As to Mrs. C, again I recognise it could well be that the fact that she is a member of an intelligence
agency here and experienced in obtaining information from defectors could not of itself, that
sentence, be said necessarily to be prejudicial to national safety but, thereafter, particularly in view of
her statement that it is impossible to say whether any particular piece of information might be fitted
into the jigsaw of the information possessed by an unfriendly power, I find it impossible to say that it
would be safe to allow any of the rest of her evidence to be given.
In those circumstances, it seems to me, doing the best I can, it would be of no consequence to her
to give one short sentence before the court went into camera.
I consequently rule that her evidence in full should be given in camera and, save for the few
preliminary questions of Mr Gordievsky, thereafter that evidence should be given in camera.
If in the course of cross-examination there is an application to cross-examine Mr Gordievsky on
general matters and not on specific matters, as and when that arises I will rule as to whether that
portion of his cross-examination might be able to be given in open court.
I turn finally to consider the case of Mr. E. Mr. E is an American National. His witness statement
shows that he was in contact with USSR through Mr. Oshchenko. Thereafter he was in contact with
his own countrys Security Services and then was put by them in contact with this country's Security
Services. He is, from his statement, reluctant to disclose his name. It may be, as he has been in touch
with both Security Services, that he might be under pressure if it were known that was the case and,
although there is no direct evidence of it, it is clearly a possibility that some retaliation might be
directed against him.
It is said by Mr. Tansey that the information they have about him is so limited they would not
properly be able to attack his credibility. If they were given his name and his address enquiries could
be briefed and sources could be possibly found which would indicate that he was a wholly
unreliable, possibly dishonest character or one given to telling tall stories; as is put, a Walter Mitty
Against that must be borne in mind that the Court has already had the opportunity of reading the full
file on Mr. E which was disclosed ex parte by the Crown and, after reading it, I directed that four
substantial documents be disclosed to the defence. Those documents all have deletions where names
occur, but they are bulky documents; they come from two separate sources; some from this
countrys intelligence services, and one from the United States intelligence services. Also they can be
checked because the defence again has been supplied with the debriefing notes of Mr. Gordievsky
in relation to the appropriate matters and, therefore, there is substantial material which is in the hands
of the defence on which Mr. E can be cross-examined.
As far as Mr. E is concerned, I have borne in mind the strong way in which Mr. Tansey puts it. He
says that Mr. E is not a peripheral witness. He puts him at the heart of the case. He draws the
Courts attention to a powerful passage of the judgement of Fortas J. in the United States case of
Smith v. Illinois where the Supreme Court was considering the accuseds right to confront the
witnesses against him given under the sixth amendment of the Constitution. It reads:
... where the credibility of a witness is in issue, the very start in exposing falsehood and bringing out
the truth through cross-examination must necessarily be to ask the witness who he is and where he
lives. The witness name and address open countless avenues of in-court examination and out-of-
court investigation. To forbid this most rudimentary enquiry at the threshold is effectively to