Print document
 70 of 94 
MR. TANSEY: Indeed, yes.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: But at the moment there is no evidence.
MR. TANSEY: There is none to be called.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: There is no evidence forthcoming.
MR. TANSEY: As I understand the position, there is no evidence forthcoming at all. So we
therefore have the most tenuous connection, in our submission, between a telephone call in August
1992 and Viktor Oschenko. All we have in common is the name Viktor -- and that could be any
Viktor out of millions -- in the telephone call.
MR. TANSEY: But the prosecution have to tie it in to enable, in our submission, this evidence to be
admissible. They have to tie it in to Viktor Oschenko and they just have not got the material, in my
submission; it is not there.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: You say that, if they do not -- if that is an inference that cannot properly
be drawn -- then any dealings that Mr. E had with Mr. Oschenko are totally irrelevant?
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: If they can tie it in, what do you say then?
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, then again there is the question: is that relevant? I wait to hear how the
Crown would put it in that context. My Lord, when we move on, we then merge into the question of
the impolite assertion effectively, the Kearley case, because, as I read the statement of Mr. E (and I
hope I put it fairly) the prosecution are not just going to call Mr. E to say, “I met a man. I met Mr.
Oschenko”. Identify him in due course. “I went to Portugal.”
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: It seems to me they could go this far without coming into the principle.
They can say, “I met a man.” I assume they would have little difficulty in establishing it was Viktor
Oschenko, if he looks at a photograph.
MR. TANSEY: That seems to be the case.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I imagine he can identify the man he met as Oschenko.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: He could say he met him on a number of occasions.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, yes.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: He could say what nationality he was.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, yes.