 |
 |
|
Wednesday, 13th October 1993
(In camera in the absence of the jury)
MR. NUTTING: For the record, may I be allowed to indicate we ought still to sit in camera in view
of the evidence to which this aspect of the law is referable in this case.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Yes, I can see that because Mr. E -- we are in camera now, are we
not?
MR. NUTTING: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Mr. E’s evidence if admissible relates to tradecraft.
MR. NUTTING: My Lord, that is right.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Yes, Mr. Tansey.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, your Lordship appreciates that I had at an early stage addressed your
Lordship on -- I hope you do not feel it impertinent ----
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: No.
MR. TANSEY: ---- if I come back to the matter to ensure I put the proposition carefully to you on
the first occasion.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: What I have not done is -- you may have given me a skeleton
argument.
MR. TANSEY: May I say my argument is very short. Your Lordship is aware of the statement of
Mr. E?
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I am. I looked at that last night. I will get it open again. It starts at page
278 and, so you know, I have a copy which contains the wording that is blacked out, because you
will recollect that this was in fact a statement that was considered by me in the defence’s absence
first of all.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, yes.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: When considering public interest immunity. Broadly speaking -- not
going into what is there but broadly speaking -- my recollection is that what is deleted is anything
that might tend to identify Mr. E.
MR. TANSEY: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Nothing to do with his evidence that may or may not be relevant, which
the Crown contends is relevant.
MR. TANSEY: In addition, if I could assist you, the prosecution did serve on me two notebooks
with various parts edited out as well of Mr. E
 |