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)