IN THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
MICHAEL JOHN SMITH
44 year old SMITH was employed in the Quality Assurance Department of the GEC Hirst Research Centre (HRC) in Wembley. HRC is a “prohibited place” under the provisions of the Official Secrets Act 1911 [Section 3(b)] because it receives classified material in connection with Ministry of Defence contracts.
The Prosecution case is that SMITH was an agent of the Russian Intelligence Service and that between 1990 and his departure from HRC in July 1992 he communicated to his controllers material and information from HRC which was intended to be of use to the Russians.
SMITH began work at HRC in December 1985 and was given notice of redundancy on 29th May 1992. His last working day was 31st July 1992.
NFE 2 P.187
On 25th July 1992 a senior officer of the KGB - Viktor OSHCHENKO - stationed in Paris, defected to the West and was granted political asylum in the UK.
On Saturday 8th August 1992 at 9.02 a.m. a member of the security services - referred to as Mr. “B” - telephoned SMITH at his home address of 48A, Burton Road, Kingston-upon-Thames.
The phone call was tape-recorded.
Mr. “B” introduced himself as “George” … “I am a colleague of your old friend Victor, do you remember him?” SMITH replied “Yes”.
“George” went on to explain that it was very urgent that they should speak and arranged to call SMITH at a telephone kiosk on the corner of Durlston Road and Cardinal Avenue fifteen minutes later.
The object of the exercise was, of course, to test SMITH’s reaction. SMITH agreed to George’s request without argument or further enquiry.
At 9.20 a.m. SMITH left his house and hurriedly walked to the telephone kiosk described by George. (See Plan SJS/1). SMITH was under surveillance.
He waited by the telephone for a minute or so before walking off only to return a minute or two later. He again waited by the telephone, this time sitting on the wall. (See photographs CJS/1). Owing to a communications breakdown between Mr. “B” and the surveillance team the planned telephone call was not made and having sat on the wall by the telephone for 7 minutes SMITH returned home via a newsagents in Kings Road.
As SMITH approached his home he was arrested by plain clothes officers for an offence under the Official Secrets Act. The arresting officer, D.I. NICHOLSON, displayed his warrant card. SMITH was placed in an unmarked police car and driven to Paddington Police Station. En route SMITH said “You’re not Police. I know who you are” and screamed out “I’m being kidnapped, help me, I’m being kidnapped.”
The journey was continued with the assistance of uniformed officers in order to allay SMITH’s fears as to the identity of those who had detained him.
EX. 36 & 37
Over the next three days, whilst SMITH was being interviewed, his house was searched.
On 10th August three envelopes were found in the same drawer of a bedroom table. (See photographs JKB/1). Two of the envelopes each contained £1000 in £50 notes. (PMS/24 & 25).
The third envelope contained a letter and four sheets of paper. (Photo 1, JKB/1).
The envelope, RH/22, is dated 24th September 1990 and addressed to the Defendant. The letter refers to “a lot of water” passing “under the bridge since our latest appointment”. It requests a “chat” in the “nearest” future and arranges a meeting “as previously at the recreation in October”. No further details or dates are given and the letter is simply signed “WILLIAMS”.
The four sheets of paper, JS/41-44, are in SMITH’s handwriting.
Typed copies, MSM/2-5, have been prepared.
Each refers to arrangements for various meetings with the use of symbols to indicate messages such as “danger” and “come next day” JS/41 and JS/44 or “Green next day, Red next Saturday” JS/43 or signs such as “Abbotsbury Road / Melbury Road coke can at bollard” JS/44. They detail alternative arrangements and instructions if contact is lost:
JS/41 “Contact break come 2/3 WED each month”
JS/42 “2/3rd Wednesdays if contact lost @ 12.45”
JS/44 “Long break every 2/3 WED at Horsenden”
MRS. “C” P.62
P.181 & P.186
ATKINSON P.66 & P.174
AND SEE PLAN AW/7
These arrangements and the locations referred to (all close to HRC Wembley) have been examined by the Security Services. They bear the hallmark of KGB “Tradecraft”, repeating the methods used by other convicted KGB agents.
e.g. Dieter GEHARDT } symbols left in chalk
and Geoffrey PRIME } to convey messages
Geoffrey PRIME: coca-cola can left in a
Hugh HAMBLETON } pre-arranged meetings
Harry HOUGHTON } and fall-back arrangements
Douglas BRITTEN } if contact was lost
Douglas BRITTEN: instructions to follow a
particular route to allow
cf. JS/42 and JS/44
The locations chosen are typical of those favoured by the KGB for clandestine meetings:
Horsenden Hill JS/41 and JS/44
Roxeth Recreation Ground, near South Harrow station. JS/42.
Church Hill, Harrow. JS/44.
All are open areas within 25 miles of the city centre used by the public where meetings would not attract attention and yet surveillance would be difficult without being detected.
SEE MAP RR/4
Mrs. “C” ’s assessment of these documents is confirmed by Oleg GORDIEVSKY. From 1962 to 1985 GORDIEVSKY was an Officer in the KGB (now renamed the SVR but using the same techniques). For 9 years GORDIEVSKY was a member of Directorate ‘S’ which was responsible for training KGB Officers to operate abroad. As a result he was involved in the development of KGB “Tradecraft”.
To GORDIEVSKY’s expert eye the unsteadiness of the writing on the envelope RH/22 and the confusion between capital letters and lower case in the R’s and N’s betray the difficulty a Russian has in changing from Cyrillic to Latin script.
The “WILLIAMS” letter JS/40 is typical of a summons to an agent for a clandestine meeting devoid, as previously observed, of any date, time or place and therefore relying upon a standing arrangement and proving an existing relationship.
GORDIEVSKY confirms the use of symbols or “signalisation” and observes that the use of a vertical line to indicate danger and a horizontal line to postpone the meeting to the next day are the most usual symbols used by the KGB.
GORDIEVSKY points out that the junction of Abbotsbury Road and Melbury Road as described on JS/44 is conveniently on the route from the KGB Officers’ living quarters in Edith Road to the Russian Embassy. The area has been used regularly as a signal site including by GORDIEVSKY himself.
On JS/42 GORDIEVSKY observes that the signalisation is different, using colours rather than symbols and that there is a note for a newspaper, The “Guardian”, which would be a recognition signal. All of which suggests the arrangements relate to a different stage of the agent’s relationship with his controller.
I/V P.640, 652-3,
e.g. I/V 676
JS/ 44 sets out arrangements for a meeting on 6th August. The document also refers to KARL GEHRING and an instruction to get Karl’s address and telephone number. The reference to GEHRING also refers to redundancies. GEHRING was employed at HRC where he led the research into High Temperature Superconductivity (HTSC) until he was made redundant in 1992. [GORDIEVSKY explains that the KGB uses its agents for “talent-spotting”]. Moreover, JS/44 has an apparent shopping-list which includes “micron-valve - give details of cutbacks”. The micron-valve project at HRC suffered funding restrictions in April 1992.
These references date JS/44 as referring to an appointment on 6th August 1992, 2 days before SMITH’s arrest.
The arrangements specify a particular route - “from bottom of hill walk up and round Church Hill into church” - allowing the contact to ensure that the agent is not under surveillance. In interview SMITH admitted that on Thursday 6th August 1992 he had visited Harrow-on-the-Hill and followed the route described in JS/44, although he denied it was for the purpose of a meeting. SMITH could not explain JS/41-44 save to dismiss them as “doodles”. By the 6th August the KGB were, of course, aware of OSHCHENKO’s defection and the risk it posed to their agents in the field. Consequently, such meetings as described in JS/44 would have to have been aborted. As a result any material that SMITH had intended to hand over on 6th August would still be in his possession.
The shopping-list on JS/44 includes “biosensors”, “micronvalve” and “HTSC” (GEHRING’s speciality). GORDIEVSKY recognises these as being frequently on the requirements list of “Line-X” of the KGB, the branch responsible for the acquisition of high technological industrial and scientific secrets, usually with a military significance. The shopping-list also includes “get old project notes” and “micromachining”.
In the boot of SMITH’s Datsun car Police found a blue holdall containing a plastic bag full of documents and some components. Amongst the documents were:-
(i) JS/17 a three-page handwritten note dated June 1992 and headed “Micromachining Project”.
(ii) JS/19 a handwritten note dated May 1992 and headed “Micron-valve Project”
These were similarly written notes on subjects not on the shopping-list:-
JS/16 dated June 1992 and headed “Rugate filters for SDI”, i.e. Strategic Defence Initiative or Star Wars.
JS/18 dated May 1992 and headed “Quasi-optical Car Radar”.
JS/20 dated May 1992 and headed “Olfactory Research Project”
All these notes are written in capital letters (cf. SMITH’s notes for his own purposes e.g. EX. P.310 et seq) and are clearly written for a third party. Moreover, SMITH would have no need for such documents in the ordinary course of his employment and the information contained in them extends beyond that necessary for his work.
They tend to confirm, therefore, that the documents in SR/4 from the boot of SMITH’s car were intended to be passed on to a third party.
In addition to the handwritten notes there were a large number of documents that SMITH had removed from HRC without permission.
The documents covered a number of different technologies and included:-
(i) build specifications and blueprints for a device employed in the RAPIER missile system. (JS/21-38);
(ii) a document marked “RESTRICTED” (i.e. a document to which SMITH should not have had access, identifying the incorporation of another device in an airborne guided weapon (JS/15 P.53);
(iii) a specification sheet (part of SR/4 P.84) and completed component (part of JS/14) for a device to be used in “smart” weapons, radars and electronic warfare systems;
(iv) a production process flow chart (SR/4 P.1 & 2) for infra-red detectors to be used in military Thermal Imaging Equipment (in which the UK is the world leader).
In interview SMITH explained his possession of these and other documents by saying that they had been gathered up in the haste of his departure from HRC.
All the documents and components have been examined by MoD and HRC experts to assess their significance.
It is important to appreciate that “intelligence gathering is like completing a jigsaw, every piece, while not necessarily of high value in itself, can be of great value in building up the whole picture. This is particularly true in the Science and Technology (S & T) field … sometimes a small, seemingly innocuous piece of information, can be of value in adding to information already received or ongoing research”.
SEE PHOTO ALH/1
JS/15 EX.3 P.2-175
A very comprehensive assembly, from various sources, of documents and build schedules relating to Surface Acoustic Wave (SAW) devices. The documents span 12 years, e.g. 1978 (P.77) to 1990 (P.2) and include 2 documents classified “RESTRICTED” pp.51-59 and pp.73-76. Six of the components in JS/14 were SAW devices. SAW devices are widely used in a variety of military systems (as well as non-military). By way of example one of the ‘Restricted’ documents identifies the use of the device in the receiver of an airborne guided weapon (P.53).
And a further document (P.96) relates to a BULK ACOUSTIC WAVE DEVICE used in the RAPIER missile system.
The details of design and fabrication processes could be used to enhance the performance of such devices and thus allow the development of more capable military systems.
JS/16 EX.4 P.176-178 [Handwritten Note]
“RUGATE FILTERS FOR SDI”
Relates to a contract for the Strategic Defence Initiative Procurement Office [SDI(PO) - Star Wars] and managed by the Defence Research Agency at Malvern.
The note highlights the current state of the programme and the extension of the contract until 1994. It also identifies a major point of contact in the U.S.A. - BILL WOODY P.176. The note identifies the application of the device to laser protection particularly in the SDI context - P.178.
The information on the number of rejection notches (P.178) and the techniques to increase radiation hardness could enable the performance characteristics of future defence systems to be deduced.
The information as to the materials then being studied would assist others researching the same field.
SMITH had no need of such a document, and the information extended beyond Q.A. needs.
JS/17 EX.5 P.179-181 [Handwritten Note]
The Micro-machining Project is of civilian rather than military application. However, it is at the leading edge of technology and has a potential application to the radiation-hardening of future sensors and systems. The details provided indicate how advanced the U.K. is in the technology and thereby indicate the likely feasibility of defence applications.
SMITH’s Q.A. audit duties did not cover the areas set out in the note
JS/18 EX.6 P.182-185 [Handwritten Note]
“QUASI-OPTICAL CAR RADAR”
Again this is a current project. The project, as the heading suggests is of commercial application and the information would not be sensitive save for the fact that in the penultimate paragraph on P.185 SMITH has recorded that the project leader - PETER BRIGGINSHAW - is also working on an application of the technique to a scanning system for missiles with the LEAR CO. in the USA.
Considerable research has been required to produce this note - only 3 people at HRC would be aware of all the detail set out.
And BARLOW P.97
JS/19 EX.7 P.186 [Handwritten Note]
Current Project: The Micron-Valve Project referred to is developmental and the information basically commercial.
However, the project is in part funded by the Defence Research Agency because the technology may provide a means of hardening sensors and systems against radiation - as with JS/16 and JS/17.
JS/20 EX.8 P.187 [Handwritten Note]
“OLFACTORY RESEARCH PROJECT”
Relates to the use of SAW and BAW devices as detectors of gas and has potential application to Chemical and Biological Defence as well as Security purposes.
Much of the information is in the public domain, however, the note goes on to indicate that the device fabrication is now reproducible and briefly indicates the process.
The Director of HRC, Dr. CUNDY, is of the view that there was no professional reason for creating any of the documents above.
SEE REF. TO RAPIER
JS/21 - JS/38 EXs.9-26 P.188-P.269
These are all build specifications, manufacturing drawings and blueprints for a microwave component called an “F-band delay line”. The device was manufactured by HRC for COSSOR ELECTRONICS for use in part of the RAPIER missile, an air defence weapons system in service with the Army, Royal Air Force and U.S. Air Force amongst others. The component is incorporated within the system’s OCF (Operators Confidence Facility) and delays signals so that the system’s ability to detect and identify targets can be tested.
The information revealed by these documents, if used in conjunction with other intelligence about RAPIER and particularly the OCF facility, would be useful in establishing the “performance parameters” of RAPIER and assist in developing countermeasures for jamming the targeting system.
The F-band delay line is now an obsolete component, the techniques described in the documents having been overtaken by technological advances. However, the components manufactured in accordance with these blueprints are still incorporated in RAPIER systems in service.
The information would, therefore, be of no commercial benefit (e.g. to a competitor) and could only be of use in the way described. This is important to remember when one comes to consider SMITH’s account in interview (see later).
P.1 AND 2
PP.12, 22, 32
SR/4 EX.40 SEPARATE BUNDLE P.1-87
Infra-Red Detector Configuration Flow Chart; Dated 1988. The chart came from the Infra-Red Laboratory at HRC. It gives full details for the production of CADMIUM MERCURY TELLURIDE (CMT) INFRA-RED DETECTORS. These are state of the art military components manufactured for incorporation in UK military Thermal Imaging Equipment; in this case a high quality infra-red imaging system enabling night-time aircraft operations and visibility for gunners.
The UK is the world leader in such technology and disclosure of this information would allow the recipient to develop a similar capability and erode the UK military advantage.
The remainder of SR/4 contains a number of original documents taken from the HRC Quality Assurance reference library.
They include a number of documents relating to a process called SILICON-ON-SAPPHIRE (SOS), a technology relevant, yet again, to radiation-hardened components for sensors and weapons systems.
The documents are out-of-date (1986 and 1987) and the technology has advanced since. Moreover, the high cost of the technology militates against its commercial use. And so, again, the information would be of little use to a commercial competitor, however it might be of use in assessing the performance of any device which incorporated the technology.
In JS/14, the collection of components, there were 3 S.O.S. chips [SLC 3-5].
Also amongst JS/14 were 5 GALLIUM ARSENIDE (GaAs) MONOLITHIC MICROWAVE INTEGRATED CIRCUITS (MMICs) [SLC 1 and 2]. Amongst SR/4 were 5 specification sheets for these devices [pp.72, 74, 78, 80 and 84]. They all relate to 1987 and were produced as prototypes, and the combination of the specification sheet and the prototype demonstrates to those skilled in the art how to manufacture the device. The devices are relevant to ‘smart’ weapons, radar and electronic warfare and, indeed, the last of the 5, (SLC/2, spec. sheet P.84) was designed as part of a terminally guided munitions system.
The information could assist in developing counter-measures.
There was one further document found in SMITH’s car, not in the boot with the others, but in a plastic bag under the carpet of the driver’s side. [JS/8, was SR/3] EX.27 P.270.
The numbers on the left are sequence control numbers assigned to an order when it comes in to HRC. The first entry relates to an order dated 9th March 1990 and the last relates to 9th November 1990. The contracts referred to were not all projects with which SMITH was concerned in his Q.A. role, the majority, however, are leading edge techniques and include:-
9045 I(nfra) R(ed) Design Work
9137 Contribution to H.T.S.C. Programme
9358 COSSOR Electronics Delay Line Type F
Under “old project notes”
The middle 4 comprise the ‘shopping-list’ on JS/44 (P.276), documents relating to the first and last are found in the boot of SMITH’s car.
On JS/41 (P.273), above the danger signal is written “Copy John’s Contracts List”. The Q.A. co-ordinator who would receive the sequence control numbers and enter them into a Contract’s Register was JOHN PARKER.
HRC are unaware of any reason for SMITH to write such a list.
Of course, this is only the material that SMITH had gathered for his last “delivery” before his activities were curtailed by redundancy, and as such can only be an indication as to the information he had leaked on his earlier clandestine meetings. When one comes to consider the damage caused by the loss of such information or, more accurately, the “usefulness” of the information to a potential enemy in some cases, at least, one can only guess. One does not necessarily know how many pieces of a particular jigsaw puzzle Line “X” of the Russian Intelligence Services already have or how advanced they themselves may be in a particular technology. Even experts within the UK may differ depending on their viewpoint [e.g. WEATHERLEY’s overview as a scientific adviser to the MoD as opposed to the scientist whose view is confined by the details and application of his own particular project].
Moreover, it is true that at least some of the information recovered from the boot of SMITH’s car was:-
(a) more commercial than military in application;
(b) already in the public domain; and
(c) not, in isolation, useful or sensitive.
However, the offence with which SMITH is charged contrary to Section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 is:-
“for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state …
(b) makes notes, sketches …
(c) obtains notes …
Which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy …
As a quality assurance engineer SMITH was not an expert or specialist in any of these technologies, he was more a scientific jack-of-all-trades. Some of his handwritten notes betray his limited understanding of particular projects [e.g. JS/16, GREENHAM and JS/18, BRIGGINSHAW].
When gathering information for the Russians SMITH could not know what in fact would be of use to them, he could only gather that which he thought might be useful - leading edge technologies with express or potential military application - he would have to leave it to the Russian experts to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
EX.’s 36 & 37
PMS/24 & 25
SAY Schedule Item 300
As previously indicated in the same drawer in SMITH’s bedroom as the WILLIAMS letter and the 4 “tradecraft” documents Police also found 2 envelopes each containing £1,000 in £50 notes.
SMITH’s bank accounts, building society accounts and financial records have been examined - the £2,000 cannot be accounted for.
(i) From 19th October 1990 (a month after the WILLIAMS letter) onwards SMITH made a large number of cash purchases (mostly of musical and computer equipment) totalling in excess of £11,000 - cash which again cannot be accounted for by any withdrawals from the bank accounts.
(ii) Rather than there being cash withdrawals for living expenses (which ceased altogether on 12th August 1991) there were cash deposits of almost £2,000 which could not be accounted for, beginning in February 1991.
(iii) Up to the end of 1990 there had been regular payments by cheque to food stores e.g. SAINSBURY’s and SAVACENTRE. From the end of 1990 there were no such payments by cheque.
Analysis of all the accounts and receipts disclose an unexplained source of money for the period October 1990 to August 1992 in excess of £16,000.
On the 5th February 1991 SMITH paid a total of £10,062.50 to the Synthesizer Company for musical and computer equipment. [£4,800 cash, £4,000 cheque, £1,262.50 credit card].
At the same time SMITH’s annual salary from GEC was £16,700.00 gross.
SMITH was interviewed over the 4 days 8th August - 11th August.
For more than 3 of those 4 days SMITH denied passing information to anybody.
SMITH was asked about:-
(a) What he had been doing before he was arrested:
“I’d just been down the shop to get a newspaper.”
He hadn’t taken a direct route to the newspaper shop but he refused to discuss the route - it was “trivial”.
It was suggested to him that he had received a telephone call and he agreed.
“God knows … I think it was a wrong number. Foreign guy … I understand he’d mistaken me for somebody else. I just humoured him and put the phone down.”
He had told his wife that the call was from a man he had worked with because he didn’t want her to be upset.
He thought the caller might have got the wrong
Michael SMITH and
the telephone call had had nothing to do with his subsequent movements.
“I just took it that the guy’s an idiot and got the wrong number and I just humoured him.”
“What were you asked to do?”
“I wasn’t asked to do anything.”
“Urgent or something like that. He sounded like he was in trouble. Could I meet him or something … I wasn’t really interested in what the guy had to say.”
“He’d got the wrong name I guess.”
“I talked gibberish to him like he talked gibberish to me and we finished and that was the end of it.”
He didn’t remember VICTOR’s name being mentioned … “maybe it was”.
“I do not know any VICTORS … I never knew a VICTOR in the past.”
(Save for the son of a Spanish friend, who he discounted).
“… all I did was to walk and to buy a paper. I did nothing else.”
“I’m putting it to you that that telephone conversation concerned a man called VICTOR and you were on your way to … meet up with somebody when you left the house this morning.”
“That’s untrue but I don’t want to comment on it anyway.”
The next day SMITH was played the tape recording of the call he received from “GEORGE”.
SMITH had no comment on the tape.
“I humoured the guy … I didn’t act on his instructions.”
Q. “You did go to that telephone box at the corner of Durlston Road and Cardinal Avenue.”
A. “I didn’t go anywhere near Durlston Road … I’m saying that it didn’t happen.”
“I did not set out to receive a telephone call …”
The Police then indicated they expected to have photographic evidence to contradict his denial and he said
“I did not deny that … I don’t believe I said I denied it.”
He had responded to the call by going to the location because he “suspected there was something untoward in this man’s telephone call … I am a suspicious character I am cautious and curious …
“I was curious because … two weeks earlier … I saw a man watching my house and I thought something’s going on …”
“He sounded suspicious … it was curiosity on my part, I thought well I’ll follow this up … there was nothing there …”
“I was getting the feeling it was a hoax … we have a friend who does play practical jokes on us sometimes, he puts on funny accents …”
He had sat on the wall near the telephone kiosk, he couldn’t remember but he might have gone into the kiosk … but
He didn’t know why.
He thought he might have gone into the kiosk and picked up the phone to ring his wife in case she was getting anxious but then he had thought she was probably in the shower.
He had sat on the wall because he was a bit tired.
As can be seen SMITH’s account changes over the 4 days as he becomes aware of the strength of the evidence; firstly, when he realises the Police have a tape of the telephone call and secondly, when he realises they have photographed his movements. Indeed, throughout the interviews SMITH was constantly testing and probing his questioners to reveal their hand before committing himself:-
Q. “What route did you take (to the newsagents)?”
A. “What has this got to do with this interview?”
Q. “Will you please tell me what route you took to the newsagents?”
A. “Is something supposed to have happened on the way to the newsagents?”
“You are not giving me the information which you are obviously basing this on …”
“I’d much rather you give me the evidence, we can discuss it … it’s your turn to give me some information before I co-operate with you.”
“Did you get this George to phone me up? I think that’s what it must be … well put the cards on the table. Who is this George then?”
A. You’re asking me questions without giving me the facts …”
Q. “You don’t expect … I’m going to put all my cards on the table at once?”
A. “Well don’t, so I won’t either.”
“I’m not going to discuss that (the route to the newspaper shop) with you until you get me some evidence.”
“I’ve decided to decline to comment further on any questions you may have … until you reveal further information on your side …”
When asked about VICTOR OSCHENKO, who he denied knowing,
“I’m not going to comment on this guy, whoever he might be it’s for you to present the facts and I’ll discuss it when you come up with them.”
A. How can you prove I received a telephone call?”
Q. “I can prove that.”
A. “I don’t think you can prove that … if my wife talked to you about it, and I’ve talked to you about it, that’s the only way you can prove that it happened. Isn’t it?”
Q. Did you ever meet any Russians?”
A. “… I don’t think it’s right to discuss this until you put more cards on the table.”
“… we have not yet reached the meat of the case, whatever your case is.”
… etc …
SMITH was asked about:-
He was asked about his computer equipment and how much it had cost.
“I think it was about £4,000.”
He was shown a quotation from The Synthesizer Company [JS/39] for over £10,000.
“… yes, I don’t think that’s what I actually bought.”
He was shown a statement of account from T.S.C. [RR/1] showing he had actually paid over £10,000 on 5th February 1991.
“I did not pay over, I did not receive that … I have never received that document.”
He then agreed it was the right amount that he had paid for his computer equipment.
The statement of account showed that SMITH had paid £4,800 by cash. He was asked where the cash had come from:
“Well it’s money that I had saved up.”
He was told that the Police would have access to his bank accounts within 24 hours:-
“I can’t say it would come out of one account. I collected the money from sources and had savings I always like to keep a certain amount of cash at home.”
“I’d collected it (the cash) over a period of a couple of weeks from the sources I had.”
He was asked what sources:-
“Well it’s difficult to say isn’t it … I like to have a reasonable amount of cash available … for emergencies … keeping cash is a better way of getting a better discount …”
“Some of the money I would have withdrawn from the building society.”
“I collected it from sources which were quite legitimate.”
He was told that the following day the Police would have the details from his various bank accounts.
He was told that the Police had found the £2,000 in £50 notes at his house [PMS/24 and PMS/25]. He was asked where it had come from:-
“Well it’s money I’ve, I’ve er … withdrawn from my account.”
“I withdraw large amounts when I want to …”
“I’ve only started to want to deal in cash more … when there’s been these high interest rates and credit cards …”
“I’ve had you know other means of income apart from the work I do at GEC … I’ve earned some money through playing the guitar … at a school.”
Q. “When did you last play there?”
A. “I think it was about 2 years ago.”
“I get money from where I work in the form of expenses …”
Q. Where did you get £2,000 from in brand new £50 notes.
A. “… I have withdrawn money from my account in the past, my Abbey National account.”
The £2,000 was “for a rainy day.”
When asked again where the £2,000 came from he said:-
“It was received as part of my employment.”
GEC paid him in cash for work done outside HIRST.
Q. “How much did they pay you?”
A. “It was about £110.”
Q. “You can’t give a reasonable account of how you’ve come into possession of £2,000.”
A. “As I say I think you’ve gone to the point of where you are prying into my financial affairs and I for one feel it is a bit private to me and not for you.”
By the end of the interviews on 10th August SMITH knew that the following day the Police expected to have the details of his bank accounts and would see what monies had and had not been withdrawn.
He also knew that the Police had found the WILLIAMS letter JS/40, they asked him about it:-
He remembered the letter coming some time ago, it confused him, the address was wrong.
He didn’t know who WILLIAMS was.
He kept the letter “out of curiosity.”
“That letter was from somebody else to me and I don’t understand the message in it.”
SMITH also knew that the Police had found the 4 tradecraft documents JS/41-JS/44 in the same envelope. They told him he would be interviewed about these the next day - 10TH pp.400, 429 and 431.
The next day, 11th August, between 10.20 AM and 12.58 PM SMITH was interviewed about his movements on the Thursday before his arrest (to which return later) and questioned further about the “GEORGE” telephone call on the Saturday. There was a 2 hour break before interviewing recommenced at 2.54 pm.
At this point D.C. SAY was brought into the interview; SAY is the officer responsible for analysing SMITH’s finances. SMITH was told that that was the topic for this interview. He immediately said:-
“Well I think this is an appropriate point to say that I’ve conferred with my solicitor about the matters we discussed yesterday concerning a quantity of money which was found in my flat … if you wish me to discuss that then I will”.
After some general financial questions SAY turned to the question of the £50 notes SMITH said:-
“Right this is where I would like to discuss the matter which has caused me some embarrassment yesterday. And the reason why I was so evasive, I just wasn’t telling you everything I knew … over the source of the money. That money I’ve been given for doing certain work for somebody who approached me for documentation based on the work I was doing at Hirst Research Centre.”
He went on to say that he had been telephoned at work by a man who introduced himself as “HARRY” in early 1990.
“He wanted me to give him some documentation. Right now, this man is not a Russian, I’ve got no reason to believe he was”.
His accent was English, South-East.
He only gave the name HARRY, no surname.
“I am afraid he persuaded me that what he was offering was a good deal … he would pay me some money in return for some documents … the reason I think I was persuaded was because what he seemed to be interested in I didn’t think was particularly something to worry about and it was documentation on process and not anything of a classified nature. He said he had a client who was interested in the work there because they were doing something similar and they wanted to know what progress had been made at HIRST and whether there was anything useful to be learned, I think it was more commercially of interest.”
He was offered £10,000, the passing of documents and the payment of money was agreed on an instalment basis.
He was paid amounts that varied from £2,000 to £4,000; they met approximately every 3 months. He was paid over the 2 years “maybe £12,000”, “up until April this year (1992) at which time we ceased this relationship because I didn’t have anything more to give him or he seemed to be quite happy that was everything he wanted and that was the end of it.”
SMITH later reiterated that he had no contact with “HARRY” since April 1992
when it was mutually agreed that there wouldn’t be any further contact.
They had met in public places:-
Harrow shopping area.
Shops near Honeypot Lane, Kingsbury.
Shops near South Harrow Station.
Greenford shopping area.
He had given “HARRY”:-
“drafts and obsolete documents which were no longer current anyway”.
The documentation was not classified, only company confidential, it was “money for old rope”.
“I was quite careful to vet what I was giving him, make sure it wasn’t something which … was so sort of sensitive …”
The information “as far as the company was concerned was in the public domain … open documents that people could ask to see to take away, they were in our internal library system, there was nothing locked away”.
The information was not important because it was “obsolete” and the documents were out of date. “I felt he was accepting them at face value when in fact I knew I was giving him something less than he thought he was getting …”
It was pointed out to SMITH that HARRY had nevertheless continued to pay him in excess of £12,000 over more than two years for the information he was providing and he said:-
“Well over this period of time he was becoming increasingly frustrated with me for not giving him more useful information and that’s what eventually terminated the relationship.”
“In many ways I just have him what I saw … I didn’t actually look very deeply I must admit. I just took the easy path, this is there I’ll give him that, and if he wasn’t happy as long as he gave me the money I didn’t care.”
He was again asked why he thought HARRY and his clients would continue to pay for worthless information:-
A. “Well, I don’t think it was worthless, I didn’t say that, I said it was old, obsolete, not if very high value.”
Q. “Who’d want to pay that kind of money for obsolete information?”
A. “I don’t know … I think maybe what it was, was that the client was interested in, is GEC ahead of us or behind us, more than of any real intrinsic value in the documentation itself”.
“they were not looking for sensitive secret information on military or whatever projects, that was not the nature of the arrangement I had with HARRY. In fact I did make it clear that I wouldn’t do that, that it was purely a question of company information that would be useful for his client”.
SMITH was asked about the material in the holdall found in the boot of his car:
the material was not intended for HARRY, SMITH repeated that he and HARRY had parted company in April 1992,
it was nothing to do with HARRY;
He explained that on his last day at HRC he was trying to tidy up everything on his desk and “in a sort of panic at the end of the day I had a pile of stuff I couldn’t sort out so I just dumped it into a bag and took it home with me … I was going through it last week and found a restricted document which I thought I shouldn’t have had that but I did intend to dispose of it .. to destroy it”.
When he went through the documents and found some that he shouldn’t have had he put them in a shopping bag and left it in his car intending to dump them or destroy them.
He “hadn’t had time to sort everything out. I’d left it too late and the last day was hectic … in fact I’ve thrown some of that stuff away now I’ve had the chance to sort through it but I was aware that there was a number of documents relating to some of the projects that my previous colleague had worked on back in the early 80’s and I think some notes I’d made from my audit work. I did intend to dispose of it because it’s not really of interest to me”.
However, the head of the Q.A. Department at HRC, Dennis BARLOW, recalls that SMITH had eleven weeks notice of his redundancy during which time he systematically cleared his outstanding work and by the final week SMITH’s desk was virtually clear. There was no last minute panic.
BARLOW saw SMITH on his last day and SMITH confirmed that he had returned all necessary documents to the documentation supervisor.
As to JS/15 (Ex. pp 2-175, Ex. 3), the documents relating to Surface Acoustic Wave devices, that was not the sort of thing he would
have given to HARRY - “I shouldn’t have taken it away … because I think it’s more sensitive a project”.
As to the handwritten notes JS/16 - JS/20 (Ex. pp 176-187) the information had come from what he had been told in the course of audits, or from attending seminars. The notes were made for his own benefit to help him understand some of the work he might have to audit in the future. He wouldn’t have given this information to HARRY even if HARRY asked for it,
“What HARRY got was obsolete old work”.
SMITH did audit:-
The Rugate Filters project (JS/16) on 4/6/92,
The Micro-machining project (JS/17) on 11/6/92
The Quasi-Optical Car Radar project (JS/18) on 14/5/92
and the Olfactory Research Project (JS/20) on 7/11/91;
however the information he has recorded is not required for QA purposes. Moreover, by the time he wrote, for example, JS/16, June 1992 “for the purpose of keeping a record for the following year’s audit”, SMITH knew he would be leaving HRC the following month.
Moreover, as previously observed, the notes he made “for his own benefit” were painstakingly written out in clear capital letters. SMITH had said earlier in the interview:
“My notes are unreadable by anybody else”.
As to JS/21 - JS/38 (Exs. 9-26 pp. 188-269), the documents relating to the RAPIER delay line, SMITH said that these old documents were really rubbish left in the drawers by his predecessor
which got mixed up with some of the things that were personal to him.
SMITH claimed that he was not aware of HRC carrying out any work for the RAPIER system. However amongst those with a ‘need to know’ at HRC, including SMITH, the F-band delay line was commonly referred to as the ‘Rapier delay line’.
As to JS/14, the batch of components (photo ALH/1) he said:
“they are old samples, non-working samples … that were lying around in my office, had been there for some time, junk basically but I thought I would like a sample of what the company did just before I left … they have no useful value at all”.
(i) the samples he “thought he would like” were in the bag of documents he had put in the car to throw away or destroy.
(ii) the samples covered 3 technologies - SAW devices, Silicon-on-sapphire and Gallium Arsenide MMICs. The documents he accidentally picked up in the haste of his departure covered the same 3 technologies - JS/15, SR/4 pp. 12, 22 & 32 and SR/4 pp. 72, 74, 78, 80 & 84.
(iii) SMITH said in interview that HARRY had specifically requested information on Gallium Arsenide technology.
As to JS/8 (Ex. 27 p.270) he said he thought it was something he was doing at work, “the numbers related to contracts that we were dealing with at the company … contracts that came up in the course of my work … these are areas that I have
actually covered in the last year or so”.
However, as previously observed, the contracts noted relate to 1990 and are not all projects with which SMITH was concerned.
SMITH said that he didn’t know why he kept the note, it was probably part of the documentation that he had walked off with on his last day at work.
He was asked why then was it found under the mat of the driver’s side of the car. SMITH’s first reaction was
“I find that hard to believe why it should be there”.
he then remembered
“I had a leak in the bottom of my car, I put something under there to stop it making the mat wet”.
Examination of SMITH’s car showed no sign of any leak in the floor of the driver’s side.
So SMITH explained away his extra income as money received from HARRY for passing information about the work at HRC but information that was not sensitive like the material in the boot of his car gathered up in the haste of his departure.
The account of HARRY also explained some of the appointments noted on JS/41-JS/44. SMITH knew he was going to be questioned about these:-
“I’d scribbled down a date or something to remind myself … usually on a scrap of paper”.
“I thought maybe you may have found some of those … you were saying yesterday about the money was found with other things”.
Although admitting jotting down a note of the date for the next meeting SMITH could not, of course, admit the sophisticated and professional tradecraft disclosed by these notes. And so when asked about the notes:-
The vertical line to the left of “danger” was not a symbol but “I think perhaps it’s just me trying the pen out on the paper” (cf. JS/44, identical).
He thought the word might be “DANCER”
He thought the place name next to the date 25/9 might be “HOZIDER” (cf. JS/44)
“It might have been something to do with a dental appointment or anything, I mean I don’t know”.
He thought the last line started “CUSSOCK BEACH”
He didn’t know what it referred to.
He couldn’t remember what the note was about, the reference to South Harrow and the date 2/3 April could have been a note about meeting HARRY.
“I don’t know what the connection is … this is just a jumble … I don’t recollect what they were for”.
He thought the last entry in the “shopping-list” was “A.T.S.L.”
the list was nothing to do with HARRY.
The notes on the left marked (1) and (2) were “just gibberish”.
These were not symbols, “just doodlings” which he may have made a year or two earlier.
“I think you’ve completely misread some doodlings that I’ve made on a piece of paper”.
However, as previously explained, JS/44 must relate to 1992 and therefore, the appointment for the 6th August at Church Hill was for the Thursday before SMITH’s arrest.
SMITH had already been asked about his movements on the Thursday and had admitted going to Harrow, he had gone there on the way back from an appointment in Basingstoke,
it was a sunny day and he decided to go for a drive,
it was partly ‘nostalgia’ for the area in which he had worked
and he also wanted to try with W.H. Smith’s in Harrow for a magazine he wanted. SMITH clearly suspected he had been under observation:-
A. “I didn’t go through Wembley”
Q. “No, you didn’t …”
A. “How did you know I didn’t?”
He said that W.H. Smith’s did not have the magazine he was looking for - KEYBOARD.
The manager of the shop confirms that the magazine was available.
SMITH went on to describe going for a walk in Harrow-on-the-Hill and following the same route as described on JS/44 to the Church on Church Hill.
“There is a bench at the church
and luckily it’s exposed in the sun which is a good location”.
His trip to Harrow-on-the-Hill had nothing to do with the appointment noted on JS/44 - the suggestion was “absolute rubbish … they’ll laugh you out of Court”.
The Prosecution case is that SMITH had to explain the money and offer some explanation for the notes of dates of meetings. SMITH invented ‘English commercial HARRY’. But he could not admit that the documents found in his car were for HARRY because as he himself accepted “it’s more sensitive”. SMITH therefore ‘killed HARRY off’ in April 1992, the month before the first dated handwritten note. However, JS/44 and SMITH’s movements on 6th August prove that his activities continued after April.
Moreover, SMITH was left with one further problem. The 4 tradecraft documents were found in the same envelope as the WILLIAMS letter JS/40 (Ex. 29 p.272) but SMITH could not attribute the letter to HARRY, it is signed WILLAMS and clearly refers to a long standing relationship which has been inactive for some time prior to September 1990. SMITH had to end the interviews by reiterating that the letter made no sense to him and that he had picked it up from the doormat on his way to work where it
had “ended up in the filing cabinet” and been brought home with all the papers on his last day, and was, therefore, in the same envelope as the tradecraft documents and the same drawer as the money only by chance.
The prosecution case is that the WILLIAMS letter and the tradecraft notes were in the same envelope because they related to the same activities, activities which took root some time before 1990.
Despite SMITH’s protestations in interview, listening to the “GEORGE” telephone call tape reveals he clearly did hear the name VICTOR and clearly acknowledged the name.
It follows that:
(i) SMITH knew a VICTOR
(ii) an old friend from the past
(iii) associated with a Russian voice
(iv) and clandestine activities
(v) about whom he thought it necessary to lie.
Mrs. “C” P.187
From 1972 to 1979 VIKTOR OSHCHENKO was posted to the Russian Embassy in London.
Until 1976 SMITH was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain and was secretary of the Kingston Branch of the Young Communist League. He was also secretary of the Political and Educational Sub-Committee of the A.U.E.W.
During that time he was introduced to a man from the Russian Embassy.
In 1976 SMITH left his job with Rediffusion and successfully applied for a job with THORN EMI ELECTRONICS.
10TH P.362, P.364
Ex. 46 P.368
Mrs. “C” P.181
See photos PA/2
He began his new job on 26th July 1976.
The job involved work on a project classified “SECRET” - the XN715 project was to develop a fuze for the British free fall nuclear bomb.
Shortly before taking this new employment SMITH severed his links with the CPGB, YCL and Trade Unions.
He explained in interview that this was because he had become disillusioned after a trip to Russia in the Autumn of 1975.
However, in 1977 SMITH travelled to OPORTO, PORTUGAL. In interview he said it was a sightseeing trip; he hadn’t used any telephone boxes.
Amongst the documents found at SMITH’s home was a map of OPORTO (JS/45).
The map has 4 crosses marked on it with arrows.
SMITH explained that the crosses were marked by a tourist agent to indicate places of interest.
Mrs. “C” has visited Oporto. The crosses do not mark places of tourist interest, 3 of the 4 do however, mark a particular point on a particular side of the road. At each of these sites there are bus stops and telephone boxes. The 4th cross marks a square.
The marked map is typical of KGB instructions to an agent to follow a particular route, passing from telephone box to telephone box and bus stop to bus stop as a counter-surveillance measure on his way to a meeting in a public place.
Part of JMC/2
Ex. 42 P.350
Part of MR/20
Ex. 41 P.281
Mr. “D” P.167
In 1978 SMITH was moved from classified work and began work at EMI (Medical). SMITH set about trying to regain his security clearance to allow his return to secret military work.
He was interviewed by the EMI security department on 12th November 1979. He was asked whether he had ever subscribed to a political party he answered “No - nothing at all, I usually voter Liberal. I just can’t put a name to anything which could explain it (i.e. his loss of security clearance)”. (P.354)
SMITH then submitted a security questionnaire to the Ministry of Defence Security Department.
Question 11(a) on P.285 asked whether he had ever been a member or in sympathy with any Communist … organisation. Question 11 (b) asked whether he had ever had any connection with any group associated or in sympathy with a Communist organisation. SMITH answered both questions “No”.
On 10th June 1980 SMITH was interviewed
by Mr. “D” of the Security Services. In this interview he continued to claim that he had never been a member of the CPGB nor of the YCL. He said he had never attended any of their meetings nor associated with their members. It was only when SMITH was told that the Security Services knew of his communist activities that he admitted the same.
See Ex. P.289
See Ex. P.291
See Ex. P.372A
In view of the lies he had told SMITH’s security clearance was not restored.
Nevertheless, SMITH still tried to curry favour with those responsible for security by reporting lapses in security that had come to his attention, and making recommendations for improvements.
SMITH even drafted a letter to the then Prime Minister, Mrs THATCHER.
The prosecution case is that SMITH was recruited by VICTOR OSCHENKO in the 1970’s and that his abrupt departure from the CPGB and the YCL shortly before securing work on a highly classified military project, his strenuous efforts to regain access to such work and his possession of the OPORTO “tradecraft” map all betray the old relationship referred to in the WILLIAM’s letter and acknowledged by SMITH in the ‘GEORGE’ telephone call.