 |
 |
|
need not trouble you about Mr. Oschenko’s residence or about number three, or about number five,
but number four concerns me to this extent: I quite see that you may say that it is relevant and I
would accept that it is relevant to show that in 1976 Mr. Smith had employment at EMI on classified
work, but I am by no means certain that it is probative to go into details of it.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Yes, our purpose is when compared with Mr. E to show that the
marked similarity - we know that Mr. E was recruited by Viktor Oschenko; we know how he
behaved, and we say, in substance, the defendant in substance behaved in the same way.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I follow; therefore, you want that it is classified work; but I cannot see
that - I can see there is something in Mr. Tansey’s argument if you go into the details of it, as there is
no evidence before me that he disclosed evidence, he disclosed information to the Russians at that
stage, I cannot see that you are entitled to the details of it.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: No, provided I can make the case that, like E, he was striving, or
that he obtained access to classified work, having lost his access he was striving to get it back.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: That you can have, three and five. I accept that. As to six, I think what
Mr. Tansey really wants to know is how do you put Mr. E in the context of Oporto and in the
context of the whole case?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: In the context of the whole case we put his evidence in this way: the
prime purpose in calling Mr. E is to prove that Viktor Oschenko was a member of the KGB, and to
prove it by admissible evidence rather than by assertion from Mrs. C for example; that is the first
reason. The other reason, the second reason we wish to adduce his evidence, is because in our
submission there is a marked similarity between his behaviour and that of the defendant. We know
Mr. E was recruited by Viktor Oschenko and for what purpose and, therefore, the jury would be
entitled to use that information in deciding the defendant’s motives and his intent in regard to getting
employment at EMI, trying to get his security clearance back and in regard to the William’s letter.
It is quite plain from Mr. E’s evidence that he was directed to get access to some important
information. Contact was made with him through ’phone boxes, he was viewed as a long term mole,
he was handed over to a successor by Victor, he went out to Lisbon at the instructions of the KGB
in order to carry out an operation for them and, in our submission, the behaviour of E is relevant in
determining in the defendant’s case first what is the true import of the William’s letter when it says,
“A lot of water has flown under the bridge”? What sort of relationship is it talking about? And,
secondly, what was the purpose of the defendant’s visit to Oporto?
The defendant has said that he went there on holiday, that the marks on the map were put there by
somebody in a tourist office because they are places of tourist interest. It is our case that he was sent
there by the Victor on an operation and one gets light thrown on that by the fact that Mr. E is saying
that the KGB sent him to a different place in Portugal, or Lisbon to do a very similar thing, and we
know what the reason for that was so, the jury would be entitled to take into account E’s evidence
on Lisbon in deciding the significance of the Oporto evidence against this defendant. That is how we
say the evidence of Mr E. is relevant in this case.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Thank you.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Mr. Tansey, you can reply on four and six.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, if I may deal with four. I have put the matter to your Lordship effectively.
 |