 |
 |
|
case, which is all the information that was in fact handed over to a trade rival who worked in
(inaudible) commercial area, how it matters a row of beans to your defence whether Mr. E was a
genuine agent or a cover agent or not. I just do not really see how attacking him helps your defence
at the moment.
MR. TANSEY: What the Crown seeks to do is to use his evidence, and it came late in the day, to
prove two matters against us: (1) that Victor Oschenko was operating in the United Kingdom trying
to get hold of people to give information to the K.G.B. That is number one. Is that the truth or not?
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Well ----
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, again rhetorically, that is the question; that is what he says. Secondly ----
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Well, I thought you were just saying it was accepted he was a K.G.B.
agent who defected. If he is a K.G.B. agent I would have thought it follows as night follows day that
he is trying to get information for his country.
MR. TANSEY: If the Crown call Oschenko ----
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: There may be a hundred and one different reasons why they cannot call
Oschenko.
MR. TANSEY: I accept that, but that is the way they can give direct evidence. They are not taking
that course. They take an alternative course at a late stage. That is to call this man whose identity we
do not know to give the evidence that they would like Oschenko to give.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: What puzzles me is I cannot see how it furthers your defence to
challenge Mr. E and say he is making it all up. I cannot see how it gets you any further.
MR. TANSEY: because without him the Crown - well, in two areas - (1) was Oschenko operating
as a K.G.B. person in this country. How can they prove that by this evidence? Secondly, the
Portuguese drop him an important part of the tradecraft technique which they are seeking to put into
the context of the defendant’s trip to Portugal in the late 1970’s. That is why his evidence is so
important. The Crown are using it to fill the gap of Mr. Oschenko and, my Lord, therefore it is not a
peripheral matter; it is a central matter and, therefore, is this man reliable and an honest person? That
is the key. We do not know and we are denied the opportunity of even (inaudible) and, my Lord,
that in our submission is what is so unacceptable about this evidence.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Have we not got a document to show that Mrs. C was in contact with
the American services from an earlier stage?
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, there is reference to that in the statement.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I thought there were some documents that had been disclosed to you
with the names crossed out including a statement supplied by the United States Security Services. Is
that right, Mr. Solicitor? I seem to remember when we were in private, ex-parte, that was a
document that was to be served.
MR. TANSEY: I have a statement from Mr. E dealing with the US. Page 282.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: No, no, I am talking about documents that were supplied.
 |