Day 253 - 21 May 96 - Page 48


     
     1        of that, they never will, particularly considering that
     2        those dates of the named witnesses we intend to call, run
     3        through, starting with Mr. Pocklington on, I think, it is
     4        the 21st, now I think it is 4th or 2nd October 1989,
     5        although there is a bit of overlap, to, I think it is, 20th
     6        September 1990.
     7
     8        They know the identity of Michelle Hooker and they have a
     9        statement from Frances Tiller.  They know from Frances
    10        Tiller's statement that Michelle Hooker used the name,
    11        I think it was  Shelly whilst she was there.  It is not up
    12        to us to help them find out what happened at the meetings,
    13        whenever it was, at which Frances Tiller and Michelle
    14        Hooker were present.  They can ask Frances Tiller; they
    15        apparently have already done that.  They can approach
    16        Michelle Hooker; they can ask her.  Let them do it.  They
    17        can ask their friends, they can ask themselves:  We know
    18        who these people were now.  What did they do when they were
    19        there?
    20
    21        In our submission, when, and only when, that has been done,
    22        so as to give rise to an issue in the case so far as those
    23        two ladies are concerned, would any question arise whether
    24        we had relevant documents which ought to be disclosed were
    25        it not for the question of legal professional privilege?
    26
    27        Take Michelle Hooker as an example.  I do not know how many
    28        meetings she attended.  I do not know when she attended
    29        them.  The Defendants do.
    30
    31   MS. STEEL:  No, we do not.
    32
    33   MR. RAMPTON:  Because they know who she was.
    34
    35   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Is it not as simple as this:  You say those
    36        people are not officers of your clients.
    37
    38   MR. RAMPTON:  That is right.
    39
    40   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  They are not witnesses whom you are proposing
    41        to call.  There is no reason why you should go searching
    42        for information in relation to them rather than the
    43        Defendants themselves who, after all, are putting this part
    44        of the case forward?
    45
    46   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, that is right.
    47
    48   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is quite regardless of any question of
    49        professional privilege which might arise if Mr. Nicholson
    50        or one of the inquiry agents were asked for information 
    51        when they were in the witness box. 
    52 
    53   MR. RAMPTON:  Or, my Lord, it might be that Barlows had in their
    54        office reports relating to Michelle Hooker or Frances
    55        Tiller.  Then again, subject to the question of legal
    56        professional privilege, which I am certainly not going to
    57        concede in relation to anything to those two ladies, since
    58        I do not proffer them as witnesses and never will, so far
    59        as I know, it is for the Defendants first to raise a case
    60        that anything relevant happened on occasions attended by

Prev Next Index