I am astonished how Sir Derek Spencer shows no shame at the way he promoted false evidence to be used to gain my conviction at the trial in 1993, but he continues to push these lies on his chambers website.
It is quite disgusting to see a man of his reputation gloating over what he has done. He should have removed this entry years ago, as all it demonstrates is his lack of any honesty in how he approaches a prosecution. What he has written is this:
R v Smith (1992): Official Secrets Act. The accused was convicted of spying for Soviet Russia. He had been employed in a laboratory that gave him access to top secret information on weapons systems and leading edge technology. The trial involved evidence from top physicists and counter intelligence officers. Post conviction the defendant applied twice unsuccessfully to the CCRC.
What is wrong with that you may ask? Well, for the first thing "Soviet Russia" was dissolved in December 1991, and so Spencer is using an emotive term here for something that was already defunct by the time I was arrested. I noted that he was fond of using terms like this to spice up his courtroom delivery. No doubt this was designed to strike a chord with the old Cold War feelings that the jury members had had instilled in them over their lifetimes.
What "Russians" am I supposed to have dealt with? Spencer was very keen on referring to my "handlers", but when it came down to the detail he couldn't offer any names. Likewise, when Stella Rimington was asked under oath whether MI5 had any evidence that I had met any Russians, she said they had no photographs, surveillance logs, or any information to support this claim of the Russians being involved at all.
Where he got the story that I had access to 'top secret information on weapons systems' I have no idea. My level of security clearance gave me no opportunity to gain access to even "secret" information, let alone "top secret". I had very low security clearance, just sufficient to do my job, and I was often denied access to places where sensitive material was dealt with for that reason.
No, it suited Spencer's purposes to lie about my security status, so that he could then exaggerate my role and beef up his case to the jury. Too bad he was wrong, but lies have a way of being believed, and live on long after they have been debunked. Why don't you own up to this lie Sir Derek Spencer, or are you not man enough to admit when you are wrong?
The testimony given in court by the Prosecution witnesses contained significant false evidence. I am sure that Sir Derek knew which parts of the evidence were dodgy, so that he could neatly side-step any potential challenges to those lies in court. That is what is so insidious about this whole affair. It all got documented, and the transcripts reveal the lies that were told, and yet the legal system does not wish to address those points. That is why the Criminal Cases Review Commission spent 10 years trying to resolve my case in the Prosecution's favour. The CCRC simply ignored or nullified any points in my submissions that they did not like.
It seems I shall have to spell all the details out, because the legal system does not like to admit that its officers of the court are devious cheaters.
On 20 March 2009 I sent the following e-mail to Sir Derek Spencer's chambers at 18 Red Lion Court:
I ask you in a polite way to please remove all references to my case from Sir Derek's personal page, i.e. the case listed as R v Smith (1992).
The entry is not only very old now, but it makes an incorrect statement that I had 'access to top secret information on weapons systems'. I had the lowest level of security clearance, which denied me access to any information classified "secret" and above, and so this entry is not only incorrect but it creates a false picture of the nature of the work I was involved in.
Michael John Smith
This morning (23 March 2009) the 18 Red Lion Court chambers of Sir Derek Spencer has removed the offending paragraph from their website. Just as well, because the next step would have been to report Sir Derek Spencer to the Bar Council for making false claims about my case.
Despite this small but significant victory, the matter is not concluded by a long way. The details about what happened before and during my trial is a disgrace, because it proved that evidence could be wilfully manipulated in favour of the Prosecution, and the Defence team were not even given sight of material that could have led to my acquittal at trial.
A lawyer has given me this sarcastic comment that he thinks Sir Derek Spencer could have added to his comment about my case:
"and I presided over a calculated campaign to ensure his defence lawyers didn't have access to exculpatory material..."
So I am not alone, of those who know what happened at my trial, who believe that Sir Derek Spencer still has a lot to answer for. This matter is not over until all outstanding issues have been resolved once and for all.