Editing ABC trial (section)

==Summary==
All three of the men were charged with wrongful communication of information under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. Campbell was also charged with an offence under section 1 of the Act: imparting information which might be useful to an enemy for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state. This second charge was dropped before the close of the trial, the judge stating they were "oppressive in the circumstances".<ref name=aldrich/><ref name=dc/>

The trial was held in Court 1 of the [[Central Criminal Court (England and Wales)|Central Criminal Court]]. It was against three defendants: 
* [[Crispin Aubrey]], who was a journalist for ''[[Time Out (company)|Time Out]]'';<ref>{{cite news|last=Campbell |first=Duncan |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/30/crispin-aubrey |title=Crispin Aubrey obituary |work=The Guardian |date=30 September 2012 |access-date=2 October 2012 |location=London}}</ref>
* John Berry, a former Corporal in [[signals intelligence]] (SIGINT);
* [[Duncan Campbell (journalist, born 1952)|Duncan Campbell]], who was an investigative journalist.<ref name=aldrich/>

One of the prosecution witnesses was an anonymous SIGINT (that is, electronic communications)<ref name=dc/> officer, referred to as ''Colonel B''. Campbell's 1979 account identified him as [[Hugh Johnstone|Colonel Johnstone]].<ref name=dc/><ref name=thereg-20150803>{{cite news |last=Campbell |first=Duncan |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/03/gchq_duncan_campbell/?page=3 |title=Global spy system ECHELON confirmed at last - by leaked Snowden files|work=The Register |date=3 August 2015 |access-date=25 August 2015}}</ref>

The trial found that the information came almost entirely from open publications, some from the United States, as well as simple information gathering such as noting the units resident at a site from signage posted at the main gate and visible from public roads.<ref name=thereg-20150803 />

The jury confirmed guilt (convicted) as to the remaining (non-dropped) Section 2 offence as to disclosure of those classified matters in no way in the public domain. The only penalty imposed was against Berry and was non-custodial; but criminal records of all three would hamper certain sensitive employment.<ref name=thereg-20150803/> In 1979 Campbell wrote an article, including the words "It ended in convictions under Section 2 for each of us, but with negligible penalty &ndash; in the case of myself and fellow journalist Aubrey, no penalty at all."<ref name=dc>Campbell, Duncan  (1979). "[http://socialistregister.com/index.php/srv/article/view/5434/2333 Official Secrecy and British Libertarianism]" in ''The Socialist Register''</ref> This added "'Colonel B' rapidly achieved the position of a national figure of ridicule."<ref name=dc/> In Campbell's view many editorials mentioning the unnecessarily secretive governance of and occasionally counter-productive application of protected status to essentially all information at and concerning [[GCHQ]] largely fuelled the decision by the Liberal Party, successful in the random selection of private member's Bills via [[Clement Freud]], to select a Freedom of Information Bill. The bill, a forerunner of the [[Freedom of Information Act 2000]], lapsed with the end of the [[Labour government, 1974–1979#Callaghan ministry|Callaghan ministry]] but achieved a wholly unopposed second Commons reading, reflecting a sea change among members.<ref name=dc/>

The Section 1 charge "lacked the legitimation which could be provided by the existence of a subversive or hostile threat, the presentation of their evidence rapidly became ridiculous. The information [Campbell] had gathered, dealt with piecemeal, was of course readily available in public. As witness after witness conceded this point, the prosecution rapidly lost any sense of purpose."<ref name=dc/> The prosecution dropped this charge.

The contemporary drive of most of the security services with making themselves and their nature top secret, already widely suspected, was criticised in the centrist, libertarian 1979 article by Campbell, citing in support Tony Bunyan's 1976 book ''The Political Police in Britain'', which opined that Official Secrets Acts, as then applied and interpreted in the courts, "represent the last resort in suppressing public knowledge of the workings of the state".<ref>Tony Bunyan, ''The Political Police in Britain'', Julian Friedman, 1976</ref><ref name=dc/>

The quickly rubbished first jury, its foreman and others having been in service with the Government, leading to an unchallenged second jury who heard and decided the case, was directly responsible for exposing extreme jury vetting, and eliciting official disclosures on the  nature and previous extent of the practice - generally in the case of political or terrorist trials, or cases of organized crime. Increasing attention by libertarians to the nature of the jury system, and its preservation and strengthening, proved to be a lasting bonus of the case.<ref>[[Anna Coote]], 'The Loyal Jury and the Foreman with Firm Opinions', ''New Statesman'', 1978</ref><ref name=dc/>