Day 135 - 15 Jun 95 - Page 23


     
     1        quote -- that we had the advantage that our witnesses go
     2        second which, I must admit, seemed to go against the
     3        fundamental of English law which is they chose to bring the
     4        case, they put their case and that we put our case.  They
     5        have the advantage of choosing who they sue and whatever.
     6        But -----
     7
     8   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I do not know what you are getting there.
     9        All that Barlows did in their letter was repeat what I
    10        had said, and I will repeat it.  The first thing was this:
    11        It may be that strictly no-one should adduce evidence from
    12        a witness of which at least some general notice has not
    13        been given in their disclosed witness statement.  It is
    14        true that McDonald's witnesses have gone beyond what is in
    15        their statements, but so have witnesses who you have
    16        called.
    17
    18   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
    19
    20   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I have to be even handed.  If I stop
    21        Mr. Rampton adducing evidence-in-chief which is not
    22        indicated or covered in the statement, disclosed statement
    23        of the witness, then I must do the same so far as your
    24        witnesses are concerned.  I have appreciated that you may
    25        have more difficulty than someone who has a very competent
    26        solicitor able to help with the preparation does, so far as
    27        being aware of just what relevant evidence a witness of
    28        yours may be going to give.
    29
    30        So, I am disinclined to you stop you adducing
    31        evidence-in-chief if it is relevant from a witness just
    32        because there is no indication of that evidence in the
    33        statement.  I am particularly not following the elements of
    34        the practice direction which the Lord Chief Justice gave in
    35        March simply because you are representing yourselves.
    36
    37        If I take that view towards the witnesses which you call
    38        because I think it is fair to do so, then it is only fair
    39        to take the same view of the witnesses whom McDonald's
    40        call.  That is the first thing.
    41
    42        The second point is this:  If McDonald's (who are calling
    43        their witnesses first, by and large) calls a witness who
    44        goes beyond his or her statement, at least you have the
    45        opportunity to ask any witness you are calling on the topic
    46        to deal with that when the witness comes to the witness
    47        box.  You may choose to do that, you may not.
    48
    49        You may choose to make enquiries of the witness about the
    50        topic before the witness is called, you may not.  You may 
    51        not be able to get hold of the witness before the witness 
    52        comes to the witness box.  But at least when the witness 
    53        does appear in the Strand, you can say:  "What do you say
    54        about this?" which a McDonald's witness said maybe weeks or
    55        months ago, "I am going to ask you about it" and you can
    56        deal with it?"
    57
    58        McDonald's cannot do that, obviously, when they have
    59        already called their relevant witness.  So, if you bring in
    60        new evidence -- I mean "new" in the sense that there is no

Prev Next Index