Day 309 - 03 Dec 96 - Page 31


     
     1   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I would be grateful if at some stage you or
     2        Mr. Atkinson could give me a reference.
     3
     4   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes, we will.  So far as the actual document was
     5        concerned, it only states the grill temperatures.  It does
     6        not state in the Operations Manual, so far as I can tell,
     7        what the internal temperature should be.  But there
     8        certainly was evidence about it.
     9
    10   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  There was evidence of a stage where it said
    11        that, in effect, the view was taken, though what matters at
    12        the end of the day is what the temperature is in the middle
    13        of the patty, and so we go over to that.  Obviously, you
    14        have to have your grills at a certain temperature and you
    15        have to have your patties cooked for a certain period of
    16        time, but the ultimate test is no longer so many seconds at
    17        such and such a temperature, it is what the temperature in
    18        the middle of the patty is.  I understand that, but I have
    19        forgotten just what the standard was before that switch of
    20        approach was made.
    21
    22   MR. RAMPTON:  I have too, and I am not going to attempt it.  It
    23        is somewhere near 70, either 70 or 72, I think.  I am not
    24        at all sure.  I will ask Mr. Atkinson to find it.  It will
    25        not take very long.  I apologise for having brushed rather
    26        lightly over some of the detailed technical evidence about
    27        food poisoning.  The reason for that is that really, on the
    28        case as presented through the evidence of Mr. North, the
    29        risk is not negligible because no sane food retailer would
    30        neglect the risk, but it really is so slight that spending
    31        a long time, a lot of paper and many hours hacking over the
    32        difference between one degree and another, probably,
    33        I thought (maybe wrongly) would not actually be a very
    34        useful way of spending time.
    35
    36   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  Thank you.  Then page 15, residues,
    37        really comes back to what I was asking you not so long
    38        ago.  At 6(3), you say "may squeeze into the case
    39        under...."
    40
    41   MR. RAMPTON:  I am not prepared to argue that it is totally
    42        irrelevant.  It is in the leaflet.  Your Lordship would be
    43        entitled to think -- and I would not, I dare say, go to the
    44        Court of Appeal if I disagreed -- that what is in that box,
    45        although I, myself, believe that the one is a much more
    46        serious allegation than the other, the two allegations are
    47        broadly related; they are two strands of a common theme.
    48
    49   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  All this is quite apart from whether the
    50        evidence comes anywhere near proving any kind of risk. 
    51 
    52   MR. RAMPTON:  Of course.  In this section, I have to say, apart 
    53        from meaning (which obviously is a serious matter), in this
    54        section I am bound to say it has appeared to me that the
    55        evidence of Mr. North on food poisoning is conclusive in
    56        the Plaintiffs' favour and his evidence on residues is
    57        inadmissible because it is hearsay, and that is the end of
    58        it -- which is why it is quite a short section.
    59
    60   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  Thank you.  Advertising, divider 2, was

Prev Next Index