Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 43


     
     1        Plaintiffs did not produce original documents in court,
     2        copies or secondary evidence are prima facie inadmissible
     3        under the best evidence rule.  It is for the Plaintiffs to
     4        show good reason why this evidence should be admitted
     5        without the originals being available, and we would say
     6        that it might, in some circumstances, be appropriate to
     7        admit copies rather than originals where-----
     8
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.  I want you to stop there.  I have read
    10        the whole of that sheet, the rest of it is comment which
    11        I will take into account on what conclusions I am to draw
    12        from the evidence.
    13
    14   MS. STEEL:   OK.  There was also another case that we were
    15        referred to in relation to this, which was Mortimer v
    16        McCallan, which is actually 1840.  The references is 6 M
    17        and W at page 63.  I do not actually know what that means.
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
    20
    21   MS. STEEL:   It apparently says something to the effect of where
    22        it is physically impossible or highly inconvenient to
    23        produce originals the court may allow copies in their
    24        deeds(?).  But, again, we say that should only apply where,
    25        you know, there is a good reason for it not being produced,
    26        not through sheer carelessness effectively.  To have lost
    27        every single copy which they claim had been handed over of
    28        the fact sheet is pretty careless, or not to have kept a
    29        record of from where and when it was obtained.
    30
    31        If I can just have a couple of minutes -- (pause).
    32
    33        (Document handed to the judge) This is actually about
    34        consent.  I dealt with most of this the other day so I was
    35        not intending to read any of it out, in fact.  Basically,
    36        it is just putting the argument that we consider we have
    37        to.
    38
    39   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I have two copies here, I think.
    40
    41   MS. STEEL:   There was one for the stenographers, although as
    42        I am not reading it out maybe they do not need it.
    43        Basically, it is that.
    44
    45   MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is argument again on the question of
    46        consent, so I will read it through in due course.
    47
    48   MS. STEEL:   Effectively, they consented to all publication of
    49        the fact sheet between 2nd October 1989 and January 1991.
    50
    51   MR. JUSTICE BELL: You have said that.
    52
    53   MS. STEEL:   At least.  Because that was the duration of the
    54        spies being involved with the group on their own
    55        admission.  The only point I would like to just say is that
    56        right at the last point, really, on the first page is
    57        that-----
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I have read that as well.
    60

Prev Next Index