POLICE WITNESS
STATEMENTS
In the case of
Witness Statement Page 1
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Mr ‘B’
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Security Service Officer
Dated 28 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to
prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or
do not believe to be true.
On Saturday, 8th August 1992 I was
present at about 9 am at a house in Ham,
Signed Mr B Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 2
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Mr ‘B’
He said “Yes”. I said “OK, I think there
is telephone at corner of
Signed Mr B Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 3
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF
DCI Martin Charles Gray
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21 (19 December 1944)
Occupation of Witness Detective Chief Inspector 153284
Dated 18 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Saturday
8th August 1992 at 8.28 am I broke the seal of a new audio tape which was placed
onto a tape recorder attached to telephone number 081-940-2827 at a house in
Ham. At 9.50 am the same day I removed the audio tape from the tape recorder. At
11.50 am the same day at Paddington Police Station I handed the audio tape,
exhibit MG/1, to exhibits officer DS SINGLETON. The tape recorder attached to
telephone 081-940-2827 produced a telephone call record print-out and at 11.50
am the same day at Paddington Police Station I handed the print-out, exhibit
MG/2 to exhibits officer DS SINGLETON.
Signed M Gray Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 4
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
DS Simon James
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 6 November 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to
prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or
do not believe to be true.
Using a photocopied sectional
enlargement of page 75 of the 1987 edition of the Greater London Street Atlas, I
have indicated the approximate position of two British Telecom public telephone
boxes, marked TK1 and TK2 respectively. I have also indicated the position of
premises at 48A
Further to my above statement, I have, with reference to the statements made by officers engaged in the surveillance of Michael J SMITH, on Saturday 8th August 1992, immediately prior to his arrest, indicated the outward and homeward route that SMITH followed after receiving a telephone call from Security Service Officer Mr ‘B’.
Signed S.J. Stafford DS Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 5
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF
DC Peter Alexander HORDERN
Age of Witness (date of birth): 25 January 1954
Occupation of Witness: Detective Constable
Dated 12 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to
prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or
do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August 1992 I was
present at a briefing given by DCI MacKENZIE in which he described a male and
female who lived at 48a Burton Road, Kingston-upon-Thames. At about 8.30 am I
was deployed with other officers in the vicinity of
Signed Peter Hordern Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 6
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF
PC James TUBBS
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Police Officer
Dated 12 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to
prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or
do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August 1992, I was
engaged with other officers in an operation in the area of
Signed J. Tubbs Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 7
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF
PC Catherine PLUMMER
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Police Officer
Dated 27 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to
prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or
do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August 1992 I was
engaged on an operation with other officers in the
Signed C. Plummer Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 8
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF
DC Colin SIMPSON
Age of Witness (date of birth) 43 (9 December 1948)
Occupation of Witness Police Officer
Dated 25 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to
prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or
do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August 1992 I was on
duty in plain clothes at
Signed Colin Simpson D/C Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 9
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF
DC Stephen BROWN
Age of Witness (date of birth) 40 (27 November 1951)
Occupation of Witness Police Officer
Dated 25 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to
prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or
do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August 1992 I was on
duty in plain clothes in
Signed Stephen Brown D/C Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 10
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF DC Kevin KINDLEYSIDES
Age of Witness (date of birth) 45 (9 December 1946)
Occupation of Witness Police Officer
Dated 20 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to
prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or
do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August 1992 I was on
duty in plain clothes at
On Tuesday 11th August 1992 at about 2 pm I went to the Harrow-on-the-Hill area and took a number of black and white photographs in the Church Hill vicinity. These photographs, in an album, I produce as KK/1. The un-retouched negatives are retained in my possession.
Signed K. Kindleysides DC Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 11
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF PC John COLLINS
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Police Officer
Dated 12 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to
prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or
do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August 1992, I was
engaged with other officers on an operation in the area of
Signed John Collins Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 12
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF DCI Hector MACKENZIE
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Detective Chief Inspector
Dated 12 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Friday 7th August 1992 at New
Scotland Yard I was briefed by Detective Superintendent MacLEOD regarding a
surveillance operation in the
Signed Hector MacKenzie DCI Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 13
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF DS Keith GREGORY-PARRY
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Detective Sergeant
Dated 12 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August 1992 following a
briefing by DCI MacKENZIE, I deployed officers on an operation in the
Signed K. Gregory-Parry DS Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 14
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF DI Martin NICOLSON
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Detective Inspector 14/159579
Address and Telephone Number
New Scotland Yard, Broadway,
Dated 1 September 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to
prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or
do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August 1992 at
approximately 9 am I was on duty in plain clothes in an unmarked police vehicle,
registration F709 OUL in company with DS PEPE and DC KELLY and situated in Kings
Road Kingston-upon-Thames,
Signed M. Nicolson D/I Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 15
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF DI Martin Nicolson
which point DS PEPE took hold of SMITH’s
right arm. SMITH became more tense and then said, ‘What’s going on. I don’t want
my neighbours to see’. DS PEPE told SMITH that he was going to handcuff him to
prevent his escape and then applied the handcuffs to SMITH with his arms behind
his back. As he was doing so SMITH was struggling slightly and looking in the
direction of 48A
Signed M. Nicolson D/I Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 16
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF DI Martin Nicolson
presence. In an Interview Room at
Paddington Police Station later on this day, between 3.05 pm and 3.31 pm an
interview was conducted between Michael SMITH, DS PEPE and myself. This
interview was recorded on audio tape. I now produce the tape, seal number
T497086, as exhibit MN/1. On Sunday 9th August 1992 at about 9 pm, in company
with DCI GRAY, at Hirst Research Centre,
Signed M. Nicolson Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 17
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF DS Garry PEPE
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Detective Sergeant 71/183110
Dated 12 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to
prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or
do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August 1992, I was on
duty in plain clothes in an unmarked police vehicle in company with DI NICHOLSON
and DC KELLY. At 9 am we were parked in King’s Road,
Signed G. Pepe Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 18
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF DS Garry PEPE
warrant card. I took told of his right
arm as he pulled away from DI NICHOLSON. SMITH tensed up and said, “What’s going
on, I don’t want my neighbours to see.” I handcuffed SMITH, with his hands
behind his back in order that he could not escape. He was placed in the rear
nearside of the vehicle and I sat next to him. Mr SMITH complained that his
handcuffs were hurting him. I tried to release one of the cuffs but he was
moving around. He demanded to know where he was going and I told him we were
going to the police station. I could not adjust his handcuffs to his
satisfaction, although there was a space between his hands and the cuffs. I
removed his watch in order to allow greater room and placed it between his legs.
At the time of his arrest when handcuffed I took possession of his keys which he
was holding. He continued to talk about his being handcuffed and was becoming
agitated. As we passed Kingston Railway Bridge SMITH turned to me and stopped
moving around and stared and said, “You’re not the police. I know who you are.”
He leaned towards the door and shouted and screamed at the window, “I’m being
kidnapped, help me, I’m being kidnapped.” I restrained him and calmed him down.
We drove to outside JOHN LEWIS in
Signed G. Pepe Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 19
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF DS Garry PEPE
authorised. I took possession of a quantity of tissues from his person (GP/1), a quantity of credit cards (GP/3) and a quantity of receipts (GP/2). At 3.05 pm I was present at an interview conducted by DI NICHOLSON of SMITH in the first floor interview room of Paddington Green Police Station. This interview was concluded at 3.31 pm.
Signed G. Pepe Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 20
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF DC Hugh KELLY
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21 (14 September 1953)
Occupation of Witness Police Officer
Dated 17 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to
prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or
do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August 1992 at 9.00
hours I was on police duty in plain clothes in an unmarked police vehicle, a
Ford Sierra, index number F709 OUL, in
Signed H. Kelly Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 21
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF DC Hugh Kelly
NICOLSON and DS PEPE get hold of his
right arm. At this point I saw SMITH go very tense and I saw him say something
but I do not know what. I saw DS PEPE place handcuffs on SMITH and I saw SMITH
begin to struggle and look towards his flat at 48a
Signed H. Kelly Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 22
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF DC Hugh Kelly
been placed initially after arrest. In the presence of DI NICOLSON, DS PEPE, PS 19 DD Anthony DAVIES and SMITH I searched the vehicle F709 OUL and from the rear seat of that vehicle I retrieved a wrist watch and a newspaper which SMITH then identified as belonging to him. SMITH was then taken into the Custody Suite at Paddington Green Police Station where DI NICOLSON gave the facts relating to SMITH’s detention to the Custody Officer. Whilst at Paddington Green Police Station DS PEPE and myself conducted a strip search of SMITH in the Force Medical Examiner’s Room. DS PEPE, SMITH and myself then returned to the Custody Suite to complete the procedure for SMITH’s detention.
Signed H. Kelly Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 23
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF
PC Bruce FOX
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Police officer PC 101 SW
Dated 19 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to
prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or
do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August 1992 at 9.45 am I
was on duty in full uniform with PC 225 VK SEYMOUR on mobile patrol in a marked
police vehicle. I received a message via my PR to attend outside JOHN LEWIS PLC,
Signed B. Fox Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 24
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF PC Bruce FOX
vehicle. As he was half way out the dog handler said to Mr SMITH, “Are you going to walk.” He said, “Yes.” He then stood. Both dog handlers then took hold of Mr SMITH’s arms and walked him to the van. He was placed in the police van at 9.50 hours. I then sat in the rear of the van with a plain clothes detective. As soon as the van doors were closed the detective removed Mr SMITH’s handcuffs. He was then taken to Paddington Green Police Station where he was taken to the charge room by detectives. He arrived at Paddington at 10.17 hours. At no time was unreasonable force used on Mr SMITH whilst he was in my sight. All officers acted in a correct and polite manner with Mr SMITH. I searched the police van in Mr SMITH’s presence both before and just after his entering and leaving the van. On both occasions I found nothing of interest
Further to my above statement the plain clothes detective in the rear of the Sierra and who accompanied both Mr SMITH and myself in the van was a DS PEPE. The officer who directed that Mr SMITH be taken to Paddington Police Station was a DI NICOLSON. I now know that Mr Michael John SMITH is the man who was arrested on the above day.
Signed B. Fox Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 25
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF PC Jan SEYMOUR PC 225VK
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Police Constable (178740)
Dated 25 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August 1992 I was on
duty in uniform employed as the driver of a marked police van, accompanied by PC
232VK FOX. At 9.45 am I heard over my personal radio that plain clothes officers
required assistance with a prisoner who had become violent outside JOHN LEWIS’
department store,
Signed Jan Seymour PC225VK Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 26
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF PC Jan SEYMOUR PC225VK
up. He was then accompanied to the van by the dog handlers followed by PC FOX and the plain clothed officers. SMITH was placed in the van at 9.50 am and was joined inside the rear cage by PC FOX and one of the plain clothed officers, DS PEPE. I closed and locked the rear doors and then drove the van to Paddington Green Police Station arriving there at 10.17 am. SMITH was taken by officers who had been awaiting our arrival to the charge room and I had no further contact with him.
Signed Jan Seymour PC225VK Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 27
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF PC Robert COUCH
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Police Officer PC 519SW
Dated 25 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August 1992 at about
9.45 I was on duty correctly dressed in full uniform with PC466SW FIELD in Area
Zero five six dog van, when I heard a message over the force R/T that police
needed assistance outside JOHN LEWIS STORE in
Signed R. Couch PC 519SW Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 28
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF PC Terence John FIELD
Age of Witness (date of birth) 18 March 1953
Occupation of Witness Police Constable 76/166431
Address and Telephone Number 5HQ Dog Section, Teddington Police Station
Dated 24 September 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to
prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or
do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August 1992 I was on
mobile uniformed patrol in company with PC 519 SW COUCH. At about 0945 hrs I
heard a force R/T message to the effect that police needed assistance outside
the John Lewis Store in
Signed T. J. Field Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 29
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF DI Martin MORRISSEY
Age of Witness (date of birth) 23 October 1958
Occupation of Witness Detective Inspector (176793)
Dated 26 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to
prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or
do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August 1992 I was on duty at 9.30 am when, in company with DC WILLIAMS, I entered 48A Burton Road, Kingston-upon-Thames. I was in possession of a search warrant for the premises and also two further search warrants relating to two motor vehicles, a Datsun index KJH 249W and a Peugeot index D514 BLD. In the house at this time were DS BEELS, DS GILBERTSON and DC ROBSON, along with a woman I now know as Mrs Pamela Avril SMITH. I went into the house and to the lounge and remained there until DS BEELS told me he was about to leave the premises. This was about 9.50 am at which time I informed Mrs SMITH that I proposed to search the premises under the authority of a warrant and asked her to point out the keys to the motor cars and her house keys which she gave to me. At about 10 am the officers who were to conduct the search entered the premises, namely DS SMITH, followed by DS HUDSON, DS MALCOLM, DC ROSS, DC TYLER, DC RAWLINGS, DC COX, and Mr ‘A’ of the Security Service who was present in a solely advisory capacity. After a short assessment and briefing the search commenced at 10.30 am. I have drawn a sketch plan, not to scale, of the premises which I submit with exhibit identification mark MSM/1 thereon. I had been instructed as officer in charge of the search and also acted as exhibits officer for the search. The method
Signed Martin Morrissey D/I Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 30
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF DI Martin MORRISSEY
employed by the officers was, on finding an item they decided to exhibit, to make notes in their own notebook as to the circumstances of the finding as soon as practicable and then as soon as possible to bring the item to me, in an exhibit bag. I then recorded the handing of the item to me contemporaneously in an exhibit book and sealed, as necessary, the item in the officer’s presence and retained it in my possession until such time as it was collected and taken to DS SINGLETON, which transaction was again recorded contemporaneously. The search was conducted between 10.30 am and 9.30 pm on Saturday 8th August, 8 am and 9.30 pm on Sunday 9th August and 8 am and 4.45 pm on Monday 10th August. Outside these hours the premises were left in the occupation of DC ASHTON and DC MOORE. On the afternoon of Saturday 8th August for reasons of security and privacy I directed that the two motor vehicles for which I held warrants be driven to Kingston Police Station and this was done by PC 469 VK and PC 589 VK along with DC TYLER and DC RAWLINGS who conducted the search of the vehicles on Sunday 9th August. DC WILLIAMS, DC COX and DS MALCOLM were not present at the search on Monday 10th August. At the conclusion of the search of the premises and of the vehicles I endorsed the warrants as required and along with a ‘notice of powers and rights’ left copies at the top of the stairs on a sideboard, and in the glove compartment of each vehicle.
Signed Martin Morrissey D/I Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 31
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF PC Stephen UPSHALL 173985
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Police Constable
Dated 4 September 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to
prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or
do not believe to be true.
On Saturday the 8th August 1992 I was on
duty in uniform driving a marked police vehicle. As a result of information from
PS 8 MORGAN, myself and PC 589 HEATH went to the vicinity of 48A
Signed
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 32
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF DC Alan David TYLER
Age of Witness (date of birth) 41 (6 August 1951)
Occupation of Witness Detective Constable
Dated 25 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Saturday, 8th August 1992, at
approximately 10.10 am, I entered the premises of 48A Burton Road,
Kingston-upon-Thames,
Signed Alan Tyler, Detective Constable Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 33
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF DC Alan David TYLER
Whilst searching the bedroom shelves in
the chimney alcove with DC COX, I witnessed him find the following items: a
Russian made slide projector at 8.10 pm (SC/8), a Kodak instamatic camera at
8.15 pm (SC/9), a map of Moscow at 8.25 pm (SC/10), a tennis racquet at 8.35 pm
(SC/11). On Monday, 10th August 1992, the search of 48A Burton Road,
Kingston-upon-Thames recommenced at 8.00 am. At 10.55 am I was handed 13
exhibits by DI MORRISEY for transportation to Paddington Green Police Station.
These 13 exhibits were handed by myself to DS SINGLETON at Paddington Green
Police Station at 12.05 pm. Upon return to 48A
Signed Alan Tyler, Detective Constable Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 34
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF DC Alan David TYLER
witnessed DC RAWLINGS find a blue
holdall with white trim, inside which was a quantity of correspondence and
components within a Sainsbury’s carrier bag, covered by a blue plastic carrier
bag (SR/4). Together with DC RAWLINGS I returned to 48A Burton Road, Kingston
with exhibits (SR/3) and (SR/4) which were handed to DI MORRISSEY at 1.00 pm.
The search of the Datsun vehicle recommenced at 2.15 pm in the Station yard of
Kingston Police Station, the searching officers again being myself and DC
RAWLINGS. At 2.25 pm in the boot of Datsun, index KJH 249W, I witnessed DC
RAWLINGS find a piece of paper with writing thereon, inside a carrier bag
(SR/5). At 2.35 pm DC RAWLINGS and myself commenced a search of the Peugeot
motor vehicle, index D514 BLD, in the Station Yard of Kingston Police Station.
The search of this vehicle terminated at 4.00pm. Both sets of keys for the
vehicles were returned to the Station Officer at
Signed Alan Tyler, Detective Constable Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 35
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF DC Alan David TYLER
Age of Witness (date of birth) 41 (6 August 1951)
Occupation of Witness Detective Constable
Dated 21 September 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Wednesday, 2 September 1992, I
initiated enquiries through the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency DLVA
Liaison, TO25 (CTB), regarding the registered owner of a silver Datsun Cherry
saloon, index KJH 249W. On Monday, 21 September 1992 I received a computer
printout from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre which showed that this
vehicle has been registered to Michael John SMITH, 48A
Signed Alan Tyler, Detective Constable Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 36
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF
DC
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Detective Constable
Address and Telephone Number New Scotland Yard
Dated 24 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 4
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August 1992 at
approximately 10.10 am, I entered the premises of 48A Burton Road,
Kingston-upon-Thames,
Signed S. Rawlings Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 37
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
DC
card in the name of ASPI MULLA, in the
middle drawer of the dresser in the hall (SR/2), which was witnessed by DC
TYLER. At 7.30 pm I found a RICOH camera and booklet in a brown holdall on a
bedside trolley at the far side of the bedroom (SR/6), which was witnessed by DS
HUDSON. Also at 7.30 pm I witnessed DS HUDSON finding a British passport in the
name of Mr M. J. SMITH in the same location (RH/20). At 8.15 pm I again
witnessed DS HUDSON finding another British passport in the name of M. J. SMITH
in a navy suitcase which was on the floor next to the bookshelves in the bedroom
(RH/21). In the said same navy suitcase, I found a map of the Eastern States of
the
Signed S. Rawlings Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 38
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
DC
drawer of the table in the bedroom, at 2.25 pm, I found a quantity of maps, personal correspondence and receipts (SR/13). DS HUDSON and myself searched a bedside cabinet in the bedroom. At 2.45 pm I found a quantity of financial correspondence relating to Mrs P. A. SMITH (SR/14) which was witnessed by DS HUDSON, and at 2.50 pm I witnessed DS HUDSON finding a British passport, marriage certificate and international driving licence belonging to Mrs P. A. SMITH (RH/31). The search of the house concluded at 4.45 pm that day. With respect to Mr and Mrs SMITH’s vehicles, on Saturday, 8th August 1992, under the instructions of DI MORRISSEY, a Datsun motor vehicle, index number KJH 249W and a Peugeot motor vehicle, index number D514 BLD, were driven from Burton Road to Kingston Police Station. The Datsun and Peugeot being driven by PC 469 VK and PC 589 VK respectively, and followed in a police vehicle by myself and DC TYLER. Both vehicles were parked in the station-yard under cover and locked. The keys were deposited with the Station Officer at the Police Station. On Sunday, 9th August 1992 at 10.50 am in the station-yard of Kingston Police Station, DC TYLER and myself commenced a search of the Datsun motor vehicle index number KJH 249W; adhering to searching guidelines throughout. At 11.40 am I found one sheet of lined paper containing technical writing in a plastic bag, which was under the carpet of the front driver’s side (SR/3), which was witnessed by DC TYLER. In the boot of the Datsun, at 12.15 pm I found a blue holdall with white trim, inside which was a quantity of
Signed S. Rawlings Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 39
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
DC
correspondence and components within a
‘Sainsburys’ carrier bag, covered by a blue plastic carrier bag (SR/4), again
witnessed by DC TYLER. I returned, together with DC TYLER, to 48A
Signed S. Rawlings Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 40
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Robert Peter ISTED
Age of Witness (date of birth) 14 January 1952
Occupation of Witness Higher Photographic Officer
Address and Telephone Number
Dated 19 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to
prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or
do not believe to be true.
On the 19th August 1992 between the hours of 1040 and 1100 I went to Kingston Police Station and took seven (7) photographs of a Nissan Motor Vehicle and its contents. I now submit these photographs in an indexed album, exhibit No. RP1/1 the un-retouched negatives are held in the Photographic Section.
Signed R.P. Isted Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 41
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Anthony HINE
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Photographer
Dated 27 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On the 26th August 1992 I took one
photograph of exhibit No.JS/14 at Photographic Branch,
Signed A. Hine Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 42
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF DS Roseline Mary HUDSON
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Detective Sergeant
Dated 25 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 4
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August 1992 at approximately 10.10 am, I entered 48A Burton Road, Kingston-Upon-Thames in company with other officers comprising a search team. Already present at the address were DI Morrissey, DS Smith and DC Williams. We were all briefed by DI Morrissey then commenced searching the premises at 10.30 am. Throughout the course of the search all exhibits found by me were entered into my pocket book and as soon as practicable were placed into an exhibits bag and handed to DI Morrissey, who was the exhibits officer. There follows a list of exhibits found by me in sequential order. At 10.55 am I found a red address book in a carrier bag in the downstairs hall. This is listed as RH/1. At 11.40 am I found a paperback copy of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina on the bookshelf in the stairway (RH/2). These two finds were both witnessed by DC Cox. At 12.45 pm I found a quantity of National Westminster Bank cheque books and statements which were in a box in the upstairs hall (RH/3). At 3.05 pm I witnessed DC Cox finding a quantity of correspondence in the left inside pocket of a grey tweed jacket found in the hall (SC/1). I also witnessed DC Cox finding the following items; at 3.10 pm a quantity of desk diaries (SC/2) at 3.20 pm a black attaché case and two carrier bags containing
Signed R.M. Hudson Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 43
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF DS Roseline Mary Hudson
documents (SC/3). At 7.30 pm 1 Avo meter
in box (SC/4), 1 Pie 1020 Radio (SC/5), 1 Aiwa Stereo System (SC/6) and 1 Kisho
Radio cassette player (SC/7). These items were all found in the hall. At 8.00 am
the following day, the 9th August, 1992, I recommenced the search at 48A,
Signed R.M. Hudson Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 44
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF DS Roseline Mary Hudson
witnessed DC Rawlings finding a RICOH
camera in the same brown holdall at the same location (SR/6). At 8.15 pm DC
Rawlings witnessed me finding a British passport in the name of M J SMITH which
was found in a Navy suitcase which was on the floor next to the bookshelves in
the bedroom (RH/21). At 8.20 pm I
witnessed DC Rawlings find a map of the Eastern states of the
Signed R.M. Hudson Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 45
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF DS Roseline Mary Hudson
finding a quantity of correspondence
relating to the financial matters of Mrs P. A. SMITH (SR/14) and at 2.50 pm DC
Rawlings witnessed me finding a British passport, marriage certificate and
international driving licence belonging to Mrs P A SMITH (RH/31). At 3.30 pm in
the pocket of a grey tweed jacket in the hall I found a travel ticket to
Signed R.M. Hudson Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 46
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF DS Paul Molyneux SMITH
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Detective Sergeant
Dated 17 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August 1992, shortly before 10 am, I entered the premises of 48a Burton Road, Kingston-upon-Thames. A woman who I now know to be Mrs Pamela SMITH had been arrested and was being escorted out of the premises. Following a briefing and assessment of the premises, I started to search the lounge of the flat at 10.30 am. Throughout the course of the search, the following guidelines were adhered to in respect of exhibits; in the case of each item, notes were made in my pocket book as soon as possible after the finding; the exhibits were placed in an exhibit bag and handed to DI MORRISSEY, the exhibits officer, as soon as possible after the finding. A chronological listing of exhibits found now follows. At 1.15 pm I found one videotape, with a business card attached to it, on the table in the lounge. This is listed as PMS/1. At 2.45 pm I found one computer monitor in the lounge (PMS/2). At 2.48 pm I found a quantity of computer discs in the lounge (PMS/3). At 2.53 pm I found one Diki storage device in the lounge (PMS/4). At 2.55 pm I found one computer keyboard in the lounge (PMS/5). At 2.56 pm I found one main computer unit in the lounge (PMS/6). At 3.00 pm I found a quantity of cable and mouse in the lounge (PMS/7). At 3.01 pm I found one CD Rom drive in the lounge (PMS/8). At 3.40 pm I found one curriculum vitae in
Signed P. Smith Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 47
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF DS Paul Molyneux SMITH
the name of Michael SMITH in the lounge
(PMS/9). At 8.00 pm I found a quantity of financial correspondence in the lounge
(PMS/10). At 8.05 pm I found a quantity of correspondence in the lounge
(PMS/11). The following day, the 9th August 1992, I recommenced the search of
the lounge at 8.00 am. At 1.00 pm I found one EMI identification card in the
name of M J SMITH in the. lounge (PMS/12); at 1.15 pm I found two diaries and
two address books in a plastic bag in the left hand side of the lounge (PMS/13).
At 1.30 pm I found one British passport, cancelled, in the name of M J SMITH in
the left hand side of the lounge (PMS/14). At 1.55 pm I found a quantity of
financial correspondence in the left hand side of the lounge (PMS/15). At 3.00
pm I found an application form for membership to the
Signed P.M. Smith Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 48
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF DS Paul Molyneux SMITH
a further brown envelope with ‘Mike
SMITH’ written thereon containing one thousand pounds cash in fifty pound notes
(PMS/25). Both items were found in the left hand drawer of the bedroom table and
their finding was witnessed by Detective Sergeant HUDSON. Just prior to the
find, I witnessed DS HUDSON taking a white envelope from the same drawer of the
bedroom table; when she opened it, there were four separate sheets of paper and
a letter inside. She exhibited them as RH/22. At 9.40 am I found two sections of
the Chicago Tribune dated June 1976 in the left hand drawer of the bedroom table
(PMS/26). At 9.42 am I found a receipt for a Ricoh 500G camera in the left hand
drawer of the bedroom table (PMS/27).
Also at 9.42 am I found one street map of
Signed P.M. Smith Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 49
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF DC Sean Niall COX
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Detective Constable
Dated 26 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August 1992 at about
10.10 am I entered 48A Burton Road, Kingston-upon-Thames with other officers
comprising a search team. Detective Inspector MORRISSEY was already present at
the address, together with Detective Sergeant SMITH and Detective Constable
WILLIAMS. DI MORRISSEY conducted a briefing and the search commenced at 10.30
am. I was detailed to search in company with Detective Sergeant HUDSON and
throughout the search I made contemporaneous notes of articles found by me and
those found by DS HUDSON which I witnessed. All articles found by me were placed
in appropriate packaging and handed to DI MORRISSEY who was acting as exhibits
officer. At 10.55 am I saw DS HUDSON find a red address book in a plastic
carrier bag inside the entrance hall (identified as RH/1). At 11.40 am I saw DS
HUDSON find a paperback copy of Anna Karennina by Tolstoy on a shelf by the
staircase (identified as RH/2). At 3.05 pm in the pocket of a grey tweed jacket
hanging in the upstairs hallway I found two Building Society payment books, one
bank paying in book and one British Rail ticket for travel between
Signed Sean Cox Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 50
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF DC Sean Niall COX
hall, I found a black attaché case and
two carrier bags all containing documents (identified as SC/3). At 7.30 pm I
found the following items in the upstairs hall: one “Avo meter” in its box
(SC/4), one “Pye 1020” radio (SC/5), one “Aiwa” stereo system (SC/6) and one
“Kisho” radio cassette player (SC/7). DS HUDSON witnessed the finding of all the
above items. On 9th August 1992 at 8 am together with DS HUDSON I recommenced
the search of 48A
Signed S. Cox Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 51
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF DC Sean Niall COX
these last were also found in the chimney alcove. My part in the search ended at 9.30 pm.
Signed S. Cox Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 52
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF DC Michael ROSS
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Detective Constable
Dated 21 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August 1992 I attended
48A
Signed Michael Ross Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 53
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF DC Michael ROSS
At 8.15 pm a quantity of correspondence found in the right hand side of the cabinet on top of the wardrobe (MR8). The search was continued on Sunday 9th August 1992 and I found the following exhibits in the bedroom. At 8.30 am one metal notebook holder and correspondence found in a drawer of the dressing table (MR8A). At 9.15 am a quantity of correspondence found in an upper drawer of the dressing table (MR9). At 11.05 am a quantity of correspondence found in a shoe box on the chest of drawers (MR10). At 11.55 am a quantity of correspondence found in the top drawer of the chest of drawers (MR 11). At 12.10 pm one address book and a key found in the top drawer of the chest of drawers (MR12). At 12.20 pm a quantity of correspondence found in a lower drawer of the chest of drawers (MR13). At 4.40 pm one old British Passport, number 040835F and one EEC passport, number 001707472 both in the name PAMELA SMITH found in a black shoulder bag under the table (MR14). At 4.50 pm a quantity of correspondence found in a black shoulder bag under the table (MR15). At 5.35 pm a quantity of correspondence found in a white bag under the table (MR16). At 6.10 pm a quantity of correspondence found in the left hand drawer under the bed (MR17). At 9.07 pm one miniature stamp album of East German stamps found in cardboard box of books on dresser (MR18). At 8.25 am on Monday 10th August 1992 one letter dated 5.6.73 found in a cardboard box on the dresser in the bedroom (MR19). At 9 am a quantity of correspondence in the dresser (MR20). At 9.45 am a quantity of correspondence on the middle shelf of the dresser (MR21). I left the address for the last time at 2 pm on Monday 10th August 1992.
Signed Michael Ross Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 54
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF PC Dale MALCOLM
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Police Officer
Dated 27 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Saturday 8th August and Sunday 9th
August 1992 I was engaged in searching 48A
Signed Dale Malcolm Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 55
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF PC Dale MALCOLM
found a book of matches, “J.B.
Cafeteria, Calla Millor,
Signed Dale Malcolm Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 56
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF PC Dale MALCOLM
drawer of the chest of drawers (MR/12).
At 12.20 pm I witnessed the finding of a quantity of correspondence in the
bottom drawer of the chest of drawers (MR/13). At 12.25 pm I found a quantity of
correspondence in a black handbag on the floor beneath the chest of drawers
(DSM/8) and handed it to DI MORRISSEY at 12.38 pm. At 4.40 pm I witnessed the
finding of an old British passport number 040835F and one EEC passport 001707472
both in the name of Pamela SMITH in a black shoulder bag under the table
(MR/14). At 4.50 pm I witnessed the finding of a quantity of correspondence in a
black shoulder bag under the table (MR/15). At 5.15 pm I found twelve Natwest
statements, current account 46385738, August 1987 to August 1990 in a clear
plastic wallet on the floor beneath the table (DSM/9). At 5.15 pm I found nine
Barclays statements, current account 70816213, September 1988 to March 1990 in
the same clear plastic wallet as DSM/9 (DSM/10). At 5.35 pm I witnessed the
finding of a quantity of correspondence in a white bag under the table (MR/16).
At 6.05 pm I handed DSM/9 and DSM/10 to DI MORRISSEY. At 6.10 pm I witnessed the
finding of a quantity of correspondence in the left drawer under the bed
(MR/17). At 9.00 pm I found three maps of
Signed Dale Malcolm Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 57
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Jacqueline Karen BISHOP
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Photographic Officer
Address and Telephone Number Metropolitan Police Photographic Branch
0207 708 0508 Ext 242
Dated 10 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On 10.8.92 I went to 48A
Signed J.K. Bishop Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 58
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Jeffrey SINGLETON
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 11 November 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am employed as exhibits officer in the
case of
Signed J.R. Singleton Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 59
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Jeffrey SINGLETON
whilst the residual correspondence remained as MR20. On that day also exhibit CJS1, one (1) exposed 35mm film taken on 8/8/92 at about 9.15am, was opened by Detective Sergeant BEELS and certain contents removed rebagged and labelled as exhibits SJB22, SJB23, SJB24, SJB25 and SJB26. On 27th August exhibit SC3 was again opened and part of the remaining contents removed rebagged and labelled exhibit JS61, a quantity of technical documents.
Signed Jeffrey Singleton Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 60
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF John Richard WELCH, B.Sc
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Dated 18 September 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
LabRef: UQ/3426/92
I am a forensic scientist specialising in the scientific examination of documents and handwriting.
On the 11th August 1992 I took possession of a number of items including the following:
JS/41 Sheet of paper bearing writing including “PARLIAMENT HILL FIELD”
JS/42 Sheet of paper bearing writing beginning “STH HARROW”
JS/43 Torn piece of paper bearing writing beginning “JAN APR EVERY 4 MONTHS”
JS/44 Sheet of paper bearing writing beginning “KARL GEHRING”
JS/49 Two page letter written by Michael Smith and beginning “DEAR MR HILL”
JS/50 Two page letter written by Michael Smith and beginning “DEAR MRS THATCHER”
JS/51 Page torn from notepad bearing writing of Michael Smith
I examined these items briefly before returning them on the same day to D.C. Ashton
Signed John Richard Welch Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 61
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF John Richard WELCH
LabRef: UQ/3426/92
of the Metropolitan Police. On the 17th August 1992 I again took possession of these items, together with other items, in order to make more lengthy examinations.
On the 10th September 1992 I took possession of a number of items including item JS/18.
JS/18 Four pages of notes relating to car radar written by Michael Smith
I compared the bulk of the writing in each of items JS/41, 42, 43 and 44 with the writing of Michael Smith in items JS/18, 49, 50 and 51. I found many similarities between these writings. No single similarity is conclusive but the combination of similarities leads me to conclude that the bulk of the writing in each of items JS/41, 42, 43 and 44 was written by Michael Smith.
If required and if called upon to do so I can prepare photographic charts which I can use in court to demonstrate reasons for my conclusions.
Signed John Richard Welch Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 62
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Mrs C (Stella RIMINGTON)
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 9 November 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 4
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I have been employed by the Security
Service for 23 years. I have made a study of the techniques used operationally,
by the Intelligence Services of the former Soviet Union and of
Signed Mrs “C” Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 63
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Mrs “C” (Stella RIMINGTON)
intelligence services have developed over the years particular ‘tradecraft’ practices designed to ensure the security of their operations, their officers and their agents. Meetings and other forms of communication between the officer and his agent are considered to be particularly vulnerable to the attentions of the security services in the host nation and there are many well established tradecraft practices designed to minimise this risk. Examples of these practices are:-
(a) Instructing an agent to follow a particular route to a meeting. A number of defectors have told us that this is normal practice designed to enable the officer to observe the agent and ensure he is not under surveillance. Douglas Britten, convicted under the OSA in 1968 was instructed to travel to meetings with his Soviet controller following a pre-arranged route.
(b) The use of marks made with chalk, drawing pens, sticking plaster etc. on walls, posts or similar or placing at a specific place a particular object, often an item of rubbish e.g. empty cigarette packet, orange peel etc to convey messages. Both marks and objects are placed so as to be readily visible to the passer-by without stopping. Different marks and objects indicate different messages to the agent and his controller and reduce the need for personal meetings or other communication which carry inherent risks. Dieter GEHARDT the South African naval officer convicted of espionage in 1983 and Geoffrey PRIME, the GCHQ officer convicted of espionage in 1982 both received messages from their Soviet controllers by means of chalk marks on telegraph poles and trees. An empty coca-cola can left in a specific place was also used by PRIME to convey messages.
(c) Selecting meeting places in open areas away from city centres, which are well used by the public and where a meeting would not attract undue attention but surveillance would be difficult and easily detected. I know from a number of defectors and from my service’s observations of Soviet/Russian intelligence officers that parks, quiet suburban areas, particularly suburban tube or
Signed Mrs “C” Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 64
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Mrs “C” (Stella RIMINGTON)
railway stations within the 25 mile limit are favoured.
(d) Arranging in advance regular times, meeting places and arrangements if contact is lost or broken. As with marks and signals this is a well established method by which intelligence officers reduce the need for personal contact with their agents and so lessen the risk of discovery. Hugh Hambleton convicted of espionage in 1982 and Harry Houghton convicted of espionage in 1961 and Britten all had regular pre-arranged meeting times, places and “fall-back” arrangements if contact was broken or lost. I have familiarised myself with the Michael Smith case and in particular have examined exhibits JS/41-44 inclusive and read the relevant parts of his interviews. I am able to state that the notes contained in those exhibits are typical examples of the tradecraft referred to above, designed to ensure the security of clandestine meetings with an agent. I formed that opinion on the basis of the following:
JS/41 describes marks to indicate “danger” - a vertical line, and “come next day” - a horizontal line. It notes what appears to be a meeting at Horsenden Hill on 25 September with arrangements for further meetings if that meeting is not kept or contact is broken. I have visited Horsenden Hill, a popular open wooded area with a large car park some 3 miles from Smith’s workplace at GEC, East Lane Wembley. It is typical of sites selected by intelligence officers for intelligence meetings. The other notes on JS/41 have no intelligence significance.
JS/42 contains a note which appears to
relate to a meeting at “Roxeth REC” on a date in April. I have visited Roxeth
Recreation Ground which is situated in a quiet suburban housing estate close to
Signed Mrs “C” Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 65
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Mrs “C” (Stella RIMINGTON)
JS/43 contains notes which appear to relate to regular contacts, possibly with a previously unknown person - “REC & GUARDIAN” probably refers to using the Guardian Newspaper as a recognition signal - carrying a particular newspaper is a common recognition signal. It also notes what could be signals for changed meeting arrangements, “green for next day” and “red for next Sat. pm”. The other notes have no intelligence significance.
JS/44 contains what appear to be arrangements for a clandestine meeting or meetings; details of signals - a vertical line for “danger” and a horizontal line for “come next day to agreed place” - a symbol, possibly a fire hydrant or notice board, for the location of the signal; details of another signal and location – “Abbotsbury Rd/Melbury coke can at bollard”. I have visited this location and it is shown in Exhibit PA3; details of a particular route dated 6 August, I have visited Harrow and can say that the route described in JS/44 “from bottom of hill walk up and (round Church Hill) into church” corresponds to the route up Peterborough Road from the junction with Kenton Road turning right into Church Hill which leads into St Mary’s Church, this route is shown in Exhibit PA1; details of meetings at Horsenden Hill; a list “get old project notes, biosensors, micromachining, micron-valve - give details about cut-backs, HTSC” which appears to be a list of requirements on which information is required. The other notes in JS/44 have no intelligence significance.
Signed Mrs “C” Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 66
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Philip ATKINSON, DET. SGT. 158766
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 6 November 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Thursday 17th September 1992, in
company with DI Martin MORRISSEY, I went to the vicinity of Harrow-on-the-Hill,
Middlesex where I took a number of photographs, PA/1 refers. Later that same
day, again in the company of DI MORRISSEY, I went to the Roxeth Recreation
Ground,
Signed P. Atkinson DS Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 67
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
Age of Witness (date of birth) 28th June 1943
Occupation of Witness Physicist
Dated 10 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am the Director of Hirst Research Centre. I have been employed by GEC since 1968 and have been the Director of GEC Hirst Research Centre since January 1987. On Sunday, 9th August 1992 I arrived at the premises of HRC in Wembley at about 8.30pm as the result of a telephone call to DI Nicolson who asked me to meet him as a matter of urgency that night. At about 9.00pm I met with DCI Gray and DI Nicolson who presented themselves as Special Branch Police Officers engaged in the investigation of offences against the Official Secrets Act allegedly committed by Michael Smith. I know this man to have been an employee of HRC up until 31.7.92 in the Quality Assurance Department. They showed me a quantity of documents and some components which were contained in a number of sealed bags. Between about 9.30pm and 12.00pm I examined these documents and articles and made notes assessing them accordingly. I have signed, dated and timed these notes and handed them to the officers while retaining a photocopy of them. My general assessment of the documents and articles is as follows: there has been a systematic attempt to obtain details of manufacturing procedures and piece parts relating to delay lines for the Rapier missile, a similar effort has been made in respect of surface wave acoustic devices, that collection included stolen
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson D/I
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 68
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
material and material classified as RESTRICTED, and an effort has been made to summarise the objectives and aims of company confidential projects. The hand written documents are not of a type which need to be produced by anyone at HRC. Company confidential material has been removed without permission, some stolen from others files some copied from files which could have been held in the Q.A. department. Whilst I was not able to identify immediately all the articles shown to me, many of the components were recognisable as fairly out-of-date components in finished states, experimental devices and part processed semi conductor devices. No one person in HRC would need to have such a systematic collection of devices; they have been assembled by theft from several laboratories in the research centre.
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson D/I
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 69
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
Age of Witness (date of birth) 28 June 1943
Occupation of Witness Director Hirst Research Centre
Dated 24 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to my statement dated 10th August 1992, the documents and components shown to me on that day by DI Nicolson were in sealed bags marked JS/14 to JS/38 inclusive. On 24 August 1992 at GEC Hirst Research Centre I handed to Detective Constable Kelly daily time sheets (the signing in/out documents) maintained by the Q.A. department. Included in the list of personnel required to sign in and out on these documents was Michael John Smith. I exhibit these as SC/1.
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by Kelly DC
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 70
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
Age of Witness (date of birth) 28 June 1943
Occupation of Witness Physicist, Director of HRC
Address and Telephone Number Hirst Research Centre
Dated 11 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 9
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Today at HRC I met with DI Nicolson who
handed to me three sealed bags respectively marked MN/2, MN/3 and MN/4 which
contain original notes that I made on Sunday/Monday 8/9 August 1992 in respect
of a number of documents and components shown to me at that time. This statement
is made from my notes. JS16 A
handwritten document entitled ‘Rugate filters for SDI’ dated June 1992 with 1 of
2 written on front page though there were 3 pages in all.
This refers to a project carried out at HRC.
It has been running for about 2 years and is still current. Contract is
placed by SDI(PO) (Strategic Defence Initiative Procurement Office) but
technically is managed by the DRA labs at Malvern (RSRE). The
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 71
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
written. No such documentation as JS16 exists in this building as being necessary for us to carry out this work. Therefore, Mr Smith certainly has no need for such a document. JS17 A handwritten document entitled ‘Micromachining Project’ dated June 1992 with 1 of 3 written on front page. This project has been running for about 2 years and is still current. It is largely a commercially confidential programme there being no immediate direct military significance. The document JS17 appears to describe the aims well but there do appear to be the occasional embellishments that I do not recognise such as the cryogenic cooling and spiral fluid diode. There are some correct details on how some parts of the devices are made but generally it is obvious that the papers have been written by a non specialist. Once again there is no need for anyone at HRC to create such a document within HRC. Mr Smith certainly had no need to create such a document. JS18 A handwritten document entitled ‘Quasi optic Car Radar’. This describes a commercial project still in existence. There is some detail here not quite right. However the breadth of the information relating to current achievements, current customers and potential customers for derivatives of the work is quite astounding. Very few people (3 at the most) in HRC are aware of all the detail explained here. Some considerable research has gone into producing this document. However once again there is no reason for the existence of such a document.
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 72
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
JS19 A handwritten document entitled ‘Micronvalve Project’ dated May 1992 with 1 of 1 written on the front sheet. This is a project which has been running for about 5 years and is current. Funding and therefore interest in this technology and its applications do include the DRA. There are some classified military implications though most of the information we generate at HRC is not classified. This summary is poor compared to the other exhibits above and contains what I initially considered as quite extraneous detail. My colleague Mr Swallow who was examining the exhibits with me, but making his own independent notes, told me that the one item I picked on as being extraneous was not, but it was transitory and not key to the project - that related to the novel bondwire applied to this project. This exhibit is a rough summary of what is going on. I was tempted to speculate that this project being widespread in HRC and involving a wide range of personnel contributing very special skills would present some problem to anyone trying to access key information. There is no reason whatsoever for such a document to be produced by any member of my staff undertaking their normal duties. JS20 A handwritten one page document entitled ‘Olfactory Research Project’ dated May 1992. This is a largely commercial project with potential military/policing applications such as ‘sniffing’ for illicit substances by Customs and Excise. Quite a good overall summary is generated here with one or two
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 73
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
surprisingly new and relevant details in particular the use of polysiloxane coatings. Experimental details recorded in this exhibit are good, in particular the use of pattern recognition to aid the identification of gases and vapours. It was however noteworthy that this project summary did not record who our main customer is nor the objective of that customer; that commercial customer has asked for extreme confidentiality from us and therefore the information is only available to those with a need to know. There are some military implications if and when this technology proves to be viable. This completed the examination, discussion and note taking from the handwritten exhibits. It is quite clear that there is no business reason why any of these documents should exist. These are very much the essence of leaking details - some considerable work has gone into obtaining seemingly relevant and sometimes accurate detail. But it is equally clear that none of the documents have been written by an expert and no overall management strategy/objective is exposed. They are what could best be described as ‘tasters’ - here is a summary of what is going on and what detail is readily available. Certainly Mr Smith would have no reason to have such documents in his possession. I was then shown exhibit JS38 and I recorded the following in my notes: JS38 A quantity of blueprints. I could not make detailed components on the precise technical details but
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 74
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
from my general knowledge I note: (a) Some blueprints had been removed from files for they had punched holes; (b) Some blueprints are copies; (c) One document is proprietary to HRC. Apart from the HRC property all the other drawings are the property of Cossor Electronics and are supplied to HRC to enable HRC to manufacture for Cossor Electronics F band delay lines. This is a microwave component we know is used by Cossor and incorporated by them in their equipment which in turn is supplied to BAe for the Rapier missile system. The documents are not marked as classified material nor are they identified as part of the Rapier system but all relate to military hardware which is still in manufacture. Mr Swallow and I were then shown exhibits JS22 to 32 inclusive and then JS37. Mr Swallow was immediately able to confirm that exhibit JS37 related to exhibits JS22 to 32 and that all the exhibits JS22 to 32 and JS37 were HRC manufacturing drawings for MKIII delay lines supplied to Cossor Electronics and eventually to BAe for the Rapier missile system. I was able to confirm that these were HRC documents. None of these documents were classified but they all relate to a military weapon system which is almost certainly classified. No one has authority to remove such drawings from the building. JS14 This was a brown envelope which was emptied in front of me to reveal a mixture of components part finished components and experimental prototypes. The mixture was sorted to reveal a group of Surface
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 75
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
Acoustic Wave filters some of whose serial numbers were recorded as 63-35-B-TT, 8744-2667 1750(587), 63/55 63.5 MHZ, 10/37/B/20, 63/35/P/B082, 10/37/B/69. There were various pieces of processed GaAs (gallium arsenide) which on examination proved to be MMIC’s (monolithic microwave integrated circuits) with experimental distributed wideband microwave amplifiers defined. There were two items I could not immediately recognise but they appeared to be silicon devices made here. In summary all of the components were fairly old some even up to 8 years old, none younger than 2 years old. The components would need to have deliberately assembled into this collection - there is no single room or activity group at HRC which could have generated all those devices. There is no reason for any single person to have access to such material which in any case belong to HRC. JS21 This exhibit is a very comprehensive set of copies of documentation relating to the manufacturing schedule of delay lines for Rapier manufactured at HRC for Cossor. Documents are from a ring folder and all are marked Company Confidential. There were also various other letters, modifications issued by Cossor to us, our own publicity material relating to general capabilities in delay lines. Most of this material would be lodged with the QA department following standard practice relating to a military project. With the exception of the single sheet of HRC publicity material, none of this documentation should be removed from HRC.
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 76
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
JS15 A collection of
documentation and build schedules relating to Surface Acoustic Wave devices. A
very comprehensive assembly of documents from various sources. Some of these
documents would have been lodged with the QA department. However we noted the
presence of controlled copies issued personally to Mr F S McClement and the
presence of documents classified RESTRICTED issued to Mr F S McClement
personally. This is a military classification. At the same time as making this
statement DI Nicolson asked me various questions and asked for comments. (1)
Does the name Karl Gehring mean anything to me? It does. K A Gehring joined the
scientific staff at HRC in 1982 (or 3?) and was employed until 1992 when,
through ill health, he was declared redundant. He is approximately 55 years
holding duel Swiss and
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 77
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
never recovered his health and seemed for several years to be suffering from PVFS - he was certainly high strung and apparently highly stressed. I was also shown the following exhibit: RH/9 I could not immediately identify this object. However I consulted a member of the staff at HRC Mr P Burton who although he was fairly certain he knew what it was he expressed reservations because at least one key piece was missing. He did however produce a virtually identical component which was complete and was able to confirm that the RH/9 component was a galvanometer mirror assembly with the mirror missing. Such a component is not made here but a number of these items have been purchased in the past for a product to develop a piece of equipment. The device is used to scan laser radiation and finds applications in document scanners, perhaps supermarket checkout scanners and any application requiring a faster scan of laser radiation. The device is too small to be of any military significance. DI Nicolson then asked me what I understood by the following terms - ‘Biosensors’, ‘Micromachining’, ‘Micronvalve - give details of cut backs’. All three refer to projects at HRC and I believe it can only refer to GEC because this collection of projects must be fairly unique in the world under one roof. The Micronvalve project recently has been subject to funding restrictions (April 1992) and at least one member of staff formerly employed in the team has been declared redundant. All three projects are dual technologies able to deliver commercial products as well as
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 78
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
military products. The micronvalve programme has perhaps the highest known military content. I was also asked what I understood by the initials HTSC. This can only be High Temperature Superconductivity. A current project at HRC.
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 79
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
Age of Witness (date of birth) 28 June 1943
Occupation of Witness Director Hirst Research Centre
Dated 24 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On the 11th August 1992 DI Nicolson came to this office and he permitted me to copy a document marked JS/8 and asked me to research the meanings of the numbers and writing on that document. Since then I have discussed the nature of the document with Mr D G Barlow, Q.A. Manager, and Mr T.A. Elson, his deputy in the Q.A. department. We now find that the numbers are the sequence control numbers applied to incoming orders. An incoming order is received by our Accounts/Commercial staff. It is assigned a sequence number and copies of the order and the sequence control number are sent to (i) The Commercial Manager (ii) the Q.A. coordinator (Mr J A Parker) (iii) the project leader likely to be involved in executing the contract. All three are asked to comment on the acceptability of the order. No order is accepted unless Q.A. agrees. Document JS/8 contains numbers starting at 8896 (for an order dated 9.3.90) to 9358 (for an order dated 5.11.90 received in Q.A. department on 9.11.90). However the numbering is not consecutive. We have investigated whether there is any purpose behind the choice of numbers. Mr J.A. Parker would inform one of three Q.A.
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Gray DCI
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 80
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
primes when an order was received for the attention of their respective areas. A selection of projects would therefore be generated for each of the primes: T A Elson, A W Youles, A H Nott. On examining the list in JS/8 we find that all three primes are involved. Therefore this list in JS/8 is not a single prime’s “attention list”. Further lists would be created when Q.A. system audits were planned. M J Smith T A Elson and D G Barlow would periodically draw up an “at risk register” - those projects where some special attention was needed because there were some criticalities (timescale, technology etc). We have examined such listings. They are not really as extensive as the list in JS/8 and, for instance, include numbers 09130, 09110 and 09138, numbers included in the time sequence represented in the JS/8 list but not included in that list. Therefore JS/8 is not an “at risk” register. We have considered whether these projects are placed within areas where M J Smith was asked to conduct a systems audit. I am assured that this is not the case; it is certainly not normal for such an associated list to be created and in some cases the selection represented by JS/8 fails this test. I therefore have to state that there is no known legitimate purpose for this list within Hirst Research Centre. In examining the projects named in that list we note that minor contracts are not recorded; we note that the majority of the projects are leading edge technologies where there are dual military and commercial objectives.
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Gray DCI
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 81
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
Age of Witness (date of birth) 28 June 1943
Occupation of Witness Physicist, Director HRC
Dated 14 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Tuesday 11th August 1992 at Hirst
Research Centre,
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 82
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 6 November 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 5
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Friday 23rd October 1992 at Hirst
Research Centre, Wembley, I met with DI Nicolson of Special Branch, New Scotland
Yard and examined documents contained in a sealed bag marked SR4 and again
viewed devices contained in a sealed bag marked JS/14, I make the following
observations on these items from original notes made on that day and retained by
me. QIR-FC-058 June ’88 Draft (a) Process flow chart for the construction
of an infra-red imaging detector. This chart was acquired from the IRDL
(Infra-red Development lab) and concerns the production of complete dewar
assemblies for IR detectors based on CMT material (Cadmium Mercury Telluride).
In the period up to March ’89 MR M J Smith was involved in Systems Audits and
contract reviews in IRDL as part of his assigned tasks. The device constructed
by following the process is not a classified object, however it is sensitive
military material because the detector was destined to be the front end of a
high quality infra-red imaging system which permits all weather and night time
aircraft operations and night time visibility for gunners. There are no major
commercial applications for this type of device because the costs are far too
high for this quality of device. There are a few highly specialised applications
in civil fields such as helicopter borne surveillance of electricity supply
lines - looking for hot spots which may be the precursors of breakdowns. The
dominant application of these devices is military.
Knowledge of the application technology for CMT detectors and the know
how in respect of the production of detectors effectively was and still is a
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 83
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
RSRE (Malvern), now DRA (Malvern) and in
production at
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 84
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
military applications dominate. We note
one of the suppliers is Japanese but this does not mean that this document is
generally seen by all comers. QSI-PS-296 dated February 1987. This, like
the previous document, was stolen from the Q.A. Reference Library. It is a
procurement specification for silicon wafers for CMOS integrated circuit
production. Unlike SOS, CMOS circuits have both military and civil uses. This
document not nearly so sensitive as the above document - the specification is
not unique and would be known by many manufacturers. QSI-DS-239 dated
April 1986, stolen from the Q.A. Reference Library. This is a draft data sheet
for IC’s used for signal processing. Data sheet and its information not of
direct military significance however, as the data sheet suggests, the devices
described would find application in radar processing which would be of military
significance. QSI-DS-237 dated March 1987 another document stolen from
the Q.A. reference library. It is a draft data sheet for a cascade arithmetic
logic unit. No military application referred to in the sheet but would find
application in radar signal processing. AN/102 Issue B Sept 1987 An
application note provided to users of monolithic microwave integrated circuits
(MMIC’s) giving general precautions and warnings about the use of Gallium
Arsenide (GaAs) mmic’s. There is no immediate military significance to this
note, however MMIC’s are largely only used for military purposes (costs high,
performance high) and therefore recipients of this note were highly likely to be
only military users. After these items there were 5 (five) specification sheets
for specific GaAs mmic’s namely: GM 1208 A 8 - 12 GHz mixer Sept 1987, GP 1208 A
8 - 12 GHz 1 bit Phase shifter June 1987, GA 1801 A 0.5 - 18 GHz amplifier Aug
1987, GS 1802 A 2 - 18 GHz SPDT PIN switch June 1987, GM 9888 A 94 GHz mixer
June 1987. These are devices which HRC was producing in prototype form at the
time. HRC was unique in this period in its capabilities in high frequency GaAs
MMIC’s. Worldwide there were several companies in the
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 85
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
no specific military radar projects. Knowledge of the characteristics and capabilities of the circuit would certainly be of use to a foreign power because of the early warning they give in respect of likely future radar systems. We note that in Exhibit JS/14 there are a number of part finished, part mounted and finished semiconductor devices. These devices have now been sorted and identified by sub-numbers within Exhibit JS/l4. Amongst those devices we identify the following: SLC1. Various versions, 4 in all, including the version referred to in the data sheet GA 1801 A, of the 0.5 - 18 GHz distributed amplifier. This together with the data sheet is of much more significance. Now demonstrated to those skilled in the art is how to make the specified device. The very wide bandwidth of the device is only of military use. SLC2 A finished device corresponding to data sheet CM 9888 A. 94 GHz is a frequency used for terminally guided munitions and the mixer was designed as part of such a system. The combination of the device and the specification sheet now demonstrate to those skilled in the art how to make the device and knowledge of its functioning enables countermeasures to be devised. Because I could not readily identify further components contained in Exhibit JS/14, my colleague Mr D E H Smith who is an expert in SOS devices was asked to identify further exhibits. These were given sub-numbers as follows: SLC3-5 contains 3 versions of the same chip identified in GEC as MA734. This chip was designed and made at HRC. It is a processed test chip - it has no functionality - but it is a control circuit which is run through a 5 micron SOS process to test particular processes and to confirm that the process is in specification. SOS devices made by the process and its subsequent improvements were uniquely for military or space purposes. SLC6 is a chip designated MA931A. It has been manufactured by a 5 micron SOS process. It is a Reed-Solomon encoder for satellite communications. In this instance the customer was ESA. But the process was and is still generally used to produce military circuits. I then examined a document prepared by Mr A. P. Pople dated 23.2.1984 concerning Joule Thomson minicoolers. These coolers are used for CMT infra-red imaging systems. The information contained in the document is unclassified
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 86
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
and probably contains public domain
information. However developments of this cooler design are still in use today
for military systems. There were 8 “Techbriefs” being publicity material
relating to HRC and its general capabilities and products. There is no military
significance here. Documents were from the period 1985-1987. There were 5 items
in all containing public domain information, being newsletters, GEC journals and
newspapers as follows: 2 in-house newsletters, 1 GEC journal of Research, 2
copies of GEC’s in-house newspaper dated April 1992, June 1992. I make the
following general observations about Exhibit SR4 and the re-examination of the
components contained in Exhibit JS/14 which have now identities SLC1 … 5. The
material relating to CMT and infra-red imaging is of obvious military
significance and of National importance because of the
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 87
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Gerald Herbert SWALLOW
Age of Witness (date of birth) over 21 (12 May 1933)
Occupation of Witness Manager Microwave & Packaging Division
Dated 10 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I have been employed at Hirst Research Centre for some thirty four years and am now the manager of the Microwave & Packaging Division of HRC. On Sunday, August 9th 1992 at about 9.00pm and as a result of a telephone call received by me at my home I came to HRC where I met with DCI Gray and DI Nicolson who presented themselves as Special Branch police officers engaged in the investigation of offences against the Official Secrets Act allegedly committed by Michael Smith. I know this man to have been an employee of this company in the quality department until July 1992. They showed me a quantity of documents and some components which were contained in a number of sealed bags between about 9.30pm and 12.00pm. I examined these documents and articles and made notes assessing them. I have signed, dated and timed these notes and handed them to the officers whilst retaining a photocopy of them. My general assessment of the documents and articles is as follows: Much of what I have seen is directly applicable to the design, manufacture and assessment of devices such as microwave delay lines and surface acoustic wave devices which have been produced at Hirst Research Centre for incorporation into units which form part of the
Signed G. H. Swallow Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson D/I
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 88
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Gerald Herbert SWALLOW
Rapier Missile System. This information is quite extensive and gives detailed specifications for all marks of this component up to those currently being produced together with parts lists, component drawings and processing techniques used during manufacture. Delay lines of this type have only been produced by Hirst Research Centre for military applications. Among the items examined were a range of surface acoustic wave devices the particular application of which is not known to me at this time. Among the documents examined are several carrying the military classification RESTRICTED which were originally issued to an engineer at HRC currently still engaged on research at HRC. On no account should documents of this nature be removed from the Hirst Research Centre or be seen by someone who has not been cleared in the usual way. I can only assume that they were removed without the knowledge of the engineer concerned at some time within the last few years.
Signed G. H. Swallow Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson D/I
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 89
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Gerald Herbert SWALLOW
Age of Witness (date of birth) over 21 (12 May 1933)
Occupation of Witness Manager, Hirst Research Centre
Dated 24 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to my statement dated 10th August 1992, the documents and components shown to me on that day by DI Nicolson were in sealed bags marked JS/14 to JS/38 inclusive.
Signed G. H. Swallow Signature witnessed by M. Gray DCI
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 90
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Gerald Herbert SWALLOW
Age of Witness (date of birth) 12 May 1933
Occupation of Witness Manager, Microwave and Packaging Division
Hirst Research Centre
Dated 11 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 5
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Today at HRC I met with DI Nicolson who handed to me three sealed bags respectively marked MN/5, MN/6 and MN/7 which contain original notes that I made on Sunday/Monday 8/9 August 1992 in respect of a number of documents and components shown to me at that time. This statement is made from my notes. JS16 A handwritten document describing work on Rugate filters for SDI. This looked like an “appetite wetter” for transmission elsewhere and gave rudimentary information on this type of device which could be used for example to protect pilots from incoming laser radiation re goggles, cockpit covers etc as radiation filters. It is my opinion that Mr Smith could not have access to this information in his Q.A. role. JS17 Micromachining. These handwritten notes give general data on the micromachining projects at HRC which are currently commercially orientated. Diagrams are of recently achieved structures, not current designs not for military applications but applications to cooling power devices have been discussed. Some details are
Signed G. H. Swallow Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 91
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Gerald Herbert SWALLOW
accurate, e.g. ceiling with negative resist on nickel plated structures which is for prototype use only. The information on forming techniques is fairly accurate. Mr Smith had no formal employment in this project to my knowledge. JS18 Quasi Optical Car Radar. Quite an extensive survey of the whole range of Quasi Optic programmes. Some details fairly accurate. Much of the information is not published. The information on patch trimming could only be obtained from “Blue Books” or by discussion with the engineers concerned. There is no reason why this should have been done. All the information gathered together covers a long period of work. The references to detection of gas clouds etc. and to Lear are surprising since there is as yet no Q.A. involvement being only at the discussion stages. JS19 The Micronvalve Project. The handwritten information is sketchy but accurate as far as it goes. The information on bonding techniques is not, to my knowledge, published since the whole project is of a developmental nature. There is no reason why anyone not concerned with the project should know of the mounting and bonding techniques which are features to this device. JS20 I have no personal knowledge of this project and am therefore unable to comment. JS38 This bag contained information pertinent to Delay Lines. Engineering drawings examined are known to have originated in Cossor Electronics Harlow Essex and constitute procurement
Signed G. H. Swallow Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 92
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Gerald Herbert SWALLOW
specifications for an ‘F’ Band Delay Line supplied by HRC to Cossor as a microwave component for their OCF which is part of the Rapier Missile System. The drawings seem to be original Cossor issue and could not have been copied in this format in HRC since we have not got the type of machine needed. One drawing details the manufacture of a more recent box for a MKIII Delay Line, in itself of little value. Mr Smith has no authority whatsoever to remove drawings from HRC, some of which have apparently been taken from a file evidenced by the holes punched in one edge to facilitate binding. JS22-32 inclusive JS37 These bags contained drawings, all originating in HRC, pertinent to a MKIII Microwave Delay Line. This line is hermetically sealed and operates in F Band. Possession of this set of drawings would enable lines to be manufactured by someone with the appropriate facilities. No one at HRC has the authority to remove a set of drawings of this type from the building. This delay line is fitted to many of the later marks of OCF used in the Rapier Missile System. JS33-36 inclusive. These are parts lists for the components for the MKIII F Band Delay Line which give all drawing numbers for manufacturing drawings. They refer to the drawings detailed in JS22-32 - JS37. They also carry the marks of punch holes which suggest they have been removed from a file. Packets of samples. They appear to be S.A.W. filters originating
Signed G. H. Swallow Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 93
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Gerald Herbert SWALLOW
from HRC. Five filters were shown carrying Advanced Technology Component Labels. Serial numbers carried are:- 63-35-B.77., 8744-2667(1780/1587) . 63/35/P/B082. 10/37/B/20. 10/37/B/69. Various other discreet part processed Surface Acoustic Wave Devices were also seen together with a range of semiconductor devices such as GaAs amplifiers and un-encapsulated chips most of which are quite old and probably gathered over a period of time from various laboratories within HRC. JS21 All documents, though many out of date, relate to the specifications for a MKIII F Band delay line, 26.4 uSec. as specified by Cossor Electronics for incorporation into the Rapier Missile System O.C.F. (Operator Confidence Facility). The Cossor Procurement Document with its NATO number SAN-70-2 is copied complete, along with a copy of a letter to me dated 30 Sept 82 and data sheets of microwave measurements made as a series of S29 lines. Accompanying these is a photocopied version of our Company Confidential manufacturing instructions for lines of this type giving all manufacturing and measuring processes in great detail. On no account should this document have passed outside the Hirst Research Centre without the consent of very Senior Management which to my knowledge has never been given. The folder also includes a generally available leaflet or Techbrief describing the HRC capability on delay lines. JS15 This folder contains a
Signed G. H. Swallow Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 94
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Gerald Herbert SWALLOW
wealth of information, including drawings on the manufacture and test of Surface Acoustic Wave Filters. One complete document is Commercial in Confidence but the file contains at least two documents which carry the classification RESTRICTED. One of these was issued to an engineer currently working at HRC, namely F.S. McClement and could only have been removed without his knowledge. The documents also include letters from M.O.D. personnel to HRC staff members of the period.
Signed G. H. Swallow Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 95
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
Age of Witness (date of birth) 44 years (3 March 48)
Occupation of Witness Quality Manager
Hirst Research Centre
HA9 7PP 081 908 9000
Dated 11 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 4
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am the Quality Manager of the Hirst Research Centre. I head the Quality Unit which consists of 9 people. I have headed this department for 7 years. My department is responsible for the operation of the quality system to the satisfaction of NATO approval AQAP 1, as supervised by MOD. From Dec 1985 to July 1992, Mr M J SMITH was a member of the department. From 1985 to 1987, Mr SMITH was engaged as a Quality Engineer; this involved him performing activities associated with QA of the following technologies. 1. compound semiconductor processing for microwave integrated circuits which could have military uses. 2. Infrared detectors, also with possible military uses. 3. Semiconductor products associated with microwave and power applications. In this role, his access to classified information was extremely unlikely, as his activity concentrated on processing rather than products. His position would not grant him the right to see or possess anything concerning information, blueprints, component
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 96
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
manufacturing drawings in connection with the Rapier missile, of which this company has provided components. I can think of no reason for anyone in my department to possess any component in relation to the Rapier project, or have any authority to remove it from the HRC premises. Since 1987, Mr SMITH has organised and operated the internal quality audit programme at HRC. This involves reviewing and confirming the effective implementation of management systems and procedures. In this role, he would have access to all activities of the HRC except personnel or classified matters. I knew his clearance was up to confidential, hence restricted his activities to non-military. Again, in respect of any activities associated with Rapier, this was beyond his access. While taking this statement, DI NICOLSON showed to me a number of documents contained in clear sealed bags. They were opened by him in my presence. I make the following comments on the contents of those documents by reference to the exhibit numbers written on those bags. JS18 (Quasi Optical Car Radar). Written for someone else. Contains more information than I would expect for someone performing a QA job. First 3½ pages contain commercial information. Last two paragraphs indicate potential military application. Peter BRIGGINSHAW, a senior engineer and expert, mentioned by name. JS20 (Olfactory Research). Would have accepted these notes for own purposes and
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 97
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
information. JS17 (Micromachining Project). Basically commercial information. Could not date its preparation. I can think of military applications, but document does not state any. Amazingly detailed. JS19 (Micronvalve ). Basically commercial information technology has radiation hardness benefits which could make it of military interest. Wording suggests it is an update report. JS16 (Rugate Filters). References MOD establishments clear military applications, ref to SDI. The notes indicate a deep interest in technical and business details. This aspect has not been obvious in Mr SMITH’s past at HRC. My general view on the exhibits I’ve been shown is that if they were for personal use, I would expect them to be in a notebook with other areas of technology, and worded in a different style (as a personal record). I would have expected to be aware of such notes. The notes seem focussed and written for a third party, and extend beyond normal QA professional needs. Finally I was shown an untitled single sheet of paper contained in a clear sealed bag marked JS8. I have considered the contents of this and make the following observations. The number refers to an internal HRC contract reference, and the words give a general description of the contract activity. There is no obvious reason for their selection, but many have purely defence funding or
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 98
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
relevance. I do not understand the compressed format and have never seen this form of listing before. I do not understand why intermediate contracts of a similar nature have been omitted. I cannot understand why such a document would be created.
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 99
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
Age of Witness (date of birth) 44 years (3 March 48)
Occupation of Witness Quality Manager
Hirst Research Centre
Dated 20 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am the Quality Manager of the Hirst Research Centre and have been for 7 years. Today from 11.00 am at Berkhamsted Police Station DS WALSH showed me a number of documents contained in bags which he opened in my presence. I have been asked to assess each document. I make the following comments on each document by reference to the exhibit numbers on those bags. JS38 contains blueprints from Cossor Electronics and relate to the ‘F’ Band Delay Line for Rapier OCF MKII as stated on the drawings. Michael SMITH, who was a member of my department between December 1985 and July 1992, may have had access to them in 1986. I would not expect these to be in his possession either at the Hirst Research Centre or at his home. One blueprint is a GEC original of the box design for the ‘F’ Band Delay Line MKIII. This drawing gives clear manufacturing dimensions and tolerances, and again should not be in his possession. JS22-JS36 inclusive are GEC manufacturing drawings for the ‘F’ Band Delay Line MKIII parts, which whilst not indicated on the drawings appear to be for the Rapier OCF. Possession
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by A. Walsh DS
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 100
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
of these documents would give clear manufacturing information. JS15 contains documents generally relating to manufacture and test of S.A.W. devices, surface acoustic wave devices, which would assist a third party to establish the S.A.W. manufacturing process. One document titled “Demonstrator Programme, Requirement Specification Band Pass Filter Assembly” and marked ‘Restricted, Commercial In Confidence’ indicates its military application on page 2 in that it states “the filter is to form part of an IF receiver incorporated in an airborne guided weapon”. None of the JS15 documents should have been removed from the HRC (Hirst Research Centre). JS21 contains a letter to HRC from Cossor Electronics dated 30/9/82 in which reference is made to the delay line and the need for a NATO number. JS21 also contains detailed manufacturing information for delay lines in the form of company confidential documents, and copies of test reports. JS37 contains eleven GEC drawings relating to the ‘F’ Band Delay Line MKIII for the Rapier system, and these give extensive dimensions and tolerances on piece parts. Whilst he could have seen these drawings at work, he should not have had them in his possession. RH9 contains a highly specialised component. I am not able to comment on it. SR4 contains a mixture of ‘public domain’ documents and company confidential documents. One document of particular interest is the “Infra Red Detector Configuration Flow
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by A. Walsh DS
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 101
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
Chart” which is marked ‘Commercially Most Secure Authorised Eyes Only’. This is used primarily for expensive detectors used in military surveillance applications. Mike SMITH may have been involved in writing the document, but again it should not have left the HRC. JS14 contains a mixture of components, chips and part assembled components. All appear to date from 1986/7 and are used for military purposes. Included are S.A.W. filters, high frequency gallium arsenide chips and radiation hard silicon on sapphire integrated circuit chips. All appear to be manufactured by HRC. Overall, all of the above relate to activities probably involving Mike SMITH during 1986 and 1987. I would not expect him to be involved with these items after 1987 and would not expect him to have them in his possession since he left employment at the HRC. Through my employment at the HRC, I can state that HRC is engaged on defence contracts for HM Government. I have been shown RH13 and RH17 and RH26 and PMS23. I can make no comment on these as they appear to relate to non-HRC activities.
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by A. Walsh DS
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 102
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Sqdn Leader Colin BAGLEY
Age of Witness (date of birth) 27 February 1939
Occupation of Witness Project Officer, Current Rapier System
Dated 11 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am an RAF Squadron Leader currently posted to the Ministry of Defence (Procurement Executive). I have been a Rapier Project Officer for 5 years. Today I was made aware of enquiries by DCI Gray and DI Morrissey into a possible breach of the Official Secrets Act, I have been shown various articles in marked bags. These comprise engineering drawings, specifications and electronic components. I recognise these articles to relate to the Operators Confidence Facility, OCF, an item of test equipment used to test a Rapier by the operator, daily, when deploying and setting up the system. In my opinion these items have a military application only and could be useful to an enemy. Additionally, I believe that knowledge of these drawings and processes could be commercially beneficial in terms of military production.
Signed C. Bagley Signature witnessed by M. Morrissey DI
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 103
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Sqdn Leader Colin BAGLEY
Age of Witness (date of birth) 27 February 1939
Occupation of Witness Project Officer, Current Rapier System
Dated 24 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to my statement of 11th August 1992 I have today been shown plastic envelopes with exhibit identification marks JS/22, JS/23, JS/24, JS/25, JS/26, JS/27, JS/28, JS/29, JS/30, JS/31, JS/32, JS/33, JS/34, JS/35, JS/36, JS/37 thereon, relating to engineering drawings specifications and electronic components. I have previously been shown these items by Detective Inspector MORRISSEY on 11th August 1992. I can confirm that these are the same items that I saw previously with the exception of the blueprints which are not available today.
Signed C. Bagley Signature witnessed by M. Morrissey DI
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 104
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Squadron Leader Colin BAGLEY
Age of Witness (date of birth) 27 February 1939
Occupation of Witness Royal Air Force Engineering Officer
Dated 28 October 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am a Rapier Project Officer within the Ministry of Defence Procurement Executive and have been so employed for 5½ years but with a total of 9 years Rapier experience. The classification of the Rapier project is Restricted although the classification of the drawings and diagrams of the Operators Confidence Facility (OCF) is at either Unclassified or Restricted level. Rapier is a Short Range Air Defence weapons system used to defend military airfields and other similar strategic areas. It is in-service with the Army, Royal Air Force, United States Air Force and a number of overseas countries. The OCF is a test facility used by an operator to test the functions of the Information Friend or Foe and Surveillance Radar within the Rapier system; these are the means by which the system detects targets. The ‘F’ Band delay line delays a received signal by a specific period of time and then re-transmits it to seduce the Rapier system into believing that the signal is derived from a target within the operating range of the system and thus prove that the system is functioning correctly. The OCF is manufactured by Cossor Electronics and although it still forms part of the current Rapier system it is no longer in production. The ‘F’ Band delay line is an obsolete component. By modelling from OCF drawings and diagrams it would
Signed Colin Bagley Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson D.I.
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 105
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Squadron Leader Colin Bagley
be possible to back calculate and obtain some understanding of the design parameters and functions of the prime unit, i.e. the Surveillance Radar. Knowing this kind of detail, particularly any frequency sensitive data, could reveal information that could be used by a possible enemy for jamming (the electronic means of disabling a Radar) thus preventing the detection of potential enemy targets by the Rapier system. The individual diagrams and drawings on their own have no significant security classification, they may only attract a higher classification when part of a complete system.
Signed Colin Bagley Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson D.I.
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 106
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Gordon Stephen SMITH
Age of Witness (date of birth) 17 July 1939
Occupation of Witness Project Manager, Ministry of Defence
Dated 11 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am the
Project Manager for the Rapier Air Defence System Project. I have been so
employed for 3 years. I am aware of
police enquiries into a possible breach of the Official Secrets Act. Today at
about 10.10 am I met with Detective Chief Inspector GRAY and Detective Inspector
MORRISSEY who showed me various articles in marked bags. Having examined
drawings, specifications and assembly schedules together with a number of
components it is evident that they relate to the OCF of the Rapier system. The
OCF, the Operators Confidence Facility, forms part of the test equipment for the
operational Rapier system. The Mark 2 version being applicable to Field Standard
B1, FSB1, and the Mark 3 version to Field Standard B2, FSB2. The last FSB2
system to be produced will be available to enter service in September this year.
I am of the opinion that the loss of this information would be prejudicial to
the interests of the
Signed G. S. Smith Signature witnessed by M. Morrissey DI
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 107
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Gordon Stephen SMITH
Allies. In
my view this information has only a military application. In my view this
information might also be useful to an enemy.
Signed G. S. Smith Signature witnessed by M. Morrissey DI
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 108
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967, S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Gordon Stephen SMITH
Age of Witness (date of birth) 17 July 1939
Occupation of Witness Project Manager, Ministry of Defence
Dated 24 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to my statement of 11th August 1992. Today Detective Inspector MORRISSEY has shown me drawings, specifications and assembly schedules which I have previously seen on the 11th August 1992. I notice that these are in plastic envelopes marked with the following exhibit identification marks JS/22, JS/23, JS/24, JS/25, JS/26, JS/27, JS/28, JS/29, JS/30, JS/31, JS/32, JS/33, JS/34, JS/35, JS/36 and JS/37. These are the same items I refer to in my previous statement, with the exception of some blueprints which I have been told are not available to be seen today.
Signed G. S. Smith Signature witnessed by M. Morrissey DI
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 109
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Peter Leonard KNOWLTON
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21 (16 September 1939)
Occupation of Witness HPTO, Ministry of Defence
Dated 10 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am
Project Officer working within the Ministry of Defence and have worked on the
Rapier Project for approximately 3½ years. Today, I was asked to meet Det. Ch.
Insp. GRAY at the Ministry of Defence HQ, Metropole House,
Signed P. Knowlton Signature witnessed by A. Walsh DS
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 110
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Andrew WALSH
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Police Officer
Dated 26 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Tuesday
11th August 1992, in company with DS STAFFORD, I attended the Defence Research
Agency, (DRA) which is based in Malvern, Worcestershire, in connection with
enquiries into an alleged offence against the Official Secrets Act 1911. In my
possession were exhibits AW/2, AW/3, AW/4, AW/5 and AW/6. These exhibits are
true copies of the exhibits identified as JS/16, JS/17, JS/18, JS/19 and JS/20
respectively. I prepared these copies in advance as the original exhibits, JS/16
to JS/20 inclusive, were to be examined elsewhere, and the pressing nature of
the enquiry due to the prisoner’s continued detention in custody indicated that
it would be inappropriate to delay my enquiry to be in possession of the
original exhibits. Whilst at the DRA, between approximately 10.15 am and 3.20 pm
I presented the exhibits AW/2 to AW/6 inclusive for examination by various
scientific personnel, namely Professor K LEWIS, Mr M LEWIS, Mr LAMBERTON, Mr
DEADMAN and Dr BROWN. After their examination each of the scientists prepared a
statement regarding his observations on the contents of the documents relating
to their areas of speciality.
Signed Andrew Walsh DS Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 111
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967, S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Meirion Francis LEWIS
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Civil Servant
Dated 11 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am currently responsible for
the optical signal processing section at DRA Malvern. Prior to this I was in
charge of research into surface acoustic wave (SAW) devices at RSRE Malvern in
the period from 1977 to 1985. Today I was shown a number of documents labelled
AW/2 to AW/6 inclusive by DS Walsh and asked to comment on their sensitivity in
relation to an alleged offence under the Official Secrets Act. One of these
documents labelled AW/6 relates to the use of surface acoustic wave and bulk
acoustic wave devices as detectors of gas. The principles of operation, the
device sensitivity, and principles of gas identification mentioned in this
document have been published in the open literature. The document indicates,
however, that device fabrication is now reproducible, and briefly indicates the
fabrication process and form of the response of the device to exposure to a gas.
The particular gas or gasses studied are not revealed. This information might be
of use to a foreign power as gas sensors are of value in both civilian and
Signed M. F. Lewis Signature witnessed by A. Walsh DS
No. 991A
Witness
Statement Page 112
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Meirion Francis LEWIS
military applications. In my
opinion the knowledge that such sensors can be made reproducibly, and processed
to reveal the make-up of a gas sample, could be prejudicial to the interests of
the
Signed M. F. Lewis Signature witnessed by A. Walsh DS
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 113
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Meirion Francis LEWIS
Age if under Over 21
Dated 3 November 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
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
Signed M. F. Lewis Signature witnessed by S. Stafford DS
Witness
Statement Page 114
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Meirion Francis LEWIS
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
Witness Statement Page 115
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Harry Alexander DEADMAN
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Government Service
Dated 11 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am
section leader of the millimetre-wave radar section for seeker applications. I
have been working in this field for 10 years. I have been shown exhibits AW/2 to
AW/6 by Det. Sgt. Walsh. My professional expertise extends to AW/4 and AW/5
only. I have been asked to express an opinion on exhibits AW/4 and AW/5 as to
their sensitivity and possibility of contravening the Official Secrets Act.
Exhibit AW/4 describes a millimetre-wave quasi-optical car radar technology
aspect. The application of the technology to car radars is strictly commercial.
However, the exhibit contains a paragraph which identifies the specific
application of this technology to missile systems and therefore would be of use
to an enemy. Exhibit AW/5 describes a specific part of technology for micron
valves. It is a statement of technology for which there are no specific
applications planned at the moment. In my professional opinion exhibit AW/5 does
not contravene the Official Secrets Act.
Signed H. A. Deadman Signature witnessed by A. Walsh DS
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 116
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Keith Loder LEWIS
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Government Service
Dated 11 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am Head
of the Thin Fibre Optics Section at DRA Malvern and Project Officer for an SDI
sponsored programme researching advanced concepts for spacecraft sensor
protection. Today I was shown a group of documents labelled AW/2 to AW/6
inclusive by DS Walsh and asked to comment on their sensitivity in relation to
an alleged offence under the Official Secrets Act. Of these documents, the one
labelled AW/2 referred to a programme of work currently being carried out at GEC
Hirst Research, for which I am technical sponsor. The document highlights the
current state of progress on this contract and identifies the fact that an
extension has been agreed until 1994. Whilst many of the technical details have
been published in the open scientific literature, document AW/2 makes a
connection between the devices produced and their application for laser
protection particularly in the SDI context. It also identifies a major point of
contact in the
Signed K. L. Lewis Signature witnessed by A. Walsh DS
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 117
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Keith Loder LEWIS
threat and
methods for its countermeasure and in so doing compromises the security of the
State. It also prejudices the
Signed K. L. Lewis Signature witnessed by A. Walsh DS
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 118
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Hugh Murdoch LAMBERTON
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Government Service
Dated 11 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am Head
of ERI division at DRA Malvern, responsible for research on Electro-Optics
sensors, a topic which includes cooling technology for infra-red detectors
(cryogenic cooling). I have 25 years experience in research, mainly in
Electro-Optics. Today I have been shown a series of documents marked AW/2 to
AW/6 by DS Walsh in connection with an enquiry under the Official Secrets Act. I
am only qualified to comment on document AW/3. The section on Cryogenic
Refrigeration has some ambiguity in that the achieved performance “19 K cooling
in 1 sec” could refer to a rate of change, in which case it is unremarkable. If
however, it refers to a final temperature of 19 K achieved in 1 second, the
technique would be outstanding. The cooling loads quoted are not sufficient by
about 2 orders of magnitude for military use as an IR detector cooler. I
consider that the data is of industrial or civilian relevance rather than
military. I consider that the work reported is at the leading edge of
technology. I do not feel qualified to assess how much value this would be to a
foreign power.
Signed H. M. Lamberton Signature witnessed by A. Walsh DS
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 119
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Hugh Murdoch LAMBERTON
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 3 November 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to
my statement made on 11 August 1992 I have today been shown a set of documents
marked SR4, which was opened in my presence. I have inspected the contents and I
have made the following assessment. One of the documents in SR4 is entitled
‘Infra-Red Detector Configuration Flow Chart’ and is dated June 1988. This
document discloses commercially confidential industrial information, giving full
details of the process, in flow chart form, for the production of Cadmium
Mercury Telluride (CMT) TED IR detectors. These are state of the art military
components. GEC-HRC manufacture these devices for incorporation in
Signed H. M. Lamberton Signature witnessed by S. Stafford DS
Witness Statement Page 120
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Alison Meryl HODGE
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 3 November 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Today,
Tuesday, 3rd November 1992, I was shown documents contained in SR4 and objects
contained in JSl4. I make the following observations: The information includes
documents and samples from a specific silicon microelectronic technology, namely
silicon on sapphire. Device fabrication and research was undertaken at the GEC
Hirst Research Centre but has now been terminated at that site. Production
continues at the GEC Plessey Semiconductors site in
Signed A. M. Hodge Signature witnessed by S. Stafford DS
Witness Statement Page 121
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Alison Meryl HODGE
Two
documents are drafts of what a typically used as marketing literature. These are
the video line buffer and signal stream product family. This, or a later draft,
may therefore have been released openly. The ‘Advance Information’ sheet on the
Cascade ACU is similar but the attached detailed description may have been
retained as company information. Allied to the technical process information
referred to above, the product information (of the same era) can be used to
deduce the possible capability of the company at the time. Technically, their
capability is now a generation or more behind that being produced by the GEC
Company as their state-of-the-art. However, as military systems are developed
over periods of many years and remain in service for tens of years, then the
technology discussed is likely to be in military systems and hence of military
relevance for some time to come. The latest state of the art is described, at
least superficially, for another part of the GEC organisation concerned with the
manufacture of silicon devices (not silicon on sapphire) in the centre spread of
the “Topic GEC newspaper” June 1992 issue. It is hence possible to deduce how
the company is advancing its technology since about 1986-87, if one is aware of
the general developments in the field. The objects SLC3, SLC4, SLC5 are all
individual SOS chips. These have been produced with equipment similar to that at
GEC HRC in the period up to mid 1980s. They appear, at first sight, to be test
structures rather than functional circuits. These could, if functional, still
yield valuable information about the performance of the process and any devices
made using it. More detailed examination, by experts could be used to deduce the
specific problems being addressed by such test structures and hence where there
were technical concerns at the time. The characters CQC3 near the chip
identifies (only visible with a microscope) may relate to quality control. The
chip SLC6 is marked MEDL CELLSOS MA931A. This suggests that Marconi Electronic
Devices Limited were involved with the design and/or manufacture of this
circuit. This could therefore be
used to
Signed A. M. Hodge Signature witnessed by S. Stafford DS
Witness Statement Page 122
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Alison Meryl HODGE
indicate
the state of the manufacturing capability rather than that at this research
laboratory. As a circuit, an expert may be able to deduce information about its
function and performance.
Signed A. M. Hodge Signature witnessed by S. Stafford DS
Witness Statement Page 123
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Michael ALLENSON
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 3 November 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I have
examined the following documents from SR4 today Tuesday 3rd November 1992 at DRA
Malvern
1. AN/102
Monolithic microwave integrated circuits storage, handling precautions.
2. Advance
and preliminary information sheets on the following MMICs:
M1208A 8-12
GHZ mixer, GP1208A 4 bit phase shifter 8-12 GHZ, GA1801A 0.5-18GHZ amplifier,
GS1802A PIN diode switch, GM9888A 94 GHZ balanced mixer.
These
documents represent part of a venture by GEC to launch these chips for sale on
the open commercial market, and I judge the information would be freely
available on request or at trade exhibitions. The chips have application in both
military and commercial systems. No link with military systems was found in SR4,
generic military application data has appeared in the public domain for example
GEC Journal of Research Vol 4 No 2 1986. (1) For GM9888A the commercial
applications are limited, reference (1) identified Terminally guided sub
munitions as a potential application for chips at this frequency.
I also
examined at DRA Malvern on 3rd November 1992 five packages of devices from JS14.
These contained MMIC chips as follows.
1. SLC1 -
Blank proforma label. Contains 1 chip, a travelling wave amplifier GEC17 - 11a
1987 probably 0.5-18GHZ, either an early or final version of GA1801A.
2. SLC1
ceramic carrier with two bonded up chains of chips. One made up from 1 x GEC 17
- 11a, 2 x GEC 17 - 11 b one from 3 x GEC 17 - 11a.
Signed A. M. Hodge Signature witnessed by S. Stafford DS
Witness Statement Page 124
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Michael ALLENSON
3. SLC1
labelled: Bender rejects from T-CSF 2 x DC6001 contains two travelling wave
amplifier chips both GEC manufacture probably DC to 12GHZ. It is probable that
the T-CSF referred to on the label is the French company Thomson - CSF.
4. SLC1
labelled 5 of D6001 for photo’s. Similar devices to 3, a slightly different
design.
5. SLC2 Box
labelled GM9888A, contains a single chip with bond wires attached. This is the
94 GHZ mixer GM9888A in its waveguide probe version.
The MMIC
technology research programme and specific chip designs were funded by MOD and
by GEC companies, including the military system companies, this was primarily
with military application in mind.
The chips were being offered for sale, it is probable the most likely market
would be in military system, commercial applications also exist. There may be
limitations on the export of this technology to former Eastern Block countries,
I am not familiar with the detail. The chip samples could be used to gain some
very limited information on the commercially sensitive semi conductor process
methods. However, this is a field where the circuit design methods and the
general elements of the technology have been published worldwide in the
scientific literature.
Signed M. Allenson Signature witnessed by S. Stafford DS
Witness Statement Page 125
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF John Richard WEATHERLEY
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness IFF Programmes Executive
Dated 24 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am a
Programmes Manager for Cossor Electronics Ltd. having been employed at Cossor
since 1980. Primary work involves Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) related to
military projects. Today DS Walsh visited my place of work and asked me to
examine two packages of exhibits which were identified as JS21 and JS38. I
recognise these to be documents relating to the purchase and specification of a
component developed in conjunction with GEC Hirst for the Rapier OCF product.
All documents are copies. The documents would normally be provided to GEC Hirst
in order to assist with the purchase of component items. I recognise the letter
dated 30th September 1982 (from exhibit JS21) as being generated by myself
during specification discussions. JS21 are documents defining the component
specification requirements. JS38 are copies of Cossor drawings used to confirm
requirements as part of procurement exercise. JS21 and JS38 both relate to the
delay line component at various build standards. The component is used to
provide a delay
Signed J. R. Weatherley Signature witnessed by A. Walsh DS
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 126
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF John Richard WEATHERLEY
in time for
received radio frequency signals. Applications can include both military and
civil radar systems of the appropriate frequency band. The frequency band
specified is appropriate to the Rapier primary radar frequency. This information
in conjunction with classified product and system information may be useful for
establishing Rapier system performance parameters. The use of delay line with
the OCF application as a test system could only be useful to a competitor or
foreign power as a minor element of a much larger data base. The documents were
produced as part of a development contract for HMG as part of a performance
upgrade programme for Rapier build standards. The OCF product which uses the
delay line is defined by a classified document. None of the documents JS21 and
JS38 are classified within Cossor Electronics Ltd. In conclusion I would suggest
that the data contained within the documents does not cause any security problem
in its own right. However frequency information of a general nature may be
useful in conjunction with other system data gathered.
Signed J. R. Weatherley Signature witnessed by A. Walsh DS
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 127
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Dr David Ian WEATHERLEY
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 7 November 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 4
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I currently
occupy the post of Scientific Adviser (Land) within the MOD, in which capacity
one of my responsibilities is that of maintaining a technical overview of all
Land systems-related research and procurement programmes, operational
requirements and operational capabilities.
On Thursday
5th November 1992, in my office at the Ministry of Defence, Whitehall, London,
SW1, I met with Detective Inspector Nicolson and Detective Sergeant Stafford,
both of Special Branch, New Scotland Yard, who advised me that they were
investigating offences against the Official Secrets Act. I was asked to examine
a number of documents and devices contained in sealed bags, with a view to
assessing their significance. In making my assessment I made reference to
statements, each dated 3rd November 1992, which had been made by Michael
ALLENSON, Alison HODGE, Hugh LAMBERTON and Meirion LEWIS, all of whom I know to
be scientists employed at the Defence Research Agency in Malvern, and to a
statement, dated 28th October 1992, which had been made by Squadron Leader Colin
BAGLEY who I know to be a project officer in the Procurement Executive of the
Ministry of Defence. The documents and devices which I examined are broadly
dealt with in six categories:
1.
Handwritten Notes (Exhibit Nos. JS16, JS17, MN15 - a photocopy of JS18, JS19
and JS20).
(a)
Olfactory Research: The technique described has applications in Chemical and
Biological Defence, and in the detection of substances for Internal Security
purposes.
Signed D. I. Weatherley Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson D/I
Witness Statement Page 128
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Dr David Ian WEATHERLEY
The
statement of achievable sensitivity is of concern, since it provides an
indication of the likely performance of future
(b) Rugate
Filters for SDI: The Rugate filter process is well known, but the provision of
information on the number of rejection notches realisable with UK design
processes, and the description of the techniques which are necessary to increase
the radiation hardness of filters, have significance because they enable some
performance characteristics of possible future UK defence systems to be deduced.
(c)
Quasi-Optical Car Radar: The technique described has potential military
applications for example in robotics, automatic route-finding and obstacle
avoidance, and smart weaponry, but I believe that the information presented is
not of a sensitive nature.
(d) Micron
Valve Project: The Micron Valve technology is of Defence relevance because it
offers the prospect of providing a means by which future sensors and systems
might be hardened against radiation weapons. The information presented describes
how specific fabrication techniques improve device performance, and gives an
indication of the degree to which future
(e)
Micromachining Project: This is another technology which has potential
application to the radiation-hardening of future sensors and systems. The
performance details are sufficient to indicate the
In general
the level of technical detail is relatively low, but all items have Defence or
Internal Security relevance. There is some indication of an underlying theme of
providing information on fabrication techniques and processes, a theme which
recurs in the further assessments described below.
2.
Rapier Missile System - Build specifications and blueprints for the F-band
Delay Line MK III for use in the OCF (Exhibit Nos. JS21 to JS38 inclusive). The
material examined provides details of techniques employed to fabricate a delay
line based on a technology which has now been rendered obsolete by technological
advances. I
Signed D. I. Weatherley Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson D/I
Witness Statement Page 129
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Dr David Ian WEATHERLEY
consider
that the benefits to the recipient of this information would be purely military
ones, for instance to allow a deduction of some Rapier operating parameters in
order to aid the development of technical and operational countermeasures for
use against a system which is operationally deployed.
3.
Silicon On Sapphire Technology (Documents contained in Exhibit No. SR4, and
devices contained in Exhibit No. JS14). This is another technology of
considerable Defence relevance because of its ability to provide
radiation-hardened components for sensors and weapons systems, and its high cost
mitigates against wide commercial exploitation. The information examined could
be used to provide an estimate of the likely degree of radiation hardness of
future
4.
Gallium Arsenide Technology (Documents contained in Exhibit SR4, and devices
contained in Exhibit No. JS14). This is another highly-relevant area of
technology, because it offers the prospect of signal processing devices which
are much more capable than those currently available. Potential applications are
in many areas, but particularly those of smart weapons, radars and Electronic
Warfare systems. The information examined provides an indication of
5.
Surface Acoustic Wave Technology (Documents contained in Exhibit No. JS15,
and devices contained in Exhibit No. JSl4). Surface Acoustic Wave (SAW) devices
are widely used in a variety of military systems. Details of design and
fabrication processes could be used to enhance the performance of devices
available to a potential aggressor, thus to allow the development of more
capable military systems.
6.
Thermal Imager Technology (Documents contained in Exhibit SR4). The
Signed D. I. Weatherley Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson D/I
Witness Statement Page 130
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Dr David Ian WEATHERLEY
have a
significant performance advantage over their likely adversaries. The
I believe
that the documents and devices which I have examined comprise a set of
information which could be damaging to UK Defence capabilities if it were to be
provided to any one of a number of potential future aggressor nations. This
belief is based on my knowledge and experience of a wide range of Defence
requirements, priorities, programmes and operational procedures, and on my
regular contact with the technologies represented by the information assessed.
Many of the
technologies are the subject of restricted technology transfer, as defined in
the COCOM procedures. Of particular concern is the underlying theme of
fabrication technologies and processes relating to integrated circuit
production, an area in which the
Signed D. I. Weatherley Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson D/I
Witness Statement Page 131
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF James Frederick WILDISH
Age of Witness (date of birth) 24 September 1939
Occupation of Witness SSO Ministry of Defence
Dated 10 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am a
Senior Scientific Officer employed with the MOD Scientific and Technical
Security Branch and have been so employed for the past 26 months, prior to which
I have been employed with the MOD for 26 years. Today I was asked to meet
Detective Chief Inspector GRAY at the MOD HQ Metropole Building and was asked by
him to examine articles marked JS/14 to JS/38 inclusive. I was asked to express
my opinion as to the sensitivity of these articles in the context of national
security. Having examined these articles it is my opinion that individually they
do not pose a threat to the security of the nation. However, combined with more
detailed information and technology of weapon systems in particular, they could
be of benefit to a foreign power.
Signed J. F. Wildish Signature witnessed by A. Walsh DS
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 132
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Karl Adrian GEHRING
Age of Witness (date of birth) 54 (21 February 1938)
Occupation of Witness Unemployed
Dated 27 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
My formal
scientific qualifications are, B.A Physics 1962, and a D. Phil 1966 in Physics.
I held research fellowships for a total of twelve years at two Oxford Colleges
in succession. This involved mostly research in Solid State Physics. (
Signed K. A. Gehring Signature witnessed by R. Gilbertson DS
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 133
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Karl Adrian GEHRING
military
and medical technology. Whilst employed as Divisional Manager at G.E.C. Hirst
Research Centre, I was managing the biggest industrial research effort in the
field of thin film super conductivity in the country. I am an expert in
following areas respecting the technology of super conductivity. i) Super
Conducting materials These are materials which conduct electricity without
electrical resistance. ii) Thin Film Super Conducting Devices These I
have previously explained. iii) Electronic Applications of Super Conductors
The application of super conducting devices in a military, medical and
commercial sense.
I have
lectured on both the science and technical/industrial applications of super
conductivity. (super conductivity in a very basic sense is the property of a
material, which when cooled to a very low temperature enables electrical current
to pass through it without electrical loss). The entire field of super
conductivity was revolutionised in 1987 when a new family of materials which
become super conducting at temperatures significantly higher than temperatures
of previously known super conductors was discovered. This was because the
impediment to the commercial exploitation of the previously known super
conductors was the cost and complexity of the cooling mechanism. The new super
conductors could be cooled conveniently and cheaply. As a result of that it made
the technology of super conductivity i) more compact and lighter for military
application. ii) Viable for commercial exploitation. During my time as
Divisional Manager of G.E.C. Hirst Research Centre I was concerned in the
development of the applications of these new materials. The best example of a
novel device employing super conductors is an ultra sensitive detector of
magnetic fields. This could be used
Signed K. A. Gehring Signature witnessed by R. Gilbertson DS
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 134
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF Karl Adrian GEHRING
for
military applications, such as the detection of submarines, and for medical
applications such as the detection of electrical signals in the human brain. In
my opinion the discovery of these new super conducting materials has immensely
important implications for future electrical and electronic technologies.
Products made with these materials will command markets worth billions of
pounds. I have been asked if I know a Mr Michael John SMITH, who worked at the
G.E.C Hirst Research Centre. I did know him because I met him professionally
over the past five or six years. I did not know him well, I never met him at any
social occasion whatsoever. I know no more about his professional
responsibilities, other than the fact that he worked in the Quality Control
Department of G.E.C. Hirst, and it is in this capacity that I met him. The
‘West’, including
Signed K. A. Gehring Signature witnessed by R. Gilbertson DS
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 135
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Malcolm MacLEOD
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Detective Chief Superintendent
Dated 1 September 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Friday
7th August, 1992 as a result of information received in Special Branch
concerning an alleged breach of the Official Secret Act, I conducted separate
briefings in respect of a proposed police operation which was to be put into
effect on Saturday 8th August 1992. The first briefing was with Detective Chief
Inspector MacKENZIE concerning a surveillance requirement in the vicinity of 48A
Burton Road, Kingston-Upon-Thames. The second briefing was with Detective
Inspector MORRISSEY and concerned the execution of a search warrant in respect
of the premises at 48A Burton Road and two vehicles namely a Peugeot motor car
index number D 514 BLD and a Datsun motor car index number KJH 249W. The third
and final briefing was with Detective Inspector NICOLSON and concerned specific
instructions concerning the arrest and subsequent removal to Paddington Green
Police Station, Michael John SMITH and his wife Pamela Avril SMITH. These
instructions were put into effect on Saturday 8th August 1992. As the senior
investigating officer I attended Paddington Green Police Station where I took
charge of the investigation. Between Saturday 8th and Tuesday 11th August, 1992,
I conducted a series of interviews with Michael John SMITH, born 22.9.48,
formerly a Quality Systems Audit manager with G.E.C., Hirst Research Centre,
Signed M. MacLeod Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 136
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Malcolm MacLEOD
1) Saturday
8th August 1992, 5.50pm to 6.41pm
2) Saturday
8th August 1992, 7.13pm to 7.34pm
3) Sunday
9th August 1992, 2.08pm to 3.36pm
4) Sunday
9th August 1992, 4.15pm to 6.47pm
5) Sunday
9th August 1992, 9.12pm to 9.21pm
6) Monday
10th August 1992, 4.57pm to 5.55pm
7) Monday
10th August 1992, 8.19pm to 9.16pm
8) Monday
10th August 1992, 9.52pm to 10.08pm
9) Tuesday
11th August 1992, 10.20am to 10.23am
10) Tuesday
11th August 1992, 10.26am to 11.24am
11) Tuesday
11th August 1992, 12.21pm to 12.58pm
12) Tuesday
11th August 1992, 5.27pm to 6.33pm
13) Tuesday
11th August 1992, 8.23pm to 9.50pm
14) Tuesday
11th August 1992, 10.20pm to 10.48pm
I was
present in the custody room at 11.24pm on Tuesday 11th August 1992, when the
Custody Officer formally charged SMITH with offences of espionage contrary to
Section 1 of the Official Secrets Act, 1911. The charges were read over to SMITH
by the Custody Officer. He was cautioned but made no reply.
Signed M. MacLeod Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 137
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Stephen John BEELS
Age of Witness (date of birth) 34 years
Occupation of Witness Detective Sergeant 59/171167 (S.O.12)
Dated 23 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 6
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Between
Saturday, 8th August 1992 and Tuesday, 11th August 1992 at Paddington Green
Police Station, as part of an investigation into suspected offences against the
Official Secrets Act, 1911, I was present at a series of interviews of Michael
John SMITH, a man who I knew to have been arrested in connection with the
investigation. The interviews were recorded on audio tape cassette and the
recording equipment was operated throughout by myself. All interviews took place
in interview room number two of the secure unit of Paddington Green Police
Station and all times stated were taken from my own wristwatch. Each master tape
cassette was sealed in the presence of SMITH and signed by him.
1. On
Saturday, 8th August 1992 between 5.50 pm and 6.41 pm an interview took place
which was tape recorded. Present throughout the interview were Michael John
SMITH, Richard JEFFERIES (Solicitor representing SMITH, from ‘TUCKERS’
solicitors), Detective Superintendent Malcolm MACLEOD and myself. Two master
tape cassettes were used. I identify these master cassettes as SJB/1 and SJB/2.
Signed S. Beels D/S Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 138
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Stephen John BEELS
2. On
Saturday, 8th August 1992 between 7.13 pm and 7.34 pm an interview took place
which was tape recorded. Present throughout the interview were Michael SMITH,
Richard JEFFERIES (Solicitor), Detective Superintendent MACLEOD and myself. One
master tape cassette was used, I identify this master cassette as SJB/3.
3. On
Sunday, 9th August 1992 between 2.08 pm and 3.36 pm an interview took place
which was tape recorded. Present throughout the interview were Michael SMITH,
Richard JEFFERIES (Solicitor), Detective Superintendent MACLEOD and myself.
Three master tape cassettes were used. I identify these master cassettes as
SJB/5, SJB/6 and SJB/7.
During this
interview an audio tape cassette was played and at the end of the interview the
tape cassette was sealed and signed by me in the presence of SMITH, his
solicitor and Detective Superintendent MACLEOD. I identify this tape cassette as
SJB/4.
4. On
Sunday, 9th August 1992 between 4.15 pm and 6.47 pm an interview took place
which was tape recorded. Present throughout the interview were Michael SMITH,
Richard JEFFERIES (Solicitor), Detective Superintendent MACLEOD and myself. Five
master tape cassettes were used. I identify these master cassettes as SJB/8,
SJB/9, SJB10, SJB/11 and SJB/12.
Signed S. Beels D/S Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 139
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Stephen John BEELS
5. On
Sunday, 9th August 1992 between 9.12 pm and 9.21 pm an interview took place
which was tape recorded. Present throughout the interview were Michael SMITH,
Richard JEFFERIES (Solicitor), Detective Superintendent MACLEOD and myself. One
master tape cassette was used. I identify this master cassette as SJB/13.
6. On
Monday, 10th August 1992 between 4.57 pm and 5.55 pm an interview took place
which was tape recorded. Present throughout the interview were Michael SMITH,
Richard JEFFERIES (Solicitor), Detective Superintendent MACLEOD and myself. Two
master tape cassettes were used. I identify these master cassettes as SJB/14 and
SJB/15.
7. On
Monday, 10th August 1992 between 8.19 pm and 9.16 pm an interview took place
which was tape recorded. Present throughout the interview were Michael SMITH,
Richard JEFFERIES (Solicitor), Detective Superintendent MACLEOD and myself. Two
master tape cassettes were used. I identify these master cassettes as SJB/16 and
SJB/17.
8. On
Monday, 10th August 1992 between 9.52 pm and 10.08 pm an interview took place
which was tape recorded. Present throughout the interview were Michael SMITH,
Richard JEFFERIES (Solicitor), Detective Superintendent MACLEOD and myself. One
master tape cassette was used. I identify this master cassette as SJB/18.
Signed S. Beels D/S Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 140
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Stephen John BEELS
9. On
Tuesday, 11th August 1992 between 10.20 am and 10.23 am an interview took place
which was tape recorded. Present throughout the interview were Michael SMITH,
Richard JEFFERIES (Solicitor), Detective Superintendent MACLEOD and myself. One
master tape cassette was used. I identify this master cassette as SJB/19.
10. On
Tuesday, 11th August 1992 between 10.26 am and 11.24 am an interview took place
which was tape recorded. Present throughout the interview were Michael SMITH,
Richard JEFFERIES (Solicitor), Detective Superintendent MACLEOD and myself. Two
master tape cassettes were used. I identify these master cassettes as SJB/20 and
SJB/21.
11. On
Tuesday, 11th August 1992 between 12.21 pm and 12.58 pm an interview took place
which was tape recorded. Present throughout the interview were Michael SMITH,
Richard JEFFERIES (Solicitor), Detective Superintendent MACLEOD and myself. Two
master tape cassettes were used. I identify these master cassettes as SJB/28 and
SJB/29.
During this
interview a series of five photographs were shown to SMITH and these were sealed
in exhibit bags and signed by me in his presence. I identify these photographs,
in order shown, as SJB/22, SJB/23, SJB/24, SJB/25 and SJB/26.
Signed S. Beels D/S Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 141
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Stephen John BEELS
12. On
Tuesday, 11 August 1992 between 2.56 pm and 3.47 pm an interview took place
which was tape recorded. Present throughout the interview were Michael SMITH,
Richard JEFFERIES (Solicitor), Detective Constable Jonathan SAY and myself. Two
master tape cassettes were used. I identify these master cassettes as SJB/30 and
SJB/31.
13. On
Tuesday, 11th August 1992 between 5.27 pm and 6.33 pm an interview took place
which was tape recorded. Present throughout the interview were Michael SMITH,
Richard JEFFERIES (Solicitor), Detective Superintendent MACLEOD and myself. Four
master tape cassettes were used. I identify these master cassettes as SJB/32,
SJB/33, SJB/34 and SJB/35.
During this
interview at about 5.58 pm the recording machine stopped, approximately one
minute after a change of tapes. The two tapes were removed from the machine and,
in order to preserve their integrity, were placed in an exhibits bag and sealed
in front of all present. The seal was signed by Richard JEFFRIES and myself.
14. On
Tuesday, 11th August 1992 between 8.23 pm and 9.50 pm an interview took place
which was tape recorded. Present throughout the interview were Michael SMITH,
Richard JEFFERIES (Solicitor), Detective Superintendent MACLEOD and myself.
Three master tape cassettes were used. I identify these master cassettes as
SJB/36, SJB/37 and SJB/38.
Signed S. Beels D/S Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 142
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Stephen John BEELS
15 On
Tuesday, 11th August 1992 between 10.20 pm and 10.48 pm an interview took place
which was tape recorded. Present throughout the interview were Michael SMITH,
Richard JEFFERIES (Solicitor), Detective Superintendent MACLEOD and myself. One
master tape cassette was used. I identify this master tape as SJB/39.
On Tuesday,
11th August 1992 I was present in the custody suite of Paddington Green Police
Station when, at 11.24 pm, Michael SMITH was charged with offences against the
Official Secrets Act, 1911, the charges were read over to him and he was
cautioned by the Custody Officer. SMITH made no reply.
Signed S. Beels D/S Signature witnessed by
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 143
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Jonathan Peter SAY
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Detective Constable 03/172857 (SO12)
Dated 14 October 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Tuesday
11th August 1992 I was at Paddington Green Police Station involved in the
investigation into suspected offences against the Official Secrets Act 1911.
Between
2.56 pm and 3.47 pm I was present at an interview which took place in interview
room number two of the Secure Unit of Paddington Green Police Station. The
interview was tape recorded. Present throughout the interview were Michael John
SMITH, Richard JEFFERIES, (solicitor representing SMITH, from ‘Tuckers’
solicitors), Detective Sergeant BEELS and myself. Two master tape cassettes were
used. Each master tape cassette was sealed in the presence of SMITH and signed
by him.
Signed Jonathan Say DC Signature witnessed by
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 144
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Jonathan Peter SAY
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 6 November 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 15
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Following
the arrest of Michael John SMITH on 8th August 1992, I have examined financial
documents found at his home, 48A Burton Road, Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey and
report here my findings and conclusions as to his financial dealings.
Michael
John SMITH is the owner and is resident at 48A Burton Road,
Kingston-upon-Thames,
Signed J Say Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 145
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Jonathan Peter SAY
1991 his
annual salary was raised to £18,200.00 and remained at this level until his
redundancy (Exhibits PMS/34, PMS/32, RH/33, PMS/10). SMITH has contracted out of
the state earnings related pension plan and currently has a personal pension
plan no. ********** with Standard Life Assurance Company,
a) The Manager, National
Westminster Bank Plc,
48, The
Centre, Feltham, Middlesex.
Signed J Say Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 146
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Jonathan Peter SAY
b) The Secretary, Abbey National
Plc,
c) The Fraud Manager,
National
Westminster Bank Access
Premier
House,
Southend on
Sea.
At 11.00 on
Tuesday 11.08.92, at the Central Criminal Court, the Orders were granted,
uncontested, in chambers by Judge Michael Coombe. Copies of these applications
and orders I produce as Exhibit JPS/9. An examination of his current account no.
******** reveals it to be an extremely well run account £1,677.45 in credit on
11th August 1992. The credit turnover in the 6 months to June 1992 was
£6,719.00. The credit turnover for 1991, 1990 and 1989 is as follows:
1991 £13,105.20
1990 £12,995.67
1989 £13,178.06
There have
been only two deposits into the current account in 1992 other than his regular
payments from GEC Marconi Research. These were a deposit of £5.41 on 18.03.92
and a deposit of £200 on 20.03.92. Enquiries reveal this latest transaction to
be a cash deposit of the following notes: two by £50, four by £20, and two by
£10. In 1991 there was only one deposit into the
Signed J Say Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 147
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Jonathan Peter SAY
account
other than his wages. This was for the sum of £300 on 04.01.91 and was a cheque
drawn on Norweb Plc. In 1990 there were six deposits, totalling £527.59, other
than wage credits. These were as follows:
09.01.90 £45.23
05.03.90 £15.16
19.03.90 £50.00
20.04.90 £55.00
11.07.90 £12.20
17.10.90 £350.00 (cheque
drawn on Abbey National Plc)
The current
account pays five regular standing orders as follows:
Amount |
Payable to |
Direct Debit/ Standing
Order |
£160.00
£26.00
£25.00
£25.00 £
23.20 |
Joint account AB
Trust Management
Royal Bank of
Royal Borough of |
Monthly Standing Order
Annual Standing Order
Monthly Standing Order
Monthly Standing Order
Monthly Direct Debit |
Signed J Say Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 148
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Jonathan Peter SAY
The £25.00
per month payment to ABTRUST Management refers to a savings plan managed by
Abtrust Unit Trust Managers Ltd of 99,
Signed J Say Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 149
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Jonathan Peter SAY
concerns
from this account in 1991 or 1992. Joint account no. ******** currently holds
£953.73. Four regular payments are made from the account as follows:
Amount |
Payable to |
Standing Order/ Direct
Debit |
£114.22
£12.50
£30.36
£13.69 |
Abbey National B.S.
Hickman and Bishop
Legal and General |
Monthly Standing Order
Annual Payment
Monthly Direct Debit
Monthly Direct Debit |
The account
is paid £160.00 by monthly transfer from the account of Michael John SMITH and
£130.00 by monthly transfer from the account of Pamela Avril SMITH. These
deposits, with the exception of two cheques, one for £5.41 and one for £2.93 on
the 18th and 25th March respectively comprise the total input into the account
in 1992. In 1991 these transfer payments were the only deposits into the
account. The highest balance of the joint account in 1992 was £1,048.10 and in
1991 £826.78. The lowest balance in 1992 was £707.78 and in 1991 £329.11.
Cheques are issued from the account fairly infrequently and mainly for small
amounts. The highest value cheque in 1992 being £226.34 and in 1991 £180.32. The
Abbey National Savings account no. X3997760 SMI currently holds £8406.54. It was
opened on 22.03.91 with
Signed J Say Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 150
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Jonathan Peter SAY
£1566.26
which was the closing balance of a previous account number X2066509 SMI. Since
account no. X3997760 was opened on 22.3.91 cheques to the amount of £6,142.56
have been paid into the account mostly transferring money from his National
Westminster current account. Cash deposits have also been paid in. These cash
deposits cannot be accounted for as withdrawals from his National Westminster
Current or Joint account. Nor have they been withdrawn from his Access account.
These payments are as follows:
19.02.91 £200.00
21.03.91 £300.00
18.05.91 £200.00
07.06.91 £200.00
08.06.91 £50.00
03.08.91 £100.00
17.08.91 £200.00
28.09.91 £300.00
26.10.91 £50.00
07.12.91 £100.00
18.12.91 £150.00
08.06.92 £75.00
TOTAL £1925.00
Signed J Say Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 151
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Jonathan Peter SAY
The
previous account, number X2066509, was opened on 28.11.88 with £2050.68 (which
is the closing balance of a previous account no. R5194231 SMI which had been in
existence since at least 1985 with a balance of about £2000.00). Small credits
of between £100 and £700 paid in by cheque took the balance to £3950.68 on
21.06.89. On 02.07.89 two tranches of Abbey National shares were purchased at a
cost of £1007.50 each which took the balance to £1935.68. On 19.02.91 cash
(£200) is deposited in the account for the first time. This was followed by a
cash deposit of £300 on 21.03.91 which was just before that account was closed
and reopened on the same day as X3997760. Michael SMITH has a National
Westminster Bank Access Card no. 5224 0061 2943 4243. The credit limit is fixed
at £1300. His average expenditure on the card for the first six months of 1992
was £131.00 and his balance owing varied from a high of £525.77 in February to a
low of £40.00 in June. In 1991 his average monthly expenditure was £323.00 and
his balance owing varied from a high of £1415 in February to a low of £32.32 in
November. The vast majority of the transactions refer to the purchase of
publications, with hi-fi and sundry purchases also recorded. All payments to
Access for 1991 and 1992 have been made by cheque from his current account. The
following shareholdings have been revealed in documents, Exhibits PMS/32, RH/33:
Signed J Say Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 152
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Jonathan Peter SAY
Company |
Holding |
Certificate No. |
Registrar |
British
Telecom PLC
Tarmac PLC
Elec
Scottish
Power PLC
Eastern
Electricity
Seeboard PLC |
340
part paid 400 100
part paid 160
part paid 100
part paid 100
part paid |
Z0175314
708807
Z0732607
10145681
0434375
Z0881301 |
Lloyds Bank Plc,
BN99 6DA Nat
West Bank,
BS99 7NH
Lloyds Bank Plc, B30
3ER
Bank of EH7
4AL Nat
West Bank,
BS99 7ZF
Lloyds Bank Plc,
BN12 6DA |
Signed J Say Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 153
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Jonathan Peter SAY
Electricity
Southern
Electricity
Electricity
Electricity
Scottish
Hydro
Powergen
National
Power |
100
part paid 100
part paid 100
part paid 100
part paid 90
part paid 114 186 |
Z0917554
Z0758734
3223045
2257041
105995
0419767
Z0633860 |
Lloyds Bank Plc, B30
3ER
Lloyds Bank Plc, B30
3ER Nat
West Bank,
BS99 7ZF Nat
West Bank,
BS99 7ZF
Royal Bank of
EH11 4BR Nat
West Bank,
BS99 7ZG
Lloyds Bank Plc, B30
3ER |
Signed J Say Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 154
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Jonathan Peter SAY
The
following receipts have been recovered in Michael SMITH’s property. They cannot
be accounted for by cash withdrawals from his National Westminster accounts nor
by cheques from either account. They have not been paid for from the Access
account, although a cash withdrawal of £900.00 was made from the Abbey National
account on 3rd February 1990 which may relate to the first entry on the
following list.
|
Date |
Amount |
Exhibit |
Receipt for cash (16
x £50)
Receipt for cash
Visionworld Ltd
Receipt for cash
Visionworld Ltd
Receipt for cash
balance, ABC Music
(main payment of
above not accounted for
elsewhere) |
03.02.90
19.10.90
23.11.90
24.11.90 |
£770.00
£290.00
£385.00
£189.00
£720.00 |
SC3 SC3 SC3 SC3 |
Signed J Say Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 155
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Jonathan Peter SAY
Receipt for cash
Receipt for cash The
Synthesizer Company
Receipt for cash The
Synthesizer Company
Receipt for cash
Project Music
Receipt for cash
Bentalls
Receipt for cash
John Lewis,
Receipt for cash (2
x £50)
Receipt for cash ABC
Music |
13.12.90
05.02.91
26.02.92
09.03.91
16.03.91
06.04.91
13.04.91
11.05.91 |
£1795.00
£4800.00
£138.00
£180.00
£199.00
£145.00
£79.00
£145.00 |
PMS32 RRl RRl SC3 SC3
PMS32
RH33 SC3 SC3 |
Signed J Say Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 156
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Jonathan Peter SAY
Receipt for cash
Callhaven
Receipt
SYCO
Receipt for cash
Project Music
Receipt for cash
Riverside Hi-Fi
Receipt for cash
Seeboard
Receipt
Unilet Products
Receipt
SYCO
Receipt
Wembley Commercial
Centre
Receipt
Project Music Store |
03.07.91
19.07.91
27.07.91
05.10.91
30.11.91
06.02.92
18.02.92
07.04.92
11.04.92 |
£58.75
£351.33
£459.00
£210.00
£119.99
£93.00
£581.63
£240.00
£45.00 |
PMS32 SC3 SC3 SC3
PMS32
RH33 SC3 SC3 SC3
PMS32
RH33 |
Signed J Say Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 157
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Jonathan Peter SAY
Receipt
Wembley Commercial
Centre |
27.07.92 |
£150.00 |
PMS32
RH33 |
|
TOTAL |
£12,143.70 |
|
Michael
SMITH has been the registered owner of a 1981 Datsun Cherry 3 door saloon
registration mark KJH 249W since 14.05.83. The August 1992 Glass’s Car Price
Guide does not go back as far as 1981, but shows a 1983 model with average
mileage to be worth between £400.00 (trade price) and £1000.00 (in good
condition). His wife has been the registered owner of a December 1986 Peugeot
305 5 door saloon registration mark D514 BLD since 09.08.89. The August 1992
Glass’s Car Price Guide shows this to be valued at between £1850.00 (trade price
on a 1986 “C” plate) to £3275.00 (a good condition 1987 “D” plate). £2000.00 in
£50.00 notes was found at SMITH’s home address (Exhibits PMS/24 and PMS/25).
This money is not accounted for by cash withdrawals from any of the known bank
accounts. Enquiries reveal that none of the notes in this collection were issued
from the Bank of England prior to 06.06.90. The total of hidden income
identified in this report is £16,018.70 composed as follows:
Signed J Say Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 158
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Jonathan Peter SAY
Cash found and seized at SMITH’s address
Unaccounted for deposits at Abbey National
Unaccounted for cash receipts |
£2,000.00
£1,875.00
£12,143.70 |
The lack of
cash withdrawals after the middle of August 1991 coupled with the ceasing of
cheques made payable to food retailers suggests access to other cash resources.
I produce a
chart of SMITH’s financial transactions, Exhibit JPS/10, and a chart of the
credits, debits and balances of SMITH’s bank accounts, and cash purchases,
between 1st January 1990 and 11th August 1992, Exhibit JPS/11.
Signed J Say Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 159
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Kevin John HALL
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Retail Branch Manager
Dated 6 October 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am
employed as the Branch Manager for W.H. Smith Ltd at Unit 14, St. Anns shopping
centre,
Signed Kevin J. Hall Signature witnessed by Roseline M. Hudson D/S
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 160
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Arthur Stephen TRIMBEE
Age of Witness (date of birth) 28 January 1936
Occupation of Witness Assistant Director MOD Security/5
Dated 25 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I have been
the assistant Director of Ministry of Defence Security, with responsibility for
security in industry for nearly two years. This involves direct liaison with
British companies involved with Defence contracts including those which concern
classified material. I am responsible for ensuring that companies which handle
classified material apply appropriate safeguards to protect it. Today I met with
Detective Chief Inspector GRAY and Detective Inspector MORRISSEY who told me
they were conducting an Official Secrets Act investigation, which involves
GEC/HIRST RESEARCH CENTRE,
Signed A. S. Trimbee Signature witnessed by M Morrissey DI
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 161
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF John Michael CAMP
Age of Witness (date of birth) 9 December 1931
Occupation of Witness Security Executive, Thorn EMI
Address and
081 573 3888
Dated 20 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Thursday
20th August 1992, at THORN EMI premises in Blyth Road, Hayes, I handed to Det.
Sgt. P Smith an original Official Secrets Acts declaration signed M J Smith on
28th July 1976. The further declaration was signed by M J Smith on 28th April
1978. This document was removed from security files held in my office under my
direct control. I exhibit this document as Exhibit JC1.
Signed J. M. Camp Signature witnessed by P. Smith DS
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 162
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Ernest George Stephen LEY
Age of Witness (date of birth) 28 January 1936
Occupation of Witness Group Security Manager, TEE
Dated 6 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am the
group security manager for THORN EMI Electronics. I am responsible for
maintaining a database of employees, past and present. From the information held
on this database I can confirm that Mr Michael John SMITH, born in
Signed E. G. S. Ley Signature witnessed by M Morrissey DI
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 163
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF John Stewart McMICHAEL
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Occupation of Witness Retired
Dated 21 October 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Between
October 1966 and February 1989, I was employed at EMI Electronics, latterly
Thorn EMI, at Hayes, as Manager, Defence Security Department for the whole of
the company. I was responsible for all aspects of defence security in relation
to the company. I have been shown Exhibit JMC/2, which is described as one (1)
company security document in the name of Michael SMITH. I recognise it as a
Security Department Personnel file of the type kept personally by me. It relates
to Michael John SMITH, born 22/948. I have studied the file and can say that the
items of correspondence held in it are those that were held by me. The file
includes correspondence between myself and the Ministry of Defence (MOD),
Security Service and EMI Feltham. I recall Michael John SMITH, because there was
a problem with his security vetting which was withdrawn by the MOD. At EMI
Feltham SMITH was a Quality Assurance Engineer, engaged on project XN715.
Contained in the file is a transcript of an interview of Michael SMITH with
myself, which took place in my office on Monday, 12th November, 1979. I taped
the interview covertly because I expected it to be a lengthy interview and I can
say that the transcript, contained in Exhibit JMC/2, is a true and accurate
record of that interview. The cassette tape was later destroyed. The Interview
was carried out at the request of the MOD (SY5) as his security clearance had
been withdrawn and he
Signed John McMichael Signature witnessed by Christine Robson DC
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 164
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
John Stewart McMICHAEL
had been
seeking an interview with the head of security. In summary, my impression of
SMITH is that he was being evasive, not answering questions directly and was
unable to remember surnames of certain persons. I remember that when I informed
him that if he went to the MOD for an interview he would be asked questions of a
similar nature as if he were being positively vetted. His reaction indicated to
me that he was concerned at having to face those sort of questions in an
official capacity. He went quiet and went physically pale. He contacted me
several times after this interview trying to find out what was happening re his
security status. He also tried to ingratiate himself with the MOD by reporting a
lack of security at Feltham. He was certainly very persistent. I would be
willing to attend court and give evidence if necessary. I have read through this
statement and would like to add that the idea to tape record SMITH’s interview
was entirely my own, it was not normal practise.
Signed John McMichael Signature witnessed by Christine Robson DC
No. 991C
Witness Statement Page 165
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Frank TAYLOR
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 23 November 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I was
employed as a Deputy Director Security Ministry of Defence, Procurement
Executive, from 14th January 1975 until my retirement on 18th September 1981. I
was responsible for vetting of personnel whose cases were referred to M.O.D.
(PE) as contracting department. I have today been shown exhibit MR/20, a
quantity of correspondence. I note in particular on M.O.D. (PE) headed letter to
M J SMITH esq, dated 25th January 1980. I identify the signature on that letter
as being my own. The letter refers to a request for an interview and an enclosed
Security Questionnaire. I also note that the quantity of correspondence contains
a Security Questionnaire, form E93A, in the name of Michael John SMITH and dated
6th February 1980. I vaguely recall the last page of handwritten notes. I see at
section 11 of the form, at subsection (a) in reply to the question, “Have you
ever been a member of or in sympathy with any Communist, Trotskyist or Fascist
organisation in the United Kingdom or elsewhere?” the reply is “No”. I also see
that in subsection (b), in reply to the question, “Have you ever had any
connection with any group or movement associated, or in sympathy, with a
Communist, Trotskyist, or Fascist organisation?”, the answer is “No”. I note
that the quantity of correspondence also includes a letter from myself to Mr M J
SMITH, dated 30th May 1980. I identify the signature as being my own. The letter
refers to arrangements for an interview at Fleetbank House at 10.15 am on
Tuesday, 10th June, 1980, where Mr Maloney will be the interviewing officer.
From my experience it was unusual to receive a request from an employee of
M.O.D. contractors for interview about security clearances. I have some
recollection of the circumstances surrounding the case. I vaguely recall setting
up
Signed F. Taylor Signature witnessed by S. Beels DS
Witness Statement Page 166
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Frank TAYLOR
the
interview between Mr MALONEY and SMITH but was not myself present at it.
I would be
willing to attend court and give evidence if required.
Signed F. Taylor Signature witnessed by S. Beels DS
Witness Statement Page 167
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Mr ‘D’
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 9 December 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Between
April 1962 and January 1985 I was employed as a member of the Security Service.
In 1980 I was working in a section of the Service specifically concerned with
individuals who had come to notice in a security context whilst employed with
commercial companies undertaking classified government contracts. On 10th June
1980 I interviewed Michael John SMITH at Fleetbank House,
Signed Mr ‘D’ Signature witnessed by S. Beels DS
Witness Statement Page 168
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Mr ‘D’
and Young
Communist League since about 1971. He claimed that he had resigned from these
groups in late 1975 or 1976 and that his resignation was not prompted by his
Joining EMI but rather because of growing disillusionment with the Communist
Party and the YCL in general. I made a report of this interview on 17 June 1980.
This was prepared from a recording of the interview that I had made at the time
without SMITH’s knowledge. I do not recall what happened to this recording.
Normal procedure at that time would have been to destroy the tape after a report
had been made, but I cannot recall whether in fact this was done. I now produce
a copy of the report made by me on that date as Exhibit D/1. My name has been
removed from this report.
Signed Mr ‘D’ Signature witnessed by S. Beels DS
Witness Statement Page 169
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Edgar George HILL
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 18 November 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I was
employed with the Ministry of Defence between 1947 and July 1987. I was Director
of Security for the MOD Procurement Executive between September 1977 and
September 1982. As Director of Security (PE) I was responsible for security
within the Procurement Executive, certain Defence Research establishments and
list x firms.
I have been
shown Exhibit MR/20, which consists of a quantity of correspondence. I note in
particular a letter dated 30th June 1980 from myself to Mr M.J. Smith Esq. I
identify the signature as being my own. I recall certain aspects of this case,
in particular Mr Smith being interviewed at Fleetbank House (which was unusual),
and the decision to withdraw his security clearance. I note, especially in
paragraph two, that I have written “we note in particular your admission that
you had in fact been a member of the Young Communists League between 1971 and
1976, and that you had denied such membership both in your answers to the
security questionnaire and also in the early part of your interview.”
I would be
willing to attend court and give evidence if necessary.
Signed E. G. Hill Signature witnessed by Christine Robson DC
Witness Statement Page 170
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Jeffrey SINGLETON
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 2 December 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am
exhibits officer in. the case of R v Smith and have been employed in this role
since 8th August 1992. I have been asked to explain why only part of the
contents of exhibit SR4, a quantity of correspondence and components, were split
to exhibit J.S.14 to J.S.38 inclusive and examined by people judged competent to
explain their significance while the remaining part of SR4 was left unexamined.
On 9th August 1992 I received exhibit SR4 at Paddington Green Police Station
along with a large number of other exhibits. All these exhibits had to be booked
in and then initially examined to assess their worth to the investigation.
Exhibit SR4 was opened during the evening of 9th August at Paddington Green
Police Station by myself and the contents systematically copied and resealed and
given other exhibit numbers viz J.S.14 to 38 inclusive. Whilst this process was
being carried out copies of the documents above were examined and other
investigating officers judged that they may be significant to the investigation
although they were not competent or qualified to assess their true worth. With
expedience of the investigation an issue people judged competent to explain the
documents already examined were contacted and an appointment made to show such
documents to them. By the time it became necessary for Detective Chief Inspector
GRAY and Detective Inspector NICOLSON to leave for this appointment only
documents, exhibits J.S.14 to J.S.38 inclusive had been examined and these were
handed to Detective Inspector NICOLSON for initial assessment by competent
examiners. The remaining documents were resealed, left unexamined as SR4 for
assessment at a later date.
Signed J. Singleton Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 171
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Martin MORRISSEY
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 1 December 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Thursday
17th September 1992 I visited the area of Harrow-on-the-Hill, Middlesex. Whilst
there I directed Detective Sergeant Phillip ATKINSON to photograph those places
that Michael John SMITH had indicated, in interviews with Detective Chief
Superintendent Malcolm MACLEOD, that he had visited on Thursday 6th August 1992.
Certain of these photographs are exhibited under reference PA/1 by Detective
Sergeant ATKINSON. The remainder are exhibited under reference PA/5 by Detective
Sergeant ATKINSON. It is by reference to these photographs and my own
observations of Harrow-on-the-Hill that this statement is made. Photographs 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are views along
Signed M. Morrissey DI Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 172
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Martin MORRISSEY
Signed M. Morrissey DI Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 173
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Martin MORRISSEY
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 8 January 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to
my last statement of 1st. December 1992, I have read the notes which were
recovered from Michael John SMITH’s house and exhibited under references JS/4l,
JS/42, JS/43 and JS/44. As far as I am able to discern the content of these
notes, I have transcribed them into a typewritten form. I produce these four
typewritten copies of the originals as exhibits MSM/2, a transcription of JS/4l,
MSM/3 a transcription of JS/42, MSM/4 a transcription of JS/43 and MSM/5 a
transcription of JS/44.
Signed M. Morrissey DI Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 174
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Philip ATKINSON
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 26 November 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Thursday
17th September 1992 in company with Detective Inspector MORRISSEY, I visited the
vicinity of Harrow-on-the-Hill, Middlesex. In my statement of 6th November I
produced a number of photographs which I took on this day as exhibit PA/l. I now
produce the remainder of the photographs which I took of this area on the 17
September 1992 as exhibit PA/5. The unretouched negatives are retained in my
possession.
Signed P. Atkinson DS Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 174A
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Philip ATKINSON (Det Sgt. 158766)
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 6 November 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Thursday
22nd September 1992, together with Security Officer Mrs ‘C’ I travelled to
Signed P. Atkinson DS Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 175
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Oleg GORDIEVSKY
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 10 December 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 5
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
From 1962 until 1985 I was an officer in
the KGB, The Committee of State Security for the
First, I have looked at the envelope RH/22 and it immediately strikes me that this was written by a Russian. The unsteadiness of the writing is a familiar sign
Signed O. Gordievsky Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 176
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Oleg Gordievsky
when they acquire the ability to write in Latin script usually in their late twenties. Also I notice that the letters ‘n’ and ‘r’, but particularly ‘n’ are written in capital letters where the rest is in small letters this results from the method they are taught where they copy the letters from examples in different books and so on, coupled with the difficulty in changing from Cyrillic to Latin script. They often get confused between capital and small letters.
Now to the letter marked JS/40. This type of letter is familiar to me. It is typical of a summons to an agent for a clandestine meeting, usually after an accidental break in communications with an agent. It is deprived of any specific details like a date, time and place of the meeting because the agent and KGB officer know from previous agreement what they are. Secondly, tradecraft doesn’t permit one to reveal vital details in case the note was intercepted or lost. Also the writing and the wording reminds me very much of the way Russian officers would do it.
The note JS/41. I find this very interesting and striking. It looks very much like a note made by an agent listening to the instructions of his case officer. On the fourth line down he makes a note about the signalisation, as it is called in the KGB, to be used in the course of clandestine meetings. A vertical line is a signal of danger, which means the agent must take special measures because either he or the officer may be under hostile observation. The horizontal line with the words “come next day” means that today’s clandestine meeting for some reason cannot take place and for some reason is being postponed to the next day, usually the same time and the same place. Those two visual signals are the most usual ones used by the KGB in the communication both with the agents and the above mentioned “illegals”. Practically speaking today only the SVR and the GRU (Russian Military Intelligence Service) would use these signals in intelligence operations. These signals are put by chalk or marker pen on a lamp post or gate post or telephone wiring box or something like that, so that they can easily be seen by the agent, even while driving in a car past the site. The last two lines are very typical for the KGB clandestine communication agreements. For me, the first words mean the date and place of the next meeting and the following words mean if it will not be possible to carry out the meeting, then to carry it out at the same place and time the next week.
Signed O. Gordievsky Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 177
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Oleg Gordievsky
I have never visited Horsenden Hill, but
I know where it is and it is a typically suitable place for KGB clandestine
meetings. It is within the 25 mile limit and also not in the centre of
The note JS/42 is full of messages for me as a former KGB officer. It looks for me like a note made by a well disciplined agent, listening carefully to the instructions of his case officer, in order not to miss or forget anything. By disciplined, I mean an agent who uncritically receives the instructions of the officer and follows them precisely. From the point of view of the KGB only it’s best agents are disciplined. The first half of the note is the officer explaining the best route to the meeting place. The agent has underlined the word “suggest”" twice which means that the officer emphasised these words so that in effect they are orders and that is why the agent underlines them. The officer gives these orders with an objective in mind and this is usually to control the route taken to the meeting by the agent so that counter-surveillance can be used by the officer and his colleagues from the Russian residency to see if the agent is being followed by the British security authorities. A second reason for arranging a route to the meeting for the agent in advance is so visual signals can be left for him. On the next lines is the ritual reminder of what to do if contact is broken as I have previously explained on the note JS/41. At each meeting the case officer discusses the agent’s professional future with him because the KGB is interested in continuing to enjoy the agent’s access or, better, to improve it or expand it. So, the last two lines may be about the future of the agent, or about the work that the agent has access to, and what will happen to that in the future.
With regard to note marked JS/43 there is a difference between this note and the others, JS/41, JS/42 and JS/44. The signalisation is different, in that colours are indicated
Signed O. Gordievsky Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 178
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Oleg Gordievsky
and the use of a magazine or newspaper probably as an indicator or a sign of identity. While I feel that the note indicates communication in the intelligence field, qualitatively the difference indicates that this note refers to a different stage in the case officer/agent relationship either before or after the period represented by the other notes.
The note JS/44 I regard as the most
interesting, because it looks like a memo where the agent has recorded the most
important elements of his conversation with the case officer. On the left side
it states “1. get Karl’s Address and telephone number” which is an instruction
from the case officer. The KGB uses its agents for “talent spotting”, that is in
order to recruit more agents, they ask for people’s details to be obtained by
the established agent so that they may be approached by KGB officers. After this
at number 2, the agent is trying to draw the object where the case officer is
telling him that the signals will be put but it is not clear what the object is.
The signals are the same as on JS/41 which are typical elements of KGB
signalisation. On the next line is the location
Signed O. Gordievsky Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 179
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Oleg Gordievsky
lists of the line-X of the KGB work. Line-X is concerned with illicit acquisition of high technological industrial and scientific secrets, usually important or relevant to the military production. About a third of all KGB officers belong to this line-X branch and their job is the acquisition, usually through agents, of that information. On note JS/44 under the requirements list I see the discussion of the delivery of something substantial, like a bundle of documents or a bulky item. Finally a reminder of the standing arrangements if contact is lost.
I have been asked why an agent would keep such notes, well according to the tradecraft an agent is not supposed to keep incriminating notes but the case officer’s interest is that the agent complies with the instructions he is given and turns up at the meetings and remembers what to do before the next meeting. This interest overrides the consideration of the agent’s security. The case officer is interested in short term success for his own career, allowing the agent to make notes thus jeopardising the long term future of the agent. Throughout this statement “case officer” refers to an officer of the KGB or SVR, which are effectively the same thing, who is responsible for all aspects of the control of the agent which would include meeting him and receiving information from him. The GRU is very similar to the line-X KGB and uses similar tradecraft.
From my experience of 23 years in the KGB I can confidently state that these notes JS/41 to JS/44, were made in response to the instructions of a KGB case officer, or possibly GRU. It was impossible for the person making the notes not to realise he was dealing with an intelligence service, because of the numerous elements of the paraphernalia of espionage which are the signalisation, the directions to follow a specific route, the contact and fall back arrangements, the sophisticated requirements list and the possible evidence of talent spotting.
Signed O. Gordievsky Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 180
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF D. G. BARLOW
Age of Witness (date of birth) 44 (3 March 1948)
Occupation of Witness Quality Manager
Address and Telephone Number Hirst Research Centre
Dated 20 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I have been
employed at HRC for eight years. For the last seven years I have headed the QA
Department. From Dec. 1985 Michael John SMITH was employed in my department.
Throughout this period he usually arrived by car between 8.45 and 9.15 am, and
left after 5.15 pm. His normal lunch break was one hour at any time between
12.00 and 2.00 pm. He was not a regular user of the canteen at lunch times and
quite often listened to music in his car. If he left the site, by car or on
foot, he was obliged to sign an attendance record although there was no check on
it. This applied to any absence during the working day.
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by A. Walsh DS
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 181
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Mrs C (Stella Rimington)
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 9 December 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to my statement dated the 9th
day of November 1992. I have examined JS/45, a street map of
Signed Mrs “C” Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 182
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Mrs C (Stella Rimington)
JS/66, a street map of
Signed Mrs “C” Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 183
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967, S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Philip Raymond BEAUCHAMP
Age of Witness (date of birth) 10 May 1931
Occupation of Witness Retired Quality Manager
Dated 2 September 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
From 1951 until 1991 I worked at Thorn EMI, Feltham, in the Quality Assurance field, mainly on the weapons projects carried out at the establishment. At about the beginning of the 1970’s I became Chief Quality Engineer. In 1976 I recall Mike SMITH joining the company; I put him onto the XN715 Fuze project as a Test Engineer with expectation that he would become a Quality Engineer. His job involved getting to understand the XN715 system; assisting the engineers in testing the development product; assessing the testability of the product; processing fault data associated with the product. To achieve these requirements he needed full access to XN715 data, comprising drawings, specifications (requirements and test) and physical hardware. He worked on the project for two years until I was asked to arrange his removal from the project on to other work. Today Detective Sergeant SMITH has shown me a number of documents in marked bags: RH/26, RH/17, PMS/23. In respect of these, there is nothing relating to the XN715 project or any other classified weapons related work at EMI Feltham to my knowledge. However, I have been shown a sheet of paper RH/13; I am unable to determine any significance to it.
Signed P. R. Beauchamp Signature witnessed by Paul Smith D/S
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 184
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967, S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Alan RENNIE
Age of Witness (date of birth) 28 September 1938
Occupation of Witness Senior Scientific Officer, Ministry of Defence
Dated 6 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am a senior scientific officer in the
Ministry of Defence, and have worked for this Ministry and its predecessors
since 1960. I am aware that in about 1975 and 1976 EMI Electronics Limited, now
known as THORN EMI Electronics Limited, were commissioned by the Ministry of
Defence to develop a production model of a radar fuse for use in the British
free fall nuclear bomb WE177. The THORN EMI development code for this fuse is
XN715. The production of this fuse ceased in about 1988 but THORN EMIE continue
to refurbish the fuses which are still in operational use. This fuse was
manufactured solely in the
Signed A. Rennie Signature witnessed by M. Morrissey DI
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 185
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Jeffrey SINGLTON
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Dated 7 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am
exhibits officer in the case of
Signed J. Singleton DS Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 186
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Mrs C (Stella Rimington)
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 10 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I refer to my previous statements dated
9 November and 9 December 1992. I have been asked to expand on my expertise. I
joined the Security Service in October 1969 and for the following five years was
a member of the section studying the operational methods and techniques of
intelligence services of countries hostile to the
Signed Mrs “C” Signature witnessed by M. Gray DCI
Witness Statement Page 187
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Mrs C (Stella Rimington)
Intelligence gathering is like
completing a jigsaw, every piece, while not necessarily of high value in itself,
can be of great value in building up the whole picture. This is particularly
true in the Science and Technology (S&T) field, where classification of
individual pieces of information is not necessarily a true reflection of their
worth to an enemy. Sometimes a small, seemingly innocuous piece of information,
can be of value in adding to information already received or ongoing research.
RFIS remain active also in Europe and North America and information gained in
these countries as well as the
Signed Mrs “C” Signature witnessed by M. Gray DCI
Witness Statement Page 188
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Oleg Gordievsky
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 5 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to my statement of the 10th
December 1992 I have been asked by Detective Inspector Morrissey to provide some
documentary evidence of my previous employment in the KGB, the Committee of
State Security of the
Signed O. Gordievsky Signature witnessed by M. Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 189
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Oleg Gordievsky
corner the series of the identity card
NK-4. A line on the right hand side says “valid until 31st December 1985”. On
the right hand side of the card the text says “Committee of State Security of
USSR. Identity card NK No. 3406 Lieutenant-Colonel GORDIEVSKY Oleg Antonovich.
Holding the office of Senior Assistant of Department Head. The owner of this
card is permitted to store and to carry arms. Deputy Chairman of State Security”
(signed). On the right hand side is the same emblem as on the left of the card.
I produce this card as exhibit OG/1. When I was escaping from
Signed O. Gordievsky Signature witnessed by M. Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 190
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Michael Anthony BYRNES
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 26 April 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On April
23rd 1993 the financial controller of the company which employs me, Jacqueline
Beck, asked me, in my capacity of credit controller, to gather all the available
paperwork and computer held records on the financial transactions between The
Synthesizer Company Limited and Mr Mike Smith of 48A Burton Road,
Kingston-Upon-Thames, Surrey. This was, she said, in response to a request from
police to obtain a statement from a representative of the company in regard to
monies received from Smith and products purchased by him. On Monday, 26th April
1993 DC Richards of New Scotland Yard attended my office and showed me two
exhibits marked JS/39 and RR/3, and asked me to explain the difference in prices
quoted on JS/39, a preliminary quotation, and RR/3 a handwritten receipt. He
also asked me to list all items purchased by Smith from The Synthesizer Company.
Exhibit JS/39, described as two pieces of paper, ignoring that headed ‘SYCO
Invoice’, is in essence a preliminary quotation prior to the making of a
contract, the prices found thereon are all approximate and open to negotiation.
All the items listed on the quotation, except that described as ‘CNI RMCD,
44MBHD and CD ROM’ were purchased by Smith under Order number S7253. RR/3, a
handwritten receipt, is a document in confirmation of Smith’s payment of
£10,062.50 for these and other goods under Order number S7253. The discrepancies
between prices quoted and those paid by Smith are a result of haggling between
Smith and the representative with whom he dealt. A list of items purchased by
Smith on this occasion is held on invoices, copies of which I gave to DC
Richards on the 26th April 1993 and which I submit as
Signed M. Byrnes Signature witnessed by R. Richards DC
Witness Statement Page 191
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Michael Anthony BYRNES
exhibit
MAB/1. These all relate to Order No. S7253 but two bear different Order numbers
being S16847 and S7488. This can be accounted for by our warehouse being out of
stock of the products listed at the time of ordering and their having to be
recorded under another reference. The invoice total for the goods is £10,062.49,
a difference of £0.01 which is a rounding up of the VAT charged on the deal. I
was also shown by DC Richards an exhibit marked RR/1, a statement of the account
of Mr Mike Smith. This is a true record of his account as relates to Order S7253
but is not a full record of all Smith’s transactions. I produce a full account
of Smith’s dealings with The Synthesizer Company as exhibit MAB/2 and include in
this exhibit invoices relating to the balance of his dealings with my company
outside those dealt with in exhibit MAB/1. I am willing to attend Court as a
witness if necessary.
Signed M. Byrnes Signature witnessed by R. Richards DC
Witness Statement Page 192
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Michael Anthony BYRNES
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 27 April 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to
my statement dated 26th April 1993, DC Richards re-attended my office on 27th
April 1993 at 10.30. DC Richards packaged and sealed exhibits MAB/1 and MAB/2 in
my presence and I signed the labels affixed to both. MAB/1 I describe as five
(5) sheets of invoice paper relating to purchases by Mike Smith. MAB/2 I
describe as the history of transactions of Mike Smith plus four (4) sheets of
invoice paper. Both exhibits were as I had handed them to DC Richards on 26th
April 1993.
Signed M. Byrnes Signature witnessed by R. Richards DC
Witness Statement Page 193
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Ronald GILBERTSON
Age of Witness (date of birth) Over 21
Dated 7 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On
Thursday, 7th May 1993 I attended an annex of the Metropolitan Police Forensic
Laboratory at Denmark Hill,
Signed R. Gilbertson DS Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 194
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Marcia Anita ASHWOOD-LUCK
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 22 April 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am the
owner of two florist shops in the
Signed M. A. Ashwood-Luck Signature witnessed by C Robson DC
Witness Statement Page 195
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Marcia Anita ASHWOOD-LUCK
have to
attend court and give evidence if required. I would like to add that whoever is
delivering flowers would usually take a full load of flowers and only come back
to either shop once or twice during the day.
Signed M. A. Ashwood-Luck Signature witnessed by C Robson DC
Witness Statement Page 196
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Colin BUTLER
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 20 April 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I have
assisted selling flowers, generally helping out, in Tudor Florists at
Signed C. Butler Signature witnessed by C Robson DC
Witness Statement Page 197
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF David WHEELER
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 20 April 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am
employed as a storeman for Albright Engineering,
Signed D. Wheeler Signature witnessed by Christine Robson DC
Witness Statement Page 198
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Frederick Albert WHEELER
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 22 April 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I have been
retired for just over four years, however, to help my daughter-in-law, Susan
WHEELER, I help to deliver flowers for Ashwood and Tudor Florists on an ad-hoc
basis. Both shops are owned by Mrs Marcia ASHWOOD-LUCK. The Tudor Florists shop
is at
Signed F. A. Wheeler Signature witnessed by C Robson DC
Witness Statement Page 199
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Stephen John BEELS
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 4 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I have
examined exhibits RH/21, PMS/14 and RH/20, British passports issued to Michael
John SMITH, born 22nd September 1948, in particular the entry and exit stamps,
and visas, entered on the various passport pages. Exhibit RH/21, passport No.
P498414 issued at
DATE
|
STAMP |
LOCATION |
20(?)-07-70
14-08-70
17-08-70
17-08-70
17-08-70
20-08-70
20-08-70
09-09-70
09-09-70
12-07-71
20-07-71
05-08-71
19-10-72
02-11-72 |
Entry
Entry
Exit
Visa
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit
Entry
Entry
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit |
|
Signed S. Beels DS Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 200
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Stephen BEELS
DATE
|
STAMP |
LOCATION |
27-07-73
01-09-73
15-09-73
16-08-74
21-06-76
19-08-76
26-08-76 |
Entry
Entry
Exit
Entry
Visa
Entry
Entry |
|
Exhibit
PMS/14, passport No. 611898B issued at
DATE
|
STAMP |
LOCATION |
11-08-77
11-08-77
13-08-77
20-09-78
21-09-78
21-07-79
08-06-80
24-06-80
07-09-86 |
Exit
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit
Entry
Entry
Exit
Entry |
|
Exhibit
RH/20, passport No. 516314L issued at
DATE
|
STAMP |
LOCATION |
10-09-88
24-09-88 |
Entry
Exit |
|
Signed S. Beels DS Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 201
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Judith Elizabeth RUSHTON
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 29 April 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am a
personnel assistant for Eli Lilly and Company, a pharmaceutical manufacturers
with whom I have worked for two years. I have today met with Detective Constable
Christine Robson regarding Michael John SMITH who, I have been informed, has
been charged with offences under the Official Secrets Act. SMITH was due to
begin employment with our company on the 10th August 1992, as a Temporary
Procedures Writer, the anticipated duration of his employment was to November
1992, although this could have been extended. SMITH’s C.V. was faxed to us on
the 17th June 1992 by Lab Staff Ltd, an employment agency, I now refer to this
fax as JER/1. I am also in possession of a letter of confirmation of employment
from Lab Staff Ltd dated 24th July 1992, setting out SMITH’s contract with us, I
now refer to this as JER/2. I have been asked to retain both originals of these
exhibits pending court proceedings. I understand that I may have to attend court
and give evidence.
Signed Judy E. Rushton Signature witnessed by C Robson DC
Witness Statement Page 202
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF James Edward SYKES
Age if under 21 47
Dated 21 April 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I have
today spoken with Detective Sergeant BEELS from New Scotland Yard regarding a
Michael John SMITH who I have been informed has been charged with offences under
the Official Secrets Act. I am Advisor of Pharmaceutical Training for Lilly
Industries. I have examined my records and can confirm that a Michael J. SMITH
attended two introductory G.M.P. (Good Management Practice) programmes on
Thursday 6th August 1992. The two courses are entitled ‘GMP For New Employees’
and ‘You’ll Soon Feel Better’. These courses are held at our training rooms at
Lilly Industries,
Signed J. E. Sykes Signature witnessed by S. Beels D/S
Witness Statement Page 203
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
James Edward SYKES
(You’ll Soon Feel Better)’ as exhibit JES/2. This second form was also dated 5th August 1992. Although both forms are dated 5.8.92 I have examined my business diary and can confirm that the relevant courses in fact took place on 6th August, 1992, a Thursday. I have photocopied the relevant page (6.8.92) from my diary and now refer to this as exhibit JES/3. JES/1 and JES/2 are also photocopies and were photocopied by myself. I have been requested to retain the originals of all three exhibits pending future court proceedings. I can recall hearing of Michael SMITH being arrested over the following weekend probably on the radio or television. It was on the following Tuesday that I was informed that it was the same gentleman who was meant to commence employment with us.
Signed J. E. Sykes Signature witnessed by S. Beels D/S
Witness Statement Page 204
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Raymond WRIGHT
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 29 April 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am
Security Manager for Eli Lilly and Company, pharmaceutical manufacturers with
whom I have worked for almost 30 years. I have met with Detective Constable
Robson from New Scotland Yard regarding Michael John SMITH who, I have been
informed, has been charged with offences under the Official Secrets Act. I can
confirm that at no time did Eli Lilly & Co. place SMITH or his address at 48A
Burton Road, Kingston-upon-Thames, under any form of surveillance prior to the
8th August 1992.
Signed R. Wright Signature witnessed by C Robson DC
Witness Statement Page 205
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Martin Charles GRAY
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 21 April 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am a
Detective Chief Inspector attached to Metropolitan Police Special Branch at New
Scotland Yard. Special Branch did not place Michael John SMITH or his home
address at 48A Burton Road, Kingston-Upon-Thames,
Signed M. Gray Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 206
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Stephen John BEELS (Detective Sergeant)
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 4 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I have
examined exhibit MN/13, a GEC Hirst Research Centre Audit Schedule, and
identified from the initials MJS appearing under the heading Auditors those
audit areas in which Michael John SMITH was the auditor, alone or with another.
I produce this chronological list for the period 24th April 1986 to 23rd July
1992 as exhibit SJB/44.
Signed S. Beels DS Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 207
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Dr. Steven Langford CUNDY
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 26 April 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 14
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I have been asked to provide evidence that GEC Hirst Research Centre is a prohibited place within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act. I am not aware that the Ministry of Defence or Her Majesty’s Government issue certificates to confirm such a status. However, my belief that HRC is a prohibited place, and has been for many years, is based on the following facts: (a) A reading of the OSA Section 3(b). HRC has sketches, models, plans and documents relating to the repair, manufacture and development of munitions of war where the ultimate customer, through chains of subcontractors, is MoD. (b) HRC has direct contacts with various establishments of the Defence Research Agency who may be managing MoD’s extra-mural research procurement or who may be procuring components, subsystems or information directly for their own work on behalf of the MoD. (c) HRC has a Security Adviser appointed by MoD to oversee the implementation of security related procedures in its work, (d) HRC has had, almost certainly at any point in time, at least one contract from the MoD which was classified in accordance with security procedures. Such classification identifies material which the MoD regards as sensitive and which, by definition, confirms that some contracts relate to munitions of war. I have been asked to comment about the classification of documents held at HRC and to discuss the fact that not all documents, rightly regarded as sketches, plans, or information relating to munitions of war, bear the security classification appropriate to the final munition of war. The Rapier air defence missile system almost certainly is a classified system, yet Cossor delivered blueprints to HRC for the manufacture of a component of the Rapier
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by S. Beels D/S
Witness Statement Page 208
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dr. Steven Langford CUNDY
system that
were not classified and HRC created related documentation, to enable that
manufacture, which was not classified.
Such occurrences are normal and are encouraged by MoD. They form an
essential demonstration of the ‘need to know’ principle by minimising the number
of people who have complete knowledge about a system. ‘Freeing up’ the
manufacturing chain, so that relatively lowly tasks are not encumbered by
draconian security precautions, ensures secrecy of ultimate use by requiring
people in the chain to recognise (or be told) what is sensitive and structure
the next lower level tasks in a way which does not reveal the sensitive
information. If every task bore the classification of the ultimate objective
then the manufacture of certain nuts and bolts would be ‘top secret’. The
objective is to stop that reductio ad absurdum and reduce the number of people
who have access to classified information to an absolute minimum. Note that even
I cannot assert that the Rapier system is classified; I can only surmise that is
the case. I have been asked to comment on the suggestion that the Rapier
documentation found in Smith’s possession might have been the result of some
hasty clearing by him of his place of work. This is an unbelievable assertion.
The sheer bulk of the documentation including folded blueprints, which do not
sit easily in a pile of A4 size paper, makes it beyond belief that the removal
of documentation was a ghastly error. Moreover, the documentation was removed
from a filing cabinet to which Mr Smith did not have or need regular access
although the filing cabinet was in the shared office that Mr Smith ended up
occupying alone. Associated with the above suggestion I have been asked to
comment whether Mr Smith left HRC in haste. This is certainly not the case. As
is our normal practice in cases of redundancy, Mr Smith had consultation with
his immediate superior and the Personnel Manager prior to the issue of a formal
letter declaring the redundancy and was permitted to work out his statutory
notice period of at least 4 weeks before the redundancy took effect. He was paid
for work for the month of July and redundancy payment by cheque was sent on 31st
July to his home address. Detective Sergeant Beels has shown me Smith’s
personnel file at HRC, marked MN/9, which contains a copy of a letter dated May
29 1992 from the HRC
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by S. Beels D/S
Witness Statement Page 209
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dr. Steven Langford CUNDY
Personnel
Manager to Mr Smith formally confirming his position as Quality Audit Manager
redundant and his last working day at HRC as 31st July 1992. There was certainly
enough time between the declaration of a leaving date and that date for a
collection for a leaving present to be organised and a departmental party to be
arranged. This was not a hasty departure. Detective Sergeant Beels has shown me
completed time-sheets, marked SLC/1, for Quality Assurance Unit personnel at
HRC, including Mr Smith, covering the period 1st April 1990 to 31st July 1992.
The time-sheet for 30th July 1992 shows that Mr Smith signed in at 9.20am and
out at 12.28pm and the one for 31st July 1992 shows he signed in at 9.27am
although no leaving time is entered. Detective Sergeant Beels has shown me an
Audit Schedule list at 30th July 1992, marked MN/13. He has asked me to examine
a chronological sequence of reports issued by the Q.A. department (marked
SJB/44), drawn up by Special Branch from MN/13, relating to audits undertaken by
M.J. Smith either alone or with another auditor. I have identified each report
by its report number and commented on the military sensitivities in the relevant
areas. My commenting system consists of: Y (Yes) - Known military contracts in
the area. Contracts visible. P (Part) -Known military subcontract work in the
area, often surrounded by similar work not of military significance, but
contract chain well disguised. N (No) - No known military contract subcontract
work in the area.
Report
number |
Date |
Audit Area |
Sensitivity |
636.01
633.01
631.01
635.01
628.01
628.02
628.03
629.01
627.01 |
23.7.92
18.6.92
11.6.92
9.6.92
21.5.92
21.5.92
21.5.92
19.5.92
14.5.92 |
Optical Spectroscopy
Photonics Division Blue Book Review
Micro Machining
Biosensors
Vacuum Micro Electronics Test Area
Vacuum Micro Electronics Test Area
Vacuum Micro Electronics Test Area
Analytical Chemistry
Millimetre Wave |
P Y P P Y Y Y P P |
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by S. Beels D/S
Witness Statement Page 210
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dr. Steven Langford CUNDY
Report
number |
Date |
Audit Area |
Sensitivity |
9203.01
9203.02
626.01
625.01
621.01
621.02
621.03
619.01
618.01
620.01
620.02
617.01
616.01
615.01
614.01
614.02
613.01
612.02
612.01
609.01
608.01
607.01
607.02
9201.01
606.01
605.01
604.01
603.01 |
8.5.92
8.5.92
7.5.92
30.4.92
15.4.92
15.4.92
15.4.92
15.4.92
15.4.92
14.4.92
14.4.92
9.4.92
9.4.92
9.4.92
2.4.92
2.4.92
2.4.92
26.3.92
26.3.92
20.2.92
13.2.92
13.2.92
13.2.92
31.1.92
23.1.92 17.
1.92
17.1.92
13.1.92 |
Display & Optical Research Lab (SC)
Display & Optical Research Lab (SC)
Quality Support Environ Montrng
Systems Theory
Safety
Safety
Safety
Goods Inwards Despatch
Stores
Personnel & Training
Personnel & Training
Polymer Technology
Vacuum Micro Electronics
Electronics (Liquid Cryst)
Calibration System
Calibration System
Metallurgical Services
Deviation Report System
Deviation Report System
Crystallography
Thick Film Unit
Lighting
Lighting
Quality Assurance Unit
Photonics Division Blue Book Review
Purchasing
Metallurgical Technology |
Y Y N P N N N N N N N Y Y N N N P N N P Y P P N Y Y N P |
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by S. Beels D/S
Witness Statement Page 211
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dr. Steven Langford CUNDY
Report
number |
Date |
Audit Area |
Sensitivity |
602.01 602.02 9112.01 600.01 9111.01 599.01 598.01 597.01 596.01 596.02 595.01 594.01 593.01 590.01 590.02 588.01 586.01 9110.01 9110.02 584.01 582.01 583.01 583.02 581.01 580.01 580.02 580.03 9108.01 |
9.1.92 9.1.92 19.12.91 18.12.91 11.12.91 11.12.91 10.12.91 10.12.91 5.12.91 5.12.91 5.12.91 22.11.91 21.11.91 12.11.91 12.11.91 7.11.91 6.11.91 29.10.91 29.10.91 11.10.91 9.10.91 7.10.91 7.10.91 4.10.91 4.10.91 4.10.91 4.10.91 24.9.91 |
IC Assembly IC Assembly Device Applications Lab Applications Group LAN Analyser Design Office Operating System Special Projects BAW Delay Lines Metallurgical Services Meniscograph Metallurgical Services Meniscograph TACAN repairs Electrochemistry Group Software Control QDA DC 158 LCD Supermarket Displays LCD Supermarket Displays Olfactory Research Project Device Failure Analysis Chemistry & Materials FAB LAB (MB) Chemistry & Materials FAB LAB (MB) Laser Testing Holography and Backplanes RP004 236 RP004 236 Quality Doc Operating Procedure Information Services Division Information Services Division Information Services Division |
P P Y P N P P Y N N Y P Y N N P P P P Y N Y Y N N N N P |
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by S. Beels D/S
Witness Statement Page 212
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dr. Steven Langford CUNDY
Report
number |
Date |
Audit Area |
Sensitivity |
573.01
573.02
573.03
572.01
571.00
574.01
569.01
569.02
569.03
569.04
568.01
567.01
566.01
9105.01
565.01
564.01
563.01
562.01
561.01
561.02
561.03
561.04
560.01
560.02
560.03
559.01
9103.01
558.01
553.01 |
29.8.91
29.8.91
29.8.91
28.8.91
28.8.91
20.8.91
19.8.91
19.8.91
19.8.91
19.8.91
15.8.91
15.8.91
14.8.91
13.8.91
13.8.91
12.8.91
6.8.91
31.7.91
31.7.91
31.7.91
31.7.91
31.7.91
26.7.91
26.7.91
26.7.91
25.7.91
24.7.91
16.7.91
26.6.91 |
Gamma Calibrators
Gamma Calibrators
Gamma Calibrators
Active Matrix Group
Picker Hammersmith Group
Image Processing Group
Chemical Services Gases & Chems
Chemical Services Gases & Chems
Chemical Services Gases & Chems
Chemical Services Gases & Chems
Applied Chemistry
Superlattices
Silicon Group
Telecomms Local Systems Lab (TL)
Speech Processing Group
Computer Vision & Perception
Accounts
Engineering Workshop
Applied Chemistry
Applied Chemistry
Applied Chemistry
Applied Chemistry
Product Safety
Product Safety
Product Safety
Optical Spectroscopy
Telecomms Systems Integration Dept (TS)
Oscilloscope Maintenance ESD
Precautions |
Y Y Y Y N P N N N N P P Y N P P N P Y Y Y Y N N N P Y N N |
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by S. Beels D/S
Witness Statement Page 213
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dr. Steven Langford CUNDY
Report
number |
Date |
Audit Area |
Sensitivity |
553.02
552.00
9101.01
550.01
550.02
550.03
550.04
550.05
550.06
550.07
549.01
547.01
547.02
545.01
545.02
539.01
539.02
539.03
538.01
538.02
537.01
537.02
536.01
535.01
533.01
533.02
533.03 |
26.6.91
11.6.91
7.6.91
17.5.91
17.5.91
17.5.91
17.5.91
17.5.91
17.5.91
17.5.91
16.5.91
15.5.91
15.5.91
18.4.91
18.4.91
9.4.91
9.4.91
9.4.91
19.3.91
19.3.91
19.3.91
19.3.91
14.3.91
14.3.91
13.3.91
13.3.91
13.3.91 |
ESD
Precautions
Test & Inspection
Signal Processing Systems Lab (IP)
Central Computing Unit
Central Computing Unit
Central Computing Unit
Central Computing Unit
Central Computing Unit
Central Computing Unit
Central Computing Unit
High Temp Superconducting Devices Div
CPNS
CPNS
Polymer Technology
Polymer Technology
Large Area Micro Electronics Division
Large Area Micro Electronics Division
Large Area Micro Electronics Division Top
Management Quality System Top
Management Quality System
Liquid Crystal Devices Division
Liquid Crystal Devices Division
Evaluation of CFC Alternatives
Image Intensifiers H002056323
Biosensors
Biosensors
Biosensors |
N P P P P P P P P P Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N N P P N Y P P P |
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by S. Beels D/S
Witness Statement Page 214
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dr. Steven Langford CUNDY
Report
number |
Date |
Audit Area |
Sensitivity |
532-01
531.01
531.02
531.03
531.04
531.05
529.01
530.01
528.01
528.02
528.03
527.01
526.01
525.01
522.01
522.02
522.03
522.04
520.01
519.01
519.02
524.01
524.02
524.03
518.01
517.01
516.01
516.02 |
12.3.91
8.3.91
8.3.91
8.3.91
8.3.91
8.3.91
7.3.91
6.3.91
5.3.91
5.3.91
5.3.91
4.3.91
20.2.91
8.2.91
29.1.91
29.1.91
29.1.91
29.1.91
24.1.91
23.1.91
23.1.91
22.1.91
22.1.91
22.1.91
18.1.91
17.1.91
17.1.91
17.1.91 |
Micro Machining SBE
& AM Assembly Group SBE
& AM Assembly Group SBE
& AM Assembly Group SBE
& AM Assembly Group SBE
& AM Assembly Group
Goods Inward Despatch
Vacuum Micro Electronics Test Area
Deviation Report System
Deviation Report System
Deviation Report System
Metallurgical Services
Safety
Crystallography
Calibration System
Calibration System
Calibration System
Calibration System
Laboratory General System (DAL)
Site Engineer
Site Engineer
Vacuum Micro Electronics Processing
Vacuum Micro Electronics Processing
Vacuum Micro Electronics Processing
Personnel & Training
Stores |
P Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N N P N Y N N N N Y N N Y Y Y N N Y Y |
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by S. Beels D/S
Witness Statement Page 215
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dr. Steven Langford CUNDY
Report
number |
Date |
Audit Area |
Sensitivity |
516.03 513.01 513.02 513.03 513.04 513.05 513.06 509.01 511.01 512.01 510.01 508.01 506.01 506.02 504.01 504.02 503.01 507.01 505.01 505.02 505.03 501.01 501.02 501.03 501.04 501.05 500.01 499.01 |
17.1.91 3.1.91 3.1.91 3.1.91 3.1.91 3.1.91 3.1.91 18.12.90 18.12.90 13.12.90 13.12.90 3.12.90 29.11.90 29.11.90 29.11.90 29.11.90 29.11.90 28.11.90 27.11.90 27.11.90 27.11.90 13.11.90 13.11.90 13.11.90 13.11.90 13.11.90 13.11.90 8.11.90 |
Systems Theory Systems Theory Systems Theory Systems Theory Systems Theory Systems Theory IC Assembly AMSYS Vacuum Micro Electronics GPT Proposal 90108 Lighting Quality Support Inspection Procs Quality Support Inspection Procs Materials Processing Dept Materials Processing Dept (DAL) Trident X Ray Orientation Purchasing Electro Chemistry Group Electro Chemistry Group Electro Chemistry Group BAW Delay Lines BAW Delay Lines BAW Delay Lines BAW Delay Lines BAW Delay Lines Software Control QDA DC 158 (DAL) Design Office Operating System |
Y P P P P P P P P Y N P N N Y Y Y N P P P Y Y Y Y Y Y P |
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by S. Beels D/S
Witness Statement Page 216
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dr. Steven Langford CUNDY
Report number |
Date |
Audit Area |
Sensitivity |
499.02 499.03 498.01 496.01 496.02 497.01 495.01 494.01 494.02 494.03 494.04 486.01 486.02 486.03 484.01 481.01 480.01 480.02 480.03 482.01 482.02 482.03 482.04 482.05 479.01 479.02 479.03 479.04 |
8.11.90 8.11.90 8.11.90 1.11.90 1.11.90 19.10.90 15.10.90 9.10.90 9.10.90 9.10.90 9.10.90 29.8.90 29.8.90 29.8.90 10.8.90 8.8.90 7.8.90 7.8.90 7.8.90 3.8.90 3.8.90 3.8.90 3.8.90 3.8.90 25.7.90 25.7.90 25.7.90 25.7.90 |
Design Office Operating System Design Office Operating System Metallurgical Technology TACAN Repairs TACAN Repairs Management System (EEV) AB Dick Contract CB46015 Device Failure Analysis Device Failure Analysis Device Failure Analysis Device Failure Analysis GPT Proposal 90301 GPT Proposal 90301 GPT Proposal 90301 Photography Applications Group Laser Systems Laser Systems Laser Systems Quality Doc Operating Procedure Quality Doc Operating Procedure Quality Doc Operating Procedure Quality Doc Operating Procedure Quality Doc Operating Procedure Chemical Services Gases & Chems Chemical Services Gases & Chems Chemical Services Gases & Chems Chemical Services Gases & Chems |
P P P Y Y Y N P P P P N N N N P Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N |
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by S. Beels D/S
Witness Statement Page 217
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dr. Steven Langford CUNDY
Report
number |
Date |
Audit Area |
Sensitivity |
478.01
474.01
474.02
474.03
474.04
474.05
474.06
473.01
472.01
470.01
470.02
470.03
470.04
470.05
468.02
468.01
467.01
467.02
467.03
466.01
465.01
465.02
464.01
463.01
463.02
463.03
463.04
463.05 |
25.7.90
3.7.90
3.7.90
3.7.90
3.7.90
3.7.90
3.7.90
2.7.90
22.6.90
21.6.90
21.6.90
21.6.90
21.6.90
21.6.90
31.5.90
31.5.90
31.5.90
31.5.90
31.5.90
24.5.90
24.5.90
24.5.90
21.5.90
9.5.90
9.5.90
9.5.90
9.5.90
9.5.90 |
Engineering Workshop
Metallurgical Services Meniscograph
Metallurgical Services Meniscograph
Metallurgical Services Meniscograph
Metallurgical Services Meniscograph
Metallurgical Services Meniscograph
Metallurgical Services Meniscograph
Digital Optical Systems
Speech Processing Group
Glass Fabrication
Glass Fabrication
Glass Fabrication
Glass Fabrication
Glass Fabrication
Image Processing Group
Image Processing Group
Thick Film Unit
Thick Film Unit
Thick Film Unit
Optical Spectroscopy
Applied Chemistry
Applied Chemistry
EBMF Facility General System
Picker Hammersmith Group
Picker Hammersmith Group
Picker Hammersmith Group
Picker Hammersmith Group
Picker Hammersmith Group |
P N N N N N N N P N N N N N P P Y Y Y P P P Y N N N N N |
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by S. Beels D/S
Witness Statement Page 218
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dr. Steven Langford CUNDY
Report
number |
Date |
Audit Area |
Sensitivity |
462.01
461.01
460.01
460.02
460.03
460.04
459.01
459.02
459.03
455.01
451.01
451.02
450.01
450.02
450.03
447.01
447.02
446.01
446.02
446.03
445.01
445.02
445.03
445.04
444.01
443.01
443.02
443.03 |
2.5.90
30.4.90
30.4.90
30.4.90
30.4.90
30.4.90
24.4.90
24.4.90
24.4.90
5.4.90
20.3.90
20.3.90
8.3.90
8.3.90
8.3.90
1.3.90
1.3.90
26.2.90
26.2.90
26.2.90
22.2.90
22.2.90
22.2.90
22.2.90
16.2.90
16.2.90
16.2.90
16.2.90 |
Laser Interactions GP OPT MATS ASS
Quality Support Environ Montrng
Plasma Deposition
Plasma Deposition
Plasma Deposition
Plasma Deposition
Analytical Chemistry
Analytical Chemistry
Analytical Chemistry
Fibre & I/O Devices
Laser Energy Meters
Laser Energy Meters
Polymer Technology
Polymer Technology
Polymer Technology
Deviation Report System
Deviation Report System
Metallurgical Services
Metallurgical Services
Metallurgical Services
Molecular Beam Epitaxy
Molecular Beam Epitaxy
Molecular Beam Epitaxy
Molecular Beam Epitaxy
Superlattices
Accounts
Accounts
Accounts |
Y N Y Y Y Y P P P N P P Y Y Y N N P P P Y Y Y Y P N N N |
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by S. Beels D/S
Witness Statement Page 219
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dr. Steven Langford CUNDY
Report
number |
Date |
Audit Area |
Sensitivity |
440.01
440.02
439.01
439.02
439.03
438.01
437.01
437.02
436.01
436.02
435.01
434.01
433.01
433.02
433.03
432.01
428.03
428.02
428.01 |
31.1.90
31.1.90
31.1.90
31.1.90
31.1.90
30.1.90
29.1.90
29.1.90
24.1.90
24.1.90
24.1.90
22.1.90
19.1.90
19.1.90
19.1.90
19.1.90
11.1.90
11.1.90
11.1.90 |
Goods Inwards Despatch
Goods Inwards Despatch
Stores
Stores
Stores
Data Communications Group
Data Communications Group
Crystallography
Crystallography Top
Management Quality System
Device Physics & Circuits
Systems Integration Group
Systems Integration Group
Systems Integration Group
LANS Group
Calibration System
Calibration System
Calibration System |
N N N N N Y N N P P N P P P P N N N N |
The audit
report schedule provides a clear insight to the type of work undertaken at HRC.
Some of that work is classified, some relates directly to military systems and
much is of a dual purpose - the technology is applicable to both military and
civil markets. The knowledge that certain military related operations are
carried out at HRC must be of use to an enemy of the State since that knowledge
forms part of an overall picture of the procurement and assembly of military
related material. Whilst the audit schedule per se might appear innocuous there
are overt references to military hardware (Trident, CMT, Tacan, Image
Intensifiers, Gamma calibrators) and so the list itself must be regarded as
sensitive. I was asked to comment on
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by S. Beels D/S
Witness Statement Page 220
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dr. Steven Langford CUNDY
whether Mr Smith would have recognised the documentation found in his possession relating to an F-band delay line as being part of the Rapier missile system. Mr Smith was personally involved in the audits of procedures and schedules in the relevant production area (Bulk Acoustic Wave Delay Lines). All documentation carries a NATO type number identifying the device as a military device. Amongst those with a need to know at HRC - the manufacturing staff and Q.A. personnel - the F-band delay line was colloquially referred to as the Rapier delay line. Mr Smith had a need to know as part of his job and therefore it is certain he was aware of the military significance and that the device and documentation related to Rapier.
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by S. Beels D/S
Witness Statement Page 221
Statement of Witness (C.J Act, 1967,
S.9; M.C. Act, 1980, S.102; M.C. Rules, 1981, r.70)
STATEMENT OF Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
Age of Witness (date of birth) 44 (3 March 1949)
Occupation of Witness Quality Manager
Dated 14 August 1992
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Today,
Friday 14th August 1992, at the Hirst Research Centre,
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
No. 991A
Witness Statement Page 222
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Martin MORRISSEY (Detective Inspector)
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 19 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to
my statement of the 8th. January 1993 I have re-examined the exhibit JS/44 a
handwritten note recovered from Michael John SMITH’s house. I have previously
produced a typewritten transcript of my reading of this note MSM/5. I consider
that the word on the second line on the left hand side of the note is
“redundancies”, NOT “redundant”. I have re-drafted a typewritten transcript of
this which I produce as exhibit MSM/6.
Signed Martin Morrissey DI Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 223
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Andrew WALSH (Detective Sergeant)
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 25 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I have
extracted pages 45 and 54 from the Greater London Street Atlas, published
jointly by Geographia Ltd. and the Automobile Association, and joined these
pages together to show an area of North West London, North from the
Signed A. Walsh DS Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 224
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Robert Felix Treharne RICHARDS
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 19 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Wednesday 19th May at 10.30am I went
to the Map Centre, Caxton Street, SW1 where I purchased a map (retained in my
possession) entitled “Premier Map London” ISBN Number 0 85039-019-2. I took this
map to the ‘Xerox Centre’ Buckingham Gate SW1 where I obtained a blown up A4
copy of a section of the map covering W14 and W8 areas of
Signed Robert Richards Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 225
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Robert Felix Treharne RICHARDS
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 19 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On
Wednesday 19 May, I went to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Protocol
Department at Horseguards Parade. There I was given copies of extracts from the
London Diplomatic lists from the years 1972 to 1979 inclusive. These I compared
to the original documents, held by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and
found them to be a fair copy. On reading the copies, I found the following
entries:
1972
“Monsieur Victor A. OSHCHENKO M. 3rd Secretary, 43
1973
“Monsieur Victor A. OSHCHENKO M. 3rd Secretary, 43
1974
“Monsieur Victor A. OSHCHENKO M. 3rd Secretary, 43
1975
“Monsieur Victor A. OSHCHENKO M. 3rd Secretary, 43
1976
“Monsieur Victor A. OSHCHENKO M. 3rd Secretary, 43
1977
“Monsieur Victor A. OSHCHENKO M. 3rd Secretary, 43
1978
“Monsieur Victor A. OSHCHENKO M. 3rd Secretary, 43
1979
“Monsieur Victor A. OSHCHENKO M. 3rd Secretary, 43
I took all
of these copies into my possession and produce them as exhibit RR/5.
Signed Robert Richards DC Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 226
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Malcolm MacLEOD (Detective Chief Superintendent)
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 27 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Monday,
22 February 1993 at 2.30 pm I visited a building in
Signed M. MacLeod DCS Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 227
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Oleg GORDIEVSKY
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 26 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I have been asked to expand upon my
career in the KGB. On 1st August 1962 I joined, at the age of 23, as a
Lieutenant. I was trained at the special KGB training facility just outside
Signed O. Gordievsky Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 228
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Oleg GORDIEVSKY
transferred to the 3rd Department of the
First Chief Directorate, responsible for the organisation of political espionage
and all administrative matters at the KGB stations in
Signed O. Gordievsky Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 229
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Oleg GORDIEVSKY
chewing gum on a bollard in
Signed O. Gordievsky Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 230
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 20 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 5
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I graduated
from
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by M Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 231
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
capacity to
my current employment. Between 1969 and 1980, I was employed by the Plessey
Company at their central R & D establishment, again in the role of quality
management for the majority of my employment. At the HRC, the role of the
Quality Assurance department is to ensure that order and contract requirements
are satisfied by a systematic management system. Documentation of this system is
filed in areas of use and in a central QA library. Although most areas within
the HRC have open access to all staff, all sensitive information is locked away.
In particular, classified information is issued to individual members of staff
on a need to know basis, and MOD issue secure filing cabinets are used to store
such documents. The issue, withdrawal and copying of such documents is centrally
controlled by the HRC Registry, and records are maintained. Whenever classified
documents are withdrawn from the QA MOD secure cabinet, the person using the
document signs a book to indicate they have the document, and the same book is
signed when the document is returned. The user of the document is responsible
for ensuring the information is used on a “need to know” basis, and as the
clearance levels of individuals are not generally known, “need to know” is
established by discussion with the Project Manager and QA
Manager and Site Security Officer. Unless a member of the QA department
is involved with certifying a product or service against a classified document,
they would not have a “need to know” the content of the document and their
involvement with the project would be solely with the Management System applied
to the project. Physical constraints within the HRC are limited to MOD secure
filing cabinets, safety-related protections and in a few situations, locked work
areas. One example of the latter is the QA documentation area and library, which
is kept locked unless QA staff are present. This area contains no classified
material and process-related information for the Trident Project is kept in this
area in an MOD secure filing cabinet; none of these documents are MOD
classified, and the cabinet is controlled by the Documentation Supervisor. All
other information generated or used during project activity is recorded in ‘blue
books’, which are
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by M Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 232
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
formally
issued, controlled and uniquely identified notebooks.
Their content is “free form”, and the protection of the content would be
consistent with the highest level of classification of the information contained
in the blue book. Such documents are reviewed by Project Managers and /or Group
Leaders, and may be reviewed during a quality system audit unless they contain
sensitive or classified information. For the purposes of a quality system audit,
there is no “need to know” classified information unless compliance of a product
or service with a contract requirement is suspect. In the latter case, the
Quality Manager and Site Security Officer would agree a course of action to
resolve the concern. The responsibility for ensuring that classified information
is available only on a “need to know” basis is vested in the information holder,
and if such information is requested by someone whose “need to know” or
clearance is not clear, the Site Security Officer would be advised before
information is divulged. The quality audit function of the QA department is
planned against an audit schedule which is reviewed and approved by the Quality
Manager. Quality system audits, which form the majority, assess compliance with
the HRC quality system. A general overview of the area being audited allows the
auditor to decide which aspects of the system should be audited, and this does
not require detailed discussion of project detail. A ‘profoma’ aide memoire is
compiled prior to the audit and this lists the general areas of the quality
system to be assessed and may list specific system questions to be asked.
The outcome of the audit is a general statement of the findings and a
one-page, proforma report of each system deficiency. These are distributed and
agreed with auditors, and the progress and completion of corrective actions are
monitored by QA. Major deficiencies are reported to Senior Management, and the
Site Director may be asked to resolve any disputes. More recently, contract and
product audits were being undertaken. The choice of contracts to be audited was
based on an algorithm devised by the Quality Engineering Group leader, and each
contract to be audited and the personnel involved were vetted by myself or my
deputy
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by M Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 233
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
(T. ELSON).
Product audits were very limited, as the HRC has few “off the shelf”
products, but they follow a similar pattern. In all cases, the audit activity
was reviewed by myself or T ELSON prior to implementation. In the case of the
Trident Project, all sensitive areas were audited by Mr W TATHAM, an ex-MOD
consultant to the Quality Department, instead of M.J. SMITH as the latter was
not cleared without reservation. The Trident X ray orientation audit is an
example of an area of work where there was no classified information involved,
so M.J. SMITH did participate in this audit. The details covered in the audit
are common to all crystals used in this technology, whether for commercial or
military application. In my presence, DI NICHOLSON opened a sealed package
marked SR4. This contained a mixture of confidential company documents which had
been issued to previous employees or to the documentation library. Mr SMITH had
no right to have these documents. The library copies are kept in the locked QA
documentation area and all QA staff know that they must not remove them from the
library. Similarly documents assigned to individuals should be returned, or
destroyed and notified, to the QA documentation supervisor when the assigned
holder no longer requires them. Mr SMITH did not have a need for these documents
in any activity during the last five years of his employment. SR4 also contained
copies of company journals and Tech Briefs which are readily available to
employees. SR4 also contained a copy of “IR configuration flowchart for
manufacturing (CMT JED )” which shows the complete manufacturing route for this
product. It is marked “Commercially
Most Secure Authorised Eyes only” and should not have been in Mr SMITH’s
possession. In my presence, DI NICHOLSON opened a sealed package marked JS15.
This contained extensive manufacturing and design drawings covering the period
up to 1983 and mostly issued to D. LEWIS and I CRIGHTON (ex employees of the
HRC). It also contained a copy of a document issued to W. TATHAM by T. ELSON,
dated April 90. The pre-83 documents are likely to have been filed together, but
they would not have been filed with the April 90 document. These documents must
have been placed together subsequently,
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by M Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 234
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
not as a
result of any QA activity. The April 90 document gives extensive manufacturing
information and together with the other documents would be invaluable to a
competitor seeking to understand or reproduce the manufacturing process. It is
possible that the pre-83 documents were filed in the same office as used by Mr
Smith, but in a filing cabinet used by his colleagues only. DI NICHOLSON
presented SLC/1, after opening it in my presence, timesheets used to record the
arrival and working day departures of QA staff. The sheet for his final day of
employment (31/7/92) indicated he left without signing out. This was normal
practice, when staff left at or after 5.15pm. I can confirm that I spoke to Mr
SMITH around 6.00pm and that he left shortly after this time. He was formally
advised of his termination of employment by letter dated 29th May, and I had
verbally indicated this would happen two weeks prior to this date. During the
eleven weeks between receiving verbal notification and actually leaving the HRC,
Mr SMITH systematically cleared his outstanding reports and other work. By the
final week, his desk was virtually clear, and his last day was spent updating
the audit database. He confirmed to me on his last day that he had returned all
necessary documents to the documentation supervisor, and had left all of his
files in order. There was no last
minute panic.
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by M Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 235
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 20 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am a physicist with a Bachelor of
Science Honours Degree in Physics from
Signed A. C. Greenham Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 236
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
information
given by me to Mike SMITH and Bill TATHAM during the course of the audit. It
would not have been possible for it to have been written at the time because the
process of the audit requires walking around the lab inspecting equipment and
documentation. The creation of such a document is not essential to the process
of audit and in fact does not cover any of the details required by audit. If it
had been deemed necessary to create such a document for QA background
information it should have been formally recorded in a blue book. This in itself
is a QA requirement. There are some inaccuracies in this document which indicate
a lack of expertise on the part of the author. This document is an incomplete
summary of the state of the project on Rugate filters at that time. In my
opinion this document would be of limited use to a third party. There is
insufficient technical detail to replicate the process, however reference is
made to the materials which we were then studying which could be of value to
another person working in this field. I cannot think of any circumstances
whereby a non-expert in the field could compile this information in this form
other than from the background information imparted by me during the QA audit. I
was in charge of this project from its start in 1989. It was audited in March
1989, and thereafter yearly until the last audit in June 1992. The project was
terminated at the end of 1992. I knew Mike SMITH at work only and usually only
spoke to him during audits. I do recall speaking with him socially at work a few
days before he left. I have only spoken to him about Rugate filters during the
audits in 1989, 1990 and 1992. This document is specific to 1992 because of the
reference to “reduced oxygen levels by using a better vacuum” on page 2, line 6
which was of concern to me in 1992. Rugate filters have applications in both
military and civilian fields. The content of this document is equally applicable
to either field.
Signed A. C. Greenham Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 237
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Dr. Guruge Elmo Lakshman PERERA
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 20 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am a
physicist and have a Ph.D in Fluid Mechanics from
Signed G. Perera Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 238
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dr. Guruge Elmo Lakshman PERERA
the
particular overhead on cryogenic refrigeration which is noted on page 3 of the
document JS17. These figures relate
to the refrigerating effect and were compiled from my laboratory blue book
NT/MM8 which I keep under lock and key and have never shown to anyone else. The
overheads have also been kept under lock and key.
I produce this overhead as exhibit GELP/1 and I produce the thirteen (13)
other overheads I used on that day as exhibit GELP/2. Because of the sensitive
nature, in commercial terms, of these overheads I would not wish these to leave
the control of the court. On the 10th June 1992 I recall that Mike SMITH of the
QA Department attended my lecture. There were about 25 people present. I
particularly remember him being there because he was the only one from QA there,
I remember he walked in just after I had started and sat in the last row. All
the others present were scientists and physicists mainly from the science area.
I didn't notice anything unusual during the lecture. Some people take notes, I
didn’t notice if Mike SMITH did or not. On the next day the 11th June my group
was audited by Mike SMITH and Bill TATHAM. The audit covered general aspects of
procedures, planning and reporting. It did not cover the areas outlined in my
lecture. Nothing unusual occurred during the audit.
The information contained in document JS17 would be of interest to
another researcher in the field of micromachining and could give them ideas for
further lines of research. None of this information has been published in
scientific literature to date. I
knew Mike SMITH professionally only at work as a QA man. I also produce the QA
report showing the areas audited by Mike SMITH as GELP/3.
Signed G. Perera Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 239
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Peter Miles BRIGGINSHAW
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 20 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am a Microwave Engineer contracted as
a consultant to Hirst Research Centre, GEC-Marconi Limited at
Signed P. M. Brigginshaw Signature witnessed by R. Richards DC
Witness Statement Page 240
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Peter Mile BRIGGINSHAW
4 of JS/18
is a system under investigation which employs a similar system of Quasi-optical
techniques to that dealt with in this document and is currently being developed
for use in an anti-missile radar system. The document is headed “May 1992” and
accurately and fully reflects the state of the project at that time.
Indeed, the diagram at page 4, represents a concept under consideration
at that time, later experiments showed the concept to be viable, however the
circuit details shown on page 4 which at the time was the accepted confirmation
later proved in practice to require considerable modification. The content of
JS/18 appears to be entirely drawn from knowledge of the HRC Quasi Optical Car
Radar project, however related projects are well documented in the technical
press. The progress of such projects at HRC, whilst not classified, is logged in
notebooks called “Blue Books” which are stored in office filing cabinets. All of
the information in JS18 would have been logged in “Blue Books” although not in
this sequence. Generally there is very little restriction on any HRC employee
viewing these bocks which are classified “Company Confidential”. Any authorised
employee of HRC could therefore have been privy to the progress of this
unclassified project. The document would appear to be a report of the current
status of the Quasi-Optical Car Radar project for a third party. I cannot think
of any persons or department in HRC that would create a document in this form,
it appears to be neither rough notes nor a properly presented report.
I find the document to be surprising in that outside the project itself
diagrams and notes of such selective accuracy should be made. These reflect only
the core of the work and do not deal with ID management and administration in
any way. The author of these notes would appear to be from outside the project
and the notes do not reveal any expertise in the field dealt with. The document
would be of interest to other companies involved in this highly competitive area
of technology. Motor vehicle products especially would benefit from the
techniques revealed. The beam swing
Signed P. M. Brigginshaw Signature witnessed by R. Richards DC
Witness Statement Page 241
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Peter Mile BRIGGINSHAW
scanning
system is likely to be of interest to defence industries worldwide. When
employed full time by HRC I had sporadic contact with our Quality Assurance
Department only as and when required by contract.
My relationship with Quality Assurance (QA) personnel, of whom I know
several, is on a business level only, I have no social contact with them. I
would meet QA staff only when an audit of a project was required.
This would normally involve them in making notes and in producing a
finished report on a company form. The information, style and detail illustrated
on JS/18 falls, in my opinion, chiefly outside that required for use in the QA
process. The function, as I understand it, of the QA process is to assess the
working practices of the project staff and to ensure that certain standards and
procedures are adhered to, there is no reference to such functions in JS/18. I
have been asked by DC RICHARDS if I know Michael John SMITH. I know that SMITH
was employed at HRC on the QA section. I have been aware of SMITH since 1990
when, I believe, he carried out an audit of my project. In May 1992 he was also
present at the audit of the project dealt with in JS/18. I have had no contact
with him outside these audits. When we met it would be at my office which is
situated in my laboratory during which time SMITH would have had access to my
Blue Books, and those of my staff, and any models or diagrams used in our
experimentation. I am willing to attend court as a witness if absolutely
necessary but would, on health grounds and owing to an envisaged absence from
the
Signed P. M. Brigginshaw Signature witnessed by R. Richards DC
Witness Statement Page 242
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Dr. Donald James WEIR
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 21 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am group
leader of the Sensors and Control Group in the Long Range Laboratory at the
Hirst Research Centre (HRC). My first degree was in natural sciences, B.A., at
mentioned
in open literature once elsewhere than HRC in this application. These
Signed Donald Weir Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 243
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dr. Donald James WEIR
three factors lead me to conclude that the notes refer to the work at HRC. I believe that all this information could have been obtained at a Quality Assurance Audit (QA). While parts of the information are contained in other documents for example patents and reports, or have been mentioned during an internal seminar, the sum of the information has not been documented in this order. This particular project has only been the focus of a QA Audit once. By reference to my diary I believe it was Thursday 7th November 1991 where I had made an entry showing an Audit meeting at 9am. I cannot specifically remember the date but I do remember the meeting. The meeting was between myself, Mr M. SMITH and Mr T. ELSON. The purpose of the meeting was to audit the working practises associated with the project, as part of describing these practises I would have given technical background information concerning materials used and measurements made. The information contained on JS20 is typical of the sort of information I would have imparted. It is my opinion that the notes could not have been written during the meeting as our conversation did not follow a well structured path and all the information of direct relevance to the purpose of the audit, for example methods of storage of measurement data, is absent. The information represents a simplistic overview of the technical status of the project as it was at the end of 1991. The contents suggest a superficial understanding of the information. For example the sketch is of a Bulk Acoustic Wave device which is not mentioned until the end of the page. The word polysiloxane is mis-spelt suggesting unfamiliarity. The sentence describing the sensitivity of Bulk Acoustic Wave devices gives not their sensitivity but only the units of measurement. This suggests a lack of understanding of which elements of information about the project would be useful to a competitor. The make up of the document suggests an attempt to concisely state the technical status of the project by someone who does not fully understand the key engineering issues. The Olfactory Research Project is based and executed at the HRC. The results are disseminated to various GEC companies and one collaborating non-GEC company. A number of elements of the note are “commercial-in-confidence” and would not be discussed outside GEC.
Signed Donald Weir Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 244
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dr. Donald James WEIR
The project
has been running for some 3½ years and continues to the current day. It is a
dual technology, having both military and civil applications and is currently
part of research and product development activity at GEC. This statement of the
technical status of parts of the project would be of interest to other people
attempting to develop chemical sensors which have both potential military and
civilian applications. I know a number of QA personnel through my work at HRC.
My contact with them takes place only at the HRC site. I meet QA personnel in
the course of my work for both advice and audit. I know Mr SMITH through his
role in QA at HRC and have also met him on a single occasion at a leaving party
at HRC.
Signed Donald Weir Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 245
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Martin NICOLSON (Detective Inspector)
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 27 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I have
examined Exhibit JS/8, one page of handwritten numbers and text, and, as far as
I am able to discern the content, I have transcribed them into typewritten form
which I produce as Exhibit MN/18.
Signed M. Nicolson Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 246
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF John Arthur PARKER
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 27 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Between
approximately 1972 until my retirement in 1992 I was an employee of GEC Hirst
Research Centre at Wembley in the Quality Assurance (QA) department. The later
part of this period, 1985-92, I was Quality Services Supervisor which involved
responsibility for Calibration, Tech Prime for various departments and the
administration of orders on behalf of the QA department. The latter function
deals with listing orders and contracts in the appropriate register. Today at
HRC I met with Detective Inspector Nicolson who showed me a sheet of paper
contained in a sealed bag marked JS8. I have examined what was written on this
sheet of paper. By reference to two
registers which were written by me and returned to HRC I can identify the
numbers and text on that sheet of paper as corresponding almost exactly with
entries in the Contracts Registers. There are two exceptions: the entries on the
first line made against the numbers “8896/7/8” in fact correspond with those in
the register at 8996/7/8. Also I note on the third line that the entry under the
“78” uses the word Alloy. The register shows only the letter
Signed J. A. Parker Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 247
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 20 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I was today
asked by DI Martin Nicolson to make a statement with respect to my
qualifications and experience in matters relating to technologies for
electronics and electrical goods. I was educated at
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by Martin Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 248
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Steven Langford CUNDY
a phrase I previously used in a statement “leading edge technology”. This refers to technology very likely to be innovative in content and pushing the frontier of knowledge and thus intrinsically likely to be of interest to commercial competitors. It is on the basis of leading edge technology that innovative high performance system contracts are often won in the field of high technology.
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by Martin Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 249
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF G. H. SWALLOW
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 20 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Qualifications:- HNC Applied
Physics
MIEEE
Joined HRC
1958 - Communications Materials Group.
Transferred
to Solid Physics Group- 1960 working on Semiconductor Materials.
Transferred
to Microwave Semiconductor Group - 1967 working on Microwave Devices.
Became
Group Leader - 1975 - Microwave Devices Group.
Became
Divisional Head - 1980.
Transferred to MOV to run MOV
Laboratory at HRC - 1984
Transferred
back to HRC to become Divisional Manager (Special Techniques Division - 1988
until the present time.
Current
status: Principal Research Associate, HRC.
Signed G. H. Swallow Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 250
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Dr. David Ian WEATHERLEY
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 21 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to
my statement of 7 November 1992, my formal qualifications consist of a BSc
degree in Physics, and a PhD in experimental solid-state Physics, both awarded
by the
Signed D. I. Weatherley Signature witnessed by S. J Stafford DS
Witness Statement Page 251
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dr. David Ian WEATHERLEY
of
political or other (e.g. defence-related) reasons. Members of my Division at
Signed D. I. Weatherley Signature witnessed by S. J Stafford DS
Witness Statement Page 252
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Gordon Stephen SMITH
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 21 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to
my statement of the 24th August 1992 I today informed Detective Sergeant S
Stafford that my formal academic qualifications are Chartered Engineer being a
Corporate Member of the Institution of Electrical Engineers.
My experience has developed, in the field of Guided Weapons, since my
post apprenticeship work at the Royal Aircraft Establishment Farnborough with
employment at Sperry Gyroscope Company on the Seaslug and Sea Dart Missiles
(1963-66) and the Blindfire Radar of the Rapier System at Marconi (1967-70). A
period of 15 years in the Principal Directorate of Technical Costs then followed
with exposure to the broad spectrum of the Defence Industry.
Returning to Project Management in 1985 my work has been in the field of
missile technology since July 1989 (on Rapier) until the present time (Seawolf)
since November 1992.
Signed G. S. Smith Signature witnessed by S. J Stafford DS
Witness Statement Page 253
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Sqn Ldr C. BAGLEY
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 19 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to
my statement of 28 October 1992 I have 32 years of engineering experience in the
RAF, 17 years non-commissioned working various aspects of ground radar systems
and since commissioning 15 years as an engineering officer of which the last 10
years have been associated with the Rapier system. In the latter respect my
experience has been as a squadron engineer, a staff officer and since 1987 a
project officer dealing with procurement issues and also as a deputy technical
security officer. In this latter capacity I am conversant with the security
classification of the Rapier equipment .to which the drawings and diagrams I was
shown, as evidence, refer.
Signed Colin Bagley Signature witnessed by S. J Stafford DS
Witness Statement Page 254
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Peter Leonard KNOWLTON
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 19 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to
my statement dated 10th August 1992 I am a Project Officer with formal
qualifications of ONC and HNC including technical endorsements in
thermodynamics, electronics and applied mechanics. Over a period of some 30 odd
years I have been employed on multi-discipline projects carrying out engineering
and project functions to varying degrees of complexity. For most of this period
my involvement with highly complex computer and electronics systems has led me
to return to college for refresher courses, the most recent being just 6 months
ago. For the last four years my work as a Project Officer working on Rapier
Systems procuring and controlling the designs of in-service equipment as well as
development of enhancements to existing standards of equipment.
I control the Post Design Services aspects within British Aerospace,
Cossor Racal and at one time Marconi, Frimley both technically and financially.
Signed P. Knowlton Signature witnessed by S. J Stafford DS
Witness Statement Page 255
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
James Frederick WILDISH
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 24 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to
my statement dated 10th August 1992. I am a Senior Scientific Officer with MOD
Sy (S&T), which is the Scientific and Technical Security Branch of the Director
of the MOD Security. I have been employed in this Branch since July 1990. I am
responsible for publishing Technical Security Classification Grading Guides for
Guided Weapons, Nuclear Weapons and Special Weapons (Laser Guided Bombs) for all
three of the Armed Forces. I am also the manager of the Classification Private
Venture equipment. Prior to this post I was an Instrumentation Officer
(Electronics) with the Proof and Experimental Establishment at Shoeburyness for
25 years where I was involved in development trials for a variety of weapon
systems. I have an HNC in Electrical
Engineering and a HNC in Computer Studies. Prior to my service with the MOD I
was a detail design draughtsman with Handly Page Ltd working on instruments for
a missile carrying version of the Victor Bomber.
Signed J. F. Wildish Signature witnessed by A. Walsh DS
Witness Statement Page 256
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Michael Barry ALLENSON
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 20 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I have a
first class honours degree in physics from the
Signed M. Allenson Signature witnessed by S. J. Stafford DS
Witness Statement Page 257
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF H. A. DEADMAN
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 20 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I received
my first degree from University College of North Wales,
Signed H. A. Deadman Signature witnessed by S. J. Stafford DS
Witness Statement Page 258
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
H. A. DEADMAN
all aspects
of millimetre-wave radar sensor design and performance. An important part of
this technology development covered the design, use and performance of
quasi-optic antenna feeds for these guided weapon sensors. This work was carried
out under contract, which I sponsored, at Marconi-Defence Systems (now GEC
Marconi Dynamics Ltd), Stanmore, and who have close research links with GEC
Hirst Research Labs. The use of this quasi-optic antenna technology has been
proposed for SR(A) 1238. I am therefore fully qualified to comment on the
security aspects of quasi-optic antenna feeds.
Signed H. A. Deadman Signature witnessed by S. J. Stafford DS
Witness Statement Page 259
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Alison Myryl HODGE
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 20 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I graduated
in Physics with subsidiary Mathematics with a Class II division (i) honours
degree (B.Sc) in 1975 at
Signed A. M. Hodge Signature witnessed by S. J. Stafford DS
Witness Statement Page 260
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Alison Meryl HODGE
ionising
radiation than similar circuits fabricated in bulk silicon. During the 1980’s I
was promoted successively from High Scientific Officer to Senior Scientific
Officer and now Principal Scientific Officer/grade 7. I was also made Process
Manager of the Silicon Processing Laboratory in which the principle project was
that concerned with silicon on sapphire devices.
Since 1989 I have been made Team Leader of the Silicon Structures Team.
Signed A. M. Hodge Signature witnessed by S. J. Stafford DS
Witness Statement Page 261
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Keith Loder LEWIS
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 20 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to
my statement of 11 August 1992, the following is a summary relating to my
scientific experience. My formal qualifications of BSc (Chemistry & Mathematics)
and PhD (Physical Chemistry) were obtained at the
Signed K. L. Lewis Signature witnessed by S. J. Stafford DS
Witness Statement Page 262
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Keith Loder LEWIS
International Committee co-ordinating aspects of defence research between the
government of the
Signed K. L. Lewis Signature witnessed by S. J. Stafford DS
Witness Statement Page 263
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Dr. Meirion Francis LEWIS
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 20 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I received my first degree in
physics from
Signed M. F. Lewis Signature witnessed by S. J. Stafford DS
Witness Statement Page 264
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Hugh Murdoch LAMBERTON
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 20 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to
my statement made on 3rd November 1992 I provide a statement outlining my
relevant scientific expertise. My formal academic scientific qualifications
include a BSc in Chemistry (1966) and a PhD in Physical and Theoretical
Chemistry (1967). Since 1967 I have been involved in scientific research. All
but three years have been devoted to electro-optics research. Initially
(1967-1980) I was involved in Infra-red laser research. This necessitated the
use of Infra-red detectors. Between 1980-1981 and from 1984 to the current day I
have been responsible for research on Thermal Imaging Systems. In my current
position as Head of the Electro-optic sensors and signatures division at DRA
Malvern, I am responsible for all MoD sponsored research on Infra-red detectors
and for the use of Infra-red detectors in Thermal Imaging Systems.
Signed H. M. Lamberton Signature witnessed by S. J. Stafford DS
Witness Statement Page 265
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF John Richard WEATHERLEY
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 26 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to
my statement of 24th August 1992 I have been asked to provide details of my
technical background. I graduated with HND and College Associateship in
Electrical and Electronic Engineering in 1971 whilst employed as a Student
Apprentice with Marconi Communications Systems,
Signed J. R. Weatherley Signature witnessed by A. Walsh DS
Witness Statement Page 266
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Stephen John BEELS (Detective Sergeant)
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 27 May 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to
my statement dated 4th May 1993, I have examined Exhibits RH/20, RH/21 and
PMS/14 - three passports in the name of Michael John SMITH, and I produce a
chronological list of the entry and exit stamps, and visas, contained in them as
far as I am able to discern them, as Exhibit SJB/45.
Signed S. Beels DS Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 267
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Stephen John BEELS (Detective Sergeant)
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 4 June 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to
my statements dated 4th May 1993 and 27th May 1993, the chronological list of
the entry and exit stamps, and visas, in the passports of Michael John SMITH,
Exhibits RH/20, RH/21 and PMS/14, which I produced as Exhibit SJB/45, was
incomplete and I now produce an amended chronological list as Exhibit SJB/46
Signed S. Beels DS Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 268
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Robert RICHARDS (Detective Constable)
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 9 June 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On 10th
August 1992 Miss Jacqueline Beck of The Synthesizer Company,
Signed Robert Richards DC Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 269
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Mrs C (Stella RIMINGTON)
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 18 June 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I refer to my previous statements. I
have been asked about events in the former
Signed Mrs “C” Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 270
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Martin MORRISSEY (Detective Inspector)
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 17 June 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 5
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On the 15th
and 16th June 1993 I went to PORTO and LISBON, Portugal to make enquiries into
the four sites marked on the map of Porto, exhibit JS/45. From east to west on
this map the sites are located as follows. Firstly on the south side of the RUA
DE SA DA BANDEIRA. Secondly on the west side of the main square at PRACA DA
LIBERDADE. Thirdly on the west side of the Praca de Lisboa in RUA DO DR.
FERREIRA DA SILVA, and fourthly in the square LARGO DE S JOAO NOVO.
On the 15th
June I went to Government offices at 164 Rua do Bulhao, the Camara Municipial de
Porto, Direcciao des Servicos Tecnicos Especias. There I saw plans of the City
of
On the 15th June I also went
Signed Martin Morrissey DI Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 271
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Martin MORRISSEY
to the head
office of the Portuguese national telephone company TELEFONES DE LISBOA E PORTO
(TLP) at 431 Ten Valadim,
Inspection
of exhibits MSM/17 to MSM/21 shows the following: in respect of the RUA DE SA DA
BANDEIRA, the “cross” on map JS/45 is on the south side between numbers 68 and
90. On page 179 of exhibit MSM/17 can be found an entry “[CASA] CAMPIAO-LOTARIAS
- 68/70 SA BAND.” These premises are a lottery shop. On page 85 of exhibit
MSM/19 can be found an entry “CASA CAMPIAO-LOTARIAS ... 68/70 SA BAND ...”
Numbers 72/78 are empty on the ground floor and above on various floors are the
premises of the BANCO BORGES and IRMAO (page 85, exhibit MSM/17). These
particular offices, above 72/78 are a bank deposit store and not listed in the
telephone directory, though bank offices on either side are listed. On page 388
of exhibit MSM/19 is the entry “TABACARIA BORGES and IRMAO COMERCIAL .... 72/8
SA BAND ....” Number 80 is the premises of “CASTILHO PERFUMARIA” a perfume shop,
page 183 exhibit MSM/17 shows the entry “CASTILHO & C SUCR LDA 80 SA BAND”. Page
88 of exhibit MSM/19 reads “CASTILHO & C SUCRS LDA ... 80 SA BAND”. The next
building, number 84, is offices of IMPERIO, an insurance company, page 443 of
exhibit MSM/17 shows “IMPERIO SA, COMPANHIA DE SEGUROS ... 84 SA BAND”. Page 186
of exhibit MSM/19 shows “IMPERIO, COMPANHIA DE SEGUROS ... 84 SA BAND”. Above
these premises are offices of CUFTEXTEIS and QUIMIGAL, carpet and chemical
companies. Page 266 exhibit MSM/17 reads “CUFTEXTEIS SA .... 84 SA BAND ...” and
page 774 “QUIMIGAL ADUBOS SA ... 84 SA BAND ....” There is no entry for these
companies in the 1973/4 directory but on page 388 of exhibit MSM/19 is the entry
“TABAQUEIRA
Signed Martin Morrissey DI Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 272
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Martin MORRISSEY
SARL ...
84, 2° [second floor] SA BAND ...” These companies do appear in exhibit MSM/21
the directory for 1981/2 on pages 156 “CUF-TEXTAIS LAR ... EXPOSICAO E VENDAS
[showroom and sales] ... 84 SA BAND ....”, and page 407 “
By
reference to these exhibits the shops on the west side of the PRACA DA LIBERDADE
are as follows. The bank of
Signed Martin Morrissey DI Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 273
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Martin MORRISSEY
SA REIS 54
PC LIBERD ...” a bar, also listed on page 93 of exhibit MSM/19 as “CERVEJARIA SA
REIS 54, 10, PC LIBERD ...” The next premises is number 53 a very small
newsagents called PORTAL DA ALEXANDRINA which is not listed in any telephone
directory. The last premises in this row is at number 50-52 a clothes shop
listed on page 634 of exhibit MSM/17 as “NAVARRO LDA 50 PC LIBERD ...” and on
page 256 of exhibit MSM/19 as “NAVARRO LDA 50 PC LIBERD ...” In conclusion
therefore numbers 50-68 PRACA DA LIBERDADE consist of no site of tourist
interest, nor have they since 1973.
The third
“cross” marked on map JS/45 is in RUA DO DR. FERREIRA DA SILVA. On the opposite
side of the street is the
The fourth
“cross” is in the LARGO DE S. JOAO NOVO, a square described in previous exhibits
and statements. On the 15th June 1993 I also went to the OPORTO TOURIST BOARD at
25 RUA CLUBE FENIANOS. There I took possession of four tourist leaflets which
incorporate maps of
I also, at
the offices of TLP recovered a document which I exhibit as MSM/26 [Exhibit No.
100]. This is a report of a TLP engineer into the use of telephone boxes in
1977. On page 2 are indicated A-E the 5 sites of telephone boxes in 1977 in
areas relevant to the crosses on map JS/45. I have notated on further copies of
the 1979 plans of the City of
Signed Martin Morrissey DI Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 274
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Martin MORRISSEY
side of the
PRACA DA LIBERDADE (B) as well as telephones in the TLP office at 61 PRACA DA
LIBERDADE. Finally there was no telephone kiosk in RUA DO DR. FERREIRA DA SILVA.
I also
visited the offices of SERVICO DE TRANSPORTES COLECTIVOS DO PORTO (STP) the
regional bus company at 806 Avenida da Boavista,
Signed Martin Morrissey DI Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 275
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 18 June 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Friday
June 18 1993 I met with DI Nicolson in my office at Hirst Research Centre and he
showed me exhibit ALH/1, a photograph of various microelectronic and electronic
devices, and exhibit JS/14, a sealed bag which was opened in my presence and
which contained various microelectronic and electronic devices. I have marked a
copy of the photograph ALH/1 with capital letters, to the lower left hand corner
of each of the 15 items in that photograph, A to P inclusively excluding the
letter O. In my statement of 6 November 1992 I reported the examination of
exhibit JS/14 and the classification of some of the microelectronics devices as
SLC1 to SLC6 inclusively. I now make the following correlation between the items
SLC1-SLC6 inclusively and the items on the copy of the photograph ALH/1 which
are now marked A to P inclusively, excluding the letter O. Items A, C, F and H
are those four items previously classified by me as SLC1. Item B is SLC2. Item D
is SLC3. Item I is SLC4. Item G in the main shows the item previously classified
by me as SLC6. However I note that for the purposes of the photograph SLC6 was
placed on top of a clear plastic lid from a plastic specimen box. It would
appear from my examination of SLC5 that the lid used to support SLC6 and shown
as Item G in the photograph has come from the specimen box contained in SLC5.
Since the microelectronic device which is the real exhibit contained in SLC5 is
deliberately stuck to the lid, SLC6 is obstructing a clear view of the device
contained in SLC5. In my statement
of 11 August 1992, I identified some of the SAW devices contained in JS/14 by
serial numbers or other markings on metal packages. These specifically
identified items appear on the copy of the photograph ALH/1 with the following
letters of identification. 63-35-B-TT is Item P,
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 276
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Steven Langford CUNDY
8744-2667
1750(587) is Item L, 63.5 MHZ T1, T2 is Item J, 10/37/B/20 is Item N,
63/35/P/B082 is Item M, 10/37/B/69 is Item K. Item E in the copy photograph is a
part finished SAW device which I have not referred to specifically in previous
statements. I have thus identified all the items shown in the copy photograph
ALH/1 marked up by me which I now produce as exhibit SLC/2. I was further asked
to comment on whether the electronic and microelectronic devices present in
JS/14 actually work. To the layman the answer is no; many devices are not
properly packaged, they being part processed or final product before
encapsulation or packaging to render them usable in the general sense of the
word. However those skilled in the state of the art would be able to place
accurately minute electrical probes onto the surface contacts present in most of
the microelectronic devices to prove functionality - i.e. in the technical sense
that they do work and have certain characteristics. This process called
“probing” is a standard on-line testing employed in semiconductor manufacture to
determine which components are worth spending further money on and placing in
packages. However to those skilled in the art it is much more advantageous to
receive bare (un-encapsulated) chips for it becomes relatively easy to determine
functionality and how it is achieved in the design; small sections of each
semiconductor chip can be probed to examine each stage in isolation. When staff
employed at HRC are asked to determine why certain semiconductor devices have
failed in the field (Device Failure Analysis) the second task, after confirming
non-functionality, is to remove the encapsulation in a controlled manner so as
to reveal the bare chip which can then be examined by a variety of electron
optical or optical devices and/or probes to trace the non functional element. It
is therefore a matter of fact that those wishing to learn of the
state-of-the-art of a competitor or ascertain the technical competence of a
competitor would far rather receive un-encapsulated chips known to have come
from the relevant production line than completely packaged devices which in
commercial terms would be working and subject to guarantees and warranties. We
note in this respect that Item A in the exhibit SLC/2 contains items sent to
Thomson-CSF in
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 277
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Steven Langford CUNDY
were bare
chips and presumably, if their rejection of the items was based on technical
grounds, they were able to test them. Thomson-CSF are skilled in the art of
gallium arsenide components for radar applications.
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 278
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Mr “E”
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 21 June 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 4
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I was born
in
Signed Mr “E” Signature witnessed by M. MacLeod DCS
Witness Statement Page 279
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Mr “E”
a hotel in
Signed Mr “E” Signature witnessed by M. MacLeod DCS
Witness Statement Page 280
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Mr “E”
and that I
was being recruited. In 1980 I was tired of commuting and left my job in
Signed Mr “E” Signature witnessed by M. MacLeod DCS
Witness Statement Page 281
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Mr “E”
envelope
over to the contact. I met the contact after going through a little ritual of
saying something to him and he had to respond in a particular way. The meeting
did not take very long but I did ask him who he was and he indicated that he was
with the KGB and involved in European operations. That was not his words but
that was what he meant. I handed the envelope over to him but he did not make
any comment. When I returned to
Signed Mr “E” Signature witnessed by M. MacLeod DCS
Witness Statement Page 282
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Mr “E”
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 21 June 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to
my statement to Detective Chief Superintendent MacLeod on 21 June 1993, I wish
to indicate that about three months after meeting Victor my suspicions were
aroused that he was a KGB agent. I went to the U.S. Embassy in
Signed Mr “E” Signature witnessed by M. MacLeod DCS
Witness Statement Page 283
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Simon
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 25 June 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Thursday
17th June 1993 I was supplied by Det. Chief Supt. MacLeod with a black and white
photograph of a man he apparently knows as Victor OSHCHENKO. Det. Chief Supt.
MacLeod directed me to produce a copy of this photograph, which I did, and I
marked it with the exhibit identification number SJS/3. He further directed me
to produce eleven other black and white photographs with which, including the
photograph SJS/3, I should construct an evidential grid of twelve photographs
for viewing by a witness. I placed the photograph SJS/3 in the second row,
second from the right hand side. I then attached the other eleven photographs to
the grid which I then marked with the exhibit identification number SJS/4. On
Friday 18th June 1993 I passed the completed grid SJS/4 to Det. Chief Supt.
MacLeod.
Signed S. J. Stafford DS Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 284
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Malcolm MacLEOD (Detective Chief Superintendent)
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 24 June 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Thursday
17 June 1993, I gave instructions to Detective Sergeant STAFFORD to produce a
further copy of a photograph of a man I now know to be VIKTOR OSHCHENKO. The
photograph had previously been supplied by the Security Service in August 1992
and copied at my behest to produce exhibit MM/1. This latest copy was required
for inclusion in an evidential grid to be shown to the witness Mr “E”. On Friday
18 June 1993, DS STAFFORD produced the new copy photograph which is exhibited as
SJS/3. DS STAFFORD also produced at my instigation a further eleven photographs
of persons of similar appearance for inclusion on the grid. These eleven
photographs together with SJS/3 were placed on the grid and the complete montage
is exhibited as SJS/4. The photograph of OSHCHENKO was placed on the second row
and second from the right as one faces the grid. On Monday 21 June 1993, I
obtained a statement from the witness Mr “E”. At the conclusion I showed Mr “E”
the grid containing the twelve photographs (SJS/4) and he positively identified
the photograph SJS/3 as the man he knew to be VICTOR as referred to in his
statement. At my suggestion Mr “E” endorsed the reverse side of the photograph.
The original photograph of SJS/3 and MM/1 is contained on a Security Service
file and had been submitted on 3 February 1978, by the Soviet Ambassador to the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office for a certificate of identity for VIKTOR
ALEKSEEVICH OCHTCHENKO, who at that time was a Second Secretary at the USSR
Embassy. This is the same person whom I met at a Security Service building on 22
February 1993. My previous statement of 19 May 1993 refers.
Signed M. MacLeod Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 285
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Robin Paul HOW (I.Eng, Graduate I.E.I.E.)
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 25 June 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am
employed by the Metropolitan Police as a Communications and Electronics Officer.
I have been attached to the Metropolitan Police Audio Tape Laboratory since 1988
and in that time I have examined many hundreds of evidential tape recordings.
Today,
Friday 25th June 1993, 1 received by hand from Detective Inspector Nicolson an
exhibit labelled MG/1. I found MG/1 to be a compact cassette type magnetic tape
recording. From the speech track of MG/1 I produced four (4) copy tape
recordings which I labelled as follows:
RH/1 - For
Court Use,
RH/2,
RH/3,
RH/4.
After this
copying procedure, MG/1 was sealed into a polythene bag and returned to
Detective Inspector Nicolson, along with all copy tape recordings.
To help
improve the quality of the copy recordings, filtering and gain control
techniques have been employed in their production.
A full
record of work carried out in this case is available for inspection. This will
include:
a)
Documents created at the time of submission,
b) Trail
documents,
c) Original
notes of work carried out.
Please quote Ref: AL/448/93
Signed Robin How Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 286
STATEMENT OF Steven Langford CUNDY
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 20 July 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 9
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
In the case
of
In his
overview Dr. Maher has attempted to draw on his earlier experience as a
scientist within laboratories similar to HRC and then to make statements of what
he perceives as the role of personnel within a Q.A. department of a modern
electronics research laboratory and in particular within the Q.A. department of
HRC. Whilst expressing admiration at the ability of Dr. Maher to make inferences
on the basis of zero information in relation to the specific case he is supposed
to be considering, I have to point out that he has made a fundamental error in
failing to distinguish the role of a Quality Control officer/manager from that
of a Quality Systems Audit officer/manager. The statements on p2 in paras 3 and
4 implying that the Defendant would have access to “enormous quantity of
documentation relating to device fabrication ...” and “would have access to even
more documentation not directly related to his work in the Q.A. section ...” are
wrong in principle and wrong in fact in relation to the Defendant.
The further inference, in para 5 of p2, that because “many an inquisitive
... engineer would have drawn up such notes ...” the Defendant’s own notes on
the various research projects are excusable and possibly encouraged by
Management, starts with a false premise and adducts an incorrect implication.
The
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 287
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Steven Langford CUNDY
false
premise is that scientists would have drawn up such notes, they would not; they
keep printed matter : combinations of published papers, conference proceedings
and internal material issued to them and only then if they were relevant to
their assigned tasks. The incorrect implication is that the Defendant was such a
scientist. He was not. Dr. Maher has misunderstood the purpose of the Annual
Research Report in his comments on p3. The note encouraging wide circulation
within your Department is addressed to the GEC recipients external to HRC; I am
not aware that the Defendant did seek through normal channels the opportunity to
read such Reports. Indeed I have no evidence to suggest that the Defendant did
see such Reports. Furthermore I would have expected any “inquisitive or
frustrated scientist/engineer” wishing to understand “topics outside his/her
normal remit”, to use Dr. Maher’s words, would have used the Annual Report as
primary material and then used that trail to other reports.
In his general descriptions on pages 3 and 4 of public information
channels used by scientists, technologists and engineers and later, in the more
detailed case by case examination of material in evidence, Dr. Maher fails to
make clear that scientific and technical papers and publications issued by most
research laboratories are deliberately short of detail. There is always a
dichotomy between a declaration of achievement or interest and a wish or need to
keep precise know-how out of the public domain. Any material for publication
issued by HRC is most carefully vetted to prevent immediate uncontrolled passing
of key detail to the public domain; it is our experience trying to follow the
contents of papers and publications from our competitors that detail enabling
immediate reproduction of results is missing. In our policy on patents, we are
careful to distinguish a potential product patent from a potential process
patent, often forgoing the possibility of achieving a valid process patent
because monitoring the use by others of the detail contained in the patent would
be impossible. As I shall argue, the existence of public domain material
containing the same key words as seen in the Defendant’s notes, for example, is
not proof that the information in the notes is in the public domain. Dr.
Maher would apparently only be satisfied that information was not in the public
domain if the topic under consideration failed to draw a match from a
database.
In para 4 page 5 we have reference to Q.A. in respect of production. In
isolation the statement is correct but it is incomplete and certainly in the
context of the overview and what is to follow it is further evidence that Dr.
Maher has not clearly identified the roles of Q.A. and Q.C.
I would take issue (in the context of the issue he is supposed to be
considering) with the strong categorical statement made by Dr. Maher in para 3
of p6 “It is quite fallacious to suppose that the more fundamental the research
the more secret the
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 288
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Steven Langford CUNDY
work ...”
For this statement to have veracity then the nature of the research must be
defined as the search of knowledge for its own sake. Dr. Maher has not really
made clear in any part of his document that within an Industrial Research
Laboratory work of that nature is extremely rare; it is therefore wrong for him
to make this statement without qualification in this context. In a
customer-contractor driven industrial research laboratory nearly all the work
falls into the categories of strategic research or application driven
development, that is to say the possible applications are defined and the
possible solutions are to be investigated with only a small uncertainty as to
the result. In the final sentence of this paragraph we see that Dr. Maher is now
admitting what was not explicit in the overview, that public domain information
released by companies does not necessarily contain detail. The topic may be
declared, the general progress may be declared but details of method etc may be
well suppressed. The second sentence of the second paragraph on p8 is much more
explicit in this respect and is a statement we need to bear in mind in the later
analysis. In discussing the organisation of an R & D establishment pp 8 - 9 the
only comment about this attempt to define matrix management is that it is my
direct experience over 6 years as Director of HRC that the information flow
between scientists across departmental boundaries at HRC is surprisingly low.
Dr. Maher has not identified the role of product champions or the leaders of
multi disciplinary projects as the agents of need to know across expertise
boundaries. However the more serious criticism of this section is as a result of
the implication that the Defendant had a need to participate or actually
participated in this information undercurrent. He did not.
In turning his attention to describing the function of a Q.A. department
in an R & D environment, Dr. Maher strays into areas in which he is obviously
unfamiliar. The opening sentence of the fourth paragraph on p9 “... giving its
staff legitimate access to a colossal amount of nitty gritty information” once
again betrays the lack of distinction between a Q.A. and a Q.C. operation and,
because of the general tenor of previous words about scientific and technical
interchange, is tending to reinforce the incorrect message that anyone in the
Q.A. department has a right, has a need or should have the initiative to
discover any information within the building. We have to repeat yet again that
in the context of this case, the Defendant was employed to audit areas of
expertise to ensure that site-wide Quality Policies were being implemented.
Those Quality Policies are NOT concerned with specific technology, specific
products or specific manufacturing operations, they are definitions of
procedures to be followed. Local Technology Specific Documents and Management
Handbooks interpret those procedures in a manner appropriate to the task in
hand. Q.C. inspectors provide independent evidence that objects meet required
specifications.
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 289
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Steven Langford CUNDY
p22
Exhibit No.2 - ALM/1 - Photograph showing components - JS/14
Dr. Maher
has expressed his difficulty in drawing conclusions on the basis of this
photograph. I sympathise with his predicament and there is no point in
reiterating the findings recorded by me on this. I have previously recorded that
associated specification sheets for most of the GaAs devices present in this
exhibit were present in other exhibits (the SR/4 bundle), but I agree that Dr.
Maher has had no opportunity to verify this. However I must take issue with two
points. Firstly the throwaway line that “it is certainly not beyond the realms
of possibility for these devices to have been collected by anyone in a research
establishment for personal interest”. Let us be more honest - it is highly
unlikely that the Defendant had a personal interest in such devices - he is not
a semiconductor expert, he was not assigned to any Q.C. matters relating to GaAs
devices and there has been a selection. The second point is a fundamental
disagreement over the conclusions about reverse engineering. There continues to
this day vigorous debates about the merits of various manufacturing processes
used for GaAs MMIC’s. Evidence as to which process is used to achieve what
performance is most readily obtained from destructive analysis of bare ‘chips’.
pp23 -
27 - Exhibit No. 3 - JS/15
I concur
with the first sentence in the conclusions p26 and I note the first sentence of
paragraph 3 on p26 regarding the non-public domain status of information
relating to SAW’s. However the following ‘throwaway’ line: “This is not of use
without details of the weapon system itself ...” is misleading to the point of
inaccuracy for it assumes the purpose to which the Defendant was intending to
use JS/15. If the contents were to be communicated to foreign powers who did
already have the details (whatever Dr. Maher means by this) of the weapon system
itself then such persons could put the material of JS/15 into context.
Moreover I note the inconsistency in the logic applied to the analysis of
JS/15 and Exhibits No. 9 to 25. The general concepts of SAW devices and BAW
devices are known in the public domain, agreed. HRC and/or GEC Operating Units
offer versions of such components for sale (but that some such sales might
require Government approval). HRC makes specific components with specific
properties for specific weapon systems; the precise performance of these latter
devices and the manufacturing methods used at HRC are, according to Dr. Maher,
for SAW’s not in the public domain (p26), for BAW’s are in the public domain
(p46). For SAW’s Dr. Maher does not know the weapon system involved, therefore
the non-public domain HRC information is useless according to him; for BAW’s he
is aware of the weapon system involved, therefore the HRC manufacturing
information is useless. I fail to
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 290
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Steven Langford CUNDY
understand
why different treatments have been applied to very similar evidence material to
arrive at contrary conclusions.
pp 28 -
31 - Exhibit No. 4 - JS/1 6
Dr. Maher’s
analysis here is the start of a series of analyses relating to handwritten notes
where similar arguments are used to support his views. Repeated references are
made to HRC’s Annual Reports as evidence of public domain disclosures of intent,
application and in some cases techniques used in development. I do not accept
that HRC’s Annual Reports can be used for that purpose. Firstly they are Company
Confidential Reports issued to employees of GEC plc who have in many cases
identical and in the other cases similar conditions of employment and terms of
engagement in respect of the disclosure of Company Confidential material. I
would take the example of Patent Applications to prove that disclosure amongst
such a body of people prior to a Patent Application does not constitute prior
(i.e. public) disclosure of information. Secondly if Dr. Maher’s stance on this
is deemed to be valid then why is it that all the other reports issued by HRC
(and there are many very comprehensive and detailed reports issued) are not
enjoined in this argument to prove that everything we do, including classified
work, is in fact in the public domain?
There is one final point in respect of the Annual Reports and the use to
which they are put by Dr. Maher in the context of exhibited material. The
reports may not be particularly (deliberately) accurate declarations of work and
they certainly exclude direct reference to classified material but they do cover
in a broad manner most of the activity at HRC. If these Annual Reports are
invoked as public domain information and by implication a valid source document
for the exhibited material in particular JS/16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, then we must
consider the question of why only information in JS/16 - 20 has been selected
from the vast amount of information alleged by Dr. Maher to be available to all
comers including the Defendant.
In the specific case of Exhibit JS/16 I see no proof that the information
contained in
the title
of the handwritten document “... for SDI” is in the public domain. The
paragraph,
entitled p176, on p29 of Dr. Maher’s report admits the presence of non-public
domain information and uses the Annual Reports to reinforce that
admission. This is a rare occurrence. Most of the subsequent arguments are
developed in the reverse direction - it is in the Annual Report therefore public
domain.
I am not satisfied that Dr. Maher has proved that the work described in
JS/16 is in the public domain. He has proved that the concept of Rugate filters
is public domain. He has evidence of various deposition techniques, at least one
of which was declared not to work. He has evidence of various material systems
all closely related to that used in HRC’s work. But this is not enough. He has
not assembled evidence to
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 291
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Steven Langford CUNDY
show that
microwave plasma assisted chemical vapour deposition of silicon oxynitrides is a
technique known to work. This is contained in JS/16. In straying into the
technology to attempt to show that detail in JS/16 is common knowledge, Dr.
Maher has made at least one technical error; the gases used in the deposition
system are not chosen for the purposes stated on p30 in para 5. We note that Dr.
Maher now cites the HRC Annual Reports as public disclosure documents in the
last paragraph of p30 and its continuation on p31. The inconsistency of the
logic compared to the 3rd paragraph of p29 (paragraph entitled p176) is clear.
After all this the conclusion on p31 is a non-sequitur on a grand scale.
Exhibit No. 5 - JS/17
I do agree
that the heading micromachining will throw up a vast number of citations.
However I might expect an expert faced with one specific question to be more
selective in citations than Dr. Maher already has been in dealing with the
material in JS/17 - the relevance of deformable bridges, levers, membranes and
motors to the material in JS/17 is tenuous to say the least.
Page 158 of the research bundle contains two words of passing relevance
to JS/17 - flow meters; Page 159 is irrelevant; page 160 expands the flow meter
theme and obviously refers to gaseous flow - not relevant to JS/17. Page 166
declares “we badly need drive mechanisms capable of producing high force and
high displacement simultaneously. The planar nature ... is a major limitation
for many future systems including microvalves and pumps”. This is the substance
of JS/17. Pages 169 -173 are irrelevant in the context of the question to be
answered. Following this nothing up to p183 is relevant. The relevance of the
bulk of the material in the research bundle is very low. I turn to p33 of Dr.
Maher’s report. I note repeated use of the argument that references in HRC’s
Annual Report constitute public domain disclosure. There is even the most
outrageous attempt to use the contents of the Annual Report dated June 1992,
issued no earlier than September 1992 (see the dated organisation chart), to
prove that items in JS/17 were in the public domain - see paras 1 and 3 p33.
JS/17 was dated June 1992; the Defendant left employment on 31st July and was
remanded in custody I believe from August 8th 1992 onwards. In my own statement
of 11th August 1992 I made comments about the fact that at that time I did not
recognise the written comments in JS/17 about the cryogenic cooling and spiral
fluid diode. In fact I remained unaware that members of my staff were conducting
preliminary work on these topics until I came to read the proof copy of the July
1992 report, well after August 11th 1992. At that point my colleagues and I were
able to understand the process which the Defendant used to acquire knowledge.
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 292
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Steven Langford CUNDY
In the
second paragraph p33 I see that Dr. Maher is determined to establish a win
situation using the most tortuous logic. At last: the precise details in JS/17
are not in the public domain. However Dr. Maher does not understand the details
and so they are declared not meaningful. That is not a fair comment to pass and
proves nothing about the content of JS/17.
The third paragraph suffers from time travel problem referred to above.
Therefore the correct conclusion is that the cryogenic refrigeration concept was
not in the public domain at the time that JS/17 was created. Dr. Maher does not
understand the detail but yet again passes comment on the value of the material.
The conclusion to this section on p34 is hardly defendable; many specific
items in JS/17 were plainly not in the public domain.
Exhibit No. 6 JS/18
Whilst I
accept that a reading of some of the Patents that are released for public
examination proves that some information contained in JS/18 is in the public
domain, I still need to point out how biased the conclusions reached by Dr.
Maher are in view of his own statements about this exhibit. The question to be
answered appears to be “Is the exhibited information available in
public/scientific domain”. On p35 penultimate paragraph, the first paragraph
p36, the third paragraph p36, the fourth paragraph p36, second paragraph p37,
paragraph 5 p37 and the last paragraph p37, Dr. Maher suggests information, for
one reason or another, is not public domain. There is scant acknowledgement of
this in the conclusions on p38.
I note that Dr. Maher is admitting the process of inference in dealing
with JS/18 and related information and is further using his technical
understanding to make statements like “but seems intuitively correct” (p37 para
5). This is an important point he is perhaps inadvertently making. To a
technical expert even a scrap of information when put into context has value,
even if it is to say that something does not work.
Dr. Maher has correctly identified the military antecedents of the
technology described in JS/18 on the basis of a reading of HRC’s Annual Reports
and available Patents. There is one current military descendant of the
technology described by Dr. Maher. An expert with perhaps more contextual
material could begin that deduction.
Exhibit No. 7 - JS/19
On page 40,
paragraph 4, Dr. Maher has used the time warp again to claim that information in
JS/19 was in the public domain at the time it was written. There are details in
JS/19 that plainly were neither public domain nor were recorded in the Annual
Report at the time JS/19 was written.
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 293
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Steven Langford CUNDY
Exhibit No. 8 - JS/20
Dr. Maher
is correct in his general comments about gas sensing using a variety of coatings
on SAW devices - the principles have been known for some time. The fact that HRC
has recently (on this decade timetable) started work however should have alerted
Dr. Maher to the fact that there is something new here. JS/20 gets close to
revealing the novel content. The detail about our programme in JS/20 is not
precisely in the public domain, in particular the sensitivities achieved and the
reproducibility of individual sensors achieved we would claim is important
non-public domain confirmation of achievement.
Exhibit No. 9 - 25. etc
I reference
the pages 43 - 46 of Dr. Maher’s report. I have already drawn attention to the
differences in treatment Dr. Maher has applied to the section on SAW devices to
that of the present material relating to BAW’s. I agree the principle of BAW’s
is well known, we agree the existence of the Rapier missile system and broad
details of its alleged characteristics are in the public domain. I also agree
that HRC has advertised effectively to the public domain, but in practice to a
select few concerned with military systems, that generic devices can be
developed for specific applications. However I strongly disagree with Dr.
Maher’s sweeping generalisation that therefore Cossor’s blueprints, the
manufacturing schedule for devices for a specific purpose and the identification
of that purpose as military equipment (via NATO coding on the blueprints) are
public domain. As I have mentioned before Dr. Maher apparently would only be
stopped in his tracks if the relevant military system was unknown to him or
Janes, the components were based on new physical principles and the materials
involved had only recently been synthesised. These are in fact inconsistent
criteria; a highly reliable military system is unlikely to employ highly novel
components or materials.
SR/4 Bundle
I reference
pp 47 - 52 of Dr. Maher’s report. In respect of the material relating to
infra-red detection devices I note the first sentence in Dr. Maher’s conclusions
and the further use of the argument that the systems are known, the principles
are known therefore the details of how to manufacture the critical item are
public domain. Dr. Maher has not demonstrated that the flow chart of how to
assemble the device is in the public domain. He is not admitting the argument
that details are incremental in the right hands or could be of use; he is using
the argument that not enough detail is present to dismiss the potential value.
In broadly citing the level of detail exposed in HRC patents (page 575 to 602 of
the Research Bundle) Dr. Maher has failed to distinguish the various products
and processes involved and has thus formally failed to prove that the patents
refer to the information contained in the SR/4 Bundle.
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 294
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Steven Langford CUNDY
He has
assumed, as in other parts of his report, that because certain key words appear
in the title that the information is related and more importantly in this
particular case, assumed that what is described in the Patent is in fact what
was used in the production process which is disclosed in the SR/4 Bundle. I make
specific reference to the pages in the Research Bundle:
575 - 584 This generic patent does describe detail and it describes two
possible processes. Dr. Maher gives no proof that SR/4 documentation includes
any one of these processes; even if it did, the selection of one process for
production is independent important non-public domain information.
585 - 591, 592 - 597 and 598 - 602 all refer to photodiodes and material
deposition systems not involved in the SR/4 information.
The general articles included in Dr. Maher’s Research Bundle prove
nothing about the detail of SR/4; in particular there is no proven link from the
civil users of I.R. systems to the military component which was manufactured at
HRC and whose manufacturing details were contained in SR/4.
In respect of CMOS on SOS I can accept most of what Dr. Maher reports on
p51 of his report. He is absolutely correct - the procurement specifications are
important matters which affect yield and performance of devices. Those skilled
in-the-art could use a declaration of an incoming specification, some of which
is known to a supplier but some of which is not known to a supplier, to
calibrate the likely performance of finished devices in a military context.
Signed S. L. Cundy Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 295
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 29 June 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
In the case
of
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 296
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
that M J
Smith’s position was not as a scientist or engineer, as he had failed to perform
satisfactorily in this type of role when he first joined the company. Concerning
the circulation of the HRC Research Report mentioned on page 3, M J Smith had
received a copy of the index page of these reports from me with an offer to view
articles of interest. I am unaware of any request from him to read such
articles. The background information on page 5 states that a “QA department will
always be present whenever production runs, however small, are carried out”.
This statement may mislead the reader to believe that QA applies only to
production, whereas in reality it is applied to all activities from concept to
design, development, production and after sales service. Consequently a
systematic approach is more relevant than specific product performance, as far
as system quality auditing is concerned. On page 9, Dr Maher indicates that only
QA staff have legitimate access to a “colossal amount of nitty-gritty
information”. This is true for a quality engineer, but not the case for auditing
of the quality system. M J Smith did not have legitimate access to detailed
contract or product information. I concur with Dr Maher’s comments on pages 9
and 10 concerning the diversity of knowledge needed by a QA Engineer, but must
emphasise that M J Smith was not a QA Engineer but a Quality Audit Manager
concentrating on management systems. The statement on page 10 that a “QA
engineer is responsible for verifying” indicates that the author has not
understood fully the modern approach to assuring quality, as opposed to the
routine activities of Quality Control and Inspection. On page 18, the author
mentions “inputs” and “outputs” in the classical sense of quality, but fails to
mention customer’s orders or contracts which are the most important input. On
page 19, DEF STAN 05-21 is stated as “the equivalent standard required by the
MOD in the UK” but this was abandoned by MOD in the late 1980s in favour of
direct application of AQAP1 Edn 3 and more recently of IS09001. The reference to
BS9450 implies it is a commercial standard, but omits to mention that its
application to state of the art components is almost always driven by the
Military. In the case of HRC, all BS9450 exercises have been associated with
Military Projects. The last statement of page 19 “In order to maintain BS9000
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 297
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
certification, the manufacturer is obliged to perform batch sampling at regular
intervals according to BS9450”. This statement is incorrect in two ways.
Firstly, BS9000 certification is not contingent on BS9450 but may be granted for
other standards and is based on a company’s quality control system. Secondly,
BS9450 does not describe batch sampling (this is described by BS6001) but
details a regime of systematic product and test vehicle evaluation (the test
vehicle is a CQC - capability qualification component). BS9000 does not require
“statistical analysis ... to infer the characteristics of the batch as a whole”
but relies upon declared specification limits, which is contrary to the
statement across pages 19/20. In summary, three points need to be made. Firstly,
the author has misunderstood the modern roles of quality assurance, quality
control and inspection. Secondly, he has implied that M J Smith was a quality
engineer throughout his employment at HRC (in fact this role ceased in 1987).
Finally, his statements concerning BS9000, BS9450 and DEF STAN 05-21 are
erroneous. I do not wish to add to, retract or alter any of my previous
statements.
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 298
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Gerald Herbert SWALLOW
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 29 June 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
In the case
of
Signed G. H. Swallow Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 299
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Gerald Herbert SWALLOW
copies of
which were contained in the exhibits I have previously examined. This
information could be useful to anyone developing counter measures. Dr Maher
further states that both 29 microsecond and 26.4 microsecond devices are
commercially available; these could only be supplied to the customer for whom
they were developed. Any differing requirement would require a different
specification. The examples quoted were used to show general capability in broad
terms. I agree that the concept of the device is illustrated in the paper by
Meirion Lewis referred to on page 45. It is however a far cry from the concept
and prototype which is sketched, to being able to produce reliable units
repeatedly to a tight specification. It is incorrect to say in the fourth
paragraph that to make 29 microsecond and 26.4 microsecond devices only the
dimensions are changed. The r.f. matching and packaging of the devices is also
different. The sub-system referred to in the last paragraph on page 45 does not
contain either of the above devices and operated at a different frequency and
bandwidth. The paper referred to as Inspec paper number 0900195 deals with
Ultrasonic delay lines and reflections; no reference is made to lines operating
at MICROWAVE frequencies of the order of 3 GHz. These are more difficult to
achieve. Dr Maher states in the penultimate paragraph of page 46 that “bulk
acoustic delay line technology has now been rendered obsolete”. This is not the
case. Bulk acoustic wave devices are being developed for use in the current
EUROPEAN FIGHTER AIRCRAFT project by GEC Marconi. In his conclusion Dr Maher
states that the fabrication techniques are in the public domain. I agree that
the general principles fall into this category but the process is a difficult
one requiring state of the art technology and the wealth of processing and test
detail contained in the exhibits examined, which amount to a “Mrs Beaton”
recipe, is commercially confidential and results from years of work. In my
opinion no electronics manufacturer could justify the expense of setting up the
necessary equipment because the cost of the product is high with very little
civil application at present. All lines manufactured after development at Hirst
Research Centre have been for military applications.
Signed G. H. Swallow Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 300
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 1 July 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
In the case
of
Signed A. C. Greenham Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 301
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
he has
cited from the scientific literature do not in my opinion establish that the
application of microwave plasma assisted chemical vapour deposition to the
fabrication of rugate filters is within the public domain.
Signed A. C. Greenham Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 302
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Guruge Elmo Lakshman PERERA
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 1 July 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
In the case
of R v M J Smith, on 20th May 1993 I examined the exhibit JS17, a handwritten
document titled “Micromachining Project” dated June 1992, and then provided to
police a statement based on my observations. I have now examined a document
titled “Analysis of Exhibited Material from a Technical Standpoint” dated June
1993 by Dr Eamonn Maher and the two volumes of an appended reference document.
In respect of these I have been asked whether I agree or disagree with the
author’s remarks concerning the Micromachining Project contained at pages 32-34
inclusive and whether as a result of my examination I wish to add, alter or
retract anything I have previously stated. I make the following observations:
First paragraph of page 33 is only partially correct, although this
information can, indeed, be obtained from the scientific literature. The
specific applications and order of appearance in JS17 could only have been
obtained from HRC. Some general information has appeared in HRC Research
Reports. However, HRC Research Reports are company confidential and therefore
cannot be treated as information in the public/scientific domain. Second
paragraph of page 33 refers to a diagram of a pressure transducer. To my
understanding, this has been picked up from the second page of the JS17
document. This is in fact not a pressure transducer as noted by the author of
the JS17 document. This was a copy of a colour transparency shown by me during
the lecture to a Hirst audience on the 10th of June 1992 as part of a
micro-transduction technique, using electrostatic force between two parallel
plates. The last sentence of the second paragraph states that the details in
JS17 document “are not meaningful without further elaborations”. This in my
opinion is not true.
Signed G. Perera Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 303
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dr Guruge Elmo Lakshman PERERA
Devices
shown in schematic representation are significantly important to competitors who
are in this field of technology. The concept, which is very novel, is revealed
by such sketches, and performance specifications can influence and assist
competitors. Third paragraph of page 33 refers to the third page of the
JS17 document. First part of the third page gives performance predictions of the
micromachined cryocooler. These values are significant as they show: (i) a
capability and (ii) our plans for future developments. Once again, a competitor
versed in such technologies would find this information beneficial in setting
their own strategies and plans.
These values could only have been obtained from HRC. It could not have been
found in the scientific literature/public domain. Neither in precise values nor
in order of appearance. The information is, therefore, not in the public domain.
The design for the printhead could not be deduced from knowledge of the
aim of the project and the open literature. This idea is very novel. The
conclusion of Dr Maher’s report on the third paragraph of page 33 is very naive
and unrealistic. CONCLUSION Citing the vast literature where the words
micromachining or micromachined are used does not answer the question of whether
the specific information revealed in JS17 is in the public domain. Not one cited
example refers to microcryo refrigeration with specific performance predictions.
Citing our own Annual Research reports in support of the public domain argument
is wrong. Even more so when the only mention of microcryo refrigerator with a
115 microwatts of refrigerating power (and not with 114 microwatts of
refrigerating power as in JS17 document) was produced many months after the date
on JS17; June 1992. In respect of the statement I made on 20th of May 1993 I
would wish to qualify the sentence “None of this information has been published
in scientific literature to date” as a reference to the contents of only the
first page of JS17.
Signed G. Perera Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 304
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Peter Miles BRIGGINSHAW
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 1 July 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
In the case
of R v M J Smith, on 20th May 1993 I examined exhibit JS18, a handwritten
document titled “Quasi-Optical Car Radar” and then provided to the police a
statement based on my observations. I have now examined a document titled
“Analysis of Exhibited Material from a Technical Standpoint” dated June 1993 and
written by Dr Eamonn Maher and the two volumes of appended reference documents.
In respect of these I have been asked whether I agree or disagree with the
author’s remarks concerning quasi-optical car radar contained at pp.35-38 inc.
and whether as a result of my examination I wish to add, alter or retract
anything I have previously stated. I make the following observations: Dr Maher
in his document (p35, para. 4) has repeated the error made by the author of JS18
in referring to the quasi-optical car radar project as being the
“Omega-Prometheus project” whereas in fact it is part of the Prometheus
programme co-ordinated under
Signed P. M. Brigginshaw Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 305
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Dr Donald James WEIR
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 29 June 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
In the case
of R Vs M J Smith, on the 21st May 1993 I examined exhibit JS20, a handwritten
document titled Olfactory Research Project and then provided to police a
statement containing my observations of this. I have now examined a document
titled Analysis of Exhibited Material from a Technical Standpoint dated June
1993 written by Dr Eamonn Maher and relevant sections from the appended
reference documents. In respect of these I have been asked whether I agree or
disagree with the author’s remarks concerning the Olfactory Research Project
contained on pages 41 and 42 and whether as a result of my examination I wish to
add, alter or retract anything I have previously stated. I make the following
observations concerning the section entitled “General” (p.41); two patents are
cited (p.375-405 of the Research Bundle). Only one of these is associated with
the Olfactory Research Project (p.396).
The section entitled “Analysis of the Documentation” discusses the term
“Polysiloxine” used in JS20 and observes that this material has been mentioned
in a publication relating to gas sensing. It should be noted that this
publication was found via a computer search in which search terms were
pre-specified and spelt accurately. I cannot think of a reason why such a search
would have been commissioned by a member of the QA department without discussing
the matter with me first. The author observes that he cannot find another
reference to a 261 MHz device in the literature but that the precise frequency
is not significant. It does make it probable that the information in JS20 is an
attempt to describe details of the work on Olfactory Research undertaken at HRC.
Further, the information about the frequency of SAW devices used at HRC has not
been put in a public domain document. Thus the information in JS20 is not
entirely in the
Signed Donald Weir Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 306
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dr Donald James WEIR
public
domain. The author suggests that spin coating is a technique/method that HRC
have found most convenient to apply polysiloxane. This is incorrect and reflects
Smith’s (author of JS20) lack of expertise as does the 4th paragraph of JS20 on
which I concur with Dr Maher. Dr Maher claims the remaining paragraphs are “all
extremely general principles”. They are not. The last paragraph attempts to
state to an order of magnitude accuracy the sensitivity of a SAW device chemical
sensor. This is a technical detail that forms a large part of the sensor
performance specification. The same applies to the penultimate paragraph. Dr
Maher suggests that “principles, applications and indeed manufacture of these
devices” are in HRC reports, public domain literature and patents. In fact very
little about manufacture (as opposed to prototype fabrication) is present,
especially methods of reproducible application of coating material which is
mentioned in JS20. Note that again this information was found by computer search
using pre-specified terms. The reference to HRC Reports are to Company
Confidential documents. Dr Maher’s conclusion is that “There are no concepts in
these notes that are not in the public domain”. There are however a number of
details such as the frequency of SAW resonator, the sensitivity achieved, the
reference to spin coating and reproducible fabrication that are not in the
public domain (open publication) and make it clear that JS20 describes the
status of the work at HRC. Further, as Dr Maher points out, the author of JS20
is clearly a non-expert in the field. This makes it unlikely that he could
specify the terms necessary for a computer search to find the relevant
literature without assistance. It is also unlikely that such a non-expert could
discriminate between valuable and public domain information. In my previous
statement I pointed out that “the make-up of the document suggests an attempt to
concisely state the technical status of the project by someone who does not
fully understand the key engineering issues”. I would like to add that by
technical status I refer to aspects such as device sensitivity and
reproducibility, rather than the concept of using a piezo-electric device for
chemical sensing. This technical
status information is potentially as or more important as concept.
For example, the concept of an electrically powered car is in the public
domain, however
Signed Donald Weir Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 307
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dr Donald James WEIR
the
technical status of particular development programs would nevertheless be
valuable to a competitor.
Signed Donald Weir Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 308
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Dr David Ian WEATHERLEY
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 14 July 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
In the case
of
Signed D. I. Weatherley Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 309
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Professor Charles Thomas ELLIOTT
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 23 July 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am a
Chief Scientific Officer, Grade IV, Individual Merit at DRA, Malvern. I have the
following qualifications, a BSc in Physics and a PhD in Electrical Engineering
and I am a visiting Professor at
Signed C. T. Elliott Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 310
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Prof. Charles Thomas ELLIOTT
Process
Flow Chart to an enemy or competitor. It is true that not all the critical
details are identified but it would help a potential manufacturer to establish a
viable process more quickly.”
Signed C. T. Elliott Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 311
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Martin MORRISSEY (Detective Inspector)
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 26 July 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On the
23rd. July 1993 I visited the Defence Research Agency in Malvern, Worcestershire
and showed to Professor Charles Thomas ELLIOTT two pages marked 491 and 492 of a
copy of exhibit SR/4. These two pages are the first two pages of exhibit SR/4,
being referred to as a “Process Flow Chart” by the other witnesses in this case.
This pagination refers to the Police report submitted to the Crown Prosecution
Service.
Signed Martin Morrissey D.I. Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 312
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Hugh Murdoch LAMBERTON
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 23 July 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
In the case
of
Signed H. M. Lamberton Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 313
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Meirion Francis LEWIS
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 23 July 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
With reference to my earlier
statements of 11th August and 3rd November 1992, I have now been shown a report
by Dr Eamonn Maher entitled “Analysis of Exhibited Material from a Technical
Standpoint” and asked if I agree or disagree with the conclusions, and whether I
wish to alter or add to my previous statements. Basically, the comments and
conclusions are consistent with my own earlier notes. We are all well aware of a
large published literature on SAW devices and their broad areas of application.
However, the detailed information contained in the exhibits is still of value to
a potential adversary and/or commercial competitor. For example, the association
of operating details such as frequencies or delay times with a particular system
allows that system to be jammed. Similarly, the knowledge that GEC has developed
a reproducible gas sensor using SAW techniques is valuable because the
subject has been investigated for nearly 20 years in various laboratories and to
my knowledge no such devices are yet available commercially for reasons such as
the lack of reproducibility of performance. The final comment I would make is a
very general one and concerns the information available in the scientific
literature. Much of this information is exploratory and incomplete, and often
most optimistic. This is because scientists are keen to publish as soon as
possible due to competition to be first. Sometimes, of course, the publications
are in error. Most scientists are aware of this, and the need to check carefully
the claims/findings made by other scientists. As an example, consider the recent
highly publicised events on “nuclear fusion in a test tube”. By contrast, the
documents involved in this case represent the results of work
Signed M. F. Lewis Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness
Statement Page 314
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Meirion Francis LEWIS
conducted precisely to identify
the truth, validity, manufacturability and usefulness of devices described in
the literature. They are therefore of greater value to an enemy or commercial
competitor than the original published papers. The statement on p.46 of the
report to the effect that bulk acoustic wave delay lines technology “has been
rendered obsolete by the advent of GaAs integrated circuits operating at high
frequencies and advances in optoelectronics generally” is quite misleading.
While it may be true that optoelectronic techniques can in principle
outperform bulk acoustic wave devices in some respects the latter are small,
rugged reliable proven devices that operate over a wide temperature range and
are passive (require no power supplies). By contrast, optoelectronic devices are
mechanically fragile, temperature-sensitive, active (require stabilized power
supplies) and are currently very expensive.
Signed M. F. Lewis Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 315
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Alison Meryl HODGE
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 23 July 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
With
reference to the statement I made on 3rd November 1992, I have been asked to
examine a report by Dr Maher entitled “Analysis of Exhibited Material from a
Technical Standpoint”. I have examined information in this report, in particular
the section on CMOS on SOS on pages 50 to 52. The comments he makes are in line
with my own statement. The silicon on sapphire specification as Dr Maher
comments is similar in many respects to the standard specifications for SOS
wafers as supplied by Kyocera. However, the GEC specification does include
additional information. It indicates Kyocera as the Approved Supplier even
though others exist. It is marked Company Confidential. I do not wish to alter
my previous statement.
Signed A. M. Hodge Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 316
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Michael ALLENSON
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 12 July 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
In the case
of
Signed M. Allenson Signature witnessed by A. Walsh DS
Witness Statement Page 317
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Keith Loder LEWIS
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 20 July 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
In the case
of
1. My
original statement highlights the fact that many of the technical details
relating to the work had been published in the open literature. The concept of
the rugate filter has been in the public domain for several years as Maher’s
report correctly states. In fact, unclassified aspects of the work carried out
under GEC contract SLS 22A/15 had been published at the Boulder Damage Symposium
and subsequently in text (SPIE Vol 1441, pages 316-326, 1990).
Signed K. L. Lewis Signature witnessed by C. Bennett DC
Witness Statement Page 318
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Keith Loder LEWIS
2. The
major issue is the association between rugate filters and the classified
area of sensor protection. Document AW/2 makes this association in the case of
goggles tuned to laser frequencies. It also makes the point that multi-notch
filters are useful for detecting unknown frequency targets as in SDI. This
latter piece of information is not in the public domain; in fact it is very
similar to information provided in Annex B to contract SLS 22A/15, classified at
Confidential level. I hold a copy of this document and could provide it for the
court’s examination if necessary.
3. The
graphs drawn in document AW/2 are clearly not taken from publicly available
reports. In SPIE Vol 1441, the optical characteristics of rugates produced were
shown as being those of high reflectance mirrors, suitable for use in laser
cavities, for example. In comparison, document AW/2 shows the optical
characteristics as those of rejection filters, with ‘negative’ peaks. These are
very similar to those shown in GEC Progress Reports on contract SLS 22A/15, such
as in Report No. 17386C, classified at UK Restricted Level. All reports in
contract SLS 22A/15 were classified at this level.
4. There
are major differences in US and
Signed K. L. Lewis Signature witnessed by C. Bennett DC
Witness Statement Page 319
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Keith Loder LEWIS
5. There is
no commercial application for rugate filters with up to LO notches, such filters
are firmly in the area of sensor protection. There would seem to be little
advantage in offering such information to a commercial competitor. In any case
the association with SDI would be irrelevant to any commercial exploitation.
6. The work
carried out under GEC contract SLS 22A/15 was being funded by the
Signed K. L. Lewis Signature witnessed by C. Bennett DC
Witness Statement Page 320
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF H. A. DEADMAN
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 20 July 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
In the case
of
Signed H. A. Deadman Signature witnessed by A. Walsh DS
Witness Statement Page 321
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Gordon Stephen SMITH
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 12 July 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I have
examined the paper prepared by Dr Maher and in particular pages 43 to 46 which
refer to the delay lines associated with the Operator’s Confidence Facility
(OCF). He draws the conclusion on page 46 that “the link between the delay lines
and their application is firmly established in the HRC Research Reports”. I
would question whether that information would be freely available outside HRC,
but that point would need to be checked at HRC. I have never had sight of an HRC
report. The OCF comprises a surveillance radar (transmitter/receiver), an IFF
unit (transmitter/ receiver) and a power supply unit.
It is used to carry out “confidence checks” on the weapon system. When
scanned by the surveillance radar and IFF, the OCF simulates a hostile or
friendly target at a fixed range and at a constant velocity. In operation, the
OCF takes incoming signals from the surveillance radar which are fed to the
receiver where they are amplified and delayed or phase shifted to represent a
target. The signals are re-transmitted to the surveillance radar and appear as
signals from a genuine target at a fixed range and with a constant velocity.
Signals from the IFF transmitter are picked up by the aerial and receiver. The
signals are checked in the logic circuits to ensure that the mode is the same as
that set on the OCF. If correct, a coded train of pulses is radiated by the
aerial to simulate the transponder of a friendly aircraft. In my experience in
the field of applications engineering I believe that the fabrication of delay
lines is fairly well documented in the public domain, and I agree with those
parts of Dr Maher’s report which identify
Signed G. S. Smith Signature witnessed by Martin. Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 322
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Gordon Stephen SMITH
this fact.
The Rapier system, however, is a current military weapon and will remain so
until at least the next century. It is the combination of the frequencies used
in the surveillance radar, as identified in Janes Land Based Air Defence
publication and the time delay as applicable to the OCF as identified in HRC
reports by Dr Maher, which could be utilised to develop counter measures. I do
not revise my opinion contained in my statement of 11th August 1992 that the
loss of the information contained in the exhibits I have been shown, JS22 -
JS37, would be prejudicial to the interests of the
Signed G. S. Smith Signature witnessed by Martin. Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 323
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF James Frederick WILDISH
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 16 July 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
In the case
of
Signed J. F. Wildish Signature witnessed by Martin. Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 324
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Peter Leonard KNOWLTON
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 16 July 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
In the case
of
Signed P. Knowlton Signature witnessed by Martin. Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 325
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF John Richard WEATHERLEY
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 28 July 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
In the case
of
Signed J. R. Weatherley Signature witnessed by Martin. Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 326
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Squadron Leader Colin BAGLEY
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 6 August 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am still
a Squadron Leader in the Royal Air Force but I am presently on a resettlement
training course with Marconi Command and Control International in the Sultanate
of Oman. I retire from the Royal Air force on 1 September 1993 and will take up
full time civilian employment with Marconi in
Signed Colin Bagley Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 327
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Squadron Leader Colin BAGLEY
suggests
that the HRC data is in that domain and, by association, so is the Rapier
operating frequency. On this point I strongly disagree. The frequency band in
which a system such as Rapier operates is fairly common knowledge and can be
obtained from publications such as Janes, as Dr Maher indicates; however, this
information reveals only the very broad bandwidth in which the system is
operating and is not sufficiently specific to enable the construction of
effective counter-measures. Such a level of effectiveness can only be achieved
if the centre frequency of a system is known, thus enabling an enemy aircraft’s
maximum jamming power to be concentrated at this specific frequency, rather than
spread less effectively over a wider bandwidth. The effect of this would be to
prevent the detection of enemy aircraft and thus prevent a system, such as
Rapier, from firing its missiles and destroying those aircraft. I have examined
JS21 of the exhibit bundle which are Cossor documents for the post modification
of Type 29 delay lines. Pages 202 to 209 inclusive contain the specific
operating frequency and performance characteristics of the delay lines under
test. I believe this data would provide the essential detail for the
construction of effective counter-measures against any system using these delay
lines. Dr Maher makes no reference to the implication of the effect of the
information contained in JS21 (pages 202 to 209 of the bundle). This information
is certainly not in the public domain, neither is it contained in either Janes
or any of the HRC annual reports in Dr Maher’s research bundle, pages 435 to
459. It should be noted that this information relates to currently deployed
Rapier missile systems. Dr Maher in his “Overview” on page 2 of his Analysis
makes reference to the classification of documents being “never higher than
Restricted” seeming to suggest that this classification is of little importance.
However, the definition of Restricted is “Information and material the
unauthorised disclosure of which would be undesirable in the interests of the
nation”. Also in the Overview Dr Maher makes reference to “frustrated
scientists/engineers drawing up notes” etc. This may be the case but no
responsible scientist/engineer would disseminate critical data, such as that
referred to above,
Signed Colin Bagley Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 328
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Squadron Leader Colin BAGLEY
in such a
cavalier fashion that it would jeopardise the interests or safety of the nation.
I believe, therefore, that Dr Maher is putting much too broad an interpretation
on the term public domain and that, whilst some of the information may be
accessible to anyone having need of it, there is also some information that
would be known to be highly classified to any person involved with the design,
construction and use of defence systems and this information is not, and should
not be, in the public domain.
Signed Colin Bagley Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 329
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF Squadron Leader Colin BAGLEY
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 6 August 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
In a
statement made by me earlier this day I made reference to the copy of exhibit
JS21 contained on pages 193 to 233 of the exhibit bundle. I now produce these
pages as exhibit CB/1.
Signed Colin Bagley Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 330
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Mr “B”
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 23 June 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to
my statement of 28th. August 1992 Detective Inspector Morrissey has played to me
to-day an audio tape marked MG/1 which contains the recording of a telephone
call which I made on 8th August 1992' at 9.02am to telephone number 549 5369,
the subscriber to which is Michael John Smith at 48A Burton Road,
Kingston-Upon-Thames. DI Morrissey has shown me a telephone call print-out
marked MG/2 which is a record of the telephone calls made to and from the
telephone I was using. In addition to the call I made at 9.02am to telephone
number 549 5369, the conversation being detailed in my previous statement, I
made the following further calls. At 9.18am I began to dial telephone number 546
6575 the number of a public telephone kiosk at Cardinal Avenue near the junction
of Durlston Road and Hollybush Road, Kingston-Upon-Thames. On the recording a
background speaking clock gives the time as 9-19 and 10 seconds at about the
time I finished dialling. The ringing tone continued for about 34 seconds and as
the telephone was not answered I replaced the receiver. At 9.26am, the
background speaking clock giving the time as 9.26 and 10 seconds when I started
dialling, I called telephone number 549 5369 at Mr. Smith’s home address a
second time and the call was answered by a recorded message on a telephone
answering machine and the message said:
Female
voice: “hello”
Male voice:
“hello, please don’t hang up”
Female
voice: “and don’t panic, this is Pam”
Signed Mr. “B” Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 331
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Mr “B”
Male voice:
“and Mike and the answering machine”
Female
voice: “I’m sorry we are unable to come to the phone just now”
Male voice:
“but please leave us a message with your name and telephone number and ...”
At this point I replaced the
receiver. During the telephone call at the time that “Mike” was mentioned I said
“hello, hello”. At 9.37am, the background speaking clock giving the time as 9.37
and 40 seconds, I called 549 5369 at Mr. Smith’s home address a third time, and
the call was answered again by the same recorded message. This time I allowed
the recorded message to continue and the additional part of the message said:
Male voice:
“... we’ll get back to you as soon as we can”
Female
voice: “you can speak after the beep unless there are six beeps which means can
you please try later. Bye”
I then
replaced the receiver. During the time I was making these calls, and afterwards,
the telephone I was using rang several times with incoming calls which I did not
answer. This is shown on MG/2 by four entries reading “unansw”. Finally there
were two calls to the telephone I was using which were answered by Detective
Chief Superintendent MacLeod. The tape does not contain a record of these
incoming calls.
Signed Mr. “B” Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 332
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Antonio Cardoso MOREIRA
Age if under 21 Over 21 (born 1937)
Dated 14 September 1993
[N.B. The
original statement in Portuguese is at pp. 335-8. The following is a translation
of Snr Cardoso’s statement, edited by the police]
I have been
employed by the Porto Bus Company STCP since 1961. I started as a bus conductor
and became a driver before promotion in 1983 to Co-ordinating Inspector.
Because I
have worked in the STCP for a long time, I know in detail all the bus routes and
bus-stops of the company, as well as the changes that some of these bus-stops
and routes have suffered.
Today I
have been to 3 places in
The first
place was the Rua Do Dr. Ferreira da Silva, where I recall that on the east side
of this street in 1977-78 there were five bus-stops, one at each end of the
street and three others more or less equidistant between them, and the five
bus-stops covered a distance of around 100 to 120 metres. I think that at that
time four of these bus-stops had bus shelters, but not the one at the south end.
Nowadays,
there are no STCP bus-stops in this street, they were moved in 1989-90. There
are now two bus-stops with shelters for long distance tours, which have been
there about one year [COMMENT: i.e. these bus-stops do
Signed A. C. Moreira Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 333
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Antonio Cardoso MOREIRA
not belong
to the STCP].
I would
also add that in 1977-78, in front of these bus-stops was the
The second
place we visited was the Praca da Liberdade. This place has not changed since
1977, nor have the STCP bus-stops. More precisely ... there were five bus-stops
... four with shelters. Nowadays ... only three have shelters.
The third
place we visited was Rua De Sa Da Bandeira ... opposite the Café De Brasilera.
There still exists there a bus-stop which existed there in 1977-78, except that
at that time it had no shelter. Nowadays, there is a phone box there also, which
was not there in 1977-78.
I would say
that the first two places are two of the five main termini for buses of the
STCP, there is no direct connection made by any bus between the three places.
The shelters in 1977-78 ... were constructed with four metal poles without any
lateral protection and only a metallic cover, 4 metres in length, 1.60 metres in
width, and 2.20 metres in height.
Signed A. C Moreira Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 334
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Jonathan Peter SAY
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 16 September 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I have
examined Exhibit PMS/24 - twenty (20) £50 Bank of England notes, and Exhibit
PMS/25 - twenty (20) £50 Bank of England notes and I produce a list of the
cipher and serial numbers of these notes as Exhibit JPS12. The cipher and serial
numbers of the three (3) £50 Bank of England notes found on Mr SMITH’s person at
the time of his arrest are also shown.
Signed Jonathan Say Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 335
Portuguese version of Antonio
Cardoso Moreira’s statement (not available)
Witness Statement Page 336
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Antonio Cardoso MOREIRA
Mantendo-se, tal
O terceiro
local visitado é situado no início da Rua de Sá da Bandeira, concretamente no
sentido Sul-Norte, em frente, isto é, no lado oposto do “Café da Brasileira”. Aí
continua a existir uma paragem de autocarros, que já existia à data de
1977-1978, com excepção de que nessa data, não dispunha de qualquer abrigo para
protecção de passageiros, o que acontece desde há cerca de três, quatro anos.
Presentemente existe nesse local uma cabine telefónica, que terá sido alí
colocada há cerca de dois anos, sendo certo que em 1977-1978, não existia alí
qualquer cabine telefónica.
A pergunta
feita, respondeu que embora os dois primeiros locais sejam dois dos cinco
principais terminais de autocarros, do STCP, não existe, nem 1977-1978 existia,
uma ligação directa que fosse efectuada por qualquer autocarro entre qualquer
dos três locais em causa.
Apregunta
feita, e àcerca das caracteristicas dos abrigos para passageiros existentes nas
paragens de autcarros à data de 1977-1978, respondeu que, conforme foi possível
ser verificado hoje, em alguns locais
da cidade do Porto, e enquanto se procedia à visita dos locais
anteriormente referidos, pelos elementos da Polícia Judiciária, pelo Sr. Martin
Morrissey, os abrigos eram, em 1977-1978, constituídos por quatro apoios
metálicos, sem qualquer protecção lateral e apenas com cobertura igualmente
metálica, com as dimensões de cerca de 4 metros por 1,60 metros e com cerca de
2,20 metros de altura.
E mais não
disse.
Ass)
António Cardoso Moreira
E para
Constar se lavrou o presente auto que vai ser devidamente assinado.
Witness Statement Page 337
Portuguese version of Antonio
Cardoso Moreira’s statement (not available)
Witness Statement Page 338
Portuguese version of Antonio
Cardoso Moreira’s statement (not available)
Witness Statement Page 339
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Geoffrey DICKINSON, B.Sc. MITI
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 17 September 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am an
official translator of the Portuguese language for the Metropolitan Police. I
have translated the following document.
GD/1
interview of Antonio Cardoso Moreira. I now produce this translation as an
exhibit as above. The translation is true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge and ability.
Signed G. Dickinson Signature witnessed by L. Dale
Witness Statement Page 340
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Mrs “C” (Stella RIMINGTON)
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 17 September 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I refer to my previous statement dated 9
December 1992. I have read the statement made by Detective Inspector Morrissey
dated 17 June 1993 and the statement made by Antonio Cardoso Moreira dated 14
September 1993 and examined the exhibits attached to D.I. Morrissey’s statement.
I am now aware that in 1977 there were no telephone boxes situated on two of the
sites marked with a cross on Exhibit JS45 and on which there were telephone
boxes situated when I visited
Signed Mrs “C” Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 341
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Robert Philip AVERY
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 20 September 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am the Principal Lecturer,
Russian Language Wing,
Signed Robert Avery Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 342
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Robert Philip AVERY
I have
observed on many occasions. However, if such an idiom exists in other languages
it may also be mistranslated, as in this example, by speakers of that language
when working in English. But in this case, this is a classic Russian error when
going into English. A subsidiary feature of interest in this letter is the use
of the abstract noun “recreation” with no attendant concrete noun. My first
impression was that a concrete noun (for example “field”, “ground”) had been
omitted. It is a feature of Russian that the abstract noun can stand
independently to denote the appropriate concrete noun. For example, the Russian
abstract noun signifying “production” may also signify “the place of
production” i.e. a factory or works. However, this may be a feature of foreign
languages other than Russian. The final point I would make about the letter is
the use of the unadorned surname as the signature i.e. with no first name,
capital letters to denote first or second name nor any title such as mister or
doctor. This is a feature of Russian letter-writing etiquette in the formal
style, for example between business or work associates who know each other but
not well enough to use a first name. In these circumstances it does not
correspond to the informal mode of address “Dear Mike” which opens the letter. A
passing observation on the envelope would be the confusion between upper and
lower case English letters when attempting to print one letter at a time for the
purpose of clarity. I have observed that such confusion is characteristic of
Russians writing English particularly concerning the letters t, i, R and N. In
this example upper case R and N appear to have been consistently used instead of
lower case r and n. Conversely I have observed lower case i and t commonly used
in error for their upper case equivalents in block capital writing. I have not
seen or done any research in this area and it may well apply to speakers of
other languages than Russian.
Signed Robert Avery Signature witnessed by Martin Morrissey DI
Witness Statement Page 343
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Graham Mark WILSON
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 3 March 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I am a
technical officer employed by the Metropolitan Police in the Computer Services
Laboratory. On the 10th August 1992 exhibits PMS/2, PMS/3, PMS/4, PMS/5, PMS/6,
PMS/7 and PMS/8 were submitted for examination and placed in secure storage.
Initial examination of these exhibits find that: Exhibits PMS/6, PMS/2 and PMS/5
are the main unit, monitor and keyboard of a Macintosh IIci Computer
respectively. Exhibit PMS/7 is an Apple mouse and computer leads. Exhibit PMS/4
is a DIKI DEVICES hard disk and removable cartridge unit. Exhibit PMS/8 is a
Signed G. M. Wilson Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 344
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Graham Mark WILSON
secure
store. During my examinations, initial printouts of some of these files from
Exhibit PMS/3 have been made available to DS Gilbertson. These are crude
printouts generated using an investigative computer program and are used to give
an indication of the contents of a file. After examination all exhibits were
returned to secure storage.
Signed G. M. Wilson Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 345
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Trevor Alan George ELSON
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 5 October 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I have a
BSc in Aeronautical Engineering which I gained at
I recognise the handwriting as
that of Mike Smith. Although I have never seen entire reports of his in upper
case, I have seen Aide Memoires in this form.
Signed T. A. G. Elson Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 346
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Trevor Alan George ELSON
The notes
appear to summarise the technical status of various HRC projects detailing the
broad outline of the project problems and achievements, complete with some
sketches for clarification. I have never seen or commissioned project notes of
this nature and they would not be needed for Quality Systems Auditing. Some
parts of each of these project notes may be of use to a Quality Engineer working
with the relevant project area, but I would expect this information to be in a
more abbreviated form. I would not expect any QA personnel associated with these
projects to generate notes of this type. From my experience there is very little
information relating to Quality System issues contained within these notes. I
was surprised that Mike Smith has produced such detailed reports as his interest
in Auditing was confined generally to that of system and procedural matters and
not technical matters such as contained in these notes. Indeed my own
recollection of auditing many areas and projects with Mike Smith was that he
expressed a desire not to get involved in technical detail. Some of the
technical detail contained within these notes may well have been observed during
routine audits, however, I do not believe that the majority of information could
be obtained through normal Auditing practises. Detective Inspector Nicholson
also showed me a photocopy of a 16 page handwritten document entitled
“Calibration of Ling dynamic systems SCO 300” with an attached covering note,
which I understand is exhibit MN/12 in the case of R v M. Smith. I recognise
this document to be in the normal handwriting of Mike Smith and a procedure that
I asked him investigate and produce.
Signed T. A. G. Elson Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 347
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Ian Geoffrey Crighton
Age if under 21 68
Dated 5 October 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I joined
the General Electric Company, (GEC Ltd) in December 1946, after completion of my
National Service in the Royal Navy. I was then 21 years old. I went to work in
the GEC establishment,
Signed I. G. Crighton Signature witnessed by R. Gilbertson DS
Witness Statement Page 348
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Ian Geoffrey CRIGHTON
design
control of gallium arsenide integrated circuits. We worked together on this over
a few weeks possibly months. In the course of my work in Q/A I would have access
to company files which, if I was authorised to have and need, would be retained
in my office. Mr SMITH and Mr WATERS also would have retained files for their
work. The files were kept in our own individual filing cabinets. I cannot state
how Mr WATERS or Mr SMITH kept their files, however I always locked away my
files in my cabinet when I was not using them. This cabinet was of a general
standard commercial design. I have been shown a copy of exhibit JS/15. I was
aware of the project but did not have this document in my possession. It is
possible I carried some (Q/A) product inspection on the final product, but as
far as this document is concerned I can state I did not have it in my possession
or my office. I did not pass this document on to Michael SMITH as I did not have
it, and even if I had retained it for any reason would not have passed it on to
him as it did not concern him as far as I was aware. I cannot think how Mr SMITH
could have obtained documents he was not authorised to have. When I retired I
returned the company files I had been working on for my (Q/A) work back to the
appropriate sections in GEC (Hirst Research Centre), there were no company files
or reports left in my filing cabinet when I left the company.
Signed I. G. Crighton Signature witnessed by R. Gilbertson DS
Witness Statement Page 349
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Meirion Francis LEWIS
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 11 October 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
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
Witness Statement Page 350
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Meirion Francis LEWIS
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 11 October 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Thursday, 7th October 1993, I
gave evidence in the case of R-v-Smith. During the course of cross-examination I
was presented a Defence council research abstract on page 417 of the Defence
bundle, the authors being Caliendo et al. The Defence contended that the data
contained therein was in the public domain and replicated the content of a
handwritten document entitled OLFACTORY RESEARCH PROJECT dated May 1992. I
disputed this on a variety of grounds, and I undertook to study the full paper
to ascertain the facts. I have obtained a full copy of the paper, which I now
produce as Exhibit MFL/1. I have examined this document and I would contend that
it vindicates each of the points I made during cross-examination.
Point 1: This concerns the
nature of the acoustic wave employed in the sensor. I contended during
cross-examination that this was not a surface acoustic wave but one occupying
the bulk of the medium. I also pointed out that the liquid used (water) would
attenuate a surface acoustic wave. These points are confirmed in the paper. Thus
on page 383 it is stated “... most liquids prevents the use of the Rayleigh
mode, for which energy radiation into the liquid give rise to excessive
insertion loss in the acoustic line”. The penetration of the acoustic wave into
the bulk of the medium is also fully evident in Figures 1 and 2 of this article
on p.384.
Point 2: This concerns the
Defence claim that the authors demonstrated a highly reproducible response.
During cross-examination I expressed extreme scepticism on this claim, and this
is vindicated by the authors description of their measurements. They say on
pages 385/6 “The complete cycle was repeated several times in different days
showing every time the same behaviour”. This is a totally inadequate
demonstration of reproducibility. Anyone with a knowledge of such matters knows
that such a claim must be backed with evidence on at least several BATCHES of
devices, the experiments being
Signed M. F. Lewis Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page
351
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Meirion Francis LEWIS
conducted in different
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS (temperature, humidity, vibration, etc.), and taken
over a period of months or years. The defendant worked in the Quality Assurance
department and would be fully aware of such facts. His handwritten note is
therefore infinitely more useful to a potential enemy than the scientific paper
making ostensibly the same claim.
This illustrates a much more
general point, namely that documents originating from within a manufacturing
Company such as GEC, are of much greater practical value than scientific papers,
in which the authors prime aim is often to be the first to publish. As a result
of this need to publish quickly the material published if often incomplete, and
the conclusions tentative, and always optimistic. This is well understood in the
scientific community, where research workers learn to interpret publications
correctly.
Signed M. F. Lewis Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 352
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Trevor Alan George ELSON
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 11 October 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to
my statement dated 5 October 1993, today, 11th October 1993, I was shown pages
269/1 and 269/2 of the Prosecution Exhibit Bundle, which I have been told
relates to Exhibit SR/4. The two pages I have been shown relate to a GEC-HRC
Infra-red detector configuration flow-chart. On the left hand side of page 269/1
appears its reference number and status, which indicates that it is a “Draft a”
document produced in June 1988. The “Draft a” is the first issue of this
document. I do not believe that Mike Smith would have been involved in the
production of this document as his remit was confined to auditing at that time.
It may be that this document was produced or seen by Mike Smith during the
course of an audit, but I have no recollection of this. I was also shown
Exhibits JS/21 to JS/38 inclusive, which are pages 188 to 269/J inclusive in the
Prosecution Exhibit Bundle. Although some of these documents may well have been
seen by Mike Smith during the course of an audit, I can see no reason why he
would have been involved in the updating of these documents. If there was an
involvement it would be to merely check that the documents had been updated as
required by the audit report. I cannot think of a good reason why Mike Smith
should have so many of these documents in his possession.
Signed T. A. G. Elson Signature witnessed by A. Walsh D.S.
Witness Statement Page 353
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 11 October 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
In the case
of
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 354
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
original
controlled document issued to F.S. McCLEMONT; the copy was given to W. TATHAM
whose pencilled name appears on the cover
page. This copy was kept by W. TATHAM in his desk drawer but was unlikely
to have been used since October 1991 and its absence would not have been
noticed. I have previously stated on 20th May 1993 that there is no obvious
reason for these documents to be together for any HRC activity. With reference
to JS21-38 inclusive (Court Exhibits numbers 9-26 inclusive) pages 188 to 269
A-J inclusive, which I also examined at the HRC on 8th October 1993, these refer
to the F band delay line; the drawings were created up to 1983 (with the
possible exception of page 229 which is undated) and could have been brought
together in this form at any time up to 1990. Beyond 1990 the drawing numbers
system was changed. These documents may have legitimately been held together for
a quality assurance activity and may have been retained in the QA section. The
absence of a date stamp on the HRC drawings indicates that these copies were not
made from drawings held by the laboratory. M.J. SMITH’s only involvement in the
area of DELAY LINES was during audits in October 1989 (audit report numbers
410.01 and 410.02), November 1990 (audit report numbers 501-01, 501.02, 501.03,
501.04 and 501.05) and December 1991 (audit report number 597.01). Examination
of these audit reports does not indicate that any of the documents in exhibit
JS21-38 were required during the audits. I now produce copies of the above
mentioned audit reports (8 in all) as exhibit DGB/1. The specific copies
included in JS21-38 would not have been consulted for test/inspection purposes;
the controlled copies held in the delay line area could have been used,
therefore the absence of JS21-38 from the company would have gone unnoticed. The
exhibit SR4, which I also examined at the HRC on Friday 8th October, contained
in pages 269/1 to 269/87 inclusive, contains a number of technologies all of
which would have involved QA, but it is unlikely that these documents would have
been placed together as a natural part of QA work. I have previously stated that
the document of particular interest is the Infra Red Detector Configuration
Flowchart on pages 269/1 and 269/2. This flowchart is an original laser print
the likes of which was last produced in the HRC prior to March 1991, at which
time the documentation for this
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 355
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
technology
was transferred to GEC Sensors. It is not possible to indicate where this copy
had been kept, but the copies that I knew were retained by QA are still in
place. M.J. SMITH had worked as a Quality Engineer in the INFPA RED area in
1986/7 prior to his auditing role and he may have been involved in the early
preparation of this flowchart. The formal issue of the flowchart in question
occurred a year after his audit role started. Although M.J. SMITH was involved
in auditing the INFRA RED area, it was not necessary for him to have a copy of
the flowchart document at that time. In respect of the period 1990 to 1992 and
the technologies contained in exhibits JS16 (Court Exhibit 4 pages 176-178)
Rugate filters for SDI; JS17 (Court Exhibit 5, pages 179-181) Micromachining
Project; JS18 (Court Exhibit 6, pages 182-185) Quasi Optical Car Radar; JS19
(Court Exhibit 7, page 186) Micron Valve Project; and JS20 (Court Exhibit 8,
page 187); M.J. SMITH’s involvement in the above mentioned technologies was as
quality system auditor. In connection with these he produced the following audit
reports; JS16 Rugate filters, report numbers 460.01, 460.02, 460.03 and 460.04
dated 30.4.90 in the audit area “Plasma Deposition” and report number 630.01
dated 4.6.92 in the audit area “Optical Components”. It should be noted that the
auditor is responsible for entering the summary information into the audit
database and in the latter audit the auditor names were incorrectly entered as
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by M. Nicolson DI
Witness Statement Page 356
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Trevor Alan George ELSON
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 13 October 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Having examined the monthly
minutes of meetings covering the management of the HRC audit programme, I can
say that none of the HRC contract numbers contained in Exhibit JS/8 - Court
Exhibit 3, Prosecution Bundle page 270 - is shown in the minutes as requiring
audit.
Signed T. A. G. Elson Signature witnessed by A. Walsh DS
Witness Statement Page 357
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
William TATHAM
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 13 October 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I joined
what is now known as the Ministry of Defence in 1950 and worked in the area of
Quality Assurance, developing test equipment until 1962. Thereafter I headed the
department dealing with design of equipment and with training electronic
engineering apprentices. In 1974 I was promoted to Assistant Director grade with
responsibility for QA on batteries and cables, and also in charge of the United
Kingdom National Supervising Inspectorate. This entailed overall control of
quality assurance on British Standard 9000 electronic components and the
European equivalent. I retired from the MOD in 1981 and was then taken on by the
MOD as a ‘re-employed pensioner’ dealing with QA on quartz crystals and electron
tubes. In 1986 I finally retired from the MOD and was then approached by GEC
Hirst Research Centre (HRC) to work in the QA department as a part-time
consultant, which I continue to do. Today, Thursday, 13th October 1993 I met
with Detective Inspector NICOLSON and was asked to examine documents which he
advised me was Exhibit JS/15 in the case of
Signed
Witness Statement Page 358
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
William TATHAM
I recognise the 1990 documents
as my own reference documents; it has my name pencilled on it. These had been
passed to me, probably in 1990, by Simon McClemont. It is a copy of a controlled
document issued to him. I required it for updating procedures in the SAW
fabrication area. This was not directly QA work; it involved modifying
procedures, with which I was fully acquainted. QA personnel would sometimes
accompany me on this work purely for QA purposes. For this, they would not need
to have a copy of this document but would expect to have sight of it. On some
occasions, possibly two or three times, Mike SMITH accompanied me to the Device
Applications Laboratory for this purpose. I kept my copy of the 1990 document in
an unlocked drawer of my desk, in an office which joins onto the QA area. I
share this office with Trevor ELSON. It is accessible to all QA personnel for as
long as the QA area is open. I retained it for possible further reference. A
controlled copy of this document can also be found in the QA Library and also in
the Device Applications Reference Library. This document was amongst a number of
other documents which deal with QA procedures but to my knowledge this document
was the only one which related to a specific project. To the best of my
knowledge no other documents are missing. I wasn’t aware that this document was
missing until about a week ago; I have had no need to refer to it since first
working on it. No one who needed to refer to it would have approached me for it;
they would have gone to see Simon McClemont to get the latest copy. At no time
did any person ask me for this document and at no time did I give any person
permission to access it or remove it. The remaining documents in the Exhibit
JS/15, those dated 1982/1983, relate to matters predating my arrival at HRC. I
was aware that a SAW capability document existed but have never previously
Signed
Witness Statement Page 359
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
William TATHAM
seen it.
Taken together, these documents would make it possible for those technically
competent to set up a SAW production line. In effect, it is a recipe book for
SAW devices, which have commercial and military applications, and they would be
extremely valuable to any competitor. I can think of no reason within HRC why
these documents should be filed together. I would not know where the 1982/1983
documents would have been kept but I would expect QA to have such copies. Today,
Detective Inspector Nicolson also showed me fifteen HRC Quality Audit Reports
marked as Exhibit DGB/2. In particular I examined the copy of Audit Report
number 627.01. This is a true record of an audit undertaken by myself and Mike
SMITH on 14th May 1992 in the Millimetre Wave Radar area, where the Quasi
Optical Car Radar project takes place. I wrote the report and signed it. The
purpose of this audit was to see that Peter BRIGGINSHAW, the project leader, was
complying with QA procedures. This audit did not require any technical detail to
be examined; it related only to procedures. Consequently my notes would not have
related to any technical matters although through conversation with Peter
Brigginshaw, I inevitably became aware of some technical aspects and the
potential for commercial and military applications.
Signed
Witness Statement Page 360
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 15 October 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Following
notification of the arrest of Michael Smith, a former employee of HRC. I caused
his filing cabinet to be kept locked in an unused office. I instructed my staff
that no documentation should be added or removed from this cabinet, but I did
allow access for necessary work purposes. For the purposes of providing a
statement to Police on 11th October 1993 I had removed folders from this
cabinet. After providing my statement I returned these folders to the cabinet
and I noticed that there were various samples of device hardware and photocopies
of technical articles from journals therein. From this discovery it is apparent
that Michael Smith did not remove all items in his possession when he left the
employ of HRC. I stand by my earlier comment made in my statement of 20th May
1993 that Mike Smith’s departure from HRC was orderly and unhurried.
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by A. Walsh DS
Witness Statement Page 361
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Karl GEHRING
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 15 October 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On 15 October 1993, at the
Central Criminal Court, I produced my personal diary for 1992 to DS Ronald
Gilbertson. I can state that in respect of the entry for the week commencing 15
June 1992 to 20 June 1992 I made an entry indicating I was unavailable for any
appointments, other than a personal holiday. I took a holiday during this period
and stayed in a caravan in Pembrokeshire. I now produce my 1992 diary as exhibit
KG/1.
Signed K. A. Gehring Signature witnessed by R. Gilbertson DS
Witness Statement Page 362
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
William TATHAM
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 14 October 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to
my previous statement dated 13/10/93 respecting the case of R v Michael SMITH.
On 14/10/93 at the Central Criminal Court I inspected exhibit JS/18, which
consisted of four sheets of paper numbered 1-4. The first page is headed,
‘QUASI-OPTICAL CAR RADAR’. I have the following observations to make in respect
of this exhibit. On behalf of the Hirst Research Centre (HRC) I conducted an
audit with Michael SMITH on 14/5/92, in respect of millimetre wave technology.
(This technology incorporates the Quasi-Optical Car Radar research being
conducted by Mr Peter BRIGGINSHAW). This audit report is part of exhibit DGB/2
and bears the reference number 627.01. I can recognise the handwriting of the
exhibit JS/18 as being that of Michael SMITH. I have known him since 1986, and
am familiar with his handwriting. I do not believe that the detail respecting
this area of technology, as recorded on the sheets of paper, was required for
the purpose of this audit. This is because the audit was in respect of procedure
as to how the job was done. The detail on the sheets of paper gives technical
details on the project which was not necessary for this audit.
Signed
Witness Statement Page 363
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Trevor Alan George ELSON
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 18 October 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
On Friday
15th October 1903 I was requested by Mr D.G. BARLOW to obtain loose documents
and devices from the filing cabinets now kept at HRC Borehamwood. These
cabinets, which I will now refer to as A and B, were previously kept at HRC
Wembley and used by Mike SMITH. During his (Mike SMITH) employment at HRC
Wembley, Mike SMITH had the exclusive use of cabinet A and the use of cabinet B
for about the last four months of his employment al HRC. I opened the bottom
drawer of cabinet A and found two piles of documents then took possession of
them. In the third drawer, counting from the top, of cabinet B I found a box
labelled “11 to 20” and six identical metal boxes with BNC connectors.
I took possession of the box labelled “11 to 20” and one of the metal
boxes marked ‘5 PF’. In the bottom drawer of cabinet B I found a box labelled “1
to 10” and a piece of black foam with 12 dual in line devices in ceramic
packages bearing the identification MA734, 1746, 8623. I looked inside the boxes
labelled “11 to 20” and “1 to 10” and found them with identical devices as
described above. However, in the box labelled “11 to 20” I also found 4 smaller
ceramic packages (white), a ceramics marking pencil, and four pieces of paper
with notes on. I then took possession of the devices on the black foam and the
box labelled “1 to 10”. I also took possession of GEC Journal of Science and
Technology Vol. 48 No. 2 found in drawer 3 of cabinet B. In cabinet B drawer 4 I
also found a sheet of paper from Marconi Space Systems bearing the
identification 3991-0023-ES and took possession of it. I then took these items
to the Central
Signed T. Elson Signature witnessed by R. Gilbertson DS
Witness Statement Page 364
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Trevor Alan George ELSON
Criminal
Court and passed them to Mr D.G. BARLOW. On 18th October 1993 I attended the
Central Criminal Court where I saw the Exhibits DGB/3 and DGB/4 and I recognise
them as being the documents I removed from cabinet A. I was also shown DGB/5. I
recognise these as being the same items I took from cabinet B. I was also shown
DGB/7 and DGB/8 which I also recognise as items I took from cabinet B.
Signed T. Elson Signature witnessed by R. Gilbertson DS
Witness Statement Page 365
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Dennis BARLOW
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 15 October 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
With
reference to my previous statements in the case of R. v. Michael SMITH. As a
result of being requested by police to further examine documents in the
aforementioned case I opened two filing cabinets located now in the Quality
Assurance (QA) division at the Hirst Research Centre, Borehamwood, Herts. These
filing cabinets were both previously in the office of Michael SMITH, and were
located in the QA division at the Hirst Research Centre (HRC)
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by R. Gilbertson DS
Witness Statement Page 366
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dennis BARLOW
was no
drawer dividers in this drawer. As far as I am aware the remaining three drawers
contain records and files relating to quality audit. In filing cabinet ‘B’ I
found in the bottom drawer a piece of black foam approximately 7” x 6”. Pressed
into this foam for electro-static protection are twelve ceramic IC’s (Integrated
Circuits) labelled MA734-1746-86-23. These are silicon on sapphire technology.
By reference to the aforementioned number I can state they were manufactured in
1986. There was also a cardboard box approximately 7” x 6” x 1”. This contained
a piece of black foam which fitted the box. Pressed into the foam were nine
ceramic IC’s labelled MA734-1746-86-23. There was another layer of foam above
these containing twelve IC’s of the same batch number. These were CQC’s
(Capability Qualification Circuits) and are made for process capability
approval. There was another cardboard box approximately 6” x 7” x 1”. This also
contained a piece of black plastic foam. Pressed into the foam were six IC’s of
the name batch number as previously stated. All were pressed into the foam,
however all six appeared obviously damaged. There were also four white ceramic
integrated circuits which were sealed but unmarked. This box also contained a
pencil, and four handwritten notes containing technical information respecting
the integrated circuits. The drawer also contained: a photocopy page from a
device specification produced by Marconi Space Systems,
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by R. Gilbertson DS
Witness Statement Page 367
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dennis BARLOW
in the
cabinet on 12.10.93. I took possession of these items from Trevor ELSON. With
reference to the documentation found in the bottom drawer of cabinet ‘A’, the
pile of documents near the front of the drawer have been examined by me. I can
state that none of the documents carry any indication of MOD classification. I
now produce this pile of documents as exhibit DGB/3. In respect of the second
pile of documents in the same drawer of cabinet ‘A’, as DGB/3. I have examined
these documents and can state they bear no classification restriction, and
contain subjects related to British Standards, the European Space Agency, Infra
Red detectors and various other documents internal to HRC. I now produce these
documents as exhibit DGB/4. With reference to the items found in the bottom
drawer of cabinet ‘B’, I can state that the integrated circuits MA734-1746-8623
are identical to the integrated circuit as on JS/14 and labelled SLC/4(I). I now
produce the two cardboard boxes and one piece of foam containing the integrated
circuits as exhibit DGB/5. (I have no comment to make in respect of the four
handwritten notes). I produce the photocopy Fax page from Marconi Space Systems,
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by R. Gilbertson DS
Witness Statement Page 368
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Dennis BARLOW
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 19 October 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
With
reference to the case of Regina V. Michael SMITH and further to my previous
statements, I was requested to inspect the records of HRC internal audits to
determine if audit notes and aide-memoires were retained. I was assisted by Mr
T. ELSON who identified all audit reports with attachments and handed them to
me. With the exception of reports 513 and 469, no audit reports prior to number
518 carried any attachments. After report 518, approximately fifty percent of
reports had the audit aide-memoire attached to the master of the audit report.
Copies of the report which were circulated within the HRC did not include any
aide-memoires. The current aide-memoire proforma (reference QAG-FF-041A) was
introduced in March 1991 and the audit procedure required the proforma to be
used for all internal audits. There was no formal requirement for the proforma
to be retained. There was no evidence that any notes were made and retained on
anything other than the proforma. I produce the following exhibits from the
audit filing cabinet referred to as cabinet A in my statement dated 15th
October. DGB/9 consists of audit reports 513 and 469 which were found in the
audit file (in drawer 2) marked “Cleared Audits”. DGB/10 consists of 14 audit
reports which were found in the same drawer and cabinet, but in a file marked
“Uncleared”. DGB/11 consists of 75 audit reports which were again in the same
drawer and filing cabinet, and from the same file as DGB/9.
DGB/11 contains copies of all reports from 518 inclusive which were
contained in the file, irrespective of the
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by Robert Richards DS
Witness Statement Page 369
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
attachment
of aide-memoires. Similarly DGB/10 contains copies of all reports contained in
the file irrespective of attachment of aide-memoires. The originals of all audit
reports have been retained in my custody as they are required for MOD assessment
purposes; the materials in DGB/9, DGB/10 and DG8/11 are copies.
Signed D. G. Barlow Signature witnessed by Robert Richards DS
Witness Statement Page 370
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 22 October 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 3
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I have
previously made statements and given evidence in the case of
Signed Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 371
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
latter memo
clearly invoked the use of an Algorithm developed by A. Nott. The history of the
Algorithm is recorded in several documents: “Audit Policy Meeting” by A. Youles
dated 10th November 1989 records the basis for contract selection and places the
selection responsibility on the quality primes, not on the audit manager. The
minutes of the Audit Operations Review dated 17th November 1989 confirms that a
scoring (or Algorithm) system will be considered. The minutes of the Audit
Operations Review dated 15th December 1989 confirm that an audit model exists
and state that it needs to be refined. The Audit Operations Review of 6th April
1990 instructs Michael Smith to issue the Algorithm description documents and
its associated proforma record sheet. The computer file management system shows
that these were created in June and July 1990. The minutes of the Audit
Operations Review held on 16th May 1990 request an “Implementation Plan for
Auditing of Contracts” and instruct Michael Smith to issue the contract audit
procedure for comment. The following month, the minutes of the Audit Operations
Review dated 8th June 1990 show that the procedure was “in for typing” and that
I requested a list of contracts for potential audit to be available at the next
meeting. This list would have been based on the use of the Algorithm as the
history above clearly shows. The Audit Operations Review held on 19th June 1990
clearly states that the procedure is “in the sign-off loop” and that the
existing Algorithm was being applied. From August 1990 on, the Audit Operations
Review minutes state the reference numbers of contracts chosen for audit. The
audit procedure QAG-AA-010 was re-issued on 28th August 1990 as Issue D and
included the Algorithm. Inspection of records relating to JS/8 shows that only
three of the twenty nine contracts were assessed using the Algorithm. Most of
the contracts relate to development programmes where partners
Signed Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 372
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
and/or
sponsors would liaise regularly to ensure the project proceeds satisfactorily,
hence these contracts would not be considered vulnerable to quality problems and
would be low priority for auditing. The three contracts gave scores which are
lower than their contemporaries. In conclusion, I can see no evidence that JS/8
was used to guide contract selection for auditing purposes and can think of no
reason to generate the list JS/8 for Q.A. purposes.
Signed Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 373
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Dennis Geoffrey BARLOW
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 22 October 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Further to
my statement of 22nd October 1993, during which I made reference to a number of
documents, I now produce copies of the following: Minutes of Audit Operations
Reviews dated 17th November 1989, 15th December 1989, 9th March 1990, 6th April
1990, 16th May 1990, 8th June 1990, 19th July 1990 and 10th August 1990: Memo
titled “Proposed Methodology for Selecting Contract Audits” dated 14th February
1990, Author M.J. Smith: Memo titled “Alternative Suggestion to Proposed
Methodology for Selecting Contract Audit” dated 15th February 1990, Author T.A.
Elson: Page 4 of quality document QAG-AA-010 Issue C dated February 1990:
Computer file printout relating to “Audit Algor Text” and “Contract Audit
Pridritiser”, undated, with copy of Appendix B (5 pages) attached: A computer
list of “Audit Schedule at 30th July 1992” for contract audits: Memo titled
“Audit Policy Meeting” dated 10th November 1989, author A.W. Youles. These
documents are produced together by me as Exhibit DGB/13.
Signed Signature witnessed by
Witness Statement Page 374
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Mrs “C” (Stella RIMINGTON)
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 8 November 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 2
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I refer to my previous statements. I
have been asked if it is normal KGB/RIS practice to provide their agents with
escape plans in the event of a problem. In my experience it is not normal
practice with agents although they would have emergency contact arrangements for
use in the event of a problem and it may be possible that at such an emergency
meeting an escape plan would be discussed depending on the nature and size of
the problem. This would not follow any fixed plan but be ad hoc to meet the
particular circumstances. If an agent for his own reasons and by his own means
escapes to
Signed Mrs “C” Signature witnessed by R. Gilbertson DS
Witness Statement Page 375
Form MG 11A(T)
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF
Mrs “C” (Stella RIMINGTON)
activities and agents in the
Signed Mrs “C” Signature witnessed by R. Gilbertson DS
Witness Statement Page 376
Form MG 11(T)
STATEMENT OF
Mrs “C” (Stella RIMINGTON)
Age if under 21 Over 21
Dated 8 November 1993
This statement,
(consisting of 1
pages each signed by me) is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I would not expect a KGB case officer, or any of his colleagues, to write a letter of this nature because they would be aware that the Security Service would have examples of their handwriting and possibly their fingerprints. If such a letter was the only way of re-contacting or contacting an agent they would get a clerk or support-worker to write it.
Signed Signature witnessed by