PETROV INQUIRY RESUMED

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27374, 12 June 1954, Page 7

PETROV INQUIRY RESUMED

Evidence Of Code Names (N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) (Rec. 10.30 p.m.) SYDNEY, June 11. Thirty persons, most of whom were Australians, had been allotted code names by Moscow, the senior counsel (Mr W. J. V. Windeyer, Q.G.) told the Petrov Royal Commission today. He said it did not mean that because a person had a code name that he had been engaged in an improper activity, but that person might well have done so. Code names were allotted because Moscow regarded a person as a helper, a potential helper, or of some special interest. Mr Windeyer submitted that from a methodical, laborious examination of a mass of evidence, would emerge a clear pattern of purpose and method of espionage. He said that at least 70 names came into the Petrov story —possibly more.

When the hearing opened, Mr Windeyer said that he intended to call Mr Arthur Herbert Eirse (who flew out from London) to give his qualifications to the Commission as a translator.

Mr Birse had checked translated copies of the documents already handed to the Commission and had found them to be in substance correct.

He had made a number of alterations, most, of them of a minor character, and many of them were made for the purpose only of improving. the English expression and the translating the Russian into somewhat more idiomatic English. In evidence, Mr Birse gave his qualifications as a translator and said he had carefully examined documents which had been submitted to the Commission as a translation into English and he had had available to him, as a result of an order by their Honours, the original exhibits. He had checked the accuracy of the translations with the original Russian documents and had made a report. At this stage Mr Windeyer tendered to the Commission copies of documents signed by Mr Birse and Mr Birse’s report. Mr Justice Owen, after hearing evidence from Mr Birse, said the Commission was entirely satisfied with Mr Birse’s qualifications as translator and interpreter.

He said that Mr Birse would be an officer of the Commission and would stand by when the Petrovs gave evidence.

Mr Windeyer informed the Commissioners he had hbped to be able to proceed without delay with the calling of evidence but there were many matters still being investigated—matters which arose as a result of information Petrov had brought and as a result of independent inquiries. . He also felt it might be desirable that some further check be made of some matters in the interests of individuals concerned, he said. Mr Windeyer suggested the inquiry should, after today, be adjourned till the end of the month and in Melbourne because a courtroom was available there and there were certain files which he might wish to consult more readily available in Melbourne than in Sydney. “From the evidence there will, I feel, emerge a clear pattern of purpose and method of espionage, and certainly of attempted espionage and related activities in Australia by persons who were represenatives, or agents, or acting for Russia,” Mr Windeyer said. Ascertainment of facts relating to matters referred to the Commissioners would require a methodical, examination of many documents and the hear-' ing of many witnesses. “The logical starting point having regard to the terms reference is the documents which Petr'ov has brought, and the oral evidence which he can give.” said Mr Windeyer. Petrov as Witness “I propose Petrov shall be the first witness called when the sittings resume. He will be followed as a witness by Mrs Petrov. “It will not be convenient for either Petrov or Mrs Petrov to give the whole of their evidence in all aspects before the evidence of any other person is heard. If they did the result would be confusing and it might be unfair.” Mr Windeyer said that to attempt to investigate all the-matters of method and persons and related activities in the terms of reference would lead to confusion by hearing what the Petrovs had to say on all of it because the Russian documents named about 30 persons in code names. The 30 persons were other than the Russians in official positions. These were not 30 Australians, but most of them were Australians.

Mr Justice Owen: They are persons to whom code names had been allotted by Moscow?

Mr Windeyer: Yes, your Honour. That fact alone indicates that some identification will have to be given to the activities of each of those persons.

Mr Justice Owen: Obviously. Mr Windeyer said: “It does not follow that because a person has had a code named allotted to him that he has engaged in any improper activity. He well may have done so and it is quite clear that in every case a code name is allotted because Moscow regards a person as having special interest to them.”

In answer to Mr Justice Owen. Mr Windeyer said the 30 persons were all resident in Australia at times relevant to each of them. However, they were not all now resident in Australia. Mr Windeyer indicated that there were at least 70 and possibly more persons whose names came into the- storv in such a way as to suggest that their activities required investigation. “No charges will be formulated here against anyone but Your Honours are required to report, among other things, on whether any persons or organisations have aided or abetted espionage or communications of documents.

“What Your Honours say will obviously affect the reputation of them.

“We venture to suggest, therefore, that it is desirable that the witnesses be examined publicly in open Court and, whenever appropriate, that their evidence should be tested on crossexamination, to be done by persons who are their representatives or who have direct interest in testing the truth of a particular statement. “We suggest that persons whose conduct will in any sense come into question should be given by a clear statement in open Court, some knowledge in general terms of what the evidence may reveal so that they will have an opportunity to take advice if they wish to do so, and will have an opportunity of knowing the purpose and direction on the evidence being led. “Finally, we suggest it is appropriate that any persons should nave an opportunity of giving their explanation in open Court as soon as convenient after any matter which requires explanation has been put before Your Honours. To afck them all to wait until evidence' about them has been given would seem to create a situation which would be confusing and perhaps unjust,” he said. The Commission then adjourned tn consider the points mentioned by Mr Windeyer and. on resumption. Mr Justice Owen said the Commissioners agreed with the general plan of procedure as outlined by Mr Windeyer. and agreed that the disclosure of names, particularly a large number of names, at a stage when weeks might elapse before evidence was given, might be unfair.

The Commission then adjourned until June 30, in Melbourne.