by Ted Allbeury
‘Yes. Does all this mean that you agree with what I asked for?’
‘It means that I shall not ask my superiors. I shall arrange it myself, and take the responsibility myself.’
‘And what would happen if you never saw Tolya again?’
‘I’ve no idea. And I’m not going to think about it.’ He stood up. Thank you very much for listening to me, and for being so kind.’
She put out her hand and he took it. ‘I’ll see you tomorrow then,’ she said, ‘or the next day. What, by the way, if you’re not in the cafe at one o’clock?’
‘You look around, make sure that I’m really not there, and leave straight away. You come back here, and you’ll be contacted again. I’ll be there.’
‘I’m sure you will. What are you going to tell Tolya?’
‘That you will see him and talk it over.’
‘Give him my love.’
‘Are you sure you want me to do that?’
‘Yes. Quite sure.’
She walked with him to the door and she seemed relaxed as she let him out.
He walked to the park before he looked at his watch. He seemed to have been with her for days but it was barely eleven. He had to walk almost to the bridge before he found a taxi stand.
23
The sign over the swing doors was plain and simple. Hand-drawn, black lettering edged with gold, on a narrow oak strip. It said ‘Court No. 1’, and not even its several coats of varnish could disguise its grim message. Court No. I at the Old Bailey had been the scene of all the most serious criminal trials in recent British history. Even the most hardened criminals were aware of its atmosphere of State power. Outsiders would describe it as impressive, even awesome. To those in the dock, guilty and innocent alike, it was merely grim.
On the morning of 3 May 1961 the court was due to sit at ten o ‘clock, and when the court usher shouted his traditional cry for the court to rise there was only a handful of people in the public gallery as the Lord Chief Justice of England bowed briefly to the court and sat down. But the three benches reserved for the press were full to overflowing. Lord Parker of Waddington was as aware of the air of drama as the rest of the assembly, but his face was impassive as the Attorney-General, who was prosecuting, exchanged last minute words with the Director of Public Prosecutions who sat on the bench in front of the Treasury junior counsels.
The Lord Chief Justice glanced briefly at the prisoner in the dock. George Blake’s face was impassive as he looked back at the judge. Clean-shaven, and soberly dressed, his sun-tanned face looked innocent and youthful.
The Clerk of the Court slowly and carefully read out the indictment, giving precise dates and periods relating to the five charges under the Official Secrets Act.
When the prisoner was asked how he pleaded, his reply of ‘Guilty, sir’ was barely audible.
The Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, a tall, burly man, rose slowly to present the prosecutioris case. He looked briefly around the court before he started, and his deep voice seemed to emphasize the seriousness of the charges.
‘The charges to which the accused pleaded guilty are of a very serious character. I shall tell the court a little about them in open court, and about his history. Until these matters came to light it was right to say that Blake enjoyed the reputation of a good character. In October 1943 the defendant, who was a British subject, volunteered for service in the Royal Navy, and served until 1948, when he was demobilized. From that date until his arrest he had been employed in the Government service both in this country and overseas. ’
Pointing to the great pile of papers in front of him, the Attorney-General continued: ‘As your Lordship knows from the depositions, he has made a complete and detailed confession. That is in Exhibit One, and no doubt you have read it. Its contents, except for the short passages to which I propose to refer, must remain secret, and if there is any question of referring to the confession, apart from those parts I shall mention, I shall have to ask you to close the Court and sit in camera.
‘In that statement Blake says that more than ten years ago his philosophical and political views underwent a change and in the autumn of 1951 he held the strong conviction that the Communist system was the better one and deserved to triumph. To quote his own words, he resolved to join the Communist side in establishing what he believed to be a balanced and more just society.
‘Having reached this conclusion he did not take the course of resigning from the Government service. What he did was to approach the Russians and volunteer to work for them.
‘His offer was accepted, and I use his own words, he agreed to make available to the Soviet Intelligence service such information as came his way in the course of his duties in order to promote the cause of Communism.
‘It appears from his statement that for the past nine and a half years, while employed in the Government service, and drawing his salary from the State, he had been working as an agent for the Russians, as a spy for them and communicating a mass of information to them. In short, for the past nine and a half years he had been engaged in betraying his country.
‘I cannot publicly reveal the nature of the information he has communicated,’ the Attorney-General went on, ‘but in his statement he says this, and again l quote his own words: “I must freely admit that there was not an official document of any importance to which l had access which was not passed to my Soviet contacts. ”
‘And he had access to information of very great importance, ’ Sir Reginald added gravely. ‘Although he held responsible positions, his employment fortunately did not give him access to any information relating to secret weapons or nuclear or atomic energy, but it was the case that he had done most serious damage to the interests of this country. Recently your Lordship tried in this Court another serious case where the charge was conspiracy to commit breaches of the Official Secrets Act. That was a grave case, but it is right that l should say that the facts of this case bear no resemblance or connection to the facts of that case, but that this is an even graver case is, in my submission, clearly shown by the confession made by the accused. It is not necessary for me to say anything more at this stage on behalf of the prosecution. ’
As he finished his presentation the Attorney-General adjusted his wig and sat down. The Lord Chief Justice was still writing his notes. When he eventually looked up he asked the Attorney-General if he now wished the court to be closed and, standing to address him, Sir Reginald submitted that it would be of assistance to counsel for the defence in putting forward his plea in mitigation if the court was cleared. The Lord Chief Justice expressed his dislike for hearings in camera but agreed to do so if both sides so wished. Mr Jeremy Hutchinson, QC, counsel for the defence, stood up.
‘I have indicated, my Lord, some of those matters which I wish to urge in mitigation and which are most vital to this man. I am told that much of what l wish to say should not be said in public and, therefore, my choice must be whether the full facts should be put before you, or whether l should leave out much that should be said, but at least some mitigation should be known to the world in general. That is the choice I have had to make this morning because I had no idea that these proceedings were going to be held in public. In those circumstances my client wishes, in spite of the disadvantages in many ways, to him, that I should have complete freedom to address your Lordship on all matters.’
The Lord Chief Justice ordered the court to be cleared. Members of the public were asked to leave the public gallery, and the media reporters reluctantly left the press benches. Meanwhile extra ushers were fitting wooden shutters to all the windows of the court and the glass panels in the two entrance doors. Police officers patrolled the corridors outside No. I Court as the hearing continued.
Defence counsel took just under an hour to present his case for mitigation on behalf of George Blake, after which the shutters were removed and the locked doors opened.
When the court had settled into silence the Clerk of the Court rose and
looking directly at Blake he said slowly, ‘You stand convicted of felony. Is there anything you wish to say why sentence should not be passed upon you according to law?’
Standing upright in the dock Blake shook his head. His lips moved, but the sound of his ‘No’ was scarcely audible. He looked hesitantly up towards the gallery as if looking for someone, and then he turned to face the Lord Chief Justice as he began to address him.
Lord Parker said: ‘Your full written confession reveals that for some years you have been working continuously as an agent and spy for a foreign power. Moreover, the information communicated, though not of a scientific nature, was clearly of the utmost importance to that power and has rendered much of this country’s efforts completely useless.
‘Indeed, you yourself have said in your confession that there was not an official document of any importance to which you had access which was not passed to your Soviet contact.
‘When one realizes that you are a British subject, albeit not by birth, and that throughout this period you were employed by this country – your country — in responsible positions of trust, it is clear that your case is akin to treason. Indeed, it is one of the worst that can be envisaged other than in time of war.
‘It would clearly be contrary to the public interest for me to refer, in sentencing you, to the full contents of your confession. I can, however, say, without hesitation, that no one who has read it could possibly fail to take that view.
‘I have listened to all that has been so ably said on your behalf and I fully recognize that it is unfortunate for you that many matters urged in mitigation cannot be divulged, but I can say this, that I am perfectly prepared to accept that it was not for money that you did this, but because of your conversion to a genuine belief in the Communist system. Everyone is entitled to their own views, but the gravamen of the case against you is that you never resigned, that you retained your employment in positions of trust in order to betray your country.
‘You are not yet thirty-nine years of age. You must know and appreciate the gravity of the offences to which you have pleaded guilty. Your conduct in many other countries would undoubtedly carry the death penalty. In our law, however, I have no option but to sentence you to imprisonment, and for your traitorous conduct extending over so many years there must be a very heavy sentence.
‘For a single offence of this kind the highest penalty laid down is fourteen years’ imprisonment, and the Court cannot, therefore, even if so minded, give you a sentence of life imprisonment. There are, however, five counts to which you have pleaded guilty, each dealing with separate periods in your life during which you were betraying your country.
‘The Court will impose upon you a sentence of fourteen years’ imprisonment on each of the five counts. Those in respect of counts one, two and three will be consecutive, and those in respect of counts four and five will be concurrent, making a total of forty-two years’ imprisonment.’
Two minutes after sentence was passed the telephone kiosks were crammed with struggling reporters, and the banner headlines that night proclaimed, ‘THE LONGEST PRISON SENTENCE EVER IMPOSED IN BRITISH HISTORY‘. But with the newspapers still gagged by D-notices, only the vaguest details could be printed about the trial and its background. German, American and other foreign newspapers had no such restrictions, and printed every detail they could discover.
Pressure mounted from both sides of the House of Commons for a statement by the Government on how such a gross security lapse could have occurred. MPs began making their own enquiries and a long list of questions were tabled with the Speaker s clerks. Finally the Prime Minister agreed to make a statement.
Mr Macmillan started by saying: ‘I am informed that Blake has ten days within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence; and if he does apply, some time must elapse before the matter is discussed. But I naturally wish to give the House as much information as I can, consistently with the national interest and without prejudicing any appeal. Blake, who is a British subject by birth, served with credit through the war with the RNVR. In 1948 he was temporarily employed as Vice-Consul in Seoul, where he was interned by the Chinese and held for nearly three years in captivity. Although he no doubt underwent a certain amount of ill-treatment in common with others who were interned, he was subject to none of the brainwashing which military prisoners suffered. After his release, and after having been subjected to a very thorough security vetting, Blake was employed for a period with the British Military Government in Berlin and subsequently attached for a time to the Foreign Office in London. In September 1960 he was sent to learn Arabic in the Lebanon. Blake was never an established member of the Foreign Service. There is no reason to doubt that until 1951 he gave loyal service to this country. It was during his internment in Korea that he decided to join the Communist side. It would appear that he voluntarily became a convert to what most members of this House would regard as an evil faith. However regrettable we may regard such a conversion, it does not, of course, constitute criminal conduct. But to this he added treachery to the State. He agreed, in his own words, to make available to the Soviet Intelligence such information as came his way in the course of his duties. It was for doing this that he was tried and sentenced.
‘Blake s action was not the result of brainwashing or intimidation while a prisoner. Nor did he fall to any of the other kinds of pressure which are sometimes employed in these circumstances. He received no money for his services. He was never at any time a member of the Communist Party or any of its affiliated organizations. What he did was done, in the words of the Lord Chief Justice, as the result of conversion to a genuine belief in the Communist system. In these circumstances suspicion would not easily be aroused in relation to a man who had served his country well for some eight years, who gave every appearance of leading a normal and respectable life, but who had decided to betray his country for ideological reasons. Indeed, having agreed to work for the Russians, he was careful not to arouse suspicion and to conceal his conversion to Communism. Eventually, however, his activities were uncovered and the result was his trial at the Old Bailey. He had access to information of importance and he passed it on. As the Attorney-General said in open court, he has done serious damage to the interests of this country. As to that it would not be right, nor would it be in the public interest, for me to say more than was said in open court yesterday. ’
Pausing for a moment, the Prime Minister continued with emphasis: ‘But I can assure the House that Blake s disclosures will not have done irreparable damage. In particular, he had no access to secret information on defence, nuclear or atomic matters.
‘Such cases as this are, I hope, extremely rare. But by reason of their very nature they are very difficult to detect or prevent by security procedures. No such procedures can guarantee to catch a man who changes his allegiance and skilfully conceals his conversion. I do not, therefore, think that any inquiry such as that now being conducted in relation to another case with which Blake’s case has no connection and affords no parallel, would serve any useful purpose. But I can assure the House that I am reviewing all the circumstances with very great care to see whether there are any possible further measures which could be taken to protect this country from treachery of this kind. ’
The Prime Minister concluded: ‘While l recognize to the full the responsibility that rests on HM Government, I should be very willing to discuss with the Leader of the Opposition and any Privy Councillor that he might wish to have associated with him, the circumstances of this case and the matters that arise from it. ’
The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hugh Gaitskell, welcomed the statement because ‘. . . there was widespread disquiet that this kind of thing could have been allowed to happen and a man could for nine and a half years supply information to the Soviet Union and, in the words of the Lord Chief Justice, “render much of this country’s efforts completely useless”. In these circumstances l consider it right to accept the Prime Minister s invitation for talks, but t
he Opposition felt that, to reassure public opinion, private conversations between the leaders of the Government and Opposition did not quite match up to the case. Some kind of inquiry was necessary to assure the public the right things were being done to prevent this sort of thing happening again. ‘
Mr Richard Marsh, Labour MP for Greenwich, said, ‘Although Blake might not have been an established servant at the Foreign Office he was, in fact, employed by Foreign Office Intelligence. ‘
To this the Prime Minister replied: ‘It would not be right for me to add anything said in the court in camera.’
Mr John Hynd, Labour MP for Attercliffe, who at the time of Blake ‘s service in Hamburg had been the Minister in charge of German affairs in the Labour Government, had already seen the details published in the German newspapers the day after Blake’s trial, which stated that Blake had been a senior agent of the British secret service for four years in Berlin. British newspapers were prevented from revealing this damaging information by the Government’s ‘D’ notices, and neither the public nor Members of Parliament knew of the real facts or even that the Government was ‘gagging the press.
Then Mr Patrick Gordon Walker, MP for Smethwick, made a statement in the House alleging that the Government ‘. . . had introduced political censorship of the Press over the Blake case.’ He said: ‘While accounts of Blake’s activities had been published in European and American papers, British newspapers are unable to tell their readers what people are reading in newspapers in other countries. Once such information is out in the world, its suppression in Britain is no longer security censorship but political censorship.’
Eventually the Government offered a committee to enquire into the workings of the Security services, and the doubts of the Government’s party MPs were assuaged by hints that the evasions, delays and censorship had saved the lives of many British agents operating abroad. The summer holidays, the traditional wave of strikes, industrial disputes, and a sinking Financial Times Index, soon took over the headlines.
