Thread by @copscampaign

We are starting the #spycops inquiry again - Day 10 of these hearings - and Mitting is setting out the schedule for today

Ms Monahan is reading out a short summary about one of the #spycops HN330, who used the cover name 'Don de Freitas'
You can read more about him on pages 105-107 of Appendix 2 ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

Now she is reading a summary about HN321, who used the cover name 'Bill Lewis' - you can read more about him on pages 108-111 of the same document. He was part of the first #spycops unit, for just one year, from Sept 1968-1969

Finally, we hear a summary of the work of HN322, who was only involved in the unit for a very short time, in 1968. He was never deployed undercover, so had no cover name. See pages 114-115 for details.

In addition to the witness statements from these officers, which will be uploaded to the #SpyCopsInquiry website today, and "associated documents", the @ucpinquiry also drew our attention to similar summarised details of two other #SpyCops

@ucpinquiry Both deceased, there are no recent witness statements from them. However you can read a summary of HN135 (real name Michael Ferguson - his cover name is restricted though) on pages 123-126.

@ucpinquiry And more about Conrad Dixon (the charismatic character who founded the #spycops unit) - aka HN325 - on pages 174-179 of the same Appendix

ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

Next up today at the #SpyCopsInquiry
we are due to hear evidence from a second former #spycop
- HN328 - or, to give her real name, Joan Hillier (in contrast to many of her old colleagues, who applied to have their names kept secret).

There will be a ten-minute delay before the 'live' transcript starts running -so look out for it at 10:40 - at

She will be asked questions by Mr Warner (junior counsel) on behalf of the Inquiry.
Joan Hillier is now in her 80s, she has already provided two statements.
In one of them, she confirmed the names of the #spycops featured in a photo taken of the unit in its very early days.

She identified many of the #spycops in the photo, but it seems that she got confused when writing her statement – she'd listed HN334 twice – but today confirmed that one of the people in the photo was in fact Helen Crampton.

Hillier joined the police in November 1958
She as asked about the training she had when she joined – thinks she spent 10 or 13 weeks at Peel House – and spent roughly two years on probation.

She joined Special Branch in March 1968.
We had 'police orders' – they came out every week or so – "there was an application and you were asked to apply if you were interested"
She confirmed that 'police orders' meant announcements.

There was a written exam and a Selection Board
(consisting of 3 or 4 senior officers
- incl Shirley Beck, head of women poilce at the time, and a senior Special Branch officer )

All of the recruits were 'positively vetted'.
They were assigned to shadow more experienced officers – not formal training – they learnt on the job

Hillier (coincidentally) joined Special Branch the day after the first anti-war demo in Grosvenor Square

She was well aware of what had happened - “it was a very newsworthy event” and much discussed within Special Branch

They were very unhappy with the result of the march and demo - how close the protesters had come to breaching the Embassy.
The police had failed to keep order and this caused "great concern among everybody”

There was a bit of discussion about the use of the word 'pressure' - did the Home Office put pressure on the police (to find a solution to the risk of more disorder) or not? She said she "wasn't sure it's the right phrase" but did use it in her own witness statement.

She thinks the new Squad was formed "round about July" 1968
She attended early meetings of the group, all already Special Branch officers, who came together to work as the new 'Squad'. They discussed tactics that they could use.

Conrad Dixon was the head of the Squad, which contained a mixture of seniorities.
She was a Detective Sergeant and an experienced police officer, but relatively new to Special Branch at the time.

Was there any opposition to using this tactic? Not that she knows of.
This was the first time they'd used this particular tactic – they decided it was “the only way to police the demonstration”.

Hillier said that yes, the Squad discussed the risk of becoming agents provocateurs.

What about the risks of criminality?
Any concerns about relationships?
Or about the types of groups being reported on?
Were other tactics discussed?

She said that she hadn't seen Dixon's 'Penetration of Extremist Groups' before.
This guide says that “arrangements have to be made” to avoid compromising the undercover #spycops when serious offences have been committed

Dixon suggested that 'uncommitted officers' could be used for this, and that women were ideally suited to this task.
Hillier said she had never seen or heard of the 'uncommitted officer' before seeing this document.

She was asked:
"Were you aware of Helen Crampton fulfilling this role?
Were you aware that she assisted with the prosecution of someone she had reported on, who wasinvolved with Notting Hill VSC in 1969?
( relating to an incident which took place at a VSC meeting on 09/10/68)

asked about what was considered acceptable behaviour on the part of #spycops

"Common sense should tell you there are things you should not do."

"Instinct would tell you what you shouldn't do and what you should do"

She was clear that one shouldn't:

get involved in criminal beahviour while deployed
or
attend court in ones cover identity
"You shouldn't do that, no".

She was unaware that her #spycops colleagues were taking women (that they were spying on) out on dates.

Asked about how much detail she included if she was writing a report:
“as much detail as you thought was necessary”

She confirmed they didn't get much training, just guidance from other officers - “you had to follow your instincts"

She does not recall receiving any feedback about her reports.

She doesn't remember being instructed to 'filter' the contents of her reports.

One of these reports was shown in screen. It gave details of a young woman, "invariably in the company of the [fredacted] chairman of the BVSF" as well as a physical description & “She is known to me”

Hillier explained that she “probably wrote this or typed it for someone else. This isn't my report."
She explained that she worked in the office doing admin in April 1969

Hillier didn't recognise all the reports shown to her, with her name attached.

She did confirm that personal details (dates of birth, home addresses etc) would be routinely added to SB files “in case it was needed in the future”

She said that SDS was able to obtain info that normal SB officers wouldn't have got.

As a 'normal' SB officer, she attended political meetings, and she wouldn't have given her real name is asked, she also wouldn't have disclosed her real job.

She was asked about the differences between what she did pre-SDS and during her time with the SDS.
“No it would be exactly the same” she responded

Hillier worked with another woman officer in the SDS, Helen Crampton.

They were both involved in setting up a cover flat for the SDS, and often went to meetings together, and collected leaflets
"Two women going in, it was more acceptable"

Hillier was asked about one particular leaflet, which was quoted at length...
"the pig who framed comrades in this group is known to be walking on the beat"
and
"the pigs will intensify their terrors if we not constantly keep guard and watch their moves at all levels”

The writers obviously believed that their groups were infiltrated by 'pigs'.
Hillier was asked: Do you remember any concern among Notting Hill VSC about police infiltrators? Recall any measures taken by the group?

"Not when I was at their meetings, no" she retorted.

further on in the same report:
“After the film Ken Murray talked at some length...”
He was suggesting forming groups to de-arrest other activists, and using tactics such as linking arms

This would have the effect of immobilising any undercovers who were in the crowd and he suggested that it could also help the activists identify the spies, as “those who refused to link arns would probably be 'fuzz' “

"Information is never wasted really"

Hillier - involved in doing #spycops admin right from the start - admitted today that their approach was to hoover up every piece of 'intelligence' they could, about as many people as possible

Starting again...
Hillier was asked why 'mentally deficient' was recorded in a description of someone
She said that whoever wrote the report (ie not her) must have thought it worth including.

Then an extract was read from a report, relating a discussion about the gentrification of Notting Hill Someone called Ken Murray is reported to have said:
“When landlords evicted tenants the landlords' houses should be burnt”
(“far more effective than stupid demonstrations”!)

Hillier said this intelligence would have been of interest not just to SB but also to MI5 and the uniformed police service.
According to her:
“If criminal intelligence came their way they (the #spycops ) would pass it on.. but they didn't seek it out, I don't think”

She still remembers attending the huge anti-war demonstration in October, but no disorder that day.
“It dispersed quite peacefully”.
She didn't go to Grosvenor Square, her march ended at Marble Arch..

She was then asked about other women #spycops
HN334 was deployed in the early days – she has provided a witness statement to this Inquiry, indicating that she had a cover name, cover flat and cover job...

"I knew she went to meetings but I thought they were all public meetings"
"I didn't realise she was undercover, at private meetings"
She seemed a bit surprised, and said she had no idea why HN334's experience was so different from her and Helen's.

Do you remember your male colleagues discussing women from the groups they were reporting on?

"They discussed the groups and their members but not the in particular women, no" Hillier stated

Hillier was asked to explain what her role in the back office was after the October demo - “purely admin, taking telephone calls, dealing with files, officers' reports, typing reports..."

One of her roles was to carry files etc between the SDS office in 'the Yard' and the 'cover flat' / 'safe house' where the Hairies hung out most of the time

She explained that the officers sometimes wrote their reports in pencil; she would check all the names mentioned to see which ones already had SB files open on them...

She would type up the reports,
She often ended up signing them ("it saved a lot of back and forth – it was easier if I signed them”)
and they all went to Conrad Dixon. He was the one who decided where they were sent on to (Box 500 = MI5)

Finally she was asked about the
'ethos of the unit'.
She said "initially it was a very nice unit, happy, everyone got on well together, they were all going for a common cause" and repeatedly said how happy it was, throughout her entire time involved in it. Dixon was a good boss

Following this, it was time for Rajiv Menon to ask for permission to put some questions to the witness...

Mitting was not happy. He said sternly "I will permit -and even encourage- questions to be asked when there are disputes of fact about an important topic."

...and gave one example of the kind of dispute he considered important enough: whether or not an intimate relationship had taken place between a male officer and female activist.

The Chair warned Menon that he was "not prepared to allow this kind of 'general questioning'"
and only anticipates that he "might be willing to second guess CTI's intention" on odd occasions

Menon explainned that he simply seeks to ask questions that are about relevant matters, reminded the Chair that he is doing this in order to ASSIST the inquiry. The Chair can see if his questions are useful or not

He then asked Mitting, "with all due respect, to exercise your discretion in favour of allowing me to ask what I submit, as a barrister with 26 years experience.." are relevant questions. These were not asked by the CTI even though I submitted them...

Mitting asked "What exactly is being disputed?"

Menon explained that according to his source - and no, he is not in a position to guarantee that this source will give evidence themselves, not at this stage (the issue has only just arisen in the last few days)...

The issue is whether Helen Crampton had some kind of relationship with the Chair of the VSC's Notting Hill branch.

Menon: If there was any truth to the mattter, this would be the first example of an intimate relationship between one of the #spycops and one of their targets.

Menon doesn't know if Cochrane is alive or not, but notes that his name has not been readacted by the Inquiry.

[It appears that the Inqiory has not bothered even trying to find out, over the last 3 years]

Mitting warned Menon that allowing him to ask the witness about this matter should be considered 'exceptional' and not something he should expect in future

Hillier was asked about her earlier denial of knowledge of relationships between spycops and targets – and if she knew that Helen Crampton was 'going out with' George Cochrane - did she belive it was possible they were having some kind of relationship?

"I doubt it very much"

Earlier, the witness was asked by Warner if she was aware of Helen Crampton giving evidence at any criminal trials, and she was not.

In this case, 'Mr X' was alleged to have distributed the leaflet at the Notting Hill VSC's regular meeting on 09/10/68

He was arrested and charged with incitement.
Hillier said she had no recollection at all of this.
Menon was visibly disappinted that Hillier's hirtherto excellent memory had started failing now. He had been hoping that she would be able to assist with this matter.

Ruth Brander made a comment to the Chair before the morning session ended: her clients "do not wish to disrupt or derail, but they do wish to assist you in getting to the truth".
She asked him to set aside time to address this issue and come up with a workable process

He was unwilling to commit - saying"it takes quite a bit of setting up"
[to run a Zoom call]

Mitting also noted that there are still two opening statements to be heard, and Monday is quite full... but promised Brander that he would look into this and get back to her.

Brander suggested that it would be better to get this sorted out before there were more witnesses.

There was also a query about the way that page numbering was done on SB files and what various numnbers and codes indicated.

With that we ended for lunch. Back in an hour.

@threadreaderapp unroll