Day 087 - 10 Feb 95 - Page 28


     
     1   MR. MORRIS:  I cannot remember.
     2
     3   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  On the morning of Tuesday, 7th February you
     4        said, "There are two reports which we want Civil Evidence
     5        Act notices on", and one was the Public Health Laboratory
     6        Service and the other was the American.  But I had a
     7        recollection that you ----
     8
     9   MR. MORRIS:  I seem to remember we did it before that, but
    10        I cannot remember.
    11
    12   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  During a witness the whole thing was raised.
    13        Was it not, for instance, Professor Jackson on the 31st
    14        January?  On the morning of the 31st January -- I do not
    15        know where it is in the transcript, but it would be about
    16        pages 9 or 10 of the Case View -- you asked him to -- no,
    17        that was the Public Laboratory Service table of four
    18        categories:  Satisfactory, fair and satisfactory,
    19        unsatisfactory and unacceptable.  That was Mr. Rampton.  On
    20        Monday, 6th February, I am not sure it was mentioned.  Do
    21        you have a recollection, Mr. Morris?
    22
    23   MR. MORRIS:  No, but we will have to treat it as the 7th.
    24        I thought it was earlier, but maybe it was the 7th of this
    25        week.  Then the Plaintiffs can wait for three weeks, or
    26        whatever it is, and then not oppose it.  Meanwhile, we will
    27        not be able to do what we were going to do after that.  So,
    28        that will really help with the smooth flow of
    29        cross-examination.
    30
    31        It seems to me -- I am not an expert on the law -- but it
    32        seems to me there is a contradiction; if there is a general
    33        agreement not to challenge the use of expert opinion being
    34        tested by reference to documents that have not got Civil
    35        Evidence Act notices on but that we cannot do that in this
    36        case, it seems that Mr. Rampton is making an objection that
    37        would cover the whole of expert opinion as well.
    38
    39   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The reason for it may be this, that all the
    40        documents, as indeed they are, which we were dealing with
    41        before, were articles in learned journals or books written
    42        by experts.  They did not primarily go in for the facts
    43        stated in them, but for the opinions which were expressed
    44        on the assumption that the facts were right.  That may not
    45        be entirely accurate because when we are involved with
    46        epidemiology, of course, the facts are fundamental facts in
    47        the sense of the incidence of disease in certain countries
    48        or sectors of the population.
    49
    50        It may be that the distinction with the PHLS report is that 
    51        what you really want from that are facts which you say 
    52        relate to the Friargate branch of McDonald's in Preston. 
    53        You may be able to achieve it by the Civil Evidence Act
    54        notice method, but at the moment there are two practical
    55        hurdles once objection has been taken.  The first is that
    56        there is some time to go before a counter notice has to be
    57        served.  The fact that Mr. Rampton's clients have 21 days
    58        in which to serve it does not mean that they should take 20
    59        days to get it out.  There might be no reason I know why
    60        they should not serve it on Monday.  It is just that they

Prev Next Index