8th October 2021

███████████

Editorial Legal Director

Hachette UK Limited

Carmelite House
50 Victoria Embankment
London EC4Y 0DZ

Dear ███████

Re:  Julian Hayes – ‘Stonehouse Cabinet Minister, Fraudster, Spy’

Please find attached three documents: a) The Daily Telegraph, 2 editions, 12 February 1975, by Ian Ward, regarding his story that my father had sent Sheila’s clothes in a trunk from London to Melbourne before he faked his death; b) a schedule of the Old Bailey proceedings 19-20 July 1976 showing that a statement by Robert Hill was read to the court after my sister Jane’s evidence and before Sheila’s statement from the dock. Robert Rowland Hill was the customs officer who opened the trunk when it arrived in Melbourne and saw that it did not contain any women’s clothing, thus showing that the journalist Ian Ward could not have been correct; c) page 332 from Julian’s book where he completely cuts out the evidence of Robert Hill, instead saying after my sister’s evidence “With this evidence the Stonehouse defence was complete.” Why is Robert Hill missing? I suppose lawyers are used to picking and choosing what evidence they want to present in court but I think it is disingenuous to ignore a vital witness in a book that purports to be an accurate rendition of events. Julian Hayes has 108 pages on legal proceedings (pages 241-349), and eleven pages on Ian Ward and his erroneous trunk story (pages 104, 187-9, 202-3, 309-13) and he knows exactly how important Ian Ward’s article was because he opens chapter 44 (page 309) with the words “Another significant witness relied on by the prosecution was the Daily Telegraph’s South-east Asian correspondent, Ian Ward, who had ‘befriended’ Stonehouse after his discovery in Australia.” Yet Julian has chosen to whitewash out of his narrative the independent official and unbiased witness who contradicted Ian Ward’s trunk story. As a lawyer yourself, would you classify this as mala fide? Please ask Julian to explain why he has ignored the very important witness Robert Rowland Hill. Or perhaps I have overlooked where he has mentioned him in the book – although I have of course read the book and can’t see a reference to Robert Hill in the Index. If I am wrong about this omission please let me know.

On 20 July 2019 I emailed Julian Hayes referring to, among other things, the method the Czech StB said they called my father to meetings, a method they reported back to Prague innumerable times. I wrote “It involved sending a cutting from The Times newspaper to our home, however, the file shows they not once had our correct address. The only address they ever had for my father was a house that was at the time occupied by four families paying rent to the Northampton Estate.” I was curious therefore why Julian should not mention this fact in his book, saying instead on page 28 “Communication was to be conducted via newspaper clippings on political affairs sent to Stonehouse’s home address.” A few lines above this he writes “In the event that either side lost connection” – I have scoured the StB file for any such notion and cannot find it so would Julian now provide me with the StB document number so I can ascertain what exactly was said on the matter.

The only address the StB ever had for my father and our family was 22 Aldwyne Road, N1. (A mistake consistently made in the spelling). Although I told Julian we never lived there, on page 39 he writes “They had endeavoured to contact him using the newspaper code, a plan that was thwarted by their failure to update Stonehouse’s address in their records.” Clearly, one cannot update an address if one never had it in the first place. My father never gave the StB his address, and if this system of calling him to meetings was in place why was a mistake in the address never identified by either side and a correct address subsequently provided? This is an important point, and an honest report of the documents in the StB file should have included these facts.

I additionally attach document d) which is page 25 of Julian’s book. This is the whole text of paragraph 3:

“They agreed to a further lunch appointment at the Overton on 18 January 1960. In the event he was unable to attend as planned, Kugler advised Stonehouse to send a letter containing a business prospectus in an envelope addressed to J. V. Koudelka, the name by which Stonehouse knew him. Kugler would know it was from Stonehouse as the J was an abbreviation for John, and the sending of the letter would mean that their meeting was to be postponed for a week. Several such envelopes bearing Stonehouse’s writing are contained in the StB files, clearly proving this procedure was used on later occasions.”

There are no “such envelopes” addressed to Koudelka in the StB file that I can see but if Julian believes such envelopes exist he should easily be able to provide me with the StB document reference numbers so I can verify his statement.

In my book I have over 300 references including those to the StB document numbers. I believe that if one is going to write a factual book one should be able to evidence the facts within that book by providing the references. Imagine how difficult it would be for any person other than myself, who knows this material, to verify what Julian has said in this book. I consider this very poor practice on the part of Robinson and wonder if it is usual for them to publish non-fiction without references.

Yours sincerely,

Julia Stonehouse