Thread by @copscampaign

The #SpyCopsInquiry is now holding a hearing with barrister Ruth Brander, Rajiv Menon, Oliver Sanders, & Skelton about non-state core participants' barristers get to ask more questions of witnesses in the hearings

Mitting asks what the 4 of them think. Should procedural hearings have access for others? Brander says they want something more than the room for 60 people with screens.

Mitting originally wanted them in a large courtroom but then due to secrecy he decided to have meetings with lawyers of both sides. Now evidence hearings have begun, would it be good to have all parties' people present when figuring out procedure?

Brander says basically yes. Mitting says there'll be a meeting in January for them to talk about the procedures for the next lot of hearings which are hoped for in March or April.

Brander says non-state core participants - victims of spycops - really want to talk to Mitting about how the hearings are being done. They, and the public, have been effectively excluded (and reliant on unofficial live tweets!)

Menon: Since the procedural hearings stopeed it's all been done by emails, which is rubbish as it makes it hard to have real dialogue and consensus

Skelton, for the Met: Yes, we think lawyers for everyone thrashing it out are a good thing, there's no secutiry issue on procedure discussions.
Sanders (also for police) concurs.

Mittting pronounces it unanimous. They'll have an 'ordinary' procedure hearing - albeit on Zoom - in Jan about how we're going to to the next hearings.

Mitting, to Menon: Rule 10 is to allow the Inquiry to control its proceedings. Menon's of Tariq Ali & of the 2 officers showed how it can't go on

Mitting: Ali, answering a Menon question, named someone, breaching a Restriction Order on divulging the name. This isn't a court, we can't explore every relevant issue, we have statutory limits. I have to protect people's rights & privacy.

Mitting to Menon: Your question to the officer who'd voted at the meeting they infiltrated; no harm was done by asking, but it didn't help. You also asked Joan Hillier about #spycops officer Helen Crampton who may have had a relationship with George Cochrane who she was spying on

Mitting: Witnesses must have significant advance warning of what they'll be asked about. We can't let you do this stuff, it's not a trial, we have different processes than a court.

Menon: On the Ali question, he was asked by the Inquiry about a meeting at the Notting Hill branch of the VSC,. A spycops report was on the screen, with a redacted name of someone who'd distributed a leaflet. Ali couldn't assist without the name.

Menon: I knew the name & thought the man was dead so it was OK to name him. An innocent mistake. I did it because I beleived he was dead and couldn't be affected, & hoped it would trigger a memory in Ali, which it did.

But if I'd known he was alive I wouldn't have done it, and I apologise. Having discovered he's still alive, we're now looking into it further. That's why, questioning Joan Hillier, I was vague. This happens when we get 5,500 pages to read & respond to with 4 weeks notice.

Menon: If we'd had this material months in advance this wouldn't have arisen. It's a mistake because we were running against the clock.

Menon: On my questioning of John Graham being 1 of 9 officers voting in a meeting on the route of a march, I say it WAS a relevant topic to ask about. Not because 9 people would swing the vote, but we should be told how police voted

Menon: if, say, they voted with the people wanting a confrontation then it's directly in the Inquiry's remit - it's about spycops and public order policing.

Menon: it goes contrary to founder Conrad Dixon's document on penetration of groups, it's relevant and potentially important.

Mitting: I don't think you were bad to do it, just unhelpful.

Menon: On the relationship between Helen Crampton and a man she spied on, we had to weigh it up. Hillier is the only surviving officer who infiltrated Notting Hill VSC, nobody else can speak about it. It would be wrong not to explore it with the only possible witness.

Menon: We would be failing in our professional duty to clients & to the Inquiry seeking the truth if we didn't ask questions about it. It remains a live issue. We will talk to the Inquiry team about how to go into it further

Menon: Also, you let me ask the questions! I thought we agreed they were in the Terms of Reference of the Inquiry, and I stand by the decision to do it.

Mitting: Next time, we have to let the Inquiry lawyers know - not public or even the witness - but my team have to understand it before you bring it up.

Menon: I only got the information the night before. I drafted specific questions (albeit without sources) and told the Inquiry lawyers, but they didn't get back with any issues. When Counsel to the Inquiry failed to ask, I applied to do it.

Mitting: The outside world doesn't understand the Covid-times problems of getting documents to everyone who needs them. I know there's a lot of time pressure on the lawyers. But if we're to go at an acceptable pace, that's going to keep happening.

Menon: We just ask that the Inquiry don't leave it until 4 weeks before and drop a mountain of documents on us. Give us them as they become redacted and ready so we can make a start. Maximum time with as much of the evidence as possible.

Brander: It would help to have a proper explanation about exactly what the Inquiry's delays are. Victims of spycops feel like they're at the bottom of the list for their input, last to get the disclosed files, no explanations.

Brander: Non-state core participants will be able to give real value to understanding of documents yet they don't get them. They feel repeatedly excluded from the Inquiry. If they don't get docs until the witness gives evidence, on the Ceefax transcript, they can't feed in

Mitting: What exactly are you asking for? There's no complaint about written Rule 10 submissions a week in advance, & we generally say yes and Inquiry Counsel generally asks the questions you suggest. Is that a problem? Of the making public of stuff?

Brander: Both me and Menon struggle with your 7 day deadline for questions. I can't discuss it with my clients who haven't seen the docs & I'm not allowed to show them.

Brander: i get Counsel to the Inquiry saying yes or no to my suggested questions the night before or on the day of the witness - no time to discuss with them. If it do get chance, they generally relent & agree to ask them.

Brander: For most non-state CPs, they first see the evidence as it rolls by on the screen. I get clients asking me later about why certain questions weren't asked. Especially, the women deceived into relationships want to know about the origins of the practice.

Brander: We've had 2 officers this week admit dating women they spied on v early in spycops; using it to bolster cred. This is important to the women later abused by officers, but they don't get to suggest questions because they don't see the material in advance.

Brander: I'm asking for the remainder of this phase - ie this week - please agree to 10 minutes at the end of witnesses to have non-state questioning so I can get key suggestions from my clients. This assists YOU in doing the Inquiry

Brander: We also want to broaden the scope of questioning, not limited to people directly affected by that individual witness. The women have a lot of knowledge and expertise that others can't bring to bear on this.

Brander: Black justice campaigns and others will be in a similar expert position to see the systemic issues and ask the right questions of the witnesses to see the overarching issues.

Mitting: I'll have a little bit of a think and answer by the end of the day.

Skelton (police lawyer): "The Met hasn't improperly delayed the disclosure process", Menon doesn't believe us but we hope the Inquiry does.

Skelton: Menon asking Hiller wasn't fair, contentious issues need more consideration. Hillier should have been told she'd be asked about Helen Crampton's relationship, and seen the evidence if it exists. This mustn't happen again.

Skelton: Inquiry is inquisitorial not adversarial, not trying to build a case. Rule 10 is there to stop Inquiries taking too long. It encourages witnesses to give open evidence because they feel the questioner is neutral not hostile. Especially elderly people [!?]

Skelton: Rule 10 stops proceedings getting overly polarised, by disarming all advocates in the same way, everyone asked by one person without duplication. As long as parties are feeding question in, it's good.

Skelton: If it works properly, there's only irrelevant questions unasked. But this Inquiry letting a few questions happen on factual disputes is good, but it should only be on factual issues of stuff already said

Skelton: Everyone wants to see their questions asked, but that would have to apply to everyone and would be unweildy. So we think the current arrangements are good

Sanders (also police): I endorse Skelton's words. Questioning by lawyers for a party should only happen if there's a significant dispute of fact & the witness is up for it. That's not what Menon did with our officers.

Sanders: Witnesses aren't alleged to have done anything wrong [!!! It's an inquiry into spycops wrongdoing], it's not a trial. It unsettles them to be asked things they didn't know were coming. Some of the core participants have partisan and hostile views.

Sanders: The officers heard opening statements denigrating and vilifying them, they don't want lawyers representing those views questioning them. The idea of 10 minutes at the end of a witnesses time for lawyers to effectively cross examine is something we don't want to see.

Barr (Counsel to the Inquiry): It's early days, we're still tweaking our procedures. We're dealing with early witnesses from long ago, with few disputes of fact and few victims involved. That will change.

Barr: Rule 10 avoids delay & repetition, makes it fairer & keeps costs down. It's a right faff for the lawyers, but basically worth it.

Mitting: I'll talk about it with Barr and get back to everyone at 2.30.

Brander: One thing; the process of the Rule 10 system of suggesting questions in advance can't work when my clients who have questions to suggest don't see the evidence in advance. Either they need either evidence in advance or questions at the end, otherwise they're shut out

Mitting: Core participants asked for a live stream to their homes. I've said yes to one person, Rosa, who is in exceptional circumstances. She said doesn't want the exact reasons made public.

Mitting: So I was surprised that Phillippa Kaufmann's who represents her, used a lot of the same text as Rosa's application in her opening statement.

Brander: There's no doubt to the truth of Rosa's statement, but it appears she decided it was OK to mention her circumstances in public after all in the context of Kaufmann talking about exactly what spycops did to women they abused

The Inquiry is taking a break for Mitting and Barr to discuss the changes to the procedure of questioning witnesses, and will be back at 2.30 with a decision.

They return. Mitting says that there are only two witnesses left, being heard tomorrow before the Inquiry breaks for a few months & the whole format of questioning witnesses will be reappraised.

For these 2 witnesses tomorrow, once Counsel for the Inquiry has finished asking the aggregated questions from the various lawyers, the hearing will pause for 10 minutes & the lawyers can tell Mitting if they've anything additional to ask.

Brander & Menon (QCs for non-state participants) thank him.

Brander raises Mitting's querying of Rosa: 'she was quite alarmed that her integrity was called into question in a public hearing without advance notice' & she wants to make a public response.

Brander: As for the chronology, Rosa's refusal to agree to her application being made public was a week before the Opening Statement that said a lot of the same things was finalised. She'd agreed for the application to be seen by the police when she first submitted it.

Brander: It was a very difficult & painful process for Rosa to feel she could put her story in a public Opening Statement made to the Inquiry. She took it right to the deadline because it was so unsettling for her.

Mitting: I accept all that unreservedly, I never meant to criticise her integrity. It's not necessary, frankly, for her to make a public response, but she'd free to do so if she wishes.

With that, The Inquiry is over until tomorrow.

@threadreaderapp unroll