Hearing transcripts

26 February 2008 - Morning session
 
1 Tuesday, 26th February 2008
2 (9.30 am)
3 (Proceedings delayed)
4 (9.38 am)
5 (Jury present)
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Burnett, bearing in mind that
7 we don't have the videolink, for reasons which we are
8 all aware of, to the annex today and on other occasions
9 this week, it would be very helpful if counsel could
10 introduce themselves when they get up to speak so that
11 it is apparent to anybody in the annex who it is.
12 I should add that I am the Coroner, in case anybody had
13 not appreciated that in the annex.
14 MR BURNETT: I hope they had not thought there was a coup
15 while we were out of sight.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I think it would be helpful then,
17 when somebody gets up, if they want to interrupt in
18 the course of evidence, that they indicate who they are.
19 MR BURNETT: Certainly, sir.
20 MR MANSFIELD: Sir, may I introduce myself as
21 Michael Mansfield to those downstairs?
22 May I raise very briefly -- and I apologise in
23 the presence of the witness just to delay it a fraction.
24 Last week you gave a very clear exhortation to the media
25 about the nature of reporting. I am not going to repeat

1

1 examples that have occurred since. I have handed two in
2 today.
3 We are deeply concerned that the media or some parts
4 of it are not exercising their usual restraint in
5 relation to judicial proceedings and there is a real
6 risk that serious prejudice to the environment in which
7 this inquest is taking place is being created. We would
8 ask that your exhortation is repeated and that, if there
9 are transgressions of any kind, that action is taken.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, Mr Mansfield, I am not
11 going to repeat what I said, which is perfectly clearly
12 on the transcript last week.
13 MR MANSFIELD: Yes.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I am sure that the media ought,
15 by now, to be aware of their responsibilities.
16 MR MANSFIELD: I have handed in the two examples.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I have seen them. Thank you.
18 I call then X.
19 WITNESS X (affirmed)
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Please sit down if you would
21 prefer.
22 A. Many thanks.
23 Questions from MR BURNETT
24 MR BURNETT: Now, my name is Ian Burnett and I shall be
25 asking you questions first on behalf of the Coroner and

2

1 thereafter there will be questions addressed to you by
2 various of the interested persons in court.
3 You are not going to state your full name publicly
4 or for the record, but it is a name that is being made
5 available to the Coroner. That is right, isn't it?
6 A. Yes, that is correct.
7 Q. Although I shall feel uncomfortable calling you
8 "Miss X", I hope you will bear with me and understand
9 why I am doing so.
10 It is right, isn't it, that you joined the Secret
11 Intelligence Service or MI6, as it is more readily
12 known, in 1982?
13 A. Yes, I did, yes.
14 Q. And that you started life there as a PA, a personal
15 assistant, but you left that job behind you some time
16 ago and rose to what you describe as "middle
17 management"?
18 A. Yes, that is right.
19 Q. So you now have over 25 years' service.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, in connection with matters that may be of interest
22 to the jury in these inquests, is it right that you made
23 a statement on 20th December 2007?
24 A. Yes, that is correct.
25 Q. And a supplementary statement at the end of last week,

3

1 or even the beginning of this week, 25th February this
2 year?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Is it right that you have a good knowledge of the way
5 SIS/MI6 works and particularly records and information
6 handling?
7 A. Yes. That would be correct.
8 Q. And that extends both to retrieving material held in
9 the United Kingdom, but also overseas?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. For completeness, is it right that you have worked both
12 overseas for MI6 as well as in head office in London?
13 A. Yes, that is right.
14 Q. Now, your involvement, Miss X, I think comes about in
15 this way: you were the contact point for Lord Stevens
16 and his officers to enable them to carry out such
17 searches as they thought appropriate of MI6 databases
18 and files; is that right?
19 A. Yes, that is right.
20 Q. Just winding back to when that involvement started, is
21 it right that Lord Stevens sent a letter in October 2004
22 seeking the assistance of MI6 and attached to it a very
23 lengthy list of questions and queries?
24 A. Yes, that is right.
25 Q. Were you assigned to look after Lord Stevens and his

4

1 officers and to provide assistance in respect of all
2 those matters?
3 A. Yes, I was.
4 Q. Had you, before your involvement beginning at the end of
5 2004, had any direct connection with or involvement in
6 investigating allegations made by Mr Tomlinson, from
7 whom we have heard?
8 A. Yes -- sorry, could you repeat the question?
9 Q. Of course I will. Before October 2004, when
10 Lord Stevens got in touch, had you had any involvement
11 in investigating allegations made by Richard Tomlinson?
12 A. Not in connection with Lord Stevens' inquiry -- you mean
13 prior altogether, nothing to do with the inquiry?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. Sorry, just to clarify.
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. No, I had not.
18 Q. We will come in a moment to the answers that you provide
19 in respect of a number of Lord Stevens' queries and in
20 particular the detail that you provided to a number of
21 his officers. It is right, isn't it, that two police
22 officers attended SIS on a number of occasions to review
23 material?
24 A. Yes, that is right.
25 Q. And you assisted them by providing access to anything

5

1 that they wished to see?
2 A. Yes, absolutely.
3 Q. Is it right that they spent a total of 18 man days, as
4 you call them, in SIS head office?
5 A. Yes, they spent at least -- as I recall, it was 18 days,
6 yes.
7 Q. What I would like to do for us, with I hope my questions
8 providing a way through, is describe to the jury
9 a little bit about the way MI6 keeps its records and
10 thus how they might be searched and so forth. Are you
11 with me?
12 A. Yes, totally.
13 Q. For your assistance, Miss X, I am going to be using your
14 statement of 20th December 2007, beginning at
15 paragraph 5, as the template for my questions. I am
16 conscious that you provide one or two clarifications and
17 qualifications in your second statement, which no doubt
18 you can pick up as we go along.
19 A. Fine.
20 Q. We are looking in particular at two dates. One, as you
21 know, is 1997, the time of the crash, and the other is
22 a few years earlier, 2003, as witness A would have it --
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: 1993.
24 MR BURNETT: -- sorry, 1993, as witness A would have it,
25 1992 as Mr Tomlinson describes it, in connection with

6

1 a Balkan plot. So we have two quite separate times that
2 we need to consider.
3 Now, even 1997 is a long time ago and electronic and
4 computer capability I would imagine has come on a long
5 way, even within MI6.
6 A. Yes, it has moved on considerably.
7 Q. So we need to understand through you how it is possible
8 to search for material relating to a period when the
9 computerisation was less advanced. Are you with me?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now you describe in your statement, at paragraph 5,
12 something called an "electronic carding system", which
13 was in place in 1997. You say that:
14 "This contains the details of all individuals and
15 organisations that the service has an interest in."
16 A. Yes, that is right.
17 Q. So what I would like to do is explore that first with
18 you, if I may.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. Now the fact that by 1997 it was an electronic carding
21 system would lead me to infer that at some stage before
22 that it was a manual card system. Is that right?
23 A. It was semi-electronic, even some years previously. But
24 certainly in 1997, you were able to search on it in what
25 we would understand now to be electronically.

7

1 Q. I see. Now in describing a "carding system", I am
2 afraid in my mind that brings up an image of a little
3 box full of cards that we are all used to having, at
4 least in the old days. Is that essentially what it is,
5 albeit that it could be searched electronically?
6 A. No. Initially -- and quite a lot of years ago -- we did
7 have almost the sort of flip-books of cards and so on
8 and so forth, but then these were all -- if I am
9 a little bit careful in answering, sir, it is just that
10 I am aware I am not allowed to mention the names of the
11 systems, which makes it a little bit difficult. That is
12 why I am going a little bit slowly.
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We are sympathetic.
14 MR BURNETT: Please take your time. It is very important
15 that we understand what is obviously second nature to
16 you, but alien to us.
17 A. Absolutely, and I will try to get it across.
18 Basically it is a big system of all the contacts
19 within our service, so that covers all the people and
20 all the organisations that we might be interested for
21 one reason or shape or form. So -- do stop me if I go
22 too far in my explanation.
23 Q. Can I tease that out then? People in whom MI6 might be
24 interested, and organisations, no doubt covers a wide
25 range.

8

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. So, again, without straying into particulars -- we will
3 come to some later -- if MI6 had a particular interest
4 in an individual because he was seen as a target, that
5 is someone in respect of whom intelligence was thought
6 desirable, would a card be created for that individual?
7 A. Absolutely.
8 Q. So again, to take a silly example going back 30 years or
9 more, President Brezhnev of the Soviet Union.
10 Presumably that is the sort of person there might have
11 been a card in respect of? I am not asking you to
12 confirm or deny that.
13 A. Yes, confirm that that particular person -- but
14 AN Other, of a particular interest, there would be
15 a card that existed for them.
16 Q. And similarly an organisation. So, again, take
17 a hypothetical example, suppose there were -- and I do
18 not think there is, but suppose there were -- an
19 Tasmanian separatist organisation and you were
20 interested in that, it would have a card?
21 A. Yes, the actual name of the organisation would be there,
22 yes.
23 Q. Similarly, no doubt -- again, no details -- there may be
24 commercial organisations in whom there is an interest
25 for one reason or another?

9

1 A. That would be possible also.
2 Q. So, again, there would also be a card?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Would a card be created in respect of anyone who was an
5 informant or source for MI6?
6 A. Anybody of interest or anybody that crosses the radar
7 would have a card.
8 Q. So it would include that?
9 A. Yes, it would.
10 Q. Again terminology we need to be a bit careful of,
11 I suspect. The word "agent" is flung around in the
12 media in all sorts of different regards. You have SIS
13 officers, people who work for SIS --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. -- but if someone were not employed by SIS, but were
16 working for them informally or ad hoc abroad, similarly
17 a card would be created; is that right?
18 A. Yes, that is correct.
19 Q. So that is anyone in respect of whom there is an
20 interest for all those reasons, and no doubt there may
21 be many more?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now that was electronic in 1997, partially electronic
24 before 1997. So taking ourselves back to those days,
25 the card has a title presumably which is the name of the

10

1 individual organisation or whatever?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. In general terms -- and I do not want you to be more
4 specific than is appropriate -- but in general terms,
5 what type of information is stored or recorded on that
6 card?
7 A. Well obviously sometimes very little information.
8 A name will have cropped up and a card will be generated
9 for that person. So one of the things -- obviously
10 the name of the person will be on the card. Then there
11 will be also a unique serial number on the card that
12 relates directly to that person. Then there might be
13 the date and place of birth, for example, and just --
14 obviously as more information is found out about that
15 person, then the card would have more information on it.
16 But I should stress that that information is kept very
17 tightly and only certain people can access that
18 information.
19 Q. Would the card contain references to other papers held
20 by MI6, other files and so forth?
21 A. Yes. For example, you know, a letter may come in from
22 somewhere and that would also have a unique reference
23 number and that reference number would then be on that
24 card. It will not be absolutely every single reference,
25 but it will be enough references so that once you look

11

1 at that card, you are able to find out the next place to
2 go. So I have looked up so and so, that is great, and
3 now I want to find out more information about them,
4 I can go to it, but again, I should stress, only if
5 I have the correct accesses for that particular area and
6 that particular person.
7 Q. I will ask you to explain that in a moment. But just to
8 make sure we understand this: therefore we have the card
9 for the hypothetical AN Other, if you would prefer,
10 rather than anyone even with a well-known and deceased
11 name, and on that card would be details and entries will
12 be made which cross-refer to other information held by
13 the service?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. So that if somebody goes to the card and is interested
16 in finding out all the detail of contacts or information
17 or intelligence, then the nuts and bolts of it are on
18 the card?
19 A. Yes, they are.
20 Q. Have I understood that correctly?
21 A. Absolutely.
22 Q. You mention that only if a person has the relevant
23 authorisation or clearance is it possible to go to
24 a card and then to go on to other information. That is
25 right, is it?

12

1 A. Yes. Can I elaborate a little on that?
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Please.
3 A. Fine. What we have is a system whereby you obviously
4 have the names and the organisations and so on. Now
5 that is now on desktop, because we have all gone a bit
6 more computerised, so that is on a desktop and I would
7 be able to search on a particular name. However, that
8 is sort of as far as it goes. If it was just AN Other,
9 I might be able to see, oh, AN Other is there. The top
10 of the card would have a name, but then there would be
11 a line and any information that I am not allowed to see
12 would be below the line. So all I would know is okay,
13 fine, there is a card for AN Other, I do not have access
14 to the relevant information. If I then need to get
15 access and am allowed access, then I will go to the desk
16 officer concerned with that and he will give me
17 the access.
18 MR BURNETT: Is that because even though everyone in MI6 has
19 developed vetting and is thus, one hopes, trustworthy,
20 information is only accessible if you need to know it?
21 A. Absolutely. We operate on a terribly important "need to
22 know" basis. So if I am in one area and somebody else
23 is in another, even socially or anything else, we just
24 don't discuss each other's work.
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: The more people who know

13

1 the information, the greater the risk there is --
2 A. Absolutely.
3 MR BURNETT: That there might just be an inadvertent slip of
4 some sort?
5 A. Absolutely.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: And also the risks of perhaps
7 putting two and two together from different places?
8 A. Yes, precisely, sir.
9 MR BURNETT: Am I right in thinking that now, that is to say
10 when you have been looking for Paget from 2004 onwards,
11 it is possible electronically to search the cards?
12 A. Electronically to search the cards, that is correct.
13 Q. So that electronic search enables you to identify with
14 confidence, does it, whether any particular individual
15 or organisation was of interest to the service in any of
16 the senses that we have described and no doubt others?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So that would include, just to go back to it, if
19 somebody had been working informally for the service or
20 providing information or whatever the case might be?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. As far as those cards are concerned, what is
23 the procedure that needs to be gone through to delete
24 them?
25 A. Basically, it is very unusual to delete a card. I can

14

1 only think of one example of why you would, if I may
2 give that as an example.
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. There might be four AN Others, okay -- that is the best
5 way of looking at it -- so when our records management
6 people are entering the information, it becomes
7 apparent, because of the same date and place of birth
8 and so on and so forth, that they have a duplicate card
9 in place. Under those circumstances, obviously it is
10 important for the duplicate to be deleted because
11 otherwise, when you are entering information on the
12 cards, you could find that you have two people, actually
13 they are both the same person, but you have different
14 information perhaps on each card. Then a card would be
15 deleted. But there are only two people in our records
16 management section, the boss and their deputy, who are
17 allowed to do that. That leaves an imprint on the
18 system and it is electronically -- you can tell, and
19 also they keep a note of that separately on paper.
20 Q. So would it be possible for somebody -- forgive my loose
21 language -- to slip into the section and delete a card?
22 A. That would not be possible.
23 Q. It is just not possible?
24 A. Just not possible.
25 Q. If a card were to be deleted using the official route by

15

1 one of the two people you have identified, there would
2 be both an electronic and a paper record that that had
3 happened?
4 A. Yes, and a written record as to why that card was being
5 deleted, even if the reason was duplicate card.
6 Q. So there would be an explanation?
7 A. There would be, yes.
8 Q. I have dwelt rather at length on the cards, but it is
9 important that everyone understands.
10 There is another category of document that you
11 mention in your statement at paragraph 6 and that is
12 service files. Now what were they in 1997 and in the
13 years before?
14 A. Okay, obviously when I first joined the service and for
15 a great many years, we worked from paper files, like
16 I would imagine quite a lot of organisations did. Then,
17 pre-1964 -- and I am afraid my knowledge on the pre-1964
18 is not expert in any way -- it was actually -- some of
19 the archive files were started to be put onto
20 microfiche. Then, in about the mid-1980s, I would say,
21 we started a process of putting a lot of our archived
22 files to begin with onto an optical -- onto a system
23 which you could read on a computer screen.
24 Q. If I ask you to pause there for a second. We will
25 certainly come to that. Just where we are at the

16

1 moment, service files, in general terms, what is on
2 these files? What are they for?
3 A. Okay, right. If you have a file on an individual -- and
4 I think it has been mentioned in this court before so
5 I think I am okay to say this -- then that individual
6 would have a unique reference number. In our language,
7 that is called a "P number". So, for example, AN Other
8 could potentially have a file of their own which would
9 be "P12345", for argument's sake.
10 Q. That P file and number presumably would be noted on the
11 card that we were talking about?
12 A. It would be. In fact on the card, the words would
13 actually be "P number allocated".
14 Q. So there might be files in respect of individuals and
15 they are called "P files"?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. That is an accurate summary, is it?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. We are going to hear from you in a little while about
20 some files concerning an operation which was alluded to
21 by Mr Tomlinson. So would I be right in inferring that
22 any particular operation generates its own files as
23 well?
24 A. Yes, it does, but the actual sequence of numbers used
25 for that file would be slightly different. Rather than

17

1 being a P file, it would be a slightly lengthier file
2 number, depending upon the area relating and the subject
3 matter.
4 Q. So, again, the card dealing with an individual or an
5 organisation would refer to such files as were relevant
6 for that individual or organisation --
7 A. Or organisation, yes.
8 Q. Okay. No doubt you have personnel files and all the
9 usual sorts of things of that nature, but in other areas
10 presumably there are files dealing with topics, one
11 would imagine, if not an operation. Don't go further
12 than you feel safe, but that is probably rather obvious.
13 A. Can I just think about that for a moment? I am thinking
14 about -- yes, topics -- yes, different subjects -- yes,
15 different subjects would be.
16 Q. So those are examples of files that the service held,
17 and you have told us that in the mid-1990s those were
18 paper.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. I think you have explained that the ancient ones, 1964
21 and before, had been put onto microfiche, no doubt to
22 save space --
23 A. Absolutely. That is one of the main reasons.
24 Q. -- and so could be brought up and read.
25 It must follow, I think, that in the mid-1990s

18

1 it was not possible to do a word search electronically
2 and access every file in the system or bunch of files
3 that you were allowed to go to.
4 A. No.
5 Q. So back in those days, just to take an example,
6 a hypothetical example, suppose there were an operation
7 of some sort and the people concerned wanted to look
8 back to related events 10/15/20 years before, how would
9 they go about finding the right files?
10 A. In 1997?
11 Q. In the mid-1990s, yes. I include 1997 as the mid-1990s
12 for these purposes.
13 A. Fine. As I said, the first starting point is our
14 carding system. Then we would go on -- and so now you
15 have established that there is a file on a particular
16 person or organisation, we would then pull -- ask for
17 those files. So we would go to the relevant registry
18 and say -- assuming I have the correct accesses to look
19 at them, and often you would find yourself stumbling
20 back with a great pile of files, yes.
21 Q. Now, another category of documents that we have heard
22 about is telegrams or messages between London on the one
23 hand and officers in embassies abroad. Okay?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I do not know whether it is correct to call them

19

1 telegrams, generally. Is that --
2 A. Telegraphic traffic is fine or telegrams.
3 Q. In the period we are concerned with, the mid-1990s, were
4 those stored electronically?
5 A. Yes -- gosh, it must sound very confusing to anybody.
6 The thing is that obviously anything that happens
7 overseas is recorded in London. So when you are
8 overseas, you don't work in isolation, you are sending
9 in your correspondence the whole time. At the beginning
10 of the 1990s, we started an automated telegram-handling
11 system, which basically means that all our telegraphic
12 traffic was electronic. So that whilst I say in the
13 mid-1990s on a file and stuff like that, you would have
14 your telegrams, your letters and everything else, but
15 post 1997 and what we have now, we have actually been
16 able to access all our telegraphic traffic
17 electronically since 1990. I just want to make that
18 clear because we tend to use that as our form of
19 communication from overseas, obviously because letters
20 take a lot longer.
21 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Is it telegraphic traffic or
22 email traffic now?
23 A. No, we don't use email on the whole because it is
24 subject to classifications and so on. We have email up
25 to a certain classification.

20

1 MR BURNETT: There are no doubt all sorts of precautions
2 that you need to take. But is it then that it comes to
3 this: that all the communications between SIS stations
4 and London that have gone telegraphically from 1990
5 onwards, so that covers the period we are concerned
6 with --
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. -- can be searched electronically?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. That includes a word search?
11 A. That is a word search, yes.
12 Q. But it follows presumably that for paper files from that
13 period, it is not possible to do a word search on all of
14 the content?
15 A. No, only the content post 1990 which was telegraphic,
16 otherwise you would look at it in the same way that you
17 have looked at your paper files previously.
18 Q. All right. So, again, just so that we are clear and can
19 pull this all together, the cards can be searched
20 electronically, even those going back a long way?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. The telegraphic communications can all be searched
23 electronically, going back to 1990?
24 A. From 1990 onwards, yes.
25 Q. But other records or other files that exist from the

21

1 mid-1990s and before cannot be the subject of a word
2 search?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Is there a list of their titles, for example, that can
5 be searched?
6 A. Yes, that is held centrally.
7 Q. So what information goes into the titles?
8 A. Well, for example, if the subject was "Dogs", or -- I do
9 not know, there was a particular Chihuahua or something,
10 so your general area would be "Dogs", and then your
11 slightly more detailed would be -- an awful one to have
12 to spell, Chihuahua -- Labrador, then I would go to
13 a registry and say, "Look, the subject is dogs, it is
14 a particular dog. Can you put in a few word searches
15 into your centrally held system?", and they are
16 excellent, our records management people, very, very
17 talented, and they would say, "Okay, cannot be precise,
18 but try this place, this place and this place".
19 Q. But if you were looking for the word "Bonio" to extend
20 the metaphor for some time in the 1990s, you would not
21 simply be able to type in "Bonio" and up would come ...?
22 A. No.
23 Q. That has all changed more recently, am I right, in that
24 your documents since 2001 have been created and stored
25 electronically and thus, now, it is possible to do

22

1 a very much more thorough word search than was the case?
2 A. Yes, that is correct.
3 Q. Simply to bring this little section to an end, I think
4 you mentioned to us some time ago that rather than using
5 microfiche, old files have been scanned into your system
6 using optical discs of some sort.
7 A. Optical, that is correct.
8 Q. I do not think I need to get a clear explanation of
9 that, but the point is that those cannot be
10 word-searched. That is ease of reading and reviewing
11 and pulling up, rather than word searching?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. I think you were explaining, via the Labrador and
14 Chihuahua example, how the identifying details of the
15 subjects of the paper files have been stored
16 electronically. In terms of how full that is, can you
17 give us a sense?
18 A. Yes, I can. Obviously -- so I want to open a file on
19 dogs, okay, so I will go to our records management
20 people and I will say, "Grateful if you could open this
21 file for me". First of all, they would need to check
22 that there is a good reason to be opening a file on
23 dogs. It must fall in line with the restraints on us.
24 It has to be under a subject that -- I am not explaining
25 that very well, sorry.

23

1 Q. Don't worry. The records management people will not
2 allow you to open a file unless they are satisfied that
3 it is within one of the proper functions of MI6?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. We heard a little bit about those from Sir Richard
6 Dearlove, via the Intelligence Services Act.
7 A. That is correct, yes.
8 Q. So they act as a filter. If someone came forward to
9 open a file on something that was quite outside the
10 proper activities of SIS, they simply would not be
11 allowed --
12 A. No.
13 Q. -- is that how it works?
14 A. You asked for details of what would be held centrally.
15 That would be something along the lines of the subject
16 title, who wanted to open it, the reason for opening it,
17 and then obviously they would then open it with whatever
18 papers and references you had up until that time.
19 Q. Does the same process apply when a card is being created
20 in respect of an individual or organisation?
21 A. You mean the record section actually originating
22 the card?
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. Yes, it does. The only thing I would say is that
25 certainly in the old days and certainly now as well,

24

1 lots of names crop up in documents, and so sometimes you
2 would not necessarily have a total interest in that
3 name, it might be a name that is in association with
4 another name in a document. So our carding people would
5 just ensure that they had put all the names in
6 the system, but, yes, it is subject to all the same
7 restraints.
8 Q. There must be circumstances in which an individual in
9 whom MI6 has an interest, for one of the reasons we have
10 identified, is given a code word or a nickname or
11 whatever. I do not know what you call it.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. How does that work and how would that affect the ability
14 of someone to search the cards for an individual? Are
15 you with me?
16 A. Absolutely. Obviously not -- just if I could think
17 about how to answer that a moment.
18 Not all operations obviously have code words, but
19 some do and it is another level of -- to keep safe the
20 information. So, for example, if you are working in
21 a section, you are not using the numbers, but you are
22 using the code word, and the code word is then allocated
23 by our records management people, who then hold all
24 the relevant details underneath that code word.
25 Q. So, again, just to try to bring it back into the

25

1 examples you were given. You have AN Other, we have
2 been talking about him --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. -- he has a card and it will have various details on it
5 and cross-references to other files.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. But suppose AN Other had a code word -- it does not
8 matter what it is; "Geronimo" -- would that make it
9 impossible for somebody to search for AN Other? In
10 other words, would it stop them from getting to his
11 name?
12 A. I see what you are saying. When you are searching on
13 the card, if the person that you are searching for is
14 perhaps a little bit more sensitive, then all you will
15 get up is literally the unique reference number.
16 The unique reference number will be whatever it is and
17 "phone this particular desk officer", at which point you
18 phone them and they will be able to tell you if a code
19 word exists. But in allocating a code word, the records
20 management still have the list of all the relevant
21 details. So if AN Other is particularly sensitive, they
22 have both paper records and electronic records that
23 AN Other is one and the same as Geronimo in
24 a cross-referenced -- so, for example, if somebody says
25 "Who is Geronimo?", that will lead to AN Other and vice

26

1 versa.
2 Q. The reason I ask is that you are going to tell the jury,
3 I think in a little while, about searches that were made
4 in respect of a number of individuals well known to us
5 now.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I just want to be clear that there is no question in
8 your mind that if those individuals had been given code
9 words or nicknames, that it would have defeated
10 the searching.
11 A. No, it would not have defeated the searching.
12 Q. All right. You tell us -- I am now looking at
13 paragraph 7 and I will take this quite quickly -- that
14 when a document is created, it is given a unique serial
15 number --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- and it is allocated to a file.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So that presumably is supposed to make it foolproof to
20 confusion. If each document has one number, you cannot
21 get them mixed up.
22 A. No.
23 Q. The documents also, I think you tell us, record the date
24 of issue and the person to whom the file number was
25 issued. You explain that the records management system

27

1 is such that it is not possible for officers within SIS
2 to interfere and tamper with it; in other words, people
3 cannot go into it and start changing things. Is that --
4 A. No, they cannot.
5 Q. Again, without giving away any details, why are you
6 confident that that is so?
7 A. Well, one because there are only two people that can
8 actually -- I should say there are only two people that
9 can delete the information. There are more people in
10 fact that can enter the information. But we also
11 have -- we have our records management people, but then
12 we have systems administrators who audit system and
13 security audits. So if things were disappearing,
14 unusual activities would come to people's notice very
15 quickly.
16 Q. Now I would like to ask you a few questions which go
17 back to 1993 and A's minute. I will call it that and
18 you can tell me whether I am giving it the right
19 description. We have heard in evidence a reference to
20 "minutes", "minute boards", "tallies", all of which are
21 frankly quite confusing to the outsider. Now is
22 the same system in place in SIS now or is that ancient
23 history?
24 A. No, that is not the system in place anymore.
25 Q. We will hear from A and others about the events that

28

1 occurred, as he would say in 1993, but what I hope you
2 might be able to help us with is the system that was in
3 place and which might have been followed.
4 The background to these questions is really this: what A
5 says is -- and Sir Richard Dearlove confirmed this in
6 his evidence -- that the proposal was essentially
7 strangled at birth and all copies of the proposal were
8 destroyed and that the proposal never made it to
9 the records section.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. That is essentially, I hope, an accurate summary of what
12 was said. What I hope you might be able to explain to
13 us is why not and at what stage in the process of
14 the creation of any sort of document proposing a plan of
15 any sort it gets to records management, as you call
16 them. All right?
17 A. Fine.
18 Q. First of all, we made a request -- and I am grateful to
19 you for looking something out for us -- whether you
20 could produce a blank minute form and tally board. Is
21 that what it was called?
22 A. We call it a "tally sheet".
23 Q. Even though we are looking at ancient history from your
24 point of view -- and you have managed to do that for us.
25 A. Yes.

29

1 Q. First of all, could we have, Mr Foley -- do you have
2 copies of these? Could we have the minute sheet?
3 This one is not very mysterious, but perhaps you can
4 talk us through it. In the top right-hand corner,
5 we see "File number", "Originator", "Originator's serial
6 number" and "Date".
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Taking those one at a time, "File number", what is that?
9 A. In the case of -- shall we do it with AN Other?
10 Q. Yes please.
11 A. In the case of AN Other, that would be "P/12345".
12 Q. So that is an existing file. Suppose the minute is
13 a brand new idea of some sort, so it does not yet have
14 a particular file.
15 A. It might then appear on a more general file, like
16 the subject of dogs.
17 Q. I see. But that reference to "File number" is
18 a reference to where the minute is expected to end up,
19 is it?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So there might be more than one presumably?
22 A. More than one minute?
23 Q. More than one file.
24 A. Yes, you could copy it to other files for
25 cross-referencing purposes.

30

1 Q. Then "Originator", I guess that is pretty obvious, but
2 tell us anyway.
3 A. The originator would be the officer initiating
4 the minute.
5 Q. So whoever drafted or wrote the minute?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Then his serial number. Again that is pretty obvious,
8 but why is that there?
9 A. The serial number would be the serial number from
10 the tally sheet underneath.
11 Q. We will come to the tally sheet, but is that a numerical
12 identifier of the person concerned?
13 A. Not of the person, of the document.
14 Q. I see. Thank you. Then "Date", I do not need to worry
15 about that. Then the minute is a blank sheet of paper
16 on which you write your idea or proposal or thought,
17 whatever it is?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Addressees on the right-hand side?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Who decides who the addressees are?
22 A. Quite often obviously the officer, but also quite often
23 in conjunction with the personal assistant.
24 Q. Okay. Then if we could go down to the bottom of that
25 same column, we have, on the right-hand side,

31

1 "IMC/Registry".
2 Now, you have told us about the registry. What is
3 "IMC"?
4 A. Am I able to answer that, sir?
5 MR BURNETT: I think it is in your statement -- don't worry.
6 I will try not to --
7 A. No problem. "Information management centre".
8 Q. Is that different from the registry, and, if so --
9 A. "Registry" is the old-fashioned term and "IMC" was
10 the slightly more modern term. Both are on the
11 paperwork.
12 Q. Then "(to be completed by originator)"; what is that
13 referring to? What does he have to do there?
14 A. Meaning he should put which registry on it, so for
15 argument's sake, in this instance, if this is a subject
16 on dogs, there will be a particular registry that deals
17 with dogs and we will then put that registry number down
18 at the bottom.
19 Q. Then if we could look at the bottom on the other side
20 and just talk through it. Now "Instructions to
21 IMC/Registry (tick as appropriate)". That, I think,
22 speaks for itself. Then, under that, various things
23 that are available. Who fills that in?
24 A. What would happen here is that, say the officer
25 concerned -- there were two or three names in

32

1 the minute, then he would underline them -- this is
2 going back a few years -- he would underline them in red
3 pen and then tick this box, so that when it went to
4 registry, the relevant records management person would
5 ensure that that name was entered on the carding system.
6 Q. So for the sake of argument, we have four different
7 people named in the minute --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. -- and each of those individual's cards would be updated
10 to make a reference to the minute; is that how it works?
11 A. Yes, or perhaps a card would be originated for them, if
12 there was not one already there.
13 Q. I am with you. Then "Copy to file ref". That is
14 the second one. What is that about?
15 A. That is simply copying it to other files that it might
16 have some relevance to.
17 Q. "Extract as marked"; which is it?
18 A. "Extract as marked", what that means is in this whole
19 document, if you had three paragraphs, for example, and
20 one paragraph only -- in the spirit of need to know,
21 only one of those paragraphs needed to be copied to
22 another file, it would mean that you would extract that
23 particular paragraph and copy it to the file, not
24 the whole document. So again you keep your need to know
25 within your need to know.

33

1 Q. So if there are four paragraphs, it may be that only
2 paragraph 3 needs to go to the file on Labradors or
3 whatever?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Then the next one, left-hand side, "Transfer to file",
6 what is that about?
7 A. "Transfer to file" is if the officer has got the file
8 wrong entirely and said, "Okay, it should be on this
9 card", and when it gets to registry, registry say, "No,
10 actually, this file would be more appropriate".
11 Q. So that would be the registry dealing with that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And "Section" is simply the bit within SIS that it has
14 come from?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And "Date". So that is a minute sheet and that is the
17 type of minute sheet that was in existence in 1993 or
18 thereabouts.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. All right. We are likely to hear references to white
21 minutes and pink minutes. Does that mean anything to
22 you?
23 A. No, in fact white minutes are formal internal head
24 office correspondence, but they are used for formal
25 documents. Pink memos were A5 in size and used, as

34

1 would suggest, as memos, and they are ephemeral, not to
2 be filed.
3 Q. Not to be filed. Okay. We may hear a little more about
4 that from others, but that is helpful.
5 Could we have the second sheet up?
6 Maybe, Mr Foley, if you are able to zoom in, could
7 you zoom in on the top line first or perhaps just
8 the top two lines first. That will do us.
9 Now this is the tally sheet.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. If I read the instructions:
12 "A movement tally should be completed and amended on
13 [something has come out] before passing this document to
14 the next officer on the distribution.
15 "Please use lower number tally remaining.
16 "If all tallies on this sheet have been used, please
17 complete a blank tally of the same colour."
18 Then something about entering a number.
19 On this sheet we are seeing tallies 9 to 12, but
20 there are in fact 12 tallies, is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now could you just take us through the top two parts of
23 the form, "Examiners" and "Markers"?
24 A. Certainly. So now I have typed up my minute for
25 the officer concerned and -- sorry, I should go back one

35

1 step. There is a minute register held in every section,
2 so I would take the next tally card from the register
3 and I would fill in my details. Then I would take
4 the tally card with the minute and type up the minute.
5 If I was doing it entirely properly, I would then just
6 get this cardboard board, which is a minute board,
7 attach everything to it with a copy of the draft on the
8 back and hand it in to the officer concerned for
9 signature in terms of the top two things here.
10 Then the officer would hand it back to me, and
11 perhaps in some instances there might be further
12 amendments and so on. But if he was content that that
13 was ready to leave the section, this top right-hand
14 corner would be filled out, and that is with the file
15 number and the first addressee it should go to and any
16 copies to other files and the date. I would rip that
17 off, so this corner here (indicates) would rip off, and
18 I would put it in a little container, and registry, once
19 a day, would come and empty out those tallies,
20 the markers' tally. The rest of the minute would then
21 go on its way to the first addressee.
22 Q. All right. What is the purpose of registry collecting
23 up the markers' tally?
24 A. So that once it reaches the registry, the formal details
25 there can be entered onto the system.

36

1 Q. Now the tallies themselves, what are they for?
2 A. The rest of them are for moving -- it sounds so
3 old-fashioned now, but they were for moving the piece of
4 paper around. So in registry they have all the details
5 and then they can see that tally number 1 has gone.
6 That is fine, that has gone to one person. Then tally 2
7 turns up and it has gone to the next person on the list
8 and so on and so forth until all the tallies are used,
9 sometimes depending upon the amount of addressees.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So if a document disappears, you
11 can find out where the last tally was and hopefully find
12 the document?
13 A. Yes. It sounds very old-fashioned, but actually it was
14 an incredibly effective system.
15 MR BURNETT: It also provided a record in the registry of
16 everybody who had seen that document. That was also
17 part of its purpose?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. We are told by A in his statements and a number of other
20 people -- and we will hear from some of them -- that
21 when he put forward his proposal, it was, as colourfully
22 put by Sir Richard Dearlove, I think strangled at birth
23 and all record of it was destroyed. How could that have
24 happened if the document started life as a minute with
25 a tally board behind it?

37

1 A. Yes. What would have happened is -- well, on the
2 information I know, what I am assuming happened was that
3 the markers tally was put in the little box and
4 the minute was probably handed onto -- the next
5 addressee could have been somebody sitting in the room
6 with witness A, the author, for example. So it would
7 have gone like that.
8 My understanding is, not surprisingly, the first
9 person will have looked at it and said, "Ugh" -- as XE
10 said, strangled at birth -- "God, what's this?", and
11 will have gone back and found out more about it, at
12 which stage the markers tally and everything to do with
13 it -- this is still in place, more or less, apart from
14 the corner which was taken out, but the corner is still
15 sitting in the box in the room. It has not gone
16 anywhere. It has not physically left to go to
17 a registry to be formally logged.
18 So at that point, if you are told, "Look, this is
19 absolute rubbish, get rid of it", that would not have
20 been entirely unusual. Sometimes drafting was
21 absolutely rubbish and we would have to start again. So
22 then we would destroy that, no problem, go to the box,
23 take back the little corner, staple it back on, Tippex
24 out the information -- now in reverse -- go back to
25 the minute register and put a line through and

38

1 "canceled", and then put the board back and then that
2 board would be reissued. But if you were to look at
3 the minute register, there would be a line through
4 saying "canceled" and then you would continue from
5 there.
6 Q. So that process could only happen if the marker corner
7 had not been collected and taken off to registry?
8 A. Yes. To be honest, those marker tallies could sit with
9 you for at least a day, but until -- we would not
10 consider something to be a formal piece of
11 correspondence until those details were entered into
12 the system.
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Would it make any difference if
14 the document had gone out of the room and into another
15 room, for example, where the line manager was?
16 A. No, it would not have made any difference, sir.
17 MR BURNETT: Have you personally ever known such a thing
18 happen? You mentioned shoddy drafting as an example,
19 but have you ever known it happen?
20 A. I am having to cast my mind back quite a long way here,
21 but I do recall times when I used to have to type these,
22 and I would type something on a Monday, but we were
23 still waiting for another pertinent piece of information
24 and then, when we got that information, it changed
25 the entire meaning of the piece of paper. So this made

39

1 no sense anymore and then I would originate a new
2 document, again Tippexing out the yellow markers copy
3 and re-using it for a new subject.
4 Q. So it is something that you have personal experience of
5 having seen?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I will move on if I may to one or two other questions
8 surrounding this. What would happen to a handwritten
9 draft of a document that was then typed up as a minute?
10 I do not know, did you use dictaphones in the mid-1990s
11 or did most officers scribble something out and it would
12 be typed up?
13 A. Most officers drafted on paper.
14 Q. So what would happen to their drafting notes?
15 A. Once you handed in the board, the draft would be put on
16 the back of the board with a line through it. Once the
17 minute was sent on its way, you would destroy the draft.
18 Q. How would you destroy it?
19 A. Normally by ripping it into four and putting it into
20 a bag which is used for classified waste.
21 Q. So there is a system in place for destroying such
22 material in SIS --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- then as now?
25 A. Now -- we used our destruction bags a lot more then.

40

1 Nowadays it is shredders because it saves on all the --
2 Q. It may not matter whether things were ripped in four or
3 shredded. We are going to hear from others, including
4 the PA who typed it.
5 A. I should just say that some sections even then did have
6 shredders, but they were not as commonplace as now.
7 Q. And even the shreddings presumably needed to be disposed
8 of securely?
9 A. Yes, they did.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I think they have rather more
11 sophisticated shredders nowadays, haven't they?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR BURNETT: So by the mechanism that you have described, is
14 it your evidence that it would be possible for the
15 minute to be created, attached to a board in the way
16 that you have described and strangled at birth and,
17 thus, there be no official record of it?
18 A. Yes. It would not be that unusual.
19 Q. All right. Moving on if I may to the assistance that
20 you provided to Lord Stevens' team. I am looking, just
21 to assist you, at page 6, paragraph 9 of your main
22 statement.
23 Were Lord Stevens' officers denied access to
24 anything they wished to see?
25 A. No, they were not.

41

1 Q. You have described a system of access to documents which
2 is very tightly controlled. You have told us about the
3 two people who have unrestricted access in the records
4 management section.
5 A. Yes. There are in fact -- yes, probably more than two
6 people that are in the records management section, but
7 yes.
8 Q. But only two who would have unrestricted access. Is
9 that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Within SIS, did anyone else have unrestricted access to
12 the whole of the information, electronic and paper, that
13 is contained there?
14 A. Yes. Obviously -- am I able to answer this in terms
15 of -- I can say the three most senior members of our
16 organisation.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
18 MR BURNETT: I am looking again -- I do not want to lead you
19 into error, as it were, but I am looking at the middle
20 of your paragraph 9, where you identify the chief -- and
21 we heard from an ex-chief last week -- and you identify
22 two other very senior people in MI6 who have such
23 access.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. It is called what?

42

1 A. "God's access".
2 Q. So there is a very small number of people who have God's
3 access to information within SIS.
4 To enable proper searches to be made by you and by
5 Paget, what arrangements were made?
6 A. What happened was that obviously, when the Paget team
7 came in, it became very obvious to me very early on that
8 the amount of paperwork that they wanted to look at --
9 bearing in mind that for some of our documents, each
10 document has its own access, not even a whole file --
11 it is this document and this document -- it was very
12 important that we could show them documents quickly and
13 they could just get on with it. So, rather unusually --
14 and I do not think it happens very often -- my director
15 said, "Okay, fine, no problem, I will give you the
16 accesses and you just show them everything that they
17 would wish to look at".
18 Q. So essentially you got God's access too?
19 A. I got God's access and it bypassed the need to clear
20 individual documents.
21 Q. Which otherwise would have been a hugely time-consuming
22 exercise?
23 A. Very.
24 Q. You would still be at it probably?
25 A. I would still be at it actually, yes, I would.

43

1 Q. Can I turn then to some categories of document and
2 information that you were asked about. Again, if you
3 could just explain to the jury what happened.
4 Is it right that Lord Stevens asked questions about
5 the telegraphic traffic between London and Paris?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Did he identify in particular the period between
8 14th July 2007 and 14th September 2007 as being of
9 interest?
10 A. Yes, that is correct -- sorry, 1997.
11 Q. That is my fault, really, but it is also a typo in
12 the statement.
13 A. It is also my typo, I think.
14 Q. I will put the question again so there is no confusion.
15 Did they identify the period 14th July 1997 to
16 4th September 1997 --
17 A. Yes, they did.
18 Q. They explained, did they, that they wished to look at
19 this period because it took them back to the beginning
20 of Princess Diana's holiday in St Tropez and took them
21 beyond the crash?
22 A. That is correct.
23 Q. You tell us that there were 887 telegrams in all in that
24 period.
25 A. Yes, that is correct.

44

1 Q. And they were all extracted and put into numerical
2 order, is that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And they were gone through by Metropolitan Police
5 officers?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And they included a small number of personal emails?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And the officers went through them all, and so far as
10 you are aware, there was nothing relevant in them at
11 all?
12 A. No, and both the Coroner and the Paget team looked at
13 all of that telegraphic traffic.
14 Q. I see. So more recently you have made the same pile of
15 telegrams available to the Coroner to go through?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And there is nothing in them whatsoever as far as you
18 are concerned?
19 A. No, nothing whatsoever.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: The question that the jury might
21 like to know the answer to -- I think they were all
22 numbered sequentially.
23 A. Yes.
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: -- but what is there to say that
25 everything that was shown to Paget and the Coroner might

45

1 not have included 493A, which was the really interesting
2 one, which did not appear between 493 and 494?
3 A. Yes. The telegram numbers are automatically generated
4 by the system, so that if somebody tried to insert an
5 "A" or -- well the "A" would not have been there to take
6 out. I am not explaining myself very well. It would be
7 enormously difficult because they are automatically
8 generated, therefore there would be the gap.
9 MR BURNETT: Does it follow that you are confident that both
10 the police officers and also the Coroner saw each and
11 every one?
12 A. I am absolutely certain that they saw each and every
13 one.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: There were a lot of them.
15 A. There were a lot of them.
16 MR BURNETT: 887, I hope it was an interesting read, sir.
17 Did you also check whether Paris had any records
18 that were not available to you in London?
19 A. Yes. That was very much belt and braces. It would have
20 been highly unusual for them to have any records, but
21 just to be absolutely clear, I did speak to them and
22 they did not have any that we did not have in London.
23 Q. So that is the telegraphic traffic over the relevant
24 period.
25 A. Yes.

46

1 Q. I would like to ask you next about the Ritz Hotel. Now,
2 Lord Stevens said he was interested in references to
3 the Ritz Hotel, didn't he?
4 A. Yes.
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: The Ritz Hotel, Paris?
6 MR BURNETT: Yes, although I think it is right that your
7 search was wider in that you looked for the Ritz
8 Hotel --
9 A. The Ritz Hotel worldwide, yes.
10 Q. Lord Stevens' interest, as the Coroner indicates, was in
11 the Paris Ritz.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. If there had been a particular interest in the hotel as
14 such, would it have had a card?
15 A. No, it would have been highly unusual for a hotel to
16 have a card because obviously the card would probably be
17 for an individual within the hotel rather than the hotel
18 itself.
19 Q. Now you tell us in paragraph 12 of your statement that
20 you searched the system for all the times the words
21 "Ritz Hotel" had appeared in a document.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You also explained that you did not in fact limit it to
24 Paris; you looked for "Ritz Hotel" and so threw up
25 references to Ritz Hotels --

47

1 A. Everywhere.
2 Q. -- all over the place.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You describe carrying out the widest possible search,
5 which is 99 years. What does that mean?
6 A. I think actually the way I have written that could be
7 quite confusing. I have just said that the system that
8 you can search on was only in place from 2001, so when
9 we say "the last 99 years", it is a default on the
10 system and it means that -- it ensures that you get
11 the widest possible search because, of course, you have
12 got telegrams in there from the 1990s and so on, but
13 the way it defaults when you want your widest possible
14 search is to 99 years. I am sorry if there was any
15 ambiguity over that.
16 Q. It is quite important then that we understand what it is
17 was actually searched for the words "Ritz Hotel".
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Obviously any documents after 2001 because all of those
20 are electronically searchable.
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. But those are not, with respect, of much interest to us.
23 A. No.
24 Q. Otherwise electronically searchable, all telegrams from
25 1990?

48

1 A. Yes, all telegraphic traffic.
2 Q. All telegraphic traffic from 1990. Would your
3 electronic search have included the content of cards?
4 A. In this particular instance, no.
5 Q. So unless there were a card entitled "Ritz Hotel" or
6 that had "Ritz Hotel" in its title, you would not have
7 picked up an incidental reference to a Ritz Hotel in
8 a card?
9 A. No, I would not.
10 Q. All right. So for the period that we are concerned
11 with, the 1990s essentially, your electronic search was
12 really limited to telegraphic communications?
13 A. Yes, it was. I should just emphasise there that
14 the only real other paperwork that was not checkable,
15 was not word-searched, would have been the head office
16 correspondence. So, for example, in the mid-1990s, say
17 the minutes in connection with a subject; but for head
18 office to be dealing with a country, a capital overseas,
19 we would be using the telegraphic traffic system and
20 therefore any important -- and when I say "important",
21 even fairly unimportant work would have been covered by
22 the telegraphic traffic.
23 Q. Now I asked you about cards. I think you have told us
24 that you can electronically search the name of
25 individuals or organisations or companies, whatever, who

49

1 would have their own cards.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Although you say that it would be very unusual for
4 a hotel to have a card, can we be sure that there is no
5 such card therefore?
6 A. There is no such card there for the Ritz Hotel.
7 Q. I think you also told us a few minutes ago that
8 the titles of files can be searched electronically; even
9 those that go back a long way.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So does it follow that your electronic search also
12 included all file titles?
13 A. Yes, yes, it did.
14 Q. So the numbers we are going to speak of in a moment
15 might have been generated from file titles or from
16 telegraphic communication or generally from the files
17 after 2001?
18 A. Yes I need -- the hits don't actually refer to
19 the titles as such. For titles of files or titles of
20 papers?
21 Q. No -- well this is what I want to be clear about.
22 A. Precisely.
23 Q. What I am trying to explore with you is to understand
24 precisely what was searched and, thus, to be clear what
25 was not searched electronically, because it could not

50

1 be, for the words "Ritz Hotel". Are you with me?
2 A. Yes. Okay, in this instance I searched for separate
3 files. I went to the relevant registry -- sorry,
4 the records management people and said "I need to check
5 on all the files that might have hotels, hotels which
6 might contain the Ritz". That was my physical -- trying
7 to search the paperwork that we hold in London.
8 This research is on the electronic system, including
9 all the telegrams, and the 985 hits refer to everything
10 left, basically.
11 Q. Stripping that aside, the physical searches that you
12 made, you said you went to the registry and asked about
13 hotels and so forth. So you are giving a clear example
14 which is similar to the dog one you gave us a little bit
15 earlier. What happened? You set the parameters, did
16 you, and they went off looking? Is that how it worked?
17 A. Yes. It was terribly important to us that everything
18 possible was searched. Obviously, when you cannot
19 search electronically, you have to use a certain amount
20 of -- not imagination, that is the wrong word totally --
21 but I went to the records management and said "Let's
22 suppose there was a hotel, let's suppose it was in
23 Paris, let's suppose it was the Ritz", et cetera, and
24 tried for them to search on their file subject headings
25 for each of those sort of combinations.

51

1 Q. Did they produce anything following that research?
2 A. No, they did not.
3 Q. There was nothing they found.
4 A. So there was no place I could then take it to go and
5 look for a particular file. However, any piece of
6 paper -- and particularly I want to emphasise the
7 telegraphic paper -- I was able to search on the
8 electronic system, and that is why there is so many
9 hits, because if you put in "Ritz" and "hotel", you do
10 get -- well, 985 hits. It was a lot of pieces of paper.
11 Q. That is the telegraphic communications worldwide?
12 A. Yes, everything.
13 Q. So you have told us there were 985 hits worldwide where
14 the word "Ritz" appeared?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you provided a list of those to the police officers?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And the list showed dates of issue, reference number and
19 the location of the originator?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In other words, where the telegraphic communication had
22 come from?
23 A. Yes, and also the subject heading.
24 Q. Did any of those 985 hits come from Paris?
25 A. During the period in 1997 -- and obviously the team were

52

1 particularly interested in 1997 -- there were two hits
2 that originated in Paris.
3 Q. Which month in 1997 did they relate to?
4 A. Let me just check, but -- it was November.
5 Q. Were those documents then looked out and seen by
6 the police officers?
7 A. Yes, they were, and one has in fact been handed into
8 the court.
9 Q. The other one the officers were not interested in,
10 essentially?
11 A. No.
12 Q. We will just have a quick look at the one you have
13 provided to us.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Burnett, when we reach
15 a convenient moment, we will have to have our morning
16 break.
17 MR BURNETT: I had rather lost track of time. Forgive me,
18 sir.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We take a short break now to give
20 everyone a rest, including the shorthand writers.
21 (11.00 am)
22 (A short break)
23 (11.16 am)
24 (Jury present)
25 MR BURNETT: Sir, we were about to look at one of the

53

1 telegrams from November 1997. Mr Foley has the INQ
2 number and it is coming up now.
3 Perhaps I can just read it and ask you some
4 questions as we go along. I think it will be the first
5 and probably the only one of these that we will see.
6 It is described as a "in telegram", which we assume
7 means coming into London headquarters.
8 A. Coming in from Paris, yes.
9 Q. It is from Paris to London. The date we see is
10 5th November 1997.
11 If we could go down, those parts that have not been
12 redacted say this:
13 "Witness 7 spoke to DST [and we have heard who they
14 are] on 4th November and saw him the following morning.
15 The Ritz was still crawling with members of the
16 Brigade Criminelle of the Police Judiciaire
17 investigating the Princess of Wales' death."
18 Then there is a comment made, this presumably by
19 witness 7, who sent this.
20 A. Yes, that is correct.
21 Q. "Presumably, as head of security there, Henri Paul had
22 been a contact of DST and they would have such
23 a capacity again."
24 So this is a telegram, and it was your electronic
25 search of all telegrams that threw up the word "Ritz"

54

1 that we saw in paragraph 2?
2 A. That is correct. I should just say that it would
3 also -- you would pick it up on Henri Paul as well in
4 a different search.
5 Q. We will come to that in a few moments.
6 Now, as a result of the searches you made
7 electronically and also the inquiries that you made
8 through the records management people, what conclusion
9 do you draw about whether MI6 had any source or contact
10 employed at the Ritz in Paris in the mid-1990s and
11 particularly 1997?
12 A. With regards to the comment in the telegram?
13 Q. No, no. Leaving the telegram aside, just generally.
14 A. Sorry, I misunderstood.
15 Q. You have told us you have done the searches
16 electronically of all the telegraphic traffic and you
17 have also searched manually or had the records
18 management people search manually looking for relevant
19 material --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- and nothing has been thrown up for the relevant
22 period. What does that lead you to conclude on
23 the question of whether MI6 had a contact or member of
24 staff working for it at the Ritz in 1997?
25 A. That we did not have a member of staff or contact or

55

1 anyone working at the Ritz in 1997.
2 Q. Moving on, you were asked also by Lord Stevens to search
3 for Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Al Fayed. That
4 is right, isn't it?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. This you deal with in paragraph 13 of the statement,
7 just to assist you.
8 A. Thank you.
9 Q. Did you search the carding system?
10 A. Yes, I did.
11 Q. So if either had been of interest to the service, there
12 would have been a card?
13 A. Yes, that is correct.
14 Q. Was there?
15 A. No, there were no cards.
16 Q. And what other searches did you carry out?
17 A. In respect of Diana, Princess of Wales, and
18 Dodi Al Fayed, obviously different searches on their
19 name, different combinations of their names. At one
20 point obviously Diana was "Diana Spencer", and so
21 I checked on all the relevant possible computations of
22 the names.
23 Q. Now in putting in "Diana", "Frances", which was her
24 middle name, "Spencer" and "Wales", no doubt that
25 produced various hits.

56

1 A. Yes, it did.
2 Q. But did any of them relate to Diana, Princess of Wales?
3 A. No, none of them did.
4 Q. And similarly for Dodi?
5 A. No, none at all.
6 Q. So no cards on either and no files on either?
7 A. No, absolutely correct.
8 Q. As far as Mr Mohamed Al Fayed is concerned, I think
9 it is right that Lord Stevens did not particularly ask
10 about Mr Al Fayed Senior, but you nonetheless ran
11 checks.
12 A. Yes. There was a question with regard to monitoring, so
13 I checked in so much as to whether or not there was any
14 monitoring and no, there was not.
15 Q. Did you also check to see if there was a file on him,
16 a P file?
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 Q. And was there?
19 A. No, there is not.
20 Q. Did you check to see whether there was a card relating
21 to him?
22 A. Yes, I did.
23 Q. Was there?
24 A. Yes, there is.
25 Q. When was it created?

57

1 A. May I just check back? It was in the 1980s.
2 Q. It is paragraph 14 of your statement. I am not trying
3 to catch you out.
4 A. Not at all. It was created in the 1980s.
5 Q. Did you check its content?
6 A. Yes, I checked the content and also the Paget team had
7 access to everything in relation to that card.
8 Q. Were there any entries at all for 1997?
9 A. No, not on the -- no, there were not.
10 Q. Such entries as there were before then, did any of them
11 relate to either Dodi Al Fayed or the Princess of Wales?
12 A. No, they did not.
13 Q. Did you show the Paget team the card and the related
14 documents?
15 A. Yes, I did.
16 Q. Did you also search your system for Mr Al Fayed's name
17 to see whether it appeared in other documents?
18 A. Yes, on our electronic filing system, yes I did.
19 Q. So, again, this would have been telegraphic material
20 going back to 19 --
21 A. Early 1990s and any other correspondence post 2001.
22 Q. Did his name crop up?
23 A. Yes, it did.
24 Q. Are you able to tell us when the earliest reference was
25 in that material?

58

1 A. Yes, I can. It was in July; July 1994.
2 Q. That is a date, just so that we are clear, that you have
3 corrected. Originally in your statement you had
4 indicated August 1998, but you have corrected that in
5 your later statement to July 1994.
6 A. Yes. Would there be any mileage in just explaining why
7 I have made that error, because it would take me a very
8 little bit of time, for the jury --
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
10 MR BURNETT: Please do.
11 A. Obviously I wrote this statement. I had help with it,
12 but it was mainly my statement. When the Paget team
13 came in to check everything, they saw everything going
14 back to July 1994 or had access to. On our electronic
15 system, when I went back to put in correct dates for my
16 statement, I put the details in, "Mr Mohamed Al Fayed",
17 et cetera, and the hits came up, but what I did not --
18 I probably did it in too much of a hurry, and
19 unfortunately, of course, I do not have my God's access
20 anymore, so I should have pressed a button and then it
21 would have shown me what the sort of potential hits were
22 above, and so I just read the one in the top line and
23 that was 12th August, but I think there were -- I cannot
24 be absolutely precise -- very few above, the first of
25 which was July 1994, hence the reason, but entirely my

59

1 mistake.
2 Q. So far as any hits were concerned in 1997, so we are
3 still looking at Mr Mohamed Al Fayed, did they post-date
4 the crash or pre-date the crash?
5 A. They post-dated the crash.
6 Q. Dealing with some general matters that Lord Stevens
7 asked you about and which may well be that the answers
8 flow from what you have told us -- let's just see
9 whether I am right -- if, for the sake of argument,
10 there had been any plan at all involving Diana,
11 Princess of Wales, and Dodi Al Fayed, would that have
12 been thrown up by your searches?
13 A. Yes, it would.
14 Q. Do you thus conclude that there was none?
15 A. There was absolutely no plan whatsoever.
16 Q. Similarly, had there been any monitoring of any sort or
17 surveillance of any sort, would that have shown up in
18 the records?
19 A. Yes, it would.
20 Q. And there was none?
21 A. There was none.
22 Q. Sir Richard Dearlove told us that he was confident that
23 SIS were not eavesdropping/monitoring anything at all,
24 surveillance to do with Diana and Dodi, and is that --
25 A. No, nothing whatsoever.

60

1 Q. And you can confirm that?
2 A. I can confirm that.
3 Q. Had there been any MI6 interest in the relationship
4 between Dodi and Diana, would that have shown up in the
5 records?
6 A. Yes, it would.
7 Q. And there was nothing?
8 A. It is not that I am trying to be rude in any way, there
9 was just no interest. It is not our sort of thing.
10 Q. Therefore, the records, do they or do they not confirm
11 Sir Richard Dearlove's evidence that SIS simply had no
12 interest whatsoever in Dodi or in Diana or in them
13 jointly?
14 A. No, we had no interest whatsoever.
15 Q. As far as Henri Paul is concerned -- again, perhaps
16 we can take this quite quickly -- did you check to see
17 whether there was a card for Henri Paul?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. Was there?
20 A. Yes, there was. The card was originated -- as you can
21 see from this telegram of 5th November, that has
22 the "Henri Paul" name in it and so the card was created
23 as a result of this entry on the telegram.
24 Q. So we looked at the telegram, and that was
25 5th November 1997?

61

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. The reference came about because of information picked
3 up by someone in Paris long after the crash?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. So that is an example, is it, of how a card might come
6 to be created --
7 A. Yes, exactly.
8 Q. -- and in this instance, even in respect of someone who
9 has sadly already died?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Does it follow, then, that there was no card in
12 existence for Henri Paul before 5th November?
13 A. No, there was not a card for him pre.
14 Q. Had he been of interest to SIS or in any way worked for
15 SIS, would there have been a card?
16 A. Yes, there definitely would have been a card.
17 Q. Similarly, did you look to see if there was a P file on
18 Henri Paul?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. And was there?
21 A. No, there was not.
22 Q. Did you carry out similar inquiries in respect of
23 James Andanson?
24 A. Yes, I did.
25 Q. With what result?

62

1 A. Nil results.
2 Q. So no card and --
3 A. I am so sorry, no card and no file.
4 Q. Thus, what is your conclusion in respect of a suggestion
5 that Andanson was in touch in some way with SIS?
6 A. He could not have been in touch with us without me
7 finding a reference to him within one of our databases.
8 Q. Did you also do a similar search in respect of His Royal
9 Highness, the Duke of Edinburgh?
10 A. I did.
11 Q. With what result?
12 A. No, result at all.
13 Q. So, similarly, he does not have a card nor does he have
14 a P file?
15 A. I would like to say at this stage, sir, that we don't
16 hold either cards or files on the Royal Family. I could
17 do a search on all of them.
18 Q. You have nothing?
19 A. No.
20 Q. So as far as the Duke of Edinburgh is concerned, you say
21 in your statement that you are aware that he
22 occasionally made official visits to the service --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- but that that would not generate a card.
25 A. No, it would not, no.

63

1 Q. You made similar searches in respect of
2 Trevor Rees-Jones, as he was then known,
3 Alexander Wingfield who we know as "Kes Wingfield" and
4 Ben Murrell; all of those also negative?
5 A. All negative.
6 Q. I will not take you through the details.
7 Then you arranged for interviews to be carried out
8 by Paget of staff who were serving in Paris at the time.
9 That is right, isn't it?
10 A. Yes, correct.
11 Q. That was facilitated. Did you also do searches in
12 respect of all the paparazzi that we know of -- this is
13 paragraph 25 of your statement -- Serge Arnal,
14 Nikola Arsov, Serge Benhamou, Fabrice Chassery,
15 Stephane Darmon, Jacques Langevin, Christian Martinez,
16 David Odekerken, Romuald Rat and Laslo Veres?
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 Q. Similarly the result?
19 A. There was no result on any of those individuals.
20 Q. There was a suggestion running around at one stage that
21 SIS engaged or had in its pay a mystery paparazzo.
22 We have heard from the police, through
23 Inspector Carpenter, that the person was in fact called
24 "Colm Pierce", an Irish national rather than a British.
25 Did you, for good measure, run a search on him?

64

1 A. Yes I did.
2 Q. Was it positive or negative?
3 A. It was negative.
4 Q. There was one other name that you were asked to deal
5 with for Lord Stevens and it is a name that we have not
6 yet heard, but I will get your evidence if I may on the
7 result.
8 This is Jason John Fraser. It is in paragraph 26 of
9 your statement.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. What was the position as far as he was concerned?
12 A. I was asked to put "Jason John Fraser" through our
13 system, and in fact, I did get one -- what I would call
14 one trace on him, but it was not in relation to him but
15 in relation to a relative of his. So it was just along
16 the lines of -- yes, relative of ... and that is how his
17 name cropped up.
18 Q. Without going into great detail, was it at one time
19 considered at least possible that a contact might be
20 made with his relative?
21 A. It was considered at one time, but in fact no contact
22 was ever made.
23 Q. And it had nothing to do with Mr Al Fayed or his family?
24 A. It had nothing to do with Mr Al Fayed and his family.
25 Q. Did you, for good measure, also run a check on Harrods?

65

1 A. Yes, I did.
2 Q. Was there any trace of SIS having sources or contacts or
3 others employed at Harrods?
4 A. No, there were not.
5 Q. I think you did have a number of hits.
6 A. Yes, I did, in relation to gift hampers.
7 Q. Yes. I suppose we can infer then that SIS bought
8 hampers from Harrods.
9 A. Where people had purchased Harrods gift hampers, yes.
10 Q. I do not know if that will give comfort to Mr Al Fayed
11 or not.
12 The inquiries extended also, didn't they, to
13 the question of whether the Paris station owned or hired
14 or used a white Fiat Uno in August 1997. Did you make
15 inquiries about that?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. What was the answer to that one?
18 A. There was no white Fiat Uno at the Paris station. They
19 did not have access to a vehicle of that kind.
20 Q. Were you also asked whether there was any communication
21 between SIS, that is MI6, and the Security Service or
22 MI5 relating to the crash?
23 A. Yes, I was asked that.
24 Q. Was there any?
25 A. No.

66

1 Q. Were you asked whether there was any communication with
2 other intelligence services concerning the crash; for
3 example the American intelligence services and
4 the French?
5 A. Yes, I was.
6 Q. What was the answer to that?
7 A. There was not anything before the crash.
8 Q. Next can I ask you about matters that arise from an
9 allegation that Mr Tomlinson has made and which the jury
10 has heard?
11 He referred to an operational file. He gave it
12 the name "battle", which we understand is not its
13 correct name, and he thought that he had read something
14 about a security manager or someone of that sort at
15 the Paris Ritz being in contact with SIS. That is
16 the context.
17 A. That is the context, yes.
18 Q. Now you have already told us that there is nothing about
19 Henri Paul and nothing about the Ritz at all. So we can
20 leave that evidence where it is. But did you identify,
21 through the description that Tomlinson gave, the
22 operation and the files to which he was referring?
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. Were all those files looked out?
25 A. Yes, they were.

67

1 Q. Were they all provided to the Metropolitan Police?
2 A. Yes, they were.
3 Q. Am I right in thinking that they ran from October 1984
4 through to August 1994?
5 A. Yes, I wonder if I might just ask for the page number.
6 Q. It is page 13, paragraph 22(b).
7 A. Thank you very much. Yes, that is correct about
8 the dates.
9 Q. There was a total of 11,674 pages which the police
10 officers waded through?
11 A. Yes, they checked every single piece of paper.
12 Q. Did you have to do the same or did you cheerfully leave
13 it to them?
14 A. No, I did the same.
15 Q. Is it right that within those 11,674 pages, there were
16 two references to the Paris Ritz?
17 A. Yes, there were.
18 Q. Was either concerned with a security manager or security
19 officer?
20 A. No, neither of the two hits, no.
21 Q. What were they concerned with?
22 A. It was something to do with a telephone number.
23 Q. And that was it?
24 A. That was it.
25 Q. You will remember that Mr Tomlinson explained that he

68

1 had a recollection of a reference to flying and that
2 that caught his eye --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. -- because he also, it appears, is a flyer. As a result
5 of that, did you conduct any other search?
6 A. Yes. In fact it was not one of the original questions
7 in Lord Stevens' letter, but different inquiries that
8 the Paget team made obviously prompted more inquiries.
9 One of the things they asked me to do was to try to put
10 in the words "French", "Ritz", "security" and "flying",
11 to see if there was any combination of those four words
12 that might crop up on a search. In fact there were 39
13 hits of some combination of that kind.
14 Q. So that is very similar to a sort of Google search that
15 any of us might do?
16 A. Absolutely.
17 Q. So there were 39 hits. Again, you are searching your
18 electronically searchable databases at this stage?
19 A. Yes, that is correct.
20 Q. Did any of them relate to anyone working at the Ritz?
21 A. No, they did not.
22 Q. Just two or three more topics.
23 Is it right that during the investigation by
24 the Metropolitan Police, you were also asked about
25 strobe lights?

69

1 A. Yes, I was.
2 Q. You are aware, I am sure, that one of Mr Tomlinson's
3 suggestions is that he saw a strobe light or bright
4 light of some sort when he was undergoing SIS training.
5 A. Yes, that is correct.
6 Q. Were you able to identify when Mr Tomlinson did his
7 training? I am looking at paragraph 33 of your
8 statement to jog your memory.
9 A. That is a matter of record. His course ran from
10 September to February.
11 Q. September 1991 to February 1992?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Was it then part of the training that those undergoing
14 it would spend a day with the Special Boat Service?
15 A. They would have various briefings, yes.
16 Q. And that would be one of them?
17 A. That would be one of them, yes.
18 Q. You have checked the records and they don't show
19 anything more detailed of what occurred?
20 A. No, I am afraid they don't, no.
21 Q. Had you undergone similar training or been involved in
22 training at about that time or just before?
23 A. I have been involved in training, yes.
24 Q. When were you involved in training?
25 A. Sort of intermittently over the years.

70

1 Q. But were you involved in training at the end of the
2 1980s, so just before Mr Tomlinson joined the service?
3 A. Yes, I was.
4 Q. Did you work on that initial training course?
5 A. I was involved with that, yes.
6 Q. In that capacity, did you attend the SBS briefing?
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. On how many occasions?
9 A. Over the next two or three years, probably about three
10 or four times, something like that, at that stage, and
11 then also on other occasions.
12 Q. What you say in your statement, if I can remind you, is
13 that you went on two occasions in the late 1980s, which
14 we will come on to a bit later.
15 Were any strobe lights used or shown to you?
16 A. No, they were not.
17 Q. Was there anything of a bright flashing loud nature
18 shown?
19 A. Yes, the only thing that I could recall, when trying to
20 think "I wonder what Mr Tomlinson might have meant", was
21 that they do use sort of those pyrotechnic kind of --
22 I only know them as "flash bangs". You sort of chuck
23 them in a room to disorientate people and so on. They
24 are little fireworky things.
25 Q. You attended again later in the 1990s, did you?

71

1 A. Yes, I did.
2 Q. And were you shown strobe lights or flashing lights?
3 A. No, I was not, no.
4 Q. The last topic, if I may, which I think I can take
5 pretty quickly, concerns a document that was produced
6 last week, which was an account by witness A, who put
7 forward the memorandum in 1992/1993, which predated by
8 many years the witness statement that he gave to the
9 Metropolitan Police officers.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now I think it is right that you were never asked to
12 produce any earlier accounts of witnesses to the
13 Metropolitan Police --
14 A. No, I was not.
15 Q. -- nor indeed to the inquests. But when did you first
16 become aware of that account?
17 A. It is quite difficult for me to remember. I was given
18 the job of running this desk at the end of end of 1993,
19 and at some point between the end of 1993 and prior to
20 the Paget team coming in, I was given that document.
21 Now I am a little bit hazy. I think it may be that it
22 would have been in a bundle of papers that might have
23 been of interest to me from a research point of view
24 while I was doing my researches, but I cannot say who
25 handed it to me or on what day or anything like that,

72

1 I am afraid. I was dealing with rather a large amount
2 of paperwork at the time.
3 Q. Where did you put it?
4 A. I have a sort of working file. I should stress this is
5 not a formal file, it is a running file -- I would
6 imagine a little similar to the one that counsel is
7 looking at at the moment -- and I put it on there.
8 Q. Now, that running file, from time to time did
9 Metropolitan Police officers ask to have a look at it to
10 look at particular documents?
11 A. Yes, they did.
12 Q. Although they did not ever, as far as you know, go
13 through it from beginning to end?
14 A. No, they would not have done that.
15 Q. But the document was there if anyone wanted to?
16 A. Yes, it was.
17 Q. Are you also able to help us with other documents that
18 might have existed or do exist arising out of
19 the service's reaction to Mr Tomlinson's activities?
20 A. I would be able to help you a small amount on that, but
21 it --
22 Q. We heard from Sir Richard Dearlove that an investigation
23 of some sort was carried out. Were there in fact damage
24 reviews or risk assessments done on the potential
25 damage --

73

1 A. Yes, obviously after some of the allegations that
2 Mr Tomlinson made and some of the things that happened,
3 there were -- I would have called it -- to be precise,
4 there were damage assessments that we carried out at the
5 time.
6 Q. Was there a damage assessment of which you were aware
7 and which we have now been provided with, dated
8 5th November 1996? Does that ring bells with you?
9 A. Yes, it does ring bells with me, certainly.
10 Q. Do you have a copy of that with you?
11 A. A copy of the ...?
12 Q. Of the damage assessment. It is not, I think, attached
13 to your latest statement.
14 A. No, I do not have a copy of that.
15 Q. It has been provided, attached to a statement from
16 the Treasury Solicitor. It is exhibit RJP2.
17 So we see that. That is the front page of it. Does
18 that ring a bell now?
19 A. It does ring a bell.
20 Q. So that is a document you have seen at some stage?
21 A. Yes, I have. I have to say it is a document I have seen
22 more recently, rather than during the Paget inquiry.
23 Q. So this was not something that you had looked out a long
24 time ago, but it is something that has been looked out
25 more recently?

74

1 A. Yes, that is correct.
2 Q. Perhaps we can have a look. We see the date is
3 5th November 1996. Perhaps we could go to the second
4 page, please, and to the bottom:
5 "Tomlinson has told The Sunday Times of an SIS
6 proposal in 1993 to assassinate Milosevic (sic). This
7 is probably an inaccurate recall of an ill-judged minute
8 written by a junior officer at the time, speculating
9 about the desirability of assassinating ... [someone who
10 appears to have a very long name]. The minute was
11 immediately dismissed and expunged from the record."
12 So that is a reference of which you are now aware?
13 A. I am now aware, yes.
14 MR BURNETT: Thank you very much. Those are my questions.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
16 Mr Mansfield?
17 Questions from MR MANSFIELD
18 MR MANSFIELD: Good morning. My name is Michael Mansfield.
19 I represent Mohamed Al Fayed and I do have a number of
20 areas to cover with you. I am sorry about the detail.
21 Can I first of all say, as I have to all of the
22 other Security Service witnesses, that I ask the
23 questions very carefully. There is no intention to
24 reveal any state secrets or embarrass anyone. Do you
25 follow?

75

1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. If there is any difficulty, please say so.
3 Occasionally, it may be a little difficult to draft it
4 exactly, and if it trespasses over the line, I have no
5 doubt you can say so.
6 I want, if I may, first of all, to examine really
7 the way in which records are kept because one of the
8 things that you are indicating is how tightly things are
9 monitored and so on within the service. Is that right?
10 A. Yes, that is correct.
11 Q. I want, if I may, so that you are clear about the first
12 area -- I am going to call it the "Milosevic minute", to
13 start with, because that is the way it is referred to by
14 a lot of people. You know what I am talking about?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. Now you were given the job of, it would appear, first
17 investigating this aspect of everything in
18 December 2003.
19 A. Yes, that is right.
20 Q. When did you start making your statement? You hinted
21 that other people have helped you with it.
22 A. Yes, I needed help with the legal terminology and so on
23 and things from a national security point of view.
24 Q. I understand all of that. You see, we have a copy of
25 this statement which i