DOCUMENT J “RELEVANT” TO SPY INQUIRY

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27401, 14 July 1954, Page 11

DOCUMENT J “RELEVANT” TO SPY INQUIRY

(Rec. 11 p.m.) MELBOURNE, July 13. The chairman of the Royal Commission into Espionage (Mr Justice Owen) said today that Document J contained tlie names of lOC persons, 60 of whom had been “smeared” by the author.

He said that although the original of the document had been sent to Moscow, it was undesirable that “we should publish to the rest' of the world some of the matters that the writer considers would be valuable to a foreign Power.” After reading extracts from the document, his Honour said it was clear that it was relevant to an inquiry into espionage.

When the hearing resumed this morning, the chairman of the commission (Mr Justice Owen) said: “Before we continue the evidence, my colleagues and I think we should say something about Document J and its contents.’’ Earlier *in the hearing Mr W. J. V. Windeyer, senior counsel assisting the commission, described Document J as "a farrago of facts, falsity and filth.” Mrs Petrov, in evidence, identified Rupert Lockwood, a Sydney journalist, as the author of the document, and said he wrote it in the Soviet Embassy. On Monday, Lockwood declined to answer when asked if he had written the document. Continuing, Mr Justice Owen said: “We think it is desirable to do sc, because we have refused to allow the. document itself to be made public and it has no doubt been difficult for the press and the public to follow Lie significance of some of the evidence directed to ascertain its author ana where it was written.

“The document shows that it was typed after May 20, 1953, because it refers to an issue of the ‘Tribune’ of that date, and that it was typed before June 2, 1953. It also shows that part of it was typed on May 25, 1953, because there is a reference in it to ‘today’s newspapers (25/5/53).’ “In the main body of the document, the author always speaks in the third person, but in that portion in which he sets out the source of his inforntation he sometimes breaks into the first person and so gives a clue to his identity. “He discloses that he was a member of the New South Wales district committee of the Australian Journalists’ Association when matters concerning two men, who were named, were dealt with by that committee. In the sources of information he says, in the first person, that he was personally involved in a dispute with another man. which was brought before the committee of the Sydney Journalists’Club, of which he was a member. He also says he was a member of the editorial staff of the ‘Daily News’ when that newspaper was taken over by the ‘Daily Telegraph’ and on the takeover his services were terminated.

“Documentary evidence tendered yesterday was directed to show that there was a man to whom this statement could relate and that that min was staying at a Canberra hotel from May 22 to May 25, 1953, when Mr Petrov was in a Canberra hospital. It also appears that the document was prepared by one who was a Communist or at least on page 28 of the document the writer says, speaking of an individual whom he names, that that individual became liable to callup in the army “when the war became a people’s war after the entry of the Soviet.’’ “If therefore one can find a man who was a Communist, who was in Canberra between May 22 and May 25, who was a member of the New South Wales district committee of the Australian Journalists’ Association when that committee dealt with matters concerning the two named journalists, who was concerned in a dispute with the other man named, and who was on the staff of the ‘Daily News’ up to a particular date, it would seem probable, to say the least of it, that the man was the person who prepared the document since it seems highly improbable that there would be more than one person who would comply with those requirements.

“Supports Mrs Petrov’s Evidence” “All these matters support closely the direct evidence of Mrs Petrov as to the authorship of the document and as to how and where it was prepared. Other evidence of a similar nature may be forthcoming—that remains to be seen. “We now propose to indicate the contents of the document and why we think it is wrong to publish it in its entirety. If the author had published it outside the bounds of a foreign embassy we think, without doubt, that information for criminal libel and defamation would have been laid against him. If we were to publish the document we would merely inflict great harm on many citizens whose only fault has been that they had earned the dislike of the author. If we should release it all for publication it would not be his publication but ours and he could ndt be held responsible. • “In the document there are at least 100 names mentioned in addition to those stated as sources of information, and, of that number, it would appear that the names and reputations of about 60 persons are, if I may use the word, smeared—some to a great extent, others to a lesser degree. We propose

to refer to a few extracts from the document to indicate its relevance to espionage and other matters. “Despite the fact that the evidence is that the original of the document was sent to M.V.D. headquarters in Moscow and its contents are therefore known there, it seems to us urtdesirable that we should publish to the rest of the world some of the matters that the writer considers would be valuable to a foreign Power. We will indicate some of the contents. “On Page J. 12 references are made to an area of north-west Australia which, the writer says, is regarded as the most strategic for American operations against South-east Asia. The author says that ‘surveys of this area will show that it is much better situated for strategic operations than areas in the north and north-east of Australia.’ Information About Airfield

“After references to the fact that during the .war there was a submarine base at Exmouth Gulf, the writer goes on to refer to a big airfield nearby. He says that the Japanese Air Force tried to find this place during the war and could not do so. It is in a strategic position and not easy to find. On the following page he says there is evidence that the area is not only being developed for American exploitation of minerals, but also for a military operational base. Bulldozers are at work rehabilitating airfields, roads, and so on, and two ports are being dredged and improved. “On Page J. 13 the author refers to the fact that certain railway lines will be restored and that airfield work and the dredging of ports is being done without much publicity, although some of the news has crept into the papers. On Page J. 14 the writer refers to the inhospitable terrain and the difficulties which any invading force would meet there. “The author says: ‘With the exception of a few Australians, only aborigines know the area, its tracks, terrain, and water holes.’ This knowledge was essential to any operating army. Aborigines had been leaving cattle stations and mines and settirig up their own co-operative stations and mines. “The document refers to a person named Don Macleod as the white leader of the aborigines and says he received financial aid from an Englishman. This may be an effort, says the author, by the British to share the minerals. Macleod’s role in the area was important and it was thought he would not be popular with the Americans. Macleod had been a member of the Communist Party, but had drifted out since an imprisonment term.” Mr Justice Owen said that the author repeated again that Macleod’s assistance would be necessary to any military force operating there. A footnote said that more details of constructional operations in that area were available. Another section of the document named a number of persons who had assisted the Australian counterintelligence and security service.

Relevance to Inquiry Mr Justice Owen said that these excerpts from the document indicated its relevance to the inquiry. He had already indicated that more than 100 persons had been named in the document and it seemed that the author was anxious to place in the hands of the recipient information about alleged weaknesses in individuals which could be used to bring pressure to bear upon them. Mr Justice Owen then read part of a statement by Petrov referring to Document J, which said: “This document was supplied by Rupert Lockwood to Antonov during 1953. Lockwood visited the embassy with Antonov, but they arrived separately and stayed there three nights typing the report. Lockwood used an embassy typewriter and he typed it himself.” The document then mentioned Lockwood’s code name, “Voron” (meaning “Raven”). Mr Justice Owen added.

Vladimir Petrov (the former Third Secretary at the Embassy) was then recalled to the witness box and told Mr Windeyer that he remembered receiving a Moscow letter dated September 27. 1952, in which there was a paragraph beginning “Advise Ignat... ” interpreted, this paragraph read: “Advise Antonov to continue to extend his contacts in the first place among political correspondents and among members of Parliament, ignoring any embarrassment through technical difficulties in the spoken languagflu” Petrov said that, having received this letter, he gave that advice to Antonov. Antonov told him that Lockwood had promised to write some information which he was carrying in his head and that he could write it in the embassy

or in China or in the countries of the people’s democracies. Lockwood came to the embassy while he (Petrov) was in hospital, Petrov added. Antonov carried through the work with Lockwood. “Antonov came to the hospital and explained to me that an appointment had been made with Lockwood," said Petrov. “I first heard that Lockwood had been to the embassy when Antonov came to the hospital for a second time and told me they were working in the Embassy.”

Continuing his evidence, Petrov said that Antonov had told him that Lockwood was typing material in two copies and he (Lockwood) was entering the embassy “very cautiously.’’ Moscow had givjen instructions that Antonov was to be present while the typing was being done. Nothing had been said by Moscow about the sources of information.

Mr Windeyer: Have you seen this Document J before?—Yes. I sent the original to Moscow. This copy was ih my safe. I brought it with me. When did you first see the document?—When I came out of hospital my wife showed it to me. It was then in the M.V.D. safe. I read it and sent the original to Moscow in the diplomatic bag. Mr E. P. Hill (Lockwood’s counsel) then started his cross-examination of Petrov. Mr Hill: You took Document J from the M.V.D. safe of the Soviet Union? —Yes, I did. It was the property of the Soviet Union?—Yes. Do you remember signing a document saying that you had destroyed 1952 correspondence and documents? —Yes, I do. That was entirely false?—Yes, false. Mr Justice Owen: Otherwise all these documents we have are bogus. Mr Hill: Was it your wife’s responsibility to destroy the documents?— Hers and mine. In signing the certificate did you deceive your wife?—Yes. Was she very annoyed that you had signed a false certificate?—No, she was not angry with me. If you made one untrue statement you would have no hesitation to make another?—No. And you would not hesitate to say documents were genuine when, in fact, they were not?—The question is only about the act I signed in connexion with these documents. Will you swear you never made other false statements in your life?— Yes. Suicide Note Can you recall writing a suicide note?—Yes, I can. You are not suggesting you committed suicide?—Of course not. Petrov said that he wrote the suicide note so that the embassy should not find out immediately that he had disappeared. Mr Hill: It was a false statement, wasn’t it?—Yes. You never had the slightest Intention of committing suicide, did you? —Yes. When there was serious perse--1 cution in the embassy. Did you have any intention of com- ! mitting suicide?—l decided to stay in • Australia. : Mr Hill: But you had no intention : of committing suicide, did you?— 1 Mr Justice Owen: Mr Hill, you are ; forgetting the fact that you are ap- ; pearing for a client who refuses to : answer. We expect you to extend 1 courtesy to this witness. We are conb cerned with Document J, and you can- ; not wander over the whole field. ' Mr Justice Philp: Mr Hill is testing the witness’s credit. Mr Justice Owen: Quite, but let him ’ do it courteously. Mr Hill (to Petrov): As far as the " suicide was concerned there was no 3 doubt about its falsity?—That was untrue. Who was with you when you composed that letter?—l wa? alone. I ? wrote the letter and gave it to one of 1 the security men. J Petrov denied that he discussed with J Mr Richards, one of the security men, - whether he should write the letter. r He said he did not discuss the fact 1 with anyone that the embassy might " be looking for him when he did not 1 show up on a scheduled date. Petrov 0 also denied discussing with Mr Richards or other security officers that he a was deceiving the embassy. He *aid ■ that the first time he saw Mr Richards 1 was on February 27, 1954, when they J,’ discussed his proposal to desert his ° country. J To Mr Hill, Petrov said he did not ? suggest to Mr Richards that he (Pet--1 rov) might be useful in getting inr formation. He had made a statement through an interpreter, said Petrov, in e which he said he wanted only a com- • fortable life. H A new witness, Fergan O’Sullivan, of Dulwich Hill, Sydney, was called d into the witness box. . Mr J. Meagher, appearing for O’Sullivan, said he had given his client ' certain advice and wished to take full •• responsibility for it. (Mr Meagher, a I. Sydney solicitor, appeared at the com--3 mission on July 2 for an unnamed « person.) Mr Windeyer then asked O'Sullivan y whether he had ever before seen the document, exhibit H. The document was handed to O’Sullivan. and he sat down and read it v through for about five minutes. When td he had finished reading, he said: “I m won’t answer that question.’’ id Mr Windeyer: “What, you won J ;y answer it?’’—“l decline to