the British witness . take the book in your right hand and repeat after me : I swear by almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth , the whole truth , and nothing but the truth . you lay the testament on the ledge of the witness-box in front of you . the prosecuting advocate rustles through his papers . your mouth feels a little dry . why this sudden feeling of guilt ? you have done nothing wrong . you are doing your duty as a citizen . and what is at stake ? this is n&apos;t a murder trial . if the motorist is found guilty , he will only suffer a fine . surely no one can question your honest recollection . or can they ? to the left and slightly above you , the magistrate watches you , reflectively . to your right and slightly below you , the defending advocate is watching you with a marked intensity . the prosecutor finds the page he wants and clears his throat . he , too , looks at you . the same question is in the minds of all of them . what sort of witness are you going to make ? they all know , or can guess , roughly what you are going to say . the question is : how are you going to say it ? but , surely , you have only to tell the truth . you have sworn to tell the truth . you are on your oath . let us face one fact which every lawyer knows , though few will admit it . from the point of view of your honesty , that oath is almost irrelevant . if you have come to court to lie , you are going to lie whether or not you have sworn on the little black book . but the oath has one very useful purpose . if you decide to lie , and you are caught out , the fact that you have taken the oath enables the police to charge you with perjury . and then you will pay dearly for it . false evidence . this is unlikely , especially in a small case . when two honest witnesses give diametrically opposite accounts of the same event , how can anyone prove that the evidence you gave was deliberately false ? the liar is the person the advocate dreads least . he is the easiest to spot , the easiest to trap . one little slip , and you will have to start inventing lies on your feet , to cover up that slip . and that will involve you in another lie - and another - and another . if the advocate knows his job , you will suddenly wake up to find the fifth or sixth lie directly contradicts the first or second . and then you &apos;ve had it . there are few instances of deliberate perjury - at least in minor cases . looking back over more than two thousand cases , I do n&apos;t think I ever came across more than a dozen liars - real liars , who gave a deliberately false account of certain facts . but among the thousands I have cross-examined , I have heard many patently wrong accounts of incidents given in all honesty . and in only a few instances have I been able to convince the witness in the box that his recollection must have been mistaken . the British witness is , with few exceptions , basically honest . and yet in almost every case witnesses conflict completely . how can this be ? simply because everyone sees an incident from his own point of view . his true recollection of any set of facts will really consist of a series of isolated flashes of sight or sound . his imagination will then set to work to connect up those flashes . this process is inevitable . the human mind simply will not tolerate a series of unconnected incidents . it will arrange them to fit in with a person &apos;s experience , his ideas , his prejudices . when his mind has done this work , all in an instant of time , the result will be that person &apos;s absolutely honest recollection of the incident . and it may be totally different from what actually happened . considering this , it is sometimes terrifying to realize the importance attached to the British witness . the fallibility of the honest recollection is fearful ! give me skidmarks , fingerprints , circumstantial evidence , every time ! these things are all capable of explanation , of interpretation , but they can not give the same kind of totally false picture that can be given in absolute honesty by a sincere and truthful witness . put to the test . the responsibility of the advocate in court rests upon the importance of every witness &apos;s honest recollection being fully tested . when a man comes before a court charged with , say , driving dangerously , what it really means is that in the opinion of a number of witnesses , whom you will see and hear , he was driving dangerously . and all those who are called by the prosecution are already committed to the opinion that he was , while those called by the defence are already committed to the opposite opinion . if a witness can be persuaded by an advocate in cross-examination that his honest , preconceived opinion must have been wrong , then that witness &apos;s side of the case suffers a major blow . that is why the defending advocate is watching you at this moment with such intensity . he is trying to read your mind , to understand your prejudices , to assess your qualities of reason and of reasonableness . the first part of your appearance in the box is simple . the prosecuting advocate is on your side . he has your statement before him . he knows what you are going to say . he only has to make sure you say it all . steel yourself . at the same time his object , if he is worth his salt , is to put you at your ease in the box . then the prosecutor sits down and the defence advocate rises to cross-examine you . this is your moment of truth . you steel yourself , mentally . you are ready to anticipate every question as an attack on your honesty . but it is not . all that is likely to be questioned is your accuracy . the opening questions will very probably be polite , respectful , soothing . the advocate wants your co-operation . time enough for him to attack , if he fails in this . he wants you to relax , to rethink the incident with him , calmly , logically - and from his client &apos;s standpoint . he will already have decided the point upon which he thinks you are most easily open to persuasion . he is not seeking information - that is the last thing he wants . he will never ask you a single question to which he is not pretty sure in advance of your answer . I recall a matrimonial case of some ten years ago when I did not follow this principle . I was appearing for the husband , an unhappy-looking wretch , battered and bruised after the physical attack which had come as the climax of years of bullying treatment from the huge , muscular female who now glared at me from the witness-box . the visual contrast was too much for me . Madam , I said , pointing out my cringing client , are you telling the court that this poor little physical wreck attacked you in the way you have described ? she snorted . he was n&apos;t a physical wreck until after he attacked me in the way I have described , she said . and my case never recovered . it &apos;s Lawrence , Q.C - this time for the prosecution . by Gordon Thomas . what makes a shy - even colourless - little man a great criminal lawyer ? the slightly built Queen &apos;s counsel rustles his newly-laundered gown and settles his bobbed wig more firmly on his brow . and in the hushed , expectant courtroom , everyone leans forward to catch and savour his opening words . this will be the scene at Lewes assizes as Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence , Q.C , steps forward for the first time as crown counsel in a murder case . in the dock , on trial for their lives , will be three youths , accused of shooting down an unarmed guard in the Worthing bank raid . for a minute the gentle-looking barrister will peer owlishly around him , taking in the jury , the defendants and spectators . then , in his soft , level voice , he will reveal once more the eloquent gift that has made him one of the ablest advocates in British legal history . it is a gift that will face its sternest test during the Worthing shooting case . for Lawrence is returning to the criminal bar after an absence of two years . since 1958 , his position as vice-chairman of the bar council and his work in the high court - and elsewhere - have kept him busy . but now he is returning to the most dramatic legal arena of all - the murder court . controlled logic . shy and retiring , Lawrence is often dismissed as not really worth his reputation . but a number of unhappy people have found this sneer to be untrue - usually they are driven off to prison . not so long ago , Lawrence &apos;s name meant little to those who had n&apos;t seen it beside the entrance to his chambers in the Temple . then one day this little man - five feet five inches of controlled logic - rose to his feet to defend Dr John Bodkin Adams , accused at the Old Bailey of poisoning one of his patients . it was one of the most sensational murder trials of the century . the defence had picked Lawrence , a nobody in criminal matters , because he was a barrister with a great knowledge of forensic medicine . for forty hours of relentless questioning , the gentle-voiced advocate picked expert holes in the prosecution &apos;s case . finally , after a trial lasting seventeen days , he succeeded in getting the Eastbourne doctor acquitted . for Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence , it was a famous victory . in those seventeen days he had earned himself more fame than in twenty years at the bar . Lawrence learned his craft as counsel in divorce and breach-of-promise cases . his grasp of statistics made him a natural for the arid work of ministerial inquiries and parliamentary committees . it also brought him in about &amp;pound;10,000 a year - a figure trebled since he arrived . Lawrence almost bloomed in the dusty atmosphere of the law-courts , avoiding histrionics , surviving with a stubborn , hard-working desire to get at the truth . nothing obvious . the Adams case was typical . he put in four months of solid pre-trial work - long hours of study , stretching into the small hours . and the same kind of groundwork has gone into the Worthing case . but expect no obvious tricks from Lawrence at Lewes assizes . he does n&apos;t shout or thump law books as Marshall Hall did . he does n&apos;t need a gold pencil , like Birkett , to mesmerize a witness . he lacks the pungent Irish humour of Edward Carson . instead he has his own special tricks . he approaches a witness with his eyes blinking furiously . his modulated voice puts them at ease . the shy type he gently prods with : please , I am only trying to get at the truth . try and help . the reluctant he persuades with logic . and the arrogant , the liars , the go-to-hell brigade , soon find themselves in an uncomfortable hell of their own making . all eyes will watch him as he opens the prosecution in the Worthing case . already his success has led the pundits at the royal courts of justice to predict that he will become a judge and earn a knighthood . every word and gesture he makes at Lewes assizes will be weighed and noted . and in the Cock Tavern , across the road from the royal courts , barristers , solicitors and their clerks will be asking each other : will this be Lawrence &apos;s trial ? but that is a question that only a jury can answer . concluding the red spy ring in Britain by E H Cookridge . watch for a woman with a string bag - and an orange &amp;hellip; . - that was Moscow &apos;s secret message to Alexander Foote ( above ) when he was a Russian spy in Switzerland &amp;hellip; . the organisation of a Soviet avantpost abroad - a network controlled by a resident director - is fundamentally the same in all countries , but the emphasis on its tasks and targets is naturally different . during the final stages of an agent &apos;s training , therefore , he is put into one of four groups . group one consists of agents for political intelligence and subversion . 