Day 253 - 21 May 96 - Page 48
1 of that, they never will, particularly considering that
2 those dates of the named witnesses we intend to call, run
3 through, starting with Mr. Pocklington on, I think, it is
4 the 21st, now I think it is 4th or 2nd October 1989,
5 although there is a bit of overlap, to, I think it is, 20th
6 September 1990.
7
8 They know the identity of Michelle Hooker and they have a
9 statement from Frances Tiller. They know from Frances
10 Tiller's statement that Michelle Hooker used the name,
11 I think it was Shelly whilst she was there. It is not up
12 to us to help them find out what happened at the meetings,
13 whenever it was, at which Frances Tiller and Michelle
14 Hooker were present. They can ask Frances Tiller; they
15 apparently have already done that. They can approach
16 Michelle Hooker; they can ask her. Let them do it. They
17 can ask their friends, they can ask themselves: We know
18 who these people were now. What did they do when they were
19 there?
20
21 In our submission, when, and only when, that has been done,
22 so as to give rise to an issue in the case so far as those
23 two ladies are concerned, would any question arise whether
24 we had relevant documents which ought to be disclosed were
25 it not for the question of legal professional privilege?
26
27 Take Michelle Hooker as an example. I do not know how many
28 meetings she attended. I do not know when she attended
29 them. The Defendants do.
30
31 MS. STEEL: No, we do not.
32
33 MR. RAMPTON: Because they know who she was.
34
35 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Is it not as simple as this: You say those
36 people are not officers of your clients.
37
38 MR. RAMPTON: That is right.
39
40 MR. JUSTICE BELL: They are not witnesses whom you are proposing
41 to call. There is no reason why you should go searching
42 for information in relation to them rather than the
43 Defendants themselves who, after all, are putting this part
44 of the case forward?
45
46 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, that is right.
47
48 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is quite regardless of any question of
49 professional privilege which might arise if Mr. Nicholson
50 or one of the inquiry agents were asked for information
51 when they were in the witness box.
52
53 MR. RAMPTON: Or, my Lord, it might be that Barlows had in their
54 office reports relating to Michelle Hooker or Frances
55 Tiller. Then again, subject to the question of legal
56 professional privilege, which I am certainly not going to
57 concede in relation to anything to those two ladies, since
58 I do not proffer them as witnesses and never will, so far
59 as I know, it is for the Defendants first to raise a case
60 that anything relevant happened on occasions attended by
