Confidential Information

Former intelligence officer convicted of espionage after publishing autobiography - breach of undertaking not to disclose information acquired in course of employment - Crown entitled to royalties due from publisherAttorney-General v Blake: HL (Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Steyn and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough): 27 July 2000

The defendant joined the Secret Intelligence Service in 1944 and signed an undertaking pursuant to the Official Secrets Act 1911 not to divulge, during his period of employment or thereafter, any official information gained as a result of his employment.

In 1951 he became an agent for the Soviet Union.

In 1961 he pleaded guilty to five offences of espionage and was sentenced to 42 years' imprisonment.

In 1966 he escaped from prison and fled to Moscow.

In 1989 he wrote his autobiography, certain parts of which related to his activities as a secret intelligence officer.

The Attorney-General claimed, among other things, an order for payment to the Crown of all moneys received or to be received by the defendant from the publishers under a contract entered into between the defendant and the publishers for the publication of the literary work as moneys by which the defendant had been or would be unjustly enriched.

The judge dismissed the claim ([1997] Ch 84) but the Court of Appeal allowed the Attorney-General's appeal ([1998] Ch.

439) and granted an injunction restraining the payment to the defendant of any moneys owing to him from the publishers in respect of royalties from the book.

The defendant appealed.

Richard Clayton and Natasha Joffe (instructed by Birnberg Peirce & Partners) for the defendant.

Ross Cranston QC, Solicitor-General, Philip Havers QC, Philip Sales and Anya Proops (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Attorney-General.

Held, dismissing the appeal, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough dissenting, that when, exceptionally, damages were an inadequate remedy and the just response to a breach of contract so required, the court could grant the discretionary remedy of requiring a defendant to account to the claimant for the benefits he had received from his breach of contract; that the case was exceptional in that secret information was the lifeblood of the security and intelligence services and the Crown had a legitimate interest in preventing the defendant from profiting from the disclosure of official information, whether classified or not, while a member of the service and thereafter; that undermining morale and trust between members when engaged on secret and dangerous operations would jeopardise the effectiveness of the service; that an absolute rule against disclosure, visible to all, made good sense; that, but for the defendant's notoriety as a spy, his autobiography would not have commanded royalties of the magnitude the publisher agreed to pay; and that therefore, the Attorney-General was entitled to be paid a sum equal to whatever was owing to the defendant from the publishers.

(WLR)