Tough to convict a spy

From the Cold War to today, espionage cases have been hard to prosecute, says PHILIP MURPHY.

- PHILIP MURPHY

The collapse of the prosecutions of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry is areminder that bringing charges for espionage can be an extremely risky business, particularly in western democracies.

Cash and Berry were accused of spying for China, but Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case before it could go to trial. They deny the charges against them.

Espionage cases have caused headaches for UK governments for decades. Harold Macmillan, who as prime minister from 1957 to 1963 suffered more than his fair share of embarrassment from them, complained to his biographer: “You can’t just shoot a spy as you did in the war.”

Instead, there would be a “great public trial”, during which “the Security Services will not be praised for how efficient they are but blamed for how hopeless they are. There will be an enquiry... a terrible row in the press, there will be a debate in the House of Commons and the Government will probably fall.”

Macmillan was describing the case of John Vassall, whose 1962 conviction for spying caused a major political scandal. But his words resonate powerfully today.

Espionage trials risk revealing the sometimes highly confidential methods by which evidence had been gathered against the accused. And in some cases, the evidence itself is too circumstantial to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

One of the major postwar sources of secret information about Moscow's agents were the Venona documents. These were Soviet messages partially decrypted by US intelligence officers. But the Venona project remained a closely guarded secret until the 1980s, and only officially made public in 1995. As such, it proved necessary to obtain other forms of evidence to convict some of those incriminated by this source.