any incriminating evidence could be destroyed.
We start off the situation here where, in fact, the police have the information on which they can
arrest him. They have the search warrant to search his house. Having arrested him they can question
him, etc for as long as they are entitled to do so. My Lord, in this situation how can they be justified
to take the course they have followed? This is not like the blackmailer. The police use subterfuges in
blackmail cases nearly always because that is the only way they can actually get the blackmailer.
They have to do this as a chance of trapping him, but in this case there is no need to trap him
because they have the material on which, for example -----
JUSTICE BLOFELD: I do not follow it
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, the position is clear from the very extensive interviews.
JUSTICE BLOFELD: Now we have got very extensive interviews, at that stage we did not have
very extensive interviews.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, what we know from the very extent of the questions is that the police had
a vast amount of material that they put to this defendant.
JUSTICE BLOFELD: They had a vast amount of material, but they did not have a vast amount,
necessarily, of admissible material.
MR. TANSEY: What they certainly had, and this we know, they had the evidence of what, at least,
Oschenko had told them.
JUSTICE BLOFELD: Well, they had what Oschenko had told them. Again, if you are looking at it
now, we are looking at it also with the benefit of hindsight. To that extent the witness we have not
got is Oschenko.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, indeed, and the fair way for the Crown to operate in this case will be not
to seek to get in through the back door about Viktor being Viktor Oschenko, if that is what they are
suggesting, but to do it properly and fairly by calling him so that the question can then be resolved
fairly and reasonably. My Lord, that is the fair way. If they want to say, as it seems they are going to
say, that Viktor is Viktor Oschenko then they should not be allowed to get it in the side door. There
is a simple way to do it, call him to give that evidence.
My Lord, in this case here the question is why did they need to use the ruse, because they did have
the material, they had Oschenko. Oschenko was giving them page after page after page of
debriefing information and, as your Lordship knows, we have been given some of it. There is a vast
amount of it.
JUSTICE BLOFELD: One matter strikes me. If Oschenko had been called he would properly be
treated as an accomplice, I am not certain that he would or not, but that is as it seems to me. I know
he is not a British citizen, but he certainly was involved in the criminal conduct alleged against your
client. It is always quite sensible to try and get evidence that is untainted.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, if that is the case there are fairer ways of doing. For example, if they
believe that this man is dealing as an agent for the K.G.B. then what they do, as in many other cases,
they observe him. They watch his movements very carefully. They watch the telephones he goes to
and they tap his telephone and then they search his house. That is what they can do. That is what