George Blake Memoirs: Judgment (Hansard, 9 May 1996)

§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)
My Lords, it would not be right for me to comment on the judgment in the Blake case while an appeal is under consideration. However, I would refer the noble Lord to the following passage in the judgment: I would readily accept that former members of any of the security or intelligence services owe the Crown a lifelong duty not to disclose confidential information acquired by them in the course of their duties".

§ Lord Wyatt of Weeford
My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that in the judgment it is also said that no one is entitled to expect lifelong fidelity as to the matter of keeping secrets? Has he not also observed that Lord Justice Scott, who headed the arms for Iraq inquiry, denounced the Government for 205 claiming that there were state secrets involved? Therefore, was he not an unwise choice to head this inquiry?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord is making an actual quotation from the judgment in Blake. The judgment runs to some 18 pages. I do not imagine that your Lordships will find it convenient if I read all of it out at this stage, but it is a public document which I believe will repay careful study. As far as concerns the choice of Sir Richard Scott to head up the inquiry, the noble Lord has his view of that; I am sure that there are also other views.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, since we have heard from my noble and learned friend that this matter is now sub judice in the Court of Appeal, would it not be best to close the discussion?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, the judgment has been given. An appeal is under consideration. Strictly technically I believe that the matter is not sub judice according to the rules of the House, but I accept the sense of what my noble and learned friend said, which is why I thought that it would be inappropriate for me to comment upon the terms of the judgment. While conforming to that precept, which I laid down for myself, I thought I could give what I believe to be an entirely accurate quotation from part of the judgment.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that taking six words from an 18-page judgment and trying to form a conclusion from them is almost as fallacious as taking six words from a columnist in The Times and extrapolating from that what is meant to be the policy of the paper as a whole?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am sure that there is some underlying connection between the latter part of that question and the Question on the Order Paper. I think, and I am sure that many would agree, that if one is going to get the sense of a judgment of 18 pages one probably has to read more than six words of it.

§ Lord Hutchinson of Lullington
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I must declare an interest in asking this question as I appeared for Mr. Blake at his trial in a professional capacity and secured for him the longest term of imprisonment that has ever been handed down by a British court? From that somewhat equivocal position, may I ask the noble and learned Lord to confirm that on no occasion has the Crown sought to suppress this book or contended that any secret or confidential information was disclosed? Was not the trouble here the fact that the security services failed to take the elementary precaution of seeing that there was an undertaking in Mr. Blake's terms of employment not to disclose material without express permission? In those circumstances, did not the learned Vice-Chancellor decide the case, as learned 206 judges still resolutely decide cases, according to law, without fear or favour, whether the defendant happens to be a spy, a journalist or even a Minister of the Crown?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am glad to notice that the noble Lord considers that Ministers of the Crown should enjoy justice. The first part of his question is extremely sweeping. I am not in a position to say precisely what happened at all stages, but it is true, as he said, that he represented Mr. Blake, as a result of which, but no doubt not in consequence of his representations, that very long sentence was passed. The reasons for the judgment are, as I say, expressed succinctly in 18 pages. It would be inappropriate for me to try to summarise them further.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, did Mr. Blake receive legal aid in order to help pay the fees of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson? If he did, is it possible to recover that money from the royalties of £90,000 which Mr. Blake will receive if that is allowed?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, the occasion upon which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, represented Mr. Blake at his trial was some considerable time ago. I am unable to say whether the noble Lord was supported by the Legal Aid Fund at that stage. He nods, suggesting that he probably was. So far as concerns this case, Mr. Blake did not have legal aid. If he had had legal aid, the Legal Aid Fund could be reimbursed in so far as there was money being paid to Mr. Blake as a result of success in the action.