reporting on ordinary CND members, he acknowledged that some of his reporting may have been inappropriate:

‘It’s walking on a tight line, I agree, yes. I didn’t perceive that at the time, but now you point it out in the cold light of day, yes.’

Regarding sexual relations he claimed he had been subject to a number of sexual advances but never told his managers. He said he had created a backstory about a deceased girlfriend to help deflect advances:

‘You needed something to explain why, why you weren’t interested.’

He said he never heard of sexual activity by HN106 ‘Barry Tompkins’, HN155 ‘Phil Cooper’, HN67 ‘Alan Bond’, or HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’. However, he said he had heard about HN11 Mike Chitty ‘Mike Blake’ ‘when everything hit the fan’ after his deployment ended, Chitty had secretly been returning to the people he’d spied on and continuing his social life with them, including a relationship with a woman. His claiming for petrol to make all these visits aroused suspicion, and the SDS spied on him and discvered the truth.

He had also heard rumours about HN10 Bob Lambert (who decieved four women into sexual relationships and fathered a child before being promoted to head of the SDS).

After leaving the undercover unit, HN65 ‘John Kerry’ claims he suffered vivid and troubling nightmares and would wake up sweating:

‘I wasn’t the only one… You live in a world of lies. It’s not easy to do and it’s not pleasant to do…The problem being undercover is you tell one lie, you have to tell 100 lies.’

Day 10: Wednesday 17 July

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Rebecca Johnson

Rebecca Johnson is a lifelong peace activist, campaigner, and an accomplished academic. In 2004, she received a PhD with her doctoral thesis focusing on multilateral nuclear arms negotiations. She has been unwavering in her commitment to the cause, becoming co-chair and then president of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), an organisation that was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017.

She heard about Greenham Common on a CND march in October 1981 and began to visit from 1982. The Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp grew out of a 10-day protest walk by Women for Life on Earth to draw attention to NATO’s decision to deploy US ground launch cruise nuclear missiles at the Berkshire airbase.

After the ‘Embrace the Base’ demonstration in 1982 when 35,000 women came to Greenham to surround the airbase, 5,000 women chose to stay overnight and close the base the next day.

By the end of 1983 there were over 200 women living in separate camps around the airbase. There were no rules at the camp but there were two central principles: non-violence and holding women’s space.

Greenham women were open about their intentions, communicated openly with the public, and often invited journalists when they took actions.

Many women became involved in Greenham-connected peace groups, including Lambeth Women for Peace (LWP) which was infiltrated by HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’. Johnson has some memory of Lee Bonser as a ‘quiet and friendly’ member of LWP who visited Greenham and went to meetings. Johnson wasn’t friends with HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’ but thinks she saw her at friends’ private homes.

Johnson herself took part in a number of actions including entering the Greenham airbase and occupying the main gate sentry box with a number of other women. She was one of 44 women who climbed into the base on New Years Day 1983 and danced and sang on the top of a nuclear weapons silo. She and many other Greenham women were subject to serious violence from the police and members of the US Air Force.

She was also one of the named plaintiffs in the Greenham Women Against Cruise Missiles (GWACM) court case brought against Reagan and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. She believes HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’ attended one or more meetings about the GWACM court case in 1983 and 1984 when Jane Hickman discussed legal issues, in which case she would have been party to confidential legal advice.

The revelation that officers like HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’ attended confidential meetings and potentially had access to privileged legal advice, along with her experiences at Greenham, have all reinforced her belief that state entities act to suppress legitimate peaceful protest and maintain the status quo.

She reflected:

‘The more I have learnt through the Inquiry, the less I trust the police, politicians, and state entities.’

As noted above, Johnson was not asked to give live evidence to the Inquiry and she had to sit in the public gallery as her evidence was read by someone else. The absurdity of this situation was frequently highlighted by the other women giving live evidence.

Hilary Moore

Hilary Moore did give live evidence, and provided a comprehensive account of her involvement with the Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp and Lambeth Women for Peace from 1982 to 1987.

She described the camp’s non-hierarchical structure, where all women had equal voices and the camps at each gate had a distinct ethos. She added that the camps were inclusive and welcomed all women, regardless of their backgrounds. Refuting claims made by HN65 ‘John Kerry’ that the women were violently anti-male she flatly said:

‘Not at all. Lots of the women there were married, had male partners… This was just a crazy notion about Greenham.’

Moore detailed the various creative and non-violent actions at Greenham, including the ‘Embrace the Base’ demonstration in December 1982. She mentioned actions like making banners, participating in a dragon dance day, and reflecting the base with mirrors.

Moore emphasised the non-violent nature of their protests and the attitude to legality:

‘We did not seek to break the law, but sometimes it was necessary to make our point… There was the famous action when some of the fence was cut, and Lambeth Women for Peace were there then.’

Discussing Lambeth Women for Peace, Moore described the group’s broad focus on peace and other local and international issues. They organised educational events, leafleting, die-ins, and peace picnics.

The group also supported Greenham Common through visits and actions; ‘our core foundation was to support Greenham Common’.

She highlighted their successful Clapham Common peace camp in May 1983, which drew significant local support and media attention.

Moore was critical of the infiltration by HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’:

‘She got involved very quickly, and we had our suspicions from the start’

Moore described the officer’s fabricated backstory of escaping an abusive relationship, noting, ‘it just didn’t add up why she was there’.

HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’ was always a bit of an enigma, with her lack of political understanding and odd background story raising suspicions. Moore noted the usefulness of the officer’s car, which was an unusual asset in the group, facilitating trips to Greenham Common. This is of course typical of what we know about many other undercover deployments.

HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’, despite her enigmatic presence, came across as sociable and participated in many activities with Lambeth Women for Peace. After meetings, it was customary for the group to go for a drink, and HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’ would join them at the local pub. She also took part in occasional social outings, such as meals, and even visited Moore’s house for dinner with other members.

While she was not considered a close friend, the spycop was a part of their shared experiences. Moore noted:

‘I did have a note in the diaries that I still have from the 1980s of a time when she came round for a meal at my house. I am a bit surprised to see it in retrospect. I don’t particularly remember it, but I have made a note that she was coming round with two other women from Lambeth Women for Peace.’

Unlike the lasting friendships formed within the group, a deeper connection with HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’ was hard to envision.

Moore also recalled how the officer frequently took on administrative roles within the group, such as taking minutes and even facilitating meetings. This involvement provided ample opportunities to gather information.

Despite suspicions, the group did not take significant actions against her, reflecting their open and trusting nature. Moore remembered HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’ participation in various actions, though she often preferred to take a ‘backseat’ role such as acting as a legal observer.

While it may have been seen as a less active role, a police officer taking on such a vital legal support role in case anyone was arrested is a matter of serious concern.

Reflecting on the impact of the surveillance, Moore condemned the unnecessary and intrusive nature of the reports, particularly the inclusion of personal details and the creation of Special Branch files on group members.

She further questioned the justification for such intense scrutiny and highlighted the broader implications for civil liberties and democratic activism:

‘It’s just horrendous that those records have been kept and were ever made of myself or anybody else in the group. Totally unwarranted.’

Jane Hickman

Jane Hickman, a solicitor involved with the Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp and Lambeth Women for Peace, also gave live evidence, and provided critical testimony about her experiences.

Incidentally, Hickman served as a commissioner on the Legal Services Commission and was the founding partner of the firm Hickman & Rose which is representing some of the non-state non-police core participants in the Inquiry.

Hickman was introduced to Greenham Common when she represented women arrested for occupying a sentry box in 1982:

‘Representing those women for that occupation of the sentry box renewed my interest in the politics of peace and disarmament’

Her professional engagement with Greenham led to a personal involvement. She continued to be involved with Greenham Common from 1982 to 1985, providing legal advice and support.

She described the nature of the legal issues faced by the Greenham women, including so-called ‘breaches of the peace’, criminal damage, obstructing the highway, and theft of the US Air Force bus.

She represented individual Greenham women and those who formed the Greenham Women Against Cruise Missiles:

‘I couldn’t say that I was a solicitor for the peace camp, because it didn’t, as an entity, instruct anyone’

One of the most disturbing aspects of Hickman’s testimony was her account of how HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’ infiltrated confidential legal meetings, breaching trust and legal professional privilege:

‘The risk is really high. I can’t be specific, but I think it’s real, that risk’

Having a police officer party to defendants’ discussions contravenes basic principles of the legal system.

She also discussed the long-term impact of this surveillance on her career. After being made redundant from the Balham Law Centre in 1980, she struggled to secure a public sector job.

‘I had the kind of CV at that point where every job I applied for I would get and I applied to countless local authorities and nobody wanted me’

When she finally asked Lambeth Council Legal Department why she had not been employed, she was told it was because she was ‘thought to be too political.’

Hickman reflected on this revelation:

‘I had never understood that, because this was before the internet, before they could look you up.’

Hickman provided a detailed account of her involvement in various legal cases related to the Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp. Despite the challenges, she remained dedicated to providing legal support to the women involved in the peace camp. Her legal work was intertwined with her personal commitment to the cause of peace and disarmament.

Her testimony also shed light on the legal strategies employed by the Greenham Women Against Cruise Missiles. The group sought to challenge the deployment of cruise missiles in the UK by the US government through legal action.

Hickman highlighted the extensive research and preparation that went into building a case, which she described as creating a valuable repository of information for future campaigns against nuclear weapons.

‘We put together a real library of materials that would stand in good stead in the future.’

She also detailed the campaign’s impact, noting that it expanded the discussion around nuclear weapons and contributed to the foundation of the International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons, which later won the Nobel Peace Prize.

In a particularly poignant part of her testimony, Hickman expressed her disbelief at being the subject of undercover policing:

‘I just think it is absurd. And very alarming. Because I think if it happened to me it could happen to just about anyone. I know my views were on the left still at that period, and I was a feminist, but these were mainstream ideas. I was introduced to Marxism by a British university, not by some secret Soviet cabal. I find it inexplicable.’

This summary covers the second week of Tranche 2 hearings of the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI), examining the activities of the Metropolitan Police’s secret political unit, the Special Demonstration Squad, from 1983-92.

It was the first of this set of hearings to hear live evidence and question witnesses.

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 a devastating week for Special Demonstration Squad officers at the Undercover Policing Inquiry hearings.

An officer confirmed that a colleague, HN67 ‘Alan Bond’, had admitted having a child with a woman he spied on. This is the the fourth such child that we know of. Officers knew they would be abandoning the children as toddlers and leaving the women with all the work and costs of parenthood.

Another officer, HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’, was exposed not only for racism and misogyny in his pointless reporting, but also as a fantasist who made up bomb threats that made his work seem more important. It’s not only damning for him but for the Met as a whole, as he was promoted up to running Special Branch and being the Met’s Head of Intelligence.

On the opening day of the live hearings, the Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance, Police Spies Out of Lives, the Blacklist Support Group and other campaigners holding a demonstration outside the International Dispute Resolution Centre in London, before live in-person hearings began inside.

On Monday 8 July, the hearings dealt with the deployments of officer HN20 ‘Tony Williams’, and HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’ spying on anarchist groups. The ‘non-state witnesses’ – those who were spied on – gave evidence first.

The hearing began with the Inquiry Legal Team (ILT) reading summaries of written evidence for officer HN20 ‘Tony Williams’, and civilian witnesses ‘MSW’ and Albert Beale. Then Dave Morris stepped up to speak about the London Worker’s Group and the Persons Unknown defence campaign.

In the afternoon Stephen Sorba gave evidence on behalf of Friends of Freedom Press.

On Tuesday 9 July, spycop HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’ gave evidence all day and was subjected to a blistering cross-examination that ran several hours over the allotted time.

Wednesday 10 July saw summaries of the evidence relating to the deployments of HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’, HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’ and HN67 ‘Alan Bond’, as well as one live witness, Michael Chant, general secretary of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist).

On Thursday 11 July we heard the harrowing testimony of Frank Bennett, the half-brother of Michael Hartley, who was lost at sea in his late teens and whose identity was stolen by HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’ for his undercover deployment.

In the afternoon, HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ gave evidence including about his statement to the effect that HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ fathered a child whilst undercover.

OBSERVATIONS

There really is no substitute for live evidence, and you will see in the summaries below how effectively the testimony we heard showcased not only the arrogance and abhorrent practices of the SDS officers but also the integrity and commitment of the groups and individuals they targeted – and whose trust they abused.

The Inquiry has put off hearings about some of the most controversial deployments in this Tranche until ‘Phase 2’ (which will take place in the autumn). However, this first week of evidence proved to be surprisingly exciting, and we saw further indications of changing attitudes on the part of the Inquiry Legal Team.

In particular, the cross examination of HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’ was far from the forgiving ‘friendly chat’ format that was frustratingly common during cross examination of ex-undercover officers in Tranche 1.

If you have time to watch one video from this week, we would highly recommend the last couple of hours of the afternoon session of the cross examination of HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’ from Day 5, Tuesday 9 July. Unfortunately, unlike the other hearings this week, the video has not yet been published by the Inquiry.

CONTENTS

Monday 8 July (Day 4)
Summaries of written evidence:
HN20 ‘Tony Williams’, MSW, and Albert Beale
Live: Dave Morris
Live: Stephen Sorba, on behalf of Friends of Freedom Press

Tuesday 9 July (Day 5)
Live: HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’

Wednesday 10 July (Day 6)
Summaries of written evidence:
HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’, HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’, and HN67 ‘Alan Bond’.
Live: Michael Chant

Thursday 11 July (Day 7)
Live: Frank Bennett, family of the real Michael Hartley.
Live: HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’.

Day 4: Monday 8 July 2024

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Summaries of written evidence: HN20, MSW and Albert Beale
These were read onto the record, and the corresponding documents and full written statements are available online.

HN20 ‘Tony Williams’

We were told that HN20 ‘Tony Williams’ provided a witness statement to the Inquiry in January 2020.

He was deployed undercover by the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) from February 1978 to October 1982, into the London Workers Group (LWG), Persons Unknown and the Revolutionary Prisoners Group. There is a Restriction Order over his real name.

‘Williams’ said he ‘could not recall’ many details from 40 years ago, and he reported no real training, no recollection of any manual and generally described his deployment as being ‘left to our own devices’ with no tasking once they were undercover.

He described the LWG as a group supporting workers in ways which would ‘ultimately lead to revolution’, and which was dominated by anarchist politics. His reports contain evidence of him attending a birthday party in someone’s home, speaking at meetings and reporting on debates within the group. He also took positions of responsibility, including ‘publicity manager’, treasurer and secretary.

It’s clear from his reporting that the group was small and largely educational in character and hence posed no ‘threat’, and he claims he continued attending in order to maintain his cover.

However, that doesn’t explain why he would continue reporting on the group. That appears to be explained by the keen interest of the Security Service (also known as MI5) in anarchism at the time. ‘Williams’ says he was debriefed by MI5 at an SDS flat after his deployment ended and he believes they were seeing his reports.

MSW

MSW is a civilian who was reported on by SDS undercover officers, principally HN20 ‘Tony Williams’ and HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’, although he has no recollection of meeting either of them. He is known only by his initials as he was granted anonymity at his request. His witness statement is dated 16 May 2024.

From 1979 to 1984, MSW was involved in ‘anarchist workerist communist circles’.

He states:

‘I was not involved in any covert illegal activity at any point when I was politically active’.

He describes his involvement with three groups in particular, the Anarchy Collective, publishing an anarchist theory magazine called Anarchy; his support for the Autonomy Club, ‘to establish and run an anarchist social centre and event space’; and the London Workers Group (LWG). The LWG was an open group of around 10 regular attendees and ‘did not have a formal organisation structure but there was always someone who was in charge of the money and took the minutes, so in theory, performing treasurer and secretary roles’.

He describes Group as publishing ‘rebellious’ content in its bulletin such as the article ‘We Want to Riot, not to Work’, which he considers:

‘should probably be understood as an expression of “punk attitude” to societal norms about the compulsion to wage labour, rather than actually advocating public disorder – it was riffing on the Brixton riots’

They supported and took part in workers’ picketing during industrial disputes, including actions ‘later deemed to be illegal on grounds like obstruction or breach of the peace’.

He states that none of the three groups used ‘violence’ to achieve their aims.

The groups variously theorised, propagandised, and organised ‘towards a generalised social revolution, which would produce its own organisational structures’. He was not surprised to learn undercover officers had reported on the groups with which he was involved, but he was shocked they entered private homes. He feels vulnerable and disgusted that the information about him was recorded, retained, used, and disseminated by Special Branch.

Albert Beale

Albert Beale is a 77-year-old civilian who was reported on by SDS officers; HN20 ‘Tony Williams’, HN65 ‘John Kerry’ and HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’. His witness statement along with exhibits AB1 to AB9 are dated 8 March 2024.

Beale says he is a pacifist and has spent much of his life ‘concerned with issues of peace, justice, and sustainability and trying to act on those concerns’.

He gives an account of his early activism and later groups, he was involved with, including London Peace Action ‘a local group of antimilitarist activists’; the Anti-Falklands War Support Network in supporting ‘pacifists and others… because of their opposition to the Falklands War’; the Peace Pledge Union, which he describes as the main British pacifist organisation; War Resisters International, an international pacifist and antimilitarist network; Peace News Trustees Limited; Campaign Against Arms Trade; and the ABC Defence Campaign, defending two journalists and a soldier charged under the Official Secrets Act.

The main group Beale was – and still is – involved in was London Greenpeace, being a founder in the early 1970s. London Greenpeace was the first Greenpeace group in Europe, having been set up following an article published in Peace News in 1971.

He addresses the notions of public order and disorder in the context of the groups and campaigns, explaining that order is:

‘based on people’s acquiescence to a system of economic injustice and to a system which is producing an ecosystem which will soon be inimical to the future existence of our species’.

He defoned disorder:

‘a matter of shaking up the status quo; in my view, our world is in greater need of some “disordering”.’

He thinks most others involved in similar groups would have taken a similar view.

‘I see myself as generally committed to [direct action]. In other words, when doing what is necessary to follow my conscience, if that is judged to be in breach of some law, then so be it.’

On violence he said it ‘relate[s] essentially to harming another person’ and that damage to property is not in itself violent. He doubts that any of the groups or campaigns with which he was involved considered violence to be necessary to achieve their aims.

Beale finds the notion of ‘overthrowing parliamentary democracy’ – the spycops’ and MI5’s definition of subversion that made someone worth spying on – a puzzling one, something that was not discussed in any of the groups or campaigns.

Beale has considered the cover names of the officers that have been named as active at the time and does not recall knowing any of them well, if at all. On learning that he had been reported on by undercover officers, he said he found it unnerving. He felt betrayed and extremely unsettled. He still considers the situation to be intolerable and he is left ‘wondering if there were other people I have known who might have been doing the same’.

Live evidence: Dave Morris

Dave Morris is an influential activist throughout the 1970s and 1980s, and up to today. He has submitted a written statement for Tranche 2 Phase 1 (T2P1), dated 5 June 2024. He appeared live to be questioned by Ms Gargitter of the Inquiry Legal Team (ILT).

Due to the Inquiry’s failure to properly manage the process of disclosing police documents, he will be asked to submit further written evidence and he will be called back to speak again in Tranche 2 Phase 2 in this autumn.

His T2P1 testimony, both live and in writing, provided a detailed and nuanced perspective on his activism and the activities of the groups he was involved with. His responses highlighted the contentious nature of the reports by undercover officers and underscored ethical concerns surrounding undercover policing.

His emphasis on collective action, mutual aid and peaceful protest painted a stark contrast to the reports implying violent intent. Morris was clear on the need for a thorough and transparent inquiry and it was obvious that, as the Inquiry progresses, his insights will be crucial in understanding the broader implications of undercover operations on activist movements.

INFILTRATION IMPACTS

Morris began by detailing some of his activism, starting as a postal worker active in his trade union in the 1970s. He co-founded the London Workers Group in the mid-1970s and was active in housing issues in Islington and Hackney.

By the early 1980s, his focus shifted mainly to his local community in Tottenham, helping to set up the Tottenham Claimants’ Union. He also got involced in London Greenpeace – and beame embroiled in the McDonald’s libel case, or ‘McLibel’, which consumed a significant portion of his life for nearly a decade.

London Greenpeace was infiltrated by multiple undercover officers.

He specifically mentioned spycops HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’, HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’, and others who had deeply infiltrated their activities. They influenced the course of events and acted as agents provocateur.

One of the most striking aspects of Morris’ testimony was his account of the personal betrayals experienced by group members. He cited HN5 John Dines:

‘He engineered a long fraudulent sexual relationship with Helen Steel while she was preparing for the legal battle with McDonald’s…

He gave every impression that he was in love with Helen and that they were a couple preparing for a long relationship together. His sudden disappearance faking a mental breakdown certainly caused her intense trauma and stress for over 20 years.’

Meanwhile HN10 Bob Lambert had four sexual relationships with activists and fathered a child, later abandoning the child and his mother.

Morris emphasised the emotional toll such deceit took on individuals.

‘These weren’t just professional relationships; they were deeply personal. The police exploited our trust and used it against us.’

Morris highlighted the broader impact of undercover policing on activism. He argued that this was a deliberate tactic to try to manipulate and undermine social movements.

Spying on London Greenpeace will be looked at in detail in T2P2.

SUBVERSION AND LAWBREAKING

Morris explained that anarchism advocates for a harmonious society run by people themselves, organised on a voluntary cooperative basis without hierarchical government.

He highlighted the conclusion of SDS officer HN304 ‘Graham Coates’ who, after four years’ deployment in the 1970s, declared that:

‘The anarchists I reported on posed a minimal challenge to public order… I do not think either the International Socialists or the anarchist movement were subversive in terms of their actions….

I do not believe any information I provided whilst I was deployed was particularly significant. I do not think it would have made any difference to public
order if I had not worked for the SDS.’

Morris went further, asserting that powerful institutions, driven by self-serving elites, are the true subversives in society, subverting human cooperation and genuine democracy.

‘Such powerful institutions are generally tightly controlled by a small self-serving elite, continually obsessed with power and profit… are prepared to use violence routinely to maintain their power and control over people and society.’

He explained that while the campaigns he was involved in didn’t set out to break the law, they did encourage collective action to defend people and change things. This included challenging unfair and unjust laws which only serve to protect the rich and powerful, and the unfair and unacceptable status quo.

Morris stressed the importance of collective action and self-defence – pointing out that the right of self-defence is enshrined in law and backed by 99% of the population. Self-defence was justified particularly in response to systemic violence and exploitation, such as evictions by landlords and threats of sacking by employers.

The groups he was active in were open, publicised their activities, and encouraged collective participation.

Morris personally never used or encouraged ‘violence’, pointing to the dictionary definition of violence as ‘unjustifiable force’.

‘It’s not a question of: how can we break the law? It’s more: what do people need to do to change things? And that may include activities that are breaking the law.’

Reports by SDS officer HN20 ‘Tony Williams’ describe Morris as a key figure in the anarchist movement, a notion Morris refuted, pointing out the failure of the police to understand the collective and non-hierarchical nature of anarchist groups, which had no leaders.

‘Williams’ also described Morris as:

‘an archetypical anarchist cherishing the ideals and theories laid down by Kropotkin… frequently talks of resorting to violence to achieve these aims.’

Morris countered:

‘I have never, as far as I can recall, encouraged people to resort to violence.’

He explained that this was in contrast to all political philosophies and parties seeking power, which are based on weilding routine Government and institutional violence, with the exeption of complete Gandhian non-violence advocates.’

HN20 ‘TONY WILLIAMS’ & THE LONDON WORKERS GROUP

The London Workers Group was a collective that met weekly for over eight years. It produced leaflets and bulletins, held regular public meetings on a range of workplace-related issues, supported industrial disputes and strikes, and encouraged workers to set up their own workplace ‘shop-floor’ organisation.

Morris disagreed with the assessment from ‘Williams’ that the group was merely a talking shop, noting their practical contributions and ongoing support for workers’ rights.

When asked about the group’s size and influence, Morris explained:

‘We were a small organisation. I think you can be influential as a small group of people in different circumstances.’

He noted that they had a mailing list of about 120 supporters and publicised their meetings in publications like Time Out.

Reflecting on the role of HN20 ‘Tony Williams’, and also the impact of being told the LWG was infiltrated – but not, initially, being told by whom – Morris returned to one of the core demands of those targeted by Britain’s political secret police:

‘I think it’s really important that all the spies’ cover names and photos are released.’

He explained that the people involved with those groups are entitled to know who spied on them, and without full details might otherwise suspect other people’.

Several vintage reports by HN20 ‘Tony Williams’ were examined to establish their accuracy. One report alleged Morris encouraged a range of support tactics including ‘smashing restaurant windows’ during a strike at Garners Steak House.

He recalled the conversation but denied advocating such actions:

‘I don’t remember anything about smashing restaurant windows, and I certainly would not advocate that, especially if there were people in the restaurant’.

The group agreed to focus on support for the strikers’ picket lines.

HN20 ‘Tony Williams’ took on influential roles at various times in the London Workers Group, including treasurer and secretary, with access to sensitive personal information like financial details and mailing lists. These were sent to MI5, presumably for blacklisting purposes.

TORNESS

The Torness anti-nuclear protests in 1980 were part of a campaign against the construction of a nuclear power station in Scotland. 10,000 had attended the year before, 3,000 of whom had occupied the construction site. ‘It was a big focus for the whole anti-nuclear movement,’ Morris explained.

HN20 ‘Tony Williams’ and Morris attended a much smaller 1980 mini-festival camp and protest. Morris acknowledged that some people wanted to cut the fence:

‘I am sure the idea was to try to enter the site and occupy it, basically.’

In the end Morris took in a part in a peaceful sit-down blockade of the main entrance, which was attacked by police. Morris was arrested.

It is instructive that HN20 ‘Tony Williams’ in his witness statement admits that:

‘I did not witness nor become involved in violence whilst deployed undercover save that the police in Scotland in Torness were somewhat heavy-handed in dealing with what was essentially non-aggressive trespass’.

Hence after four years infiltrating the anarchist movement the only violence he witnessed was from the police!

PERSONS UNKNOWN

The Persons Unknown campaign was a defence campaign supporting anarchists charged with conspiracy to cause explosions. Morris described it as a traditional defence campaign, providing support to the defendants and publicising the high-profile case ‘to counter police and media hysteria’.

HN20 ‘Tony Williams’ reported Morris’ support for the campaign as an indication of sympathy for violent actions. However, Morris emphasised the importance of supporting individuals facing legal challenges without necessarily endorsing their alleged actions.

In relation to the charges, Morris maintained:

‘No, I don’t support explosions and bombs. You know, the biggest culprit is the government. They have loads of bombs and they are prepared to use them.’

In reality, the more serious charges were eventually dropped, the ‘dangerous anarchists’ given bail, and the ‘Persons Unknown’ defendants found not guilty.

QUESTIONABLE JUSTIFICATIONS

Morris did not shy away from addressing the accusations against him and his fellow activists:

He left no room for doubt that the real extremists are those in power, or who infiltrate campaign groups for their own agendas.

He argued that the police’s actions were disproportionate and unjustified, and more interested in protecting corporate interests than public safety.

Morris dismissed man of the police reports as ‘exaggerated and often inaccurate,’ citing specific examples where police reports were proven false, and pointed to moments where the police were forced to admit wrongdoing.

WRONGFUL ACCUSATIONS

Morris was also questioned about a surprise accusation made by HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’ two years ago, but which had only been disclosed to Morris by the Inquiry at the very last minute before submitting his statement.

Pearce named Dave Morris in connection with an alleged recce of a ‘bomb site’ at a military barracks in Aldershot.

Pearce said in his 2022 witness statement:

‘I went to Aldershot with Dave Morris, [someone else] and possibly one other man. We were in my car, there could have been four or five of us, but I only recall those two names.’

This isn’t from an old undercover report 40 years ago, but from his recent and carefully composed declaration of fact to the Inquiry.

On Monday, Morris, giving evidence to the Inquiry, bluntly responded that the claim was ‘a load of rubbish’ and other intelligence reporting from the time appeared to back him up. Morris condemned much of Pearce’s reporting as ‘unreliable, sensationalist, sectarian, and unprofessional’.

On Tuesday, Pearce was challenged on the point by David Barr, KC the Inquiry’s barrister, and was forced to sheepishly concede that he had made ‘a mistake’.

CALL FOR ACCOUNTABILITY

In closing, Morris called for greater accountability and transparency in the Inquiry.

‘We need to know the full extent of these operations. The public deserves to know how and why their tax money was spent undermining campaigning for a better society.’

He demanded that those responsible for authorising and conducting these operations be held accountable.

‘It’s not enough to say mistakes were made. There must be consequences for these abuses of power.’

Stephen Charles Sorba

Sorba is the company secretary of Friends of Freedom Press Limited, and has been involved with the organisation since the 1970s. Freedom Press runs an anarchist publisher and bookshop in East London.

Sorba made a witness statement on behalf of the organisation, which included contributions from Dr Martin Peacock and David McCabe. During the session it was emphasized that McCabe, who had a closer relationship with HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’, could provide a fuller picture. McCabe had offered to give evidence, but despite his clear recollection of Pearce, the Inquiry inexplicably refused his offer.

FREEDOM PRESS HISTORY

Freedom was established in the nineteenth century and is the longest running anarchist publishing house in Europe. Sorba explained that Freedom operated out of a four-story Victorian building known as Angel Alley. The building hosted a bookshop, various offices and, until the early 1990s, a printing press known as Aldgate Press.

The press was established to print the anarchist newspaper, Freedom, and other commercial work to subsidise its operations. The editorial collective responsible for the newspaper’s content operated on a voluntary basis, with only one paid employee in the bookshop during the 1980s.

Sorba explained:

‘The group depended on volunteers and enthusiastic people coming in, showing an interest, getting involved’.

Freedom was a focal point for anarchists in London, with individuals from various groups passing through:

‘We were one of the few organisations that had a building in London. So if you wanted to come and find out what the anarchists were doing and what were they thinking and buy one of their magazines, we were the obvious place to come to.’

HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’ infiltrated Freedom between 1980 and 1984. He wrote articles for the Freedom newspaper on topics such as jury vetting, the Irish Republican Army, prison officer strikes, and critiques of police and the state.

Sorba highlighted how Pearce’s articles sometimes exacerbated internal debates within Freedom. He speculated that Pearce’s motivation might have been ‘to stir the pot somewhat.’

A significant point of contention was the publication of ‘My Little Black Book’, which contained instructions for urban guerrilla activities.

Sorba clarified that Aldgate Press took on the project as a commercial job, aware of its controversial nature but not intending to provoke direct action. ‘We were keen to print it because we were going to be paid,’ he explained.

The police searched the premises in 1982, in relation to the project, resulting in Sorba and others being detained. No charges were ever brought.

Another event discussed was the publication of a communique from the Angry Brigades Resistance Movement in the Freedom newspaper. Sorba denied any potential harm or connection to the group, explaining that they were simply reporting on a piece of news.

FUELLING DIVISIONS

The Inquiry examined intelligence reports of activities and interactions within the Freedom collective, including ideological differences, particularly regarding the Irish Republican cause.

HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’ wrote several articles for the paper, including one entitled ‘Prisoners of Politics’ supporting the IRA’s demand for political status for its imprisoned members.

Sorba recalled:

‘It was certainly more sympathetic [to the IRA] than most of the editors would have felt comfortable with.’

The article was in fact published with a footnote from the editors disagreeing with Pearce’s stance, emphasising the collective’s opposition to the IRA’s methods and goals.

The inquiry focused on one vintage secret police report highlighting a particularly contentious meeting where the discussion centred on Pearce’s article:

‘The seminar on Ireland… was not wholly successful. Even in the calmer atmosphere left by the absence of [a key figure], the discussion was centred on a reply from Belfast Anarchist Collective to the Freedom review on Ireland… What should the response of Freedom Collective be to such a critical letter?’

This debate exemplified the ideological divide the article exacerbated within the collective, with most members opposing Pearce’s sympathetic view of the IRA.

‘His language is interesting in certain cases,’ Sorba also noted, reflecting how Pearce’s report of these discussions (and indeed all of his reporting) tended towards disparaging and provocative language. This was to become a key issue for Pearce’s devastating cross examination the following day.

UNDERMINING

Reflecting on Pearce’s infiltration, Sorba acknowledged that while he contributed to the physical production and distribution of the Freedom newspaper, his ultimate goal was to undermine Freedom by spying and providing information to Special Branch.

Despite this, Freedom continued to operate and has persisted beyond Pearce’s infiltration. ‘We survived that blow,’ Sorba remarked.

Sorba also noted the personal impact, ‘I have no recollection of him, but he stole my address book and knew a lot about me.’

Day 5: Tuesday 9 July 2024

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

All of Day 5 was given over to the evidence of former SDS officer HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’, and it produced some genuine courtroom drama.

Despite his best efforts, Pearce’s testimony revealed a damning picture of undercover policing practices in the early 1980s. Due to a last minute Restriction Order being granted to a civilian named in some of the reports, live video wasn’t available to the public, which turned out to be a real shame as the session was one of the most interesting to date.

Pearce is a particularly significant officer because of his later career. After his time as an undercover officer he went on to be promoted through the ranks to become Commander of Metropolitan Police Special Branch and Director of Intelligence.

Questioning in this session was limited to his time undercover, so he will have to be called back at a later date to discuss his further activity as a manager. However, in the light of his self-defeating performance on the stand this week, no-one will be surprised if he emigrates or finds some ruse to avoid being cross-examined again about his time as a senior officer.

David Barr KC, the Counsel to the Inquiry, led the session. It ran over time by several hours, and proved to be a stark departure from the more congenial tone of earlier hearings. Pearce was subjected to quite gruelling questioning, with Barr proving far more adept than we’ve previously seen in exposing the depths of unethical behaviour and the broader culture within the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) and the Metropolitan Police.

Pearce provided a detailed account of creating his cover identity using the birth certificate of Roger Thorley, an 11-year-old boy who had died in a road accident. The theft of dead children’s identities was standard practice for SDS officers from the early 1970s to the mid 1990s.

Pearce admitted it was ghoulish:

‘This is a tragic death which we are exploiting really, to use for cover.’

Pearce’s initial infiltration of anti-nuclear groups like the Portobello Anti-Nuclear Group and London Peace Action was scrutinised. He had reported on their activities, including protests against the 1980 Royal Tournament at Earl’s Court.

When questioned about the justification for surveillance of these groups, Pearce admitted they were ‘not subversive’ and ‘not a law and order concern’. This led to extensive questioning about the scope of SDS operations and whether they were overreaching their mandate by monitoring peaceful protest groups.

The discussion revealed additional layers of Pearce’s actions, such as his reporting on the Greater London Council and public transport campaign Fare Fight. These organisations were mild in their activities, indeed, the former was an elected Local Authority. They were spied on solely due to their political stance.

The relationship between the SDS and MI5 was a major focus. Pearce mentioned ‘growing numbers of requests for assistance from MI5’ and noted that SDS managers ‘maintained and even developed the strong partnership with the Security Service.’

He described regular personal meetings with an MI5 contact, occurring every three to four months from around September 1982:

‘My clear understanding is that the initial meeting was set up as a result of an approach from MI5 to the DI [Detective Inspector] on SDS. But meetings subsequently, although not declared, were known about because I would make no secret of them and I think I would assume that I had told the office and they were encouraging it.’

The testimony covered visits by senior police officials to SDS safe houses. Pearce described visits from Gilbert Kelland (Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations), Geoffrey Dear (Assistant Commissioner Personnel), and Kenneth Newman (Commissioner).

Newman reportedly expressed appreciation for how his SDS visit ‘brought life to the dry and arid reports with which he was faced every day’ – a comment that was to acquire greater significance later on, when we saw the sordid and fanciful nature of Pearce’s reporting, which even he admitted had more ‘entertainment’ than ‘intelligence’ value).

RIGHT TO THE TOP

This reinforces the 2022 testimony from HN34 Geoffrey Craft who told the Inquiry that Newman and the Home Secretary had visited an SDS safe house together to personally congratulate officers.

We’ve now had testimony confirming that every Commissioner from the formation of the SDS in 1968 to 2000 was very much aware of the unit and personally congratulated its officers on their work.

This completely demolishes the Met’s earlier claims that the SDS was some kind of ‘rogue unit’ that senior officers were somehow unaware of.

1968-72 – John Waldron
Rajiv Menon QC told the Inquiry Waldron gave officers champagne after an October 1968 Vietnam War protest

1972-77 – Robert Mark
Officer HN304 Graham Coates told the Inquiry Mark visited the safe house to congratulate officers

1977-82 David McNee
Officer HN200 Roger Harris told the Inquiry Mark and McNee both visited the safe house

1982-87 – Kenneth Newman
Officer HN34 Geoff Craft told the Inquiry Newman visited with the Home Secretary

Newman’s successor, Peter Imbert (Commissioner from 1987-93) was previously a Special Branch officer who personally recruited spycop HN348 ‘Sandra Davies’ to the SDS, according to her testimony to the Inquiry.

Additionally, before the Inquiry began, whistleblower SDS officer Peter Francis described how the Commissioner he served under (Imbert’s successor Paul Condon, Commissioner 1993-2000) visited the unit’s safe house and gave out bottles of whisky as a token of his gratutude.

However, the Inquiry will not be hearing evidence from Sir Kenneth Newman, David McNee or Peter Imbert. All three of them have died since the Inquiry began.

ESPIONAGE WITHOUT ETHICS

Pearce’s testimony revealed a striking lack of formal guidance on various crucial aspects of undercover work. Regarding breaching legal professional privilege, reporting on MPs or journalists, or the risk of sexual relationships, Pearce claimed there was ‘no discussion at all’.

He elaborated:

‘These were such bright red flags that they weren’t raised as specific issues in advance of any field deployment by the office.’

This lack of guidance became a major point of contention, with questions focusing on how officers were expected to navigate these ethical minefields without proper training or instruction. The Inquiry was furious with Pearce’s cavalier attitude towards legal professional privilege and the justice system.

As a trained barrister himself, Pearce’s article about the ‘corrupt’ justice system published in the anarchist newspaper Freedom, advising people to plead guilty, was particularly offensive to the Inquiry.

Pearce’s infiltration of Freedom was examined in some detail, including the articles he wrote, and his impact on the dynamic within the collective (as discussed yesterday in Stephen Sorba’s evidence).

He had reported on various anarchist activities and publications, including the production of potentially incendiary literature like ‘My Little Black Book’. The police response to these publications, including raids on anarchist premises like Freedom Press, was examined in detail and Pearce’s role in these operations was questioned.

JOURNALISTS AREN’T JOURNALISTS

The Inquiry was particularly concerned about the impact of his activities be that as editor, author of articles or police officer, on journalistic freedom of speech.

Pearce’s defence was to say that Freedom were not journalists, but that they were ‘propagandists, in their own image, who were concerned with persuading/manipulating.’

This ludicrous display of political prejudice led David Barr KC to remind him that it still falls within the wider umbrella of journalism, to get one’s argument across and to freely express one’s beliefs.

On the subject of sexual relationships, Pearce repeatedly and offensively implied that the problem was that women would demand sex with male spies, rather than the proven reality that it was the male spies who cynically tricked women activists into sexual relationships.

He also mentioned that John Jones, Director F, allegedly said they couldn’t possibly deploy MI5 officers into these left-wing groups because ‘they are promiscuous’.

Pearce explained:

‘there are certain sacrifices that even an MI5 officer can’t make for his country… there was an assumption there that these were promiscuous. I don’t think it was entirely fair but it was assumed in both policing and MI5 circles’.

These distasteful comments made clear that, right up the chain, it was thought that infiltrating these political groups meant having sex. He also described how senior officers made a visit to his wife when he was deployed to tell her to contact them, behind his back, if she had any concerns.

An extremely significant moment was when Pearce admitted that the claim made in his witness statement, placing Dave Morris on a recce for an alleged bomb plot, was completely false. This admission severely undermined any credibility he has as a witness, and a police officer. It also starkly highlighted the unreliable and often fictional nature of his reports.

FICTIONAL BOMBS

He was questioned about numerous alleged ‘bomb threats’ mentioned in his reporting. He reported an alleged bomb explosion at the Prison Officers Training School in Wakefield on 13 November 1982, and his intelligence stated ‘three unconfirmed statements by [privacy] in recent weeks indicate the existence of anarchists both willing and equipped to execute such actions.’

On closer scrutiny, Pearce proved unable to recall any details about the Wakefield incident. When pressed, he conceded, ‘No, I can’t remember. But I am assuming that there was [an explosion]’, accepting that it ‘probably wasn’t much of an explosion’.

For the Inquiry, David Barr KC pressed on, asking about another alleged bomb: ‘You have mentioned in your witness statement that there was a bomb at Holborn Theatre… we are not told a great deal there. What can you recall about it?’

Pearce conceded:

‘I can’t recall a device in the theatre in Holborn. And I can’t recall anything being recovered there’.

If his reports were to be believed, Pearce may have single-handedly uncovered more bomb plots than the entire SDS in the course of its history. However, when pressed on those incidents, Pearce admitted that no-one was ever prosecuted for any of them, presumably because no corroborating evidence could be found to support his claims.

The testimony covered several other significant events, including the Royal Wedding Day on 29 July 1981, and the Brixton riots in April 1981. This touched on witness evidence that has not yet been published on the Inquiry’s website, making reporting of it difficult (and highlighting how the Inquiry’s incompetent handling of disclosure of evidence is making this process almost impossible for us to cover!). We will hopefully return to this evidence at a later date.

Pearce was repeatedly challenged on the balance between necessary intelligence gathering and potential overreach in his reporting. He often defended SDS practices but also made admissions like:

‘It is excessive reporting but it’s a question of reporting things which unknown to me as the reporter of them may have some relevance in the wider jigsaw that’s being built by MI5 or C squad in Special Branch.’

This acknowledgment of overreach became a focal point for questioning about the overall justification and proportionality of SDS operations.

Pearce’s reports were filled with irrelevant and inappropriate information, derogatory comments about individuals’ weight, sexual preferences, and skin colour, including particularly insulting and offensive comments against women. He defended his bigoted language by claiming ‘everybody thought like that in the 1980s’.

This was met with disbelief from many of those old enough to remember the era, and made even less credible when questioning moved on to attitudes within the SDS.

Pearce claimed never to have heard any sexist or racist language in the police (despite ‘everyone’ in the 1980s thinking like that). He admitted that much of the derogatory and sensationalist details, such as describing a female activist’s appearance in demeaning terms, had ‘absolutely no intelligence value’, and that what he wrote was to entertain his handlers.

In a report from July 1983 he described a member of the Freedom collective, saying:

‘her alarmingly intemperate sexual habits make [name] a difficult associate and worthy of a Government health warning’

However, he remained unapologetic. Wanting to portray the SDS in a positive light, he unconvincingly insisted that no-one found the repeated bigoted reference and inappropriate jokes in his reporting funny, and that they got ‘no reaction at all’.

He discussed the psychological aspects of undercover work in depth, describing it as leading a ‘double life’ and building ‘false friendships.’ He said undercover work required ‘great integrity’ despite being fundamentally dishonest.

Meanwhile, he consistently demonstrated his total lack of integrity throughout the day, including admitting that an irrelevant and offensive report on the personal sex life of Dave Morris, apparently written to discredit Morris, was based on falsehoods. Pearce denied being the author (but offered no explanation as to who else might have produced it). He also admitted that while he had claimed that Morris would have considered him a ‘trusted friend’, he actually only spent time with him on one occasion.

Indeed, despite a range of offensive and sectarian reports about Morris, he eventually conceded that Morris was a ‘deep anarchist thinker… and a well liked figure within the movement’.

FICTION AS FICTION

The cross examination took on a surreal feel as the afternoon progressed, and David Barr KC moved on from questioning Pearce about his fictional intelligence reports to reading aloud extracts from his actual fiction. Pearce is the author of at least two trashy spy novels. The Inquiry scrutinised their content, revealing they were based on real-life characters he had spied on – some clearly identifiable.

The books include details clearly drawn from his undercover work, including a theme about a child born of a deceptive sexual relationship. Articles breaking the story of HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’ fathering a child while undercover were published shortly before the novel, but Pearce denied any knowledge of real undercover officers fathering children with activists.

Pearce claimed his books were written decades before, in the 1990s, however references to more recent events such as the Leveson Inquiry of 2012 make that claim untenable. He also denied glorifying deceptive sexual relationships, although the vile extracts read out by Barr suggested otherwise.

The depth of Pearce’s unethical behaviour, his unrepentant attitude, and the Inquiry’s rigorous cross-examination painted a damning picture, not just of him as an individual, but of the culture of his comrades. More significantly, it’s also damning of the Met itself which chose to promote him through the ranks to Head of Intelligence, and absolutely incredible choice given that he was clearly more suited to writing barely believable fiction even then.

Day 6: Wednesday 10 July 2024

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

This was a short day, with summaries of the evidence surrounding the deployments of HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’, HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’, and HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ read onto the record, as well as live evidence from Michael Chant of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist).

HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’

Now deceased, this officer infiltrated the Revolutionary Communist Group and later the Socialist Workers Party from April 1982 to July 1985, stealing the identity of the deceased Michael Hartley to construct his cover, incorporating real elements from Hartley’s life, a method he believed was ‘according to practice at the time.’

This included obtaining a birth certificate and using a driving license in the cover name, as well as using the real Michael Hartley’s father’s name and his parents’ separation.

HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’ reported on the Revolutionary Communist Group and their support for sub-campaigns like the Irish Solidarity Committee and the Stoke Newington Hackney Defence Campaign (SNHDC), including alarming elements of police racism and indications of a police strategy to monitor and disrupt black activism.

His reports on the SNHDC’s support for the family of Colin Roach, who was killed in Stoke Newington police station, claimed that the SNHDC aimed to influence the family’s justice campaign and recruit black community members, describing lectures on communism as attempts to ‘continue their indoctrination.’

In April 1983, HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’ reported that the Roach family support campaign deliberately disavowed the SNHDC, highlighting the police’s efforts to undermine unity and create distrust among activists.

HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’ was arrested in January 1984 while bill posting for the Revolutionary Communist Group. He entered a guilty plea in his cover name under orders from Detective Chief Inspector Short, resulting in a £5 fine.

This incident showing contempt for the justice system and for the Hartley family demonstrated the lengths to which undercover officers were willing to go to maintain their cover.

He recorded in an aide-memoire:

‘At my insistence, under orders from Detective Chief Inspector Short, I pleaded guilty, and my co-defendant agreed to do the same. We were both fined.’

This incident demonstrated the lengths to which undercover officers were willing to go to maintain their cover. It is in direct breach of a Home Office order that if there is any chance of misleading a court then an informer or undercover officer must be withdrawn or even exposed.

In September 1984, senior members of the Revolutionary Communist Group suspected HN12 of being a police informer. The suspicion arose from his frequent absences and behaviour, such as smelling of alcohol despite his cover job as a driver.

He then shifted his focus to the Socialist Workers Party, continuing to report on their activities. His second compromise came in June 1985, after his then-girlfriend showed a holiday photograph to a colleague of herself and her policeman boyfriend. The colleague happened also to be a Socialist Workers Party member, who recognised HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’.

Reflecting on his time in the SDS, he admitted to a brief sexual liaison with an activist and yet claimed:

‘Whatever I did in the SDS I believe to have been justified and proportionate.’

This raises significant ethical concerns about the conduct of undercover officers. He claimed the woman initiated the relationship and noted:

‘No long-term relationship developed, and shortly after the encounter, I formed a relationship with somebody else and left the group.’

The deployment of HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’ deployment had severe repercussions on his own health, contributing to stress and alcohol abuse:

‘I strongly believe that my tour of duty in the SDS was the major factor in my life and career being damaged by periods of stress and alcohol abuse.’

The impact of his undercover work on his mental health underscores the intense pressures faced by these officers. The Inquiry is publishing his sickness record, which describes treatment for depression and alcoholism prior to his retirement. He was treated in the Metropolitan Police Nursing Home in Hendon and NHS rehab facilities and received public and private consultations during treatment.

He said that in the course of his treatment, he ‘felt unable to speak openly about the SD’” and had felt that being unable to talk about his deployment precluded discussion on the possible causes of his alcoholism.

HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’

This officer, also deceased, infiltrated the Finsbury Park branch of the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) from mid-1982 to 1985 under the name ‘Nicholas Peter Green’.

His deployment focused on reporting plans for public demonstrations and industrial actions.

HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’ also highlighted internal divisions within the SWP, particularly regarding their support for the Miners’ Strike. He reported that some members viewed the strike as a means to expand their message and increase membership, illustrating ideological divisions within the group.

He also reported that the general opinion within the Finsbury Park Socialist Workers’ Party was that an imminent revolution was unlikely and no practical preparations were being made for its arrival.

From September 1984, his reporting focused on the group Red Action and later Anti-Fascist Action (AFA), indicating that Red Action’s ideology included the ‘armed overthrow of the capitalist machine and collective control of wealth,’ and that they did not limit themselves to lawful activities.

On 28 January 1985, a Security Service note records:

‘[HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’] is finding it hard work gaining the confidence of members of Red Action. We agreed that it is worth persevering if only to demonstrate whether the group should or should not be taken seriously.’

HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’ reported that Red Action lacked funding and organisation. He referenced violence and physical confrontation engaged in by Red Action members, though it is clear that he did not witness or become involved in any of it himself.

He reported that Red Action was supportive of Irish Republican groups and that some members travelled to an anti-internment rally in Belfast in August 1985, as well as the role played by Red Action in the creation of a coalition of groups determined to confront extreme right-wing groups directly. That coalition was named Anti-Fascist Action, and the group included members from around England.

HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’ reported that within the coalition, Red Action was a group particularly keen on direct physical confrontation.

His surveillance and infiltration included detailed reporting of personal details, including employment, family heritage, and personal relationships, as well as assessments of individual ideologies, yet again underscoring the intrusive nature of SDS operations and raising serious ethical questions about the balance between state security and individual privacy.

During his deployment, HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’ reported on core participants Lindsey German (who will be giving live evidence to this inquiry on 22 July) in her capacity as a speaker and Socialist Workers’ Party central committee member, and Jeremy Corbyn, as a Member of Parliament and speaker at an AFA meeting.

HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’ was debriefed by the Security Service at the end of his deployment where it was noted that AFA membership was ‘very young, violent, and not essentially political.’ In another note it was stated that their political and ideological basis was essentially focused on hard drinking and violent confrontations with the National Front.

The Security Service note records gratitude to HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’, indicates that his deployment filled a gap in the knowledge of Red Action, and notes that he would be replaced in that role.

HN67 ‘Alan Bond’

HN67 ‘Alan Bond’, who suffers from Parkinson’s Disease and will not be giving evidence, was deployed from April 1982 to November 1985.

He infiltrated the Brixton branch of the Socialist Workers’ Party, reporting on routine activities and plans for demonstrations.

His reporting was particularly intrusive, often including personal details of individuals, such as their employment, family heritage, and personal relationships. He used inappropriate, racist language and his reports on the activities of children in connection with the Socialist Workers’ Party further highlight the invasive nature of SDS surveillance.

HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ admitted to a one-night stand with a woman from his target group, which he reported to his superiors. He denied allegations of fathering a child with a member of the target group, stating, ‘I had a one-night stand about a year before I left the field, and that was it.’

In 2002, HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ appeared in the True Spies documentary, using the pseudonym Richard, in which he discussed a product contamination threat to Lucozade, said to have been reported by HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’.

HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ was John Dines’ manager in the SDS at the time when the Lucozade threat was reported. He said he became aware that John Dines was ‘involved in a relationship’ with London Greenpeace activist Helen Steel before he returned to the SDS as a manager, and that he approached Dines to voice his concern.

However, HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ did not take the matter further with police management owing to his close friendship with Dines. It is expected that this will be examined further in Tranche 2 Phase 2 later this year.

Live evidence: Michael Chant

Michael Chant, General Secretary of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), provided a detailed account of his involvement with the party and its activities.

Chant emphasised the party’s commitment to peaceful activism and their stance against fascist organisations, using the slogan, ‘self-defence is the only way.’

This directly contradicts outlandish assertions made by HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ that the Party was ‘small and very extreme, used petrol bombs and had taken up allegiance with Albania’.

Chant stressed:

‘we always decided on our own path. We fought on the same fronts around the world, as we would have said then, for socialism/communism.’

This challenges the narrative presented by HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ and highlights the complexity of the party’s ideological alliances.

Chant discussed troubling aspects of the infiltration by HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’. He reported at length on the group’s sporting and cultural events. He recounted an incident where ‘Shearing’ suggested breaking through police lines to confront National Front leader Martin Webster.

Chant described this suggestion as ‘provocative’ and noted, ‘if we had followed this strategy, we would have been brutally assaulted by the police.’

He also highlighted evidence of police racism and prejudice in HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’s reporting, with inappropriate terms used to describe ethnicity and extensive reporting on Black activists and their communities, reflecting systemic racial prejudices within the police force, as they targeted Black activists and sought to undermine their efforts for justice.

The day highlighted increasingly familiar systemic issues within the SDS, including the theft of deceased individuals’ identities, the lack of formal training, and the intrusive nature of their operations. The personal impacts on these officers, including stress and alcohol abuse, further underscore that the Met not only had no concern for the people spied on, but the spies themselves weren’t cared for either.

Day 7: Thursday 11 July 2024

Live evidence: Francis Bennett

Francis Bennett is the half-brother of Michael Anthony Hartley, whose identity was stolen by officer HN12.

Bennett provided the Inquiry hearing with photos of Michael and also a letter that he had written to his mum, showing his character and close relationship with his family.

Michael Hartley disappeared at sea when he was out working on a fisherman’s trawler. He was presumed drowned but his body was never found. He was 18 years old when he died.

As the trawler was only two miles out at sea, it was a calm day and he was a very fit person, his family believed he could have easily swum that distance and survived but may have lost his memory. His mum always held on to the hope that he had survived and would turn up one day. She eventually took her own life, a tragedy Bennett attributes in part to the unresolved grief over Michael’s disappearance.

When the family were first contacted about the police using Michael’s identity, they wondered whether Michael had been found. They then found out how then police had exploited their son’s name. Bennett described the shock, horror, disgust:

‘We just never imagined that anybody would do anything like that.’

Bennett and the family have suffered recurring grief because of this, since all the memories of Michael are tainted by this undercover officer.

Bennett described the ongoing impact of learning that HN12 used his brother Michael’s identity. He talked about the toll this revelation has taken on his health and well-being

‘Since we found out about the actions of HN12, I will admit that my health has deteriorated even quicker than it had done before. I am on antidepressants and finding it hard to sleep at night. It’s just constant thoughts going through the head, you know, about the actions of HN12.’

Part of HN12’s story was pretending that he had a mother with a chronic illness who he used to visit, which Bennett found particularly upsetting. He also baulked at the idea of HN12 committing crimes and getting convicted in his brother’s name:

‘I think it’s an outrage. Because all through his time growing up, Michael never got into trouble with anybody.’

Bennett also knew about HN12’s sexual relationships, conducted using Michael’s identity, and found this abhorrent and not at all what his brother Michael would have done.

‘When I think of Michael, there is this big dark image looking over his shoulder; an adult man pretending to be Michael, doing all sorts of nasty things’.

The Inquiry also covered HN12’s compromised deployment, where he was accused of being a police informer and quickly removed from the field.

Bennett expressed concerns about the potential danger to his family if individuals targeted Michael’s real family due to suspicions about HN12:

‘On the other hand, it made me wonder, well, what was to stop these people from coming forward and searching out Michael’s real family?’

Bennett highlighted the cynical language of the SDS tradecraft manual, with its utter lack of empathy and respect for the victims of identity theft, referred to as:

‘On finding a suitable ex-person, usually a deceased child or young person with a fairly anonymous name, the circumstances of his (or her) untimely demise was investigated.

If the death was natural or otherwise unspectacular, and therefore unlikely to be findable in newspapers or other public records, the SDS officer could apply for a copy of the dead person’s birth certificate.

Further research would follow to establish the respiratory status of the dead person’s family if any and, if they were still breathing, where they were living.

If all was suitably obscure and there was little chance of the SDS officer or, more importantly, one of the wearies running into the dead person’s parents/siblings etc., the SDS officer would assume squatters’ rights over the unfortunate’s identity for the next four years.’

Bennett reflected on:

‘the total disdain the SDS had for the victims of identity theft by the undercover officers.’

He also pointed out that HN12 selected Michael’s identity from public death registers and ignored guidelines intended to prevent the use of identities with publicised deaths.

Bennett was further appalled by this further proof that the SDS were a law unto themselves, given that they hadn’t even followed their own protocol, given that Michael’s death had been publicly reported.

The Inquiry highlighted the Metropolitan Police’s apologies for the theft of dead children’s identities. Bennett dismissed these as insincere and disingenuous, feeling they were issued only because the police were compelled to do so:

‘It really doesn’t hold any water to me. It’s insincere and it’s almost like it was an afterthought.’

He demanded an assurance that the practice it will never be used again.

Live evidence: HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’

HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ confirmed that he joined the Metropolitan Police in the early 1970s. He described the distinct culture within Special Branch, focusing more on gathering information rather than arresting people.

Reflecting on his recruitment to the SDS by HN297 Rick Clark ‘Rick Gibson’, he described the process as informal, involving casual discussions and even a dinner with a former SDS officer and their wives to discuss the work/life balance.

HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ was aware of the controversial practice of stealing dead children’s identities. He described visiting the birth and death records office at St Catherine’s House to search for a suitable identity:

‘It was a very chilling experience looking for young lives that had been taken… It was not a pleasant experience’

Despite recognising the moral issues, he explained that he accepted this practice as necessary for obtaining a false driving license, essential for his undercover role. He admitted, ‘perhaps I was just compliant but I accepted it.’

The session delved into the deployment of HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ into left-wing political groups. Initially focused on Maoist groups, he soon discovered that the term ‘Maoist’ was used very loosely.

He recounted attending a Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) May Day meeting at Conway Hall in London, observing that the proceedings were ‘pedestrian in nature’ with ‘no attendance at demonstrations’.

He described how he moved on to the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (RCPB-ML), highlighting the group’s ‘irrelevance’ and internal ideological shifts. He admitted that his political awareness and understanding of the group’s political theories was limited, and that he lacked accurate information because Special Branch records were outdated, leading to misdirected efforts.

HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ reported on activities like a conference against racism and fascism, and a sports and cultural festival, noting the involvement of the ‘Pakistan National Kabbadi team’ and ‘several troops of Bhangra dancers.’

Despite acknowledging the limited policing value of these reports, HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ admitted there may have been requests from the Security Service.

SPYING ON CHILDREN

His interactions with group members, included young and school-aged individuals, raising serious ethical concerns. He reported on a school-aged youth from Stockwell who spoke about ‘attacking National Front supporters’. When asked about the propriety of reporting on children, HN19 admitted, ‘no, I didn’t see any reason not to do that’.

Towards the end of his deployment, HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ produced a report summarising the state of the RCPB-ML, concluding they were a spent force with ‘tediously complicated slogans’, yet he justified continued surveillance, because the Security Service was interested.

Indeed, it seems the Security Service wase highly influential in his deployment. He acknowledged receiving briefings from them, although he did not always recall specific documents. When asked if their descriptions like ‘highly security conscious’ and ‘slightly sinister’ matched his own findings about the RCPB-ML, he responded that they did not.

HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ also described the informal culture among undercover SDS officers, including sharing details about their deployments during social gatherings.

ANOTHER TACTICAL CHILD

He mentioned a specific instance where another officer, HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’, gave a presentation about his arrest, handled with a mix of seriousness and levity.

One of the most contentious issues during the session was HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ confirming that HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ had fathered a child with a female activist.

HN67 ‘Alan Bond’, who has Parkinson’s Disease and will not be giving evidence, submitted a statement in which he denies having fathered a child whilst undercover. However, HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ recounted how ‘Bond’ casually disclosed the pregnancy to him, leaving him ‘dumbfounded’.

HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ knew the woman concerned, had seen her and HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ together, and later seen her with a baby.

Despite recognising the serious ethical implications of a fellow officer fathering a child, HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ chose not to report the matter at the time:

‘I just wanted to be away from it and not get involved’.

How many more spycops violated women to father children they knew they’d abandon? How many others knew about these gross abuses but did not report it?

In a powerful moment in the Inquiry, HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ admitted in the witness box that he had wrestled with his conscience and was determined to come clean now.

This is only the second example of an undercover officer (since Peter Francis, who revealed the targeting of the Stephen Lawrence family campaign) publicly breaking ranks on a major SDS scandal. It is hoped that other officers due to give evidence will start to do the same.

This summary covers the opening week of Tranche 2 hearings of the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI), examining the 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.

CONTENTS

Introduction
Conclusions
Timetable of upcoming live evidence

Opening statements:

Day 1

• David Barr KC (Counsel to the Inquiry)
• Timetable of upcoming live evidence
• Peter Skelton KC (Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis)

Day 2

• Oliver Sanders KC, designated lawyer for HN65 ‘John Kerry’; HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’; HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’; HN56 ‘Alan “Nick” Nicholson’; HN20 ‘Tony Williams’; HN67 ‘Alan Bond’; HN33/HN98 ‘Kathryn Lesley “Lee” Bonser’; HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’
• Charlotte Kilroy KC (The Category H Core Participants; ‘Jenny’)
• Charlotte Kilroy KC (‘Bea’)
• James Scobie KC (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament & Lindsey German)

Day 3

• Rajiv Menon KC (Friends of Freedom Press Ltd)
• Lily Lewis (Rebecca Johnson; Hilary Moore & Jane Hickman
• Owen Greenhall (David Morris)
• Owen Greenhall (Dame Joan Ruddock PC; Diane Abbott MP)
• Sam Jacobs (Sharon Grant OBE)
• Sam Jacobs (Stafford Scott)
• Kirsten Heaven (NPSCP Co-ordinating Group)

Introduction

The second tranche of hearings in the Undercover Policing Inquiry is finally underway.

The last hearings ended more than a year ago, with closing statements for Tranche 1 Phase 3 delivered in February 2023. At that time, non-State, non-police Core Participants (NSPCPs) delivered powerful submissions about the legal framework the Chair, Sir John Mitting, should be applying when considering whether these operations were justified or indeed justifiable.

That was followed in June 2023 by the Chair’s blistering Interim Report, which concluded the SDS should have been ‘brought to a rapid end’ in the 1970s, criticising officers unlawfully trespassing into people’s homes, forming deceitful close personal relationships, including sexual relationships, stealing deceased children’s identities, and taking positions of influence and power within the organisations they targeted.

This round of hearings kicked off on Monday 1st July, with Opening Statements delivered live online. For statement summaries and highlights, and a timetable of when you can catch the live evidence.

Conclusions

It was an interesting week and it was clear from the tone of many of the statements that the ground has shifted since the publication Inquiry’s interim report.

Perhaps the most significant development in that sense was the contrite statement from the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police, which made a number of highly significant admissions and apologised for cultures of racism, misogyny, exceptionalism, impunity and for unnecessary political spying by MPS employees.

He even accepted corporate responsibility for some of the failings. The Inquiry remains focussed on whether there might have been justification for the operations, however they no longer appear to have such confidence that there could.

It is clear from the Opening Statements that a key issue for this Tranche will be the ideological motivations behind the activities of the undercover police. In the Foreword to his Interim Report the Chair stated that he had

“refrained from expressing any view about … the proposition that the SDS was one of the instruments set up by a conservative state to suppress the aspirations of those who wished to produce radical change by political means.”

Political policing is anti-democratic, and evidence in this Tranche of the establishment targeting groups for ideological (rather than policing) purposes, spying on elected politicians, spreading political misinformation to the press and using SDS reporting in Conservative Party electioneering really drives that point home.

For clarity, protest is part of a healthy democracy, secret policing is not. However reluctant he is to go there, Sir John Mitting is going to find this issue hard to avoid.

Another theme emerging from the statements of the non-State core participants is that the process is becoming increasingly unworkable. Statements cited delayed and incomplete disclosure and impossible deadlines.

There is a growing sense that the Inquiry is facing a crisis, caused by the imposition of arbitrary deadlines by the Home Office, since the publication of the Chair’s damning Interim Report.

In the words of James Scobie KC:

“The State core participants have had the benefit of time and considerable resources. They have had access to the material for years and have extensive teams of staff and lawyers. The Police witnesses are retired, on generous tax-payer funded pensions. Most of our core-participants are still working full-time. This imbalance has always existed in this Inquiry. However, the approach to Tranche 2 is strongly suggestive of a deliberate attempt to silence the non-state core participants”.

This is particularly worrying because the Home Office are very much under investigation in this Inquiry and the evidence leaves little room for doubt as to their complicity in the abuses of the SDS in this Tranche. It is therefore shocking that they should be able to sabotage the process in this way.

Citing this week’s general election, the Home Office declined to make an Opening Statement, however the incoming Home Secretary will need to address these problems as a matter of urgency to avoid the integrity of the Inquiry being called into question.

For his own part, Mitting responded to the procedural criticisms with a personal plea:

“Given that it is a human activity, the end result can never be perfect and the means by which it is arrived at can never be perfect. All I can ask is for patience. Please bear with me. I acknowledge the worth of the input of non-state core participants. I ask them for patience in allowing me to put it to good effect.”

That may be the closest thing to an admission of error and a recognition of the unfair treatment given to non-state victims of police spying that we are likely to get.

Timetable of Tranche 2 Phase 1 live evidence

(Click on the date to link to the UCPI’s hearing information page)

8 July:
HN20 ‘Tony Williams’ who, along with HN85 Roger Pearce (‘Roger Thorley’) infiltrated anarchist groups like the London Workers Group and the Freedom Collective.

Dave Morris and Steven Sorba will also give evidence about those deployments. Their evidence will raise significant questions about (among other things) SDS interference in the justice system, accessing and reporting privileged and confidential legal information, and the police intentionally spreading misinformation to the press about the causes of anti-police and race riots in the 1980s.

9 July:
HN85 Roger Pearce (‘Roger Thorley’) will give evidence. It is worth paying attention to him, because after his undercover deployment he worked for Metropolitan Police Special Branch (MPSB) rising to Commander in 1998. He is therefore one of a number of undercover officers who went on to hold senior management roles.

10 July:
HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’, HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ and HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’ will give evidence. They all infiltrated Trotskyist groups.

Civilian witness Michael Chant will also give evidence that day about HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ spying on the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist).

11 July:
Francis Bennett. Evidence from the half-brother of the real Michael Hartley who died at sea as a teenager and whose identity was stolen by officer HN12 (now deceased).

HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ himself will give evidence.

15 July:
Kate Hudson will be giving oral evidence on behalf of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).

Two important issues in the early to mid-1980s were the decision to allow the United States to site ground-launched cruise missiles in the UK and the debate over replacing Polaris submarines with Trident submarines. CND grew massively as a result and was infiltrated by SDS officers such as HN65 ‘John Kerry’ and HN88 ‘Tim Spence’.

16 July:
HN65 ‘John Kerry’ (see 15 July above).

17 July:
Hilary Moore and Jane Hickman will give evidence. Both were members of Lambeth Women for Peace.

Barr discussed the rise of the women’s peace movement, showing video footage of Greenham Common. This activism led the SDS to recruit its first female undercover officer in many years, HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’ who gained access to the Greenham Common Women by joining Lambeth Women for Peace.

Barr notes that HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’ has provided a witness statement but has declined to give oral evidence. Again, there is no suggestion that she might be compelled.

22 July:
Dr Lindsey German will be returning to give oral evidence for a second time as a member of the Socialist Workers Party Central Committee. Of the many officers that spied on the SWP and other Trotskyist groups, HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’ and HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’ have both died, HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ is too ill to give evidence, and HN95 Stefan Scutt (‘Stefan Wesolowski’), has not co-operated with the Inquiry. HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ will give evidence the following day.

23 July:
HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’, who spied on the SWP (see 22 July above).

24 July:
HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’, the only SDS officer to infiltrate the far-right in this Tranche. He infiltrated the British National Party in Loughton. It appears his operation differed significantly from infiltrations of the left in that it was short-lived and superficial. His statement claims he spent the entire time terrified of being outed by other police officers with far-right sympathies.

29 July:
‘Bea’ and ‘Jenny’, who were deceived into sexual relationships by HN78 Trevor Morris (‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’ or ‘Bobby McGee’) will give evidence. Their opening statements are examined in detail below.

1-2 August:
HN78 Trevor Morris (‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’ or ‘Bobby McGee’) will apparently give evidence over two days.

In addition to having had deceitful sexual relationships, Morris is interesting for a number of reasons. He is the only Black undercover officer in this tranche and his witness statement makes claims of racist discrimination within the police.

OPENING STATEMENTS

Day 1 – 1 July 2024

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Day 1 saw the Opening Statements from David Barr KC, Counsel to the Inquiry, in the morning, followed by Counsel for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service in the afternoon.

Opening Statement of Counsel To the Inquiry

David Barr KC

Yet again, the Inquiry emphasised its focus on investigating the justification for these undercover operations, indicating that we can expect to see more of the offensive cross examinations we saw in Tranche 1, where the people spied upon were questioned about the “subversive” nature of their activities and their “intentions to undermine UK Parliamentary Democracy”.

Which is ironic, because evidence emerging this week of the SDS spying on elected representatives and providing intelligence for Tory Party electioneering in the 1983 General Election suggests that in fact they were the ones subverting our democracy. But more on that later.

Barr then began by summarising the findings from Tranche 1, and setting out the historical context for Tranche 2, highlighting the most significant events from this period (such as the release of the Sex Pistols hit single Anarchy in the UK).

He also mentioned the Cold War, noting that they would be “examining the impact of the end of the Cold War on the work of the SDS and its relationship with the Security Service.”

He described the broader political and social landscape of racial tension, and anti-government protest, showing news footage of the 1990 Poll Tax riots and the anti-BNP riots in Welling in 1993.

Specific examples of undercover operations in this context included spying on the Broadwater Farm Defence Campaign; and HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’, who was sent to spy on “Hackney” (as in, the entire community of a London borough) in search of subversive influences. (He ended up monitoring the Hackney Campaign Against the Police Bill and the Hackney Police Monitoring Group).

His reports highlighted existing community tensions and the groups’ calls for non-cooperation with the police. HN88 has declined to give oral evidence. Barr asserted he “cannot be compelled”, although he did not explain why not.

Barr’s history lesson provided the backdrop to a detailed overview of what we can expect over the coming weeks. Tranche 2 Phase 1 will consider the deployments of 14 “open” undercover police officers from the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) who operated between 1978 and 1995. (Note that “open” refers to the deployments that are now subject to public scrutiny. Other officer deployments will also be considered in “closed”, away from the public gaze).

Seven former undercover officers and at least ten civilians affected by their deployments will give oral evidence this July. Additional written evidence from other officers and civilians will be published on the Inquiry’s website. You can see a summary of his overview in the timetable of live evidence.

Barr concluded his opening with an important message about political policing today:

“lest anyone consider this a purely historical exercise, it is important to learn lessons from the past.

The question of undercover surveillance of activists appears to be back on the agenda, in the light of Lord Walney’s recent report entitled Protecting Our Democracy from Coercion. Anyone considering this issue would be well advised to heed the lessons that emerged from your interim report and the evidence that we continue to publish.”

Oral evidence hearings will start on 8 July, see the detailed timetable above.

Following Counsel To the Inquiry’s statement, a substantial quantity of new evidence was published on the inquiry website, including the statement of “Witness Y” on behalf of the Security Service (MI5), Annual Reports of the Special Demonstration Squad from 1985-1997.

Opening Statement on behalf of the Met Commissioner

Peter Skelton KC

The Metropolitan Police’s tone has changed dramatically since the publication of the interim report. From the outset, Skelton’s statement condemned the deployments, tactics, racism, sexism and poor management of the Special Demonstration Squad, concluding that

“These serious failings have damaged public confidence in the use of undercover policing.”

He issued a number of apologies, first, to the women deceived into sexual relationships by no less than nine officers in the Tranche 2 period.

“The MPS apologises to the women affected, and to the public, for these failings and for the wider culture of sexism and misogyny which allowed them to happen.”

Although the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has apologised to women deceived into sexual relationships in the past, the recognition that those were rooted in a wider police culture of sexism and misogyny is new.

Skelton expanded to say this:

“During the T2 period, findings of sexism in the MPS were made by the independent People and Police in London study, particularly in its 1983 report, ‘The Police in Action’. More recent reviews have demonstrated that sexism and misogyny continue to be widespread and enduring features of the culture within the MPS.

The prevalence of sexual misconduct on the part of SDS officers in the T2 period, the general disregard for the personal autonomy and dignity of the women affected, together with the inaction or indifference of their managers in response, is a clear and acute manifestation of that culture – for which the MPS unreservedly apologises.”

Another new and extremely important admission by the police in their Opening Statement bears quoting at length, condemning not just the SDS but the wider Metropolitan Police Special Branch (MPSB):

“there was unnecessary reporting on political and social justice campaigns, family justice campaigns, community organisations as well as groups that were campaigning for police accountability…

It is particularly indefensible that many of the anti-racism campaigns mentioned in SDS reports were seeking justice for members of the Black and Asian communities in London and were attempting to hold the MPS itself accountable for the way in which it policed those communities. The MPS accepts the corrosive effect this type of discriminatory policing has on public trust and apologises unreservedly for this.

The fact that the SDS reported on these groups was the result of a critical failure on the part of its managers and senior managers within MPSB to ensure that SDS deployments were conducted in accordance with proper professional and ethical standards. It is also an example of unacceptable political policing by MPSB…

The MPS accepts corporate responsibility for these failings. Although there have been areas of progress since the T2 period, racism and discrimination remain an enduring challenge within the MPS.”

This is a stunning about-turn. For years, we campaigners have been denouncing the ideological and racist biases that underpinned these undercover deployments. However, until now, the police have vehemently sought to deny it.

The third and final surprise in the Metropolitan Police statement was their decision to throw not only the SDS officers, but also their managers and even senior Special Branch officers, under a bus.

“there was a general failure by the SDS’s managers and by senior managers in MPSB to lead the SDS properly and effectively. These failings extended beyond the issues of illicit sexual relationships and improper engagement with the criminal justice system [eg. see para 44]. Other unprofessional behaviour by UCOs includ[ed] inappropriate reporting and the claiming of illegitimate expenses.”

The statement concludes:

“Sexual relationships should not have occurred. Reporting on justice and anti-racism groups who posed no criminal or public order threat should not have occurred and would not occur today. Open-ended long-term deployments, which caused a level of personal intrusion that was out of proportion with their value, should have been reassessed and ended.

Further, the MPS should not have allowed a culture of exceptionalism and impunity to develop within the SDS.”

Again, this recognition that there was a culture of impunity is a new and interesting development.

Of course, that was not all the Commissioner had to say. In amongst the mea culpas (mea culpae?), Skelton levelled some quiet warnings at the Inquiry Chair about his findings. He explicitly cautioned against making certain determinations, particularly regarding the legality of undercover officers obtaining confidential information, actively seeking to shape the scope of the Inquiry’s conclusions, and hinting at potential future legal challenges.

He also contended that the Inquiry should not rule out undercover officers trespassing in private homes nor impose a blanket prohibition on undercover officers accepting senior positions within groups, as such restrictions would “harm the ability of the police to conduct effective undercover operations in the future”.

This echoes scenes from Kate Wilson’s landmark case in the Investigatory Power’s Tribunal, where police lawyers implored the Tribunal not to rule on the issues of Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association, because of the implications for policing if officers were formally required to respect people’s political rights.

The undertones of these arguments are quite chilling and suggest we need to look a lot harder at how the police are approaching political meetings and protests today.

Day 2 – 2 July 2024

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Opening Statement on behalf of ex-Spycops

Oliver Sanders KC, designated lawyer for HN65 ‘John Kerry’; HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’; HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’; HN56 ‘Alan “Nick” Nicholson’; HN20 ‘Tony Williams’; HN67 ‘Alan Bond’; HN33/HN98 ‘Kathryn Lesley “Lee” Bonser’; HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’.

Listening to the comments on behalf of the largely unrepentant and quite repellant ex-undercover officers is generally the most unpleasant part of these statements.

Oliver Sanders KC, representing the ex-police core participants, began by recapping key principles from their previous submissions, emphasising the police’s duty to maintain public order and prevent crime, as well as the need for intelligence to assess potential threats.

He then provided an extensive list of major historical events that took place during the T2 period, including the Brixton riots of 1981, the death of PC Keith Blakelock in the Broadwater Farm riots in 1985, the Poll Tax riot in 1990, and various IRA bombings.

He didn’t really explain how the SDS spying had contributed to the outcomes of any of these events, however, he insisted, it is ‘crucial’ context for understanding the environment in which the SDS operated and the perceived need for their intelligence gathering.

The SDS provided valuable intelligence on public order threats, extremist groups, and matters of national security he said, citing statistics from SDS annual reports, noting that in 1992, for example, the unit produced 1,425 intelligence reports, with 611 of these relating to public order.

Setting aside the fact that, even by his own calculation that means that more than half of the reporting had no bearing whatsoever on public disorder, and the fact that Sanders himself takes issue with the idea that the Annual Reports might be evidence for the justification of the unit, Sanders claim that all this intelligence was crucial for effective policing was simply not borne out by the evidence in T1, and it seems unlikely it will be this time.

So, it is perhaps unsurprising that Sanders raised concerns about the Inquiry’s approach to the evidence. He stated that:

“the Inquiry has tended to concentrate on the recovery, collation and analysis of surviving SDS documents (primarily intelligence reports) and has largely ignored other sources, the fact that many records are missing and the fact that many matters were never committed to writing in the first place.”

This narrow focus, he argues, fails to capture the full scope and impact of the SDS’s activities. It’s an interesting claim. The available evidence looks very very bad for the SDS.

However, while we all know that a lot of it was destroyed or never written down, it stretches credibility to suggest that someone mistakenly shredded all the material that would have somehow thrown the officers into a better light.

However we can perhaps find some common ground in his criticism of the gaps in the inquiry’s evidence gathering. He argues that testimony should have been sought from the Metropolitan Police Special Branch’s (MPSB) Squad desk officers who compiled threat assessments, as they could speak directly to how SDS intelligence was used.

He states:

“Bearing in mind that the threat assessors were members of the MPSB Squads primarily responsible for setting SDS intelligence requirements, the inquiry should have attempted, and should now attempt, to find out how they did their jobs.”

We couldn’t agree more, although we find it extremely unlikely that that information would somehow exonerate the police.

Throughout the statement, Sanders maintained that the SDS made a valuable contribution to public order policing and assisting MI5, and urged the inquiry to broaden its focus to fully understand the context and impact of the SDS’s work.

In that, we caught a glimpse of the growing rift between the ex-undercover officers and the Metropolitan Police Service. Sanders stated that:

“the inquiry’s conclusion that the SDS would have been closed down during T1 if certain matters had been addressed is impossible to reconcile with the experience and understanding of most if not all of the DL officers given what was being said to them at the time by their MPSB colleagues and MI5.”

With that, we can also agree. There is no doubt that senior police and the MI5 were utterly complicit in what was going on.

As Sanders said:

“If SDS intelligence was not useful and valuable, why did so many of those working above and alongside it think and say that it was and keep requesting more?”

However, what the Inquiry actually concluded in 2023 was that had the public been made aware of what the SDS were doing, the unit would have been brought to a rapid end.

Charlotte Kilroy KC – Category H: ‘Relationships’

Charlotte Kilroy KC delivered two opening statements, the first on behalf of ‘Jenny’, deceived into a friendship and sexual encounter with HN78 Trevor Morris ( aka ‘Anthony “Bobby”) and also the wider Category H group.

The second she read on behalf of ‘Bea’ who the same officer (Trevor Morris) deceived into a long-term, intimate and sexual relationship from 1992-1993.

‘Jenny’ and the wider Cat H group

Jenny will be giving evidence on 29 July. This statement detailed Jenny’s experiences and addressed broader systemic issues within the Met that allowed such abuses to occur.

Jenny was friends with HN78 Trevor Morris (‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’ or ‘Bobby McGee’) between 1993 and 1995. Right at the end of his deployment he used their friendship and intimacy to lure her into a one-night-stand, having told her he was moving abroad.

Jenny stressed that the timing of the relationship, just as he was leaving, means it could have had no operational value and stressed the unpleasantness of knowing that he had simply used his position to deceive her into sex. This, and the knowledge of a friendship built on deceit, has caused her significant emotional distress and led to a deep mistrust of those around her.

The statement went on to identify wider systemic issues within the Metropolitan Police Service, including a casual approach to public privacy, a culture of misogyny, and a lack of respect for the law. Morris’ deployment was intrusive and completely unjustified, and police management failed to prevent the abuse.

Jenny emphasised the need for answers about the extent of the surveillance and its impact on the affected women’s lives, highlighting the ongoing emotional damage caused by the lack of information and answers.

Category H core participants have faced significant delays and challenges in engaging with Tranche 2 of the Inquiry due to extended delays in the disclosure process. Despite promises of necessary disclosure by spring 2023, much material was only disclosed in 2024, and some remains outstanding. This has made it difficult for the Category H CPs to complete their statements and fully participate in the Inquiry, causing additional distress.

The statement also expressed concerns about changes to the Inquiry’s methodology for Tranche 3, fearing that the pressure to conclude by 2026 may lead to the exclusion of crucial evidence about political spying. The Category H CPs urge a reconsideration of this approach, and seek recognition of the broader context of political persecution in which these abuses occurred.

The statement concluded with a call for ensuring that no member of the public faces such intrusions or abuses ever again.

Opening Statement of ‘Bea’

Bea will also be giving evidence on 29 July. Like Jenny, she was deceived by HN78 Trevor Morris (‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’ or ‘Bobby McGee’), and had a long-term intimate sexual relationship with him from 1992-1993, built on deceit and manipulation.

She stated that she “unknowingly provided cover for undercover officer Bobby Lewis” spying on the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and other social justice campaigns.

Bea made her own separate Opening Statement, read by Charlotte Kilroy. She began by highlighting an important and painful point about her relationship with Trevor Morris. There were children involved. Her own, very young children, whose lives he invaded, but also his children, whose father was off deceiving another family instead of caring for his own.

She then went on to address her experiences and the broader implications of undercover policing practices by the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS). She criticised the damaging and unjustifiable tactics used by the SDS, highlighting specific events and broader systemic issues.

Her perspective is crucial for challenging Morris’s characterisations of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and their activities. She focused on the Welling demonstration on 16 October 1993, against the British National Party headquarters.

She criticises Morris for taking credit for false intelligence that allegedly claimed the SWP planned to burn down the BNP headquarters. Bea argues that this claim is unsubstantiated and preposterous, and criticises not only the deceptive and dangerous nature of SDS operations, but also the kind of public order policing tactics applied on the day, citing aggressive policing, and the use of a secret public order manual.

Bea underscores the involvement of senior police officers in both the Welling protest and the Stephen Lawrence case, pointing out their role in undermining justice and public trust. She criticises the misuse of public funds and resources to spy on lawful democratic activities and collect irrelevant personal information.

She emphasised not only the personal but also the collective harm caused by SDS operations. She describes the emotional and psychological impact on those deceived into relationships, the undermining of social justice campaigns, and the broader implications for democratic society.

She condemned the policies and politicians that allowed such surveillance to take place and stressed the need for accountability and a shift towards protecting democratic values, calling for significant changes to prevent such practices in the future.

James Scobie KC (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Lindsey German)

James Scobie KC delivered an opening statement on behalf of a number of CPs, including former leading members of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) such as Lindsey German (who will be giving evidence on 22 July); Michael Chant from the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (giving evidence on 10 July); and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). Kate Hudson of CND will be giving evidence on 15 July.

His statement, like Charlotte Kilroy’s, addressed the procedural challenges his clients had faced due to late disclosure of critical documents, which had made it impossible to fully participate in this round of hearings, noting:

“The State core participants have had the benefit of time and considerable resources. They have had access to the material for years and have extensive teams of staff and lawyers. The Police witnesses are retired, on generous tax-payer funded pensions.

Most of our core-participants are still working full-time. This imbalance has always existed in this Inquiry. However, the approach to Tranche 2 is strongly suggestive of a deliberate attempt to silence the non-state core participants”

The Socialist Workers Party

The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) was heavily infiltrated during Tranche 2. However, Lindsey German, a prominent figure in the SWP, has received only a fraction of the relevant documents, with significant material still outstanding, including that related to undercover officer HN95 Stefan Scutt ‘Stefan Wesolowski’, who had close ties with MI5 while working at the SWP headquarters.

The witness statement from the Security Service (MI5), served shortly before the hearing, is lengthy and references the SWP extensively. However, the majority of associated MI5 documents remain undisclosed, limiting insight into the agency’s involvement.

What evidence we do have of SDS spying on the SWP shows it was marked by undercover officers taking on significant roles within the organisation, and reporting extensively on party activities, including personal details of members, internal conflicts, and strategic decisions. HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ and other officers infiltrated SWP headquarters, gaining access to sensitive information that could be used to disrupt the organisation’s effectiveness.

Extremely detailed reporting was sent to MI5 and other state entities indicating that the SDS were used to monitor, control, and undermine the SWP’s political activities, reflecting a broader strategy of managing dissent, controlling political opponents and maintaining the status quo.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)

CND also faced significant surveillance, with MI5 and Special Branch showing a keen interest in their activities from 1981 onwards. The statement highlights contemporary evidence, such as that of MI5 whistleblower Cathy Massiter, and points out that the reality emerging through this Inquiry is in fact far worse than anyone imagined.

The British state’s surveillance of CND intensified as the organisation gained mass support and posed a challenge to government policies. The disclosure reveals that MI5’s interest in CND was partly driven by the organisation’s influence on public opinion and its potential impact on electoral politics.

The Inquiry heard how the SDS and MI5 provided ‘dirt’ on CND members to Michael Heseltine (the then Minister of Defence) and his DS19 unit, which was directly tasked with discrediting the peace movement. That material was then used by the Conservative Party to undermine opponents in marginal seats in the 1983 general election.

This evidence of the direct use of undercover reporting to manipulate elections is the clearest example of the subversion of Parliamentary democracy to have emerged in the Inquiry to date, and it did not come from any of the so-called ‘subversive’ organisations being spied on. Rather it was the Metropolitan Police, MI5 and the Ministry of Defence.

We also heard how undercover officers took positions of influence in CND. One particularly striking example was HN65 ‘John Kerry’, who became Chief Steward for a major CND demonstration.

He plays down his role, claiming all he did was plug in some speakers, however, this failure to fulfil his responsibilities is itself problematic. The Chief Steward would be responsible for representing CND and ensuring security. Dereliction of those duties could both damage the organisation and put people at risk, undermining the very public order he was purportedly there to protect.

Overall, Scobie’s statement revealed a deeply concerning pattern of state surveillance and infiltration aimed at managing and undermining political dissent and subverting legitimate political activities. The extensive infiltration of both CND and the SWP, the ethical breaches by undercover officers, and the political motivations behind these actions highlight significant abuses of power.

Day 3 – 3 July 2024

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

On the final day of Opening Statements to the Undercover Policing Inquiry, we heard compelling statements from the legal representatives of many of the non-State core participants.

The running order for the day included:

• Rajiv Menon KC (Friends of Freedom Press Ltd)
• Lily Lewis (Rebecca Johnson, Hilary Moore, Jane Hickman)
• Owen Greenhall (David Morris, Dame Joan Ruddock, Diane Abbott)
• Sam Jacobs (Sharon Grant OBE, Stafford Scott)
• Kirsten Heaven (NPSCP Co-ordinating Group)

That is followed by a break for the weekend (and the general election) before live evidence hearings start on Monday 8 July.

Rajiv Menon KC: Friends of Freedom Press Ltd

Rajiv Menon KC began the day by presenting the opening statement for the Friends of Freedom Press Ltd (FFP). Steven Sorba will be giving live evidence on behalf of FFP on 8 July.

Established in 1886, Freedom is the UK’s longest-running anarchist publication, and since its inception, it has been a consistent target of state surveillance. Menon detailed the infiltration by undercover officers, particularly focusing on HN85 Roger Pearce, who operated under the alias ‘Roger Thorley’ from 1980.

Pearce, who would later rise to significant positions within the Metropolitan Police, including Commander of Special Branch and Director of Intelligence, spent his undercover tenure spying on the anarchist community, particularly focusing on the Freedom Collective, and even writing articles for the newspaper. For example, he authored ‘Prisoners of Politics’ which argued for political status for Irish Republican prisoners.

Pearce’s activities went beyond the now familiar gathering of deeply personal information about the people he spied on, to spreading division within the groups he targeted and influencing their activities.

Perhaps most importantly, he is accused of fabricating evidence and manipulating legal processes to secure convictions. He attended meetings where legal advice was given to defendants such as Dave McCabe and Patrizia Giambi and reported back on the legal strategies discussed.

The statement emphasised:

“He knew that Dave and Patrizia were innocent, but his political loyalty to the Branch outweighed any sense of justice”.

Evidence about the infiltration of Freedom sheds more light on politically motivated efforts, on the part of Special Branch, to suppress radical dissent.

The statement uses the example of the 1981 Brixton riots. The evidence makes clear that the police were well aware that the true causes of the Brixton Riots (economic deprivation, racial discrimination and racist policing).

However, the narrative fed to the media by the police falsely blamed anarchists to serve political ends. This kind of ideologically motivated political manipulation by the police is an emerging theme in this Tranche and there will no doubt be some interesting evidence in the weeks ahead.

Another emerging theme also touched on in Menon’s statement was a criticism of the UCPI for its limited disclosure and the restrictions placed on sharing critical information. The ability to provide a comprehensive account was hampered by restrictions on sharing personal disclosure among former and current Friends of Freedom Press directors. This proved to be a significant barrier to presenting a complete picture of the past activities of undercover offcers like Pearce.

Lily Lewis: Rebecca Johnson, Hilary Moore, Jane Hickman

Lily Lewis presented the opening statement for Rebecca Johnson, Hilary Moore, and Jane Hickman, key figures in the Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp.

This camp, established in the early 1980s, was a non-hierarchical movement dedicated to peace, disarmament, and campaigning against nuclear weapons. It and its members were subjected to extensive and unjustified surveillance by undercover officers, including HN33/HN98 ‘Kathryn Lesley “Lee” Bonser’, the only female officer in this Tranche, who it seems was specifically headhunted because

“The Prime Minister wanted to know what the Greenham Women were doing”

(from the statement of HN33)

Again, the opening statement provided compelling evidence of the political (rather than public order) motivations behind the surveillance, citing documents that revealed Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s intent to publicly discredit the Greenham Women and their supporters by investigating their finances and backgrounds. Core participants ask the Inquiry to investigate the extent to which the SDS were deployed to gather material to this end.

Jane Hickman, Rebecca Johnson, and Hilary Moore will all give evidence on 17 July. Each of these women, born in the early 1950s, dedicated themselves to peace, disarmament, and campaigning against nuclear weapons in the UK. The legacy of Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp is significant.

Their stance on nuclear disarmament was eventually recognised and adopted by the US and UK through the signing of the Intermediate-range Nucleaer Forces Treaty in 1987, leading to the removal of the last missiles from Greenham in 1991.

“The Greenham Women were on the right side of history,” the statement asserts, emphasising their contribution to global peace efforts. It added “Greenham succeeded in making a fundamental shift in the way that many women saw themselves,” highlighting the empowerment and political agency that the movement fostered.

The peace camp was nonviolent. The women believed in democratic engagement and their protests were well-organised and publicised, often involving the support and cooperation of local authorities.

Despite this peaceful approach, they were subjected to intense surveillance by undercover officers. HN33/HN98 ‘Kathryn Lesley “Lee” Bonser’ infiltrated Lambeth Women for Peace, took on significant roles in the group and reported on their activities from 1983 to 1986.

“Their activities were always peaceful,” her statement admits, yet her deployment continued for nearly four years.

Reporting included accounts of meetings, political discussions, legally privileged advice, home addresses, personal phone numbers, car registrations, and even bank details. The collected intelligence was not only retained but also shared with MI5 and, in some cases, the American government.

Jane Hickman, Rebecca Johnson, and Hilary Moore continue to be active in their respective fields, advocating for peace and justice. Their participation in the Inquiry is driven by a desire to uncover the truth and ensure that the unjust surveillance they experienced is acknowledged and addressed.

“The police made a terrible mistake in using what is supposed to be a last resort against citizens in this country,” Jane Hickman concludes.

This opening statement serves as a powerful reminder of the need for vigilance against the misuse of state surveillance powers for political purposes, ensuring that future generations can continue to advocate for change without fear of unwarranted intrusion.

Owen Greenhall: David Morris

Dave is a litigant in person, and a dedicated community campaigner since the mid-1970s. He is notable for appearing in undercover intelligence reports in all tranches of this inquiry, spanning forty years. He will be giving evidence in Tranche 2 Phase 1 on 8 July, and returning after the summer to give further evidence in Phase 2.

A highlight of the opening statements at previous hearings has been his delivery of his own statements, written personally to ensure authenticity and save on legal costs. His no-nonsense style, speaking truth to power, is always a breath of fresh air. However, this time the Inquiry refused to allow him to speak, insisting that his words be read by a barrister instead.

Owen Greenhall did his best to do the statement justice, but it was not the same. It felt like a particularly petty move on the part of this Inquiry, which constantly seems to be trying to mute or silence the voices of the victims of an ever-growing litany of abuses by undercover police.

Despite this handicap, Morris’s statement was characteristically powerful and detailed. He poignantly recounted his decades-long activism and the targeting he faced from undercover police units.

“I speak as a life-long community activist and organiser doing my best to stand up for the rights of people, in defence of the environment, and the future of our society and planet.”

A central theme of Morris’s statement was the unjustified nature of deployments against the small, grassroots organisations he was involved in. “Those involved were concerned members of the public doing their best to question and improve things,” he asserts.

He recounted how undercover officer HN304 ‘Graham Coates’, who targeted him and his groups in the 1970s, confessed:

“I do not believe any informaton I provided whilst I was deployed was particularly significant. I do not think it would have made any difference to public order if I had not worked for the SDS.”

In this Tranche, the London Workers Group, which aimed to promote worker solidarity and challenge exploitation was infiltrated by undercover officer HN20 ‘Tony Williams’.

Morris criticizes the invasion of privacy and trust, especially as ‘Williams’ admitted to not witnessing any public disorder.

Morris explained:

“Mr ‘Williams’ took on significant roles at various times, including publicity manager, group representative at an international conference, Treasurer and Secretary – a position he abused to be able to steal the private contact details of the group’s supporters”.

Morris also discussed the “Persons Unknown” defence campaign, formed to support individuals facing conspiracy charges. He highlights how ‘Williams’ infiltrated this group, reporting on privileged legal strategies and undermining the campaign’s efforts.

Similarly, London Greenpeace, which Morris was deeply involved in from the early 1980s, was infiltrated by undercover officers like HN10 Bob Lambert (‘Bob Robinson’) and HN5 John Dines (‘John Barker’).

Lambert and Dines not only gathered intelligence but also engaged in deceitful and abusive relationships.

“He [Bob Lambert] engineered fraudulent and therefore abusive sexual relationships with a number of women including fathering a child (who he later abandoned)”.

Morris condemns the “gross invasions of privacy” and the unethical behaviour of officers who manipulated personal relationships and stole private information.

Morris also touched on the broader implications of these tactics, which reflect a disregard for legal processes and human rights, with the police collaborating with corporations against campaigners.

He posed the question: why didn’t undercover police target the entities that truly threaten our society? Corporations engaging in systemic exploitation and environmental destruction, for example, or the government, supporting and engaging in illegal wars.

In concluding his statement, Morris emphasises the fundamental right of people to organise, protest, and seek positive change. He invokes a long tradition of resisting oppressive laws and explained:

“Protests and movements for change also enable people to empower themselves and each other, and should be encouraged everywhere. By spreading collective self-organisation, mutual aid and community solidarity, it can be demonstrated there are alternative and better ways of living and running our society – this is real democracy in action.”

Owen Greenhall: Dame Joan Ruddock PC & Diane Abbott MP

Owen Greenhall delivered a further opening statement on behalf of Diane Abbott MP and Dame Joan Ruddock PC. Both women are prominent political figures which makes their targeting by undercover police particularly troubling.

Diane Abbott was the first Black woman ever elected to Parliament in 1987. She has been a leading anti-racism campaigner for decades and played significant roles in movements such as the Black Sections within the Labour Party and the Anti-Racist Alliance.

Documents disclosed in the Inquiry reveal that undercover officers reported on numerous events where she spoke during the Tranche 2 period. Former undercover officer Peter Francis has admitted to collecting information on Diane Abbott while infiltrating anti-racist groups, reporting details of her activities to his Special Branch superiors.

Abbott condemned the spying as politically motivated and a breach of her privacy and the trust of those she worked with.

Speaking in the House of Commons in 2015 she confirmed:

“I assure the House that I was never engaged in anything illegal and I certainly was not engaged in seeking to undermine democracy”.

Indeed, her activities were aimed at reinforcing democracy by advocating for marginalised communities, notably the Stephen Lawrence campaign.

The statement raised concerns about racial discrimination in SDS activities, based not on any policing need, but rather on a deep and unwarranted fear of politically engaged ethnic minority communities.

Dame Joan Ruddock was Chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), and Labour MP for Deptford from 1987 to 2015. She shared her experiences of extensive surveillance due to her anti-nuclear activism and called for accountability from the Home Office and senior government officials who authorised and oversaw these operations.

The spying on Abbott and Ruddock raises serious concerns about the strength of the Wilson Doctrine, which prohibits targeted surveillance of MPs by state agencies.

Ruddock stated:

“In 1981, I was elected as chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament… In 1987, I became a Member of this House and took the loyal oath. In 1997, I became a Minister, and I subsequently signed the Official Secrets Act. How is it that surveillance was carried out on me for all that time?”

The spying on elected MPs like Abbott and Ruddock highlights an erosion of democratic principles, and yet again, it is the SDS and not the groups they were targeting who are found to have been undermining parliamentary democracy.

Sam Jacobs: Sharon Grant OBE

Sharon Grant is a core participant in this public inquiry in representation of her late husband, Bernie Grant MP.

Sam Jacobs displayed a photograph of Bernie Grant as he delivered a poignant account of his political life. Arriving in the UK from British Guiana (now Guyana) as a teenager, Grant became deeply involved in the trade union movement.

He became the first Black leader of a council in Europe, and he was elected as Member of Parliament for Tottenham in 1987, where he served until his death in 2000. His contributions were widely recognised, with the Prime Minister describing him as inspirational. His portrait now hangs in the Houses of Parliament.

Sharon Grant’s statement eloquently expresses what a severe affront to democracy the spying on Bernie Grant and other Members of Parliament was. The explanations provided by undercover officers about their role in reporting on MPs appear to downplay their actions.

For instance, HN78 Trevor Morris (‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’, also ‘Bobby McGee’) stated that he was merely providing intelligence and was never told not to include information on MPs.

HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’, who filed numerous reports on Bernie Grant, justified recording MPs’ presence at public events in order to understand alliances and potential future attendance.

HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’ claimed that reporting on speeches by MPs was relevant to understanding the community’s views on police-related legislation.

However, the reports on Bernie Grant go far beyond recording his presence at events; they analyse the content of his speeches and even question his sincerity. One report describes him as engaging in “a tour of conspiracy theories” and being “cynical,” while another calls him “inflammatory.”

No undercover officer has taken responsibility for these reports, and HN78 Trevor Morris (‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’, also ‘Bobby McGee’) denies authorship despite clear links. This discrepancy raises concerns about the credibility of the officers’ testimonies.

There are 28 reports directly mentioning Bernie Grant, nine of which were filed by officer HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ who estimated that approximately three-quarters of his reporting is missing.

Sharon Grant stresses that her statement is based on limited disclosure and snippets from witness statements, and this leaves her uncomfortable, making her statement without full knowledge of the extent of the reporting.

Nevertheless, the picture that has emerged is concerning, indicating a police role in discrediting her husband and the wider Black community. She recalls the misreporting of Bernie Grant’s actions and statements related to the events at Broadwater Farm. The language of the reports and their distribution only heightens her concerns.

Many of the reports also reference Bernie Grant’s participation in events where his constituents experienced injustice at the hands of the Metropolitan Police, such as the killing of Joy Gardner and the wrongful conviction of Winston Silcott.

Given that the Joy Gardner campaign was run from Bernie Grant’s office, Sharon Grant questions whether undercover officers infiltrated the premises of an elected politician. She emphasises the need to understand whether police actions interfered with democratic processes and what impact they had on Bernie Grant’s reputation and his ability to address serious issues on behalf of his constituents. She highlighted the need for a fuller exploration of the police’s role in this kind of anti-democratic activity.

Sam Jacobs: Stafford Scott

Stafford Scott, representing the Broadwater Farm Defence Committee (BFDC), recounted his personal experiences of police misconduct and surveillance.

BFDC was an organisation established in the wake of police violence and wrongful prosecutions. It was set up “by the community with the support of the local authority and Member of Parliament and worked to protect the rights of the community”.

Despite the peaceful nature of their activities, the BFDC and Scott were subjected to extensive monitoring. Scott highlighted the racial bias in the surveillance, noting that Black-led campaigns were inherently viewed with suspicion by the SDS.

Scott’s detailed recounting of his experiences underscores the profound impact of surveillance and police misconduct on individuals and communities striving for justice. His statement contained personal stories including how, in 1985, he and his family were “arrested at gunpoint, held incommunicado for 36 hours, and subjected to racist taunts.”

This incident, among others, underscores the hostile and racially biased treatment he and his community faced from police. Despite these challenges, Scott continued his activism. His efforts have been instrumental in exposing systemic issues within the police force, including the racist and divisive operation of the ‘Gangs Matrix’ which was eventually withdrawn by the Met.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Richard Martin has acknowledged Scott’s work with the Met and other organisations “to better improve community relations”.

Scott notes the significant amount of intelligence reports, particularly from undercover officer HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’, concerning the BFDC and himself.

There are over thirty reports, and we are told that “approximately three-quarters of his [HN25’s] reporting is missing”.

This makes it impossible to build a comprehensive understanding of the scope of the surveillance.

What we do know is that Scott and the BFDC had registry file numbers opened on them by Special Branch – meaning they were regarded as needing ongoing monitoring – signaling a significant level of interest from the Met.

The explanation given for this surveillance was ‘public order’. However, this lacks credibility. There were never any public order issues at BFDC events, and indications of “violent behaviour” in the SDS reporting include a description of a reggae song played on a demonstration.

Despite the significant gaps in the evidence the police’s broader agenda is clear. The intense interest in justice campaigns over the wrongful convictions of the Tottenham Three or the killings of Cherry Groce, Joy Gardner, and Stephen Lawrence, and undercover reporting about the Newham Monitoring Project and Hackney Community Defence Association (which kept files on police corruption that were accessed by HN78 Trevor Morris), all stems from a desire to limit the impact of community campaigns for police accountability.

This was reflected in the Metropolitan Police admission on 1 July, in which they apologised for their racist spying on justice campaigns and for the culture of ‘exceptionalism and impunity’ that existed in the SDS.

Stafford Scott continues to fight for justice and equality and he asks the Inquiry not to marginalise his experiences further, to recognise the significant contributions he and the BFDC have made, and address the systemic racism within undercover policing to ensure accountability for the injustices faced by the Black community.

Kirsten Heaven: NPSCP Co-ordinating Group

Kirsten Heaven delivered the final opening statement on behalf of the Co-ordinating Group of non-police, non-state core participants (NPSCPs), bringing together many of the points made in opening statements over the previous three days, and providing a broad overview of the systemic issues that the inquiry needs to address.

The statement began with the procedural issues that have hindered the Inquiry. Heaven emphasized the failure to provide timely disclosure, which has prevented meaningful participation for those affected and placed an enormous emotional and practical burden on NPSCPs.

Key witness statements and evidence have been provided too late for it to be possible to process the material.

She blamed arbitrary deadlines imposed by the Home Office, and emphasised the need for the Inquiry to adopt a more open and collaborative approach, highlighting the importance of meaningful participation from those affected by the surveillance, arguing:

“The best people to assist in helping the Inquiry to ascertain what is missing or incorrect within the evidence are the non-state core participants”.

Her statement provided a damning critique of practices and oversight from 1983 to 1992, and a critical examination of the systemic abuses and failures of undercover policing in the UK.

It explored the political motivations behind SDS operations, citing examples of surveillance targeted at politically active individuals and groups who posed no legitimate threat and the misuse of state surveillance powers for political ends. There was a lack of accountability and oversight, and that led to profound personal and political impacts on those targeted.

She called for the Inquiry to hold senior officials and government departments accountable for their roles in overseeing and authorising these operations and for transparency, accountability, and meaningful participation going forward, to ensure that the Inquiry fulfills its mandate and delivers justice for those affected.

Among the many issues raised was the surveillance of political figures, particularly MPs. The NPSCPs highlight the violation of the Wilson Doctrine, which prohibits the surveillance of MPs.

The statement explores the supposed justification for the SDS’s operations, revealing a pattern of political policing. It cites the 1983 SDS Annual Report, which openly discussed targeting groups and individuals who were critical of the police.

The report admitted that the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) posed no serious threat to public order. It continued to be targeted for being a “conspicuous irritant to the establishment.”

This, the NPSCPs argue, exemplifies how the SDS’s activities were driven by political motives, and even a desire to avoid “embarrassment”, rather than legitimate policing concerns.

The NPSCPs also highlight the extensive and invasive nature of the SDS operations. Undercover officers in the Tranche 2 period of 1983-1992 continued to assume significant roles of influence within groups they targeted, trespass into private homes, steal the identities of dead infants and engage in intimate relationships under false pretences, and there is growing evidence that senior officers were aware of, and sometimes complicit in, these unlawful and immoral activities.

For example, HN99 Detective Chief Inspector Nigel David Short warned officers about being tempted by “flesh pot females”. HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ reported how, during a presentation to members of MI5, DCI Wait made a “light-hearted introduction” mentioning that “one of our animal people had been involved in a pregnancy scare but the fact of the child being mixed race ruled out the officer entirely”.

This not only trivializes serious misconduct but also highlights the racist and sexist attitudes pervasive in the SDS, revealing a deep-rooted culture of impunity and prejudice.

The Home Office was aware of the controversial practices within the SDS. Documents indicate that senior civil servants were concerned about the use of the police to spy on groups critical of the government. However, despite this awareness, the abuses were allowed to continue unchecked.

NPSCPs insist that it is only through full disclosure and complete transparency that the true extent of the SDS’s activities can be understood and properly scrutinized. They call for the Inquiry to publish the full list of groups that were spied on and to release the real and cover names of all SDS officers and managers, and they emphasise the need for public scrutiny and accountability in the Inquiry.

Without these measures, the Inquiry risks failing to deliver justice for those who were wronged by these undercover operations.

This summary covers the final week of the four-week 2021 hearings of the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI), examining the activities of the Metropolitan Police’s secret political unit, the Special Demonstration Squad, from 1973-82.

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.

THE DECEIVED AND THE DECEIVER

The UCPI hearings on 10 May and 11 May were notable for the consecutive appearances of an activist who had been deceived into a sexual relationship with an undercover officer, and the actual spycop who had deceived her.

‘Madeleine’ was the only activist we heard from this week. State core participants giving evidence were spycops ‘Vince Miller’ (HN354, 1976-1979), ‘Paul Gray’ (HN126, 1977-82), and ‘Michael James‘ (HN96, 1978-83). Summaries of evidence were given for three other spycops, and documents introduced for a fourth, who is now dead.

Owing to the refusal of the Inquiry to release names or photographs of officers, there are many people who may never know if they were spied on. The Inquiry has also refused to call as many spycops as possible to give evidence, so we are unlikely to ever have an accurate picture of their activities.

CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS

Once again, everything we heard this week supported the emerging picture that we do have. People who were spied on gave clear, consistent, and detailed accounts of their actions, including the moral and ethical standpoints that led them to join the groups that were infiltrated.

Spycops gave conflicting accounts of what they did; whether they had intimate relationships with activists, what went on in safe-houses, what their managers were or were not aware of, and even whether or not their work was useful. They contradict each other, and sometimes contradict themselves, whether in different reports or even within the same session of giving evidence.

This was very clearly shown this week when comparing the evidence of undercover ‘Vince Miller’ (HN354, 1976-1979) who infiltrated the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), and ‘Madeleine’, an SWP member who he deceived into a relationship. Madeleine gave evidence on 10 May, Miller on 11 May. Both took a whole day.

Miller was the first unmarried officer to be deployed by the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS). He was in a relationship, however, and this was one of the first things his superiors asked him about.

He believes this was because being married was preferred, as having a wife meant some form of support whilst enduring the stress of an undercover deployment. All the other evidence from spycops this week (and beyond) echoes this statement: family ties would prevent them ‘going rogue’.

‘Paul Gray’ (HN126, 1977-1980), giving evidence on May 13, said he thought ‘you had to be married’ to join the squad, as:

‘It led to a secure background, a secure home… I suppose it was good to have somebody at home when you came back after a long weekend or a long day’

It appears that, despite this being a deliberate choice by the SDS, no thought was given to the impact it had on the officers’ wives. Contact phone numbers for their husbands were not given until 1978, when one wife asked for this.

Wives were expected to do everything to help their husbands, up to and including moving house at short notice if their cover was blown. Many of them were left acting as single parents for weeks at a time. They believed their husbands were doing work crucial to the security of the nation.

UNMENTIONED ONE-NIGHT STANDS

Madeleine is one of four women who Miller has admitted to having intimate sexual contact with. Two of the others were not activists, nor were they connected with his target group. He says he simply met them in the pub – whilst undercover and claiming expenses – and had what he describes as ‘one-night stands’ with them. This was very early on in his deployment, when he was still exploring the area he had to infiltrate.

Since they were nothing to do with his deployment, Miller chose not to mention them in his ‘impact statement’ to the Inquiry. Even when his solicitor was sent a letter by the Inquiry specifically asking for details of all sexual relationships, Miller remained silent. It was not until a year later – in his witness statement – that he admitted to them.

This alone is enough to bring his overall credibility into question. Everything he says must now be examined through a lens of ‘is this the whole story?’ What would it serve Miller to omit from his evidence?

David Barr QC, Counsel to the Inquiry, seemed to be aware of this as he questioned Miller. Barr kept the pressure on to an extent that made Miller literally sweat, as he contradicted himself repeatedly about matters of procedure and events in the SDS safe house. When questioned about his deception of Madeleine, Miller flushed red and was visibly deeply uncomfortable for the duration of that topic.

On the previous day, Madeleine herself was open and quietly compelling. Miller claims that he only had sex with her once, but she gave the Inquiry a detailed account of their months-long relationship. This is backed up by near-contemporaneous diaries detailing conversations about Miller’s refusal to stay the night after he’d had sex with her.

MANIPULATING PEOPLE BY LYING

Miller told Madeleine his refusal to stay over was psychological, that he didn’t feel safe unless he woke up in his own bed. He also told her he had grown up in a children’s home, and recently had a bad breakup from a toxic relationship. Giving evidence, Miller said it hadn’t occurred to him that his cover story of past pain and not wanting to be hurt again might evoke feelings of sympathy, intimacy and protectiveness.

This is astonishing, given that his entire job consisted of manipulating people by lying to them. Like all the spycops we’ve heard from so far, he says he received little training. However, the ability to gauge people’s reactions to what you tell them is surely a prerequisite for working undercover. For example, Miller was once asked what he was doing for Christmas. To end the topic, he replied that both his parents were dead.

His cynical tale of woe is another piece of spycop tradecraft, one that other women deceived by spycops will recognise all too readily.

‘REALLY, REALLY SINISTER’

Madeleine’s father had fought fascists all his life. He was at the Battle of Cable Street in 1936 when an alliance of antifascists stopped the British Union of Fascists marching through the Jewish area of London’s East End. He was decorated for his efforts against the Nazis in WWII. It is not inconceivable that there is also a Special Branch Registry File on him.

Madeleine was about 15 when she joined the International Socialists (IS), which later became the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). In 1970, when she was 16, a Special Branch Registry File on her was opened.

Parts of that file are redacted by the Inquiry, which she finds ‘really, really sinister’; what 50-year-old information about her does the Inquiry not want her to see?

AUTOMATIC TARGETS

Miller explained that it was not unusual for 15- and 16-year-olds to be spied on and have files, if they were ‘sufficiently active’. Additionally, it streamlined the paperwork to open a file on someone if they were ‘constantly being referred to in all sorts of practices’.

The inference is that if children were often mentioned in reports on their parents, it was easier for the SDS administration to open a file on them. This is backed up by the evidence of ‘Michael James‘ (HN96, 1978-83).

In a self-fulfilling manoeuvre, children and adults became automatic targets for the State simply because they had a file.

Madeleine had split up with her abusive husband in the autumn of 1978. By this time, she had known Miller as a member of the SWP for over a year. A flatmate’s diaries show he visited their flat in summer 1977. After the breakup, she increasingly regarded him as a friend.

This was the period during which Miller was infiltrating the Walthamstow branch of the SWP. He became treasurer, then district treasurer and social committee organiser for the Outer East London District Branch. Miller organised fund-raising gigs and other social events. As people dedicated to the same ideals, the SWP members’ lives were very enmeshed.

PUBLIC DISORDER PICNIC

The Queen’s Silver Jubilee in June 1977 saw one such social event. It had been declared a one-off bank holiday; in a gentle push-back against the imperial overtones of the occasion, Walthamstow SWP organised an anti-Jubilee family picnic in Epping Forest.

The Inquiry asked if the picnic was likely to involve any public disorder:

‘Absolutely not, no. It was just a picnic. With children, I might add.’

Given some of the things we are expected to believe from other State witness statements this week, the Inquiry not knowing what a picnic involves is the very least of it.

The direct actions of the Walthamstow SWP were not geared towards public disorder either. A report mentions them ‘occupying’ a Sainsbury’s supermarket, but this is untrue:

‘what they probably did was stand outside with banners, handing out leaflets and talking to shoppers… We felt supermarket prices were kept artificially high to extract profit for shareholders.’

It is hard to see why campaigning for lower prices at Sainsbury’s would be a threat to democracy. This explains why the spycops exaggerated in their report, something that happened throughout this period.

There is a paradox here. On the one hand, the undercovers talk about ‘hoovering up’ information indiscriminately for superiors to make use of, never filtering or questioning the value of the intelligence. On the other, the threat factor of small, peaceful groups is repeatedly made out to be far greater than it was.

On the third – because you need three hands to keep track of their contradictions – they describe the groups as harmless, then circle back round to the justification of information possibly being useful in the future. Or being ‘filed and never used again’, according to ‘Michael James‘ (HN96, 1978-83).

STEALING THE IDENTITY OF A DEAD CHILD…

James infiltrated the Socialist Workers Party and Troops Out Movement, occupying a senior role in the latter by the early 1980s. Like most of the spycops from this period, he was given precise instructions to steal the identity of a dead child and had no qualms about this:

‘I had no moral reservations about this at all… And I couldn’t see why it was a moral issue, because it didn’t involve anybody.’

Pressed on why he thought this:

‘No family were injured or caused any distress because of this practice.’

Later, when queried by the Inquiry Chair, Sir John Mitting, he added:

‘I dismiss what I see in the press about what they say about the stress given to families whose children have been used in the way. I don’t accept that. From my own knowledge that didn’t happen.’

‘Paul Gray’ (HN126, 1977-82) said in his written statement that it was the founder of the SDS, Conrad Dixon, who had instigated the use of dead children’s identities. Giving evidence on 13 May, he changed this to say that the practice was inspired by the film The Day of the Jackal.

When pressed by the Inquiry as to which it was, Gray decided on the latter as he had:

‘checked Wikipedia and the film had just come out when we started doing it.’

He was not alone among the spycops in having a cavalier attitude to the truth, but he was particularly blatant about how much being asked about it annoyed him. He often gave obtuse answers to straight-forward questions, and at times refused to answer them outright, despite having sworn to tell ‘the whole truth’ before giving evidence.

Interestingly enough, he took offence at what was said in what is presented as his own written witness statement:

‘I have not written that, not at all, this is not my kind of English. This was written for me.’

His words and attitude confirm something previously suspected – that the statements were worded for the spycops, not by them.

…TO SPY ON LIVING CHILDREN

Returning to Michael James, a May 1979 report he wrote [UCPI0000021293] gives personal details about a member of Clapton SWP and Hackney Women’s Voice. It describes her as divorced, with a six-year-old child. Why report on her marital state, the age of the child or even that she had a child?

‘All I can conclude is that I was trying to paint a picture of an individual that may have been used in the future.’

Would you have been concerned at all about reporting information on children?

‘Well, all I said was she had a daughter of six years. I mean, I’ve not gone into any more detail.’

In August 1979 he reported [UCPI0000013300] on an under-18-year-old SWP member, including the school they went to. He said he wasn’t concerned about having done this.

James gave evidence on 13 May, a long and somewhat torturous process that saw him evading giving answers and instead suggesting questions he thought should be asked. This left Inquiry counsel Steven Gray QC persistently cutting through James’ repeated shambling around answers, for which he is to be applauded.

The Inquiry discussed other examples of intrusive reporting. When pressed to justify various egregious sections in his files, James fell back on the defence that it didn’t really matter. It was just information that mostly went nowhere, kept on the off-chance it might actually be useful one day; but since that was in the future, who knew, so you reported everything.

INTRUSIVE REPORTING

Despite James’ claims that the information would, in his experience, ‘never see the light of day’, many of his reports were passed to the Security Service (MI5). All the files published by the Inquiry with a reference number beginning ‘UCPI000…’ are taken from the Security Service’s existing records.

As Steven Gray QC pointed out:

‘the fact that it wasn’t going to see the light of day again in your experience is not borne out by the fact that we’re looking at it now, is it?’

The theory that the reports would not be looked at until some time in the future could also explain the fictional tendencies of the spycops who wrote them. A practice familiar from SDS reports seen earlier in the hearings was to take the most extreme statement anyone made at a meeting and portray it as the whole group’s real basis. Realistically, most meetings, from business to Brownies, would suffer under that parameter.

A January 1979 report [UCPI0000013063] from Miller also mentions children. School Kids Against the Nazis (SKAN) had been formed when the National Front held a demo outside a school in multicultural East London. About 200 pupils had opposed it, with 15 arrests – all but one of them Black kids.

SCHOOL KIDS AGAINST NAZIS

‘Paul Gray’ (HN126, 1977-1980) also reported on SKAN, and seemed preoccupied with one Black boy in particular. Gray reported on his family life, that he spoke at a SKAN meeting, and leafletted schools in a campaign against education cuts, among other things.

Gray claimed this reporting was justifiable from a public order point of view, but then denied that the reports were his [UCPI0000011997], [UCPI0000011380].

Shown a report detailing minor criminal offending of a minor schoolboy, [UCPI0000011994], he was asked if this was the sort of information he would have reported on SKAN?

‘Although SKAN’s members were young, they were just as violent as any other anti-fascist group.’

The Inquiry then showed a short video of SKAN Hackney – an endearing bit of footage with schoolkids, black and white, explaining they were friends and colour did not play a role, and that they were against the NF stirring up tension.

Gray agreed that this was the impression that he had of SKAN at the time, but claimed:

‘the characters that I was aware of were a lot more violent.’

Asked specifically about the child prominently featured in his reports, Gray conceded he had never seen him committing violence at demonstrations, but ‘he was always the first out of the bus at Brick Lane’. It is also notable that he described the boy as having an ‘effeminate manner’. He says he never thought about whether this was appropriate or not.

SUGGESTIONS OF INSURRECTION

Gray said that in fact, the legitimacy of reporting on SKAN at all was never discussed with him by superiors. It was not talked about at the weekly meetings. Nor was the reporting on girls protesting because they were not allowed to wear trousers to school [UCPI0000021267].

Returning to the 1979 report from Miller, this said SKAN:

‘can, with short notice, get large numbers of school students on to the streets, should the need arise.’

The Inquiry asked Madeleine if SKAN were indeed able to suddenly create a mob ready for street violence. Yet again, she had to deflate suggestions of insurrection. SKAN was a self-organising group of kids responding to the upsurge of racism around them:

‘The idea that we would have somehow had to have planted these ideas in their heads is a bit ludicrous really. It was their own experience.’

Madeleine notes other reports are deliberately facetious, and often selectively quote a few individuals’ opinions rather than the general view, even just picking up on comments made by members of the public. She elegantly described it:

‘There’s a little bit of embroidery going on in many of the reports. There would have been people there who would have expressed opinions that we wouldn’t necessarily agree with, but we would discuss and debate and argue with them.’

MADELEINE BELIEVED HERSELF SAFE

In the summer of 1979, Madeleine was 25 and slowly coming out of her shell after years of her husband’s possessive behaviour and abuse. At a house party in Ilford, mainly attended by SWP members, she was happy when her SWP comrade of three years, Vince Miller, pulled her into his lap, and when he later put his arms around her. She was not looking for a relationship, but believed herself safe with him:

‘I thought he was lovely. A really nice guy. I thought he was a genuine, lovely, easy going person, I thought he was sensitive, he had this story of heartbreak and all the rest of it. I felt he was looking for genuine relationships with people.’

After the party, he took her back to her flat and they began a sexual relationship. It was the only time that he stayed the entire night with her, leaving in the morning.

ABSOLUTE BETRAYAL

Asked how she would have felt to discover Miller’s true identity at the time, she said it would have been devastating. She was young and naïve, and would have been profoundly shocked and distraught:

‘I’d made myself very vulnerable to him and I trusted him, and to me it would have been an absolute betrayal… I would have regarded it, as I do regard it now, as rape.’

Miller claims Madeleine invited him up to her room. Questioning Miller, David Barr QC bluntly asked if he went because he wanted sex – despite the fact that he was a serving police officer on duty?

‘I think I’d have to say yes.’

Asked if he thought Madeleine would have had sex with him if she knew who he really was, Miller admitted:

‘if she knew that I was a police officer then almost certainly not… But I’m both a police officer and a person, so she might have seen the person, not the police officer.’

Had she seen the person, she would have also seen that he was in a committed relationship. What she saw instead was a single comrade she’d known for years, who had become a trusted friend, and then lover.

The Inquiry attempted to downplay the impact the relationship would have had if Madeleine hadn’t latterly found out the truth about spycops. This gives no consideration to the reality of the situation as she experienced it at the time.

THE FOCUS OF HER AFFECTIONS

Madeleine hoped that they would become a couple. She didn’t see anyone else, and her feelings for him grew. They met about once a week; always at her house, never his. She was very keen for the relationship to continue, as she was ‘never looking for a one-night stand or casual sex with anyone’, and ‘he seemed very keen on me’.

Their regular dates continued for a couple of months. He was, she says, the focus of her affections. However, towards the end, things changed:

‘He became increasingly distant, and I began to become disappointed that it didn’t seem to be going the way I wanted it to go. And, yeah, I kind of became a bit upset about it.’

Madeleine found herself wondering if it was her fault that Miller was withdrawing his affection. The last time she saw him was at a friend’s house. She hadn’t seen him for about a week. He was sitting on the other side of the room with a woman, and she sensed from their body language that there was something between the two of them. Madeleine now thinks this is the other SWP member that he has admitted deceiving into a relationship.

FEIGNING EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Miller ignored Madeleine. When he left, she followed him to ask why he was being so distant. He said that he’d already told her that he couldn’t get too involved and that he didn’t want to get hurt again.

She remembers his departure damaging her self-esteem, leaving her feeling upset, disappointed and rejected. She saw it as part of a pattern with her marriage and thought:

‘God, have I made another mistake?’

He said he was going to go to California to ‘find himself’. This is yet another early example of what became standard practice – spycops would cover the end of their deployment by feigning emotional distress and say they were going abroad to sort themselves out.

The emotional turmoil created by some of the later officers had huge impacts on those who loved them. More than one desperate woman deceived into a relationship went searching in the country where her partner was supposedly living, not knowing he was actually back at a desk job in Scotland Yard.

FURTHER TALES OF VINCE

This was not a relationship that had ‘very little impact’, and it was caused by the spycops whether Madeleine knew of them or not. The revelation that the man she knew never really existed has caused more recent impact, undoing the peace that Madeleine eventually made with the end of the relationship.

‘To discover that I didn’t know him at all and that he was a fiction, that’s been quite difficult to get my head around. He doesn’t actually exist, it was all an act, wearing a mask… it’s really chilling and sinister… I just don’t know how people can behave like that.’

It is indeed abhorrent that Miller chose to have sex with a young woman who had no idea of his true identity, and who he knew was emotionally vulnerable. Perhaps even more so that he claims it didn’t cross his mind that she might feel pressured, after being in a relationship with a controlling man.

When asked by the Inquiry about pregnancy concerns, Miller put all the responsibility on Madeleine:

Q. Did you use contraception?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Did you give any thought to the consequences of fathering a child when you were in fact an undercover police officer?
A. No, I didn’t. I think my perception was that as a full feminist socialist supporter, then if there was any need for protection, then she would have mentioned it. I didn’t see her as some kind of shrinking violet, or something like that. This was a member of the women’s movement, and women had the same right to ask for things and to insist on things as a man. And I would have supported that then. I incidentally still do. So she would have had the right – absolute right to insist, if it was necessary.
Q. But in the absence of any insistence?
A. Then I assumed everything was safe. In contraceptive terms.

Miller’s account of their relationship differs so wildly from Madeleine’s that even the Inquiry Chair, Sir John Mitting, butted in to question him on it.

AN ESSENTIALLY TRUTHFUL PERSON

Miller repeatedly stated that he had little or no memory of many events during this time. Madeleine has clear recollections of the last time she saw him. Miller said he has no memory of saying goodbye to her before he ended his deployment. However, he maintains that he only had sex with her once, which he now describes as:

‘inappropriate and unprofessional.’

Mitting stressed that Madeleine had impressed him when giving evidence:

‘As a sincere and essentially truthful person, trying to tell me, as best as she could remember, what happened between you and her.’

Their relationship was not the only topic where Miller delivered a different version of the truth.

August 1977 saw a key moment in the fight against fascism in Britain. The National Front (NF) were organising a march in Lewisham, and there was a huge counter-demonstration. The collision of the two became known as the ‘Battle of Lewisham‘.

Miller says Walthamstow SWP members checked out the route the night before, and deposited piles of bricks that could be used as weapons the next day. He also claimed they were armed during the march.

Madeleine utterly denies all of this. There is no evidence that anybody ever planted any bricks at all.

BATTLE OF LEWISHAM

This confrontation is now commemorated with a plaque in Lewisham. It was the turning point in the rise of the right wing, and the beginning of the end of the NF.

Miller remembers that everyone who opposed the NF agreed that the far-right had to be stopped from marching through New Cross, a very multicultural area, and that they all organised and planned to stop it.

Miller was an SWP steward for the march. He described the NF as ‘deliberately confrontational’, adding:

‘I don’t think these situations would be allowed to take place now.’

Despite the Met deploying 4,000 uniformed officers, Miller explained that ‘following the march’ was impossible; ‘it was chaos’. The police had no protective gear in those days. In his words:

‘the mounted branch took a complete hammering.’

There were running confrontations all over the area for the rest of the day. Miller described how, after the march was over, members of the far-right were poised to attack the protestors.

Miller said he was ‘too close for my own comfort’ to the confrontations, but that he avoided getting involved in any ‘direct physical violence’ himself.

He remembers phoning up other spycops after the event, to check they had got home safely. A number of them were present that day, because they were infiltrating many of the other groups who attended, not just the SWP. They definitely discussed the event in the safe-house, he confirmed.

We learned from a report dated 23 August 1977 [MPS-0733369] that Special Branch held a debriefing for eighteen of its officers who were present. Miller says he was not one of them, and explained that other Special Branch plain clothes officers would have gone to the march, and that it’s likely that the SDS’s views would have been represented at the meeting by one or two officers, ‘at a high level’.

He notes the SDS undercovers were disappointed that their pre-intelligence had been ignored, resulting in severe violence. Despite that, in the SDS Annual Report for 1977, the Lewisham event is described as a triumph for the unit.

THE DEATH OF BLAIR PEACH

By way of contrast, we have been told that only one spycop was present at the April 1979 anti-fascist demonstration in Southall where police killed Blair Peach, and he left early because it had turned violent.

The anti-fascist protest was a reaction to a General Election rally held by the National Front in a very multi-cultural area of London. This deliberate baiting by fascists was exactly the kind of event that the SDS should have been reporting on.

Gray said his branch made arrangements for the demo, [UCPI0000021193], but he did not attend, saying he probably had an SDS office meeting if it was on a Monday (which it was not) or had to go to work in his cover deployment (despite stating earlier that he never did any work there).

OBVIOUS LIES

Gray claimed that he did not hear about what had happened to Blair Peach, apart from what was on the news. Like many of his colleagues, he claims there was never any discussion about it at meetings of the SDS.

This is an obvious lie, not just because it was a fairly significant public order event, but because it was, naturally, discussed at his SWP branch [UCPI0000021218].

Gray also denied knowing Blair Peach’s partner Celia Stubbs (who gave evidence on 6 May 2021), despite having reported on her activities and referring to her as ‘Celia’ during the hearing.

He states he could not remember going to pickets outside Harlesden Court where the inquest into Peach’s death was held, although he reported on it:

‘If there is a report, then I must have gone.’

There were two reports, [UCPI0000013435] and [UCPI0000013498] that show Gray was organising the selling of Socialist Working papers at the event.

Despite a general call-out from the SWP to attend to Blair Peach’s funeral, Gray says he didn’t go. However, photos were taken at the funeral by a separate Special Branch unit. These were collected in an album brought to the office meetings of the SDS for the spycops to identify the people present. It was then used by Gray in standard reporting [UCPI0000013539]. He still says the killing was not discussed.

THE KILLING WAS NOT DISCUSSED

Vince Miller said that demonstrations were discussed during meetings at the safe houses, and there was:

‘informal exchange of information, but also a release so that you could actually talk about things somewhere.’

He too claims that Peach’s death was never talked about.

There are multiple reports from spycops about the 1977 Lewisham and Wood Green demonstrations, both of which featured clashes between fascists, anti-fascists, and the police. There are hardly any about Southall. Every spycop asked about this demonstration has clammed up, even ones who have been quite forthcoming about their other activities.

It is insulting to be expected to believe that neither reports, which were written on the minutiae of people’s lives, nor memories of an event where a member of the public was killed by police, remain within the SDS.

OFFICERS HOLDING OFFICE

There is some contention as to whether spycops were supposed to hold office of any kind, or take influential roles, within the organisations they infiltrated. What is certain is that most of them did.

One of the officers in this era was Richard Clark (‘Rick Gibson’ HN297, 1974-76). He set up a branch of the Troops Out Movement as part of a long-term climb through the ranks to the very top of the organisation, where he then sabotaged it – as we reported earlier.

In the period under examination, from Clark onwards, every single undercover officer took a role in the organisations they infiltrated, except for ‘Graham Coates’ (HN304, 1976-79) who was infiltrating anarchists without hierarchy or official roles.

In some case officers took national leading roles. What resulted from this was not just information, but also the opportunity to have a say in the direction of the organisation, and ultimately the ability to derail that organisation.

This week alone we’ve heard from:

‘Vince Miller’ (HN354, 1976-79)
Treasurer, SWP Walthamstow branch
Treasurer, SWP Outer East London District
Social Committee, SWP Outer East London District

‘Colin Clark’ (HN80, 1977-82)
Treasurer, SWP Seven Sisters & Haringey branch
Treasurer, SWP Lea Valley District
National Treasurer, Right to Work Campaign
Offered a place on SWP Central Committee; turned it down, but did do admin at HQ.

‘Bill Biggs‘ (HN356/124, 1977-82)
Treasurer, SWP Plumstead branch
Newspaper Organiser, SWP Plumstead branch
Treasurer, Briston SWP branch

‘Paul Gray‘ (HN126, 1977-82)
Newspaper organiser, SWP Cricklewood branch
Newspaper organiser, SWP North West London District
Acting Chairman, Coordinating Committee, Anti-Nazi League West Hampstead branch (later Camden Against Racism/Anti-Nazi League -West Hampstead & Hampstead Group)

‘Michael James‘ (HN96, 1978-83)
Newspaper organiser, SWP Clapton branch
SWP Hackney District Committee
Membership & Affiliation Secretary, Troops Out Movement
Chair of Steering Committee, Troops Out Movement

‘Phil Cooper’ (HN155, 1979-83)
Treasurer, Waltham Forest Anti-Nuclear Campaign
National Treasurer, Right to Work Campaign

In 1982 and 1983, Cooper was trusted enough to gather the entrance money for the SWP’s annual national delegate conference in Skegness. This provided him with a list of 1,983 attendees, which he included in his report that was passed to MI5 [UCPI0000018180].

It was noted by MI5 that ‘the SDS office [was] still groaning under the weight of Cooper’s report’, which was subsequently considered to be of significant value to the Special Branch and MI5 alike [UCPI0000028728, MPS-0730009, MPS-0735901].

UNRELIABLE WITNESS

Cooper is not being called to give oral evidence due to his current state of health. However, he has previously provided an updated and amended written statement.

A big question is whether Cooper told the Undercover Policing Inquiry’s risk assessors that he engaged in sexual activity whilst he was deployed.

The assessors were employed by the Metropolitan Police to determine the risk to former undercover officers if any aspect of their identity was revealed. Their report from late 2017 recorded Cooper accepting that he had had two or three encounters with women, and the circumstances in which they took place [MPS-0746710].

Both the author, David Reid, and the second risk assessor, Brian Lockie, were left with the impression that Cooper was describing his own experiences whilst deployed [UCPI0000034397].

In contrast, Cooper suggests both misinterpreted his comments, saying that he:

‘was not as clear as I should have been about the dividing line between the specific, factual details of my particular deployment and more hypothetical comments about such deployments more generally.’

Cooper now denies engaging in any sexual relationships while undercover.

The psychological assessors who spoke to Cooper ahead of the Inquiry say that he is not a reliable witness due to being both highly suggestible, and wanting to avoid subjects that would mean revisiting traumatic experiences [UCPI0000034361], [UCPI0000034360].

CHANGING PARAMETERS

The last witnesses to appear at the Tranche 1 Phase 2 hearings of the Inquiry were the two risk assessors in question, David Reid [MPS-0746378] and Brian Lockie [MPS-0747533]. They were called by lawyers representing a number of undercover officers, including Cooper.

Both were asked to explain some alleged factual errors in their risk assessments for other officers. This line of questioning seemed to aim at undermining the accuracy of their recollections of Cooper’s testimony about his sexual encounters.

Both Reid and Lockie reaffirmed that what they recorded Cooper saying was correct, although they conceded that they were ‘not infallible’.

We also learned that the risk assessment process had been an evolving one. The assessors have been learning as they went, and changing their protocols and procedures accordingly.

It is unclear what this means for the earlier risk assessments, which were used to justify secrecy around the names of SDS undercovers.

WHAT NEXT?

May 13 concluded this round of hearings. The next hearings – ‘Tranche 1 Phase 3’, examining SDS managers 1968-82 – are scheduled for some time in the first half of 2022, but there will be no certainty of the dates for some time.

Though the Inquiry admitted in 2017 that more than 1000 groups were targeted by spycops , it refused to publish the list and for a long time only named fewer than 100. Activist researchers have produced a more complete list of those targeted.

During the first set of hearings in November 2020, the Inquiry disclosed another 126 names of groups that were spied on in 1969-1975. An updated list, with groups named during the current set of hearings, is being put together by the Undercover Research Group (URG) at the moment.

We also hope to receive the verdict in the case of Kate Wilson before the end of this year. Kate was deceived into a relationship by undercover officer Mark Kennedy. Her ten-year legal battle for answers recently culminated in a hearing at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, at which police admitted their spying breached a number of her human rights, including her fundamental right to freedom from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Regardless of the verdict, however, this landmark case and the disclosure resulting from it is bound to have consequences for the Undercover Policing Inquiry, as it reveals details that the police have been trying hard to keep concealed. Watch this space.

<<Previous UCPI Weekly Report (4-7 May 2021)<<

This summary covers the third week of the four-week 2021 hearings of the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI), examining the Metropolitan Police’s secret undercover political policing unit, the Special Demonstration Squad, from 1973-82.

Witnesses from the police and the ‘non-State core participants’ gave evidence, and some witness statements from police who were unable, unwilling, or not called upon to appear personally were summarised. This follows the format of last week’s hearings, and many of the same topics were covered.

Rather than unfolding like a fictional courtroom drama, with revelations that suddenly turn the course of the narrative, the hearings of the UCPI are turning the wheel on a microscope to reveal more details about the events it is examining. We already have the big picture: the abusive activities of spycops in England and Wales 1973-–82. This week gave us many more details of those activities.

POLICE ARE ABOVE THE LAW

‘Mike Scott’ (HN298, deployed 1971-1976) gave one of the clearest statements yet that Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) undercovers considered themselves exempt from the laws they were supposed to uphold. In 1972, Scott was accused of being a police officer by Géry Lawless, an activist in several organisations focused on Northern Ireland issues which Scott had infiltrated.

Scott laughingly related how later that day, while driving around randomly, he somehow chanced upon Lawless when the latter was alone in a phone box. He cornered him there and after an exchange of words punched him so hard in the face that Scott chipped a bone in his hand.

When asked to justify his violent crime against a member of the public, Scott replied:

‘It was acceptable to me and I was the one that made the decision. I was the one that was there, and the person that was the so-called victim was Géry Lawless’.

The implication of ‘you deserve what you get because I say so’ is more text than subtext here.

POLITICIANS ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW

Scott attended the Young Liberals’ 1972 annual conference in his capacity of Membership Secretary for their Putney branch. He reported on the presence of MP David Steel, directly contravening the ‘Wilson Doctrine’, which said that MPs should be told if they are subject to state surveillance.

According to Scott, ‘MPs are not above the law’. Spycops are apparently another matter, especially when punching people in the face.

Although Scott didn’t pick up a criminal record for his assault on Géry Lawless, he did for his actions during the Stop The Seventy Tour anti-apartheid campaign. He was convicted of obstructing a public highway under his fake identity, which was stolen from a living person.

SPYCOPS AUTHORISED TO LIE UNDER OATH

Scott’s lying under oath was authorised by his superiors, and he never gave a thought to whether the real Michael Scott now has a criminal record. In fact, he doesn’t even consider it in those terms:

‘What happened to me was not exactly a criminal record, it was really of no consequence, actually.’

In fact, he said, the identity theft, used to set up a bank account, might have been beneficial to the real Michael Scott because ‘my credit record was good.’

The unshakable conviction that whatever he chose to do was the best course of action simply because he chose to do it wass astonishingly clear. The Inquiry is now investigating whether the real Michael Peter Scott has a criminal record for this conviction.

Scott was not alone in being arrested, charged and convicted under a false identity. ‘Barry / Desmond Loader‘ (HN13, 1975-78) infiltrated the Communist Party of England (Marxist-Leninist) and was arrested twice while undercover. The first occasion, in late 1977, was for ‘insulting or threatening behaviour’ following a clash with the fascist National Front (NF) outside Barking police station.

Just three days after his court appearance for that, Loader was arrested a second time, again for clashing with the NF. Police records [MPS-0526784] reveal that Superintendent Ken Pryde established contact with a court official during the proceedings, giving them Loader’s cover name and his status as:

‘a valuable informant in the public order field whom we would wish to safeguard from a prison sentence should the occasion arise.’

Loader was found guilty, fined, and given a one-year bind-over of £100. It is noted in an SDS ‘Minute Sheet’ that this sentence was considered ‘very useful’ as it would allow Loader to keep a low profile for the remainder of his deployment [MPS-0526784].

LAWYER-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DIDN’T APPLY TO SPYCOPS

Naturally, the arrests and trials of spycops meant that the undercovers took part in meetings between the genuine activists and their lawyers. ‘Mike Scott’ was one of 14 people arrested in May 1972 for blockading a coach carrying the British Lions rugby team as they were leaving to play in apartheid South Africa.

Scott’s reports include comments from the activists’ lawyers. These have been redacted by the Inquiry as even now, 50 years later, they are subject to legal privilege. And yet, they were put in a report to the prosecution side from a spy among the defendants!

‘Geoff Wallace’ (HN296, 1975-78) infiltrated the International Socialists (IS). In April 1976, during their Right to Work Campaign, the IS newspaper Socialist Worker hired solicitors to represent those arrested while campaigning. Wallace reported [UCPI0000012323] on their meetings, likewise ignoring lawyer-client privilege.

This right, long protected in common law, is recognised by the European Convention on Human Rights, and can only be waived by the client. It is also recognised as absolute, in the sense that once privilege is established, it may not be weighed against any other countervailing public interest.

THE SDS MUST BE KEPT SECRET

Apparently, it’s a right that can be easily overridden by secret and secretive police units eager to avoid exposure and embarrassment. Discussion in the above mentioned Special Branch Minute Sheets reveals that Loader’s senior officers prioritised keeping his identity secret over any other consideration. Scott’s superiors did the same thing.

In 1979, spycop ‘Graham Coates’ (HN304, 1975-79) made ‘an error of judgement’ when, during a traffic stop, he gave a uniformed officer his real name but showed the driving license in his cover identity.

SDS boss Mike Ferguson (a former undercover himself) was ‘incandescent’, not just at Coates’ own indiscretion but at the potential revelation of the unit and its methods. Coates was withdrawn from the field on the spot.

In previous years, senior officers attempted to pass off incidents of criminal activity by spycops as ‘a few bad apples’ or used the ever-popular ‘rogue officer’ defence. Now, however, evidence continues to mount up of complete awareness by very senior officers. There was clearly a two-way flow of information between the SDS and MI5 – not only of requests to spy on people and the resulting reports, but also the criminal activity of the officers themselves.

THE MET COMMISSIONER KNEW

Graham Coates, ‘Bob Stubbs’ (HN301, 1971-76), ‘Roger Harris’ (HN200, 1974-77), and other spycops described visits to the SDS ‘safe house’ from various Metropolitan Police Commissioners (the highest officer), Assistant Commissioners, Deputy Assistant Commissioners, and the Commander of Special Branch.

Coates recalls managers demanding ‘maximum attendance’ from all deployed spycops for a visit from then-Commissioner Sir Robert Mark – ironically renowned for his drives against police corruption.

This tallies with similar reports by spycops from the 1960s and 1990s. These visits seem an established part of the Met Commissioner’s role; at the very least, they show full awareness of the unit.

Coates also remembered a remark suggesting spycops’ expenses accounts were thoroughly examined by the Commissioner (even if reports might not have been). This shows an astonishing level of attention to detail for individual officers’ activities. Generally though, the purpose of these visits was to praise the undercovers and occasionally present them with bottles of whisky.

NOTHING WAS EVER DISCUSSED

When not entertaining senior police officials, the safe houses were used for meetings between spycops and their managers once or twice weekly. Two very different pictures of activities there emerged this week.

One is of a ‘social’ environment that somehow fails to include any discussion of what the people there spent most of their time doing. According to Scott, the twelve or so spycops never talked about their undercover work, the groups they infiltrated (even between spycops in the same group!), the activists they spied on, or the tactics used to get close to them.

This is the period during which the practice of stealing dead children’s identities as the basis for undercover personae begins and solidifies as required practice. There was some reluctance from a handful of spycops, but the idea, seemingly initially used by Scott, became management policy and was effectively enforced.

Other tradecraft also took shape in this era. Enough spycops have reported a lack of formal training, hands-off management, and the absence of a manual or even guidelines, making it unclear how tradecraft was developed and passed on if the undercovers themselves did not talk about it either.

In this picture presented by amnesiac officers, there were no spycops with (memorable) reputations as womanisers. Likewise, there was supposedly no way that management could have been aware of spycops having intimate relationships with female activists because this was never mentioned. In the hundreds of meetings that Scott attended, he has no memory of these things ever being spoken of. (He does remember chatting about toy soldiers though.)

SAFE HOUSE ‘BANTER’

The alternative picture is of a group of men letting off steam, comparing notes and exchanging ‘banter’. Coates and Harris both described officers who spoke so frequently and crudely about the women they had calculatedly deceived that managers would have been in no doubt about the nature of those relationships. Rather than being unaware of what was being discussed, managers participated in the ‘low-level communal humour’ that characterised the conversations.

Coates states that Richard Clark (‘Rick Gibson’ HN297, 1974-76) had a reputation for having sexual relationships. He also recalls that ‘Jim Pickford‘ (HN300, 1974-76) was widely known as a philanderer. This matches what’s known of these officers’ activities. A third officer, whose details he did not recall, also behaved in this way.

Asked about the kind of things being said, Coates reluctantly shared one example:

‘he’ll have made her bite the blankets again last night.’

The Inquiry also asked him an anecdote about a female activist who could lactate on demand. Although Coates has no recollection of this, the fact the Inquiry raised it also shows the type of conversation known to have taken place.

WHY THE LEFT BUT NOT THE RIGHT?

The spycops did not choose targets randomly. In the period under examination in the current Inquiry hearings, 1973-82, all groups spied on were left-wing. Officers were allowed to switch groups if they wanted to (Coates left the International Socialists because he was getting bored and thought the anarchist movement might bring more spark to his life). So why didn’t they do so when it became obvious the groups were mostly harmless?

This week’s evidence only consolidates the emerging picture of spycops infiltrating small groups with either completely peaceful and democratic methods and aims, or no capacity to carry out any really disruptive or violent action – even if it was suggested.

Again and again, the spycops demonstrate the ability to believe they reported nothing of real use from spying on groups that were harmless, whilst simultaneously also believing they contributed significantly to preserving the safety of the realm, that the money enabling them to do so well-spent and their actions were completely justified. It’s a positive symphony of cognitive dissonance.

As mentioned in our previous weekly report, during this period the right wing were on the rise. Openly fascist and racist groups were using tactics such as firebombing, burning down businesses owned by Black and Asian people, and holding meetings in diverse areas to deliberately bait the residents. Yet these groups were never – with one exception – infiltrated.

That exception came about by accident. The Workers Revolutionary Party was so concerned about the National Front that they asked one of their members to infiltrate it. Ironically, that member was SDS undercover ‘Peter Collins’ (HN303, 1973-77).

Had the NF realised that they had been deceived, it is likely that they would have responded with violence; the question of whether being exposed as a spycop or being exposed as an activist would be more dangerous is an interesting one.

UNDERMINING GROUPS WORKING FOR EQUALITY

Although the left-wing were very aware of the problems caused by the right-wing, which was a genuine threat to public order with subversive intentions, the police were apparently oblivious.

Scott claims that:

‘There weren’t any right-wing groups who were demonstrating, or causing any problems as far as I can recall, at the time.’

He and almost all of his colleagues infiltrated anti-fascist groups – why were these so prolific if right-wing groups were not a problem?

They clearly were, and the spycops unquestionably had the freedom and the remit – preserving public order – to infiltrate them, if they chose to. The fact that they didn’t indicates that the SDS was a unit dedicated to undermining and spying on groups working for a more, rather than less, equal society.

We know there was systemic sexism permeating the SDS, which, according to Coates, viewed the women’s liberation movement as:

‘a bunch of angry women that could be ignored.’

It is not much of a stretch to speculate that systemic racism went along with it. It is very disturbing that these attitudes are still present today.

Worryingly, an isolated incident of International Socialists reported as attacking people at the NF offices with stones and bricks was seized upon by the Inquiry:

‘We note that, if the report is accurate, this was an occasion on which the violence was started by left-wing activists from the infiltrated group.’

This is not the first time that the Inquiry has used reports of ‘violent’ anti-fascist protests as a justification for many of the deployments.

In contrast, an SDS report dated 7 March 1977 [UCPI0000017776] describes a single coach of members of the Socialist Workers Party (as the International Socialists had become) being attacked by five coaches of National Front supporters at Watford Gap Service station.

For some reason, the Inquiry glosses this incident in neutral terms:

‘The SWP contingent from NW London and West Middlesex districts appears to have been involved in an encounter with the National Front in a service station en route to Birmingham’

This gives a misleading impression of this serious and unprovoked attack by the NF on SWP members.

UNWILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT CULPABILITY

A deeply upsetting example of State unwillingness to accept culpability for its role on the wrong side of history came directly from the Inquiry’s Chair, Sir John Mitting.

During the Undercover Policing Inquiry’s hearing on 23 April 2021, which was the 42nd anniversary of Blair Peach’s death at the hands of police as established by the Met’s own report, a minute’s silence was held for the murdered teacher. In his introductory remarks for the Mitting referred merely to Peach being killed by ‘a blow to the head’. He did not mention the police at all.

Celia Stubbs, who was Blair Peach’s partner at the time of his death, spelled out how the rise of the right wing was a growing problem during the years covered by this phase of the Inquiry. She and Peach were members of the Anti-Nazi League from its formation in 1977. Two years later, when a call went out from the multicultural community of Southall for support against the NF, they responded.

The NF were ‘campaigning’ in Southall in April 1979 in the run-up to the general election, despite their candidate not living there. Holding rallies in areas with large Black and Asian populations was a common NF tactic. They were met with counter-demonstrations by exactly the kind of groups – including undercovers – that the SDS had been focused on infiltrating for the last decade.

For example, at one such event in 1977, which became known as the Battle of Lewisham, at least 18 spycops were present and over 50 pages of reports were produced. Nobody died at the Battle of Lewisham. In contrast, the 1979 counter-demonstration that Blair Peach was killed at in Southall was supposedly only attended by one spycop.

A BLENDED, ‘GISTED’ DOCUMENT

Celia Stubbs knows that one of the spycops attended the demo in Southall that day. The Inquiry has taken evidence in secret from officers who it does not want to identify. It has then blended their testimony into a single ‘gisted’ document. In it, an officer says they were at the demonstration in Southall, saw violence and being horrified left before Peach was killed.

Stubbs is offended by all of this. Firstly, the total secrecy around the officer – we aren’t given their name, cover name, or any other details at all. Secondly, the idea that there was only one spycop at the demo is ridiculous.

There was a large presence from the Socialist Workers Party, the most infiltrated group in the history of the SDS. Following the call-out from Southall residents, it is unthinkable that spycops eager to maintain their cover would not have been there in large numbers.

Not only that, but the demonstration was a left-wing response to obvious baiting by the right-wing NF. It was blatantly going to turn into a public order issue. This was finally something that legitimately fell within the remit of the SDS. Yet they maintain that only one officer was present, and he left early – precisely because there was public disorder!

The killing of Blair Peach is heart-breaking, and also terrifying in that it could happen to anyone, on any demonstration, not just against fascism. His final hours, the cover-up of the cause of death, and the subsequent fight for justice, are covered in more detail elsewhere.

Celia Stubbs talked calmly, but with obvious strong emotion, about Blair’s death and the events that followed, including the banding-together of groups campaigning for justice for those killed by police.

Simultaneously, it was the beginning of spying on those groups. The solidarity of grieving families was considered a subversive act.

Stubbs said:

‘It’s obvious that when someone is killed, the police don’t want to be associated with it. This looks like yet another cover-up. It makes us feel like we’re not being heard…

‘I mean, Blair was killed by police officers and our feelings and campaigns were criminalised. The police, I think, wanted to keep ahead of our campaign so that Blair’s killers… we were never able to hold them to account.’

Stubbs said that, despite having seen so many secret police reports, she is left with as many questions as she had before. One of these reports [MPS-0001219] was from decades later. It was written in the summer of 1998, regarding plans to commemorate the 20th anniversary of Blair Peach’s killing.

Stubbs told the Inquiry that an officer referred to in the report was Mark Jenner (‘Mark Cassidy’ HN15, 1995-2000) who infiltrated the Hackney Community Defence Association and the Colin Roach Centre (also in Hackney). Whilst undercover he deceived an activist, ‘Alison‘, into a long-term relationship.

Cassidy reported that:

‘local trade unions are organising a large rally and demonstration, which will be presented with a strong anti-racist/anti-police flavour… the event will inevitably attract a large left wing presence with particular accent on anti-police type groups and the potential for disorder will be significant.’

Stubbs was indignant at this:

‘we’d had remembrance demonstrations after five years, after ten years, and this was twenty years. There’d never been any disorder. I don’t know why he put that. I think it’s pretty unpleasant.’

This continues a long-running tradition of spycops exaggerating the potential for disorder when making reports on groups and why they had to be reported on.

NO THREAT TOO SMALL, NO GROUP TOO HARMLESS

The spycops were trusted to use their intelligence to discern threat levels, yet were apparently unable to tell the difference between fanciful ideas (e.g. the Workers Revolutionary Party finding enough people to infiltrate and subvert every single branch of the Labour Party Young Socialists) and genuinely executable plans (like having a skip delivered to a hotel).

An SDS report dated 26 May 1977 [UCPI0000017437] describes a member of the SWP announcing that he was mobilising local trades union branches to support an anti-Jubilee demonstration during the visit of Princess Anne to Kensington Town Hall on 31 May, and of 1,500 expected demonstrators, 1,000 of whom were likely to be trade unionists ‘violently opposed’ to Jubilee celebrations. This seems wildly and obviously far-fetched.

Additionally, the small groups most often spied on usually didn’t manage to carry off their most outrageous genuine plans, such as painting lines on small roads to show the path of a new motorway.

Some groups, such as the Workers Revolutionary Party and the Socialist Workers Party, regarded by the SDS as ‘subversive’ – that is, wanting to overthrow parliamentary democracy – entered candidates in elections. If they were seeking to overturn Parliament, then legitimately being elected to it is surely the least subversive way of doing so.

Many of the groups had democratic internal processes, something that the spycops were blatantly aware of given how many of them were democratically elected to positions of influence within those groups.

ACCESS TO PERSONAL DETAILS

The spycops’ stories vary as to whether or not they were given guidance on whether or not to take formal posts in organisations they infiltrated. Enough of them did so, with full knowledge of their managers, that it was obviously accepted.

Positions such as treasurer and recruitment officer gave them access to personal details of all group members. Often, they were part of the vetting process and point of first contact for people interested in joining. This gave them influence over the actual makeup and structure of the groups, and to some degree taking on these tasks would have also compensated for their lack of genuine activism.

As is notable from the accusation that caused Mike Scott to assault Géry Lawless, some groups were suspicious that newcomers might be undercover cops.

After Rick Gibson’s exposure by Big Flame, some members talked about how he had badly messed up his turn to give a talk on activism. Lack of background, political awareness, and genuine interest in activism were sufficient red flags that some spycops compensated for by deceiving activists into sexual relationships. To form a relationship with an established, trusted member of a group encourages members to extend their trust to the spycop.

This would almost certainly have been seen as easier than researching the philosophies of the groups and differences from other groups on the left. Coates had to give a 20-minute talk on the history of the Labour Party to the IS group he was infiltrating, so this was not unique to Big Flame. The spycops were trained to ‘mirror’ their targets, but it’s impossible to do so if you’re the only one talking.

NOT JUST INFLUENCING, BUT CREATING GROUPS

Richard Clark (‘Rick Gibson’ HN297, 1974-76) was the spycop responsible for the formation of the South East London branch of the Troops Out Movement. His rise through the ranks to the top of the organisation, and eventual bid to join Big Flame, was achieved by deceiving four women activists into sexual relationships, and manipulating and betraying the members of both groups.

More details can be found in last week’s reports, and in the opening statement on behalf of ‘Mary’, one of the women, and Richard Chessum – who provided his own written witness statement as well.

Chessum knew about Gibson’s sexual relationships, and says it was general knowledge at the time. Did Gibson accidentally tell different women different things, and they then compared notes and spotted the discrepancies in his cover story? ‘Mary’ said he didn’t share any contact details with her, was often very hard to reach, and she knew very little about his background.

Having thoroughly investigated Gibson, Big Flame took action. They invited him to meet them in a pub and then spread out all the evidence they had gathered. ‘He looked as though he was going to cry’, said Chessum, who was told about it at the time.

Gibson came up with one last story and gave them a phone number of the office where his brother was supposed to work. It was another lie. When they went to check his flat, they found it empty, Gibson having had done a midnight flit.

After this, Chessum met with Mary and her flatmate, and told them what he had seen. He says they were shocked but not surprised. They had already discussed the possibility of Gibson being some kind of police officer. They had noticed his habit of never staying overnight, and wondered if this was because he had a wife to go back to.

BREAKING APART FAMILIES

Because, of course, the spycops did have wives to go back to. ‘Graham Coates’ (HN304, 1975-79), who spoke for all of the 7 May hearing of the Inquiry, said that on joining the SDS he was specifically asked if he was married or in a stable relationship:

‘It was explained… in very general terms that they felt that an officer in a stable relationship or a stable married relationship would be a more stable character, given the likely exposure to stresses and strains of the likely work involved.’

There appears to have been no thought whatsoever given to the stresses and strains on the families themselves. Once again, women were exploited for the benefit of the SDS.

‘Jimmy Pickford‘ (HN300, 1974-77) infiltrated a number of groups, including anarchist ones, like the South London branches of the Anarchist Workers Association and the Federation of London Anarchist Groups.

His widow provided a statement describing how she was given no support during his absences, and had to take great pains to protect his cover whilst trying to raise their two small children, effectively as a single parent. There was no going to joint social gatherings or having friends round to their home. This left her extremely isolated, as she had no family in the UK and so was reliant for support on close friends.

In fact, the majority of the marriages relied upon by management to keep the spycops stable disintegrated soon after their deployment ended. Despite there having been ample opportunity since the unit was set up, there was no kind of post-undercover care in place for the families and the spycops themselves.

The spycops seem to have been as oblivious to the damage they were doing to the people and causes they spied on as they were to the damage they were doing to their own families.