UCPI Evidence Hearings | Tranche 3 (Phase 3) | Day 4 - (18 June 2026) - AM

[00:34:07]Good morning everybody. Uh this morning we will finish all being well the evidence of Mr. Lambert. Uh the hearing is uh going to be transmitted over the live link but only after a 15minute delay has elapsed. Those with mobile devices may use them to record sorry to report upon what they have heard but only after 15 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're reporting. They may not be used for recording or photography. Uh if I've understood the position correctly, uh we will rise at 11:00 for half an hour to enable the rule 10 process to be undertaken. Hope I've got that right.

[00:34:50]>> You have, sir.

[00:34:50]>> Yes.

[00:34:53]Uh Mr. Lambert, a a couple of issues uh arising from uh the evidence over the last few days. First of all, could we have 246635 up, please?

[00:35:07]This is one of DC Jenner's reports. It's about the defendant information service uh run by Dr. Graeham Smith 17th of September 1996.

[00:35:36]>> [snorts] >> Yes, thank you.

[00:35:55]This appears on its face to be a report purely about what is described as anti- police campaigning, isn't it?

[00:36:06]>> Yes. Yes.

[00:36:08]>> Uh did you know much about Dr. Smith?

[00:36:13]>> Um I I don't think so. Well, at least I I don't recall.

[00:36:19]uh who ran the Hackne Community Defense Association.

[00:36:24]That was essentially pure anti- police reporting, wasn't it?

[00:36:30]>> I don't have a clear recollection, but I I'm more than prepared to accept that.

[00:36:35]>> Could we take that down now, please?

[00:36:37]Could we have up 721 941, please?

[00:36:43]This is um the record of an interview with HN81 by Operation Hearn which took place on the 27th of uh August 13 or other rather. state a section 9 witness statement um as a result of operation >> just oh yes um uh hn 81 um >> oh >> if you need to check he is the officer to remind you who infiltrated movement for justice >> is it management or operate or undercover >> he is the undercover officer who infiltrated movement for justice Oh yeah. Yes. Who we talked about?

[00:37:30]>> Who? Yes.

[00:37:30]>> Yesterday. Yeah.

[00:37:32]>> Right.

[00:37:33]>> If we go to page six of this section 9 witness statement and I will let you read the top half.

[00:37:44]>> It's uh the account >> of the meeting at which you HN81 Yeah.

[00:37:52]>> and Detective Inspector Walton were present.

[00:38:17]>> [snorts] [snorts] >> Um yes, thank you.

[00:38:31]>> The information in third and fourth lines down about uh Walton asking HN81 about the impact of FM MFJ around the Steven Lawrence inquiry, the black community and the black churches. Are you able to help us with whether that is accurate?

[00:38:55]>> [snorts] >> Um, I [clears throat] think it must be, you know, reasonably accurate. I I don't know why at all why black churches would would would be mentioned, but and I certainly don't recall that. That's the only particular issue. But uh if we could take that down now, please going to move to Detective Sergeant James Thompson now, who we refer to as HN16.

[00:39:42]Uh, did Thompson say to you at any point anything about having the identity of a deceased child ready in case he needed it?

[00:39:58]>> Um, well, not that I recall. This is Is this an additional >> [clears throat] >> identity? Uh to remind you, Detective Sergeant Thompson um joins in 1997 and he uses a fictional identity uh James Straven.

[00:40:20]>> Yeah.

[00:40:21]>> Uh but it is subsequently discovered uh that he had an unauthorized second identity, Kevin Crossland.

[00:40:31]>> Yeah. And what I am exploring is whether he'd said anything to you at all to suggest that he'd >> at the stage you are managing him had the the idea of keeping a >> second identity up his sleeve.

[00:40:48]>> It I've [snorts] no recollection of it.

[00:40:50]It would it would be um be very unusual.

[00:40:59]Although it is right to say, isn't it, that in the animal rights community, it wasn't unheard of for the activists themselves to use false identities, was it?

[00:41:08]>> No, that's correct.

[00:41:09]>> Did you discuss that with them at all?

[00:41:11]>> Um, not that I can recall.

[00:41:15]>> Uh, and just like to ask you some questions about supervision arrangements.

[00:41:22]He had quite glamorous cover employment in the film industry, didn't he?

[00:41:29]Yes.

[00:41:31]>> What arrangements were in place to ensure that Detective Sergeant Thompson spent his time applying himself to his deployment as opposed to indulging in the [clears throat] glamorous life of the film industry.

[00:41:49]Um obviously in the [clears throat] in the usual ways uh you know management engagement with him um both as part of a group um and in smaller affinity groups and then in onetoone. I don't think there was ever uh a time when management actively um went out to monitor his employment. We uh I'm sure well I'll just speak for myself. I I think at the time I was confident that um there wasn't really any glamour attached to the job as you know as far as he was concerned the the work the cover work that he was doing um it wasn't really um it wasn't you know anything glamorous but in any event um it was a cover and we I was satisfied that um you know he was using it appropriately.

[00:43:09]>> Did you monitor output in terms of the volume or quality of reporting?

[00:43:16]>> I'm I'm sure we did. Um I'm I'm sure >> was it done in a structured way or just um by general familiarity with the officer's work?

[00:43:29]Well, I for me general familiarity, but the reporting sergeant would have had a an absolutely accurate um assessment of it.

[00:43:46]>> What happened to Detective Sergeant Thompson's earnings from his cover employment?

[00:43:56]I have no recollection today what the arrangements were. Uh that wouldn't have been down to me. Of course, I would have been aware um but it wouldn't have been my role to deal with his deal with the finances.

[00:44:14]>> Were they allowed to keep their cover earnings?

[00:44:18]>> Um I think it would, you know, be a case-bycase judgment. I I I can't recall what um what the arrangements were in his case.

[00:44:33]>> And was anybody keeping an eye on what DS Thompson was earning and what he was doing with it?

[00:44:44]>> Um it's very difficult to say now. I'm I'm sure I'm sure it would have been monitored, but um whatever the arrangements were, he he would have been trusted to um stick to them.

[00:45:08]>> We've heard evidence that Detective Sergeant Thompson undertook a significant amount of study with the Open University whilst he was deployed.

[00:45:17]Uh, whilst you were serving in the SDS, were you aware that he was doing that?

[00:45:26]>> I I don't I have no recollection of it.

[00:45:30]I might have I don't know. Um, >> is that something that was permitted, not permitted, or simply not con not not considered?

[00:45:40]Well, we would have Yeah, we would have wanted to be would have wanted to be aware we um and was it was it being undertaken uh by him privately or which which I'm assuming is is the case rather than doing doing it in his cover role.

[00:46:10]I see. Can you recall whether or not you were aware?

[00:46:13]>> No.

[00:46:14]>> Can I move now to 2002?

[00:46:17]Obviously, by this stage, you've left uh the SDS, but it is at this point that Detective Sergeant Thompson finds himself in a considerable amount of trouble as a result of his conduct uh in his undercover role. Uh, can we have up please 719665 [snorts] and uh you'll see this is from there well this is a file note written by HN53 on the 28th of March 2002 recording a telephone call from you.

[00:47:22]So it appear it appears that what has happened is that Thompson has called you um because he wants to speak to you because he's in trouble. Can you recall speaking to or meeting Detective Sergeant Thompson at this stage?

[00:47:47]>> Yes, I I I remember meeting him. I um I don't Is it in my um did have I >> Let's take this a step at a time. First of all, what is your recollection now of that meeting?

[00:48:02]>> Yeah. Um well I have a a clear visual memory of of the location which was a a cafe in Putney um quite near to near to a police building where I was doing some work. So I broke off from my work uh to meet him.

[00:48:27]Um he was um pretty distressed um in a way that I hadn't seen before.

[00:48:40]Um so I don't I we had a cup of coffee or two, maybe a 1-hour meeting, possibly two hours. Um and um I was in listening mode. Um I I remember him well he outline he outlined to me why you know why he was upset. He was saying that he'd been removed from the squad. Um, and I gradually got a bit of a picture, um, not the clearest picture, but a picture of a very, um, sort of angry, troubled uh, officer who was um, well, why was he speaking to me? I I mean, yeah, I was a good listener and of course um I was his first um detective inspector. I I recruited him.

[00:49:57]So he was um you know opening opening his heart to me.

[00:50:07]>> Did he explain to you in that course of the conversation what it was that he had done that had got him removed from the unit?

[00:50:15]I didn't really get a clear idea. I I think I got references to a an operation which of course I've now read about in some detail, but I think you know a involving a firearm uh trip to France. I I think I mean I'm not [snorts] 100% but yeah I'm pretty sure that I glean you know that he mentioned that.

[00:50:49]>> What did he tell you about that?

[00:50:53]>> I can't recall that he was being unfairly treated. Um well I suppose first and foremost I suppose he wanted he was sort of saying well I you know I'm you know I'm in the middle of doing important work. I think that that might have been it. And why you know why I'm being taken off the squad unfairly? And um >> did he tell you anything to the effect that he had used the identity of a deceased child?

[00:51:28]>> No, he didn't.

[00:51:29]>> Or prepared to use the identity of a deceased child?

[00:51:33]>> I can't remember, but I I'd be surprised.

[00:51:37]>> Did he tell you that he had more than one passport in his cover identity? I'm pretty sure that he didn't.

[00:51:48]>> Did he tell you uh that he had unauthorized driving licenses and that had been discovered?

[00:51:55]>> No.

[00:51:56]>> Did he tell you he had multiple credit cards and questions were being asked about his finances?

[00:52:02]>> No.

[00:52:04]>> Did he [snorts] tell you there were suspicions about his cover earnings and what he'd been doing with them?

[00:52:10]>> No.

[00:52:11]Did he tell you uh that he was concerned that managers thought he'd been having a sexual relationship in his undercover identity?

[00:52:20]>> No, he didn't. And I I just underline that because I think he I have read he he him saying that he thinks that he did mention that to me uh at this meeting. I I'm pretty sure that he didn't. Uh well, his evidence was that he may have told you that he had had undercover sexual relationships with two women, women we're calling Sara and Ellie. [snorts] Are you sure he didn't tell you about that?

[00:52:50]>> Yes, I'm Well, I'm pretty sure.

[00:52:56]>> Presumably, if he had told you, it wouldn't have been a great surprise given how prevalent sexual relationships were undercover. it it wouldn't have been a um a surprise >> having been through the list of issues um that Detective Sergeant Thompson was uh in trouble for.

[00:53:23]I'm not very clear, Mr. Lambert, what it was he was saying to you had led to his removal from the unit. Presumably he must have explained to you why he was being removed from the unit.

[00:53:37]>> Well, I think I Yeah. Okay. I think it the I think the nub of that was um managers who had it in for him. uh managers who you know wanted rid of him and that it was unjustified and um quite you know I think that was um what he was telling me >> presumably if he didn't tell you you would have explored with him why it was he thought managers had it in for him >> I would have I would have listened and and I at the time I would have had a very comprehensive uh understanding of everything that he told me and if I'd sat down afterwards and you know written it all up um it would have been it would have covered all these issues.

[00:54:32]>> Can we go now to 48363 please?

[00:54:49]This is another file note written by HN53. This one was the 3rd of April 2002.

[00:54:58]So about a week later >> can while it's coming up can I I just add that obviously for me first and foremost that this was a a welfare meeting and you know some of similar in some ways to other meetings that we've looked at in the last few days [clears throat] and you were the sort of person people would go to when they were in trouble and had a difficult uh a difficult issue to deal with.

[00:55:34]>> Well, not always, but often >> because you would give them a sympathetic ear.

[00:55:39]>> Yes.

[00:55:40]>> You were very experienced with the SDS >> and you might be one to explain that um these things happen.

[00:55:52]>> Explain to to other managers that these things happen. I I I hardly in you know given what what the reality was but I just make that point because um as as you would expect I was it was welfare but it was operational security wasn't it as well >> for me. And what was your assessment of the operational security risks posed by Detective Sergeant Thompson? that well I think you know that there were there was a risk and a angry um angry field officer um angry with managers um not you know just um familiar to um to some extent >> was anything that he told you he'd done uh >> pardon >> was anything that he had told you he had done ringing operation ational security bells.

[00:57:00]>> Um I I can't sorry I can't quite address it without the the detail.

[00:57:09]Sorry.

[00:57:11]>> Do you recall whether you met DS Thompson later on in the summer of 2002?

[00:57:22]Um, I've no no recollection of it. I may well have done.

[00:57:31]There seems to be a difficulty with um >> 0748.

[00:57:36]>> Thank you.

[00:57:37]>> 0748363, please.

[00:57:52]Thank you.

[00:57:54]As I say, 3rd of April 2002, a week after the last file note we looked at, again, HN 53. Uh, this is recording a telephone call that you had made. Um, I'll give you a moment to look at the text. If we could have that expanded, please.

[00:58:49]So essentially you are reporting back to SDS management.

[00:58:53]>> Yes.

[00:58:55]>> Yes.

[00:58:55]>> The welfare aspects essentially of your meeting.

[00:59:00]>> Yes.

[00:59:03]If he'd confessed wrongdoing to you during the course of that meeting, would you have kept that confidential?

[00:59:11]>> No, I would have um reported it to um HN 23. Is it >> 53?

[00:59:20]>> 53. Sorry. Yeah.

[00:59:22]>> Presumably, unless he already knew about it.

[00:59:25]>> Yes.

[00:59:27]Can [snorts] you recall now whether you had further contact with Detective Sergeant Thompson after this?

[00:59:34]>> Um, I can't confirm it, but it's quite quite possible.

[00:59:43]>> Could we take that document down now?

[00:59:45]Going to move to John Dyn, Detective Sergeant Dyn. Uh can we start in 1995 please with 720835?

[01:00:06]Uh this is the first of a series of briefing notes that you produce in the autumn of 1995 on the subject of a security threat to Detective Sergeant Dyn who by that stage had retired from the Metropolitan Police Service and had just immigrated.

[01:00:34]Uh if we look at the first paragraph [snorts] this is reporting the fact that on the 20th of September 95 uh a week earlier um there had been a visit uh from as we know, Helen Steel uh to Sergeant Dyner's parents.

[01:01:12]>> Yes.

[01:01:13]>> And it confirmed that they uh had established the real identity of um John Dyn.

[01:01:25]>> Yes.

[01:01:26]>> If we look at paragraph 1.2, two.

[01:01:35]There is then a summary of what you were asserting that John Dyn under the cover name John Barker had achieved for the SDS during his deployment.

[01:01:50]>> Um yes.

[01:01:54]And if we go to paragraph 4.11 says DSHN21 has been tasked to monitor the resumption of the McDonald's liel case at the Royal Courts of Justice on Monday the 2nd of October.

[01:02:24]>> [snorts] >> Can we take it that uh Helen Steel turning up on John Dyn's parent doorstep was a serious uh operational security issue for the SDS?

[01:02:36]>> Yes.

[01:02:38]>> Uh not just uh for uh Sergeant Dy security but the operational security of the whole unit.

[01:02:47]>> Yes. Uh um as we read though um um Helen Steel uh plus one one male.

[01:02:59]>> Yeah, we'll we'll come to we'll come to that in a moment and we'll come back further to the liel case in a moment.

[01:03:05]But at this stage, can you assist us with why it is that the SDS wants to task a detective sergeant to monitor a civil case going through the courts.

[01:03:26][clears throat] There would have have to have been um a purpose to it. um in respect of um the this effort to or [clears throat] this response to the security um concern. Um I mean I can speculate on >> well there there is some more detail in later notes which will come to you. Um but does it come to this? you were worried that something might be said in the M Libel case um about infiltration of London Greenpeace.

[01:04:13]>> Um no I Oh, well I hadn't thought of that. I I still don't think at at this point uh well look that's possible but I'm thinking more sort of practically in just in terms of trying to identify the um unknown male.

[01:04:38]>> Yeah. We'll we'll come we'll come back to that particular strand in a moment.

[01:04:42]But in the meantime can we have up 720836.

[01:04:48]This is your second briefing note. It's an update two days later dated the 29th of September 1995. Again, if we could have um the first paragraph up please.

[01:05:10]And uh if we scroll down a little bit, reporting again that uh link that has been made and it goes on I think to describe that confrontation between Helen Steel and one other with John Dyn's parents armed with a photograph of >> John Barker.

[01:05:39]At that stage, it's asserting it's not known how the link had been made.

[01:05:45]>> Yes.

[01:05:47]>> Is that right? That you had no idea how she'd made that link.

[01:05:52]>> Obvious obviously at that time. Yes.

[01:05:54]>> But you did know uh that she had been calling John Dyn's mother-in-law in New Zealand >> before then.

[01:06:04]>> Before this.

[01:06:05]>> Oh, well. No, that wasn't my not my recollection. I I I I mean I tend to think of uh this as the first um but obviously if but we may come to things which will jog your memory but let's take it a step at a time. Could we have a look at the second section and the bottom paragraph on this page? [snorts] If they establish that John Barker was in fact an undercover police officer throughout the period they knew him, they will seek to use the information to the advantage of the ALF, both in terms of an analysis of undercover police methodology and with a view to undermining successful police prosecutions of ALF activists. Which prosecutions did you have in mind?

[01:07:04]Um well I I can only think that in my mind were the um Clark and Shepherd prosecutions.

[01:07:16]>> And how in your mind were they going to undermine those prosecutions?

[01:07:24]um uh by seeking to uh present uh my role as that of an agent provocator.

[01:07:41]So we can conclude, can we, that you knew that the presence of an undercover police officer amongst those committing crimes claimed by the ALF rendered subsequent convictions vulnerable to challenge?

[01:08:02]>> Yes.

[01:08:05]and you are doing your level best to prevent Helen Steel and other members of London Greenpeace getting any further with their attempts to discover the truth.

[01:08:21]>> Um, that wouldn't have been that wouldn't have been my understanding at all.

[01:08:30]Well, you are doing your level best, aren't you, to uh protect John Dyn?

[01:08:36]>> Yes, but I'm not um I'm not at all um seeking to prevent them establishing the truth. Uh it by doing your level best to stop steel finding dines it has the practical effect of preventing them challenging the convictions of Clark and Shepherd doesn't it?

[01:09:11]Um yes, >> that amounts to pursuing a course of action which conceals miscarriages of justice, doesn't it?

[01:09:25]>> In what way?

[01:09:27]>> Well, you know that your presence gives rise at least to an argument that the convictions were unsafe.

[01:09:37]And rather than declaring that to a court, you are doing your level best to maintain the operational security of the SDS and prevent that coming out.

[01:09:51]>> Um, which you know I would would have considered to be wholly legitimate >> in order to comply with the golden rule.

[01:10:03]>> Well, that's obviously that's part of it.

[01:10:06]Um, I shouldn't overlook the um prospect of of other um other police prosecutions, but um that's obviously the one that immediately comes to mind, >> subordinating the course of justice to the operational security of the SDS.

[01:10:36]That wasn't how I saw it at the time.

[01:10:38]>> That's the effect it had though, isn't it?

[01:10:40]>> Well, surely it all hinges on the um you know the the um allegations.

[01:10:53]>> That's the effect it had, isn't it? Mr. Lambert, >> just forgive me. Just tell me how >> subordinating the course of justice to the operational security of the SDS.

[01:11:11]Um well um I you know I can only recall how I understood it at the time.

[01:11:29]>> That's the effect it had, isn't it, Mr. Lambert?

[01:11:34]>> I'm not sure that it is.

[01:11:37]>> Why not? The court isn't told, is it?

[01:11:41]>> The court isn't told that there was an undercover police officer um close to Clark and Shepherd. No, >> you are here concerned about those prosecutions being undermined and you are taking actions which prevent that aon provocator argument from being run, aren't you?

[01:12:12]>> Yes.

[01:12:25]and I can take it from your answers that you simply didn't look at it that way at all at the time.

[01:12:33]>> Um, [snorts] it all hinges on whether I was warranted or not.

[01:12:41]Could we look uh at the top of page two, please?

[01:12:51]In such an event, that's the compromise.

[01:12:55]They would also give serious consideration to subpoenaing John Dyn andor the commissioner to give evidence at the McDonald's liel case.

[01:13:07]Why did you think they would do that?

[01:13:12]Um well if um and I don't recall but if if um John Dian had played any um role um in connection with the with the McDonald's campaign um then That would have been a fair assessment that I'm making.

[01:13:45]>> So one reason would be that John Dyn had campaigned against McDonald's. Would another reason be that you had had a hand in the lielist document itself?

[01:13:58]>> Well, you know what my evidence is on that. Um, so I'm very clear and and content about that. um >> putting it putting it it at its lowest that you too had been involved in campaigning against McDonald's.

[01:14:18]>> Uh was had I done campaigning against McDonald's?

[01:14:21]>> I know you did.

[01:14:22]>> Of course. Yes. Of course.

[01:14:24]>> That's another reason why you thought they might start subpoenaing witnesses.

[01:14:30]>> Um I can't be certain. I'm sorry.

[01:14:37]>> Why the commissioner?

[01:14:43]Well, on the, you know, on the basis that um undercover police officers had had some involvement in campaigning and um and there the commissioner um would be, you know, that would be an option. I think that's what I'm >> suggesting there.

[01:15:12]>> The embarrassment of the commissioner having to explain the actions of the SDS in a public court.

[01:15:18]>> Of course. Yes.

[01:15:21]>> A nightmare scenario for you.

[01:15:23]>> Yes. [snorts] >> Could we take that document down now, please, and have 749113 up, please?

[01:15:37]Uh this is a briefing uh and a request for surveillance uh with your name at the bottom. I think you've had an opportunity very recently to refresh your memory about this document, haven't you?

[01:15:59]>> Yes. Thank you. Does it come to this that you are here requesting surveillance for the purposes of obtaining a photograph to show to John Dyn's parents to try and identify the man that accompanied her to John Dyn's parents' home? Yes, >> we can take that document down now 16th of October and go to your third briefing note, the 24th of October 749115.

[01:16:38]Looking at the first paragraph of this third uh short briefing note, what was your what was the basis upon which you asserted that Helen Steel had traveled to New Zealand?

[01:16:59]Um, [clears throat] I can't recall today. Uh, I can speculate. I'm sure there must um there must be another there will be I think a another briefing note that helps us to understand how how we might have um found that out.

[01:17:30]>> Can you remember now?

[01:17:32]>> Not no not immediately. Sorry.

[01:17:37]It goes on to say that a codefendant in the Matt Libel case, Dave Morris, has told a group of supporters that four London Greenpeace Matt Liel infiltrators have been uncovered and that surprises can be expected during the forthcoming presentation of his and Steel's defense at the High Court. Uh, does this peak your concerns um that Morris and Steel were planning to say something about infiltration of London Greenpeace during the course of the proceedings?

[01:18:14]Yes, I think um now that I've read that part of it, I think this is most likely um and and or more than one um SDS officer, our our own intelligence.

[01:18:33]>> This this second piece of intelligence definitely comes from an SDS report.

[01:18:38]>> Yes.

[01:18:39]>> Yes. Okay. Yeah.

[01:18:42]You are concerned though presumably that a nasty surprise affecting the SDS is going to come out in the course of the proceedings >> or at least one with the potential to lead to further questions which start unraveling SDS infiltration [snorts] And presumably you wanted to know what they knew.

[01:19:15]>> Yes. Could we have a look at paragraph three, please?

[01:19:24]D is the only person who has an indepth knowledge of the identification of agents employed directly or indirectly by McDonald's against London Greenpeace during the period leading up to the issuing of Ritz against Steel and Morris in 1991 is John Dyn.

[01:19:44]What was the basis for recording that Sergeant Dyn was the only person with an in-depth knowledge of the identification of agents?

[01:19:56]>> I can't recall today um what the did you say significance >> was? How how did he how what was the basis for saying he was the only person with that indepth? Well, I I have a I have a recollection um and I must have got this from um talking to John Dyn that um when he was uh deployed that he identified um a um someone just someone he thought he He he was confident that he'd spotted someone sort of, you know, snooping around, whether it was at London, outside a London Greenpeace meeting or something like that. And it was um it was his um um you know that mind you that doesn't add up to an in-depth knowledge. Uh >> you preempted my next question, Mr. Lambert. What was the basis? I well I I no I can't im I can't immediately add to that.

[01:21:15]Had there been contact to your knowledge between McDonald's and the SDS in the leadup to the issuing of those writ um Keith Edmonson's DCI >> had well I'm driving had John Dyn told you about what had gone on What um when sorry when >> in the leadup to the issuing of the Ritz in the M glyel case in 1991 John Dyn told you anything about events leading up to the issuing of those rips?

[01:22:04]>> No, I don't think so. I think the conversation I'm recalling was um po, you know, after quite probably after October 95.

[01:22:16]>> How did he know? How did you know that he had an in-depth knowledge?

[01:22:22]>> I just can't I can't recall the basis for that now. I'm sorry.

[01:22:26]>> Presumably through talking to him.

[01:22:30]>> Uh yes. Um, probably unless I' unless I'd heard it from >> had he said anything to the effect that there had been coordination with McDonald's, the result of which was that he dynit.

[01:22:52]>> No.

[01:22:59]One of the things that comes out of this document is you are seem to be raising questions um that need answers about what London Greenpeace knows and that Dyn is a man who might have some of the answers. Is that fair?

[01:23:20]>> Yes.

[01:23:21]>> Were you um how were you going to get those answers?

[01:23:26]>> [clears throat] >> I can't recall today. I'm sorry.

[01:23:28]>> Can you recall whether you wanted to go out to New Zealand to speak to Dyn?

[01:23:33]>> Um I don't I don't remember that. I certainly never did go out to New Zealand.

[01:23:40]>> It's not quite the same thing. Did you want to go out to New Zealand?

[01:23:44]>> I don't think so.

[01:23:48]>> Can we take that down now, please? Can we have 749114?

[01:23:54]We're now moving ahead in time to the 21st of uh November.

[01:24:00][snorts] And if you look at at paragraph one and this seems to be recording the fact that um photographs have been obtained shown to Dyn's parents and there is a provisional identification suggesting it might have been Mr. Blair who accompanied Helen Steel to Da's parents' home. Is that fair?

[01:24:35]>> Yes. Yes.

[01:24:36]>> Can we go to paragraph three, please?

[01:24:45]>> Give you a moment to read that.

[01:25:06]Yes, thank you.

[01:25:07]>> Can you help us with how you were able to write several barristers at these chambers at Douty Street Chambers had contact with John Barker, the ALF activist? Um well, I I think it must be from um from reading the um you know the source material that I um that I was being shown.

[01:25:41]>> Does this mean going back to Dyn's reporting from his deployment?

[01:25:47]Um, I don't think so. An examination of telephone calls from Steel's home also.

[01:25:56]>> Well, how will how will call data from 1995 tell you uh that John Barker in the late 80s and early 90s had had contact uh with barristers at Douty Street?

[01:26:12]>> Um, is is that what it's saying? I Several barristers at these chambers had contact with John Barker, the ALF ALF activist.

[01:26:25]>> My question is, how did you know that?

[01:26:28]>> Just that bit sever um well it >> would have would have uh must you know would have known that from um John Dyn.

[01:26:46]So you had been speaking to Dyn.

[01:26:50]>> Uh yeah, 21st of November. Um I I did speak to him. Yes.

[01:26:58]>> And what did he tell you about the contact he had had with members of the bar from Douty Street during his deployment?

[01:27:08][snorts] >> Um I can't recall today >> plainly enough for him to have told you he'd had contact with more than one.

[01:27:28]>> Um I don't know.

[01:27:34]>> And presumably uh in connection with the Midel case?

[01:27:39]>> Not necessarily at all.

[01:27:42]Can you recall whether it was in connection with the Matt Libel case?

[01:27:46]>> No, no, no, I can't.

[01:27:48]>> And if we read on, there's a twist, isn't there, here? Uh because Dyn had himself gone on to train as a barristister at the ins of court.

[01:27:58]>> Yes.

[01:27:59]>> Not a million miles away from Douty Street.

[01:28:02]>> That's right. Yeah. Uh can we discern from this that you'd been discussing with Dyn whether uh he had seen any of these barristers uh whilst at the ins of court?

[01:28:17]I I I don't Yeah, I I don't think this reading this paragraph helps me to be really clear at all about um any specific things, conversations or um more than more than here. I and you know conversation I mean I there's things here that I would have gleaned at probably at different times >> but the relevance of this is you were presumably astute to the risk of compromise that might have arisen >> of course yes >> can we go to paragraph five Please.

[01:29:02][snorts] And contrary to the earlier document we saw which records a confidence that the proceedings could be monitored by having a sergeant attend court, here you are saying it's not possible to monitor uh evidential developments apart from occasional reporting in the press. Um, can you assist us with why that position has changed?

[01:29:33]>> Um, no. Um, >> no, I can't.

[01:29:37]>> Can we go to paragraph 10, please?

[01:30:09]So, if I'm understanding this correctly, what you're pointing out is the silver lining to the dark cloud of Helen Steel's investigations is that at least professional investigative journalists are not on the case.

[01:30:27]>> Um, yes. Uh, >> because you would have regarded them as an even more potent threat to the operation. Is that fair?

[01:30:36]>> I think so. Yes.

[01:30:39]uh [snorts] and that uncovering uh what had happened would be an embarrassment to the Metropolitan Police, the Home Office, John Dyn, and yourself.

[01:30:52]>> Yes.

[01:30:55]>> And of course, one of the many reasons why you would not want this to come out was your own sexual misconduct undercover, wasn't it?

[01:31:04]Um I'm sure that would have been somewhere at the back of my mind >> and that of John Dyn.

[01:31:12]>> Um whether I Well, I don't think I did have that understanding at this point in time.

[01:31:21]>> Had you had any conversations with Mr. dines up to this point in time as to why it was that Helen Steel was pursuing him with such persistence.

[01:31:35]Um I'm I can't recall quite honestly. Um you you know I think I've what I've written at the time is is fairly clear. We I'm sure that um myself and other managers would have you know speculated on um a whole range of um issues. I I can't recall you are you have certainly concluded correctly as it turned out that Ms. Steel wasn't going to give up until she had a solution. Had you really not explored why she was so persistent with Detective Sergeant Dyn?

[01:32:31]Well, I certainly knew that uh John Dyn um had worked closely uh with Helen Steel and also the the um well um Mr. Blair who's now identified um you know I um within all of our although I Um um I can't I wasn't um present as a field officer uh for much of that uh deployment but um but certainly we could be clear about um the the the ability of Steel and Blair to pursue this [clears throat] very thoroughly um irrespective of whether or not um John Dyn had had a sexual relationship with Steel.

[01:33:46]>> Did you address your mind to the possibility?

[01:33:49]>> I'm sure I did. And I'm sure at some point I would have suspected um that it was um likely and then at a later date um you know it becomes clear.

[01:34:07]>> Did you ask?

[01:34:09]I genuinely um well I say um I'm confident that I didn't ask. Um >> was that because it didn't matter to you?

[01:34:24]uh not because it didn't matter, but I think um because it was sort of my that was my standard um management approach, you know, um um not not asking.

[01:34:51]So here we are the autumn of 1995.

[01:34:54]Determined investigations uh by London Greenpeace to find John Dyn led by Helen Steel. You are resolved, aren't you, to stay one step ahead of them?

[01:35:09]>> Um hoping to >> Can we move to 1998 749112?

[01:35:18]This is tab B215, sir.

[01:35:26]And this is from Mr. Dyn to you on the 8th of January 1998.

[01:35:38]Going to let you read the first four paragraphs first of all, just to remind yourself of the contents and set the scene.

[01:36:54]Can I ask you Mr. Lambert about the second paragraph?

[01:36:59]Says, "As I think I mentioned when we met, can you help us with when you had met John Dyn?" Um, not precisely when, but certainly um, where, but you're asking me when any um, sorry I um, I can't, you know, I can't put a date on it at all. Was it then recently or then distant? When [clears throat] when did we when did we meet >> prior to >> I can cut to the chase. What I'd like you to do is paint a picture of how often you met John Dyn in and in what circumstances >> when [clears throat] whenever he made a a family trip home to uh London.

[01:38:01]um you know if it if it that would be when we met um when he was back back in London. And um >> how often was that?

[01:38:12]>> How often? Not very not very frequently but um >> more than once a year or less than once a year.

[01:38:22]>> Probably one once a year.

[01:38:27]He says, "Not unusually I find myself seeking you out in times of difficulty."

[01:38:32]What's that referring to, please?

[01:38:35]>> Um, I [clears throat] suppose by January 98, what this how this has been going on for two or three years.

[01:38:46]There's that. I'm not saying that's solely what he's referring to. I I don't um but um this is a you know this is a a time of difficulty um in relation to the to um Helen Steel >> track tracking him down that's been going on for quite a while by now hasn't it >> this is a time of difficulty January 1998 because Helen Steel has traveled to New Zealand land. 1995 was a time of difficulty because Helen Steel had >> tracked down Mr. Dyn's parents.

[01:39:30]>> But that is not enough to explain the sentence. Not unusually I find myself seeking you out in times of difficulty.

[01:39:42]What else, please?

[01:39:43]>> Um, nothing nothing that I can call to mind.

[01:39:48]>> You sure? Well, I I'm sure that I can't immediately call anything to mind. I I might be able to if I put my mind to it.

[01:39:59]Then goes on in the seventh paragraph to say, I am able to add nothing to the current situation save to reiterate what we have discussed at length over recent years.

[01:40:15]What had you discussed at length over recent years?

[01:40:21]>> The attempt by Helen Steel and Norman Blair to trace him.

[01:40:28]>> Was it in fact the fact that Helen Steel had called Mrs. Walston home on several occasions since 1991 >> that that she'd called uh >> she'd called Mr. Dyn's mother-in-law on several occasions since 1991.

[01:40:50]>> Since 91. Um I don't remember that.

[01:40:57]>> Did it involve the fact that she had found out that John Barker was a deceased child?

[01:41:05]Well, um, so just going back to So, forgive me.

[01:41:11]Just going back to the Did you say his mother-in-law?

[01:41:14]>> Yes. Do you do you recall him >> back to 90 back to 91? Well, >> I as I said earlier, I don't but it's possible. I don't remember it now. But then the second question, I'm sorry, was >> the death certificate for >> Yeah.

[01:41:34]>> John Barker?

[01:41:37]>> Um, >> did you discuss >> Yes, I'm sure. Yes.

[01:41:40]>> And did you discuss the likelihood that uh she either had or would find out from his marriage certificate that he was a police had been a police officer?

[01:41:51]>> Of course. Yes. Yes.

[01:41:59]And is it still your evidence that you remained wholly uninquisitive as to whether or not he'd had a sexual relationship with Helen Steel?

[01:42:09]>> Um, it is. Yes.

[01:42:14]>> She hadn't come looking for you, had she?

[01:42:20]Well, the the point is that um the point is that she was I who know I don't know. I don't I can't answer that, can I? Because all we know is what you know that um >> you had spied on Helen Steel. So had John Dyn's looking for Dyne. She's not looking for you.

[01:42:46]>> But at the time, >> did that strike you as odd? Did you did you seek an explanation for that?

[01:42:51]>> Um only that only that um you know it may not it might it might have been anyone.

[01:43:03]Helen Steel, Norman Blair, others might have uh if they had had suspicion, but um um so we can't really say that he, you know, there was any sort of difference between um Well, no, I'm I'm not quite making sense, am I? Forgive me.

[01:43:33]Let's make >> what I'm trying what I'm trying to say is that um um there there was I don't think there was anything anything in addition to the fact that two very uh committed activists who were at least both close friends of John Dyn uh having somehow found a route into his real identity that they would that they to pursue it as as vigorously as they were.

[01:44:07]>> Can we have 247461, please?

[01:44:17]This is another briefing note. Uh it bears a date the 2nd of February 1997, but uh we think it's clear from the content that it should say the 2nd of February 19 98.

[01:44:35]Uh, a small point arising from paragraph one, please.

[01:44:46]There's no such thing as a member of the ALF, is there?

[01:44:51]>> Um, no.

[01:44:54][snorts] >> Uh, and so why were you misrepresenting the position there?

[01:45:00]Um, I think it was just shorthand for the benefit of readers.

[01:45:10][snorts] Was it to place an emphasis on the ALF as opposed to the real reason uh that John Dyn was being sought out, namely a sexual relationship with [clears throat] Helen Steel?

[01:45:26]>> No.

[01:45:27]Can we go to paragraph two, please?

[01:46:23]>> [snorts] >> So this is a record of the occasion when Helen Steel had gone to see John Dyn's mother and father-in-law, isn't it?

[01:46:37]>> Yes.

[01:46:38]>> And you will see there the basis for the questions I've put to you about there having been telephone calls since 1991.

[01:46:47]>> Yes.

[01:46:48]in view of the extensive contact that you'd had with John Dyn over the years since 1991 and the importance of efforts to trace John Dyn to the unit to him and to you personally. Can we take it uh that he would have told you about these long before you committed to writing here in 1998?

[01:47:23]Um, I don't think so because I mean I'd have to check or if I could in some way um look back, but um I only I have I only have a clear recollection of um engaging with John, meeting John um from 95 onwards. I I I don't know. big pun.

[01:47:52]>> It's gonna say it's inconceivable, isn't it, when there's a record that he'd come to you uh for help on multiple occasions and you'd had long conversations in the past that he hadn't told you about these calls?

[01:48:08]>> I don't I don't think he says multiple occasions, but um whatever. Um, I have no recollection of um, no I have no recollection of prior discussions before I I mean if I if I had then I you know I would have reported it and we can see from this record uh that as feared Helen Steel has made the connection to the marriage of John Dyn uh and therefore it is likely she knows John Dyn was a police officer.

[01:48:58]>> Yes. Yes.

[01:49:01]>> Can we go to paragraph five please?

[01:50:18]So we take a number of things from this paragraph. First of all, the assessment of Helen Steel by that stage is that she's drifted away from any involvement in ALF activity and is an entirely peaceful protester.

[01:50:37]>> Yes.

[01:50:39]>> So no threat herself to John Dyn.

[01:50:46]>> Correct. but a considerable threat to the operational security of the SDS.

[01:50:53]>> Um, yes, >> and a considerable threat uh to uh the convictions uh that have been obtained.

[01:51:10]>> I'm not sure that um that was a factor. Well, the last sentence, the fact that several of his former close contacts in the ALF served significant prison sentences as a direct or indirect result of his intelligence may help account for the persistence of Steel's inquiries.

[01:51:34]>> Yes, >> we talked in the past about what you've said about Clark and Shepherd, but this time it's connected to Dines. What convictions did you have in mind here?

[01:51:46]>> I can't recall today what um convictions I had in mind.

[01:51:52]>> Did you in fact also have in mind Clark and Shepherd at this time?

[01:51:57]I think I must have Mr. >> Thank you, sir. Could we have up please 726956?

[02:36:34]This is going back to the discussion paper you wrote uh about Sergeant Chitty, Detective Sergeant Chitty. If we could have page six, please.

[02:36:45]And if we could have the penultimate paragraph [snorts] tab B52, sir.

[02:37:04]So, you're writing in 1994 of Detective Sergeant Dyn's deployment in terms where you state despite enduring the most arduous working conditions in the history of the SDS.

[02:37:23]What working conditions were you referring to?

[02:37:28]Um I was referring to the fact that he was to the best of my knowledge he was the um only or the first um SDS officer uh to work continuously um living in the within the um squatting community.

[02:38:01]>> We now have the name on the cipher list for HN87.

[02:38:05]If you want to look at that cipher list, I think it's been added in manuscript at the end of the section.

[02:38:14]>> 87 >> 87 >> [snorts] >> Yeah. Handwritten at the bottom.

[02:38:58]Handwritten at the bottom.

[02:39:02]>> Oh, yes. Yes. Gotcha. Thank you.

[02:39:08]>> He spent a good deal of time in squats as well, didn't he?

[02:39:13]Um, >> he spent a good deal of time in squats as well, didn't he?

[02:39:18]>> Um, to the best of my recollection, not at all uh to the to the same extent extent. Nothing.

[02:39:27]Nothing quite. No.

[02:39:29]>> Was this phrase in fact at least in part a cryptic reference to living with Helen Steel?

[02:39:36]>> Certainly not.

[02:39:38]>> Can we take that down now please?

[02:39:41]Mr. Boiling told the inquiry that he met you in April 2000 and at that point there were no secrets between you about John Dyn's sexual activities undercover.

[02:39:57]Is it right uh that you met uh Mr. boiling and you shared openly the fact that John Dyn had been in a sexual relationship with Helen Steel >> in 1990 >> 2000 April 2000 >> April 2000 I don't recall it um I it's possible >> what is your evidence of when and how you learned that John Dyn had had a sexual relationship with Helen Steel >> um at the time uh of the public um public disclosure and so you're saying that any recollection that Mr. oiling has of open discussion of that fact in April 2000 is wrong.

[02:40:57]>> I um I think I you know I take it take it seriously. Um I but I don't recall it >> and that at no point in the history of Helen Steel pursuing John Dyn did John Dyn disclose to you the highly pertinent fact that he'd been in a sexual relationship with Helen Steel.

[02:41:26]>> That is my best recollection. Despite the fact that you were obviously close.

[02:41:35]>> Yes.

[02:41:36]>> And despite the fact that you were trusted with the SDS's secrets by many a UCO.

[02:41:46]>> Well, I'm not sure what that adds up to, but you know, my answer is the same. And despite the fact you were the go-to person to solve problems for the SDS of this ilk when they occurred.

[02:42:01]>> Yes.

[02:42:05]>> Did Mr. Boiling ever say to you that he'd told the woman we are calling Rosa uh that John Dyn was an undercover police officer?

[02:42:17]Um, did um Jim Boiling tell me that >> he told Rosa that Dyn was a UCO?

[02:42:29]>> That he told her?

[02:42:30]>> Yes.

[02:42:32]>> Um, I can't recall.

[02:42:40]You've asserted in your witness statement that Helen Steel's efforts to track down John Dyn were a learning opportunity.

[02:42:50][snorts] Can you help us with what lessons you thought fell to be learned?

[02:42:59]I mean the only one that comes immediately to mind is the one of learning about the um [snorts] the method in which his two identities were matched. I mean that was very important learning for us and presum well you know it I'm sure it contributed to uh subsequent changes in um cover identity.

[02:43:39]>> Do you mean by that there was a lesson to be learned not to use one's real relatives in one's cover story?

[02:43:49]Well, that's a separate bit of learning.

[02:43:52]Um, that you know that was surprising. Um, I I I think but certainly it would it was an opportunity. Yes. To underline that.

[02:44:07]>> Well, that was the method by which the connection was made, wasn't it?

[02:44:13]>> I I you know, I can't recall I can't recall today. Um, >> well, you knew that >> you knew that Helen Steel had been telephoning Mrs. Walton home and that she was John Dyn's mother-in-law.

[02:44:33]>> Yes. But >> so you presumably you know how she was able to do that because John Dyn had used her name in his deployment.

[02:44:45]Um well that I I don't Yeah, maybe that was it. Um I can't recall. Well, >> what other lessons were you adverting to in your last answer to me then?

[02:45:02]>> Um well, that was the only, you know, I can't recall anything specific at the moment. What was done, if anything, to learn any lesson from [snorts] this episode?

[02:45:21]>> Um, nothing else comes to mind.

[02:45:30]>> Was anything done to learn the lesson that one should not use one's real life relatives in one's cover identity?

[02:45:40]Um, yeah, I would like to think so.

[02:45:42]>> Well, you would like to think so. Uh, but I'm asking this question because >> Carlos Saraki did just that.

[02:45:50]>> Right. Right.

[02:45:53]>> Can I take it that nothing was in fact done?

[02:45:57]>> Um, it well that it would seem that nothing was done effectively. Um, >> there's another lesson to learn. not to engage in deceitful sexual relationships.

[02:46:13]>> Yes.

[02:46:14]>> And can I take it that nothing was done at the time to prevent that continuing to happen?

[02:46:22]>> Not effectively.

[02:46:23]>> Was anything done at that time to prevent sexual relationships?

[02:46:28]>> Not that I'm aware of.

[02:46:32]Can we move now uh to the subject of your son TBS?

[02:46:41]Did you carry out or cause to be carried out any checks on Jackie or TBS at any point after the end of your deployment but before the story broke in 2011?

[02:47:03]>> Um, no I I don't think I did. Um, >> why not?

[02:47:17]Um because I was confident that he was being well looked after um by his mother and his um adoptive adopted um father parent.

[02:47:41]>> How could you know that?

[02:47:44]I had reasonable grounds for believing that.

[02:47:49]Uh I think I've described that in in um tranch 2 dating from the 1980s.

[02:47:59]>> Yes.

[02:48:02]>> Did you tell the policing advisor, Mr. Peter Ward about either Jackie or Belinda before informing him of the guardian's interest in you?

[02:48:20]>> Um, no. I I I don't think so.

[02:48:27]Did you tell anyone in the Metropolitan Police Service about your relationship with Jackie and having fathered TBS between leaving the SDS in the 1980s and the story breaking?

[02:48:42]>> No.

[02:48:45]>> What was the reaction of senior police officers to you once the story did break?

[02:48:54]Um I think they were in listening mode with me. Um when I say they I mean my point of contact with was with uh Peter Ward as you know. I don't think I had any other contact uh at that that particular time.

[02:49:20]and um you know he he was um he was someone I knew uh pretty well. I think I think he had uh well I think I did deal with him on other matters um you know prior to this my story and others breaking. So I knew him fairly well. I felt you know I could he was someone I could um speak to um before he became a so >> my question well what was the reaction of senior officers? Well, his reaction is the one I can remember and of course he was very um adept at um you know he wanted to get as much information from me as possible and he kept he was very calm didn't you know he wasn't judgmental one in in any way he was very professional.

[02:50:23]>> Did any other senior managers contact you? Um not [clears throat] no not um not not at that point in time >> other than for the purposes of pursuing the investigations of operation swas which later became Operation Hearn. Did you have any contact from senior officers?

[02:50:49]>> I may. Um well uh let me think. Um, I did once I did once um uh Oh, but no, that was Sorry. I think before it was Yeah. At the very beginning of Operation Hearn, I met the um senior investigating officer.

[02:51:24]I've forgotten his name, but uh he was the I remember meeting him, but that was obviously the beginning of what became operation.

[02:51:37]>> Can we have up please 749742 tab D1, sir?

[02:51:49]This is the note of a meeting of people from operation swasson on the 8 8th of November 2011.

[02:51:59]It's not a meeting at uh you were present.

[02:52:05]You'll see from that page >> uh what the meeting was about, where it was held, when and who was there.

[02:52:22]Once you've absorbed that, uh, could we go to page six, >> the second paragraph, two officers from SCD? Sorry.

[02:52:35]Discussion. Yeah, sorry. It is that second one. You got the right one. Thank you. Discussion followed about Lambert's hereditary medical condition. Dr. Privacy has been approached to trace the child. There is no wider responsibility for the MPS in respect of this.

[02:52:57]Was this decision to ask a doctor to contact to approach uh and trace TBS to be approached to trace TBS? Was that con communicated to you?

[02:53:16]>> No.

[02:53:17]Did they did anybody explain to you that they proposed to use a doctor to find TBS?

[02:53:26]>> No, I'm pretty sure. Well, it No, it would.

[02:53:30]>> Do you know whether they actually tried to do so?

[02:53:34]>> I don't I don't think I was told.

[02:53:39]Were you free to contact Jackie or TBS without MPS permission?

[02:53:50]Was I free to? Um well, I did everything [clears throat] everything in in this regard. I um reported discussed with uh Peter Ward.

[02:54:08]>> Well, doesn't quite answer my question.

[02:54:11]Did anybody tell you not to contact them?

[02:54:17]>> No.

[02:54:17]>> Did anybody ask you whether you were going to?

[02:54:21]>> Um I'm sure. Well, only Peter Ward. He he would have wanted to know. Yes. And I would have told him >> that you and the answer would have been >> uh well different to what I I've read. I mean I I would never have dreamt of um approaching uh TBS directly.

[02:54:53]Um not at all. And the and the first thing I you know want wanted to know was whether >> we we'll come to that in a in a moment.

[02:55:03]I'm just trying to explore >> whether you were free to contact Jackie and TBS if you'd wanted to.

[02:55:11]>> I think I was I think I was. Yeah.

[02:55:18]Did you provide operation swasong or operation hear or any part of the MPS at any later date with any updates about TBS? And I'm not meaning here when you were formally interviewed. I mean, >> you were you not the >> Did you contact any part of the MPS >> other than when you were being formally interviewed by Hearn and tell them anything about TBS?

[02:55:47]Um well there is a >> after the after these initial disclosures >> there is um >> I mean I I'm not quite sure where we I don't want to jump ahead.

[02:56:02]>> Let me put it very simply. Did you tell them anything else about TBS uh other than what you discussed with Peter Ward in [clears throat] 2011?

[02:56:11]>> No.

[02:56:14]Can we go to NPCC 3051 550 please?

[02:56:30][snorts] These are emails uh at around the time that the story broke. Can we go to page two please?

[02:56:43]This is an email at the top of the page from you to Peter Ward um about the fact the Guardian had contacted you.

[02:56:58]Um I'll give you a moment to refresh your memory.

[02:57:17]Yes, thank you.

[02:57:20]>> Extremely sorry that my two unauthorized romantic relationships in the 1980s are now causing problems for you.

[02:57:32]We know that there were four.

[02:57:35]>> Yes. You've said in your latest witness statement that you were focused on the issue in hand.

[02:57:43]Is it right here that you made a conscious decision not to become not to be fully forthcoming with uh the Metropolitan Police Service at this stage?

[02:57:57]Um, no. I think I can offer some and I can offer hopefully some uh evidence that um that wasn't my intention. Um because at exactly this same time um I was very clear that I had had four sexual relationships.

[02:58:23]>> Who were you clear with? H well I about to say uh with the um uh Guardian um reporter.

[02:58:35]>> Yeah, the Guardian is not the Metropolitan Police.

[02:58:38]>> No, I know it's not. But it but it it surely >> proves that I was not trying to hide >> um that I'd had these full relationship.

[02:58:50]It was, you know, as I said in my statement, I was just preoccupied at the time with um these issues that we're talking about. Um yes, I should have said straight away I should have mentioned the other two, but um I had every int, you know, they were it was not I was going to um include them. Yeah.

[02:59:22]Can we go to page three, please?

[02:59:32]Give you a moment to read that.

[02:59:35]Uh, but the questions are going to be directed at the fact you are trying in this email to persuade Rob Evans of the Guardian to pass on information uh, medical information so it reaches TBS, aren't you?

[02:59:57]>> To u Yes. Um, yes, that's right. Yeah. Did it become apparent to you whether or not Rob Evans was going to do that for you?

[03:00:10]>> Um, I can't recall now.

[03:00:14]>> As far as you are aware, did he pass on that information to TBS?

[03:00:23]>> Um, no. I I I don't I don't think he was able to. I'm not sure.

[03:00:31]>> Why didn't you pass on that information if Mr. Evans had not done so?

[03:00:42]Um, well, I I I needed to I needed to find out um what um I'm I'm allowed to say mother's uh well, no, the name that's used um just remind me >> her pseudonym is Jackie.

[03:01:11]>> Yes. Yes. Um, you know, I needed to really >> [snorts] >> um, you know, find out where um, you know, have [clears throat] a discussion. I I felt um, to see what um, you know, what what was what they want, what she wanted. and and I would have hoped that through her um potentially, you know, I could >> Mr. How is it going to get to TBS through Jackie if you aren't telling them?

[03:01:56]>> Well, no, I had um yeah, of course I had to figure that out. I was trying to um see what I could, you know, what I >> Did you approach either Jackie or TBS with that medical information?

[03:02:14]>> Um, I didn't at this moment in time.

[03:02:20]>> Why not?

[03:02:22]>> Um, I probably should have done. I obviously, you know, I didn't. Um, I didn't I didn't know how to in the right way. I didn't really I don't know. Um, coming back to my earlier questions about your communications with the police, can I be clear that the Metropolitan Police Service was not stopping you doing so?

[03:02:49]>> Correct.

[03:02:53]>> A different topic on this page. It says, "I did not report either relationship to my police supervisors at the time." So, you are clearly there referring to the two that Rob Evans knew about to your police supervisors at the time.

[03:03:14]Now, our understanding of your evidence from Trunch 2 was that you did tell Detective Inspector Barber.

[03:03:22]>> Yes.

[03:03:23]So, you are not being entirely forthcoming with Mr. Evans, are you?

[03:03:28]>> No.

[03:03:30]>> Why not?

[03:03:33]>> I can't recall why not.

[03:03:39]>> Can we look now at the response that you invited Mr. Evans uh to uh publish which is in italics.

[03:03:57]It says in the penultimate paragraph, "During the last 10 years, I have often wished I had employed the tactic of police partnerships with credible and legitimate nonviolent animal rights campaign groups instead of the tactic of infiltration as a less damaging and more effective way of preventing political violence.

[03:04:27]violence and intimidation by the ALF and related groups.

[03:04:35]When you say more less damaging and more effective, do you mean less damaging and more effective than the undercover policing tactic?

[03:04:44]>> Yes.

[03:04:46]Can you in very brief summary uh explain what you meant by the tactic of police partnerships?

[03:04:57][clears throat] Um yes. Well, that was based on work that I'd done over over the uh several years subsequent to the SDS.

[03:05:15]um where you know there there are I found out um from that experience there are opportunities to work um with um uh members of the community um with a view to um um tackling um political violence of of one kind or another.

[03:05:52]Does it remain your view that the tactic of police partnerships would have been less damaging and more effective than undercover policing as a means of dealing with ALF actions.

[03:06:15]Um I did um discuss this in a um academic article which I think you've got um and [clears throat] um there's um quite a lot of um academic research.

[03:06:38]some of it was mine um but not not altogether which when looking at the animal liberation front um pointed out that um it can be in in some cases it can be very difficult impossible fundamentally impossible to um achieve results um in the you know community based policing. Um I mean I I don't want to go into that but I was aware >> I'm asking you for the bottom line Mr. Lambert. Is it your view now that police partnerships would have been a less damaging and more effective way of preventing ALF activity?

[03:07:42]>> No, I think because my understanding is that um it it just you know it it wouldn't work.

[03:07:55]Was it your view when you wrote this draft response or were you just trying to say something to defend yourself?

[03:08:07]>> No. Um I think um it it was um it was genuine and it's only subsequently that you know I think you know I come to I probably five year four or five years after this I come to a view that it would be be very difficult to um achieve that that kind of approach in or with groups like the ALF. But um having said that um this was you know I think a genuine feeling I'm describing accurately you know how I felt that um if it could be done um it would anything that could be achieved [clears throat] in a police partnership approach instead of infiltration um like the SDS has got to be better better for the activists and and better for the police officers for sure.

[03:09:33]>> You say often wished which suggests you'd given the matter much thought. Was that accurate?

[03:09:40]Um, oh yes. Yes. And uh discussed it, you know, I I discussed it with um um several people. It was sort of ongoing ongoing research.

[03:09:56]>> So why why the change of view despite having given it considerable thought?

[03:10:02]>> Well, it's ongoing, isn't it? And I'm I think all I'm trying I think what I should say to um um it you know it it no I um I'll have to leave it there. I'm sorry.

[03:10:24]>> So that was my last question before the rule 10 questions. I I've had a number of emails, but I'm conscious that uh we've had 40 minutes of questioning and in particular the whole topic about TBS.

[03:10:40]Might I invite you to rise for 5 minutes so that those uh uh further matters can be the subject of of any further requests?

[03:10:49]>> Certainly.

[03:10:53]Let me hear when you're ready to resume.

[03:31:16]Uh, Mr. Lambert, given your knowledge of reporting on Michael Mansfield King's Council, did you consider then or now that he was involved in any subversive activity that justified reporting on him?

[03:31:33]>> No, not that I was aware of then or now.

[03:31:37]Uh I asked you a question uh arising from operation swassel about a doctor and whether to your knowledge uh the MPS had arranged for a doctor to contact to try and trace TBS. I've got the name of the doctor on a piece of paper which I'm going to have passed to you.

[03:31:59]>> Yes.

[03:32:00]>> And the question is whether the name jogs your memory at all.

[03:32:04]>> Yes.

[03:32:10]Thank you.

[03:32:13]>> No.

[03:32:14]>> Thank you. Uh in terms of any investigations you might have done in relation to Jackie and TBS, uh there was mention in the last trunch of looking at adoption papers. Can you recall when you looked at the adoption papers?

[03:32:36]>> Um, not with not with precision. Um, I think in my statement I indicated the the period as best as best I could.

[03:32:57]Can you So what is your recollection now of when you did that?

[03:33:02]Um right.

[03:33:07]I think certainly I think before um you know before the publicity broke and I think after certainly after um I became aware of um the possibility or or the probability that um the story would break which when was that? Um probably probably from January um 2011.

[03:34:01]Can we have up please 745 818?

[03:34:16]This is a minute that you have uh written. Are you able to help us with any of the handwriting >> on on this minute sheet?

[03:34:29]>> Yeah.

[03:34:29]>> Yeah.

[03:34:31]Um, I'm particularly interested in where it reads in the finer script. The security officer for the Sears group, Selfridges, is something of the >> is aware of the threat as is Boots PLC, >> right? Oh. Um, who do I recognize that writing?

[03:35:03]>> Yes.

[03:35:15]>> No.

[03:35:16]Are you able to help us with what the channel of communication would have been uh to alert a public corporation to a threat?

[03:35:30]>> It it would it would have been um via C squad to begin with. So, in the usual way for STS reporting, [snorts] the fact that you uh you've signed this off, would this manuscript have been before you signed it off or afterwards?

[03:36:00]>> I think it can only have been um afterwards.

[03:36:06]I think there's yeah there's some well to me I that's the way it reads clearly um because I think what the what the reason I can be fairly sure is because underneath the handwritten um sentence you can see there's a a di and a DS to see and that would that's I think you know That's onward dissemination. So possibly C squad.

[03:36:41]>> Can we take that down now, please? I want you to cast your mind back now, please, to the relocation of Detective Constable Jenner and his family.

[03:36:56]There appear to be three possible reasons for relocating the family.

[03:37:03]One is the protection of the SDS operation.

[03:37:08]One is the protection of Detective Constable Jenner. And a third is the protection of his family.

[03:37:21]Can you help us with which of those three possible explanations was in play?

[03:37:29]I I think always um all three will always necessarily be in play at the same time. But in any event, in this particular case, I I'm sure that would have been our understanding.

[03:37:46]>> Can you help us as to the assessment at the time of the relative levels of threat to each of those three? In other words, first of all, what was the relative level of threat to the SDS operation?

[03:38:05]>> Relative to what?

[03:38:07]>> What was the level of threat to the SDS operation of Detective Constable Jenner and his family continuing to live at a place where he uh kept bumping into Kurt, >> right? Um yeah, very significant.

[03:38:24]What was the risk personally to Detective Constable Jenner from living in a house close to where he kept bumping in to Jenna? Sorry to K.

[03:38:39]>> Yeah. Um I think that was significant because of his his targeting. Um whereas Kurt Kurt whereas Kurt himself it may have transpired that you know he individually wasn't um a major threat but the danger would arise from the knowledge going from Kurt to others in and around his target group who would pose a very high and may I think at that point that particular threat would take priority and and it would and if he were to be um harmed or if he was preoccupied with that risk then that affects um his family just as much.

[03:39:37]>> Well, that takes me to the next question. Is that right? the level of of anybody taking any action against S or the children, was that rather less than the risk of action against Detective Constable Jenner? I'm sure it was, but the the harm, the consequent harm to um his wife and children uh would be immeasurable.

[03:40:14]>> What sort of harm are you talking about?

[03:40:16]Well, if if if um DC Jenner is um seriously assaulted um that has a huge impact.

[03:40:30]>> Consequential consequential harm.

[03:40:33]>> Oh yes. Yes.

[03:40:37]>> Can we move back to the discussion document you wrote about uh Detective Sergeant Chitty?

[03:40:46]uh we can go to it if we need to but in that document there's a stage where you say that Chitt's wife has confided in you that she never felt able to talk to the office about her husband's lack of interest in his home life.

[03:41:08]I want to ask you, did you or any members of the SDS's management consider changing the ways in which you interacted with UCIO's spouses in the light of that revelation?

[03:41:24]I think it did um change for the better, at least for the most part um because because of the personalities involved um um um DCI Edmonson um in particular in my you know in my management period um for most, not all, uh, but for most field officers at the time and when we, you know, when we did see, uh, partners, you know, he was very, very good. Um, uh, whereas perhaps in Mike Chitt's tenure, um, managers may not have been. So none of which answers the question about sort of actual you know policy procedure and as as you know by now um we weren't so at that point at any rate up to up to when I left we weren't we weren't so good on um actually system systematizing that kind of work.

[03:42:47]>> When you were in a managerial role in the SDS, did you ever reflect on the efficacy or the appropriateness of the policy of recruiting married officers in the light of your own sexual misconduct?

[03:43:12]Um, I'm sure I would have done, but I think I kept kept that pretty much under uh lock and key really. But privately I Yes, I I would have done.

[03:43:27]>> And what were your private reflections?

[03:43:30]Well, I think um probably that um um you know that that there would be risks um either way. not not a you know I don't think a change of that policy would have um necessarily led to um a reduction in um the incidence of sexual relationships >> might have led to an increase.

[03:44:08]>> No, no, no. I didn't.

[03:44:11]>> Did you think it might have led to an increase? No.

[03:44:14]Um, sorry.

[03:44:16]>> An increase in the incidents.

[03:44:19]>> Um, >> right. Let's try. May I ask try again? I didn't mean to say that. I think I would um >> No, I'm I'm asking you whether you thought it would if if the policy had been changed, it would have led to an increased incidence of sexual misconduct.

[03:44:36]>> Yes. Well, whatever reflections I had, I I don't know. I I I'm not sure that I um came to any conclusion on that. I'm sorry.

[03:44:48]>> But it would have led to a decrease in the incidence of families being betrayed, wouldn't it?

[03:44:55]>> Yes.

[03:44:57]>> Can you help us with why you did nothing about those reflections?

[03:45:02]>> Um no, I can't add anything to what I've said. Um my approach was um fundamentally inadequate uh to deal with um you know to try and tackle the problem um I'm afraid um when I look back on it. So, I'm not not particularly um proud of that. But um so those are all my questions for Mr. Lambert.

[03:45:40]>> Yeah.

[03:45:53]Um [clears throat] I asked you yesterday to reflect uh overnight >> uh about a particular topic, namely your knowledge of the circumstances uh in which HN15 Jenner was living. Have you done so?

[03:46:09]>> I have. Sure. Um, may I I've only got probably a minute or two to address you on that. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to uh reflect overnight. I I just um scribbled down a few notes on it just to help me collect my thoughts.

[03:46:30]>> Take your time. There's abundant time.

[03:46:32]Say what you want to.

[03:46:33]>> No, thank you. Um [clears throat] well so I I want to address I think the only or certainly the important paper that I wrote in 1997 which where I am addressing I think it's called is it called a discussion paper it [clears throat] starts off dealing with >> Jamie and then it moves on in into a wider discussion. Yeah. Well, because [clears throat] that's, you know, that gives me certainty.

[03:47:12]That's me what I, you know, what I'm dealing with when I write that paper.

[03:47:19]And and this is what I wanted to uh say to you on on reflection.

[03:47:27]Um, my paper, this paper is factually incorrect in respect of its description of Mark Jenner's accommodation.

[03:47:43]Um, the length of his occupancy and the this three so three points.

[03:47:52]um the identities of the other occupants.

[03:47:58]Um I take full responsibility for these errors.

[03:48:06]These are my errors and not DC Jenner's.

[03:48:16]Uh, I cannot recall how or why I made these errors.

[03:48:28]And finally, I do not believe that I set out to willfully misrepresent the true facts.

[03:48:55]Are you able on reflection to give any reason why you should have misrepresented those three things?

[03:49:06]Um yeah, I think a degree of a degree of negligence um about you know actual not being across the detail of of his living arrangement. ments. Um, I was not across it. I was not really in any meaningful sense across the the the living arrangements of of any of the field officers. Um uh so given the opportunities that I had as a manager and I'm sure other managers that you have or will speak to have been far more proactive on this and um and I was I'm afraid almost well you know as I probably um negligent and um I'm not sure that I can add much more.

[03:50:31]>> If it's necessary to look at the document again, we can do so. But there are detailed descriptions in there >> um which you say you were negligent in putting in.

[03:50:45]Um I don't understand how detailed descriptions of that kind can be given erroneously negligently.

[03:51:01]Um, no. I I accept that. And um um um but it's you know I I I got it wrong. I I don't um if I'd been you know I made made a mistake. I don't know today. I I don't know any more than that. Um, can I put it bluntly so that you have the opportunity of responding? Uh, was this in fact a detailed but false picture painted for your incoming DCI HN58?

[03:51:52]>> I I I think I'm Can you just repeat that, please, sir?

[03:51:56]>> Yes. Was this a detailed false picture of HN15 circumstances deliberately painted for your incoming DCI HN58?

[03:52:09]>> Um, I don't I don't believe that I had that intention, but I it certainly presented him with um a misleading picture. I understand that. Um I would have known at the time, you know, there might have I don't know why I in or on what basis I included those names. I I would have had a um an explanation at the time. I don't believe that I was being willfully um untruthful.

[03:52:57]>> I will have to reflect upon your answers, but uh in due course it is possible that I will reach a conclusion about them uh which will be adverse to you.

[03:53:07]>> Of course. Thank you, >> Mr. Bar. Anything arising out of that?

[03:53:13]>> No. Thank you, sir.

[03:53:14]>> Yeah. Now um because we have a full afternoon it would be desirable if we were able to begin at 10 to 2 and I therefore going to rise until 10 to 2 when we will have um our next witness.

[03:53:29]Your evidence is complete. Thank you for attending and for giving it.

[03:53:33]>> Thank you sir.