 |
 |
|
did not. Some people rang up and asked for drugs; some asked whether he was there. There are
different groupings but effectively it is the same consequence. What the Crown sought to show was,
from these telephone calls, the man Kearley was clearly dealing in drugs, and they were using the
telephone calls as an attempt to show ----
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I think we better look at what you want me to read. I have read it
before, but I only got it this morning.
MR. TANSEY: May I say the key proposition -- your Lordship has made the point earlier -- is that
the rules are artificial.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Yes, they are; never mind.
MR. TANSEY: But we have to apply them.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: They may be artificial or I may think they are artificial but I still have to
try and abide by the law as laid down by the House of Lords. It is quite immaterial what I think of it.
MR. TANSEY: Indeed yes, and what we are saying is the Crown in this case here will be saying to
the jury, “It is quite clear when you consider Mr. E’s evidence of what he did and from what he said
was the conversation between himself and Viktor, that in fact Viktor Oschenko at this material time
was in fact employing him and using him as an agent, and had suborned him at this particular period
of time.” They are going to rely upon it as being the truth from which inferences can be drawn and
the inferences they are going to seek to rely on.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: They are going to rely on the fact that E was stringing Oschenko along,
pretending to be an agent, to show that is how Oschenko tried to run his agents.
MR. TANSEY: It is both. It is how he behaved but also the conversation of Viktor Oschenko with
him. So they are going to say, by inference, “When he asked me to do this and to do that” -- the
Crown’s case is of course that is exactly how he operates -- “when he said these things, that is the
truth, and that is what we want you to bear in mind, members of the jury.” That is the argument that
they are going to be relying upon; the contents of the conversation.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: They are relying on the contents of the conversation first of all, as I see
it, to show how a Russian agent in this country -- I am going to call him a Russian case officer
because I think it is easier -- contacts and tries to run his English agent.
MR. TANSEY: Is that relevant? Is that admissible? I mean, the fact that he approaches A in one
way, you cannot say therefore he runs B and C, D, E, F the same way. What the Crown has to
show, I would suggest, is they have to show something much more. They have to say there is
something so striking and particular, unique, about it that the general level -- but there is nothing
special about it -- “Get some information about things” -- there is nothing special and unique about
it.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I would still like, if there is a point in R. v. Kearley, if you can pick me
out one or even more highlights of what Lord Oliver or whoever ….
MR. TANSEY: If I can refer you firstly to Lord Ackner, 253 at E, 1992 2 Appeal Cases.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Yes.
 |