 |
 |
|
essence of it and the way he talks about USSR, his escape, the circumstances of his escape, how
good it is to be in this country, he actually wrote a letter to the Evening Standard which I have not
got, saying how good he thought MI5 and MI6 were. That is fair enough, but there he is up front the
whole time, and it is to everybody who is in any way an enemy of this country that Gordievsky of the
K.G.B. has spilt the beans.
Oschenko, Victor Oschenko, when he defected received massive publicity, and it is obvious to
everybody here was a very big K.G.B. defector, and what we submit is that it is elementary that
every Secret Service operating in the United Kingdom and with an interest in these matters must
know that all the beans had been spilt by the K.G.B. and their tradecraft techniques. That must be
so. There is no other way of looking at it. If these were quiet defections then I could understand the
point. These are not quiet. These are big publicity, massive publicity when these two came because
Russian agents were expelled from this country shortly thereafter as a result of information. So,
everybody knows this. So, that is why I put to you your Lordship; it really is a most unsatisfactory
answer to say other hostile agencies would know the extent of Soviet tradecraft. It really is, in my
submission, a weak attempt to try and get this matter to be heard in camera when there really is no
justification.
My Lord, may I just deal with Mrs. C’s statement, and it seems that what your Lordship felt carried
weight was the particular piece on page 187. Namely, those sentences: “Intelligence gathering” ----
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: No, it was not the one piece. I thought that was the bit that the Solicitor
General was in his way emphasising, besides reading it out, because it seemed to encapsulate what
he was saying.
MR. TANSEY: It is like completing a jigsaw. It is elementary. I say it again: it is elementary. Every
little bit we get you are picking up the whole thing. Everybody knows this. There is nothing official,
secret about this. That is the test. I keep on saying that is the test. It has to be something which really
is a secret, and our submission is that when one looks at the statement of Mrs. C and Mr.
Gordievsky that just does not come within the definition and, may I make it quite clear, my Lord,
there is no question at all on our part, and I do not seek in any way to attempt to identify Mrs. C -
that is utterly right as far as we are concerned. My Lord, the key to it is whether one can really say
that this information, this evidence should be given in camera.
My Lord, the proper in camera proceeding is in itself very prejudicial so far as the defendant is
concerned, because the jury feels overweighed and burdened and wondering why is it that everyone
is excluded - it does not happen in big, murder cases, it happens in these cases - and that is
prejudicial to the defence as soon as it starts off. That is why it should, therefore, only be permitted
only when it is absolutely essential and necessary.
My Lord, our submission goes to this particular evidence which is well in the public domain,
everybody knows it; the K.G.B. know it, the enemies of the K.G.B. know it and, of course, one
knows as a matter of general knowledge the K.G.B. is selling secrets all round the world; that is
what it is doing; it is going all round; its agents are working everywhere; there is nothing special or
secret about it and, for that reason, my Lord I would submit to your Lordship that the case allowing
this evidence to be given in camera within section 8 (4) just has not been made out.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: What about Mr. E?
MR. TANSEY: Can I come to him then at this stage, because in his case there is a different issue as
well.
 |