 |
 |
|
you would be dismayed if the court said, “No, you cannot.”
MR. TANSEY: Your Lordship is right.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: In which case, on the old principle that sauce for the goose is sauce for
the gander, I cannot see that you have got much to grumble about.
MR. TANSEY: Your Lordship does have a discretion in this case about the admissibility or
prejudice.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I am aware of the prejudicial effect against probative.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, subject to the other matters about this witness which we will ask your
Lordship to consider, my Lord, I cannot argue the admissibility any further on that basis.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: All right.
MR. TANSEY: In the light of your Lordship’s observations, may I say so far as Mr. E is concerned
that there are matters which we do wish to raise with your Lordship, but may be after your Lordship
has ruled on this.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I think I better rule on admissibility.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: I have heard what has passed between your Lordship and my
learned friend; it is our submission that the matters he has been referring to, namely, the instructions
given to Mr. E by George, are not hearsay at all.
Our case is that the information which the defendant admits passing on to another person was
passed to the KGB and therefore it is an issue in this case, namely, as to what the modus operandi
of the KGB is. How can you tell what modus operandi of the KGB is unless you produce evidence
of what they say to their agents, how they get them to operate. There is absolutely no difference
evidentially between passing over an envelope and evidence about the conversation, the instructions
which causes that to be done because there may be something in it which shows it is the KGB rather
than anything else. So, in our submissions, the instructions that were given to E, whether by George,
by Victor, or by any other KGB agent at the time are admissible.
MR. TANSEY: That is classic hearsay and, my Lord ----
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I am not going to decide that. You can tell the prosecution if it becomes
admissible - I am about to rule on it - how you want them to open it and it can be dealt with in due
course either before, if it is admissible - which I am bound to tell you I am going to rule it is - you
can decide either before the opening or when Mr. E comes. I do not mind.
RULING
MR JUSTICE BLOFELD: Mr. Tansey submits on behalf of the defendant in this case that various
parts of the evidence should not be allowed to be adduced by the Crown. He submits, first of all,
that the evidence of Mr. Oshchenko’s residency in London from 1972 to 1979, and his defection in
June 1992 should not be admitted.
Mr. Oshchenko was during that period on the diplomatic list as a secretary at the Russian Embassy
 |