Military And Civil Justice In Dispute (Press, 12 November 1985)

The acquittal of seven servicemen accused of leaking intelligence to the Russians has raised serious questions regarding the methods used by Britain's military police and the preparation for their prosecution. The trial, held at the Old Bailey and lasting five months, was mostly conducted in secret. Following the acquittals, it became evident that the prosecution relied heavily on confessions obtained through questionable interrogation techniques, which would not have been acceptable in civilian cases. In response to the public outcry, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher appointed senior barrister David Calcutt Q.C. to conduct an independent review and make recommendations concerning the case. The seven men, all part of a Royal Air Force signals unit stationed in Cyprus, were responsible for intercepting various forms of communication, including messages from ships, aircraft, and telephone calls, which were crucial for intelligence assessments of the Middle East. Despite this, British authorities suspected that their findings might have ended up with the Russians, leading to their arrests and subsequent interrogations. The accused, predominantly radio operators, were subjected to prolonged and harsh interrogations that led to them signing confessions, many of which they later claimed were coerced. One serviceman, Senior Aircraftsman Christopher Payne, expressed that the conditions of interrogation would have caused him to sign anything, highlighting the pressure they endured. The prosecution's case alleged that the men had been blackmailed due to drug use and homosexual activities; however, the jury found the evidence unconvincing, suggesting that the confessions were not reliable. The court noted that even the prosecution admitted their confessions were "shot through with prevarication and some outright lies." The accused were young and unsophisticated, lacking any evident ideological alignment with the Soviet Union, raising further doubts about the prosecution's case. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Thomas Hetherington, was responsible for deciding whether to pursue the case, which had previously seen a similar defendant acquitted. The decision to proceed with the trial can be seen as politically motivated, as there is persistent pressure to demonstrate the UK’s commitment to national security in the context of Cold War tensions. Mr Calcutt's investigation is expected to address whether this political pressure influenced the prosecution and to scrutinise the military police's interrogation practices. There are also concerns about the prospects of compensation for the acquitted men, whose military careers have likely been ruined. Despite indications from Armed Services Minister John Stanley that compensation was unlikely, there is a growing sentiment that at least some recompensation is warranted for the ordeal they suffered during their detention and trial. This case highlights the disparities between military and civilian justice systems in the UK, prompting broader discussions about accountability and fairness within them.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand