Print document
 71 of 94 
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: He could say at whose instigation the meetings were, whether they
were at his or Victor’s.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, I think so, yes.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: He can say that he did not pass any information to him, He can say who
paid for the meals.
MR. TANSEY: I do not know about passing information to him. That is obviously a dangerous area
because that is going to raise in the person’s mind, “Well, what’s this got to do with your meeting
this man?”
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Well, this is the artificiality of the rule to some extent.
MR. TANSEY: That of course is what they said in the House of Lords.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: He could then say he went to Portugal.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, yes.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: He could be asked, “Was it your idea to go to Portugal?” “No.” “Was
it as a result of …?”
MR. TANSEY: I would question that. I am sorry, may I just say that to put it that way is impliedly
putting it in.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: You can say -- it is common form -- “Did you have conversation with
X? Don’t tell us what you said but, as a result of that conversation, what did you do next?”
MR. TANSEY: But even that, may I say -- I hope I am not being pedantic -- even that may well be
almost giving the information, the question.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Of course it is. That is what is so artificial about the whole thing!
MR. TANSEY: Having read R. v. Kearley, you are aware of the arguments. The point about it is
the rules have this artificiality about them but they have to be followed. All I can say about that is
that, if one says, “At whose request/instigation did you go?” and if he says, “It’s not mine”, quite
clearly he is saying, “He asked me to go.”
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I am entirely with you at the moment that the details of the conversation
have to be approached extremely carefully, although in fact I do not think there is anything in the
details of the conversation that involve your client at all, so I do not think there is any harm in it. But I
can see it is arguable on the authorities that that would be right. But as to his movements, they can
clearly be given. I think the result is exactly the same. It is exactly the same. I think it comes to the
same principle, the finding of weapons. A confession can be inadmissible but if as a result of an
accused’s confession a weapon is found evidence can be given of it.
MR. TANSEY: I accept that.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Therefore I think going to Portugal can be given even though the details
of the conversation may not be given.