Taking a break from Plato

I wrote the last entry on my blog two months ago; I have decided to end my work on Plato for the time being.

How do I spend my break? I have decided to improve my Latin, and I read every day an English author aloud. Why aloud? I want to keep my voice in good condition; what if a miracle happened and my Oxford colleagues decided to invite me to give a lecture, or even a series of lectures on Plato?

For several weeks I have been reading Jeffrey Archer’s trilogy A Prison Diary. Today, rummaging through my papers, I have come across ‘Encounters with Oxford dons’ which I wrote after being inspired by the Guardian report on the Archer trial. I shall devote the next few posts to the ‘Encounters’:

I.                    Kavan’s perjury

The front page of The Guardian on 20th July, 2001: ‘A liar’s moment of truth’ – ‘The judge’s every word dripped with loathing and contempt’ – ‘As serious an offence of perjury as I have experience of’. – Reading about Jeffrey Archer, I thought of Jan Kavan, a British citizen, the present Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic and its Deputy Prime Minister. I was asking myself: ‘Will his moment of truth ever come?’

In a sworn Affidavit on 19th August 1982, in The High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Divisional Court, Jan Kavan denied that a van which he sent to Prague in April 1981 packed with books to Czech dissidents contained their names and addresses. In 1992, a list of Czech dissidents was discovered in the files of the Czech secret police and proved to be the list sent by Kavan in the van. Is there anyone prepared to take Kavan to task for his perjury? In June 1997, the Foreign Secretary Robin Cook wrote to Jan Kavan: ‘I have taken the precaution of having the official record checked. I can confirm that there is no suggestion that you have ever been guilty of committing perjury in the United Kingdom or, indeed, any other similar offence.’

What were the circumstances that induced Kavan to commit perjury? In April 1981, he discussed with the Thames Television the possibility of broadcasting a programme about Czechoslovakia. In that month he sent to Prague a Volkswagen van with books for Czech dissidents. The Volkswagen was stopped on the border by Czechoslovak customs officers. On 1st May 1981, he told Mr Manyon of Thames Television what had happened. The Thames Television then decided to focus the programme on the sending of the van and the discovery of its contents. It was disclosed in the film that the van contained a list of Prague dissident contacts. On 20th August 1981, Jan Kavan complained to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission maintaining that the van did not carry the alleged names and addresses. On 29th November 1981, the Sunday Times published an article headed ‘TV Lie’ which states that it was untrue that the van carried names and addresses. In response to this article, Thames Television Limited, Mr Townson, the editor of the programme, and Mr Manyon, the reporter, brought an action of libel against Times Newspaper Limited. The Broadcasting Commission adjourned its further investigations for the duration of the libel action. In the ensuing court proceedings Mr Jan Kavan committed perjury.

From the eventual adjudication of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission in September 1985 it appears that Kavan involved other people in his perjury. Thames Television in its statement of 17th November 1981 maintained not only that Mr Kavan said to Mr Manyon on 1st May 1981 that there was a list of names and addresses in the van, but that Mr Unger, Brussel’s correspondent with the International Harold Tribune in a telephone conversation maintained the same; also, that at the press conference on 24th June 1981 in answer to a question by Mr Viney of the BBC Mr Kavan stated that the names of persons to whom books were destined were included in the consignment. On 19th September 1984, Mr Kavan in his reply to the Thames Television statement denied that there had been any statement that there were names and addresses in the van. An affidavit was produced from Mr Unger to the effect that he had been misquoted by the broadcaster. Furthermore, an affidavit and statements were produced from Mr Viney and others stating that the account given of the incident at the press conference in the Thames Television statement was wrong and that Mr Kavan had said in answer to Mr. Viney’s enquiry that there was nothing in the van to identify those who were subsequently arrested. On the basis of all this ‘evidence’ the Broadcasting Complaints Commission found in its adjudication in September 1985 that Julian Manyon invented the claim that the van contained the names and addresses of Czech dissidents.

In the ‘Annulment of previous finding’ on 5th March 1992 the Broadcasting Complaints Commission stated:

‘During the past year new material has been submitted to the Commission. It is now established, and indeed accepted by Mr Kavan, that there were in fact uncoded names and addresses in the van, including those of the intended recipients of some of the literature in it. Furthermore, it is also established and not denied by Mr Kavan that he new that this was so, and that he did not inform the Commission. The Commission do not accept his explanation that he was justified in withholding this information by reason of the need to protect others.’

My next post will be devoted to part II of the ‘Encounters’, which is entitled ‘Kavan and Oxford dons’.