ALLEGED ESPIONAGE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20310, 19 January 1928, Page 9

ALLEGED ESPIONAGE

EVIDENCE HEARD IN CAMERA. JURY SHOWN SECRET DOCUMENTS. CFreoa Association —Telegraph Copyright.} LONDON, January 17. In order to prevent disclosures prejudicial to the safety of Britain, the MCart-ney-Hansen case was heard for two houis in camera. Secret documents shown to the jury included a questionnaire dealing with the Air Force, and a book found in M'Cartney’s room containing a report on the Tank Corps in his handwriting. A stenographer gave evidence as to typing for M’Cartney, whom she knew as Johnson or Hudson, matter regarding airships, and evidence was given that M Cartney held a passport in the name of HudS °M‘Cartney denied foreknowledge of the Arcos raid or receiving secret books from Monk land and using th e name of Hudson. Sir Douglas Hogg asked M’Cartney to write a sentence containing the word “ complete.” M’Cartney spelt it “ cornplat ” like the same word in the questionnaire. He asserted that Scotland Yard Superintendents Parser and M’Bride told him that he would be indemnified and given money if he gave all information against Hansen and Arcos. Both the accused admitted previous convictions, Hansen for a political offence in Germany. The case was adjourned.— A. and N.Z. and Sydney Sun Cable. ABSOLUTE SECRECY. EXTRAORDINARY PRECAUTIONS. (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, January 17. The trial of M’Cartney and the German student Hansen on charges of espionage was continued at the Central Criminal Court to-day. Extraordinary precautions to obtain absolute secrecy were taken. For nearly two hours evidence was heard in camera. This procedure, which is very rare in British criminal trials, is sanctioned by a judge only for reasons of State. The decision to close the court to the public was reached after evidence had been given by Major-general BonhamCarter (director of staff duties at the War Office). He emphasised the necessity of not publishing the statements of four witnesses and documents which were exhibited to the judge, jury, and counsel. The documents included a questionnaire dealing with the plans of the Air Force which had been translated from Russian. The Attorney-general (Sir Douglas Hogg), who is prosecuting, stated that this document could only have been composed by a group of persons familiar with their subject, such as the war staff of a foreign Power. Another document submitted in camera was a report on the British Tank Corps’ manoeuvres alleged to have been written by M’Cartney,

When the charges against the accused were being heard before the magistrate. Sir Travers Humphreys, on behalf of the prosecution, said that MacCartney was also known in the case as Hudson. He was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain. The other man, Hansen was also known as Johnson and was a German subject. The foreign Power concerned in the case was the Government of Soviet Russia. The matter first came to the notice of the authorities as the result of a communication made by Mr George Monkland. Some people had the mistaken impression that Mr Monkland, who was an underwriter at Lloyd’s, had some improper part in the proceedings. That was erroneous. He first brought to the knowledge of the authorities the activities of MacCartney and from time to time acted under their instructions. He had behaved as a gentleman and a patriotic citizen. Mr Monkland had known MacCartney for some four years, and in March of last year MacCartney went to his flat in Mayfair and mentioned that he was interested in the shipment of arms to the States bordering on Russia. He asked whether Mr Monkland, as a member of Lloyd’s, could obtain some information about the matter. At that time MacCartney did not say why he required it. Mr Monkland supplied him with some inaccurate information, for which MacCartney was good enough to make him a payment. Then MacCartney continued, at a later interview, to inform Mr Monkland that he was acting for the authorities of the Russian Government. He asked Mr Monkland to obtain answers to a questionnaire of 13 questions. With regard to that document. Sir Travere would only say that there would be evidence that to disclose its contents would be to the national danger. Mr Monkland, or those who had anything to do with the fighting forces of the Crown, only needed to glance at the document to appreciate that he was being asked to betray his country, and the step he took was one which it was hoped any patriotic Englishman would, take. He at once, through some friends, got an introduction to persons whom he knew could deal with such a matter, and one of those, Admiral Sir Reginald Hall, who was, during the war, Director of Naval Intelligence, met Mr Monkland and was shown the document. Admiral Hall at once took steps to put Mr Monkland in touch with representatives of the Government, and on March 30 there was a call at Mr Monkland’s flap by a man who was known in the case as Mr Peter Hamilton, at whose request Mr Monkland regularly reported, and to whom ho gave most of. the documents he received.