 |
 |
|
membership of those parties as seen from the interview, is not relevant. The changes governing that
time are quite separate and distinct; the fact that he was a member until 1976 is not relevant, that
there is membership of an organisation 14 years before does not allow the person to argue that they
are still a member of such an organisation, and there is no evidence that he is a member of the
Communist Party or has been one since 1976. The point we say is that masses of material was
taken from his address; no documentary evidence, no verbal evidence that he is a member of the
Communist party.
My Lord, when one considers the question of people changing their political views and political
perspectives over the years, people frequently over the passage of time change their political
viewpoints. There have been many changes: Dennis Healy many years ago was a younger man in the
Communist Party and then became involved in the Labour party. Likewise, the famous case of Reg
Prentice, a committed member of the Labour Party (inaudible) - people’s political perspectives do
switch and change over the years and, further more, as seems to be well known, the ranks of the
Communist Party were being depleted year in and year out. My Lord, therefore, we submit it really
is in fact far too unsatisfactory to suggest that the fact that he was a member in 1976, from this to
allow anyone to draw the inference that is a sympathiser of Communist Party in 1990 is just too
remote and it is too dangerous, in our submission, to allow such evidence to be adduced.
We say further, even if your Lordship, despite the age gap, or the gap of 14 years, to allow it to be
adduced in evidence to support charges in 1992 would be a far more prejudicial than probative so
far as this case is concerned, and so for that reason we would ask your Lordship to rule that this
evidence is not evidence of his character in 1990 1992, but evidence may be of what he was 14
years before, and how many people possibly would like to be judged today by their policies, politics
which they had 14 or 7 years ago. My Lord, that is how we put this proposition.
What we would submit urgently to your Lordship is that there is a very great danger that if the jury
are told that he was a member of the Communist Party in those years up to 1976 that could be so
prejudicial that the jury may not in fact pay sufficient attention to all the other evidence in the case
and use that effectively like a conviction of a similar nature, a similar character and hold that against
him, and that would be unfair.
My Lord, that is our submission so far as that particular piece of evidence is concerned.
My Lord, the fourth matter is the evidence of Mr. Smith’s employment in 1976 by EMI and his
working in the classified XN715 field project. This has got nothing to do with this case. It is blatant,
naked prejudice. He is not charged with any offence so far as this is concerned, his employment in
1976. There is no evidence of any wrong doing of any kind by him in 1976, and we submit it is just
not relevant at all so far as proving his involvement in this case at the date in question.
My Lord, our submission is to allow this evidence in is the Crown saying to the jury: “We know he
is not charged, but a nod is as good as a wink.” It is blatant prejudice, and therefore we would ask
your Lordship to rule that this evidence just is not relevant. But, even if your Lordship said, “Sorry, it
is relevant”, we say the prejudice of this far outweighs the probative value, because what the jury
may well start thinking is, “If this is 1976 and this goes on”, they will then say there is a whole chain
going on up to 1990/1992 and that would be quite wrong bearing in mind that there is no change of
any kind in respect of his employment at EMI.
My Lord, fifthly, his evidence to regain the security clearance and the evidence of the lies he told in
the course of that evidence. That is set out in the interviews in question.
 |