Day 030 - 03 Oct 94 - Page 43


     
     1        in court today which does not make any specific
     2        recommendation on cancer.  Then 188 to 91 -----
     3
     4   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Can you just pause there?  We have looked
     5        quite a lot so far at what has been called the Grey Book,
     6        just because it is grey.
     7        A.  Yes.
     8
     9   Q.   It occurs to me, of course -- no doubt I will hear a lot
    10        more and I will hear a lot of argument -- that might be of
    11        some significance as to, I will put it in very neutral and
    12        general terms, the feeling was at about the time that it
    13        is alleged Ms. Steel and Mr. Morris took part in the
    14        publication of the leaflet which McDonald's complained of,
    15        because the allegation is that they took part in its
    16        publication in the autumn of 1989 and the spring of 1990,
    17        the report was not published until 1991, but the
    18        references go up to and include 1990 but no later.  So a
    19        lot of them, for instance, are late 80s references.  Is
    20        there anything you would like to expand on as to the
    21        significance or otherwise or any strengths or weaknesses
    22        in the Grey Book, if I were to think that it was a
    23        significant publication?
    24        A.  Well, certainly it is.  Indeed, my Lord, I think the
    25        issue of the currency of the document complained of,
    26        obviously, is a key point, if we are talking about 89/90
    27         -----
    28
    29   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, 89/90.
    30        A.  Well, I think again, without pretending to be a
    31        lawyer, it seems to me that the key phrase in the passage
    32        complained of is "medical fact" or "established medical
    33        fact".  What does that actually mean?  I would say that a
    34        COMA Report once published by government is not only the
    35        medical view or the scientific view, but is government's
    36        view, unless government rejects it which formally it may
    37        do.
    38
    39        It is very uncommon for government to do that.  It has
    40        never happened -- no COMA Report has been rejected in its
    41        entirety by government.  Some have been set on one side
    42        when their advice is relatively radical.  But I would say
    43        that a COMA government report, certainly once accepted by
    44        government, goes beyond scientific and medical opinion.  I
    45        would say it is then national policy.  So, that if the
    46        defendants were to have said in the document complained of
    47        at the time:  "This view is accepted by government in the
    48        UK" or something to that sort, then that would be wrong,
    49        it is not.  Whether or not it is accepted by government in
    50        the UK remains to be seen specifically on cancer and not 
    51        cardiovascular disease. 
    52 
    53        If they had said it is commonly judged by experts in the
    54        field, or so far it has invariably been judged by experts
    55        in the field, that etc. etc. at that time, then, yes, that
    56        would be true, as I mentioned this morning, and I think
    57        the documents they rely on, if they put it like that, are
    58        the ones that we have referred to already which would be
    59        the 82 NAS Report, the 89 NAS Report, the 1988 Surgeon
    60        General's Report, the ECP Report from Aurhus in 1985.  I

Prev Next Index