Day 094 - 01 Mar 95 - Page 46
1 MR. RAMPTON: I understand that, but the reason I intervened was
2 that I was not anxious that there should be any blanket
3 Civil Evidence Act notices impressed on this document as a
4 whole at this stage.
5
6 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No. We have aired the ------
7
8 MR. MORRIS: I did not finish what I was saying. It has been
9 stated at the beginning of this case that we were not aware
10 we could put Civil Evidence Act notices on documents,
11 although we did become aware fairly recently we could do
12 that on statements. We did say that because of the vast
13 number of documents and the complexity of the issues and
14 the lack of time and resources that we have got that,
15 inevitably, as we go through the evidence, we are going to
16 come across documents which would be appropriate for a
17 Civil Evidence Act notice. However much weight would be
18 given to it or not is up to yourself. I understand that in
19 the case of where it is a newspaper report we should
20 identify -----
21
22 MR. JUSTICE BELL: If I could just interrupt you for a moment?
23 When you talked about "documents", I was not including
24 reports which appear in the media quoting what it is said
25 someone has said, because what I am concerned with is the
26 statement made by someone or other. I have to say, I had
27 not looked upon that as a document. That is a
28 straightforward statement by someone, just as you have
29 taken statements from people or they have provided them to
30 you, they have signed them, they have dated them and they
31 have gone on your list of Civil Evidence Act statements.
32
33 MS. STEEL: I think we understand that now but we did not
34 realise that previously.
35
36 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Right, carry on with your cross-examination.
37 Go away and think about it and whether you want to make any
38 particular averment in a newspaper or magazine report the
39 subject of a Civil Evidence Act notice and follow the form
40 then as best you can. Apart from anything else, then
41 I will be able to see it almost as if it was in the form of
42 a series of statements, maybe only ten lines on each page
43 with unidentified long-time Montfort worker and then the
44 bit in quotes, statement made at some date before July or
45 August 1992, and so on, and we will see where we get to
46 from there.
47
48 MS. STEEL: OK. (To the witness): If workers removed the
49 glands, that would mean that the inspectors could not check
50 to see whether they held evidence of disease, could they?
51 A. No, that is incorrect. The inspectors have the
52 authority to look and ask for it at any given point in
53 time.
54
55 Q. Ask to look at the glands?
56 A. They will look at everything on the carcass -- not only
57 the glands.
58
59 Q. But what would happen if the glands had been removed?
60 A. The inspector will go and see the glands.
