Kate Wilson

Perry: We have to consider future practice and what impact this judgement might have on future practice. If the court can second guess what the police believe then we are going to have a lot of cases... #spycops

Perry: There is, of course, an allegation of "intentional falsehood" in the #spycops authorisation against the claimant. Of course those officers were reliant on what MK had to say. Again they throw MK under a bus, but there is no evidence he was the source of this lie.

Judge: Has any officer given sworn evidence in this case? Perry: No Judge: It would take a lot to say an officer lied under oath. It takes a lot less to say they broke the code of conduct and don't want to own up. We have to decide where on the spectrum this lies. #spycops

Perry now tries argues Articles 10 and 11 are not relevant to this case. Judge: Am I right you made an admission under Article 10 in this case? Perry: That was done at an early stage... Judge: You did plenty of things at an early stage that you have withdrawn. Why not this?

This is a reference to the fact that they admitted MK's #spycops line management knew about the sexual relationship and then they took that admission back.

Judge: Ms Wilson's case is clear - during the #spycops operation, MK exercised some degree of control over what she was doing. That did interfere with her article 10 & 11 rights. He was having a sexual relationship with her with all of the power that contains.

Judge: It went to 3 & 8, that does not mean that it didn't go to 10 & 11. You say that it's not necessary for us to look at it. But how can you say it didn't interfere with those rights? Perry: It may not be so serious.The core value here is covered by 3 & 8. #spycops

Judge: Article 10.2 says "This right shall include the freedom to hold opinions without interference by public authority" Arguably, her freedom to hold opinions attracted interference by the public authority in the form of interference in all aspects of her private life.

Judge: Article 8 isn't the whole story. She was targeted here for her political opinions. Perry: It is important to bear in mind, if the Tribunal go down the route, #spycops authorisations must not only be Article 8 compliant but also an Article 10, that could be problematic.

Crazy, I thought investigations should have to comply with the whole Human Rights Act, but apparently David Perry QC thinks that would be "problematic" for the police and security services. #spycops

Perry: Whatever you make of Art 10 & 11, the facts remain the same. We are not saying that the Tribunal cannot state the facts. We do not dispute the facts. But we are asking you to limit your ruling to articles 8 and 3. #Spycops logic...

Now talking about intelligence flow. The difficulty is that intelligence flow within the NPOIU appears to have "evolved over the lifetime of the deployment" and in Aug 2006 a new system was implemented. We cannot really know what happened before that. #Spycops Secrets and lies

Perry is going through search terms the police used to find the evidence they did present. We are back on the issue of police having "lost" a lot of evidence relating to very key parts of this case, and no explanation for the loss of those documents has ever been given. #spycops

The key point is whether the absence of material is suspicious. The police submit this is "regrettable human error". The Tribunal is aware of the efforts we have made to ensure material was made available to the Claimaint in as orderly a format as possible.

This is hilarious. The disclosure made to me was appalling: chaotic, served late and in utter disarray. One commentator described the police approach as "incompetence being used as a litigation strategy" #spycops

Perry: I offer no defence for the unlawful behaviour that took place. All of the submissions we have made are to the circumstantial inferences to be made based on the materials. The Tribunal can draw the inference it wishes to make. #spycops

Judge: Do you want to respond on the lack of witness statements presented in this case? Perry: Our position is that the documents are available and they are the primary evidence. The absence of witness statements should not be taken against the Defendants.

In Dec 2018 the police lawyers wrote to #spycops officers with questions saying "you are not required to give evidence" thus making it clear that there would be no oath and that they could lie.

Perry: in the UCPI there is an undertaking that #spycops witnesses can give evidence and nothing they say can be used against them. Without that undertaking they could be unwilling to give evidence here. Not for any sinister reason No, nothing sinister about that at all!

Judge: But we have questions no one in court can answer. What was done with the #spycops contact logs? You present a witness who by your own declaration has *no knowledge of the events at all* & has not spoken to the officers involved. That is a very odd witness statement indeed