Print document
 56 of 94 
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: There is a different issue.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, there is one question of his identity, whether that should be disclosed,
and then there is the question of the tradecraft and, my Lord, I think the tradecraft proposition
basically is the same for him as for Mrs. C although it is on a small much smaller basis as such. But
the key to Mr. E is whether or not the defence is going to be denied knowing his identity. My Lord,
his evidence is important, as your Lordship knows, for four reasons. They say (1) he was, Victor
Oschenko was a K.G.B. agent - they prove it through him, but not exclusively him - (2) that
Oschenko recruited, or tried to recruit, Mr. E; (3) that it was Victor Oschenko or his successor sent
him to Portugal and (4) under Victor Oschenko or his successor requested him to get involved in
companies to get electronic information. That seems to be a summary of the key aspects of his
evidence, and the prosecution seek to adduce that to establish a system that, just as he was
recruited, likewise, a relatively similar system to how this defendant was recruited, in Portugal, etc.
His evidence, therefore, is clearly very important to the prosecution case.
If the defence, and further may I say he, it seems, was not an MI5 officer. He was a person who
gave information, as seen from the statement, first to the US Embassy and then to the Security
Services over here for a period of four years - that is all we are effectively told - and one of the
questions we have to ask is: is this man a credible person? Is he a reliable person? When he gives
his evidence of what he did and, if your Lordship allows him, evidence of what was said between
him and Oschenko, is he telling the truth and is he reliable? Does he have a good reputation as being
an honest man? Does he make things up? Is he a Walter Mitty or a sort of James Bond? What sort
of person is he?
Now if, in fact, we knew his identity, all these matters the defence could check. They could get an
enquiry agent to enquire, as far as one possibly could, about the whole of his background and
establish whether or not there was any weakness in his character, or his integrity, or his reliability.
But, by giving him anonymity, the defence is denied the fundamental pre-requisite of establishing
whether this person has a good or a bad reputation for honesty and reliability and, my Lord,
therefore, the question your Lordship has to consider is: is it right that this defendant should not
merely have matters heard in camera but be denied knowledge of who this person is?
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: You have presumably asked for whether he has any previous
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, yes.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: And that information has not been denied to you, whatever the answer?
I do not know what the answer is.
MR. TANSEY: I do not know the answer, but I gather he has no previous convictions. But, my
Lord, the fact that somebody does not have previous convictions is, as the Courts well know, no
proof as to their integrity, or their reliability. It may be some prima facie evidence of character, but
it is not in any way conclusive, and people of dishonest and bad reputations do come to the courts in
their thirties, their forties for offences of dishonesty. My Lord, may I just therefore ----
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: What realistically are you saying you would hope to dig up on him, Mr.
Tansey? I am trying to think of a hundred and one cases. I find it a little difficult. I mean, I agree
entirely theoretically if you knew who he was and where he lived you might conceivably alight upon
a next door neighbour who did not care for him at all and who says he has got a very bad