 |
 |
|
evidence against Mr. Smith at this stage of the case for a jury to consider -- whether they accept it
or not in due course is a matter for them, but the evidence is that, after his arrest, in his house were
found some notes in his handwriting which clearly relate to activities in 1992. In the same envelope is
a letter from a man signing himself “Williams”, which Mr. Gordievsky has indicated is the type of
letter he would expect a Russian case officer to write to an agent who for some reason has not been
acting as a regular agent for some time. Therefore there is evidence for a jury to consider that the
writer of that letter signed Williams is written by a Russian.
There is also evidence for them to consider that the contents of the documents contained at pages
273-276 inclusive in bundle 1 of the Crown exhibits relate to purported meetings of Mr. Smith with
his Russian case officer. It is quite clear that they do relate to 1992 because there is integral
evidence within them to indicate that and, although in interview Mr. Smith firmly denied that they had
anything to do either with Russia or with tradecraft, he accepted that his movements did in fact --
certainly in relation to his movements on 6th August -- tie up with the movements jotted down in
those notes.
Consequently the jury would be entitled to draw the inference that, for a period prior to 8th August,
the date of Mr. Smith’s arrest, Mr. Smith had been in contact with Russians for the purpose of
giving or intending to give them secret information or information that he thought was secret.
They further rely on the contents of a telephone call made by a member of the security services
masquerading as a foreigner, purporting to be made by George who was a friend of Viktor’s,
arranging for a further telephone call at a nearby ’phone box. Within minutes of that call being made,
the defendant was at that ’phone box. After his arrest documents from his place of work (Hirst
Research Centre) were found, and there is evidence that those documents were documents which at
this stage might have been prejudicial to the safety and interests of this country, and sufficient
evidence for the jury, if they wished, to say that was the purpose for which they were in the
defendant’s possession.
The final matter the Crown rely on is that there is evidence that Mr. Oshchenko defected to the
West on 25th July 1992. He came to this country shortly afterwards. The Crown say that the fact
that in the so-called tradecraft notes there is reference to a meeting on 6th August. That the
defendant in his interview admits that he went to Harrow, which is the place designated for that
meeting on that date, indicates that the Russians were not prepared to meet the defendant on 6th
August, because they knew by then that Oshchenko had defected and therefore that it was quite
probable that their cover was blown. So the Crown say there is some evidence to indicate that this
defendant was being run by Viktor Oshchenko. So much for the Crown’s contentions.
The defence submit that the evidence is by no means conclusive, on those facts, that the defendant
was being run by Viktor Oshchenko. They say that it would not be a proper conclusion for a jury to
take. With that argument, after careful consideration, the Court disagrees. The Court takes the view
that that is a matter of fact for the jury to decide. Whether they decide that it is necessary for them to
go that far again is a matter for them, because the indictment does not charge the defendant
specifically with passing information either to Mr. Oshchenko at any time in the past or to a specific
person on or about 8th August. It is simply passing information to another who was a potential
enemy in accordance with the section of the Official Secrets Act.
Consequently I take the view firmly that potentially the evidence of Mr. E is relevant. It is relevant
because there is in the Court’s view sufficient connection already with Oshchenko. It is also relevant
because the Crown are entitled to call further evidence to show that Mr. Oshchenko was a Russian
KGB agent, and it is also relevant because they are entitled to call further evidence of tradecraft.
 |