30 June 2008

Documents sent to the Attorney General Part 2

Below are more of the documents sent to the Attorney general in support of my case, as referred to in my earlier post.

Letter from: Harry Cohen MP
House of Commons
London SW1A OAA

16 January 2002

To: Ms Glenys Stacey
Chief Executive
Criminal Cases Review Commission
Alpha Tower
Suffolk Street
Birmingham, B1 1TT

Dear Ms Stacey

I am supportive of a full and early review, by the CCRC, of Mr Michael John Smith’s (PR3345, E Wing, HMP Full Sutton, York YO41 1PS) case, including that of the sentence. The prison sentence imposed upon him is, in my opinion, wildly excessive.

In view of Mr Smith already having served nine and a half years, I would ask that you agree to the early review of his case.

Your reply would be appreciated.

Yours sincerely
Harry Cohen MP

Letter from Harry Cohen MP to CCRC 16 January 2002

Letter from: Harry Cohen MP
House of Commons

25 November 1998

To: The Rt Hon George Robertson MP
Secretary of State
Ministry of Defence
Main Building
London SW1A 2HB

Dear Minister

I enclose self explanatory correspondence I have received from Michael John Smith, (PR3345), E Wing, HMP Full Sutton, York Y041 1PS.

I am concerned at the allegations he makes that your Department “perverted the course of justice in his case” resulting in “a miscarriage of justice”.

I have forwarded a copy of this correspondence to Jack Straw at the Home Office, but should be grateful for your response in respect of the allegations relating to your Department.

Yours sincerely
Harry Cohen MP

The Rt Hon Jack Straw MP
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Home Office
50 Queen Anne’s Gate
London SW1H 9AT

Letter from Harry Cohen MP to George Robertson MP 25 November 1998

Letter from: Ministry of Defence
Main Building Whitehall London SW1 2HB
0171-21 89000 (Switchboard)

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence
D/US of S/JS 4944/98/P

To: Harry Cohen MP

26 January 1999

Dear Harry,

Thank you for your letter of 25 November to George Robertson enclosing one from Mr Michael Smith of HMP Full Sutton. I am replying as this matter falls within my area of responsibility.

A full account of Mr Smith’s case is contained in the Report of the Security Commission, published in July 1995, Command 2935.

On 18 November 1993, Mr Smith was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of three offences under the Official Secrets Act 1911, and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment. The offences for which he was convicted were committed between I January 1990 and 8 August 1992. He applied to the Court of Appeal, and on 8 June 1995 his appeal against conviction was dismissed. His appeal against sentence was allowed, and the sentence was reduced from 25 to 20 years.

The Security Commission’s report states that:

“4.6. Despite the fact that the most serious of Smith’s known espionage activities occurred whilst he worked for EMI ..., his trial was confined to charges under the Official Secrets Act relating to the documents taken from GEC in his possession at the time of his arrest ...

4.7. It was assumed that the documents in his possession at the time of his arrest were collected for his last delivery before he was made redundant by HRC. There is no way of knowing what other information he may have passed since his reactivation by the KGB in September 1990.”

The main thrust of Mr Smith’s letter to you is that the Ministry of Defence perverted the course of justice at his trial and subsequent appeal in respect of the sensitivity of certain parts of the evidence. He also alleges that MOD witnesses lied at his trial. From enquiries made here, it appears that there is nothing new in his letter. The Crown Prosecution Service have confirmed that the nature of the sensitive material was fully assessed in the proceedings against him. Dr Weatherley and Prof Lewis, the two MOD witnesses at his trial mentioned in his letter, have been consulted and both have confirmed that Mr Smith’s accusation of witholding or suppressing evidence is unfounded, and his belief that Professor Lewis committed perjury is unwarranted and untrue.

I am sending a copy of this letter to Jack Straw.

John Spellar MP

Letter from MoD to Harry Cohen MP 26 January 1999 p.1

Letter from MoD to Harry Cohen MP 26 January 1999 p.2

Letter from: Harry Cohen MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

30 March 1999

To: John Spellar Esq MP
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence
Ministry of Defence
Main Building
London SW1A 2HB

Dear Minister,

Further to our correspondence regarding Michael John Smith, HMP Full Sutton, I enclose another letter from him.

I have sent a copy of his main letter (not the restricted document) to the Home Office Minister regarding the alleged perjury and misinformation at his trial to which he refers.
Please will you respond further to the new points in his letter. He asks that you confirm that your earlier reference to Dr Lewis related to Dr Merion Francis Lewis and if you would indicate the true use of the restricted document.

Yours sincerely
Harry Cohen MP

Letter from Harry Cohen MP to John Spellar MP 30 March 1999

Letter from: Ministry of Defence
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB

0171-21 89000 (Switchboard)
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence

D/US of S/JS 1508/99/P

To: Harry Cohen MP

23 April 1999

Dear Harry,

Thank you for your letter dated 30 March enclosing further correspondence from your constituent, Mr Michael Smith of HMP Full Sutton.

Mr Smith’s latest letter is again concerned with the evidence used against him at his trial and subsequent appeal, and merely repeats, in more detail, his previous comments and accusations. His letter contains no new factors, and I therefore have nothing further to add to my previous letter to you in this respect.

I can however, confirm as requested, that the former Dr Meiron Francis Lewis is indeed now Professor Meiron Francis Lewis.

I am sending a copy of your correspondence and my reply to Jack Straw.

John Spellar MP

Letter from MoD to Harry Cohen MP 23 April 1999

Letter from: Harry Cohen MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

07 July 1999

To: John Spellar Esq MP
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
Ministry of Defence
Main Building
London SW1A 2HB

Dear Minister,

Further to our previous correspondence regarding Mr Michael John Smith, currently detained at HMP Full Sutton, I enclose a copy of a further self explanatory letter received from him.

I know that in recent correspondence you maintain that you have little new to add, however in view of the seriousness of this matter and Mr Smith’s absolute insistence of malpractice by officials associated with Government, I do think some more answers should be forthcoming.

In particular, I would like you to address his question in paragraph (3) –“i.e. what was the true use of the restricted document”. This does seem to be significant and, in view of the seriousness of the alleged miscarriage of justice, the ‘restricted’ nature of the document should be lifted.

Please respond to this, and other aspects of Mr Smith’s letter.

Yours sincerely
Harry Cohen MP

Letter from Harry Cohen MP to John Spellar MP 7 July 1999

Letter from: Ministry of Defence
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB

0171-21 89000 (Switchboard)

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence

D/US of S/PK 3095/99/M

To: Harry Cohen MP

9 September 1999

Dear Harry,

John Spellar in his letter to you of 22 July, undertook to write again once the matters raised by Mr Smith of HMP Full Button had been investigated. I am now in a position to reply. You will also wish to be aware that he has also written to Dr Jenny Tongue raising exactly the same point.

The “true use of the RESTRICTED document” was addressed in considerable detail during Mr Smith’s trial, during his appeal, and in the Report of the Security Commission. The evidence in question concerning this document and the name of the missile system with which it was associated was given by Professor Lewis “in camera”. The Security Commission have however, confirmed that the document should have been classified at least CONFIDENTIAL when on its own, and when linked with the Weapon System concerned should have been classified SECRET. That remains the position, and in consequence, I regret that I am unable to lift restrictions on it, as you request.

In previous correspondence we have refuted Mr Smith’s allegations that Professor Lewis lied at the Trial, and have nothing further to add. Mr Smith continues to raise matters which have been fully addressed through the Legal System and I can see little point in any further correspondence with the Ministry of Defence on this matter.

I note that you are holding a number of protectively marked documents about this case, forwarded to you in Mr Smith’s earlier letters. I would be grateful if you could pass these to HCDC staff at the House for secure storage. I am concerned that Mr Smith is widely copying and circulating these highly classified documents, in clear breach of the conditions under which they were released by the CPS to his Solicitors. He is also quoting from and circulating, evidence given “in camera”. Mr Smith should not even have these documents in his possession. My officials are raising this with the Prison Authorities and with his Solicitors.

I am sending a copy of your correspondence and my reply to Jack Straw.

Peter Kilfoyle MP

Letter from MoD to Harry Cohen MP 9 September 1999 p.1

Letter from MoD to Harry Cohen MP 9 September 1999 p.2

Documents sent to the Attorney General Part 1

Below are the documents sent to the Attorney General in support of my case, as referred to in my earlier post.

Witness Statement of Meirion Francis LEWIS
Dated 3 November 1992

Further to the statement given on 11th August 1992 in which I assessed documentation identified as AW/6, I have today been shown document JS/20, the original of AW/6, a further quantity of documents contained in JS/15, and six SAW devices in JS/14. I make the following observations on these documents and devices. Most of the documents and all the devices relate to surface acoustic wave (SAW) devices. These operate by converting an electrical signal to the form of an acoustic wave on the surface of a crystal like quartz, and then reconverting it to electrical form. The surface acoustic waves are similar to waves on the sea. During the device operation the electrical signal is modified, for example delayed, or filtered so as to pass only frequencies of interest. These devices are of considerable commercial importance, for example there is one in every TV set and video recorder. They are also of military importance because they work at appropriate frequencies, provide a high-fidelity response, and are small, rugged and reliable. The six examples I have examined from JS/14 are all narrowband filters and quite possibly have a military purpose. None is related to gas-sensing. The notes in JS/15 comprise a set of intimate details on the processing of SAW devices, and their mounting and packaging, and test procedures. They also indicate the personnel involved. The details included relate to the substrates, their orientations, polishing, backface preparation, packaging, electron beam evaporation procedures for the metallization, bond formation, the mask alignment jig operation, tuning circuits, and mounting adhesives. One document (Demonstrator Programme Requirement Specification Bandpass Filter Assembly) relates to a filter developed as a demonstrator for the receiver in an airborne guided weapon. Another relates to an ESA project, and is concerned with space qualification of the SAW devices. One document (ABSTRACT FOR INCLUSION IN PD9002) relates to a spinel delay line providing 30 microseconds delay at 3 GHz. This is not a SAW device, but a bulk acoustic wave device used in RAPIER. This information is valuable to a foreign power as it provides intimate details of the manufacturing processes of SAW devices, and the means of testing same. The applications of these devices are diverse, but some are definitely military applications as is clear from these notes.

Signed: M. F. Lewis
Signature witnessed by: S. Stafford DS

Meirion Francis Lewis Witness Statement 3 November 1992 p.1

Meirion Francis Lewis Witness Statement 3 November 1992 p.2

Criminal Cases Review Commission

Statement of: Meirion Francis Lewis

In October 1993, I gave evidence for the prosecution at the trial of Michael Smith at the Old Bailey in London.

I have been shown by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) a copy of two witness statements which I made to the police (dated 11 August 1992 and 3 November 1992), together with a copy of a transcript of my trial evidence.

I have been asked by the CCRC to explain the circumstances in which I came to give evidence about the ALARM missile system.

When giving evidence I was asked to comment upon the sensitivity of various documents alleged to have been found in Mr Smith’s possession, and to comment upon whether these documents, together with the information contained in them, might have been useful to an enemy of the UK.

One of the documents I was asked to comment upon (which is referred to as document number 51-59 in the transcript of my evidence) was a document sent by Marconi Space and Defence Systems (MSDS) to the Hirst Research Centre of GEC headed ‘Demonstrator Programme Requirement Specification Bandpass Filter Assembly’. I gave evidence in chief that this document related to a programme to build surface acoustic wave filters for use in a receiver in an airborne guided weapon system (see page 13D-H and 17E-H of the trial transcript). I said that I did not know exactly what the missile system was (see page 19C and 25D-E of the trial transcript).

During the course of my evidence I referred to, and was cross-examined by defence counsel, on several documents, including document number 51-59 described above, and a document on sensors. My description of the sensitivity of this latter document was challenged by defence counsel by reference to the abstract of a published scientific paper. As neither of us had read this published paper in full the Judge asked us both to acquire and read the full paper and return to Court at a later date. I returned to the Old Bailey the following Monday to continue giving evidence.

Over the course of the next day, Friday, and the weekend, I acquired and read the published document on sensors, as requested by the Judge, and reread the sensitive document on sensors to prepare my evidence to the Court. I also took the opportunity to reread the other sensitive documents, including document number 51-59, especially as I felt that defence counsel policy was to challenge my expertise. Upon rereading document number 51-59 I noticed a number of pointers that eventually led me to conclude that the filters in question might be for use in the ALARM missile system. I was aware at that time of the development of the ALARM missile through contact I had had with personnel at MSDS.

I decided to telephone MSDS to see if I could speak to the Technical Director, Dr Reg Humphryes, in order to discuss this matter with him. However, it being a weekend, he was not available. I had planned to travel back to London on the Sunday evening in order to resume my evidence on the Monday morning, and therefore decided to drop a letter into Dr Humphryes at MSDS in Stanmore on my way. In my letter I identified the document in question and asked him some questions, one of which was whether this document related to the ALARM missile system. I left the sealed letter with the security guard at MSDS for Dr Humphryes’ attention. I proposed to telephone him from the Old Bailey the following morning for answers to my questions.

When I arrived at court on the Monday morning I advised Mr Nutting (prosecution counsel) that I thought that I could now identify the missile system in document numbered 51-59. I explained what I had done and that I had arranged to telephone Dr Humphryes that morning. Mr Nutting agreed with this course of action.

I therefore telephoned Dr Humphryes and he confirmed to me that the document related to the ALARM missile system. I accepted what he told me. I informed Mr Nutting of my conversation and he asked me to make a further witness statement giving details of what had occurred, which I did.
I note that at page 59 F of the transcript of my trial evidence there is a reference to my making two further statements which were before the Court. I assume that these statements were disclosed to the defence. I cannot now recall precisely what I said in these statements, although I assume that in one of them I must have explained about my conversation with Dr Humphryes and the information I received from him. The second statement might well have been related to the papers on sensors described above.

I resumed giving evidence and in response to questions from Mr Nutting told the jury that I had discovered that the filters referred to in the document numbered 51-59 were used in the ALARM missile system which was currently in service with our armed forces.

Signed: M.F. Lewis
Witnessed by: Gregor McDonald
Dated: 22 February 2005

Meirion Francis Lewis Witness Statement 22 February 2005 p.1

Meirion Francis Lewis Witness Statement 22 February 2005 p.2

Witness Statement of Meirion Francis LEWIS
Dated 11 October 1993

On 7th October 1993 I gave evidence in the case of R v SMITH at the Central Criminal Court. During my evidence I was referred to a RESTRICTED document entitled “Demonstrator Programme Requirement Bandpass Filter Assembly” which was contained in the Prosecution exhibit bundle at pages 51-59 inclusive. The contents of this document concern sensitive equipment currently in service and should be treated in extreme confidence. I made a number of deductions from this document. These concern the fact that the knowledge of the IF frequency and bandwidth could be useful to a potential enemy who wished to jam the airborne guided weapon concerned. In addition, I noted that the specification on the group delay matching of the IF filters was significant in suggesting the mode of operation of the weapon. From this I deduced that the missile was likely to be an “ARM”, i.e. an ANTI-RADAR-MISSILE. In the intervening period I have therefore contacted the Marconi Company who have confirmed my suspicions. They confirm that the receiver is used in a missile called “ALARM”, which is currently in service with the R.A.F. It may be recalled that during the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein switched off his radars, giving us total air superiority. This was undoubtedly because of the threat from the ARMs. It is therefore clear that the document concerned is not of academic interest, but could affect the lives of service personnel. Concerning the technique of jamming, the Russians are of course expert, for example they have been jamming Western radio broadcasts for decades. I also note that the document contains information on the numbers of filters required, which relates to the numbers of missiles to be constructed.

Signed: M. F. Lewis
Signature witnessed by: ?

Meirion Francis Lewis Witness Statement 11 October 1993

Criminal Cases Review Commission
Alpha Tower
Suffolk Street Queensway
Birmingham B1 1TT
Tel: 0121 633 1800

Statement of: Reginald Humphryes

Address: C/O THALES
Aerospace Division, Manor Royal, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 9PZ
Date statement taken: 20 July 2005

I am employed as a Project Director at THALES, Aerospace Division, at the above address. I have been asked by the Criminal Cases Review Commission whether I have any recollection of an incident that occurred when I was employed by Marconi during October 1993.

I have been shown a statement made by Professor Meirion Francis Lewis, dated 22 February 2005. I have also been shown a document which I am told relates to an Anti Radar Missile (ARM) known as ALARM. I do not have any recollection of the incident to which Professor Lewis refers, which is not to say that it did not occur. The ARM document is outwith my particular field of expertise so I could not say whether or not it related to the ALARM system without consulting colleagues.

It may be of some assistance if I explain the structure of Marconi and the location and nature of my employment at the relevant time. Marconi Space and Defence Systems (MSDS) ceased to exist in that name in the early 1980s, and the company split into (1) Marconi Space (dealing with space communications), (2) Marconi Defence Systems (dealing with electronic warfare systems) and (3) Marconi Dynamics (dealing with guided weapons). In 1985 I joined Marconi Defence Systems.

My area of expertise is in microwaves and electronic warfare. ARM systems were developed in Marconi Dynamics although some microwave components for ALARM were developed and produced in Marconi Defence Systems.

In October 1993 I was Technical Director at Marconi Defence Systems. At that time, Ray Matthews was the Managing Director of Marconi Dynamics, I believe his Technical Director was Mike Jones, and Jim Gailer or Martin Winstone was the resident expert/project manager on ALARM. I do not know the whereabouts of any of these people now, as I left Marconi in 2000, and the company no longer exists having been, I believe, subsumed into Matra BAe Dynamics. I think Messrs Matthew and Jones may have retired.

If a written query relating to ALARM had been left, marked for my attention, at the Security Gate of Marconi Defence Systems, I would have passed it to the team at Marconi Dynamics, but I have no recollection of the matter at all. Furthermore, I do not recall having a telephone conversation with Meirion Lewis on the morning of Monday 11 October 1993 relating to the contents of any such document.

Signed: Reginald Humphryes
Witnessed by: J.Lee

Reginald Humphryes Statement 20 July 2005 p.1

Reginald Humphryes Statement 20 July 2005 p.2

Michael John Smith

1. Smith was employed as a Senior Quality Assurance (QA) engineer and manager at GEC Hirst Research Centre from December 1985 to July 1992. During that time he had access, in the normal course of his duties, to a wide range of research and development tasks; manufacturing, assembly and test processes; and electronic components, devices and equipment.

2. As a competent QA engineer, he would be checking that all manufacturing and assembly processes were carried out correctly in accordance with the various standards, rules and regulations that would apply. Much of this information is not classified, as Dr Cundy said in his statement. He would also get to know, and need to know, the timescales and priorities of the different projects for which he was carrying out his QA tasks. He would certainly be aware which projects he dealt with were for MoD or for other UK defence contractors - the QA requirements for each project differ and it is important to know which “customer” is which. This information is normally classified, for MoD contracts, at RESTRICTED. All the information that Smith saw would, however, be GEC COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE, whether or not that privacy marking was printed on documents.

3. As far as I can see, Smith’s work would give him knowledge on the fine detail of precisely how a given component, device or part was manufactured and assembled. He appears to have been particularly interested in the manufacturing processes (often chemical processes) for integrated circuits (both silicon and gallium arsenide) and for bulk crystalline devices, such as bulk acoustic wave (BAW) delay lines and filters, which are widely used in radar and communications equipment.

4. The material, both documents and devices/hardware, found in Smith’s possession bear this out. The devices are samples of particular items on which GEC Hirst Research Centre were or had been working, and knowledge of how they were manufactured and assembled would be of considerable use to a country or company that found reliable and consistent manufacture of such devices difficult. The documents (notes, drawings, detailed explanation of process steps, etc) are all to do with the details of manufacturing processes for various devices and components; these would be useful to a country or company to enable them to make similar devices reliably and consistently. In reality, Smith was transferring technology and manufacturing know-how to his FSU contact.

5. The Rapier delay line is a case in point. The manufacturing know-how and processes for this and similar devices, widely used in radar and communications equipment, is well-established in the UK and has been so for about 20 years; the same applies to the USA and to some other countries, such as France and Japan. But the FSU may still have considerable difficulty in producing similar devices for use in their own radar and communications equipment which are as small, as rugged, and as reliable; and may not be able to do so consistently and in sufficient quantity to meet their needs. The detailed data given on the manufacture and assembly of the Rapier delay line would therefore be very useful to the FSU in saving them money, time and resources.

6. The GEC Hirst Research Centre is a major UK electronics research and development organisation: it is not a normal manufacturing plant and any production there would be for developmental samples and initial or small batch production. Smith was therefore able to see and gather knowledge of newer, more “leading edge” technology, processes and devices than he would have done if he had been a QA engineer at a normal electronics manufacturing plant. Clearly, this would be more valuable to his FSU contacts than more mundane manufacturing technology.

7. Overall, I assess that the information and knowledge Smith was able to pass on to his FSU contacts was of considerable commercial value to them, in improving their manufacturing technology in these areas and in saving them time and resources to catch up with the West. However, the technology was, in many cases, well-established in the UK and better or improved processes and devices were already available to the UK for defence equipment. I would therefore assess that, in terms of national security, Smith's activities have caused some damage to the UK, but not serious damage.

7 March 1994
J F MacCulloch

DD MoD Sy (S&T)

James Francis MacCulloch MoD damage assessment report 7 March 1994 p.1

James Francis MacCulloch MoD damage assessment report 7 March 1994 p.2


1. I am James Francis MacCulloch

2. I am the author of the security damage assessment dated 7 March 1994.

3. Since I completed that assessment, my attention has been drawn to the evidence given in the criminal trial by Dr M F Lewis, and I have had further discussions with Dr Lewis and Dr D Weatherley. In the light of this further consideration, the assessment dated 7 March 1994 is incomplete. I would therefore amend that statement as follows:-

a) Delete the last sentence of paragraph 7.

b) Add three new paragraphs, to read:-

“8. The details of the information and knowledge in the possession of Smith was of direct military significance, because it would allow the operating characteristics and parameters of certain UK in-service weapon systems to be inferred by Russian radar and missile experts. In particular, this is true of both the Rapier Air Defence Missile System and the ALARM airborne anti-radiation missile (ARM).

9. The specification headed “Demonstrator Programme Requirement Specification Bandpass Filter Assembly” dated 8th January 1992 gives particular concern. If this specification was specifically identified as linked to ALARM, it would allow the identification of certain key operating parameters of that weapon system, which in turn would allow an intelligent enemy to develop effective countermeasures. The fact that Dr Lewis was able from his own knowledge to link this specification to ALARM indicates that the same linkage could be made by a hostile intelligence service.

10. For these reasons, my overall assessment now is that, in terms of national security, Smith’s activities have caused some considerable damage to the UK’s interests, but serious damage in the case of ALARM. Some of this damage is potential, in that countermeasures to these systems could be developed, but we have no way of knowing if the Russians have or not.”

16 May 1995
J F MacCulloch

DD HQ Sy (S&T)

James Francis MacCulloch MoD damage assessment report 16 May 1995

27 June 2008

Attorney General Baroness Scotland requests evidence

The correspondence with the Attorney General’s Office continued and below I print the next stage of our dialogue:

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:59:37 +0100
From: Shariq Ali, Shariq.Ali@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk
To: Michael John Smith
Subject: Your Complaint

Dear Mr Smith,

Thank you for your further e-mail dated 16 April.

Further to the points I have raised by way of assistance, I must point out that whilst you have asked for some form of substantive response to your allegations, you have not provided any evidence or explanation of the nature of your evidence in either of your e-mails.

Referring to your complaint; the Law Officers are able to authorise a prosecution, where it is appropriate for them to do so, based upon the information provided by the prosecuting authority, in this case the Crown Prosecution Service which in turn rests upon the quality of the evidence available following the Police investigation. It is not the case that relevant new materials or relevant evidence will not be looked at by the correct body responsible for either the charging, or the sentencing decision.

At this point, and in the absence of any detail, it is unclear whether you allege that information used to convict you was false; or whether the prosecuting bodies were unaware of all relevant facts. In the event information relied upon by the prosecuting body and the courts was false you should instigate appeal proceedings with the courts. If you claim improper treatment at the hands of the prosecuting authority it would be inappropriate, at this stage, for this Office to interfere with correct procedure in the event a complaint is made to either the Police investigation, or the Crown Prosecution Service.

I note you have commenced a complaints process with the Police; in the event you allege your case was improperly handled by the Crown Prosecution Service you would have to state the grounds of your complaint supported with an account of new information relevant to your conviction in order that it can be scrutinised. This Office will have to await the conclusion of this process prior to being able to review.

I hope this is of assistance.
Yours sincerely

Shariq Ali
Head of Correspondence
Attorney General's Office

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:13:41 +0100
From: Michael John Smith
To: Shariq Ali, Shariq.Ali@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk, complaints@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Re: My Complaint
1 Letter to my MP 29 Feb 08
2 Michael John Smith case papers
3 Statement of a work colleague

Dear Mr Ali,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 22 April.

Firstly, addressing the issue I am complaining about and the evidence that supports my complaint. I think the best thing is to attach to this e-mail a copy of the letter that I wrote to my MP, on 29 February 2008, which sets out what has happened and how I came by new evidence (there are 2 PDF documents also attached). Although my letter to my MP concentrated on the role of the Ministry of Defence, they were clearly not the only organisation involved in the matter that has led to my complaint.

My complaint is that the Attorney General, Sir Nicholas Lyell, authorised my prosecution based on a false and negligent misrepresentation of the facts. I appreciate that the information on which the Attorney General acted was supplied to him by the Crown Prosecution Service, but that does not absolve him of the responsibility for making a mistake. The true facts about the “restricted” document were available at the time the Attorney General authorised my prosecution.

Crucial evidence about the “restricted” document was not disclosed to my Defence – evidence which the Prosecution used to their advantage. I cannot go into all the details here, but my case papers demonstrate the non-disclosure of evidence, and the only explanation that matches the facts is that: (a) the Police uncovered the relevant evidence at an early stage, and (b) the CPS and MoD decided not to disclose that evidence to my Defence. From the day of my arrest the Police dealt extensively with Dr Steven Cundy, the then Director of Hirst Research Centre, and he would have disclosed the status and use of the “restricted” document because he was closely associated with my work colleague and his department.

The subsequent behaviour of the MoD and CPS demonstrates that there was a continuing misrepresentation of the “restricted” Marconi document, and that this misrepresentation was also incorporated into the Security Commission’s report of 1995 (which was ordered by Prime Minister Mr John Major) - the MoD told the Security Commission that the “restricted” document was highly sensitive and should have been marked ‘secret’. It will be apparent to anybody who analyses my case papers that the course of justice has been perverted, whether by negligence or a deliberate act it is not for me to say.

On the second main issue, regarding taking this matter up with the prosecuting authority, I have already been through all the standard means of remedy, wasting many years of my life, and it is clear that I am not going to receive a satisfactory resolution through the normal process. The MoD and the CPS have always insisted that all evidence was disclosed to my Defence and that there is nothing more that would have assisted me. With the evidence I now have this is demonstrably incorrect. Likewise, the CCRC has failed to investigate the issues I have raised with them, and appear to be looking for excuses to dismiss my case to prevent the embarrassment it will cause to the CPS, Police and MoD.

After taking my case to Members of Parliament, the CCRC, the CPS, and the MoD, I feel I have done all that I can do to remedy the failings that occurred in my prosecution. If these bodies cannot, or will not, admit that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, then I as an individual cannot do any more but to appeal to the Attorney General to intervene in this stalemate situation. To leave matters as they are, or to continue for many years of further complaining, appears to me to be exactly the opposite of what the British Judicial System is meant to be. I therefore appeal to the Attorney General to do all in her power to find a way to move my case to a resolution.

Apart from making an appeal to Her Majesty the Queen, I can see no other course of action open to me.

Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith

Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:49:20 +0100
From: Michael John Smith
To: Shariq Ali, Shariq.Ali@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk, complaints@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Re: Further evidence about My Complaint
1 Letter to Baroness Scotland 27 Apr 08
2 Oporto map Exhibit JS45

Dear Mr Ali,

I am adding a further issue to my complaint against the Attorney General. I have prepared this in the form of a letter to Baroness Scotland (attached as a Word document) and I also attach a JPEG document of the exhibit on which this evidence was based - a map of the town Oporto.

Please respond to me if you require further details, as I can supply most of the information you may need.

Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith

The text of the letter to my MP, referred to in my e-mail to the Attorney General, is printed below:

Letter from: Michael John Smith
To: my Member of Parliament

29 February 2008

Dear Sir,

Request for assistance

I was arrested on 8 August 1992 and charged with offences under the Official Secrets Act. I deny that those offences took place and I am challenging that I had in my possession a sensitive classified document when arrested.

I would be grateful for your help in asking the MoD to accept that Dr Meirion Francis Lewis gave false evidence at my trial about the key exhibit: a 9-page document marked ‘Restricted’ and dated 8 January 1982 [Exhibit pages 51-59].

I attach to this letter some documents from my case, and refer to them in the text by bold numbers. Briefly, the story about the “restricted” document is as follows:

3 November 1992 Dr Lewis mentions this document (1).

June 1993 Dr Eamonn Maher issued a Defence expert report. He said the ‘Restricted’ item was sold commercially by GEC (type DW9210). Dr Lewis did not contest the report.

7 October 1993 (Thursday) Dr Lewis was used in an “ambush” by the Prosecution at my trial. They asked Dr Lewis about previously undisclosed evidence.

8-10 October 1993 Dr Lewis said that he had identified the ‘Restricted’ document’s use on ALARM, and left a letter for Marconi’s Technical Director Dr Reginald Humphryes (2).

11 October 1993 Dr Lewis spoke on the phone with Dr Humphryes, who allegedly confirmed a link to ALARM. Dr Lewis gave a new witness statement (3). Dr Lewis’s evidence was “hearsay”, and Humphryes should have been called as a witness. In 2005 the CCRC learned that Humphryes was never responsible for the ALARM project (4).

NOTE: The Police had found no link to ALARM in the 14 months after my arrest. The 16 people on the distribution list of the ‘Restricted’ document were never interviewed.

15 May 1995 My Defence had no expert on ALARM at Appeal. The Prosecution used another “ambush” - they belatedly disclosed copies of the MoD damage assessment report (5 & 6).

July 1995 The Security Commission published a report on my case, and said about the ‘restricted’ document: ‘… at the time the document was created it was not specifically linked to a particular weapons system.’ (HMSO, Cm2930, July 1995, Annex A.5)

1998 I applied to the CCRC (Criminal Case Review Commission) to have my case referred back to the Court of Appeal. After more than 9 years of investigation they have yet to reach a conclusion. The indications are that the CCRC has not properly investigated my case (7). My CCRC case reference No. is 00946/98.

1998-2006 Several Members of Parliament have tried to help me, notably Andrew Mackinlay, Harry Cohen, Chris Mullin, Tony Benn and Jenny Tonge (8-13). However, their efforts have met with a brick wall of opposition from the Home Office, the CPS and the MoD. The most recent failure was Mr Mackinlay’s question 39458, answered on 10 January 2006 by Mr Adam Ingram (see Hansard)

August 2007 I contacted a colleague I used to work with, the person issued with the copy of the ‘Restricted’ document. My colleague’s written statement raises new points (14). Compare the claims made by the MoD and Prosecution with my colleague’s evidence:

1. The ‘Restricted’ document became obsolete in 1984, over 8 years before my arrest, and therefore could not have been used on any actual ALARM missiles.

2. The ‘Restricted’ document was replaced by a different specification identified as 1011-00435, dated 27 March 1984, which was ‘Unclassified’. Effectively the information had been declassified.

3. My colleague confirms that he knew the project was ALARM in 1982. This contradicts the MoD’s submission to the Security Commission in 1995 that ‘… at the time the document was created it was not specifically linked to a particular weapons system.’

My colleague’s points would have had a significant effect on my jury’s verdicts, had they had the opportunity to hear them. The MoD has suppressed the above information for many years in order to prevent me from moving towards an Appeal.

Most of my legal papers are available on the Internet at the Cryptome website in the USA, and these are accessible via links at the foot of the Wikipedia entry about my case:

Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith

Attached documents:

(1) Witness statement by Meirion Francis Lewis dated 3 November 1992.

(2) Statement to the CCRC by Meirion Francis Lewis dated 22 February 2005.

(3) Witness statement by Meirion Francis Lewis 11 October 1993.

(4) Statement by Reginald Humphryes dated 20 July 2005.

(5) First MoD Damage Assessment by James Francis MacCulloch dated 7 March 1994. This was withheld from the Defence until the first day of my Appeal on 15 May 1995.

(6) Second MoD Damage Assessment by James Francis MacCulloch dated 16 May 1995. This reversed the opinion stated in the first report, and interrupted my Appeal.

(7) Letter from Harry Cohen MP to CCRC dated 16 January 2002.

(8) Letter from Harry Cohen MP to George Robertson MP dated 25 November 1998.

(9) Letter from John Spellar MP to Harry Cohen MP dated 26 January 1999. Mr Spellar refers to my alleged espionage activities at EMI, but the CPS decided there was insufficient evidence to charge me with any offence at EMI. The MoD denies there was anything wrong with the evidence of Dr (Prof) Lewis.

(10) Letter from Harry Cohen MP to John Spellar MP dated 30 March 1999.

(11) Letter from John Spellar MP to Harry Cohen MP dated 23 April 1999.

(12) Letter from Harry Cohen MP to John Spellar MP dated 7 July 1999.

(13) Letter from Peter Kilfoyle MP to Harry Cohen MP dated 9 September 1999. The MoD are making a claim that I was copying and distributing copies of classified documents, which was untrue. They are also alleging that this material is “secret”. Following this letter MoD security staff raided my cell at HMP Full Sutton and removed over 600 pages of my legal documents, which made it harder for me to prepare my case for a new Appeal.

(14) Statement of my work colleague dated 11 October 2007.

The above documents can be viewed on 2 blog pages here and here.

The letter to Baroness Scotland, attached to my e-mail to the Attorney General’s Office, is also printed below:

Letter from: Michael John Smith
To: Baroness Scotland

27 April 2008

The Rt Hon the Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC
The Attorney General’s Office
20 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0NF

Dear Baroness Scotland,

Further false evidence on which the Attorney General authorised my prosecution

Further to my complaint that the Attorney General wrongly authorised my prosecution, based on false evidence about the significance of Exhibit pages 51-59, I now wish to extend my complaint to include another key issue on which I was wrongfully prosecuted.

At the time Sir Nicholas Lyell authorised my prosecution (November 1992), those planning that prosecution were aware of the information being supplied to the United Kingdom by the Russian defector Vasili Mitrokhin (since March 1992). Shortly after my arrest (8 August 1992) I was told that a Russian defector was supplying KGB archive information to the UK:

‘And you will be aware also, of the archivage leaks that have taken place over the last number of ...’ [Police interviews p.122]

During Police interviews I was shown a tourist map of Oporto (Portugal), which later became a key exhibit at my trial. As the interviewing officer DCS Malcolm McLeod put it:

‘I am putting it to you, that you carried out some work for the KGB, in clearing what is known as dead letter boxes. … why should Victor Oshchenko say that you carried out work for them in Oporto, or in Portugal?’ [Police interviews p.363]

‘During the search of your house we found some literature, and I’m going to produce exhibit JS/45, and this is a map, a tourist map, of the centre of Oporto.’ [Police interviews p.534]

Viktor Oshchenko was not called as a witness to my trial, but the Oporto map was used by the Prosecution to create fallacious links between Oshchenko, a KGB agent known as Mr E, and myself. It was claimed that I was sent to Oporto by the KGB, and that I had been on a training mission there during my visit between 11th to 13th August 1977.

It was not until 1999 that I learned the evidence given at my trial by Stella Rimington and Oleg Gordievsky contradicted information contained in the Mitrokhin Archive. In the book published by Professor Christopher Andrew there are two references to the Iberian Peninsula. On page 551 Andrew states:

'The first test, which Smith seems to have passed, was to remove two packets of secret material from a dead letter-box in Spain.’

On page 552 Andrew goes on to refer to another “test” that I was allegedly subjected to:

'… by instructing him to remove a container holding two rolls of film from a DLB in the Paris suburbs and to deliver it to a KGB officer in Lisbon,’

The Prosecution realised that the Mitrokhin version did not agree with their case at trial, but they continued to promote the Oporto story, because that was the only evidence they had of a link to Portugal. The single reference to Portugal in the Mitrokhin Archive is an alleged trip to Lisbon, some 200 miles away from Oporto. However, that is not the only contradiction in the Prosecution’s case: they claimed the trip to Portugal took place in 1977, but the chronology in the book places this journey in 1979, or later. I never travelled to Portugal in 1979, and I have not visited Portugal at any time after 1979.

The CPS’s claims for a “KGB training mission” to Portugal are clearly at odds with the claims made in the Mitrokhin Archive. There was no attempt by the CPS to resolve these contradictions. Consequently, the information provided by the CPS to the Attorney General about KGB activities was flawed, and indicates another case of negligent misrepresentation by the CPS when asking Sir Nicholas Lyell to authorise my prosecution.

The jury at my trial were subsequently invited to convict me based on flawed evidence as a result of the Attorney General’s mistakes. If the jury had been supplied with all the facts that the CPS had available, then they would have seen the Oporto map as unreliable evidence.

The simple truth is that the Oporto map was innocuous, and given to me by a camp-site attendant. I was on holiday and sightseeing with a friend, and the map was offered to us to assist in finding our way around the town. The centre of the town was marked by a rough circle, and two central bus stops were marked with crosses (marked 1 and 2 on the map) and arrows, showing the direction of traffic flow in the one-way-system. The O Fado restaurant, where we had booked an excursion, was also marked with a cross (marked 4). The final cross (marked 3) indicates the location of the nearest bus stop to the O Fado.

There is no reference whatsoever to Portugal, Lisbon or Oporto in the Security Commission’s report on my case (Cm 2930, July 1995). Neither is there any reference to the evidence of Mr E, and the allegations that he had been sent on a training mission to Lisbon in 1979. These omissions from the public record support the argument that the Security Service judged it unsafe to connect the Oporto map with any KGB operation.

Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith

The Oporto Map, trial Exhibit 46 (JS/45)

20 June 2008

Not the first time Blofeld has been accused

I was quite surprised to read less than a year after my trial that judge Blofeld was being accused of improper conduct in another case. I was always suspicious of why certain issues in my trial had been glossed over, such as the source of the money (MI5 I suspect), the cover-up over why Oshchenko did not appear as a witness, the bad rulings such as allowing an irrelevant witness Mr E to appear, the use of an apparently illegal fake phone call to my home, the use of hearsay evidence connected with a key witness (Marconi’s Technical Director). I could go on and on about the bad decisions and conduct of my trial, but it seems judges are a law unto themselves.

Sir John Blofeld QC

Anyway, all Blofeld’s rulings from my case are published on the Internet, so anybody can read them now. This is the newspaper article about the affair:

Times report dated 16 August 1994

Judges disclaim improper contact

By A Staff Reporter

THREE judges have denied allegations that they made improper contact with each other to discuss a drugs case.

Letters from Judge MacDonald, a circuit judge in the North East, Mr Justice Blofeld, a High Court judge, and Mr Justice Mortimer, an appeal judge of the Hong Kong Supreme Court, were read out in the Court of Appeal yesterday in response to newspaper publicity given to claims of impropriety against them by Paul Blanchard, a businessman. Blanchard, 49, was jailed for six years by Judge Macdonald in October 1992 for conspiracy to supply the drug Ecstasy, and is seeking leave to appeal.

He claims that the trial judge had telephone conversations about the case with Mr Justice Mortimer, an old acquaintance from the North-eastern circuit who, in 1978 when he was Barry Mortimer QC, had unsuccessfully defended Blanchard on a charge of fraudulent trading.

Blanchard has also alleged that Mr Justice Blofeld, who turned down his initial appeal application in February last year, spoke on the telephone to the other two judges. He claims he was denied a fair trial and proper consideration of his appeal application.

At yesterday’s preliminary appeal hearing, Lord Justice Russell insisted the judges’ letters denying the accusations be read out. He ordered Blanchard’s lawyers to decide as a matter of urgency whether they planned to pursue the allegations and, if so, return to court as soon as possible with details of the claims and statements from proposed witnesses.

In his letter, Judge Macdonald said he had received a telephone call, purporting to be from a clerk at counsel’s chambers in Leeds, asking him to call Hong Kong urgently. Mr Justice Mortimer said he had not asked him to call. “It became clear this was a hoax or some attempt at harassment,” Judge Macdonald said.

Mr Justice Mortimer said he had received a message to contact Judge Macdonald, but when they spoke he knew nothing about it.

Mr Justice Blofeld said he had never spoken to either of the other judges on the telephone in his life and certainly not on the occasion suggested.

Times article of 16 August 1994

19 June 2008

"Worm" Justice Sir John Blofeld gets off the hook

When considering what type of people judges are, and how successful they are as practitioners of the law, I have come to the conclusion that a judge is no more than a failed barrister. A barrister, acting as a barrister, has to be entirely reliant on their professional reputation, and if they are not successful because they mess-up or cannot secure work, then no one will hire them and they become a liability to their chambers. With the top barristers easily earning a million pounds or more a year, why would such people choose to become judges, and earn a much lower salary, unless they were failures?

It is little wonder that the vacancies for judges get filled by those individuals who have failed the grade as junior barristers. Likewise, successful QCs who choose to become judges are a pretty rare breed indeed. No wonder that judges are the sort of lawyers who failed early in their careers, through their predisposition to make mistakes and act incompetently, and that within the legal profession this is common knowledge. In fact, it would be rather odd to expect that a man who was a failure as a barrister could ever become successful as a judge. Unfortunately, the legal profession protects its own, and the incompetent judges receive total protection whenever they make mistakes, idiotic rulings or display the signs of madness. The legal bodies stick together when things go wrong, and that is why the legal system in the UK is in such a poor state.

I stupidly thought that I would be treated with fairness by making a complaint to the OJC, but this attempt led to a rapid rejection by those who guard the judges’ reputations. This was my complaint:

Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 02:11:23 +0100
From: Michael John Smith
To: Office for Judicial Complaints, customer@ojc.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Conduct of Judge Sir John Blofeld

For the attention of Ms Dale Simon

Dear Ms Simon,

Re: trial of R -v- Michael John Smith (1993)

I am currently trying to discover the reasons why false evidence was given at my trial by the witness Professor Meirion Francis Lewis, and consequently repeated by Justice Blofeld in his Summing Up. The evidence was so prejudicial to my Defence case that I was found guilty of offences under the Official Secrets Act and sentenced to a term of 20 years imprisonment.

During the course of Professor Lewis’s testimony Justice Blofeld asked several questions of Professor Lewis, and I am of the opinion that the evidence had been discussed with the judge prior to the witness appearing in court. This was all the more worrying, because the evidence in question (concerning a 9-page document marked “restricted”) had not previously been disclosed to the Defence until the witness spoke his words from the witness box.

I did not learn until October 2007 that the “restricted” document had been made obsolete in 1984, over 8 years before my arrest, and it could not therefore have been used on ALARM missiles deployed in the Gulf War of 1991, which was the claim made by Professor Lewis. As Justice Blofeld singled out this evidence for special mention during his summing up, this must have had a significant effect on the minds of the jury when coming to their guilty verdict.

I cannot be certain to what extent Sir John Blofeld knew he was misrepresenting the “restricted” document, but he clearly was responsible for misleading the jury at my trial. I would like to see this matter investigated in order to discover what Sir John Blofeld knew about the false evidence, and whether he was aware that the document claimed to be highly sensitive was in fact obsolete.

I am trying to get my case back to the Court of Appeal, due to the gross unfairness of the above point and other serious deficiencies in the way the Prosecution were allowed to present their case in court. Ordinarily I would have waited for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to finish their review of my case, but they have proved themselves to be unable to deal with the technicalities involved. The CCRC has ignored detailed evidence I spent years preparing, which proved that Professor Lewis’s testimony could not be correct, and they never discovered that the “restricted” document was obsolete - a fact apparently widely known amongst those individuals who had been involved with it. For these reasons I believe that the CCRC have not conducted a thorough investigation of my case.

I therefore look to the Office for Judicial Complaints to discover why I did not receive a fair trial, and to what extent the conduct of Sir John Blofeld contributed to the miscarriage of justice that occurred in my case.

Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith

Below is the reply I received from the OJC:

Reply from the Office for Judicial Review

Letter from: Office for Judicial Complaints
4th Floor Clive House
70 Petty France
London SW1H 9EX

DX 149800 Westminster 7

T 0207 189 2937
F 0207 189 2936

MinicomVII 020 7189 2941
(Helpline for the deaf and hard of hearing)

To: Mr Michael John Smith

18th June 2008
Our Ref: 4076/2008

Dear Mr Smith,

Further to my letter of the 3rd June, I have now had an opportunity to consider the contents of your e-mail dated the 2nd June in which you ask the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) to discover why you did not receive a fair trial, and to what extent the conduct of Sir John Blofeld contributed to the miscarriage of justice in your case.

The role of the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) is to support the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor in their joint responsibilities for judicial misconduct and discipline. We carry out our role in accordance with the provisions of the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2006 (the regulations) a copy of which can be obtained from our website www.judicialcomplaints.gov.uk.

The OJC cannot intervene in court procedures or conduct investigations into the conduct or outcome of particular cases, we can only consider complaints about the personal misconduct of judges. The only way that judicial decisions or court procedures can be challenged is by way of appeal. As your concerns arise from the nature of the evidence presented at your trial in 1993, your issues fall outside the remit of this office. Therefore I am unable to assist you with the questions that you have raised.

I am sorry that I cannot assist you further.

Yours sincerely
Natasha Kumalo

Law Lords’ ruling on anonymous witnesses

There was a useful new judgement this week regarding the use of anonymous witnesses in trials, when the Law Lords ruled on the case of Ian Davis. The ruling has been published on The Times website.

In my own trial claims made by Viktor Oshchenko, Vasili Mitrokhin and Dr Reginald Humphryes were all put before the Court, with no attempt made to identify that they were the sources of the “evidence”, or any explanation why they were not going to be called as witnesses. These were effectively anonymous witnesses as far as the jury were concerned. However, with the draconian rules of the Official Secrets Act, and all such trials being held in camera, it seems this is just another “normal” practice that prosecutors can use to gain an unfair advantage, and they need such unfairness when they have a weak case and need to pull out all the stops. Why should anything surprise me when we are talking about the way that British Justice works?

18 June 2008

Judicial Review against the IPCC - letter before claim

With the IPCC’s rejection of my correct request for a Professional Standards investigation of the Police’s behaviour in my case, there is now no other alternative but to start Judicial Review proceedings against the IPCC.

It is regrettable that more time and effort will be required (wasted), in order to force these organisations to accept that the Police’s role in my prosecution in 1992/93 was unprofessional, nevertheless that is apparently the way the IPCC wish to proceed. No doubt they will do all in their power to prevent the public learning how the Police really behaved in my case, and that rather than acting with honesty they were acting incompetently. Below is the basis of my case for a Judicial Review:

Letter from: Michael John Smith
Dated: 16 June 2008

To: Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH

Your Ref: 2008/007545

Dear Sirs,

Letter before claim: Judicial Review

1. Proposed defendant:

Independent Police Complaints Commission

2. Proposed claimant:

Mr Michael John Smith

3. Reference details

(i) A letter from the defendant dated 4 June 2008. (1)

(ii) All Police Witness Statements relevant to Exhibit pp.51-59. (2)

(iii) All Police Witness Statements of Professor Merion Francis Lewis. (3)

(iv) Transcript of the trial testimony of Professor Meirion Francis Lewis. (4)

(v) Statement of an old work colleague. (5)

4. The details of the matter being challenged:
The letter from the IPCC rejects my call for an investigation into the conduct of Police Officers regarding the collection of the sworn statements of Professor Meirion Francis Lewis, and in not checking the veracity of Professor Lewis’s claims with qualified experts; especially my work colleague whose name appears on the original document.

The IPCC state the following:

• That your complaint is out of time, namely; more than 12 months have elapsed between the incident, or the latest incident, giving rise to the complaint and the making of the complaint and either that no good reason for the delay has been shown or that injustice would likely be caused by the delay.

• That your complaint is vexatious, oppressive or an abuse of process, because the correct avenue for challenging the findings of a court would be via the CCRC, unsuccessful attempts to resolve these matters through the correct channels has led to the police complaints system being used as another option.

• That it is not reasonably practicable to investigate your complaint as no electronic records of the case exist, nor is it clear at this time whether any papers have been retained.

In order to grant a dispensation application the Commission need only be satisfied that one of the grounds for dispensation, set out in the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regs 2004 are made out. I have carefully considered your complaint and the application made by the MPS, and have decided to grant the application to dispense with your complaint for the following reasons;

• The incident giving rise to your complaint was your trial in 1993. Given over 14 years have elapsed since this incident, I consider that injustice would likely be caused by this delay if your complaint were to now be investigated.

• Your complaint relates to evidence that was presented at your trial, and the conduct of the trial itself. In your complaint you stated the CCRC had been investigating your complaints that your trail was unfair, but they have failed to find any new evidence about the anomalies you drew their attention to. I agree with the MPS that the correct process for addressing concerns you have about the evidence produced at your trial would be through the CCRC. The police complaints system was not intended as an alternative means to review decisions made during criminal trials. Opportunities to challenge evidence at the hearing, such as failure to take statements from witnesses, would have been available during the trial, and could have been commented on by the CCRC. In the absence of clear evidence the police perverted the course of justice, and that these matters have already been considered by the appropriate bodies, I consider to address the same issues again via the police complaints system would be an abuse of process.

5. The issue:
The issues raised by the IPCC in their letter of 4th June 2008 basically resolve to:

(a) That I am out of time.

(b) That I am being vexatious, oppressive or that I am abusing proper process.

(c) That the issues I am raising are not reasonably practicable to investigate.

(d) That the issue of Professor M. F. Lewis fabricating his testimony regarding the ALARM missile should be overlooked, even though it provided the only technical justification for my prosecution under the Official Secrets Act.

(e) That the IPCC accept that they have discretion to investigate but have refused to exercise it in my favour.

I claim that the IPCC has:

(i) Made an error of fact (6) when they concluded that I am out of time, on the basis that more than 12 months has elapsed. They are denying the fact that my old work colleague made a statement on 11th October 2007, which completely refutes the testimony of Meirion Francis Lewis and which is within the specified period and is a matter of fact.

(ii) Ignored relevant considerations. (7) The IPCC have refused to look at my work colleague’s signed statement of the 11th October 2007. Because of that refusal the IPCC can maintain that all Police statements given by Professor M. F. Lewis at my trial were true. However, the IPCC’s wilful refusal to view my colleague’s statement, and to contrast it with Professor Lewis’s statements, has a material influence on the prominence of Professor Lewis’s statements. I do not ask the Police or the IPCC to determine whether Professor M. F. Lewis lied, although it may well be possible to do that, rather I seek to establish that Professor Lewis’s statements are false and irrelevant, and that the Police made no effort to check the veracity of Professor Lewis’s statements, which were made with an improper purpose and materially influenced the decision in my case.

(iii) Acted irrationally (8) by refusing to investigate the merits of my work colleague’s statement, revealing that Police Exhibit pp.51-59 was not a secret. The IPCC is acting irrationally by ignoring the fact that my colleague, one of the original recipients of the supposedly secret document, concludes that Exhibit pp.51-59 is not a secret.

(iv) Since the IPCC admits that it has a discretion to allow an investigation, they cannot invent excuses or fetter (9) any proposed investigation with creative internal policies or obligations to others such as the CCRC.

(v) Denied to me natural justice,(10) by refusing to investigate my work colleague’s position at the time of my prosecution with the statement he signed on the 11th October. The NEW evidence was in fact available before my trial, and has the capability to clear my name if investigated.

6. The details of the action that the defendant is expected to take:
Based on section 5 above, I expect the defendant to remedy their denial to investigate the NEW evidence of my old work colleague and to contrast such NEW evidence with the statements provided to prosecutors at my trial, clearly demonstrating that no secret parts were ever present in any documents in my possession or that were presented at my trial.

In the alternative I ask for two further orders from the Court under the following headings:

1. A declaration from the Court that Meirion Francis Lewis’s statements reveal inconsistent evidence for the truth of his statements.

2. Punitive damages for unconstitutional actions by the servants of government. The sum of £50,000 is sought. (11)

7. The details of the legal advisers, if any, dealing with this claim:


8. The details of any interested parties:


9. The details of any information sought:


10. The details of any documents that are considered relevant and necessary:
I attach to this protocol letter copies of the IPCC’s letter, all Police Witness Statements by Professor Meirion Francis Lewis, and the statement by my old work colleague. I disagree with the IPCC’s belief that records are not available, and I can provide copies of all other documents on request.

11. The address for reply and service of court documents:

M. J. Smith’s home address

12. Proposed reply date:

30 June 2008 (14 days)

Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith

(1) Exhibit A: identified by reference number 2008/007545, and signed by Adam Stacey, Casework manager.

(2) Exhibit B: available on request.

(3) Exhibit C: Police Witness Statements of Professor Meirion Francis Lewis

(i). Dated 11 August 1992 (pp.111-112), witnessed D.S. A. Walsh

(ii). Dated 3 November 1992 (pp.113-114), witnessed D.S. S. Stafford

(iii). Dated 20 May 1993 (p.263), witnessed D.S. S. Stafford

(iv). Dated 23 July 1993 (pp.313-314), witnessed D.I. M. Morrissey

(v). Dated 11 October 1993 (p.349), witnessed ?

(vi). Dated 11 October 1993 (pp.350-351), witnessed ?

(4) Exhibit D: available on request.

(5) Exhibit E: Statement of my old work colleague dated 11 October 2007.

(6) Since my colleague’s new evidence is fact it is impossible for the IPCC to claim the fact does not exist.

R v Secretary of State Ex Parte Khawaja [1984] AC 74
R v Hillingdon Borough Council ex Parte Pulhofer [1986] AC 484

(7) Had the IPCC given consideration to my colleague’s statement, then it would have materially influenced their decision.

R v ILEA Ex parte Westminster City Council [1948] 1 KB 223
Padfield -v- Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997; [1968] UKHL 1

(8) The IPCC’s decision not to investigate my colleague’s statement is outrageous, defies logic, and no sensible person would have arrived at such a decision.

Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223

(9) Lavender v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 WLR 1231
British Oxygen v Minister of Technology [1971] AC 610

(10) McInnes v Onslow-Fane [1978] 1 WLR 1520

(11) Rookes v. Barnard [1964] AC 1129, [1964] 1 All ER 367