Courts and bug product

[Nicholas Bohm]

Ian Batten wrote:
> 
> On 17 Feb 2008, at 10:35, Nicholas Bohm wrote:
>>
>> In the case of the Portland spy ring, Lonsdale and the Krogers (to use 
>> the names they used as spies) were all foreigners, were quite possibly 
>> in the UK illegally (I'm too idle to check), and were all prosecuted 
>> here under the Official Secrets Act.
> 
> I think the logic was that if you pretend to be a UK citizen, you'll get 
> tried as a UK citizen, but I can't run that to a source.

I don't think Lonsdale or the Krogers tried to pretend to be UK 
citizens, nor is UK citizenship relevant to the Official Secrets Act 
offences they were charged with.

>>
>>
>> I can't see any reason why people in the same position today wouldn't 
>> be treated the same way.
> 
> 
> Back then the baddies wore black hats and the goodies wore white ones, 
> and `the establishment' knew which was which.  Fuchs was convicted, and 
> had his citizenship removed, on the strength of a 90-minute jury-less 
> trial.  

Nonsense.  He pleaded guilty, so there was no issue for a jury to try. 
I suppose reading out the charges and taking his plea, and hearing 
anything said in mitigation, might have taken 90 minutes, though that's 
slow by the standards of those times.

> The previous Prime Minister's wife was not available to act for 
> his defence.   Burgess et al were all still in the future, and the 
> attitude of the secret service that the Right Sort of Chaps would never 
> be traitors was still unblemished.  Society at large believed in the 
> police, law enforcement and the man in Whitehall.     The European 
> Convention on Human Rights was either in the future (Fuchs) or had 
> almost no legal form to enforce its will (Blake). Taken together, and 
> the security services could take evidence, not matter what its form, to 
> a judge, point to the guilty man and be sure of a conviction.   
> Moreover, back then the defence barrister could be relied on to be that 
> sort of chap too.  

Our recollections differ, and I am unpersuaded.

> Post Oz, Post Chatterly, Post ABC...is Gareth Pierce 
> that sort of chap?   And judges, too, can't be relied on: it was a judge 
> that ended the ABC trial, after all.
> 
> Today, none of that applies.  A spying trial based on intercept would 
> either have a jury 

The possibility of having no jury is a very modern innovation, which has 
not yet been used.  (I disregard Northern Ireland, of course.)

>  or a very high-profile row about not having a jury.  
> The ABC case means the jury wouldn't be vetted.  Several serious 
> newspapers would almost automatically regard the whole thing as a 
> scandal, and Matrix (I always think Matrix Churchill) would be on hot 
> standby to provide the best representation available.
> 
>>  Do you think they would instead nowadays all be quietly deported?
> 
> Yes.  Because a trial would be an admission of failure in intelligence, 
> deeply embarrassing, and almost impossible to control in terms of where 
> the defence might take it.   

We must agree to differ, thgough what you say is interesting.

> If they were a UK citizen, who knows: I 
> suspect they'd (criminally, in my book) find themselves extradited to 
> the US.

I fear you're right there, and agree with you about it.

Also please see my reply to your further message.

Nicholas
-- 
Salkyns, Great Canfield, Takeley,
Bishop's Stortford CM22 6SX, UK

Phone  01279 870285    (+44 1279 870285)
Mobile  07715 419728    (+44 7715 419728)

PGP public key ID: 0x899DD7FF.  Fingerprint:
5248 1320 B42E 84FC 1E8B  A9E6 0912 AE66 899D D7FF