In the Cold War atmosphere of 1974, prominent public figures like Dr Sutch did not meet Russian spies in the dead of night in dark parks to discuss the weather.
Almost every time I drive past the little park at the bleak intersection of Aro St and Holloway Rd, by the terminus of the trolley bus route there, I am reminded of that rainy night in 1974 when prominent career public servant, diplomat and economist Bill Sutch was arrested as he handed a package to Soviet KGB agent Dimitri Razgovorov by the toilet block that used to be there.
The following year, a jury acquitted Dr Sutch on a charge brought under the Official Secrets Act of passing information that would be helpful to an enemy. There can be no issue with the verdict. The prosecution was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Dr Sutch had possessed or given Razgovorov anything at all, let alone anything that could have harmed New Zealand’s interests. Thus he was rightly found not guilty.
Sutch was a left-wing academic whose formative years were the Great Depression of the late 1920s and early 1930s. Like many academics of the time, he admired the Soviet Union and doubtless honestly believed the Soviet system was an alternative to the capitalist system that had produced the Depression. He was a prominent economic adviser to many New Zealand governments and became the head of the Department of Industries and Commerce, one of the most powerful departments in New Zealand at the time. He was a cultured man and a patron and supporter of the arts. I do not believe he did anything that he believed was traitorous to New Zealand’s interests. I accept what his daughter said on radio last night, that he was a New Zealand patriot.
However, I remain completely unconvinced, to this day, that Sutch’s late-night, clandestine Holloway Rd meeting with the Russian spy Razgovorov was the innocent event his defence at the time and his family since have painted it.
In 1974, during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union (and thus the ideological battle between the democratic West, of which New Zealand was a part, and the Communist Bloc), prominent public figures like Dr Sutch did not meet Russian spies in the dead of night in dark parks to discuss the weather. They met in such places with the intention of not being seen. Given that Dr Sutch openly met Soviet diplomats and many other diplomats in public on the cocktail circuit regularly, he must have been engaging in activities he knew would not have stood the sniff test to have been meeting a KGB spy so late in such a dark place that night.
It was far from Dr Sutch’s first late-night meeting in dark places with KGB agents based at the Soviet Embassy in Messines Rd, Karori.
In 2006, Kit Bennetts, one of the Security Intelligence Service officers involved in the Sutch operation, described in his fascinating book on the case, SPY, numerous clandestine 1974 meetings in dark Wellington places between Sutch and Razgovorov.
After unexpectedly discovering Sutch meeting the KGB man whom they followed one night, the SIS burgled Sutch’s office and found diary entries of future such meetings and used that information to observe them. After discussions with the police, it was decided to arrest Sutch at the Holloway Rd meeting and attempt to get Razgovorov to defect. In the end, the heavy rain and pitch darkness spoiled much of the operation. The package Sutch handed over was quickly whisked away by the Soviet Embassy driver. Razgovorov was caught after running down Aro St but refused to defect and he could not be charged with anything as he had diplomatic immunity. Sutch claimed he was at Holloway Rd to look at the interesting architecture there.
The SIS did not want to put Sutch on trial. They wanted him to confess to his activities, so as to use his confession to counter Soviet espionage. Plan B was to charge him, should he not co-operate. His complete denial was the reason he went on trial.
All these years later, the SIS has released some of the major parts of its files on the Sutch case. These files complement, confirm and enlarge on details in the Kit Bennetts book. They show the SIS had good reason to be concerned at Dr Sutch’s clandestine meetings with a KGB spy. They also show, as the Sutch family has been saying these past few days, that the SIS had no concrete evidence of what Sutch was telling or passing the Russians. That was clearly why the prosecution failed. We live in a democracy. It was not a crime then (or now) to meet a foreign spy, even in such suspicious circumstances. They also show, in the hitherto-secret annex of former ombudsman Sir Guy Powles’ 1976 report on the SIS handing of the case, that the SIS had broken the law when it burgled Sutch’s office and got his diary meeting dates, and that it had been less than frank with the Labour prime ministers of the key times, Norman Kirk and Bill Rowling.
It is a genuinely welcome development in our democracy that our Security Intelligence Service has released these documents about a case that is in the living memory of so many New Zealanders, thereby helping to explain what happened in a case that disturbed so many people.
Making public SIS files is a new development that has happened under the present director of the organisation, Dr Warren Tucker. He released its files on the 1951 waterfront dispute in March this year. Even after the 1982 Official Information Act (with its emphasis on making government information available as of right with few exceptions) replaced the Official Secrets Act (which kept information secret unless some politician decided to release it), subsequent heads of the SIS invoked “national security” to refuse to make even ancient security files available, and would not even confirm or deny if the SIS had a file on individuals who asked if it did.
As a young journalist in the 1980s, I was not alone in my profession in being worried about the activities of the SIS, because the prime minister from 1975 to 1984, Rob Muldoon, seemed to make scandalous use of the organisation’s files to accuse people of being communist activists and the like. It was very McCarthyist.
Not long after I started in journalism, a senior reporter at the paper where I worked, who during the 1970s was a reporter for the then right-wing, anti-union, anti-communist campaigning Truth newspaper, told me how the SIS regularly gave him and other Truth reporters material to embarrass the 1972-75 Labour government. I had never doubted him, until now.
My new doubts that his claims might have been bravado have been raised by the formerly Top Secret Powles annex made public in the SIS Sutch papers. Sir Guy recounts in his report that he had heard claims of the SIS leaking details of the Sutch case to Truth, investigated them, and found no evidence to confirm them. On the other hand, we might never know now whether some individual SIS agents three decades ago, in a less professional world, might have leaked information to a scandal sheet. It certainly would not happen today.
The Powles report led to the passing by Parliament of the SIS Act in 1977, which gave the service the legal powers it had not possessed in the Sutch case to bug phones and burgle premises, if it had a warrant signed by the prime minster, now upgraded to being signed by the prime minster and a retired High Court judge acting as commissioner of warrants.
The Security Intelligence Service today is focussed on protecting New Zealand against economic espionage and terrorism. It is not allowed to spy on domestic political parties or domestic political dissidents. These prohibitions made it surprising that in 1996, two SIS agents were caught burgling the Christchurch home of anti-free trade activist Aziz Choudry. But in a fascinating interview (with me, actually) in 1999, the current prime minister, Helen Clark, then leader of the opposition, revealed the SIS was interested in Choudry’s international visitors, not him. A fine line? Maybe, but I do not believe the SIS operates outside the law, nor that we do not need such an organisation.
The prime minister is also the minister in charge of the Security Itelligence Service and is fully briefed on the activities of the SIS. The leader of the opposition is also briefed. This dual briefing of the leaders of our two major political parties, no matter which happens to be the government at the time, is probably the best assurance possible that the SIS is fulfilling its statutory duties to the letter.
14 Comments
June 8, 2008 at 5:58 pm
In 1998, Brian Easton gave a paper on Sutch, addressing in detail some of the claims made about him. One of the points he makes is that Sutch could not have been both a Fabian and a Marxist as they are mutually exclusive schools of thought.
If Sutch was a Fabian, he was unlikely to be a Marxist, because Fabians and Marxists had long been in bitter conflict. Not untypically of so much writing of a right-wing perspective, [Sir John] Marshall lumps all left-wing activity in the same anti-capitalist camp, without attempting to understand the distinction. He fails to understand the difference between the revolutionary approach of Marxist, and evolutionary approach of the Fabians, which meant working within and steadily modifying capitalism
Further on he writes:
… I long believed that Sutch was strongly influenced by Karl Marx, and have spent much time looking for evidence. In particular I thought that perhaps Sutch was influenced by the 1844 manuscripts, first published in 1932, which have Marx at his most lyrical. I assumed that Sutch was deviously hiding Marx’s impact. The only support I could find was that the second edition of The Quest for Security has a picture of the Featherston Street riot of 1913 on the cover, which can easily be interpretation a class struggle terms. But as [Keith] Sinclair shows of [William Pember] Reeves, one could think there was a class struggle without being a Marxist. British thinkers had a account of a class struggle before, and so independently, of Marx.
Some of my attempts to nail Sutch have their humorous side. I went through his book case at home, and yes there are texts by Marx in it, but some had the name of his father-in-law, Sir David Smith, on the fly leaf. Sir David, a judge of the high court, was unlikely to be a Marxist. More probably he was an intelligent concerned intellectual, interested in important ideas of the day.
http://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/?p=49
(contains quite a few typos)
June 8, 2008 at 6:06 pm
In 1998, Brian Easton gave a paper on Sutch, addressing in detail some of the claims made about him. One of the points he makes is that Sutch could not have been both a Fabian and a Marxist as they are mutually exclusive schools of thought.
I have not suggested Sutch was either a Fabian or a Marxist. I thought he was a New Zealand patriot.
What is your point?
June 8, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I have not suggested Sutch was either a Fabian or a Marxist. I thought he was a New Zealand patriot.
I didn’t say you had, Poneke. I agree with your assessment that he was a patriot. I’ve read a couple of Sutch’s books about New Zealand and that was my impression.
I was simply raising one of the claims often made about Sutch, and mentioned in the Target Assessment document, that he was some kind of Marxist. Easton’s paper discusses that issue.
June 8, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Your peice is not too bad on the facts, however it does contain some important errors, and reaches the completely wrong conclusions, conclusions which are in fact unsupportable. Conspiracy theorists are selective with their facts, as you have been, and ignore important questions, as you have done.
There was no package. Razgovorov and Sutch did not even meet that night (it seems they intended to, and they certainly had met before), but the SIS and Police completely botched their operation. Had they carried it out competently, we might not have been left with thirty years of speculation over scant facts.
Kit Bennets saw nothing and knew little. He was a junior intelligence officer in whom no one confided. SIS operated on a need to know basis. He did not need to know. His claims have been reported credulously and uncritically. Look at the book, it is full of what he “thinks”. Who cares what he thinks, what did he know – very little.
What of the questions? Sutch had been closely observed by the security services of four nations over four decades. They had never found anything. To the SIS, this meant he was a good spy (see the target assessment)!! But then, unaccountably, this master of espionage starts meeting a Soviet diplomat in public places. Isn’t that a bit odd?
And what information did he have? He had not been in a position of influence for ten years.
Yes, it is true that the SIS tried to get him to cooperate – but what a Kafkaesque bargain that was. Cooperate or be prosecuted (even though we know we have no evidence?) What if he couldn’t cooperate, because he was not a spy? The SIS had to make good on its threat – not because they thought they would get a conviction, they must have known they would not.
The SIS lied to the Prime Minister, and they lied to the Attorney-General (about the evidence they would bring – Findlay later apologised to the family for that). When Powles came along a couple of years later they said Kirk had given them a nod and a wink to bust into Sutch’s office and bug his phone. Interesting technique – blame the dead guy – no one can check.
By the way – the phone tap didn’t reveal any evidence either – perhaps he was too clever to say anything on the phone, but dumb enough to agree to meet Razgovorov (according to SIS – “his controller”) in a public street.
None of it survives Occams Razor.
Try something simpler. Razgovorov lured Sutch into meetings on the understanding that he needed help to defect. Razgovorov padded his reports to his bosses in Moscow saying “I’ve made a key contact”. Thus the KGB have a record that they have an NZ agent.
The bust goes down, and Razgovorov is in trouble for his bungling, and for disloyalty and is whisked away. Sutch is left high and dry. Read the file. Read the transcript of the court case. Ask yourself some inconvenient questions, and see if you can maintain your conviction that Sutch was a spy.
I could go on – but there are infinite shadows to box, and few facts to dispute. It is tiresome to be endlessly pressed into proving a negative.
John Edwards
Lawyer for the Sutch family
June 8, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Ask yourself some inconvenient questions, and see if you can maintain your conviction that Sutch was a spy.
I do not have any conviction that Sutch was a spy, all I am of the belief is that he had various meetings with a KGB spy, not only on the night of his arrest.
The SIS papers released this week are of some interest on this matter.
June 8, 2008 at 9:57 pm
There is a certain sense of irony that Dr Sutch having the luxury of his life in NZ while admiring the Soviet Union of old, as did those Uxbridge “patriots of Great Britian” known as the Cambridge Five, Philby, McLean, Burgess, Blunt and Cairncross, all having been from open democratic countries will go down in history as sympathetic to, and supportive in the case of the Cambridge Five, of a failed undemocratic political system.
June 9, 2008 at 9:21 am
I wonder what happened to Razgovorov
John Edwards version of what might have happened seems more likely than the SIS production but just as self serving
The truth has been well buried
As I have said elsewhere I await with interest the KGB version
June 9, 2008 at 10:07 am
John Edwards wrote:
“And what information did he have? He had not been in a position of influence for ten years.”
Hang on a minute. You’re omitting the fact that Kirk had asked Sutch and others to put together an alternative economic strategy. Yes, I know this was made sound more sinister than it probably was when it was made public, but it seems to me that if the prime minister asks you to put forward an economic strategy you can’t claim not to be in a position of influence.
What was it you said about being selective with your facts?
We also know from Margaret Hayward’s ‘Diary of the Kirk Years’ book that Sutch was meeting with Kirk, and Hayward herself, reasonably regularly, and that Kirk warned Hayward off Sutch.
I don’t think anyone would argue the SIS were not a bunch of incompetent and dishonest bunglers. I’m not sure though that means there aren’t still a lot of unanswered questions about Sutch’s behaviour.
No, I don’t think the case can be made out he was a spy – not beyond reasonable doubt, anyway. I suspect that, in the end, vanity and folly were the causes of his troubles rather than treachery.
One more general point I’d make is that it was an incredibly paranoid time. Early in my journalistic career – in fact, it was the first interview I did on my polytech course – I interviewed one of the players on the fringe of the Sutch affair. It was supposed to be about something else but it wound up going into the whole business.
Most of what I was told was unusable – unverifiable, let alone unprovable – material and I would have been sued to smithereens by at least three parties. (and my shorthand was at a very formative stage and my notes were pretty bad. I’d have been toast.)
But it underlined the sheer weirdness and paranoia of the period, and not just by the security services. Paranoia is one form of mental illness which is highly contagious.
June 9, 2008 at 10:45 am
Rob,
Sutch was a highly regarded economist. So, yes, he was giving the Government of the day advice on economic policy. But there’s quite a big difference between giving economic policy advice to the Government and providing classified information to the Russians. For all we know, there may be officials at the highlest level of Government today who are sympathetic towards communism. But I think it’d be dangerous to draw any conclusions from that.
June 9, 2008 at 11:31 am
James,
You’ve missed my point. John Edwards claimed Sutch had no influence or access to information at the time of his meeting with the KGB – I was simply pointing out this was not true.
June 9, 2008 at 6:07 pm
John Edwards: There was no package. Razgovorov and Sutch did not even meet that night (it seems they intended to, and they certainly had met before), but the SIS and Police completely botched their operation. Had they carried it out competently, we might not have been left with thirty years of speculation over scant facts.
You are mistaken on an important point. Sutch definitely met Razgovorov that night. Here is the relevant section from the Top Secret Annex to Sir Guy Powles’ report:
15. In the early evening of 26 September, Dr Sutch was apprehended in the Holloway Rd area. Very heavy rain created some confusion for a short period and prevented evidence being obtained as to what, if anything, Dr Sutch had passed to Razgovorov. Dr Sutch was apprehended after the two men had met and Razgovorov had had the opportunity to go to his car and talk to his driver who then left the area.
Stickler: I was simply raising one of the claims often made about Sutch, and mentioned in the Target Assessment document, that he was some kind of Marxist. Easton’s paper discusses that issue.
Ah, thank you for referring me to that. I see that Brian Easton also writes about Sutch’s assignation with Razgovorov that night. I have posted his accounts here.
June 10, 2008 at 9:46 am
Poneke
Just because the SIS told Sir Guy they met that night, and he believed them, does not make it true.
See Tim Bollinger at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0806/S00104.htm
Sutch never actually met with Razgavorov that night, but was apprehended by the Police on his arrival. Razgavorov was detained for 90 minutes by the head of the SIS operation before being released.
June 10, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Interesting link.
Odd how he reckons he saw people starved to death in Europe in the early 30s, but not when he went through the Soviet Union, considering millions were being deliberately starved by Stalin at that time.
June 10, 2008 at 3:21 pm
What’s interesting is the quote that “Though no longer privy to any sensitive government information, Sutch remained under surveillance by the SIS”. Clearly, the SIS had it in for the guy, even breaking into his house and then claiming falsely that the PM approved it. Someone should have been put on trial but it shouldn’t have been Sutch.
[Poneke: The SIS burgled Sutch's office, not his house. As for "remained under surveillance," it can't have been very keen surveillance by 1974. The agents were following Rozgovorov one night that year when they saw him meeting a man they did not recognise by the Karori Bowling Club. They followed this man when he left in a taxi to an address in Brooklyn, and only subsequently discovered it was Sutch. It was after this that they mounted their operation against Sutch, which included the illegal burglary.]