London Banter - View Single Post

Charles Ellson

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 14:59:17 +0100, wrote:

On 30 Mar 2007 09:07:51 -0700, wrote:

I'm quite sure there's more underground than we're allowed to know
about, but doubt it involves the LU system. There are just too many
people who would have found out about any such provision over the
years, 9999% of whom have never had to sign the OSA Act and are thus
free to speak.

For the record, people are bound by the Official Secrets Acts even if
they don't "sign the OSA". Getting them to sign a piece of paper
simply serves as a reminder to them. Not signing one does not mean
that people are free to speak in breach of the acts.

It isn't that simple. Signing the declaration involves aspects of both
civil and criminal law which otherwise don't come into effect. The
civil aspect features in Her Majesty's Attorney General v. Blake and
Another which concerns the spy George Blake.
Declarations also feature in para 8.23 of the NAO Procurement Manual
:-
"8.23

Where a contractor’s staff may have access to departmental information
they must be asked to sign an Official Secrets Act declaration to
ensure that they have read and understood the Act."

In the case of a criminal prosecution under the OSAs the declaration
could make the difference in proving that someone was actually aware
that they were committing a criminal offence. That would not be a
matter of what the OSAs require but of what the judicial systems
require.