Day 002 - 30 Jun 94 - Page 54


     
     1   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Are they witnesses whose statements have
              been served?
     2
         MR. RAMPTON:  Yes.  They are Civil Evidence Act witnesses.  It
     3        may have been loose terminology by Mr. Morris.  If they
              are not going to be live witnesses, it does not matter at
     4        all.  My Lord, the other thing.
 
     5   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   I will ask about that in a moment.
 
     6   MR. RAMPTON:  The other preliminary thing I wanted to mention
              was "Jungle Burger".  If there is an intention by the
     7        defendants to rely on the "Jungle Burger" as evidence of
              the truth of its contents, whether by the attendance of
     8        Mr. Peter Heller who made it, or by some other means, then
              in advance of that, and before ever I should consent to
     9        its being relied upon, we should require a full, unedited
              tape and transcript of interviews of the witnesses
    10        concerned, with, so far as possible, full particulars of
              their identities, status and where interviews were given.
    11        At the moment what we have are simply short transcripts of
              little pieces of edited interview shown in the programme.
    12        One knows from bitter experience in this field of the law
              how untrustworthy that material can be.  What one needs to
    13        see is the whole of the unedited interview with a
              transcript.
    14
              My Lord, then the principal matter which I wish to raise
    15         -- I preface it by saying that the submissions of Miss
              Steel and Mr. Morris were littered with
    16        misrepresentations.
 
    17   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  I do not think that now is the moment,
              if I may say so.  You had a point in relation to
    18        discovery?
 
    19   MR. RAMPTON:  I will deal with that alone.  There was a
              repeated allegation, one right at the end of Mr. Morris'
    20        submissions, repeated references to what is alleged to
              have been a cover up.  We believe that we understand the
    21        law on discovery and, with your Lordship's guidance, we
              have observed our obligations under that law.
    22        ^
              the whole exercise has been governed, not just at a
    23        distance by me, but by a very experienced firm, and very
              well respected firm, in the City, by Barlow Lyde and
    24        Gilbert.  It is our obligation to make discovery of
              documents which are relevant to the issues.  We have taken
    25        a broad view of that in this sense, that we have not
              confined our consideration of that obligation to the 
    26        pleadings, but have extended it to the unpleaded 
              allegations which appear in the witness statements. 
    27
              On the other hand, having been not entirely confident that
    28        we could trust the defendants with the material which we
              have disclosed, though we have taken a broad view of the
    29        range of relevance, once we have decided where the
              guillotine fell, we have been fairly strict, which is the
    30        reason why in some cases a document which contains some
              relevant material and some material which is not relevant,

Prev Next Index