 |
 |
|
novels and books.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Tradecraft is; whether it is Russian tradecraft I would not know.
MR. TANSEY: Yes, I agree and, of course, the really accurate and totally precise tradecraft is what
Oschenko (…inaudible…), and the third point, national security of the K.G.B. Well, the cold war is
over, the USSR has gone; Russia is not an enemy of this country, and, consequently, the best
evidence of that is the defence estimates of which your Lordship is well aware and so the question I
ask ----
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Well, there is a suggestion in this case that however you define Russia in
relation to this country, Russia is still in the business of gathering information for its own use from
sources in this country to which it would not be entitled if it applied openly for it. I do not necessarily
say that makes it an enemy; it certainly makes it an inconvenient friend.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, yes, but inconvenient may be putting it at its highest. That is insufficient. It
has to be “would be prejudicial to the national safety”, you see, and that is why I say that test as set
out in section 8 (4) is a very high test that this is prejudicial to the - “would be prejudicial to the
national safety”, and therefore the fact that Russia is no longer - the cold war is over - is no longer
deemed to be an enemy of this country ----
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I do not think I read the phrase in such a narrow way as you do Mr.
Tansey.
MR. TANSEY: It is put to me that it “would be prejudicial to the national safety”; “safety” is the big
word - the “safety” of this country - and that means safety from attack or being undermined. Clearly,
those are important words. My Lord, therefore, one has to look at it in the context of today, in my
submission, because your Lordship is ruling when this trial occurs, can this evidence in the normal
way ----
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I do not think it is as simple as that, but you are really saying, to take as
I can see an extreme example, that anybody who disclosed information to a known friendly State -
let us say the United States of America, for want of looking further - that could never be kept quiet
however sensitive the information because it never would be prejudicial to the national safety. I do
not think I necessarily agree. I think it could be prejudicial to the national safety for a whole variety
of different reasons. It might get out into the open and people, not necessarily those who received it
in the United States of America, might be going to prejudice our national safety by the fact that it is
out in the open; third parties might.
MR. TANSEY: That is only looking at that part of it in that way but, ultimately, the question that we
come back to in our submission this is: in this case is publicity being given to K.G.B. tradecraft and
the fact that this had been exposed? The Crown has to show to your Lordship to a very high degree
that as such would be prejudicial.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I should say straight away, Mr. Tansey, so that the Solicitor General
knows this, this aspect of the case I find more worrying and troublesome than I did the scientific
decision which I have already made. I can see the force in what you put in this and it does trouble
me.
MR. TANSEY: It may be my Lord that when I cross-examine at certain points he may say, “I
object to that point”, and therefore he may then argue we should go into camera. That could arise.
 |