This week Bob Lambert is giving evidence in person at the Undercover Policing Inquiry. He appears to be attempting to present as a doddery, frail old man trying to remember long-forgotten events way in the past.
However, in between the long pauses and sad faces and ‘I cannot recall’s, he does occasionally inadvertently drop the act.
There is a very interesting sequence lasting around six minutes in yesterday’s appearance – starting from 1:23:55 in the recording of the video feed – which illustrates Lambert’s demeanour under questioning quite well. It also shows the Inquiry Counsel, David Barr KC, probing rather expertly.
The topic Barr has been covering with Lambert has been sexual relationships, and guidance in place around it. At this point, Barr introduces a new element: Mike Chitty.
Mike Chitty was an undercover police officer deployed into the animal rights milieu in London as ‘Mike Blake’ sometime around early 1983. He was the first SDS officer tasked in this subject area.
It is known that he had sexual relationships with at least two women whilst undercover, including ‘Lizzie’.
His deployment ended in May 1987. However, he reappeared amongst those he previously spied upon in August 1989, again using his ‘Blake’ legend, and attempted to restart a relationship with ‘Lizzie’. She last saw him in 1993. Chitty continued to socialise with animal rights friends at least up until April 1994, when he attended a party for an activist.
In June 1992 Special Branch leadership placed him under investigation – largely due to queries over expenses claims whilst in his post-SDS armed VIP protection post. The person tasked with managing this, as a former contemporary who had infiltrated AR circles around the same time, was Bob Lambert (by then in E Squad investigating Muslims).
Lambert befriended Chitty and secretly wrote up their contacts. He also used materials from Chitty’s own personal papers (e.g. letters and diaries), possibly without Chitty’s knowledge or consent. Lambert’s assiduousness in investigating his erstwhile colleague helped him be elevated to the role of SDS Operations Controller in November 1993. The report on Chitty was completed in May 1994. Chitty retired from the Met in 1995.
In transcribing the exchange, I have included Lambert’s hesitation sounds (um, err, uh etc) because they are noticeable throughout. The transcript is verbatim.
David Barr: Did you discuss with Mike Chitty, before you deployed, what you should expect deploying into the animal rights field?
Bob Lambert: Yes, I would have had discussions with Mike Chitty.
DB: And what did he tell you, to prepare you to deploy into the animal rights field?
BL: I can’t recall today what he told me, um… I can’t, um, say what topics were covered with him.
DB: Did he say anything about a woman whom we are calling ‘Lizzie’?
BL: I’m, um, pretty sure that he didn’t.
DB: When you say you are pretty sure he that didn’t, did he say anything at all about any sexual relationship with any woman?
BL: Not whilst I was in that back office role, to the best of my recollection.
DB: Did there come a time later on when he did?
BL: Uh, they, yes, there was a time later on.
DB: When was that?
BL: I can’t, uh, I can’t put a date on it.
DB: But can you, if you can’t put a precise date on it, can you help us, which year it was?
BL: No, I can’t, um…
DB: Was it, was it within your time as an undercover police officer within the SDS, within your time as a manager, or in between the two?
BL: I can’t recall. No.
DB: What did he tell you?
BL: Well, I learnt from him that he had had a sexual relationship and, certainly by the time I was employed in a management role, um, that became an issue that I, I, I dealt with, so, I had a very clear understanding of it then.
DB: Is there anything about the circumstances in which he made that disclosure to you that helps you to locate it in time at all?
BL: A first disclosure, err, no.
DB: Was that sort of disclosure then not something that would stick in your mind?
BL: Um, I think not.
DB: Did Mr Chitty say anything about sexual relationships in general, or the risk of them when you were talking to him?
BL: When I was talking to him prior to my deployment, or during my deployment, not?
DB: Shall we start with prior to?
BL: Prior to? Not that I can recall, I think not.
DB: During?
BL: Not that I can recall.
DB: Might he have done?
BL: It’s possible, but I honestly cannot recall.
DB: In terms of the issues you came across- the other officers, and the managers dealing with – before you deployed – no names at the moment, please – did you come across any who were having to appear in court?
BL: Um… Could you… Uh… Could you just help me again, uh, with the time?
DB: Between joining the SDS in the Autumn of 1983, deploying in June 1984, as a, as a… As the officer waiting to deploy did you come across any instances of officers, undercover officers having to appear in court?
BL: I may have done, ah, but I can’t recall now.
DB: Can you recall what the managerial attitude was to officers appearing in court in their undercover identities?
BL: Yes, generally, what I learnt, ah, whether it was back office or whether it was during deployment, but, ah, I learnt that it was to be avoided if at all possible, but that depending on the, depending on the offer, the officer’s target group, it would be, uh, it would be, uh, a likelihood, and if it did arise, uh, that management, um would support the officer involved.
You can see how cagey the whole topic of Chitty makes him. It is the first time Chitty has been raised, but we are already on the subject of sexual relationships; implicit at the very start of the exchange is that we know Lambert knew Chitty was having a sexual relationship whilst undercover (because Lambert investigated Chitty); but the extra tension comes with the assumption that Chitty knew about Lambert’s sexual relationships whilst undercover. Chitty is not cooperating with the Inquiry, so Lambert simply does not know what level of detail Chitty has shared or with whom.
Given that the London Greenpeace/ALF tour made Lambert’s professional reputation, and his clandestine investigation of Chitty earned him his managerial spurs, it is important to recognise just how critical a moment this is for Lambert – these were the foundations of his career and of his status as an expert in his field.
Where Barr asks straightforward questions, Lambert prevaricates, obfuscates, replies with answers that are only the question rephrased, answers questions that aren’t asked, or falls back on variations on ‘cannot recall’. It is not just his words, though: it is worth watching the video feed of the exchange, because his vocal cadence, body language and facial expressions settle into ways that indicate a lack of openness. He uses a lot of words to say very little – as if to give the appearance of cooperating, whilst having the actual affect of obstructing.
Barr attempts to chunk down and chunk up to elicit less opaque responses. He succeeds to some degree, but instead of pressing through, just at the moment that he detects that Lambert has found his rhythm, he wrong-foots him. He begins a question that seemingly is still about sexual relationships, but at the very end turns out to be an entirely different subject – undercover officers appearing in court under their work legends.
The effect on Lambert is palpable. He doesn’t know what is going on, if this is a trap. But presumably because this is, ostensibly a much less problematic topic for him, he quickly becomes much more animated, with more open micro-expressions and more effusive gestures. His voice sounds warmer, he uses fuller sentence structures, he is more fluent, he speaks faster.
It is almost reflexive, the change in demeanour. What does this tell us? It tells us that he is concealing in the earlier section, and more prepared to not conceal in the later section. It demonstrates that he is making choices in his evidence.
This to some degree is wholly to be expected. But it also presents an opportunity: in drawing out Lambert’s (relative) effusiveness over the issue of court appearances, Barr has tapped in a wedge on a topic area which is potentially damaging to Lambert’s bosses – something to which throughout his evidence today he proved extremely resistant. Whilst Lambert is highly alert to probing around SDS policy or guidelines around sexual relationships (particularly what he was told and by whom and when), because he is so personally vulnerable on this front, he has shown himself to be much less invested in protecting others on the court appearance issue.
It will be interesting to see what other wedges Barr taps in this week, and how hard he is prepared to drive them in.
Okay gang, let’s see if we can identify some of the marvellous neckties worn by the handful of former spycops and their managers who have so far appeared before the Undercover Policing Inquiry!
Bristle's Blog from the BunKRS 