Day 14 of #SpyCopsInquiry – final day of evidence for early years of #spycops (ie Phase 1 of Tranche 1):

- summaries of evidence to be read from four #spycops, including “Stewart Goodman” and “John Clinton”;

- then, “Peter Fredericks” due to be called.

“Summary” of statement of #spycop “333”, who operated in 1968-9, is being read out at #SpyCopsInquiry by an inquiry lawyer.

His real name, undercover name AND target group are all being kept secret at this “public” inquiry.

Next, “summary” of statement of #spycop “Stewart Goodman” is read out.

He operated in 1970-1, and his real name is being kept secret.

He targeted Anti-Apartheid Movement and International Socialists/Socialist Workers Party.

“Stewart Goodman” became treasurer of the Lambeth branch of International Socialists, #SpyCopsInquiry hears.

He says that this brought him close to the branch secretary.

His undercover role gave him an insight into internal rifts within the group.

Next, summary of evidence read out to #SpyCopsInquiry from another #spycop whose real name, cover name and target group(s) are being kept secret at this oh-so-public inquiry.

He says in his summary that he infiltrated “anarchist groups”, but his deployment was unsuccessful.

And #SpyCopsInquiry hears “summary” of statement from “John Clinton”, who operated as a #spycop between 1971 and 1974.

He infiltrated the International Socialists, in particular the Hammersmith and Fulham branch, and Socialist Workers Party.

“John Clinton” says, according to the “summary” of his evidence, that the Special Branch interest in the International Socialists was mainly because it linked to “Irish groups”, and this was especially true of its Hammersmith and Fulham branch.

Junior counsel to #SpyCopsInquiry tells hearing that inquiry is keeping secret the identity of TWO former heads of the Met Special Branch’s former #spycops unit, the Special Demonstration Squad, but will today publish [redacted] material relating to them.

Reading statement of #spycop “333” during break in #SpyCopsInquiry hearing, I see that he says re the early days of Met’s #spycops unit: “Secrecy was tight and many in Special Branch did not know about the SDS.” It was initially referred to as “S Squad” or “X Squad”, he believes.

Although the target of #spycop “333” is being kept secret, we learn from his statement merely that he was deployed against a left-wing group that no longer exists.

He joined by answering an advert and when he went to his first meeting he “was partly greeted and partly grilled”.

“Peter Fredericks” is due to testify now at #SpyCopsInquiry. In his written statement, he says that before transferring to Special Demonstration Squad he did undercover work into “street crime”.

This showed that he “had an aptitude for getting into places that I should not be.”

“I would find things out by-the-by about Black Power groups and the Stop the Tour movement just from the kind of people that I was associating with,” says “Peter Fredericks” to #SpyCopsInquiry.

“I would have passed on this information as a matter of course.”

As a result of this initial undercover work, Met Special Branch recruited “Peter Fredericks”, he says.

He was “posted to C Squad, dealing with domestic extremism”.

One division of C Squad focussed on Communist Party of Great Britain, the other to Trotskyists and anarachists.

“Peter Fredericks” tells #SpyCopsInquiry that in his initial undercover work, unlike in the SDS #spycops unit, he “did not report every small detail but rather I would wait and report back anything that struck me as out of the ordinary.”

MI5 recommended “Peter Fredericks” to join the #spycops unit, which he then knew as the Special Operations Squad, in a letter to the Met, he tells #SpyCopsInquiry.

He says that he was in SDS for a few months in 1971.

At one meeting, a speaker from the Black Power movement said that someone from MI5 was there.

“Peter Fredericks” says: “I felt my lips go dry and my heart was pounding as if it were about to burst… He was joking, but he fooled me. I thought I was going to get kicked to death.”

Like other #spycops before him, “Peter Fredericks” tells #SpyCopsInquiry: “There would have been many more intelligence reports that I would have written than appear here [ie than inquiry has received]”

“Peter Fredericks” says that his heritage is “certainly a mixture”.

He tells #SpyCopsInquiry that he was transferred out of SDS after only a few months after suspicions fell on him because one of his referees from when he joined the Met turned out to be a suspected Soviet spy.

“Peter Fredericks” tells #SpyCopsInquiry that he was sent to a psychiatrist after his deployment.

“I did not think that she understood what undercover work is like, and it was not helpful,” he says.

Reading the statement of #spycop “Stewart Goodman”, whose evidence was “summarised” earlier, he tells SpyCopsInquiry that he was warned against being an agent provocateur. “We had to tread a fine line between appearing enthusiastic and actually initiating the group's activities.”

Speaking of his time infiltrating the Anti-Apartheid Movement, “Stewart Goodman” tells SpyCopsInquiry that an MP’s going to its conference in 1971 “would have been notable.”

He adds: “MPs giving their support to protest movements was potentially of interest to Special Branch.”

As a #spycop with the International Socialists, “Stewart Goodman” tells SpyCopsInquiry in his statement that he helped to recruit new members as well as going to meetings and on demonstrations.

“I remember carrying banners and flags and selling the IS newspaper at protests.”

“I had to tread a fine line between appearing to be involved and committed to the group while also not actually instigating any of the group's protests,” says #spycop “Stewart Goodman”.

“I became the treasurer of the Lambeth branch of IS. I don't remember how this happened.”

“Stewart Goodman”, the #spycop who became the accidental treasurer of the Lambeth branch of the International Socialists, tells #SpyCopsInquiry: “I was careful not to use this position to influence the group’s activities.”

“Stewart Goodman” to #SpyCopsInquiry: “Special Branch dealt with those… who wanted to overthrow our system by violent means, whatever their political leaning. It just so happened that when I was in Special Branch, most of these groups were on the left of the political spectrum.”

“Special Branch and the Security Service [MI5] worked hand-in-glove with each other. Special Branch was the pro-active, visible arm of the Security Service... [MI5] would obviously have an interest in anything that might pose a risk of large-scale unrest,” says “Stewart Goodman”.

When he was treasurer of the Lambeth branch of the International Socialists, “Stewart Goodman” tells #SpyCopsInquiry, he was close to the head of the branch. “I was effectively his right-hand man.”

After being at a pub with activists, “Stewart Goodman” drove home “while under the influence of alcohol and crashed the car into a tree,” he tells #SpyCopsInquiry in his statement.

This was NOT in the so-called summary of evidence read out at hearing earlier...

“Stewart Goodman” told officers who attended the crash after his drunk-driving who he really was, and he was neither taken to the police station nor arrested “even though I was definitely intoxicated”, he says in his statement to #SpyCopsInquiry.

The officers drove him home...

The car “was written off”, but “Stewart Goodman” tells #SpyCopsInquiry that no disciplinary action was taken against him.

He says that he was charged with driving without due care and attention, and thinks that he appeared in court under his cover name...

“Stewart Goodman” pleaded guilty to driving without due care and attention.

He says to #SpyCopsInquiry that he has a “vague recollection” that his boss told him that he “had briefed the magistrates in private that I was an undercover officer. I believe that I was given a fine.”

“Stewart Goodman” to #SpyCopsInquiry on the point of the Met’s #spycop unit: “The whole purpose of the SDS was to collect intelligence for policing demonstrations effectively and to gather information about people who were considered a possible risk to the status quo.”

“Stewart Goodman” on his time as a #spycop in his statement to #SpyCopsInquiry: “Looking back on it now, I regard it as one of the highlights of my police career even if it was pretty scary a lot of the time.”

“Stewart Goodman” tells #SpyCopsInquiry: “Even though I was drinking quite heavily at this time, there was no suggestion that I had any more of a drink problem than anyone else in Special Branch and my drinking certainly was not addressed by management following [car crash].”

The #spycop who unsuccessfully infiltrated anarchist groups some time after 1970 says this in his statement to #SpyCopsInquiry about relationships with targets: “We would all have known that we should not have sexual relationships while deployed. This was common sense.”

Anon anarchist #spycop to #SpyCopsInquiry re MI5’s relationship with Met’s #spycops unit some time after 1970: “Once the threats to public disorder reduced after the Vietnam protests ceased, the security services played a more significant role in directing the work of the SDS.”

Senior #spycop managers met with MI5 “regularly”, anonymous anarchist #spycop tells #SpyCopsInquiry in his statement.

“It was also generally accepted by myself and fellow UCOs that the security services provided some of the funding for the SDS.”

“John Clinton” says in statement to #SpyCopsInquiry that Met Special Branch set up #spycops unit SDS after protests against Vietnam war.

“The rumour in Special Branch was that the home secretary at the time, James Callaghan, was put under pressure to do something about them.”

“John Clinton” understood that the Home Office directly funded Met’s #spycops unit SDS when he was in it in 1971-4, he tells #SpyCopsInquiry.

“I suspect that the directive to set up the SDS came from the home secretary himself rather than from someone within Special Branch.”

“John Clinton” says that while Special Branch officers went to publicly advertised meetings, #spycops in SDS would go to “private meetings”.

“Direct human intelligence of this kind was much more reliable than intelligence from informants, who often had their own agendas.”

While the role of Met’s #spycops squad SDS may have initially related to public order, “John Clinton” tells #SpyCopsInquiry, “by the time that I had joined the unit [in 1971], it addressed the broader responsibilities of Special Branch. That included counter subversion.”

“John Clinton” to #SpyCopsInquiry: “I do not think it would have occurred to SDS management that they wld have needed to tell police officers not to have sexual relationships with members of groups they infiltrated.”

“It is common sense that you wld not do something like that.”

Like many #spycops, “John Clinton” thinks that he produced “many more” reports as a #spycop than #SpyCopsInquiry has supplied him for drafting his statement, although he says that some may not have had his name on them.

Met Special Branch had a file on the Clerical and Adminstrative Workers’ Union, “John Clinton” says in his statement to #SpyCopsInquiry, based on a file reference given in a Met report. of November 1971. Either he or another #spycop is thought to have written the report.

Asked why his reports on International Socialists concern trade unions, “John Clinton” tells #SpyCopsInquiry: “IS would encourage industrial action and deploy to picket lines in support. This had clear public order implications, so I felt it was appropriate to report on it.”

“John Clinton” gathered intelligence on International Socialists because of public order and counter-subversion, he tells #SpyCopsInquiry.

“What they were doing politically, how they were organised, and the identity of influential individuals was all important information.”

And on #spycops and MI5, “John Clinton” tells #SpyCopsInquiry: “Monitoring and gather [sic] intelligence on subversive groups was one of the key roles of Special Branch. It was always a partnership with the Security Service, who had national responsibility for subversion.”

The head of Special Branch and possibly an assistant commissioner visited the #spycops’ “safe house” sometimes, “John Clinton” tells #SpyCopsInquiry in his statement.

“Generally, they would just come over and tell us what a fine job the unit was doing.”

Sir John Mitting, #SpyCopsInquiry chairman, was unhappy that Rajiv Menon, barrister for several non-state core participants, asked “Peter Fredericks” about this comment by another #spycop in a report: “He has the usual attitude of coloured people towards police and authority.”

“Peter Fredericks” replied: it “could be described as an overly wide brush-stroke.”

Sir John Mitting allowed the qu, but warned not to take it as a precendent.

“I’m not conducting an inquiry into racism in the Metropolitan Police for the last 50 years, I'm looking at the SOS.”

Asked at #SpyCopsInquiry by Ruth Brander, on behalf of Peter Hain and other non-state core participants, whether he thinks intelligence that he gathered on Stop the Tour was passed on beyond MI5 to South African security services, #spycop “Peter Fredericks” replied simply: “No.”

On the issue of #spycops having sexual relationships in their undercover identity, “Peter Fredericks” said: “If you ask me to infiltrate some drug dealers, you can’t point the finger at me if I sample the product...”

“Peter Fredericks” continued, re #spycops having sexual relationships in their undercover identity: “If these people are in a certain environment where it is necessary to engage that little more deeply, then, shall we say, I find this acceptable...”

“... But I do worry about the consequences for the female and any children that may result from the relationship.That would be dangerous. So yes, it shouldn’t be done.”

Comments by “Peter Fredericks” on #spycops having sexual relationships in their undercover identity.

Challenged on his comments by Ruth Brander, “Peter Fredericks” said that he had a “particular regard” for the children and for women who were deceived.

“It can’t be nice, and I think we ought to find a better way than that. But perhaps- my view is perhaps they had no choice.”

Astonishing day of evidence at #SpyCopsInquiry, as covered here by The Guardian...

#Spycops may have had “no choice” but to have sexual relationships with target activists, says ex- #spycop. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/nov/19/police-spies-may-have-had-no-choice-over-sexual-relationships-officer-claims