Day 030 - 03 Oct 94 - Page 43
1 in court today which does not make any specific
2 recommendation on cancer. Then 188 to 91 -----
3
4 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Can you just pause there? We have looked
5 quite a lot so far at what has been called the Grey Book,
6 just because it is grey.
7 A. Yes.
8
9 Q. It occurs to me, of course -- no doubt I will hear a lot
10 more and I will hear a lot of argument -- that might be of
11 some significance as to, I will put it in very neutral and
12 general terms, the feeling was at about the time that it
13 is alleged Ms. Steel and Mr. Morris took part in the
14 publication of the leaflet which McDonald's complained of,
15 because the allegation is that they took part in its
16 publication in the autumn of 1989 and the spring of 1990,
17 the report was not published until 1991, but the
18 references go up to and include 1990 but no later. So a
19 lot of them, for instance, are late 80s references. Is
20 there anything you would like to expand on as to the
21 significance or otherwise or any strengths or weaknesses
22 in the Grey Book, if I were to think that it was a
23 significant publication?
24 A. Well, certainly it is. Indeed, my Lord, I think the
25 issue of the currency of the document complained of,
26 obviously, is a key point, if we are talking about 89/90
27 -----
28
29 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, 89/90.
30 A. Well, I think again, without pretending to be a
31 lawyer, it seems to me that the key phrase in the passage
32 complained of is "medical fact" or "established medical
33 fact". What does that actually mean? I would say that a
34 COMA Report once published by government is not only the
35 medical view or the scientific view, but is government's
36 view, unless government rejects it which formally it may
37 do.
38
39 It is very uncommon for government to do that. It has
40 never happened -- no COMA Report has been rejected in its
41 entirety by government. Some have been set on one side
42 when their advice is relatively radical. But I would say
43 that a COMA government report, certainly once accepted by
44 government, goes beyond scientific and medical opinion. I
45 would say it is then national policy. So, that if the
46 defendants were to have said in the document complained of
47 at the time: "This view is accepted by government in the
48 UK" or something to that sort, then that would be wrong,
49 it is not. Whether or not it is accepted by government in
50 the UK remains to be seen specifically on cancer and not
51 cardiovascular disease.
52
53 If they had said it is commonly judged by experts in the
54 field, or so far it has invariably been judged by experts
55 in the field, that etc. etc. at that time, then, yes, that
56 would be true, as I mentioned this morning, and I think
57 the documents they rely on, if they put it like that, are
58 the ones that we have referred to already which would be
59 the 82 NAS Report, the 89 NAS Report, the 1988 Surgeon
60 General's Report, the ECP Report from Aurhus in 1985. I
