Day 053 - 22 Nov 94 - Page 28
1 that is what they meant all along, because otherwise, as we
2 have set out in paragraph 6, the admission would be
3 meaningless in the context of the Plaintiffs's proposed
4 amendments.
5
6 Yesterday, Mr. Rampton did actually say something to the
7 effect that neither sides' witnesses had dealt with a
8 causal link between diet and heart disease. That is, in
9 fact, incorrect, as we pointed out, or as is shown by the
10 examples we have given in this skeleton argument. Both
11 Professor Crawford and Mr. Cannon refer to a "causal
12 association" or "link between" diet and heart disease.
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have to say that if we had ever got to
15 argument (which we did not, in fact), I would have wanted
16 to ask Mr. Rampton whether what was being admitted was
17 causal, association or relationship.
18
19 MR. RAMPTON: Your Lordship will recall that there was never any
20 dispute by me with any witness. I do not know whether
21 Ms. Steel is confusing what was said in court with what was
22 in the witness statement. It matters not at all, because
23 at no stage have I sought to contest the Defendants'
24 witnesses' statements to the effect that the link between
25 diet and heart disease is a causal one.
26
27 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That may well have been your answer, but
28 I think I would have asked it, nevertheless.
29
30 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. You would have got the answer which I gave
31 yesterday and which I think, in fact, I have given on a
32 previous occasion.
33
34 MR. MORRIS: The obvious reason why Mr. Rampton did not do that
35 is because the issue was whether there was an association
36 on heart disease and cancer. They clearly admitted an
37 association; therefore, that was the end of that, in any
38 case.
39
40 MS. STEEL: I want to say, in the transcript of yesterday, it
41 has Mr. Rampton as saying: "Yes, it is difficult to get
42 out of the habit, perhaps, for a member of the Bar or
43 solicitors, of admitting that which is pleaded against you,
44 rather than something which is not. On the whole, the
45 latter practice is discouraged. It is only when I have got
46 into this court and it has become clear, if it was not
47 already, that the issue was nothing to do with whether some
48 scientist thought this or other scientist thought that that
49 in relation to association as opposed to causation, but it
50 occurred to me -- it was sometime ago now, I do believe
51 I have mentioned it -- that it was necessary to say,
52 neither side having any evidence on the question, that the
53 causal nature of the relationship between diet and heart
54 disease was accepted."
55
56 I took that to mean he was saying that there was no
57 evidence in the statements of our witnesses of a causal
58 relationship.
59
60 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No. That was not my -- one way of looking at
