Day 182 - 02 Nov 95 - Page 65


     
     1   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, but let us see what it is in practical
     2        terms.  Were Mr. Morris to call -- let us just take
     3        Mr. Lamti as an example -- Mr. Lamti:  So far, where he has
     4        called a witness who has made a statement, he has not been
     5        putting their statements in as Civil Evidence Act
     6        statements; he has been asking them as part of their oral
     7        evidence to aver the truth of the statement they made.  If
     8        he does that with Monsieur Lamti, then section 7 does not
     9        apply.
    10
    11   MR. RAMPTON:  No, of course it does not, because I have to
    12        cross-examine him.
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What I am trying to get my mind round for my
    15        own benefit, as well as the Defendants', is suppose
    16        Mr. Morris says:  "I am going to rely upon those statements
    17        as Civil Evidence Act statements, I am not going to bring
    18        them across to this country".  He then, therefore, has the
    19        statements read because he wants them read rather than just
    20        put in.  You either then, or a little later, say you want
    21        to avail yourself of section 7.  Mr. Morris sees whatever
    22        evidence you call for the purpose of destroying or
    23        supporting, let us say, Monsieur Lamti's evidence, subject
    24        to the proviso which appears over the page ---
    25
    26   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes, I cannot do that.
    27
    28   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  -- or what evidence you adduce tending to
    29        prove that, let us say, Mr. Lamti has made another
    30        statement inconsistent with the Civil Evidence Act
    31        statement.
    32
    33   MR. RAMPTON:  That is right.
    34
    35   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Then Mr. Morris has to contemplate, does he
    36        not, whether he says to me, in the light of that:  "I want
    37        to call Mr. Lamti".
    38
    39   MR. RAMPTON:  He cannot.  I think strictly he cannot.
    40
    41   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, I thought you might say that, but I am
    42        going through it at my own slow pace because you said,
    43        I think misunderstanding what I was saying because of my
    44        lack of clarity:  "Oh, well, I could not object to him
    45        doing that", and we were at cross-purposes.
    46
    47   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes, I see.
    48
    49   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But what I do not like is the idea that
    50        Mr. Morris, perhaps, encouraged more than once by me, 
    51        should say:  "I want to rely upon the Civil Evidence Act 
    52        statement".  We then have you put in something in under 
    53        section 7 which he does not know about at all at the
    54        moment, but then finding himself in a position where
    55        technically he cannot call Mr. Lamti even if he wants to.
    56
    57   MR. RAMPTON:  Can I suggest, that is why I raised it now,
    58        because it is a question of timing.  I mean, if one is
    59        going to be technical, unless there is something in the
    60        rules which I have not looked at which contradicts what

Prev Next Index