Case No. FD20F00034-and-FD19P00380

66. To preserve his anonymity, Director 1 gave his evidence to me from behind a curtain such that only I and the two leading counsel were able to see him. He handed up his name and address to me, on the basis that it would be kept entirely confidential. He told me he took up his post as director of security in July 2020. He is the Managing Director of the security company. The accounts are dealt with by his fellow director and he was not able to give specific details of the figures in the accounts or the date on which they needed to be filed with Companies House. The figures given in HRH’s security budget (set out at page C/69 of the Core Bundle) were the costs he had looked at, even though the budget is managed by his fellow director. He had done significant work on the budget, even though he had help, including from financial experts, in compiling the figures. He did say that, to date, they have spent in accordance with the budget that they have been given by the Court, although I do not think that can be entirely right in relation to the expenditure of £2,160,000 per annum for additional security provision from Company X. He was asked about specific items in the budget, such as the amount for salaries. I accept entirely that Mr Dyer’s cross-examination in this area was constrained by the fact that it was impossible for him to be given the exact details of the operation and the number of security staff involved. Director 1 was asked about a new figure of £197,500 per annum for “temporary and contractors’ costs”. He said that this was to cover the costs if they had to bring in sub-contractors should employees be unavailable for reasons such as Covid-19, which they had not anticipated originally. He added, however, that such contingency for sub-contractors would be needed every year, even after Covid-19 abates. I understand why he says that but I do consider the cost likely to be lower at that time. He made the point that he has to be able to guarantee safety at all times and each of his staff can only work 231 days per annum. 67. He was then asked about the figure for severance payments. He said that the amount had been reduced from 25% of the salaries budget to 15% following their experience over recent months. It did appear that this percentage figure was based on surveys of the usual turnover rates of staff for businesses in this country, although he was not entirely sure which businesses had been surveyed. He was asked if payments had been made and he confirmed they had. He was asked for the details but he told me he did not have the specific figures. 68. Mr Dyer then turned to the issue of the replacement of vehicles. Director 1 confirmed that they had used the sum of £900,000 provided by me on an interim basis to obtain three vehicles, rather than the two new ones I had assumed. There was a delay in ordering new vehicles, as the provider was having problems with stock which had now been resolved. I do not know if this was due to the microchip shortage or not. One vehicle had been ordered new and was about to be delivered. The other two vehicles had been acquired second hand. One was a vehicle with less than 10,000 miles on the clock. The vehicle was approximately two years old. The other was a different armoured vehicle which was also approximately two years old with sub 10,000 mileage. The fleet also contains five soft skinned vehicles of one type, together with one soft skinned vehicles of another type and five other vehicles. They do not have to replace those immediately but they do aim to replace the vehicles every two years. He repeated that they need more armoured vehicles, but I think he must have meant. The existing fleet (and other vehicles) had cost £1,354,817. He believed there was also a vehicle from HH that had been shipped to the UK from Dubai but that was not included in the list. He was asked about the need for the armoured vehicles. He referred to HRH saying she had “ never felt more vulnerable ”. 69.He was asked why they could not purchase a much cheaper armoured vehicle. It is correct that he did not question the specification of such a vehicle for the purpose for which it is required but he did say that, unless they changed the entire fleet to that type of vehicle, the armoured vehicle would stand out a mile as compared to the different type of soft-skinned vehicles currently owned. This was also the reason why they could not buy cheaper versions of those vehicles as they would also be conspicuous compared to the armoured versions. He added that they utilise information from national intelligence agencies to identify individuals or groups who might be in a position to attack HRH and the children. He remined me that armed weapons were allegedly seen by Sheikha Shamsa during her abduction. He could not, therefore, rule out an armed attack against a convoy. He pointed out that he needed to ensure HRH and the children remained safe at all times. In one sense, this is analogous to MI5 needing to prevent every terrorist attack, whilst the terrorists only need to succeed once. He said that they had assumed that they would take the vehicles on each holiday, although I pointed out that they would not need to do so if, for example, they were travelling to the Maldives. He agreed, although he made the point that they would then need other forms of secure transport, such as a helicopter to travel to and from the island where the family was staying. He was asked about the warranty period for a new armoured vehicle. He did not know, although Mr Dyer suggested it was three years. Although I also do not know, this would seem a likely period. He was asked about the likely mileage, it being suggested it would be modest. He replied, not unreasonably, that it would be situation dependant and he cannot guarantee where HRH would wish to travel to.70. He was then asked about cyber security. He said that he had overseen a full review after the hacking came to light, although the cyber security experts dealt with the specifics. It is clear that this review had assumed that hacking had taken place but I take the view this was a thoroughly reasonable and appropriate assumption to make. Indeed, the approach was confirmed by the subsequent findings of the President. He told me that it assumed that the risk level was severe, meaning that an incident is highly likely. He was then asked about Company X. He told me that there remained a residual vulnerability despite their closed communications network, particularly as the family is going to be travelling more than during Covid-19. Company X had been brought in during January 2021. I have to say that I have been unclear as to the nature of the work done by Company X and how it could cost over £2 million per annum. Director 1 was not really able to help me, although I do accept that there may have been security reasons for caution. He accepted that he had not initially recommended them, telling me, not unreasonably, that he did not know that this facility was available to provide additional protection. All he was able to say was that there was no duplication and they were doing “ an awful lot of work” . He was asked, finally, about how the budget would be reduced if the children were free of fear, danger or anxiety. He said, again not unreasonably in my view, that he could not foresee that happening. All in all, I formed a favourable view of the evidence of Director 1. He is clearly a very professional, experienced and diligent Director of Security. He was undoubtedly doing his best to assist me in difficult circumstances where he cannot give away classified information to the legal team of the person who is the main threat to those he is protecting. I accept that he did not have a detailed grasp of the financial figures but Mr Dyer and his team are in the difficult position that they do not have any evidence themselves to put forward to counter either his evidence as to the security that is needed, or any alternative costings. In the latter regard, I do accept that there were constraints on such information being obtained given the decision of the President but the reality is that the only figures I have are those of HRH. I can and will do my best to assess reasonable figures, particularly on items such as the purchase and replacement of armoured vehicles but, overall, I do not find that Mr Dyer was able to cast any significant doubt on the evidence provided by Director 1.