!
SECRET TRIALS - WHAT'S NEW,
PUSSYCAT?
! Gerald Gardiner - Saint or Criminal?
! How to Justify a 'Kangaro Trial
! A Magdalen Manner Notwithstanding
! National Security and 'Kangaroo Courts
! Supermac and Supershell: The Hartley and Maxwell Story
NB
Items starting with ! are
recent additions or updates.
It was in 1945 that the war crimes trials at
In 1955 I was employed by HM Government in
I was very proud of 'my' Factories Act, which went on the
Statute Book immediately and was given a great welcome. I have always loved the
law, and enjoyed the legal studies which formed part of my studies at
I was familiar with
In 1960 I returned to
(As a consequence of the abolition of the rule of law, a war started and three million innocents died - UN figures.)
In 1960 the Governor General had threatened my life, but
also spoke of permanent exile from the
Tom Sargant was the Secretary of
'Justice', a recently formed all-Party law reform group, part of the
International Commission of Jurists. The Chair of Justice was Sir Hartley Shawcross, former Chief British Prosecutor at
The Government had been dealing with my concerns since
1956. I was objecting too to harassment, which had wrecked an agreement I had
reached with a handshake at the behest of Lord Grey, the Deputy Governor
General. This gentleman's agreement was breached by the Colonial Office, and I
had to return to
In 1959 Hartley Shawcross had
been made a peer by his friend Harold Macmillan. The Lord Chancellor was
Viscount Kilmuir who, as David Maxwell-Fyfe, had been
Shawcross's Deputy Prosecutor at
Now, Tom Sargant explained to me that Maxwell-Fyfe, Shawcross and Gardiner had discussed what should be done with me, and they had agreed that I could never be allowed in an English court of law. I was perplexed because it was the Government which was acting criminally. I had protested through the proper channels, but never had a hearing. Maxwell-Fyfe, Shawcross and Gardiner had decided that an alternative 'trial' could be held at 'Justice' in secret. This was clearly a 'Kangaroo trial', which is illegal.
I attended because Tom Sargant was persuasive, and assured me of Gardiner's liberal leanings. If I told the truth I would be vindicated.
The 'trial' and outcome were a disappointment. Sir John
Foster was to be prosecutor, jury and judge, and Viscount Kilmuir,
Shawcross and Gerald Gardiner would decide on a
verdict. Harold Macmillan would then accept the decisions and implement them.
The charge was very serious for it was treason, of which I was innocent. I did
not need a 'trial' or even a 'Kangaroo court' to tell me that. What I wanted was
a trial of those guilty of destroying democracy at birth in
This was obviously a very high level 'trial', and
presumably 'Justice' had been chosen to lend an air of respectability and
legality to the proceedings. Surely even at
I was a law maker and had never been charged with anything, but my life was threatened by a law-breaking Government! It was a nightmare, and I was ill. My weight was dropping and I was like a skeleton.
The eminent people who were trying me were the criminals who had robbed a newly-independent, giant nation of its rule of law and its democracy. Decades of bloody, unparalleled chaos and millions of deaths would flow from this machiavellian treachery, which would set the tone for the whole Continent of Africa to be pitched into savagery.
The Nuremberg Prosecutors had represented good against evil, but had tried scrupulously to give Nazi leaders a fair trial. I was not getting a fair trial. Was I worse than a Nazi? Evidently there was a great hatred of me! Was there a pretence that the law could be set aside if the two major political parties agreed to do so together in secret?
Lord Shawcross in his memoirs
deplores whistle-blowers like me, even if we expose gross criminality. Why could
There were so many things wrong with this 'Kangaroo trial', and so much unexplained, that I could only conclude that the criminals had taken over the system.
I have dealt with the proceedings, the verdict and the
sheer horror of this illegal trial elsewhere. Was this unique? The intention of
this illegal 'Kangaroo trial' was to gag me for life, and get my consent to
permanent exile. The threats to my life had not worked, for I had stood up to
them. I was to be declared a winner and rewarded with honours
and a top job, and be gulled into the acceptance of gross criminality. I
refused the offer. The US State Department had offered me a safe haven in
Lovers of liberty and the law should regard these 'Kangaroo' proceedings as a disgrace to the British legal system and be hopping mad!
January 2005
Return to Secret Trials Contents
I have no proof, other than my own experience - often unsubstantiated - that Macmillan destroyed Nigerian democracy. He wrote no confession of what he undoubtedly did. On the contrary, every precaution was taken to keep his machinations secret. There will be no flood of e-mails to investigate.
As the operation was carried out on a bipartisan basis
involving the Privy Council, the question of legality never came into it. 'The
hidden hand' and 'fancy footwork' exercised an 'enduring fascination for him.' 'The
sheer devilry of his later adventures in foreign policy shocked some...' He
found the Balkan politics of
All this happened in
One can understand scepticism to
what I suggest. Wasn't Maxwell-Fyfe devising constitutions for soon-to-be-free
Colonies? I, too, was a lawmaker in
In October 1960 David Maxwell-Fyfe went to
February 2005
Return to Secret Trials Contents
! Gerald Gardiner - Saint or Criminal
Is it possible if one is a lawyer, especially a great reforming Lord Chancellor, to be a bit or a fraction of both?
In 1960, when I was trying to expose the rigging of Nigeria's Independence elections by the British Government, the Lord Chancellor, Viscount Kilmuir aka David Maxwell-Fyfe, got together with his Shadow, Gerald Gardiner, to shut me up with a 'Kangaroo' trial at 'Justice'.
The loss of three million innocent lives resulted from the election rigging, but they were Africans. Macmillan, the chief architect of this treason referred to Africans as 'barbarians'. The question of right or wrong did not come into it when outwitting these excitable children. It was exhilarating using power in a machiavellian fashion. The Chair of 'Justice', Sir Hartley Shawcross, was evidently in close agreement, for these rascally Nigerians would probably interfere with the smooth running of the newly-discovered Shell oilfields if allowed to take power. As Shawcross was a VIP at Shell Oil, he would know about such things.
Sir Hartley and David Maxwell-Fyfe had also been the leaders of the British team of prosecutors at Nuremberg, and were accustomed to dispensing justice in orginal - some would say questionable - situations. Trying Smith in an official court would not be right at all, for the public might disapprove. Better to keep it secret.
Yet a year later Gerald Gardiner was to prosecute the
leaders of the ETU for election-rigging. I followed this with great interest,
having made similar charges against the AEU and been worsted for my pains. The
facts seemed indisputable in the ETU case, and Gerald quite correctly proved
that there was a conspiracy to fix elections. However, was this not a storm in
a teacup compared with the British conspiracy to destroy democracy in
If the ETU conspiracy was the biggest fraud in Trade
Unionism, what was the British Government's conspiracy in
The answer may be simple in that Sir Hartley may have given a bundle of Shell shares to his colleagues. A dreadful suggestion, of course, but as reasons go it was a popular one, simple to understand and difficult to fault, referring as it does to the weaknesses that men are prone to.
If the conspirators had any concern for the person of the
trouble-maker, who was such a pain to the Government, they did not show it and
one may reasonably assume that they thought I deserved all I got. It was not as
if I had been to a public school, where I would have learned not to snitch and
rat on our people, the British. Evidently my years at
I was the sort of bounder who would have argued that the
rich had taken over charitable foundations, designed for poor scholars like
myself. Viscount Kilmuir was a Scot like the Governor
General, and had taken a Third at Balliol. I had had the nerve to push into
Magdalen and get a Second, which was almost indecent when Gerald had taken a
Fourth and been sent down from Magdalen. Poor old Hartley had not even got to
These sentiments, which I guy and send up, were very real
at that time. Labour and Tory politicians were also anti-Semitic almost to a
man. Lyttleton was a rare exception. Negrophobia was
common and Roy Welensky was rubbish to Macmillan, not
only for being Jewish, but a poor Jew and a railwayman
at that. The grandson of a crofter who had married an adulterous
Note: When one has read the memoirs and the biographies of the period and newer critical works such as 'The Guardsmen: Harold Macmillan, Three Friends and the World They Made' and 'Harold Macmillan and Britain's World Role', it is clear that we were all taken in, for the conclusive evidence suggests that Macmillan was a first-class machiavellian monster, who poisoned the climate of politics of Westminster with his treacherous intrigues, and denied better men the opportunity to serve the nation.
January 2005
Return to Secret Trials Contents
The
In no time after that whole regiments of Nazi killers were
being settled in
David Maxwell-Fyfe loved honours
and his ambition as a collector was endless. He looked like Telly
Savalas playing Kojak without
the lollipop. His boss at
At 'Justice', of which Hartley was Chair, they arranged a 'kangaroo' court* in 1960 to silence the Smiths who were establishing that the British Government had fixed the Independence Elections in Nigeria to place the newly-discovered Shell oilfields in safe hands. It helped that Hartley was a VIP at Shell Oil. The following year Hartley was rewarded with a 'goldmine' - a directorship of Shell Oil.
The Government has for over forty years denied that the Smiths exist. They deny that the Smiths got a 'kangaroo trial' at 'Justice'. They would, wouldn't they?
The destruction of democracy in
February 2005
Return to Secret Trials Contents
! How to Justify a 'Kangaroo' Trial*
An illegal trial, if set up by a Lord Chancellor, is still not legal, especially if it is held in secret. When the accused is held to threaten State security by exposing State criminality, one understands why secrecy is desired. It is also understandable why the accused should not be allowed counsel. Those involved in the trial will be complicit in the State criminality and must therefore be trustworthy to the accusers.
If the trial is not a court martial, but is to be dressed in authority and made to appear legal, the use of lawyers and a quasi-judicial setting like the Head Office of 'Justice' is understandable. (An attempt had previously been made to second the accused to the Army as a high ranking officer, so that he could be subject to military law.)
The accused was attempting to use due process. His
solicitor had made submissions to Government. Three years earlier a deal had
been brokered by the Deputy Governor General of
An illegal, secret trial did take place at 'Justice' in 1960. The fundamental principles of a proper trial were absent. An attempt at justifying the trial was made. The accused was misled as to the purpose of the trial. Implicit in the trial was the approval of 'Justice' to the proceedings.
An illegal trial, sanctioned and instigated and authorised by a Lord Chancellor, is intimidating to an accused. De facto charges of treason had been alleged by Government. The accused was appealing against arbitrary punishment, inflicted when he had left the service of Government three years before. The effect of this punishment was to force the accused to enter into Government service again.
When the trial was held the accused was no longer in Government service. The accused fully co-operated with Government and respected the office and great authority of the Lord Chancellor and others. The accused was not allowed to negotiate the terms of the trial. He did, however, have reasonable expectations regarding justice and fair play.
At all times when in Government service, the accused complied with civil service regulations and used official channels to pursue redress.
The accused was at all times polite and well-mannered in dealings with his superiors. Correspondence was directed to the proper authorities.
The initial complaint was made in 1956. The 'Justice' trial was held in 1960.
It was admitted in 1960 by the Governor General of
Threats to the life of the accused were made by Government.
Offers to the accused were made by the Governor General in
Sir John MacPherson, the Governor General in 1956, became the top official at the Colonial Office. He was a personal friend of the Lord Chancellor.
The Minister at the Colonial Office, Julian Amery, was the son-in-law
of the Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, who approved of the illegal
machinations in
The Lord Chancellor, David Maxwell-Fyfe, was a colleague of
the Chair of 'Justice', Sir Hartley Shawcross, at the
Nuremberg Trials. They were members of Gray's
Sir John Foster, QC, MP, who conducted the trial, was a political associate of the Prime Minister and the Amery family.
Gerald Gardiner, the Shadow Lord Chancellor, associated himself with Maxwell-Fyfe in setting up the trial.
It was evident, by the involvement of the Shadow Lord
Chancellor, that Labour was allied to the Government in the machinations in
February 2005
Return to Secret Trials Contents
! A Magdalen Manner Notwithstanding
The Chair of 'Justice' in 1960, Sir Hartley Shawcross, was a VIP showcase front man for Shell Oil. He basked in the reputation of having been the chief British prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials. The real chief, who did all the work, was David Maxwell-Fyfe. (Anyone who consults Kilmuir's 'Memoirs' will arrive at the same conclusion.) Shawcross was a fraud who derided Maxwell-Fyfe's intellectual abilities. In fact, Maxwell-Fyfe was the youngest KC for three hundred years. A wartime degree, complicated by service in the Army, brought him a creditable Third. Shawcross lacked a degree at all, and was not really in the top league where Maxwell-Fyfe belonged, and he probably envied him his popularity and success.
Harold Macmillan and Iain Macleod took Seconds and Gerald Gardiner a Fourth. The last-named was also derided by Shawcross who wrote that he knew nothing about politics.
Julian Amery was Macmillan's son-in-law, and Sir John
Foster was the Amery family lawyer, and friend of Macmillan and Maxwell-Fyfe.
The three Tory politicians attended
It was extremely interesting for me to be charged with
treason in 1960 at 'Justice' by the
The only treason in existence was that of the British Government. It was piquant also because the Nuremberg Code stipulated that it was not sufficient to claim that one was carrying out orders if accused of war crimes. Only lawful orders should be obeyed. Moral choice must be a consideration. Government efforts to strike down a 'public interest' defence in recent years are probably in breach of both international and British law.
Both Maxwell-Fyfe and Shawcross knew intimately the Nuremberg Convention. What were they doing lending their authority to a secret trial of a civil servant, charged with treason for disobeying criminal orders? As I was not allowed a lawyer to present a defence against Sir John Foster's charges, which were presented in a ferocious manner, it was not possible to make these points.
The authority of the court was questionable, of doubtful authority or legality. The charges were vague. There was no defence or jury. The verdict and judgement were to come from the Lord Chancellor, Maxwell-Fyfe, in agreement with his Shadow, Gerald Gardiner, and, whilst purporting to be a judgement in my favour, it demanded my word to keep silent about gross State criminality, and my consent to lifetime exile!
And this 'kangaroo court' was held near the Inns of Court at 'Justice', a law reform society with an interest in African justice!
Star Chamber treatment in modern times lacks documentation, but my case contained every element of this barbaric behaviour.
I experienced the duress of having my life threatened. I had already been illegally punished. Further punishment was threatened. If I refused to accept the 'judgement' of the court, I would never work again and would be subject to lifetime surveillance and harassment.
In his political intrigues against rivals, Harold Macmillan
favoured 'the hidden hand' which drew on
Machiavelli's doctrines. In a conflict with
If the
February 2005
Return to Secret Trials Contents
In 1960 I returned from
Another ploy was to deny officially that I existed.
Clearly, if I did suffer 'foul play' and disappear, Government would not be
unduly concerned to discover what had happened. Another idea was to subject me
to permanent exile abroad. The
It now seemed that the four years I had spent seeking redress through the official channels of the Civil Service were totally wasted. I was never going to be allowed to appear before a Civil Service Tribunal as was my right. I sought the advice of the celebrated author C P Snow, who had been a Civil Service Commissioner, and he advised that I seek redress in the Courts. That also was supposedly my right, but Government was adamant - I had no such legal rights!
My reference to Nazi policies was to be proven absolutely
correct, for Government now decided to give me a 'kangaroo trial'* under the auspices of the two British prosecutors at
David Maxwell-Fyfe was now the Lord Chancellor, as eminent a legal position as one could encounter. Sir Hartley Shawcross, one-time Attorney General, was now Chair of 'Justice', under whose auspices I was to be tried.
Sir John MacPherson, the Governor
General of
I was approached by Tom Sargant, the Secretary of 'Justice', who informed me that the Lord Chancellor Maxwell-Fyfe and his Shadow, Gerald Gardiner (who was to be Lord Chancellor in 1964), had decided that I could never be allowed to appear in an English court of law. Therefore I should be tried at 'Justice' and cross examined by Sir John Foster, QC, MP a renowned prosecution lawyer. There would be no jury. Foster's conclusions would be considered by Maxwell-Fyfe and Gardiner and they would come to a judgement. A transcript was made of the cross-examination, and the following week Tom Sargant met with me to advise me of the verdict. I had been denied due process and subjected to an illegal 'kangaroo trial' under duress.
Tom spoke as if there had been a victory for Foster had said I was telling the truth. Presumably they had thought I had been lying? Now, I was to be awarded a large sum of money in return for my word to accept a gagging order and consent to life-long exile.
I rejected these terms, which were identical to those the
Governor General had offered me in
The Government immediately carried out Sir James
Robertson's threats to make me unemployable and subject me to life-time
surveillance and harassment. My treatment as a 'traitor' was very much the way
'terrorists' are handled today by the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke. 'House
arrest' is not news to MI5 targets like myself, who are totally innocent of
anything except embarrassing
The British public are regarded as the enemy, and must be
kept in the dark about major breaches of the law and dirty work abroad. Party
leaders, in collusion on 'Privy Council terms', believe they are above the law
and deny 'due process' to anyone they dislike. A craven legal profession and
the media co-operate in these criminal machinations.
The people of
A 'Nuremberg Trial' of a law-abiding British citizen is another
great scar on the conscience of
February 2005
Return to Secret Trials Contents
! National Security
and 'Kangaroo' Courts
The British Constitution is largely unwritten. No comprehensive document has been written which details what is legal and what is not legal. Our government has evolved. It was not designed. Pragmatism rather than principle is the rule. In recent times many changes and reforms have been introduced.
Yet there is still incoherence and extensive secrecy. The
intelligence services are prohibited from furthering the interests of any
political party, and are vaguely supposed to protect parliamentary democracy.
When I pointed out that the SIS (MI6) Charter stated this objective, and
therefore SIS should be on my side as I was protecting democracy in
As we have two largely conservative parties taking turns in office, it is no big deal to enlist support from ex-Ministers to get round the political party problem. James Callaghan is very sympathetic to MI5/6 and their machinations. If the two major parties collaborate on Privy Council terms, do they need to be bound by the law? They can operate in secret if in doubt.
Tom Sargant of 'Justice' told me that the Lord Chancellor, David Maxwell-Fyfe, had agreed with his Shadow that I could never be allowed in an English court of law, as the story might get out! Was this 'authorised' by written Privy Council decree? And justified with 'national security'?
If there is no transparency, how can abuse be checked? What of my legal rights? Can I never appeal?
Democracy was destroyed in
Iain Macleod was a party to the conspiracy to rig
February 2005
Return to Secret Trials Contents
! An Open Letter to 'Justice':
The Strange Case of Gerald Gardiner and 'Justice'
In 1960 following an approach by Tom Sargant, the Secretary, I took part in a mock trial at 'Justice' and was subjected to a ruthless interrogation by an eminent QC and Tory MP, Sir John Foster It was established that I was telling the truth about the rigging of the Independence Elections in Nigeria by Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, with the support of leaders of the Labour Party.
The 'trial' was set up at the instigation of the Lord Chancellor, Viscount Kilmuir; the Labour Shadow Chancellor, Gerald Gardiner (who became Lord Chancellor in 1964); the Government Minister for the Colonial Office, Julian Amery; and, presumably, with the knowledge of Harold Macmillan who was Julian Amery's father-in-law.
When I had returned from
At that time I did not know of Labour involvement (on Privy
Council terms) in the rigging of
With the assistance of Sir John Foster and Peter Benenson (the co-founder of Amnesty) 'Justice' was set up in 1957 by Gerald as the British branch of the International Commission of Jurists. It would be an all-party organisation, consisting of leading lawyers representing the three main political parties, formed to 'uphold and strengthen the principles of the Rule of Law in the territories for which the British Parliament is directly or ultimately responsible: in particular to assist in the administration of 'Justice' and in the preservation of the fundamental liberties of the individual. It was also concerned to help the International Commission of Jurists to promote observance of the rule of law throughout the world.'
Naomi Sargant, had married Peter
Kelly, a friend of my wife Carol. Peter and Carol were students at
My decision to go to
My studies at
In 1964 Gerald was held in such high esteem that he became
Lord Chancellor in Harold Wilson's Labour Government. This was the background
when Tom Sargant, father of an old friend, offered
the assistance of 'Justice' in my whistle-blowing about the destruction of
democracy in
Tom Sargant informed me that in the opinion of Gerald, I would never be allowed in an English court of law. This was also the view of the Lord Chancellor. If, after a 'trial' under the auspices of 'Justice', I was proved truthful and my allegations correct, I would have 'Justice' on my side. I saw my career problems as secondary, and - incorrectly as it turned out - thought that 'Justice' would challenge Whitehall regarding the rigging of Nigeria's Independence Elections.
The numerous top jobs I had been offered in 1957, including
a research post at the TUC and as a consultant to the State Department in
I had fled
At the Holloway Labour Exchange where I had a temporary
job, I was photographed and filmed with the Duke of Edinburgh during a royal
visit. He told me that the Empire was a 'load of bollocks'. I also met John
Hare, the Minister of Labour, who was on his way to
Tom said this job at 'Justice' was very important to him. He could not advise me or appear too close. He was carrying out his instructions. (However, we did discuss his daughter's marital problems. Tom knew that I had tried to help Naomi as a friend. My website has more details.)
Sir John was ruthless, frightening, merciless and hateful. It was an awful experience, but I stuck to my account through the repeated questioning and insinuations. Suddenly he was shaking my hand and comforting me. I was so shaken up that I was really upset. He complimented me and was a totally different person. Kind, considerate, sympathetic. He had had to test me to the limit to be sure that I was truthful, public spirited, honest, etc. etc. Later, Tom said I had done well. I had 'won', and was to be awarded damages and much more by Government.
When I saw Tom the following week the offer was of a large
sum of money. Honours, a top job, etc. etc. in return
for my word never to reveal what I knew of the Government's disgusting
destruction of democracy in
I said to Tom that this had been offered already by the
Governor General. I was not protesting for personal gain. I had been treated
abominably because of what I witnessed in
Retaliation against me was very swift. The Governor General had threatened I would never work again, and disgusting means were employed to stop my working at the Holloway Labour Exchange. It was 1957 all over again. I became very ill. The future was bleak. Whistleblowers often kill themselves. I know how desperately depressing all that is, but I had Carol, who believed in me, and two lovely small daughters. It was not easy, but in helping others we gained strength and somehow survived.
What are we to make of 'Justice', which was such a let-down? Gerald was a great man. Sir John seemed thoroughly decent. Tom was a splendid man. We later came across Benenson through the Coeliac Society. He was also an idealist and very public spirited. (Sadly, Peter was very mentally troubled and ill. Was there something sinister in our having identical gut-wasting problems?)
Labour and the Macmillan Government set aside democracy in
On a personal note, 'Justice' had not lived up to its aims
in protecting me. I was abandoned. In so far as exposure threatened 'Justice'
for its failure regarding
January 2005
Return to Secret Trials Contents
In 1960, David Maxwell-Fyfe, the Lord Chancellor - a Balliol man, and the youngest QC for 300 years - had an unusual case. (Two years later, Macmillan would sack him in the night of the long knives.) Gerald Gardiner, the Shadow Lord Chancellor, was a Magdalen man but had been sent down with a Fourth. Lord Shawcross, the Chair of 'Justice' did not bother with a degree at all.
I was the difficult case. I left school at thirteen and, in 1954, took a Second at Magdalen after two years.
Perhaps Shawcross (a former Attorney General on the Labour side) and Gerald Gardiner (a future Labour Lord Chancellor) resented a council estate boy who had drafted a Factories Act and defended the rule of law against trade union bosses and Imperial nabobs, alike. The friends of these lions of the legal establishment were to spend the rest of the century denying that I ever existed.
After a Kangaroo Court* trial at 'Justice', it
was decided that I should become an Orwellian unperson
lest my defence of the rule of law should embarrass
Over twenty years earlier, my friend Frank Meade had put up
Orwell in his neat
The odds at my 'kangaroo' trial were decidedly and
deliberately stacked against the defendant, for I was not allowed a defence. My lawyer, Mr Chester
Barrett, was to be excluded from the smooth tenor of the proceedings, lest he
introduce a jarring note. It may have been a quiet, illegal trial near the Inns
of Court, but in spirit it was a Soviet showcase trial of the 1930s and some,
but not I, would say, the trial by the victors of the vanquished at
Had I been allowed my day in a legal British court, I would
have suggested that, at the dissolution of the mighty
January 2005
Return to Secret Trials Contents
! Supermac and Supershell:
The Hartley and Maxwell Story
In 1960, Tom Sargant, the Secretary of 'Justice' told me that, as the Lord Chancellor - Viscount Kilmuir, aka David Maxwell-Fyfe - and his Shadow Gerald Gardiner - Lord Chancellor in 1964 - had agreed that I would never be allowed into an English court of law, I should be given a 'trial' at 'Justice'. My lawyer, Chester Barratt, who was writing letters to the Colonial Office on my behalf, was side-stepped, and I had no defence at my illegal 'kangaroo' trial.
The reason for my 'trial' was supposedly my claim for
damages against Government for what they had done to me after my first tour of
duty in
. It was the mention of Gerald Gardiner that calmed my fears and Tom's reassurance that the whole thing was a good idea. I now know that it was a bad idea, but it is impossible to describe why I was foolish and agreed to attend. I was extremely tired, and had lost several stones in weight. I needed to talk it over at great length with a sympathetic advisor, but everything took so long and things moved so fast. In the end it was Tom and my liking and, I suppose, my trusting him that did it. The whole thing was a fraud. It was a conspiracy to shut me up. They thought I was an idealistic, young fool - and they were right. I was also very honest.
I was protesting that
Let us be clear. The rigging of
Harold Macmillan, Supermac, was, I believe, a machiavellian thug disguised as an English country gentleman. He described Africans as 'barbarians'. His lack of public morality links him to Stalin. I doubt that the loss of three million lives in Iboland worried Supermac very much. Stalin had the same attitude. He said that the loss of one life was a tragedy, but the loss of a million was a statistic.
These gentlemen were the cream of the British legal
establishment, and they put me on trial for treason. I was a nobody who left
school at thirteen and was brought up on a council estate in
In 1960 I continued to protest through official channels.
That did not prevent threats to my life by the Governor General of
The
Some form of legitimacy was desirable - this being
How to shut me up was agonised
over by the best legal brains in the
Eventually, some mighty legal talent was assembled, and
arrived at a solution. Somehow I had to be persuaded that I had 'won' and could
stop whistle-blowing. Loaded with honours and a lot
of money awarded secretly, I could then go off to the
Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe (one of many Scots - fellow Celts -
who hated me for not putting my career first) was the Lord Chancellor. He
achieved fame as the deputy chief British prosecutor at the
The chief prosecutor at
Macmillan gave Shawcross a
peerage (but Hartley says he could hve been made a
Viscount if he had wanted) and it just happened that Hartley had become a Shell
Oil VIP, and their discovery of large quantities of oil in Nigeria was the
major reason for fixing the elections there, so that the oil would be in 'safe'
hands. Shawcross was a friend of Gerald Gardiner, the
Labour Shadow Lord Chancellor, who would take office in 1964. As Labour had
also agreed to destroy democracy in
The Colonial Office Minister, Iain Macleod had little choice but to go along, although he did try to back out when millions began to die as a consequence of these machinations, as did Labour's Jim Callaghan, but it was too late. His junior Minister, Julian Amery, enjoyed this sort of dirty work enormously and almost made a full-time occupation of 'covert operations'.
A prosecutor was needed, and Maxwell-Fyfe, Gardiner and Shawcross decided that it would be better to use someone not too well known. Actually their choice, Sir John Foster, QC, MP, was very well known as a prosecutor for his ferocious manner. He too was experienced with traitors, for he had tried to defend John Amery who had assisted the Nazis. John was hanged in the Tower. As there was a Cold War on, there were undoubtedly some, including my former boss George Foggon, a Nazi-sympathiser himself, who would have wished a similar fate on me.
Maxwell-Fyfe was to act as teller in another vital election
when Macmillan was chosen to be Prime Minister over
Four eminent lawyers, a Prime Minister, a Governor General, and two Ministers! This was some Star Chamber Trial for a nobody off the council estate!
After my trial at 'Justice', Hartley and Maxwell went off
to
January 2005
Return to Secret Trials Contents
I was well acquainted as a Labour Officer with the laws of
In 1956 the British parachuted in a new Governor General
who, as agreed in
Lord Hartley Shawcross, a Shell Oil VIP, made a Lord by the Prime Minister as a favour to a friend, was Chair of 'Justice' and, persuaded that I was a traitor (for upholding the law!) gave me a 'Kangaroo trial'* and rough justice at 'Justice', set up to uphold the law and extend it to Africa! Sir John Foster, as Prosecutor, launched a vitriolic attack on me. As I was not allowed a lawyer to defend me, he had nothing to fear by way of contradiction. He accused me of betraying my colleagues, in effect snitching on them. In fact, as a traitor, I was ratting on everybody. I was the public school sneak personified.
Strange, but I thought I was upholding the law. I have no idea what my thousands of colleagues thought, even if they went along with this criminality under duress.
The leadership of the major UK Parties is stuffed with QCs. Whey they collectively engage in criminality, I do not know what their collective noun is. A "quorum"; a "quango"; a quackery"? (However, "quackery" may be reserved for a collection of suspect doctors.) A "quagmire" or "quail"? A "quaint" or "quake" or "qualm"? Surely not a "quality"? A "quash" or "quasi" or "quaver"? Not a "queen" in a strictly non-royal sense! A "queasy" is too nauseating, and a "querulous" is too peevish and plaintive. A "quibble" has merit, but so have "quidnunc" and "quiddity". A "quintessence" is not fitting, and a "quirk" is too mild. We are getting close with "quisling" if we rate respect or love of the law? A "quote" is not quite sufficient, and we must rule out "quondam" and "quotidian".
Perhaps they deserve the term a "quiminality", if reduced to a stammer by their presumption. Surely too, a Kangaroo Trial* staffed by real QCs must be a "Quangaroo Trial", particularly so if they are also shady politicians. Which brings me to Lord Shawcross, in memory of whom perhaps we should drop 'Kangaroo'. Henceforth our name for an illegal court should be a 'Hartley'.
The world of law was indeed turned upside down by the
proceedings at 'Justice' in 1960, specially designed to give rough justice to a
'turncoat'. The revenge motive was only paralleled by a
January 2005
Return to Secret Trials Contents