73-625: R v Aubrey, Berry and Campbell , better known as the ABC Trial , was a trial conducted in the United Kingdom in the 1970s, of three men for offences under the Official Secrets Act 1911 . The men were two libertarian journalists of a similar political viewpoint as much of the Labour government, and a resigned GCHQ source seeking to heighten scrutiny of government-authorised wire-tapping and limit
146-466: A dialogue with the requester to better determine the information they want, and the format they want it in - in itself, a change in the way UK authorities interact with the public. Requests can be refused if they cost more than £600, including time spent searching for files. The UK Government established the Access to Information Central Clearing House in order to ensure consistency across Central Government in
219-475: A public authority has two corresponding duties. First, a duty to inform a member of the public whether or not it holds the information requested (s1(1)(a)), and second, if it does hold that information, to communicate it to the person making that request (s1(1)(b)). As the corollary to this, the Act thus grants the equivalent rights to a confirmation or denial and communication of relevant information to an individual making
292-548: A public character, or any place where any [munitions of war], or any [sketches, models, plans] or documents relating thereto, are being made, repaired, or stored otherwise than on behalf of His Majesty, which is for the time being declared [by order of a Secretary of State] to be a prohibited place for the purposes of this section, on the ground that information with respect thereto, or the destruction or obstruction thereof, or interference therewith, would be useful to an enemy. The words in square brackets were inserted or substituted by
365-706: A qualified exemption, it must be subject to a public interest test. Thus, a decision on the application of a qualified exemption operates in two stages. First, a public authority must determine whether or not the information is covered by an exemption and then, even if it is covered, the authority must disclose the information unless the application of a public interest test indicated that the public interest favours non-disclosure. Qualified exemptions can be subdivided into two further categories: class-based exemptions covering information in particular classes, and harm-based exemptions covering situations where disclosure of information would be liable to cause harm. Under these exemptions
438-421: A request under the act. The basic duty is supplemented by an additional duty to aid individuals in making requests and ensuring that they frame their FOI requests appropriately. (s.16(1)) However, there are numerous exemptions. Some of these are absolute bars to disclosure; some are qualified, which means the public authority has to decide whether the public interest in disclosing the relevant information outweighs
511-579: A service whose provision is a function of a public authority. The first order under section 5 (in November 2011) extended the list of public authorities to also include the Association of Chief Police Officers , the Financial Ombudsman Service and UCAS . The act creates a general right of access, on request, to information held by public authorities. On receipt of a freedom of information claim
584-564: A specific public interest defence was considered for the 1989 Act, but rejected as it was deemed that protections under Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) of the European Convention of Human Rights and other legal safeguards provided sufficient protection. Future Governments have generally refrained from authorising prosecutions against journalists under the OSA, treating leaks as an internal problem and not one which should impinge upon freedom of
657-410: A weapon." Labour peer Lord Falconer has criticised the use of the act by journalists for "fishing expeditions" into salacious stories, arguing that "FoI is not for press[,] it is for the people. It needs to be properly used in order to promote good Government. Information needs to be handled responsibly, and I strongly believe that there is a duty of responsibility on behalf of the media as well." In
730-434: A witness claiming that the sign outside their base was a secret, despite being visible from a public road. Key witness Col. Johnston admitted under cross-examination that “To be frank, I am not certain what is a secret and what isn’t.” The Official Secrets Act 1911 was largely replaced by the Official Secrets Act 1989 , including the "catch-all" Section 2 that Aubrey, Berry and Campbell had been convicted under. Inclusion of
803-525: Is defined by section 3 of the Act. "Enemy", s. 1(1)(b) and (c) The expression "enemy" includes a potential enemy. "Felony" See Criminal Law Act 1967 , the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 , and section 8(1) of the Official Secrets Act 1920 Evidence and presumptions See section 1(2) of this Act and section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1920 . This is an indictable-only offence . A person guilty of an offence under this section
SECTION 10
#1732941191290876-461: Is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. Examples Hillaire Barnett described sentences for espionage as "swingeing". George Blake was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 42 years after pleading guilty to five counts of unlawfully disclosing information contrary to section 1(1)(c). Geoffrey Prime was sentenced to imprisonment for a total of 35 years for disclosing material while employed at GCHQ. Michael Bettany
949-531: Is made, obtained, [collected, recorded, published], or communicated by any person other than a person acting under lawful authority, it shall be deemed to have been made, obtained, [collected, recorded, published] or communicated for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State unless the contrary is proved. The words in square brackets were inserted by the Official Secrets Act 1920. This section
1022-843: Is now the responsibility of the Cabinet Office . The Act led to the renaming of the Data Protection Commissioner (set up to administer the Data Protection Act 1998 ), who is now known as the Information Commissioner . The Office of the Information Commissioner oversees the operation of the Act. A second freedom of information law is in existence in the UK, the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (asp 13). It
1095-452: Is proved against him, he may be convicted if, from the circumstances of the case, or his conduct, or his known character as proved, it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State; and if any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document, or information relating to or used in any prohibited place within the meaning of this Act, or anything in such a place [or any secret official code word or pass word],
1168-546: The Attorney General needed to condone the prosecution for it to proceed; he did so. The case took place from September to November 1978 – still in an era of surveillance to counter ongoing threats due to the Cold War and from Irish and Northern Irish dissident republicans . Conviction of some form was assured as all parties could not deny a small amount of classified information had been communicated and no tenable argument of
1241-557: The BBC is subject to the act only for information which is not held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature, to prevent its journalistic activities from possible compromise. The scope of this provision was considered in the 2007 High Court decision of BBC v Sugar , an internal BBC document examining the BBC coverage of the Middle East for potential bias. The appellants in that case argued that
1314-870: The Kruger telegram and the Agadir Crisis . These fuelled numerous press and literary accounts of imaginary German undercover activities, such as William Le Queux 's 1909 book, Spies for the Kaiser. Plotting the downfall of England . By the end of 1908, newspapers were receiving hundreds of fanciful letters detailing the activities of suspected German spies. For example, a letter in the Morning Post in May 1907 claimed that there were 90,000 German reservists and spies in Britain, with weapons caches for them in every major city, whilst an article in
1387-678: The Labour Party in the 1997 general election , developed by David Clark as a 1997 White Paper. The final version of the Act was criticised by freedom of information campaigners as a diluted form of what had been proposed in the White Paper. The full provisions of the act came into force on 1 January 2005. The Act was the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department (now renamed the Ministry of Justice ). However, freedom of information policy
1460-421: The Official Secrets Act 1920 . "ship" References in this Act, whatever their terms, to ships, vessels or boats or activities or places connected therewith are to be construed as including references to hovercraft and activities and places connected with hovercraft. "any place belonging to or used for the purposes of His Majesty", s.3(c)" For the purposes of section 3(c), a place belonging to or used for
1533-446: The Official Secrets Act 1989 . This subsection applies to prosecutions under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1920 as it applies to prosecutions under section 1 of this Act. It now reads: On a prosecution under this section, it shall not be necessary to show that the accused person was guilty of any particular act tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, and, notwithstanding that no such act
SECTION 20
#17329411912901606-517: The Parliament of the United Kingdom that creates a public "right of access" to information held by public authorities. It is the implementation of freedom of information legislation in the United Kingdom on a national level. Its application is limited in Scotland (which has its own freedom of information legislation) to UK Government offices located in Scotland. The Act implements a manifesto commitment of
1679-463: The UK Public Records Act of 1958 . This act gave the public a general right to access all types of recorded information held by public authorities, much greater than was previously allowed. The FOIA was mainly concerned with the management and preservation of public records. The FOIA reduced the 30-year rule to a 20-year rule, meaning records would be made public earlier. This gave the public
1752-620: The 1909 edition of The Annual Register alleged that 50,000 Mauser rifles stored in a cellar near Charing Cross were intended for the 66,000 German reservists rumoured to be in London. Invasion fiction also became extremely popular, with novels such as Erskine Childers ' 1903 The Riddle of the Sands , Le Queux's The Invasion of 1910 serialised by the Daily Mail in 1906, and Saki 's When William Came of 1913. The 1911 Agadir Crisis, in which
1825-415: The BBC has no obligation to disclose information which they hold to any significant extent for the purposes of journalism, art or literature, whether or not the information is also held for other purposes. The words do not mean that the information is disclosable if it is held for purposes distinct from journalism, art or literature, whilst it is also held to any significant extent for those listed purposes. If
1898-589: The Bill might make it appear as though "Parliament has something to hide". However, this failed to pass the first reading in the House of Lords. Further to this, Lord Falconer made comments suggesting that time spent deciding whether or not information fell under an exemption clause should be included in the £600 cost limit. Consultation was carried out, with the government saying the change would cut costs and discourage requests for trivial information, although critics said that it
1971-570: The First Schedule to, the Official Secrets Act 1920 . The words at the end of this subsection were repealed by section 11(2) of, and the first paragraph of the Second Schedule to, the Official Secrets Act 1920 . They are replaced by section 8(1) of that Act. "For any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State" See Chandler v. DPP [1964] AC 763, [1962] 3 All ER 142, HL "Prohibited place", s. 1(1)(a) This expression
2044-539: The State, making it a criminal offence to disclose any official information without lawful authority. It was only after nearly 80 years that the Official Secrets Act 1989 replaced this provision in the 1911 Act. This section is very broadly drafted. This subsection reads as amended: 1. — (1) If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State— he shall be guilty of felony ... The words in square brackets were inserted by section 10 of, and
2117-447: The UK threatened war with Germany, was the final trigger for the government. In an atmosphere of widespread hysteria, it introduced the act in the House of Lords on 25 July 1911. The act was then rushed through Parliament, with little debate or opposition, passing through all of its stages in a single day, 18 August 1911, and receiving royal assent four days later on 22 August. The act, with its extremely wide-ranging powers, replaced
2190-431: The United Kingdom . It replaced the Official Secrets Act 1889 . The Act was introduced in response to public alarm at reports of wide-scale espionage, some of them fomented by popular novels and plays that dramatized the threat, supposedly from Germany, at a time of a rapid naval expansion. Its provisions were extensive, with heavy penalties for any reporting or sketching of military, naval or air defence installations, or
2263-448: The ability to access more recent records without sacrificing national security or personal privacy. A significant part of the FOIA was the establishment of the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). This office oversees the upholding of information rights in the public interest, as well as making sure the FOIA is adhered to properly. If you think a public body is intentionally not giving you
ABC trial - Misplaced Pages Continue
2336-455: The act must be continually updated. Schedule 4 of the Act empowers the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs to add a body or officeholder to Schedule 1 as a public authority if they are created statute or prerogative; and its members are appointed by the government. It is important to note that for some public authorities listed under Schedule 1, the act has limited effect. For example,
2409-634: The act: Public Authorities, publicly owned companies and designated bodies performing public functions. In principle, the freedom of information act applies to all "public authorities" within the United Kingdom. A full list of "public authorities" for the purposes of the act is included in Schedule 1. Government departments, the Houses of Parliament , the Northern Ireland Assembly , the Welsh Assembly ,
2482-557: The act; this includes legal entities such as companies. There is no special format for a request. Applicants do not need to mention the Act when making a request. Applicants do not have to give a reason for their request. Although the Act covers a wide range of government information, the act contains a variety of provisions that provide for the exemption from disclosure of certain types of information. The act contains two forms of exemption: "absolute" exemptions that are not subject to any public interest assessment, they act as absolute bars to
2555-420: The annual journal Socialist Register . London magazine Time Out in 1976, through the writings of the first and third defendants, published a two-page account of GCHQ called "The Eavesdroppers", this was among other evidence collected and imparted by the defendants as to how GCHQ operates from year-to-year including gathered evidence, such as photographs of radio masts, of its physical apparatus. By statute,
2628-578: The armed forces, local government bodies, National Health Service bodies, schools, colleges and universities, police authorities and Chief Officers of Police are included within this list, which ranges from the Farm Animal Welfare Council to the Youth Council for Northern Ireland. A few government departments are expressly excluded from the scope of the act, principally intelligence services . As government departments are created or closed,
2701-581: The article Freedom of Information: A sheep in wolf's clothing? Rodney Austin offers the following criticisms of the substance of the Act: The legislation has also been criticised for "loopholes" that allow authorities to avoid disclosing information in certain situations. Companies owned by one public authority are generally subject to the Act but companies owned by two or more public authorities are not covered. Facts that have been brought to light by this Act include: The Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill
2774-465: The costs of officials' time in dealing with the requests. The Act cost £35.5 million in 2005. The act implements what was a manifesto commitment of the Labour Party in the 1997 general election . Before its introduction, there had been no right of access to government by the general public, merely a limited voluntary framework for sharing information. The act was preceded by a 1998 white paper , Your Right to Know , by David Clark . The White paper
2847-461: The courts, "represent the last resort in suppressing public knowledge of the workings of the state". 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
2920-528: The disclosure of information; and "qualified" exemptions where a public interest test must be made, balancing the public interest in maintaining the exemption against the public interest in disclosing the information. The original Freedom of Information White Paper proposed 15 such exemptions, but the final Bill included 24, and not all of the initial 15 were included. Exemptions designated "absolute exemptions" have no public interest test attached. The act contains eight such exemptions: If information falls within
2993-400: The document had been produced for both operational and journalistic reasons, and so should not be covered by the partial exemption provided in the act. The High Court rejected this argument; Mr Justice Irwin considered that the meaning of journalism within the act meant that any information held for such purposes was covered by the exemption: My conclusion is that the words in the Schedule mean
ABC trial - Misplaced Pages Continue
3066-422: The earlier Official Secrets Act 1889 that had provided criminal sanctions only for breaches which could be shown to be contrary to the public interest. Section 1 of the act contained tough provisions against espionage, which were extended by a 1962 Law Lords ruling to cover other activities such as sabotage and physical interference. Section 2 dealt with unauthorised disclosure of information held by servants of
3139-519: The end of the Callaghan ministry but achieved a wholly unopposed second Commons reading, reflecting a sea change among members. 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,
3212-416: The exemption applies (subject to the public interest test) if complying with the duty under s.1 would, or would be likely to: A public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious (s14(1)). A request is considered vexatious if it is 'obsessive or manifestly unreasonable', harasses the authority or causes distress to its staff, imposes a significant burden, or if
3285-585: The harbouring of people suspected of gathering such intelligence. It was amended several times; most importantly the "catch-all" provisions contained in section 2 of the Act were repealed and replaced by the Official Secrets Act 1989 . The Act applied in the United Kingdom , the Isle of Man , the Channel Islands , and in overseas crown territories and colonies. It also applied to British subjects anywhere else in
3358-490: 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. 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
3431-459: The information is held for mixed purposes, including to any significant extent the purposes listed in the Schedule or one of them, then the information is not disclosable. A 4:1 majority (Lord Wilson dissenting) of the Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that the disclosure of any information held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature was to be excluded - even if the information
3504-568: The information you've asked for, the ICO is the agency to contact. They are essentially the centralized management agency for all things public records. While there was still a waiting period for the public to access records, the FOIA also established a system of real time reporting of records to the National Archives which could be accessed by all UK government agencies. This is also when public records began to become digitised which also meant that
3577-459: The law as to freedom of information such as on the basis of freedom of expression was raised. The Watergate scandal in the US, exposed by investigative journalists, showed the effectiveness of press reporting of the activities of secret government agencies. President Nixon had repeatedly claimed that the requirements of national security overrode the public's right to know, and this had been exposed by
3650-644: 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. Aubrey and Campbell had predominantly worked by cross-referencing public sources of information such as open army journals. The case challenged the presumption by UK security services that arbitrary material related to military or security operations could be inherently considered secret, or that synthesising such material could be considered espionage. One exchange in court resulted in
3723-448: The press, Senate and Congress, to have been driven by his desire to cover up criminal activity. 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
SECTION 50
#17329411912903796-466: The press. In 1979, Campbell wrote that the Attorney General "had allowed himself to be used as a patsy for the security services to try to rearrange the law of official secrecy to their choosing. Several initiatives from that quarter had become apparent during the case." Official Secrets Act 1911 The Official Secrets Act 1911 ( 1 & 2 Geo. 5 . c. 28) was an Act of the Parliament of
3869-413: The prime minister responsible for passing the Act regards it as "One of the biggest mistakes of his career". Blair says that "For political leaders, it's like saying to someone who is hitting you over the head with a stick, 'Hey, try this instead', and handing them a mallet. The information is neither sought because the journalist is curious to know, nor given to bestow knowledge on 'the people'. It's used as
3942-447: The prosecution rapidly lost any sense of purpose." 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
4015-519: The public interest in maintaining the exemption. An applicant for information who considers that a request has been wrongly rejected may apply to the Information Commissioner, who has the power to order disclosure. However, such orders can be appealed to a specialist tribunal (the Information Tribunal ) and in some circumstances, the Government has the power to override orders of the Information Commissioner. Any person can request information under
4088-558: The purpose of building, repairing, making, or storing any munitions of war, or any sketches, plans, models or documents relating thereto, or for the purpose of getting any metals, oil, or minerals of use in time of war]; (b) any place not belonging to His Majesty where any [munitions of war], or any [sketches, models, plans] or documents relating thereto, are being made, repaired, [gotten,] or stored under contract with, or with any person on behalf of, His Majesty, or otherwise on behalf of His Majesty; and (c) any place belonging to [or used for
4161-558: The purposes of the Civil Aviation Authority is deemed to be a place belonging to Her Majesty. For the purposes of section 3(c), any place belonging to or used for the purposes of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is deemed to be a place belonging to or used for the purposes of Her Majesty. Freedom of Information Act 2000 The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36) is an Act of
4234-520: The purposes of] His Majesty which is for the time being declared [by order of a Secretary of State] to be a prohibited place for the purposes of this section on the ground that information with respect thereto, or damage thereto, would by useful to an enemy; and (d) any railway, road, way, or channel, or other means of communication by land or water (including any works or structures being part thereof or connected therewith), or any place used for gas, water, or electricity works or other works for purposes of
4307-434: The request lacks any serious value. The Act affects over 100,000 public bodies including government departments, schools and councils. The Act came into force in phases, with the final "general right of access" to public information under the Act coming into force on 1 January 2005. As well as the "general right of access", the Act places a duty on public authorities to adopt and maintain pro-active "publication schemes" for
4380-410: The routine release of important information (such as annual reports and accounts). These publication schemes must be approved by the Information Commissioner. In general, public authorities have 20 working days to respond to an information request, though this deadline can be extended in certain cases and/or with the agreement of the requester. Under the Act, public authorities are encouraged to enter into
4453-565: The state. This second charge was dropped before the close of the trial, the judge stating they were "oppressive in the circumstances". The trial was held in Court 1 of the Central Criminal Court . It was against three defendants: One of the prosecution witnesses was an anonymous SIGINT (that is, electronic communications) officer, referred to as Colonel B . Campbell's 1979 account identified him as Colonel Johnstone . The trial found that
SECTION 60
#17329411912904526-418: The time frame for accessing records was immediate or real-time. This is an ongoing process that started with the advent of the digital age of the 21st century and is today a common practice for all UK public records. The Freedom of Information Act creates a statutory right for access to information in relation to bodies that exercise functions of a public nature. Three different kinds of bodies are covered under
4599-472: 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
4672-498: The way requests are handled. Three aspects of the UK's Freedom of Information Act differ from the position in many other countries: At the time of the passing of the Act, advocates of freedom of information legislation were critical of the bill for its complexity, limited scope and the inclusion of a ministerial veto. Lord Mackay criticised the bill in the House of Lords as "toothless" for its inclusion of provisions allowing ministers to veto applications. By contrast, Tony Blair ,
4745-576: The work of the American espionage agency, the CIA , in Britain. These aims were furthered in the following two decades achieved through detailed parliamentary scrutiny into and regular reports as to the work of security services, a Freedom of Information Committee and regulation of wire-tapping. Aside from very limited reportage from the Central Criminal Court , its early analysis comes in the account of one of its investigative-journalist defendants, Duncan Campbell , in
4818-646: The world. The Act was repealed and replaced in 2023 by the National Security Act 2023 . In the Republic of Ireland , the Act was repealed by section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1963. The Act was passed during a febrile period of "spy fever" in the years leading up to the First World War, with widespread anti-German sentiment in Britain provoked by the Anglo-German naval arms race and events such as
4891-516: Was a private member's bill introduced to the British House of Commons in 2007 which failed to become law. Conservative MP David Maclean introduced the bill to ensure that MPs' correspondence was exempt from freedom of information laws. The then leader of the Liberal Democrats , Sir Menzies Campbell , said there should not "be one law for MPs and a different law for everyone else" and that
4964-472: Was against Berry and was non-custodial; but criminal records of all three would hamper certain sensitive employment. In 1979 Campbell wrote an article, including the words "It ended in convictions under Section 2 for each of us, but with negligible penalty – in the case of myself and fellow journalist Aubrey, no penalty at all." This added "'Colonel B' rapidly achieved the position of a national figure of ridicule." In Campbell's view many editorials mentioning
5037-518: Was met with widespread enthusiasm, and was described at the time as being "almost too good to be true" by one advocate of freedom of information legislation. The final act was substantially more limited in scope than the initial white paper. A draft Bill was published in May 1999; the Bill was extensively debated in the House of Commons and the House of Lords , and received royal assent in November 2000. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) modernised
5110-711: Was passed by the Scottish Parliament in 2002, to cover public bodies over which the Holyrood parliament, rather than Westminster, has jurisdiction. For these institutions, it fulfils the same purpose as the 2000 Act. Around 120,000 requests were made in the first year that the Act was in force. Private citizens made 60% of them, with businesses and journalists accounting for 20% and 10% respectively. However, requests from journalists tended to be more complex, and, consequently, more expensive. They accounted for around 10% of initial FoI requests made to central government, but 20% of
5183-490: Was predominantly held for other purposes. Companies that fall within the definition of a publicly owned company under s6 of the Act automatically fall within its grasp. S6 provides that a company is publicly owned if: Under Section 5 of the Act, the Secretary of State may designate further bodies as public authorities under the Act, provided that those bodies are exercising a function of a public nature or contracting to provide
5256-651: Was repealed for the United Kingdom on 1 March 1990. It has been replaced for the United Kingdom by the Official Secrets Act 1989 . Cases under this section Command papers on this section For the purposes of this Act, the expression "prohibited place" means— [(a) any work of defence, arsenal, naval or air force establishment or station, factory, dockyard, mine, minefield, camp, ship, or aircraft belonging to or occupied by or on behalf of His Majesty, or any telegraph, telephone, wireless or signal station, or office so belonging or occupied, and any place belonging to or occupied by or on behalf of His Majesty and used for
5329-438: Was sentenced to imprisonment for a total of 23 years. Michael Smith was sentenced to imprisonment for 20 years (reduced from 25 on appeal). History From 1911 to 1920, an offence under this section was punishable with penal servitude for any term not less than three years and not exceeding seven years. See section 7 of the Official Secrets Act 1920 . See section 6 of the Official Secrets Act 1920 and section 5(6) of
#289710