 |
 |
|
dinner by Victor; he can say he had discussions with Victor; he can say that Victor was Russian; he
can perfectly well say without going into the details - he is certainly entitled, I would have thought, to
say that he was being given money in return, if possible, for information. It seems to me that is
admissible.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, it then goes on further and it says: “The things that I can specifically
remember about George were a visit he had just made to Lisbon.”
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: He can say that he flew out to Lisbon at some stage and he is entitled to
say why, just like if somebody is going out abroad he can say, “Because my company required me
to do so.”
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, what he can say is, “He provided me with an envelope.”
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Yes, exactly.
MR. TANSEY: It then goes on: “He asked me to hand it over to a person at a specified time and
place in Lisbon.” I object to that.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: He can say without saying the instructions, “What did you do in
Lisbon?” “I did this, that and the other.” He can be asked - I am sure that any of the team for the
Crown can put it in a way that will not offend the hearsay rule.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord ----
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: If it does, you will be on your feet and I shall support you.
MR. TANSEY: It goes on.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I do not think any of this if I may say so, Mr. Tansey, goes to
admissibility.
MR. TANSEY: On the hearsay, I agree, my Lord. My Lord, if this is evidence of a system your
Lordship will note I have pointed out the difference between them that one is sending an envelope
and another is somebody going out there. My Lord, it is a strange way for the Crown to operate, in
fact, for the Crown to say, “here; you go. I’ll give it to so and so. I don’t mind if the KGB don’t
mind.” But here is somebody going - he is sent out with an envelope - a test run? We suggest the
prosecution case does not make sense.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: It strikes me it may, for all one knows, blow up the prosecution case to
be a very powerful weapon to the defence. I cannot see it is not admissible at the moment, because
the points you make may turn out to have a great deal of weight in them. You may be able to say,
“This is absolutely absurd.” I cannot see at the moment that they are not entitled to try.
MR. TANSEY: I have put the arguments so far as that is concerned. I do not think I can take it any
further so far as that proposition. My Lord, I do have matters to address to you.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: May I just put it another way: supposing you were in the position to call
an agent on behalf of your client, Mr. Smith, on the basis that very fortunately you had got hold of
somebody who had been an agent working with the KGB who would say, “I was run by Victor
Oschenko; he did it a totally different way”, and if the Crown said, “You cannot call that evidence”,
 |