IN CAMERA

The Verdict

A very telling aspect of the trial of Albert Folens in 1947 is that much of it was held in camera, that is, in secret or in private, out of the public gaze. The reason given by the court is that airing some of the evidence in public could undermine the Belgian Security Service.

The only part of Folens' evidence which might have been sensitive in this way is the spying missions into the Soviet Zone into which he was blackmailed by the renegade Lieutenant Guy van den Plas.

There would have been two problems here for the Belgian Security Service.

In the first place it emerged by early 1946 that Van den Plas may not have been a legitimate officer of the Service at all.

In the second place, now that the war was over and all the Allies including the Russians were on supposedly friendly terms, the idea of the Belgians having been spying on the Russians would probably not have gone down so well in public.

Equally if it emerged that these spying missions had been ordered by Van den Plas, purely for the advancement of his own career and without the the explicit sanction of the Security Service, it would not speak well of the Security Service.

It is worth noting here, although not mentioned by the court, that the British could also have been embarrassed. They were in control of the sector and this, possibly unauthorised and irresponsible, activity was taking place on their watch.

This is a translation of the relevant part of the verdict, as shown in the image from the court records at the head of this post.

The hearing takes place in public and the case is called;

Considering that at the end of his interrogation the accused would like to assert certain elements which, in his opinion, could jeopardize the 2nd Bureau of the Belgian Army;

That the publicity of the further interrogation of the accused therefore poses a threat to public order'

FOR THESE REASONS;

The court-martial, deciding on the contrary;

Seen articles:

96 of the Constitution;

11,18,31,34,35,36,37,41,68 paragraph 1er of the law of 15 June 1935

JUSTIFYING,

Unanimously orders that the further interrogation of the accused be held behind closed doors.

The court agreeing to an in camera session surely gives this case a particular significance and one that has been missed by historians among others. The grounds put forward by the court for accepting an in camera session, namely that what would be revealed could jeopardise the Belgian Security Service surely make this a high profile case. When you add in the incompetence, or malice, of the court coupled with the betrayal of Folens by the Belgian Security Service and the dubious status of his controller Van den Plas, the case may even be unique.

So get a copy of Leentje's book and read the rest of this thrilling story.

The book is available to readers in Europe here, and to those outside Europe, and particularly in the USA here