Day 087 - 10 Feb 95 - Page 25


     
     1        is not for me to argue with you.  I cannot keep saying it
     2        again and again and then you stand up and say, "Why does
     3        this happen?", because I find myself arguing with you and I
     4        do not want to argue with one side or the other. I have
     5        done my best to explain its status.  If you want to move on
     6        to something else, go away and take advice on this, or see
     7        what is on the transcript and think about it again.  By all
     8        means, do so.
     9
    10        Whether it is right or not, I am not going to offer an
    11        opinion, but the suspicion of McDonald's is that you just
    12        want to read out so it is on the transcript, and it will
    13        then receive a certain amount of publication, matters which
    14        are not admissible.  If they take that objection -- I am
    15        not concerned as to whether their suspicions are well
    16        founded or not -- if they take that objection, I have got
    17        to rule on it, which is what has led to this debate
    18        altogether.
    19
    20        I have tried to say you are not, in fact, handicapped by
    21        following the procedure.  If you had an expert in the
    22        witness box you could say, "If it were the view of an
    23        experienced environmental health officer that a particular
    24        outbreak of E.coli food poisoning had been caused by
    25        contamination between uncooked and cooked chicken because
    26        of this procedure going on in a restaurant, would you
    27        accept that?"  Then you might get acceptance or you might
    28        get the kind of answer you got from Mr. Atherton yesterday,
    29        saying, "No, because of our temperature control and the
    30        fact that the uncooked item is so cold", and so on.
    31
    32        There is absolutely no advantage to you in just reading out
    33        the document.  You could do it in another way.
    34
    35   MR. MORRIS:  The thing is, this is the view of an environmental
    36        health officer.
    37
    38   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That takes us right back to the position we
    39        were in beforehand with Civil Evidence Act.  We have now
    40        gone full circle.  We are back to your Civil Evidence Act
    41        notices.  By all means put a Civil Evidence Act notice on
    42        that.  What is the name of the person concerned?
    43
    44   MR. MORRIS:  The Preston one is Dr. Marshall, Roberta Marshall.
    45
    46   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Dr. Roberta Marshall.  You have then got to
    47        wait and see whether you get a counter notice within 21
    48        days.  The document itself has not become admissible.
    49
    50   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, might I say something?  It is troubling 
    51        me.  It is all very well to put a counter notice on Roberta 
    52        Marshall.  I cannot stop that.  But, as your Lordship 
    53        knows, my objection to that document is on grounds of
    54        relevance.  Unless and until I have your Lordship's ruling
    55        on the relevance of that evidence, suppose it were
    56        admitted, I cannot usefully decide whether to serve a
    57        counter notice.
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I have, rightly or wrongly, seen fit to give
    60        the Defendants an opportunity to consider whether they want

Prev Next Index