Print document
 25 of 94 
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Which are the matters that you say are not in the public interest, in the
public domain, and therefore cannot be checked by you?
MR. TANSEY: I am not saying that. I am saying this is part of the further evidence served upon us.
It sets out the history of matters which we obviously have to check etc., on which the prosecution
rely, this particular detail here from 1985.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: That will not take you very long. It does not matter tuppence to your
case whether it was the 2nd September or 28th August, does it, you have never had anything to do
with Russia. Your client was dealing with a commercial spy. You can check that up. There is no
need for a delay. You can obviously ask the Solicitor General not to give precise dates if you want
to if anything turns on it; that is not going to take very long.
MR. TANSEY: It is purely, if the Crown relies on the chronology of events, my Lord, it is matters
that we will in fact ask questions upon.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I am not going to grant you any time for that alone.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, I am just highlighting what has been served. We obviously have to check
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: At the moment it does not seem to me, frankly, to be of any great
consequence either to the Crown or the defence.
MR. TANSEY: If the Crown rely upon it, it is of great consequence to the defence.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Well, I am sorry Mr. Tansey, but quite robustly I disagree with that.
Quite often the Crown rely on things and the defence do not care much about them at all. I cannot
see there is anything very much in this. If there is a date you want to check I would have thought it
could be done if you or Mr. Summers like to highlight the dates you are not sure of I would have
thought the Crown can help you. I cannot see any reason you could possibly seek ----
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, I have explained that is one further statement of a totally new dimension.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: All right, well, that is one.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, the next one is the statement of Detective Inspector Morrisey at 274.
That is a significant statement because what the prosecution has done is they in fact - it is a
development of the evidence of Mrs. C as it was. May I assist your Lordship so that your Lordship
understands the basis?
MR. TANSEY: Mrs. C gave her evidence in respect of what she discovered in Oporto in 1972.
That does concern me because places change and Oporto may have changed. What has happened
is that there has been significant detailed enquiries about location and the geography of Portugal and
the prosecution place a great reliance on the Portuguese evidence, and your Lordship has seen how
the pagination here sets out various matters, and I gather there is more information to come as well
about this. It is now therefore subject, may I say, to the question of admissibility because I am
seeking to argue the admissibility of the Portuguese evidence. My Lord, subject to that if your
Lordship ruled it inadmissible then, my Lord, the reason for the delay would not apply; it is