DOCSLIB.ORG

State Research Bulletin Business, the Right and Paramilitary (October 1978-September 1979), an Organisations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
State Research Bulletin Business, the Right and Paramilitary (October 1978-September 1979), an Organisations limo STATE RESEARCH / 9 POLAND STREET /LONDON w1 /01-734 5831 <7.‘ ---\-mun! State Research The Review of Security and the State An independent group of investigators Volume 1, for l978,.with an introduction collecting and publishing information from by E.P. Thompson, was published in public sources on developments in state November 1978 by Julian Friedmann policy, particularly in the fields of the law, Books (hardback, price £12). Volume 2 will policing, internal security, espionage and be published in autumn 1979. This will the military. It also examines the links contain our year’s work in hardback form, between the agencies in these fields and i.e. issues 8-13 of State Research Bulletin business, the Right and paramilitary (October 1978-September 1979), an organisations. introductory overview of the year and an index. Hardback (jacketed) £12.00. It can State Research Bulletin be ordered in advance for £10, direct from Julian Friedmann Books, 4, Perrins Lane, Published bi-monthly in February, April, I-Iampstead, London NW3. June, August, October and December. Contributions to the Bulletin are : EFEA FOR HE »E- -n-Qipui-1g T ~ welcomed; they should be sent to the above coNTENTs .____THE<“.B°.. .T.“.‘-AL? A D. _T.7 -T. ._STf‘5T . §'."‘l‘.E_N.ALlST.§. address. Relevant cuttings from local news- OPPOSE POLICE PRESS CARDS - GUIDELINES ON JURY VETTING papers are also very welcome. News and developments 25 Britain’s new extradition pact with order-in-council (No 1403, the Federal Subscriptions W.Germany Republic of Germany (Extradition) The guidelines on jury vetting Subscribers receive: the bi-monthly Bulletin (Amendment) order 1978) amends the 1872 Labour Party to probe security services and an annual index. Treaty, (as amended by the 1960 Journalists oppose police press cards _ —-ii Agreement) extending extradition in two Government plans for Official Secrets Act Rates: Britain and Europe: £3.00 pa ways. First, a ‘catch-all’ clause has been Defence: A secret review of the way ahead BRITAIN’S NEW EXTRADITION individuals, £6.00 institutions/organisa- added to the previous list of 27 extraditable The Special Branch in West Yorkshire PACT WITH W. GERMANY offences, which allows anything which is a tions (payment only in sterling). Elsewhere .__Jn 1 E S . *__ V_1__ _ _- _'-- ‘iv - -L ‘ — 1 17 7' D 1 I 1 1 (by Air Mail): US$8.00 pa individuals, Reviews 32 crime (of a certain seriousness) in both US$16.00 pa institutions/organisations. The Contemptuous Constable An order in council made by the countries to be treated as an extraditable Bulk rates on application. How Colonel Eveleigh would keep the Government and which came into force on offence, even if it is not listed in the Agree- peace October 3, changed an agreement on extra- ment. Second, the prohibition on the Please make all cheques/postal orders The politics of the Police Manual dition between Britain and West Germany extradition of British nationals, which was payable to Independent Research The Shackleton Report on the PTA so that Britain can now legally extradite its in the 1960 Agreement, has been removed. Publications. own nationals to West Germany, while The latter clause (Clause 3) is the crucial Background Paper 38 West Germany, under its own constitution, one. It amends Article IV of the 1960 Sample copies: 50p/US$1.00 (inc p&p). The ABC trials: a defeat for the State cannot legally extradite its nationals to Agreement, which laid down that no British Britain. The order in council changing the citizen should be ‘delivered up’ to West Back Issues Typeset by Red Lion Setters, 27 Red Lion agreement had been ‘laid’ before Germany, and substitutes the wording: Back issues are available to subscribers Street, London WCID 4PS. Parliament, in order for objections to be ‘The Government of the United Kingdom only. Bulletins 1-7 (Oct 77-Sept 78), and the Printed by Russell Press, Gamble Street, raised, for just one day, while Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall index for 1977-78, cost 50p each (inc p&p) Nottingham. was not sitting, before becoming law. not be obliged to extradite a citizen of the to individuals, £1 each (inc p&p) to Trade distribution PDC, 27 Clerkcnwell The main law governing extradition from United Kingdom and Colonies, and the institutions/organisations. US rates: $1.00 Close, London ECI. Britain is the 1870 Extradition Act, which Government of the Federal Republic of (inc p&p) individuals, $2.00 (inc p&p) Published by Independent Research was amended by a 1935 Act. Under the Germany shall not be obliged to extradite a institutions/organisations. All Publications, 9 Poland Street, London powers given in these acts, two agreements German national’ (our emphasis). This cheques/postal orders payable to W1. (1872 and 1960) have governed the terms gives both parties the option to extradite Independent Research Publications. ISSN 0141-1667 for extradition of people from Britain to their own nationals. In Britain, the decision West Germany, and vice versa. The new will rest with the Home Secretary, as the Page 48/State Research Bulletin (vol 2) No 9/December 1978-January 1979 December 1978-January 1979/Page 25 Home Office has responsibility for the This order-in-council was made by a prospective jurors on a counsel-to-counsel application of the law in this country. statutory instrument under the 1870 THE GUIDELINES ON basis with the defence. Extradition Act. There are two kinds of JURY VETTING Mr Silkin also emphasises that, under There is not, and never has been, a , 1 _ _ i J7 in 1 1 1 1 r t _ 7 general prohibition in British law on orders-in-council: one, known as Statutory 1i_ . _ I .1 I _ L1 i i 1 I 1-T Section 5.2 of the Juries Act, ‘It is open to extraditing British citizens to other Instruments, are issued as a result of the defence to seek information’ in the countries, although some extradition powers given to ministers under The discussion in the press and the concern same way, and that ‘the principle of agreements into which Britain has entered parliamentary legislation; the other is when by civil libertarians about vetting of Central equality of information to prosecution and have explicitly excluded this option. a minister exercises, on behalf of the Criminal Court jurors after the revelation defence is to be regarded as of great Among these are the current agreements monarch, a prerogative power to make that the jury in the ABC Official Secrets importance.’ with Denmark and Greece and, until orders-in-council. Although both kinds Trial was vetted ‘for loyalty’ (see State The statement summarises the use of October 2, the agreement with West have to be ‘laid’ before parliament, they Research Bulletin No 8) has prompted the police records in the 25 cases since 1975 Germany.’ However,.there are agreements automatically become law unless there are Attorney-General to publish the guidelines where jury-vetting has been carried out. In with many countries ranging from Austria, objections from MPs. However such is the for these checks (The Times, 11.10.78). The 14 cases, (12 IRA, 2 Official Secret) CRO France, Belgium, Finland and USA to plethora of parliamentary papers that guidelines were drawn up by the and Special Branch records were consulted. Czechoslovakia which allow for the orders-in-council usually become law quite Attorney-General (Sam Silkin), the Home In ll cases (murder, armed robbery and extradition of British citizens, and current unnoticed. In this case the order-in-council Secretary (Merlyn Rees) and the Director of international fraud), CRO records only British policy is to bring other agreements was only laid before Parliament the day Public Prosecutions, after the Provisional were used. in line with these, and remove obstacles to before it was scheduled to come into force, IRA bombing campaign in 1974. They state The four-year-old guidelines were extradition. and as Parliament was not sitting that day, that, under the 1974 Juries Act, members published in full during the second ABC The West German position is, however, the realistic possibility of MPs having time of the jury should be randomly selected trial because of hostile reactions to the completely different. The extradition of to object before it became law, was reduced unless the Act disqualifies them. revelations of the vetting of the first trial German citizens is explicitly ruled out by to virtually zero. However, there are exceptions, where the jury. Early in the second trial, Mr Justice the terms of their Constitution, which A further question arises in, ,relationj to safeguards of the 1974 Act are not Mars Jones gave instructions to pressmen requires a two-thirds majority in both the timing and the speed with which ,t11e' considered sufficient. There is no precise that no reference to the vetting of the jury Houses of the West German parliament to order-in-council was made._ - Discussions?.- r--_ ._ on definition of such exceptions, but they should be published. Thus, ironically, be changed. There appear to be no moves this subject had‘ bee‘n’goin_g*on between the include cases where ‘strong political Silkin’s publication of the guidelines was in to have this clause changed. West-German governme_nt,, the Foreign" motives’ are involved (the IRA, other breach of this instruction and was regarded Among the principles governing British Office (which is ifalwayis involved in1"de-alings ‘terrorists’ and cases under the Official as contempt of court by the judge. extradition agreements are that 1) all with foreign governments), and the Home Secrets Act are specified).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LJMU Research Online
    LJMU Research Online Craig, MM Spycatcher’s Little Sister: The Thatcher government and the Panorama affair, 1980-81 http://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/4694/ Article Citation (please note it is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from this work) Craig, MM (2016) Spycatcher’s Little Sister: The Thatcher government and the Panorama affair, 1980-81. Intelligence and National Security, 32 (6). pp. 677-692. ISSN 1743-9019 LJMU has developed LJMU Research Online for users to access the research output of the University more effectively. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LJMU Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of the record. Please see the repository URL above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. For more information please contact [email protected] http://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/ Spycatcher’s Little Sister: The Thatcher government and the Panorama affair, 1980-811 Abstract: This article investigates the Thatcher government’s attempts to suppress or censor BBC reporting on secret intelligence issues in the early 1980s. It examines official reactions to a BBC intrusion into the secret world, as the team behind the long- running Panorama documentary strand sought to examine the role and accountability of Britain’s clandestine services.
    [Show full text]
  • Unmasking Gchq: the Abc Trial 341
    UNMASKING GCHQ: THE ABC TRIAL 341 18 too large for any human to read. Moreover, the vast complexes of domes and satellite dishes that now accompanied the suppos- Unmasking GCHQ: The ABC Trial edly super-secret intelligence activities of NSAand GCHQmeant that they were more and more visible. Sooner rather than later, an enterprising investigative journalist was bound to point to these surreal installations and shout the dreaded words 'Signals We've been to MI5, MI6, Scotland Yard, Parliament and many intelligence.' It is amazing that in the mid-1970s GCHQ was more. Now we're going where much of the dirty work goes on - still managing to pass itself off as a glorified communications CHELTENHAM! relay station, hiding its real activities from public view. ABC trial campaign newsletter, 27 May 19781 Anonymity would not last much longer. What we now recognise as the first glimmerings of a global telecommunications revolution seemed 10 be in the interests of the world's major sigint agencies. A fascinating example of this During the late 1960s and early 1970s, signals intelligence was was an operation carried out jointly by the British and Americans changing fast. The big players were discovering a whole new in 1969. NSA was gathering a great deal of intelligence from world of super-secret interception which provided a different telephone callsbetween Fidel Castro's Cuba and the many Cuban sort of signals intelligence. This new source was telephone calls. exiles living in Florida. Using sigint ships, it was also possible As we have already seen, tapping telephones was hardly new, 10 intercept some calls from Havana to other parts of Cuba.
    [Show full text]
  • Lurid Imaginations of Show Trial Prosecutors
    HUMBUG AT THE OLD BAILEY LURID IMAGINATIONS OF SHOW TRIAL PROSECUTORS The acquittal (this week) of all seven of the defendants in the Cyprus spy trial has left the government and the prosecution with egg all over its face. The spy base has been a continual embarrassment to the government, reports DUNCAN CAMPBELL - who, eight years ago, with Crispin Aubrey conducted an unpublished interview with a former Corporal John Berry from the base. In the consequent ABC (Aubrey, Berry and Camp bell) Official Secrets Act trial, he became the first person to be taken to the Old Bailey accused (and acquitted) of spying on the Army's 9 Signal Regiment. Research by Patrich Forbes EXCEPTIONAL SECRECY always caught spying on them. bags', there is no way that this claim could be surrounds 'sigint' activities. All staff have to be It was claimed by the prosecution in the ABC physically proved - or disproved. specially vetted and 'indoctrinated' before case that the disclosures by former 9 Signal The prosecution claimed that over 2,000 being allowed to handle 'special intelligence'. Regiment intelligence analyst John Berry, if Secret and Top Secret sigint documents had This 'indoctrination' stresses that the need true, revealed 'the fact that [intercepting the been taken from the Ayios Nikolaos base - for total secrecy about sigint 'never ceases'. But Turkish Navy] was one of our tasks and that we implying that,- by February 1983, the the information involved in sigint in fact ranges were able to read traffic on Turkish naval nets'. defendants were making off with an astonishing from inconsequential records of radio signals In fact, the information Berry disclosed about 20 secret documents every week.
    [Show full text]
  • The ECHELON Trail: an Illegal Vision
    Surveillance & Society 3(2/3): 198-215 ‘Doing Surveillance Studies’ Editors: K. Ball, K.D. Haggerty and J. Whitson http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/doing.htm The ECHELON Trail: An Illegal Vision. Steve Wright1 Abstract This article tells the story behind the uncovering of the US operated global telecommunications interceptions system now known as ECHELON. It begins with the use of fieldwork techniques in the early 1970’s exploring the configuration of Britain’s Post Office Towers – these were ostensibly the microwave links through which Britain’s long distance telephone calls were made. This modelling process revealed a system within the system of microwave towers linked to the American Base of Menwith Hill in the North York Moors. All the key researchers were then promptly arrested, a raid by Special Branch on the author’s university at Lancaster ensued and later a show trail for the other main researchers, most notably Duncan Campbell. Eventually in 1988, Duncan wrote up the ECHELON story, which for its time was an incredible piece of detective work using materials lifted from waste bins by the women activists campaigning around the Menwith Hill Base. Little notice was taken until 1997 when an obscure book by Nicky Hager, Secret Power explained the role and function of ECHELON in more depth. The author represented these findings in a policy report to the European Parliament on the technology of political control that led to a process of political debate and disagreement of the ethics of such a system which continues even today. Introduction Studies of surveillance are challenging, and often demand a sustained research commitment.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislation to Counter State Threats (Hostile State Activity) NUJ Response to the Home Office Consultation July 2021
    Legislation to Counter State Threats (Hostile State Activity) NUJ response to the Home Office consultation July 2021 Introduction The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) is the representative voice for journalists and media workers across the UK and Ireland. The union was founded in 1907 and has 30,000 members. The NUJ represents staff, students and freelances working at home and abroad in broadcasting, newspapers, news agencies, magazines, books, public relations, communications, online and as photographers. The union is not affiliated to any political party and has a cross-party parliamentary group. The NUJ welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Home Office consultation on reforming official secrets laws, introducing a new registration scheme, and creating new civil orders. However, the union is gravely concerned by many of the proposals contained within the consultation document and we highlight these in our submission below. There is a lack of clarity with some of the terminology used by the Home Office, and there are various indications of future, additional proposals, but they are made seemingly without any corresponding commitment that there will be another opportunity to respond to the details at a later date. The NUJ is primarily concerned with the impact of the proposed reforms on our members, and we believe the plans set out by the Home Office, as they stand, are severely lacking in any safeguards for journalists and journalism. We are hugely disappointed that the Home Office does not support a new public interest defence, for primary or secondary disclosers, enshrined in any new law. Dangerously, many of the proposals conflate journalism, espionage and “hostile activity” and additionally the proposals appear to be aimed at dissuading people working in government from disclosing information that would reveal wrongdoing.
    [Show full text]
  • When the Lid Blew
    IT'S THAT SECRET BASE AGAIN WHEN THE LID BLEW Seven years ago DUN CAN CAMPBELL was in the dock of the Old Bailey's court 1 when the present Director of Public Prosecutions mounted a crude attempt to put pressure on the judge to accept that even the existence of Bzitalntstslgint' spy unit in Cyprus - 9 Signal regiment - was so secret that it could not be mentioned in open court. The farce of secrecy surrounding Ayios Nikolaos base in eastern Cyprus continues, as we saw in the £5 million case which ended last week with the acquittal of all seven defendants after a four-month trial conducted almost entirely in camera THE 'ABC' (Aubrey, Berry and Campbell) , ended abruptly after it was disclosed that the Official Secrets Act trial in 1978 centred on the foreman of the jury, whose members had been charge that former Intelligence Corps corporal carefully vetted by the Special Branch, was by John Berry, an analyst at 'Britain's signals remarkable coincidence a former SAS soldier intelligence base in Cyprus, had passed on who had served in Cyprus. secret information during an interview with the During this first trial, however, evidence was other two defendants, Duncan Campbell and given in open court about the existence and Crispin Aubrey, then journalists working for purpose of the spy base at Ayios Nikolaos. A Time Out. former regimental security officer admitted, to During the trial, overt government pressure prosecution dismay, that the work and location was put on the trial judge to suppress the of the base were not secret.
    [Show full text]
  • Additional Material for Chapter 15 – Open Justice and Access to Court Information Section Numbers from the Book Are Used
    Dodd & Hanna: McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists, 24th edition Additional Material for Chapter 15 – Open justice and access to court information Section numbers from the book are used. Its content provides fuller explanations and context. 15.1 Open courts—a fundamental rule in common law What was Scott v Scott? The House of Lords judgment in Scott v Scott in 1913 gave clear expression in the UK to the general principle of open justice. The principle was recognised earlier than this. But this case set precedent on the extent to which it should apply, and so invigorated its effect. The societal benefits of open justice - for example, it helps ensure that the justice system is fair and therefore worthy of respect – are explained in 15.1.1 in McNae’s. No journalist was involved Scott v Scott. The case concerned a person’s right to tell the world what had happened in court proceedings in which that person was involved. But the House of Lords’ judgment continues to resonate. It has since 1913 been cited in many cases considering the extent of the media’s right, as the eyes and ears of the public, to report from the courts. It remains the main case on the open justice principle and the requirement that any derogation from it has to be necessary for the administration of justice. The marriage ends Scott v Scott was a ‘nullity’ case - that is, it concerned annulment of a marriage. Annie Maria Morgan and Kenneth Mackenzie Scott had married in 1899. But in 1911 Mrs Scott began civil proceedings to have the marriage annulled - declared null and void - on the basis that it had not been sexually consummated in those 12 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Ferrets Or Skunks? the ABC Trial Page 1
    Ferrets or Skunks? The ABC Trial Page 1 16 February 1999. Thanks to Geoffrey Robertson and Duncan Campbell . Source: Hardcopy of The Justice Game , Geoffrey Robertson, Vintage, London, 1999, ISBN 0-09-958191-4, pp. 104-134. Chapter 5 Ferrets or Skunks? The ABC Trial The trial which in the seventies had the most impact on law and on politics - certainly on lawyer-politicians, and on that amorphous construct, the State - is recalled through its acronym, 'the ABC case'. This stands for the surnames of three defendants, Crispin Aubrey (a Time Out reporter), John Berry (an ex-soldier) and Duncan Campbell, a 24-year-old scientific prodigy who had chosen to make headlines as a freelance journalist rather than money as a telecommunications whizz-kid. They were arrested for talking to each other over a bottle of chianti in a London flat on a wet evening in February 1977, and prosecuted on charges laid under the Official Secrets Act which carried (in Campbell's case) a maximum of thirty years' imprisonment. By the time the proceedings ended, with a champagne celebration outside the Old Bailey eighteen months later, Britain was a less secret country. In 1977, the Attorney General's response to Duncan Campbell's ability to uncover State secrets was to try to lock him away. In 1987, when Campbell was about to broadcast details of the Zircon spy satellite, the Attorney General took him to lunch at the Garrick Club instead. This progress, from the stick of prison to the boiled carrots of the Gentleman's Club, showed that a lesson had been learned: in a democracy, the criminal law cannot be deployed as a tool for disposing of those who use their right of free speech to embarrass or inconvenience the authorities.
    [Show full text]