ABC trial

Last updated

R v Aubrey, Berry and Campbell
The Jury by John Morgan.jpg
The case had consequences for the vetting of jurors by the police.

It hastened scrutiny of the intelligence operations of the UK's and US security operations in the United Kingdom (UK).
CourtCrown Court (specifically sitting at the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey))
Full case nameRegina v. Crispin Aubrey, John Berry and Duncan Campbell
Decided14 and 16 November 1978
Transcript(s)none
Case history
Prior action(s)none
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingdischarged judge and jury, followed by Mr Justice Mars-Jones and new jury
Case opinions
Decision byThe new jury

R v Aubrey, Berry and Campbell, better known as the ABC Trial, was a trial conducted in the United Kingdom in the 1970s, of three men for offences under the Official Secrets Act 1911. The men were two libertarian journalists of a similar political viewpoint as much of the Labour government, and a resigned GCHQ source seeking to heighten scrutiny of government-authorised wire-tapping and limit the work of the American espionage agency, the CIA, in Britain. These aims were furthered in the following two decades achieved through detailed parliamentary scrutiny into and regular reports as to the work of security services, a Freedom of Information Committee and regulation of wire-tapping. Aside from very limited reportage from the Central Criminal Court, its early analysis comes in the account of one of its investigative-journalist defendants, Duncan Campbell, in the annual journal Socialist Register .

Contents

Background

London magazine Time Out in 1976, through the writings of the first and third defendants, published a two-page account of GCHQ called "The Wiretappers", this was among other evidence collected and imparted by the defendants as to how GCHQ operates from year-to-year including gathered evidence, such as photographs of radio masts, of its physical apparatus. [1]

By statute, the Attorney General needed to condone the prosecution for it to proceed; he did so.

The case took place from September to November 1978 [2] – still in an era of surveillance to counter ongoing threats due to the Cold War and from Irish and Northern Irish dissident republicans. Conviction of some form was assured as all parties could not deny a small amount of classified information had been communicated and no tenable argument of the law as to freedom of information such as on the basis of freedom of expression was raised.[ citation needed ]

The Watergate scandal in the US, exposed by investigative journalists, showed the effectiveness of press reporting of the activities of secret government agencies. President Nixon had repeatedly claimed that the requirements of national security overrode the public's right to know, and this had been exposed by the press, Senate and Congress, to have been driven by his desire to cover up criminal activity. [1]

Summary

All three of the men were charged with wrongful communication of information under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. Campbell was also charged with an offence under section 1 of the Act: imparting information which might be useful to an enemy for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state. This second charge was dropped before the close of the trial, the judge stating they were "oppressive in the circumstances". [2] [1]

The trial was held in Court 1 of the Central Criminal Court. It was against three defendants:

One of the prosecution witnesses was an anonymous SIGINT (that is, electronic communications) [1] officer, referred to as Colonel B. Campbell's 1979 account identified him as Colonel Johnstone. [1] [4]

The trial found that the information came almost entirely from open publications, some from the USA.

The jury confirmed guilt (convicted) as to the remaining (non-dropped) Section 2 offence as to disclosure of those classified matters in no way in the public domain. The only penalty imposed was against Berry and was non-custodial; but criminal records of all three would hamper certain sensitive employment. [4] In 1979 Campbell wrote an article, including the words "It ended in convictions under Section 2 for each of us, but with negligible penalty in the case of myself and fellow journalist Aubrey, no penalty at all.". [1] This added "'Colonel B' rapidly achieved the position of a national figure of ridicule.". [1] In Campbell's view many editorials mentioning the unnecessarily secretive governance of and occasionally counter-productive application of protected status to essentially all information at and concerning GCHQ largely fuelled the decision by the Liberal Party, successful in the random selection of private member's Bills via Clement Freud, to select a Freedom of Information Bill. The bill, a forerunner of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, lapsed with the end of the Callaghan ministry but achieved a wholly unopposed second Commons reading, reflecting a sea change among those dominant legislative members (British MPs). [1]

The Section 1 charge "lacked the legitimation which could be provided by the existence of a subversive or hostile threat, the presentation of their evidence rapidly became ridiculous. The information [Campbell] had gathered, dealt with piecemeal, was of course readily available in public. As witness after witness conceded this point, the prosecution rapidly lost any sense of purpose." [1] The prosecution dropped this charge.

The contemporary drive of most of the security services with making themselves and their nature top secret, already widely suspected, was criticised in the centrist, libertarian 1979 article by Campbell, citing in support Tony Bunyan's 1976 book The Political Police in Britain, which opined that Official Secrets Acts, as then applied and interpreted in the courts, "represent the last resort in suppressing public knowledge of the workings of the state". [5] [1]

The quickly rubbished first jury, its foreman and others having been in service with the Government, leading to an unchallenged second jury who heard and decided the case, was directly responsible for exposing extreme jury vetting, and eliciting official disclosures on the nature and previous extent of the practice - generally in the case of political or terrorist trials, or cases of organized crime. Increasing attention by libertarians to the nature of the jury system, and its preservation and strengthening, proved to be a lasting bonus of the case. [6] [1]

The case indirectly raised questions of or helped to shape principles of UK law.

Timeline

Defendant's opinion of Attorney General

In 1979, Campbell wrote that the Attorney General "had allowed himself to be used as a patsy for the security services to try to rearrange the law of official secrecy to their choosing. Several initiatives from that quarter had become apparent during the case." [1]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indictable offence</span> Offence which can only be tried on an indictment after a preliminary hearing

In many common law jurisdictions, an indictable offence is an offence which can only be tried on an indictment after a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is a prima facie case to answer or by a grand jury. A similar concept in the United States is known as a felony, which for federal crimes, also requires an indictment. In Scotland, which is a hybrid common law jurisdiction, the procurator fiscal will commence solemn proceedings for serious crimes to be prosecuted on indictment before a jury.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury trial</span> Type of legal trial

A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.

A plea bargain is an agreement in criminal law proceedings, whereby the prosecutor provides a concession to the defendant in exchange for a plea of guilt or nolo contendere. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of the several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Perjury</span> Act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth

Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act</span> US federal law

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury</span> Group of people to render a verdict in a court

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence, make findings of fact, and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Espionage Act of 1917</span> United States federal law

The Espionage Act of 1917 is a United States federal law enacted on June 15, 1917, shortly after the United States entered World War I. It has been amended numerous times over the years. It was originally found in Title 50 of the U.S. Code but is now found under Title 18. Specifically, it is 18 U.S.C. ch. 37

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Acquittal</span> The legal result of a verdict of not guilty

In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal means that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge presented. It certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as criminal law is concerned. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal prohibits the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, like Australia and the UK, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction — but usually only if new and compelling evidence comes to light or the accused has interfered with or intimidated a juror or witness.

Katharine Teresa Gun is a British linguist who worked as a translator for the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). In 2003, she leaked top-secret information to The Observer concerning a request by the United States for compromising intelligence on diplomats from member states of the 2003 United Nations Security Council, who were due to vote on a second UN resolution on the prospective 2003 invasion of Iraq.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Duncan Campbell (journalist)</span> British investigative journalist

Duncan Campbell is a British freelance investigative journalist, author, and television producer. Since 1975, he has specialised in the subjects of intelligence and security services, defence, policing, civil liberties and, latterly, computer forensics. He was a staff writer at the New Statesman from 1978 to 1991 and associate editor (Investigations) from 1988 to 1991. He was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act in the ABC trial in 1978 and made the controversial series Secret Society for the BBC in 1987. In 1988, he revealed the existence of the ECHELON surveillance program.

Graymail is the threatened revelation of state secrets in order to manipulate legal proceedings. It is distinct from blackmail, which may include threats of revelation against, and manipulation of, any private individual. Graymail is used as a defense tactic, forcing the government to drop a case to avoid revealing national secrets.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Official Secrets Act 1911</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Official Secrets Act 1911 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It replaced the Official Secrets Act 1889.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Official Secrets Act 1989</span> United Kingdom intelligence law

The Official Secrets Act 1989 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that repeals and replaces section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, thereby removing the public interest defence created by that section.

A private prosecution is a criminal proceeding initiated by an individual private citizen or private organisation instead of by a public prosecutor who represents the state. Private prosecutions are allowed in many jurisdictions under common law, but have become less frequent in modern times as most prosecutions are now handled by professional public prosecutors instead of private individuals who retain barristers.

United States criminal procedure derives from several sources of law: the baseline protections of the United States Constitution; federal and state statutes; federal and state rules of criminal procedure ; and state and federal case law. Criminal procedures are distinct from civil procedures in the US.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

John Nicholas Crispin Aubrey was a British journalist. He was one of the defendants in the ABC trial in 1978, named after the initials of the defendants' surnames, in which he and freelance journalist Duncan Campbell were convicted under the Official Secrets Act 1911 for receiving classified information from John Berry, a former signals intelligence (SIGINT) operator. The controversy over the case eventually led to amendments to the law in the Official Secrets Act 1989.

United States v. Franklin, Rosen, and Weissman was an early 21st century court case from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The government prosecuted one Department of Defense employee (Franklin) and two lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for allegedly disclosing national defense information to persons 'not entitled' to have it, a crime under the Espionage Act of 1917. It is one of the few Espionage Act cases of its kind, targeted not at traditional espionage or sedition, but at the practice of information leaking in Washington DC. The cases against Rosen and Weissman were also unusual because this aspect of the Espionage act had rarely been used against non-government individuals. Franklin pleaded guilty, but all charges against Rosen and Weissman were dropped.

R v Incedal and Rarmoul-Bouhadjar (2014), formerly known as R v AB and CD, is a criminal case brought in the United Kingdom against two people suspected of terrorism offences. It was proposed to make it the first criminal trial in British legal history to be held entirely in secret, but the Court of Appeal of England and Wales ruled in June 2014 that some details of the trial should be made public.

The Cyprus Seven Trial was a Cold War espionage affair uncovered at one of the military bases in Cyprus during 1983 and 1984. The allegations rested upon several servicemen, although seven were sent to trial at the Old Bailey in London. Two were from the Royal Signals, and five from the Royal Air Force, with all being accused of engaging in homosexual activities and passing state secrets "by the bagful" to the Soviet intelligence network. The treatment of the accused whilst detained before trial was deemed unlawful and after a trial at the Old Bailey in 1985, in which they were acquitted, six of the servicemen were allowed to sue the Ministry of Defence for their mistreatment.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
  2. 1 2 3 Aldrich, Richard J., "Unmasking GCHQ: the ABC Trial" in GCHQ: The Uncensored Story of Britain's Most Secret Intelligence Agency, Harper Press 2010
  3. Campbell, Duncan (30 September 2012). "Crispin Aubrey obituary". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2 October 2012.
  4. 1 2 Campbell, Duncan (3 August 2015). "Global spy system ECHELON confirmed at last - by leaked Snowden files". The Register. Retrieved 25 August 2015.
  5. Tony Bunyan, The Political Police in Britain, Julian Friedman, 1976
  6. Anna Coote, 'The Loyal Jury and the Foreman with Firm Opinions', New Statesman, 1978