Restricted Case File

Tom Herrick

Select Dossier

COT / MI5 Case File

Restricted

Eyes Only

Maritime Evidence Dossier Tom Herrick

Subject: Tom Herrick

Overview

This dossier contains confidential records for Tom Herrick.

Material is provisional, cross-referenced from recovered files, protected records, and field notes.

COMPARTMENTED SECURITY INTERVIEW

SUBJECT: Tom Herrick

CLASSIFICATION: SECRET // UK EYES ONLY

REFERENCE: CONTROLLED COPY // COT/SECURITY/2035/CTC070

Document control

CASE REFERENCE: COT/SECURITY/2035/CTC070

SUBJECT: Tom Herrick

CENTRAL RECORD: COT8490FCCCC4ADF

RANK / APPOINTMENT: Investigative journalist

ORGANISATION: Independent press network

DATE OF BIRTH: 1991-04-05

PLACE / NATIONALITY: London, Greater London, British

INTERVIEW STATUS: Subject of investigation

LOCATION: Secure interview suite — location withheld

DATE: 19 September 2035

LEAD AUTHORITY: Security Service — Directorate of Internal Security

RECORDING MEDIA: Two sealed digital masters and one independent evidential hash

DISTRIBUTION: Named recipients only. No automated onward distribution.

NOTE: Handling notice. This document contains operational, personal and evidential material. It may be read only by a person with both the required clearance and a recorded need to know. Extraction of images, transcript segments or metadata creates a new controlled copy.

Identity and visual evidence control

VISUAL ASSET STATUS: Passport image: attached; dossier image frames available: 1; surveillance frames available: 3; identity match: matched by subject/asset map.

Passport-style identity photograph for Tom Herrick — IDENTITY EXHIBIT P-01 Controlled identity photograph retained for internal case comparison. Not for release outside this compartment; confirm against the subject record and custody ledger.

Reason for interview or reconstruction

This record concerns the subject's knowledge of MV Argus, MS Orion Star, Orion Star, Argus; and associated decisions, communications and evidence handling. The scope of this record is confined to the matters set out above and to evidence formally introduced during the session.

Preliminary investigator note

The subject completed identity verification but challenged the assumption that a valid administrative record necessarily described the physical event.

Recorded interview transcript

REVIEW OFFICER: State your full name for the record.

TOM HERRICK: Tom Herrick

REVIEW OFFICER: Do you understand the status of this interview and the limits placed on distribution?

TOM HERRICK: I understand the status. I do not accept that the distribution is as limited as the header suggests.

REVIEW OFFICER: Have you been offered the representation, legal advice or staff support applicable to this procedure?

TOM HERRICK: I have, and I reserve the right to stop if the questioning moves outside them.

DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-01 Retained extract: The Journalist Who Knows Too Much London – 11:47 PM the street outside Tom Herrick’s flat was quiet, the kind of false silence that only cities at night could manage. Relevant systems or locations: MV Argus, MS Orion Star, Orion Star, Argus, AIS

REVIEW OFFICER: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?

TOM HERRICK: The fact is accurate. Your interpretation assumes the reporting chain was trustworthy. I will not improve my memory to make the chronology easier.

REVIEW OFFICER: What did you understand at that moment, before later analysis supplied a larger explanation?

TOM HERRICK: I can answer the event or expose the source. I will not do both in an unrestricted recording. Check MV Argus against the unprocessed record before you accept the later label.

DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-02 Retained extract: Herrick had been a journalist for nearly twenty years, and his instincts screamed that someone—someone powerful—was trying to make the entire incident disappear. Associated persons: Fiona Ward, Daniel Sykes

REVIEW OFFICER: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?

TOM HERRICK: I made the judgement with the compartment I held. The people outside it did not have the same picture. If the original is no longer available, that absence should remain part of your finding.

REVIEW OFFICER: Who else was physically present and capable of confirming your account without relying on the same electronic record?

TOM HERRICK: That question contains an attribution you have not established. Check the physical record against the unprocessed record before you accept the later label.

REVIEW OFFICER: Are you saying the official record is wrong?

TOM HERRICK: I am saying the record should remain evidence, not become an alibi for the system that produced it.

DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-03 Retained extract: Herrick’s heart thudded. Associated persons: Fiona Ward Relevant systems or locations: MI5

REVIEW OFFICER: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?

TOM HERRICK: I can answer the event or expose the source. I will not do both in an unrestricted recording. I will not improve my memory to make the chronology easier.

REVIEW OFFICER: Why was the matter not escalated through the ordinary reporting route?

TOM HERRICK: I can answer the event or expose the source. I will not do both in an unrestricted recording. My answer is limited to what I personally saw, heard or ordered.

DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-04 Retained extract: Herrick’s breath caught. Relevant systems or locations: MI5

REVIEW OFFICER: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?

TOM HERRICK: That question contains an attribution you have not established. If the original is no longer available, that absence should remain part of your finding.

REVIEW OFFICER: What part of the retained record is incomplete or misleading?

TOM HERRICK: I made the judgement with the compartment I held. The people outside it did not have the same picture. Check MI5 against the unprocessed record before you accept the later label.

REVIEW OFFICER: Are you saying the official record is wrong?

TOM HERRICK: I am saying the record should remain evidence, not become an alibi for the system that produced it.

DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-05 Retained extract: Herrick’s breath caught. Relevant systems or locations: MI5

REVIEW OFFICER: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?

TOM HERRICK: That question contains an attribution you have not established. Check MI5 against the unprocessed record before you accept the later label.

REVIEW OFFICER: Which physical record should be examined before this account is treated as settled?

TOM HERRICK: That question contains an attribution you have not established. I will not improve my memory to make the chronology easier.

DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-06 Retained extract: "Herrick’s missing." Ward stopped walking. Associated persons: Fiona Ward, Daniel Sykes, Elaine Morris Relevant systems or locations: MI5

REVIEW OFFICER: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?

TOM HERRICK: I can answer the event or expose the source. I will not do both in an unrestricted recording. If the original is no longer available, that absence should remain part of your finding.

REVIEW OFFICER: Did anyone instruct you to describe the incident differently afterwards?

TOM HERRICK: The fact is accurate. Your interpretation assumes the reporting chain was trustworthy. I will not improve my memory to make the chronology easier.

REVIEW OFFICER: Are you saying the official record is wrong?

TOM HERRICK: I am saying you should preserve the contradiction instead of choosing the tidier version.

Restricted surveillance exhibit S-01 concerning Tom Herrick — SURVEILLANCE EXHIBIT S-01 Internal surveillance frame retained under the case evidence schedule. Do not treat date, location, association or conduct as established without the source ledger and adjacent frames.

[Exhibit S-01 introduced. Subject permitted to inspect the displayed copy without handling the source medium.]

REVIEW OFFICER: Do you identify the person shown as yourself?

TOM HERRICK: I identify myself in the frame. I cannot authenticate the date from the crop alone.

REVIEW OFFICER: Can you establish the location or date from anything visible in the frame?

TOM HERRICK: The location is supportable from the surroundings. The purpose you are implying is not.

REVIEW OFFICER: Were you aware that the image was being made?

TOM HERRICK: I was not aware of the camera at the time shown.

REVIEW OFFICER: Who had advance knowledge of your presence at that location?

TOM HERRICK: That depends on whether the source is an official system, a copied feed or a separate observer.

REVIEW OFFICER: What does this image prove, and what does it not prove?

TOM HERRICK: Preserve the frames before and after it. A single image is a fact about light, not a complete account of conduct.

Restricted surveillance exhibit S-02 concerning Tom Herrick — SURVEILLANCE EXHIBIT S-02 Internal surveillance frame retained under the case evidence schedule. Do not treat date, location, association or conduct as established without the source ledger and adjacent frames.

[Exhibit S-02 introduced. Subject permitted to inspect the displayed copy without handling the source medium.]