Print document
 86 of 94 
was running an agent. They say that that fact ties in with Mr. Smith’s movements. They further say
that there is evidence that Viktor Oschenko was in fact in London at the relevant period and was a
KGB case officer himself, and therefore they say that that fact -- it seems therefore likely that he
was Mr. Smith’s case officer. But there is nothing in the actual conversations themselves that make it
more likely that Viktor Oschenko was his case officer. It is the actions of E that make it more likely:
acting at Oschenko’s request and the fact that Oschenko was in London. That is why I drew the
distinction in argument with the Solicitor General about the difference between -- if he had said, “I
also have another agent named Smith.”
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, yes.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: That would have gone to the truth of the statement, but I think there is a
distinction between that and the admissibility purely for the purpose of showing how an agent is run.
MR. TANSEY: What is the relevance of that? Where are they permitted -- how are they permitted
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: The relevance of that, if it is relevant, depends then on the rest of the
evidence. It depends then on the interpretation the jury should give to the Williams letter and to Mr.
Smith’s movements and his explanations for them after he has been arrested.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, it would be interesting if the Crown could establish some authority for
actually showing that one can use or bypass the hearsay rule to establish system. My Lord, it may be
right, I am saying, but there is no authority to that effect as I understand it, and in my submission it is
not one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule on which the Crown can rely.
MR. TANSEY: I wait to see if that is the case. My Lord, if one could just go back to page 253 to
letter F -- I think I have referred you to that:
“If the prosecution had sought to call any of the persons who made such requests, to give evidence
of the making of the request, in order to establish their appetite for drugs and their belief that such
appetite could be satisfied by the appellant, such evidence could not have been properly admitted.”
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Yes. If it went just as far as that, I quite see that.
MR. TANSEY: Indeed. Can we come please to the bottom of 255. My Lord, maybe this actually
encapsulates the proposition to a certain degree. It is just between letter F and G:
“If, contrary to the view which I have expressed above, the simple request or requests for drugs to
be supplied by the appellant, as recounted by the police, contains in substance, but only by
implication, the same assertion, then I can find neither authority nor principle to suggest that the
hearsay rule should not be equally applicable and exclude such evidence. What is sought to be done
is to use the oral assertion, even though it may be an implied assertion, as evidence of the truth of the
proposition asserted. That the proposition is asserted by way of necessary implication rather then
expressly cannot, to my mind, make any difference.”
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: The assertion in that case was that Chippie was going to supply drugs.