Day 190 - 23 Nov 95 - Page 42


     
     1        the point about whether what is said in an interview is
     2        admissible.  I cannot avoid that.  But just about all these
     3        cases, that was the only issue to decide because they did
     4        not have the Civil Evidence Act in those days.  A lot of
     5        these cases it might never have reached the court, it seems
     6        to me, in the form it did do if the Civil Evidence Act had
     7        been in effect because there might have been a question of
     8        Civil Evidence Act notice, and there is also some
     9        authority, which I think I mentioned to you many months ago
    10        now -- I am not encouraging you to think that it will
    11        succeed with me -- that if, for instance, you have given a
    12        Civil Evidence Act notice in respect of a statement of
    13        someone who is still, let us say, employed by the opposing
    14        party, even though you do not have one of the normal Civil
    15        Evidence Act grounds (beyond the seas, ill etcetera), when
    16        the counter notice comes to call it there is some
    17        authority, I believe, that the court has some discretion
    18        about that, to let the statement in anyway on the basis
    19        that it would be unreasonable to put you to call someone
    20        who is in the other camp and it ought to be reasonable for
    21        you to put the statement in.
    22
    23        Do not accept what I have said as accurate.  Check it out,
    24        but that is another possible line of enquiry for you; so
    25        that, just again thinking aloud while keeping an entirely
    26        open mind about what one's decision might be at the end of
    27        the day, if you found that Mark Ryan had stayed with
    28        McDonald's and gone up into some position of reasonable
    29        authority, that is an argument you might be able to put.
    30        But you were going to help me, or try to help me, about
    31        Mark Ryan and Lynval anyway.
    32
    33   MR. MORRIS:  Right.  My understanding is this, that they were
    34        both interviewed for research purposes.  The first one,
    35        Mark Ryan, was done by Harriet Lamb in the store and notes
    36        were made, handwritten notes were made and they were typed
    37        up the same evening, which is what we have disclosed.  That
    38        is March 30th, 1987.
    39
    40        On the 1st April 1987, coming to the Lynval case, Lynval
    41        was her Assistant Manager at McDonald's in Kentish Town
    42        when she worked there.  This interview was made by Steve
    43        Percy, who is the co-researcher with Harriet Lamb and her
    44        current partner and, if it makes any difference, he can
    45        aver the statement.  But it was tape recorded which she
    46        transcribed -----
    47
    48   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  So the interview was not conducted by her
    49        when she was an employee at McDonald's; it was conducted by
    50        the man she was working with. 
    51 
    52   MR. MORRIS:  Yes, whilst she was working there, but she 
    53        transcribed the tape recorded interview verbatim and, of
    54        course, she recognised the voice and she was aware of who
    55        it was, and this she can aver is a true record of the
    56        transcript of that tape recording.
    57
    58   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That might be relevant to a Civil Evidence
    59        Act notice and the form of a Civil Evidence Act notice, but
    60        it does not help you on the first point, the point

Prev Next Index