Day 087 - 10 Feb 95 - Page 47


     
     1        times of burgers being increased, according to Mr. Wignall
     2        on page 5 of his statement at tab 3 of yellow VII.
     3        Mr. Atherton was asked about this yesterday and he said he
     4        did not think that they had increased further still.  We
     5        all saw the increase in cooking times which had been made
     6        after Preston.  That is a case where I expect the evidence
     7        will be, and even if there were not any more evidence which
     8        there certainly will be from Mrs. Barnes, that is a case
     9        where I would expect that your Lordship could apply the
    10        fallacy post hoc propter hoc and be right about it.  In
    11        other words, if all of sudden a month later cooking times
    12        shoot up by however many seconds it was, I would expect
    13        your Lordship to find that the reason was that they wanted
    14        to prevent any possible future occurrence.  Of course,
    15        there is Keith Kenny as well.
    16
    17        My Lord, I doubt Mr. Wignall was right in what he wrote or
    18        what the solicitor wrote for him.  We will find out in due
    19        course.  If there was a further increase beyond the few
    20        seconds that was made in February 1991, then of course we
    21        will disclose any relevant documents we have.  I suspect it
    22        would turn out that that is in fact a mare's nest and did
    23        not happen.
    24
    25        My Lord, I come to something which is altogether more
    26        serious, more earnest as a question for your Lordship to
    27        consider.  I am presently inclined to think or to suggest
    28        to your Lordship that, so far as documents in the
    29        possession of McKey and Sun Valley are concerned, so long,
    30        as I think I said the other day, they are limited in range
    31        and plainly relevant to the issues which are before your
    32        Lordship such as those seen by Professor Jackson at those
    33        two establishments or samples of microbiological tests that
    34        we do not already have, the right thing for us to do is to
    35        ask Sun Valley and McKey whether they are prepared to
    36        disclose for the purpose of these proceedings, but no other
    37        purpose, a limited range of such documents.
    38
    39   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What Mr. Morris was saying is that Professor
    40        Jackson was clearly shown documents at McKey and Sun
    41        Valley.  We are going to come to Mr. Clark in a moment, but
    42        he said there was a document or documents were shown to him
    43        at Scottish restaurants, the Glasgow restaurant, and he is
    44        asking for discovery of such documents.
    45
    46   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, yes, he is asking for that.  I say two
    47        things about it.  Your Lordship has heard that application
    48        before both in relation to documents seen by Mr. Clark and
    49        by Mr. Jackson.  Your Lordship heard it and rejected it on
    50        21st April 1994 on pages 78 to 80 in respect of both 
    51        gentlemen, Clark and Jackson, taking the view that the 
    52        expert's' own account what he saw in the generality of the 
    53        picture with which he was presented of the operation as a
    54        whole was not necessary, because they would only be samples
    55        of a kind of document and they would not be critical to any
    56        incident that he was investigating.  I will give your
    57        Lordship the lines: page 78, the argument starts at,
    58        roughly speaking, line 9 on page 78 and concludes so far as
    59        Mr. Clark is concerned who had been to the restaurant in
    60        Glasgow at line 3 on page 79, where your Lordship rejected

Prev Next Index