Day 107 - 24 Mar 95 - Page 11
1 A. I cannot express surprise.
2
3 Q. Why can you not express surprise?
4 A. Simply, a manual system, i.e. a system run by human
5 beings and, largely, a manual cooking process like that is
6 bound to have a failure rate. Ergo, that is evidence of
7 the failure rate. In terms of implications, that clearly
8 demonstrates that on occasions there have been potential
9 food safety risks which have not been contained or dealt
10 with by the system.
11
12 Q. If we could go on to the Preston food poisoning incident --
13 actually, I have some notes that Mr. North made on the copy
14 of that. If I can give that to the witness, he can refer
15 to his own notes?
16
17 MR. RAMPTON: I am not sure about this, my Lord. I have
18 admitted everything that has been pleaded in relation to
19 this.
20
21 MR. JUSTICE BELL: At the moment you have not got anywhere near
22 getting the PHLS report in.
23
24 MR. RAMPTON: Not anywhere near it.
25
26 MR. MORRIS: If Mr. North wants to draw some conclusions -----
27
28 MR. JUSTICE BELL: He cannot, because it is not at the moment an
29 admissible document.
30
31 MR. MORRIS: Yes, but the point is, for a start, some of it has
32 already been referred to in open court; secondly, even
33 though it has been admitted by the Plaintiffs, our witness
34 has a right to draw conclusions or look at matters
35 surrounding the incidents as regards to the -----
36
37 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No.
38
39 MR. MORRIS: Thirdly, it is a scientific document which has
40 expert -----
41
42 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That does not matter. You have either got
43 the evidence from which to draw a conclusion or not. We
44 went through all this before. Since then there has been an
45 admission of what you alleged in addition to what you
46 previously had, correct me if I am wrong, but that is how
47 I understand it. I cannot say more than I have previously
48 said. Have you actually given a Civil Evidence Act Notice
49 in relation to the maker of the report so that we could see
50 if there was a counter notice and it would come in that
51 way?
52
53 MS. STEEL: I think we served a Civil Evidence Act Notice and
54 the Plaintiffs have not actually objected to this before.
55 I remember them objecting to the Health & Safety Executive
56 before.
57
58 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I remember there was some matter of it. The
59 whole question of counter notice was put over until the
60 matter of the admissions and whether it was admissible at
