Reporting a comment

Here's the annotation you're reporting. Please enter a brief reason why you think it should be deleted in the form beneath. Thanks for your help!

Michael John Smith
Posted on 10 Dec 2007 1:31 am

I never did get a reply from the Ministry of Defence, following Andrew Mackinlay’s question on the ‘restricted’ document. This lack of honesty by the MoD was the main reason why I started my blog, because I felt the only way to draw out the truth was to go public and openly question the evidence at my trial.

My fears of a cover-up were well-founded, when the Criminal Case Review Commission’s provisional report arrived in July 2006 - the investigation referred to by Adam Ingram. The report brushed aside all my arguments, and it amounts to a whitewash that there were no failings in the legal process. However, I have since learned quite a lot more information about that ‘restricted’ document, and the misrepresentation that surrounded it. I can now make presumptions about why Adam Ingram felt unable to make a statement disclosing the truth.

The MoD expert, Professor Lewis, whose testimony led to my conviction, claimed in court on 11 October 1993 that he had been told by Marconi’s Technical Director (in a telephone conversation) that the document was used on the ALARM missile. I talked with that Technical Director in January 2007, and he informed me that he had not known about the document’s use, and would have consulted other staff in a different Marconi company. This means the evidence given to the court was at least triple “hearsay”, and it is significant that nobody will now admit to having been the source for the evidence.

The important fact, which I have only recently learned, is that the ‘restricted’ document became obsolete on 27 March 1984, and so it was impossible that this was a document used on any actual ALARM missile. It is interesting that Mr Mackinlay’s question requests a date when the document became obsolete, but the MoD declined to admit that it was obsolete.

The truth is more disturbing, because it appears that a related document, actually used on ALARM in 1991, was unclassified, and MoD staff must have been responsible in deciding that the specification was not sensitive enough to be classified. Therefore, the MoD’s evidence to the Security Commission (1994), that the ‘restricted’ document should have been classified ‘secret’, was dishonest since the document was not in use after 1984.

This all looks very bad for the MoD expert who gave that testimony at my trial in 1993, because he seriously misled the jury into believing that the information in the document was extremely sensitive, and that its contents could endanger British servicemen’s lives.

I hope that the MoD will now assist me in resolving this matter once and for all, and that they will support a retrial so that the true evidence can be put before a jury.


Why should this annotation be deleted?
Check our House Rules and tell us why the annotation breaks them.