 |
 |
|
the conclusion that the actions of Mr. Smith were as a result of the telephone call by a gentleman
talking in a foreign manner. I will have no difficulty, in view of the documents in the car and the
tradecraft notes in the house, in coming to the conclusion that this was not the first time he had been
in touch with such a person, and it was not the first time he had handed over such information. There
is plenty of evidence to go to the jury, but the point I would like your help on is whether the
foreigner is sufficiently tied in to Viktor Oschenko.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: In my submission, the answer to that is that, if one looks at the
similarity in the pattern of behaviour of the defendant and E during the 1970s, and takes into account
the Williams letter, one can draw the conclusion that they were behaving in the same way.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: So you are relying on E to prove that the Viktor is Viktor Oschenko.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Yes, quite simply the question being put to me is: who is Viktor?
The answer is that the Viktor is somebody who was an old friend of the defendant who had been
involved with him in clandestine activities some time in the past, as evidenced by the Williams letter
and the evidence.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I am trying to go back to the Williams letter.
MR. KELSEY-FRY: Page 272.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Right at the end of the blue bundle, is it?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Yes, “A lot of water has passed under the bridge after our latest
appointment. I am sure we should have a chat in the nearest future. I would be happy to meet you as
previously at the recreation in October. With best wishes.” The accent of the person making the
’phone call I have described as foreign, but the accent of the person writing the letter is Russian; see
Mr. Avery, his evidence about the formation of the sentences, in particular “nearest future” and the
word “recreation” and to a lesser extent on the envelope the use of the capitals for lower case.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Mr. Gordievsky said that that was the way he would expect a Russian
case officer to write to an agent who had been put out to grass.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Yes. The pattern of behaviour on which I rely is this. E is told by
Viktor Oschenko, “Get a job so that you can get information and pass it over.” E is given money as
well and is put on retainer; he is sent to Portugal on a training run, in his statement he says by George
-- in our submission, it does not matter who, because the significance of Viktor Oschenko is not as
an individual but as the organisation he is representing -- and the third thing that happens is that he is
handed over from Viktor Oschenko to another.
What I say is that the defendant’s behaviour in the 1970s and 1980s mirrors just that. He makes
contact as he admits in his interview with somebody from the Russian embassy at a meeting in a
church hall in Surbiton. He goes across the river to a couple of functions at the university or
polytechnic in the company of Russians from the embassy. He expresses his communist background,
gets a secret job and holds it until his communist past is revealed. He goes to Portugal in 1977 on a
training run and then, because Viktor Oschenko leaves this country in the late 1970s, it is implicit in
what we know that he was then handed over to another Russian handler. At the material time we are
concerned with, 1990-92, Oschenko was not in this country.
So, if E had behaved as he was exhorted to do, his conduct would have mirrored exactly the pattern
 |