perfectly valid point but, in the circumstances of this case, it is open to the Crown to put forward
evidence of motive borne out by the defendants actions and in my view this evidence is admissible.
Who is to say what weight it will carry in the long run.
The only limitation that I have put on the Crown which they agree, is that in general terms the jury
are entitled to be told that in 1976 he worked on classified material. The precise ambit of what
evidence can go before the jury on that is not a matter that I am ruling on at this moment. Clearly, it
is the fact that he sought work on classified material and did find work that is important. Whether it
is relevant to know precisely what work it was can be argued at the appropriate stage, which is not
Finally, I turn to item 6, evidence of Mr. Smiths visit to Oporto, to the map, the marked map found
in his home. This, coupled specifically with Mr. Es evidence of a trip to Lisbon in Portugal, Mr.
Tansey submits that the evidence of the marks on the map are far too tenuous. Further evidence has
recently been served about this which the defence team have not yet had the opportunity to fully
investigate. He, therefore, wishes to make further investigations and to raise the matter again.
I am quite prepared to accept that this is a proper view to take and I do not formally rule on the
Tradecraft map as yet until Mr. Tansey, or those who instruct him have got full instructions about
It therefore follows, as I see it, that if that cannot be resolved before the trial is opened, that the
evidence of Mr. Smiths visit to Oporto and the existence of the map found in his house, and the
questions about it may well have to be left out of the opening; but that depends to some extent on
whether this trial gets underway.