Important note: This is an archive of the website that was formerly at www.morrisinquiry.gov.uk. It is being hosted on the MPA website for archival purposes only and may contain out-of-date information.

This resource is from the Transcripts section. This section contains a transcript of the private session with KK, on 20 April 2004.

Sections available here:

• Transcript of private session: Mr KK
  • Questions by Miss Weekes
  • Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

This transcript is also available with original line and page numbering.

Transcript of private session: Mr KK

The name of this witness has been changed, and his submission redacted, to avoid the identification of the individuals and any third parties.

Tuesday, 20 April 2004
2.45 pm

Sir William Morris: Mr K, good afternoon, and indeed welcome. Please make yourself comfortable, there is water there and whatever. We even have a box of tissues, but ignore that.

Can I first of all thank you very much indeed for responding to our invitation to attend the Inquiry this afternoon, and for letting us have your written submission which we found very helpful. We are very much a relaxed panel, and, as you can see, the ambience in the place is as relaxed as we can make it.

Can I ask, how would you like to be addressed, Mr K or K?

Mr K: K.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed. We do appreciate, K, that a process such as this to some of our witnesses might seem a little bit daunting, so I thought it might be helpful if I set out very briefly how we propose to conduct the hearing this afternoon, but first, let me introduce myself and the other members of the panel. I am Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, and as you can see, there are two other panel members. On my right is Sir Anthony Burden, who recently retired as Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary after a very long and distinguished career in the police service. On my left is Miss Anesta Weekes QC. Anesta is an eminent barrister who sits as a recorder and part-time chairperson of employment tribunals. She was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry.

K, as you know, we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent inquiry into professional standards and workplace matters of the Metropolitan Police Service.

Our focus is the MPS as an organisation and not the individuals who make up the organisation. Nevertheless, we need to hear from individuals in order to understand how they are affected by the policies, the practices, the processes, the conventions which govern the way the Met operates.

Although we are a public inquiry, we have decided to conduct this hearing and some others, where we hear from individuals, in private. The reason for this is that we are keen to hear from individuals, like your good self, who have had problems with the way the MPS operate, but we also understand that some of our witnesses might feel a little reluctant to answer our questions, if they feel that somehow the MPS is listening-in.

I hope, therefore, that the arrangements that we have made you will find helpful, and will enable you to feel confident in speaking freely and frankly to us.

Although we are meeting in private today, as I have just said, we are, nevertheless, a public inquiry. That means that it might be necessary for us to seek further clarification from others about what you have said to us in your written submission or, indeed, anything that you tell us today.

If we do decide to seek further clarification, we will do so without identifying you in any way at all.

Also, let me reassure you that, if we do decide to seek further clarification, we will do it in a manner which causes you the least possible inconvenience, and we would, in any event, seek your permission first.

The inquiry that we are conducting is inquisitorial; we are seekers of truth and facts and information, and it is not adversarial in character or nature. We are quite keen to enquire into the issues raised by our terms of reference, in order that we may make appropriate recommendations for further good practice within the Met, rather than concentrating on criticisms.

We have no wish to go back over the details of what has happened in your instance; we have read your submission carefully, and we have a very clear idea of events.

What we now want to do is to ask you some questions which will enable us to draw on your experience, in order that that might enhance our work as we go forward with the Inquiry.

At the end of these introductory remarks, one of my colleagues will lead on our questions to you, and then myself and my other colleague may wish to ask you one or two supplementary questions.

When we have finished with our questions, I will offer you the opportunity to make a brief closing comment, if you so wish.

Let me just point out that a transcript is being taken, so that we have a proper record of all the evidence given by our witnesses. We are hoping to publish this transcript, together with your written submission, on our website in the next few days, but we will only do that after we have taken out all references to your name and other personal details, in order to be sure that it contains no information which identifies you or other individuals.

But before I ask Miss Weekes to lead on the questions for us, perhaps I ought to ask you, for the benefit of the transcript, just to formally introduce yourself to the Inquiry.

Mr K: Yes, Sir William, my name is KK, I am a retired detective inspector. I joined the Metropolitan Police Service on [Redacted], and I retired on [Redacted], and the last three and a half years of my service, I was suspended from duty.

Sir William Morris: Okay, K, thank you very much indeed for your introduction. I will now ask Miss Weekes to lead off on the questions.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Thank you. K, thank you very much for the submission, which was set out extremely helpfully for my purposes, and indeed my colleagues', because it addressed many of the issues that we find important on this Inquiry.

Can I begin, first of all, by going back just to a summary of what you went through? You have very correctly, in your submission, stated that you know we are not interested in the nitty-gritty of individual cases, but yours demonstrates – it seems to me – two or three very important areas, so I am simply going to flag up those areas, and I do not mind if we deal a little bit with the detail, but you will see from how I handle it.

In summary, an allegation was made against you by another officer, in fact, it began with a remark.

Mr K: It was only a remark, it was not an allegation at all. It was a passing remark.

Miss Weekes: It turned into one later on?

Mr K: It was turned into one by the CIB3 officers, yes.

Miss Weekes: Just out of interest, because it is clear to you that part of your complaint is a remark turns into an allegation, that, in itself, is somewhat unfair, as far as you are concerned.

Mr K: Definitely.

Miss Weekes: What was the remark; can you tell us? You do not have to.

Mr K: If I can just briefly explain the circumstances which will then explain the remark: in [Redacted], there was an armed robbery took place in January, and there was an informant involved in that, who was supposed to be an inside agent, giving information to the police. That informant told lies to the handlers, in as much as he said that the day the robbery took place was supposed to be a dry run.

The officer that made a remark used to be employed as a DC at my office, and he was arrested as a result of a sting operation conducted by CIB3, where he was induced into trying to recover some drugs from an address in East London.

During his debriefing, he was asked by the debriefing officers who else was involved in taking some of the money which was the guard's share. It was alleged that the man that was arrested as a result of the sting went to an address and recovered the guard's share of the money, which was £195,000.

It was then alleged that that money was shared out by a number of officers at my office. He was asked who was involved, and he detailed a number of officers, and they pursued him even more, and said, "Is there anybody else involved?" And his remark was, "KK might have been entitled to some of the money, because he didn't cover the dry run".

Now, that remark could have been resolved, and not turned into a proper allegation, simply because on [Redacted], some four months before the robbery occurred, there was a murder at a jeweller's shop in [Redacted], when a man who was there to repair a video was shot in the back by three armed robbers.

I was deputed to run the investigation, and set up a murder inquiry at an office miles away from [Redacted] bearing in mind on a murder inquiry, you do work up to 18 hours a day, quite easily, in the first couple of weeks from the occurrence.

Because of this, I was not prepared to do two lots of work, split myself between the murder and the team that were planning the robbery. Up until that stage, I was deeply involved in monitoring their movements, but I went to my officers at [Redacted] and I debriefed another officer there and handed over all the responsibility for that particular job to him and to the DIs that were left behind.

Miss Weekes: So in fact, you could not have been in two places at the same time?

Mr K: I did not know anything about what was happening because I had washed my hands of it, concentrated on the murder, and the only notification I had that there was anything happening in relation to this was when my office manager rang me at the murder squad office to tell me that a robbery had occurred in similar circumstances to the one I had been looking at prior to [Redacted].

I then got in touch, or got the office manager to get in touch with the handler and tell him to get on with it because I thought it was their job that was gone off. He told me, "No, it cannot be us, governor, because it is a dry run", but it did turn out it was that.

Miss Weekes: So to cut a long story short – now you have given me that information, it was very helpful and important – if there had been an inquiry made as to where you were and what you were doing, it could have been set against the remark that was made and matters could have been dealt with much more shortly.

Mr K: It could have been done within a matter or days, all they needed to do was to review my duty sheets for the previous four months to see where I was, and to know that I had had nothing at all to do with it, no input at all whatsoever. Other people were involved in monitoring that particular job, and it could quite easily have been resolved at that stage.

I think they made a mistake, the debriefers, and the people from CIB3, that they were trying to prove that what the informant was telling them was in fact true, and getting evidence to prove that it was true, rather than actually proving that it was true before trying to go down that line.

Miss Weekes: All right. Now can I then deal with the topics that arise out of that? You are aware of the Taylor Review?

Mr K: Yes.

Miss Weekes: And you are aware that the Met have now adopted the Taylor Review in its fullness, and want to proceed with adopting the recommendations; and you are aware of what those recommendations say: there should be reviews, there should be a decision made about proportionality. If the Taylor Review had been followed on your case, the outcome may well have been different, or should have been different.

Mr K: Definitely different.

Miss Weekes: We are going to have to wait to see, are we not, as to how successful the Taylor Review is?

Mr K: That is right.

Miss Weekes: But you would say it needs to be followed on almost every occasion?

Mr K: Definitely.

Miss Weekes: Your case raises another very important issue, and it is the whole question of suspension. Again, this will incorporate some of the Taylor Review as well, because proportionality is looking at what you have got and deciding: what is the fair, reasonable step to take? Do you suspend or do you not?

Mr K: Yes.

Miss Weekes: In your case, you have mentioned – and I am looking at the top of page 3 of your submission:

"In my opinion, suspension from duty should only occur at the time an officer is charged with a criminal offence."

Now I need to ask you this, K: you have spent many a year in the Metropolitan Police, and your submission repeatedly makes it clear that you support and are adamant about integrity not being negotiable.

Mr K: Definitely.

Miss Weekes: And that remains the case today, obviously.

Mr K: Yes, it does, otherwise I would not be here.

Miss Weekes: Absolutely. You would, therefore, agree that it is very important, and it must be left to the proper fair judgment call of the senior officer as when to suspend and not to, especially where it may involve the public image of the police, and it may involve a question of the seriousness of the allegation.

Mr K: Yes.

Miss Weekes: So suspension may be necessary if, for example, the allegation is about corruption, and that officer needs to be withdrawn from duty to maintain public confidence to allow the investigation to be continued. That is an example which you are not going to quibble with?

Mr K: I have covered the fact that if suspension was necessary, then there is a certain course of action when the officer returns to duty.

Miss Weekes: We will come back to that.

Mr K: I am not 100 per cent sure that at the stage the allegation is made, suspension would be necessary, for the reasons I have detailed, the fact that police officers cost a lot of money to train, they have a lot of expertise; I think to suspend somebody for the length of time that some of these officers have been suspended is unfair to the man being suspended; it is unfair to the job, because they are losing that man's skills; and it is unfair to the public, because this man is being paid quite a lot of money to be sitting at home doing nothing.

So I agree, it is a judgment of the senior officer involved in the investigation, but I think they are too quick to jump and automatically suspend.

Miss Weekes: All right. Well, I am going to move on from this, but I think in principle, you do not disagree that there will be circumstances where suspension is absolutely right.

Mr K: Of course.

Miss Weekes: Sometimes it is not.

Mr K: Of course.

Miss Weekes: You have touched on a very important point about delay, and I am going to deal with that, because there was a delay in your case, you say, an unacceptable delay.

Mr K: Definitely unacceptable.

Miss Weekes: From service of your 163 to in fact the outcome of the disciplinary – well, you will remember far better than I will.

Mr K: Three and a half years.

Miss Weekes: Three and a half years, I have made a note of that. Did you ever understand why it took three and a half years?

Mr K: Not at all, because as I have explained, it was something that could have been resolved within a matter of days. Why it took three and a half years – I have my own opinion, and I think my opinion is right, and that opinion is that three other officers that were suspended alongside me were, in due course, charged with serious criminal offences of corruption.

The prosecution or the CIB officers knew that I would be called to give evidence on behalf of those officers, and it was in their interests to maintain me as a tainted officer, so that if ever I did attend court, then the jury would view my evidence in a different way than if I was a non-tainted officer.

During this period, they had ample opportunity to interview me, and, in actual fact – I was suspended in [Redacted]; almost 14 months later, [Redacted, I was told to report to a police station for interview. That was the first indication I have got as to what was happening to the inquiry.

Miss Weekes: I mean, I do not want to interrupt you, but did you ever obstruct the inquiry? Did you ever refuse to turn up for an interview?

Mr K: On the contrary. Just before this happened, just before I was suspended, in December the previous year, I was attacked and robbed at knife-point, and seriously assaulted, and I was off sick for about six weeks.

I returned to work, reported for duty again, off sick; the day before, officers came to my house, searched it and suspended me. They were not even aware that I had returned to duty.

I had never been sick, I refused to go sick, because I did not want to have people thinking I was hiding behind a cloak of suspension to avoid being interviewed. Although I was encouraged on at least two occasions by senior officers to go sick, I thought it would be wrong because it would suit their case, because it was an excuse not to interview me, and I refused to do that.

I was told in [Redacted], when I was told to go for the interview, that I would not be arrested; there would be an interview, it would be an interview about the allegation or the remark made by that officer, that I had had some of the money, and there would be also a disciplinary interview at the same time.

Two days before that happened, I was contacted and told the officer that was going to conduct the interview was required at court that day. Coincidentally, if I can just – is that okay?

Miss Weekes: Yes, that is fine, but I just want to interrupt to say before we get to the explanation you were going to give, one of the things I just wanted to highlight before I forget is this: within the three and a half years, one of the most irritating things to you must have been that no one was telling you what was going on.

Mr K: That is right.

Miss Weekes: No one was telling you at what stage they were, no one had brought you in to explain.

Mr K: Not at all.

Miss Weekes: Well, I may want your help on this: one of the things that we are going to discuss, as a panel, is how we might stop the suffering of officers who wait around for a year, two, three, four, five, for an investigation to be completed.

Mr K: Right.

Miss Weekes: If, during the three and a half years, this was in place, tell me whether it would make a huge difference to you: if there was a system that required DPS to come along to an individual – we will come to who that person is in a moment – to explain what they have done so far, how much more time they need, why they need the time, and when they think they can be ready, and you are allowed to come along to hear what is being said.

Mr K: That would be most helpful, and it would be even more helpful if you were allowed to comment and perhaps assist them in any lines that they were going down, such as if they had come to me at an early stage and said, "We are still looking at this", I would have said, "Have you thought of looking at my duty states, to see where I was the previous four months, to see that I had nothing to do with this, that would have been most helpful.

Miss Weekes: Absolutely. Would it also be helpful if you were allowed disclosure on request, because that is something else your submission clearly raises as well?

Mr K: That is right.

Miss Weekes: Of course, as an experienced officer, you would agree it is always subject to genuine PII issues.

Mr K: I agree.

Miss Weekes: And sometimes there are genuine PII issues.

Mr K: Yes.

Miss Weekes: You would also, I think, welcome the opportunity to be told by the department of professional standards, "This is the earliest that we are going to be able to list your disciplinary", so you could plan your life.

Mr K: Definitely.

Miss Weekes: Do you think those suggestions I have just given you should be written into some proper statutory format, so that they have an obligation to follow them?

Mr K: Definitely.

Miss Weekes: Which brings me to my next question: the person to whom you all come along to make your request about timing, the fixture of the disciplinary hearing, disclosure, should that be another policeman from DPS, or should it be independent?

Mr K: I think now that the IPCC has started, there should be a reviewing officer, as I put in my submission –

Miss Weekes: Yes, you did.

Mr K: There should be a reviewing officer not connected with the investigating arm, but the same person to review that, at least within three months of the commencement of the investigation, if it is a complicated one.

The officer that is carrying out the investigation should note on the document in relation to the investigation at what stage they are, what difficulties they are encountering, and why it is taking longer than they anticipate.

The reviewing officer should be the man that is responsible for putting his notation on that docket, making his suggestions, and reviewing it in another month, to see whether or not his suggestion has been taken up and whether it has been progressed.

I would suggest that the reviewing officer is the officer who should be – well, it would not be an officer, he would be independent, but the reviewing person should be the person to inform the officer, either directly or through his representative, as to the state of play of the investigation.

Miss Weekes: And ultimately, you might say if they do not play ball by the rules, there should be some sanctions.

Mr K: Yes, there should be.

Miss Weekes: Because it is clearly unacceptable that taxpayers' money is being paid to keep a man waiting for a disciplinary for three and a half years, that is a point you have made here.

Mr K: Yes.

Miss Weekes: And again, I am drawing on your experience as a police officer; you will know that in a criminal court, and I sit part-time in criminal courts, cases are not allowed to sit around for three and a half years.

Mr K: I know.

Miss Weekes: You have to come to court and say why, and the same thing happens in employment tribunals, so we would not be doing anything widely different, would we?

Mr K: Not at all.

Miss Weekes: Can I ask you about communications in general? One of the things that you do raise is that you were not provided with any communication or really support throughout, I think there is an implication in your submission that you had precious little support.

Mr K: None whatsoever.

Miss Weekes: Maybe the information point we have covered, because my suggestions about change, about coming along and knowing what is going on, will provide you with information, will it not, more transparency of the system, subject to PII?

What about welfare? This clearly caused you a great deal of distress.

Mr K: Definitely, because the investigating officer used the welfare officer that was appointed to me – he was not appointed, he nominated himself, and I agreed, because he was a friend. They used him as part of their investigative tool, by having a meeting outside the Metropolitan Police area to persuade him to talk me into going to meet them for an off-the-record chat, thereby bypassing my solicitors. This caused a great deal of animosity between my friend and I, and I have not seen him since, unfortunately.

This is what they have done, they isolate you; it is like a mind game.

Miss Weekes: How can we remedy that, K? Is it possible to build in a degree of independence about who it is that is chosen to support the officer, support the family, the wives? We have just heard from another officer how distressing it was for his family, and he felt there should be some support for officers, wives, husbands. How do we build independence into that?

Mr K: I do not think it needs to be independent. I think the ultimate choice of a welfare officer or welfare person – it may not be an officer, it may be a member of perhaps police staff.

Miss Weekes: Yes.

Mr K: It should be ultimately the choice of the officer that is suspended, because he must have ultimate trust in that person, to rely on his discretion.

The only way it could be tightened up is to ensure that there were instructions that under no circumstances were welfare officers ever to be involved by the investigating team as at all for them. I think that is most important.

Unless that is put into some sort of tablet of stone, you will always have a situation where the officer will feel more and more isolated, when he is approached by what he looks upon as a friend, trying to persuade him, either for reasons of his own or because he is afraid of what might happen to him if he does not comply, to persuade you to bypass your own solicitors.

Miss Weekes: A very important chapter in your submission deals with strict adherence to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act during the gathering of information. It will not surprise you, K, but we have recently had a similar type complaint about the way statements were taken; the lack of notes during an interview of a witness who was going to give evidence against an officer during a disciplinary, and your comments are not too dissimilar, about following the rules of PACE.

What is the sanction that you think is fair and suitable if an officer does not follow those rules? Because you can have rules and you can build them in and you can write them, and you have pages of rules, but if you do not follow them, what do you say should happen?

Mr K: I think one of the first sanctions should be that any evidence obtained in this way would be inadmissible. That would be a strong sanction, and it would hopefully stop them trying to do this. The problem is –

Miss Weekes: Is it lack of training, K, or do you think that any investigating officer should be aware of these obvious rules?

Mr K: I do not think it is lack of training so much, I think it is an eagerness to get results, because I think that CIB3 officers were put under a great deal of pressure, because the Commissioner at that time, Sir Paul Condon, pulled a number out of the air, of 250 corrupt officers, and they felt that they had to try and get up to that number, and I think they did take a lot of shortcuts. They interviewed people, I know that they interviewed people in relation to offences, and because it did not suit their case, they did not take a statement from them; now that is wrong.

Miss Weekes: Can I ask you about this: after your suspension, did anybody assist you with settling back in again? Because you were completely exonerated, were you not?

Mr K: I was exonerated completely, but I was at the end of my career anyway. In fact, I should have retired two years earlier, having already applied for an extension of two years to make up my full 30-year pension. I was then held over and not allowed to retire, so the minute that I was absolved, I was allowed to retire, but there was a sting in the tail there, because – to explain it, I just need to go into a little bit of detail, if I am allowed.

Miss Weekes: Actually, what I would like you to do is to help us with what you say, from your experience, should be a regular system of what should happen to an officer after three years of suspension, two years, however long, where that officer is clearly at a disadvantage. He may be psychologically a little bit low, still a little depressed, but he has got to come back and go, bang, back into duty. What do you say should be in place?

Mr K: I think there should be a period of training for officers, because the Metropolitan Police Service is such an organisation that within that period, there are numerous new policies, new technical facilities put in place, new IT that the officer would not know anything about. As you say, he has been through a period of extreme stress; he is then expected to walk straight back in, take up a post and act as if nothing has happened. That is completely unfair.

He should have support psychologically if he needs it by a force psychiatrist, because it is, without a doubt, one of the most traumatic things for an officer to go through.

Miss Weekes: In every case that you are involved in, there is a briefing and there is a debrief.

Mr K: Yes.

Miss Weekes: It is quite interesting; we have not come across very many people at all who say, "At the close of this disciplinary hearing, we sat at a table and talked about what went wrong, or what might be improved, there was a debrief"; did you have that?

Mr K: No debrief at all.

Miss Weekes: Do you say that should be regularly carried out?

Mr K: It should be regularly carried out, without a doubt.

Miss Weekes: And who should carry out this debrief? That is what I call it, because it perhaps fits into police terms.

Mr K: Well, it has to be someone from DPS, I should think; who in DPS really depends on who is involved, liaising with the IPCC.

Miss Weekes: Do you say that would give the officer confidence that he has been listened to, that his feelings and what went wrong was taken into account, and there is a resettlement on both sides.

Mr K: It would go some way towards that, but it would obviously take an officer some time to go back into the system and trust the organisation again, and I think that is what the problem is in a lot of cases, when they go back, they do not trust the system any more.

Miss Weekes: But you would be keen that we consider as part of our recommendations that issue of debriefing?

Mr K: Definitely.

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much.

Sir William Morris: K, thank you for your responses to Miss Weekes' questions. I will pass you straight over to Sir Anthony to see whether he has any questions for you.

Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

Sir Anthony Burden: There is only one question, K, because you have given a very thorough explanation as to your summary in your submission. Can I ask you this: you have already said that you support the concept that integrity is not negotiable.

Mr K: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: But do you feel that by coming out with that very rigid approach – if I can use that word – it has created a climate in which everything is dealt with as though it is top level corruption, and that common sense and proportionality, in terms of gauging what level of inquiry is required, and dealing, as you said, with the allegation against you quickly and cleanly would have resolved it, but it got wound up in a big corruption inquiry, and therefore, you were a casualty of that. I mean, do you think that is a possibility?

Mr K: I think a statement like, "Integrity is not negotiable", can be a bit intimidating, and it can frighten some investigators into not – not seeing shades of grey, that is the wrong expression, but being more tolerant to mistakes that are generally made under perhaps sometimes stressful situations that the officer is involved in.

Sir Anthony Burden: Okay, that is fine. Thank you very much indeed, that is very helpful.

Sir William Morris: Well, K, that completes the series of questions that we wanted you to help us with, but you will recall that during my introduction, I said that at the end of the questions, you would be invited to make a closing comment or statement if you so wished. Should you wish to do so, well, I invite you now to make that statement, if you wish to do so.

Mr K: Thank you very much.

I feel that this Inquiry has been set up a year too late, and that your terms of reference were too limited. The IPCC commenced its work on 1st April of this year. I understand that your recommendations are not being submitted until June or July. They will take some time to be digested and considered by the MPA and the MPS. To use a well-known phrase, I hope it is not a case of 'shutting the door after the horse has bolted'.

I am concerned that your terms of reference only cover the way the service handled allegations against the individuals. It is not incumbent on either the MPA or the MPS to adopt your recommendations, although I truly hope they do so, after the diligent work you have carried out.

I hope your recommendations will be adopted by the IPCC, especially the investigative arm of the Commission. My greatest fear is that we could have a situation there where we have got a system with jobs for the boys, where retired officers from CIB3 take up employment at the IPCC as investigators, and the unethical and bad practices carried out by some members of that branch are carried over to the IPCC.

In other words, the investigative arm would be CIB3 in another guise, even more untouchable and unaccountable. It has been impossible to get the grievances of suspended officers addressed within the MPS. How much harder will it be with a new independent commission? To use another well-known saying 'who watches the watchers?'

Having said all that, I would like to thank the panel for allowing me to give evidence today, and I hope that my evidence and the submission I made goes some way to be helpful and informative. Some of it has merely been repeated of what other officers have said to you, and surely this must show the panel the concerns of officers, and endorse their pleas for improvement in their treatment during such a stressful time in their careers. Thank you very much.

Sir William Morris: Well, K, let me, first of all, thank you for your written submission, which, as I indicated earlier, we have found extremely helpful. Thank you, too, for responding to the questions this afternoon. And on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I just want to record our collective thanks for the contribution that you are making to this Inquiry and our work in overall terms, so once again, thank you very much.

Mr K: Thank you.

On this website:

• Evidence: KK
  Evidence provided by and documents referred to by KK, in his appearance at the Inquiry.