Print document
 73 of 94 
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Well, I think I said last time to you -- maybe not about this witness --
that I could not then see; I still cannot see that Mr. E, if he is relevant, does you much harm. But that
is probably a different matter; it goes not to admissibility.
MR. TANSEY: May I say that is the simple proposition I put to you. Would you like me to
elaborate more?
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: You obviously would prefer to keep your powder dry till you see what
the Solicitor says. If you then come back in detail, I will give him a further right of reply. You can do
it now or later, whichever you like. Yes, Mr. Solicitor?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: I will deal with the two questions separately.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: First, is the evidence relevant? If it is irrelevant then it fails at that
point. Secondly, assuming for the purposes of argument that it is established to be relevant, does it
infringe the rule against hearsay, or do parts of it infringe the rule against hearsay, to be more
accurate? On those two points, my arguments are, respectfully, first it is relevant and second it does
not infringe the rule against hearsay, because it is original prime evidence of the nature of the handling
of E by Viktor Oschenko.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Can we come on to the second point a little later on, if you are going to
deal with it. I will deal with them in either order you like.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: I propose, if it is convenient to your Lordship, to deal with it in the
order I have just stated it, relevance first.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: In my submission, the evidence of Mr. E is relevant because the
Crown have opened and are seeking to establish that the defendant was recruited by Viktor
Oschenko, and that George who made the telephone call, who said that he was a colleague of “your
old friend Viktor” was there referring to Viktor Oschenko. In our submission, the evidence which
tends to identify that Viktor as being Viktor Oschenko is relevant to three issues in the case, at least
three: namely whether the items in the car were there for handing over to the Russians or for
throwing out as the defendant alleges; whether the defendant knew the Viktor referred to in the
’phone call or not, he having contended in interview that he did not know that person; and, thirdly,
whether the map of Oporto shows a training mission for the KGB or merely places of tourist interest
as the defendant himself has contended.
In our submission there is a chain of evidence which stretches right through the case from one end to
the other which would entitle the jury to come to the conclusion that Viktor Oschenko was the
Viktor being referred to in the telephone call. What we have established so far by evidence from ---
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I think you can deal with me on the basis of what you can establish with
all the other evidence because, if necessary, you could put back Mr. E to the last witness in your
case. I think I ought to deal with it on what you expect to establish by the end of the case. It may be
that it is no different from the situation at present.