Day 157 - 18 Jul 95 - Page 30
1 A document, of which the transcript is a document, it must
2 be, which, could it lead us to a train of enquiry which may
3 have the consequences of advancing or damaging either
4 side's case? If we are unable to take effective shorthand
5 notes, if we were a law firm, we were legally aided, we may
6 be able to employ someone to do that, to transcribe it or,
7 indeed, to pay for a transcript which we cannot afford to
8 do, whether it is œ20 or œ350 a day, but in any event from
9 the moment the transcript goes into the hands of the
10 Plaintiffs, we are saying that we would be entitled to it
11 because it would contain information, i.e. a record of what
12 was said in court, which could lead us fairly to a train of
13 enquiry which would help us to advance or damage the case.
14
15 MR. JUSTICE BELL: But you have heard the evidence. The train
16 of enquiry either occurs to you or it does not as you hear
17 the evidence. Whether or not your notes are complete, I do
18 not see that the transcript adds anything, qua transcript,
19 as a transcript.
20
21 MR. MORRIS: If we have only something less than five per cent,
22 maybe even one per cent, of what was said in court, down as
23 a note -----
24
25 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You have far more than that and you are
26 hearing it. The train of enquiry, you actually hear it and
27 you think, surely, of a train of enquiry or you do not. I
28 mean, I do think there is, well, you develop your argument.
29
30 MR. MORRIS: Yes. If the argument be, could we reasonably be
31 expected to remember or act on any train of enquiry with
32 all the other responsibilities we have in court in this
33 case, then I would say that if ever there was a case where
34 a party is not able to evaluate the evidence while it is
35 going on to any effective extent without the use of the
36 existing transcript, then this must be that kind of case
37 because of its length and detail and our position without
38 resources.
39
40 So, I would argue that if there is any feeling that this
41 section could apply, as I believe you indicated before that
42 transcripts can be used as a form of evidence where a party
43 or parties do not consider they have got an accurate
44 recording themselves -----
45
46 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No, I never said that. The only
47 evidence -- I mean, if need be you should -- I did mention
48 it the other day and, obviously, whether you mentioned it
49 or not to whoever is advising you, it had not come to the
50 surface, but the sort of situation is where there is an
51 issue as to what actually happened at a trial, another
52 trial completely, not the trial in relation to which there
53 is a transcript.
54
55 It has been held, I believe, that the transcript of the
56 judge's summing up to the jury in that trial was a document
57 which could be put in under the Civil Evidence Act as
58 evidence of a matter in issue, namely, whether evidence was
59 given to a certain effect in the trial which is a
60 completely different situation to where you are just
