Day 280 - 17 Jul 96 - Page 26


     
     1        complete contradiction, which is that you are allowed to
     2        put Civil Evidence Act notices on oral statements,
     3        documents and otherwise, and yet the part in section 3
     4        where--
     5
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Do you have a page reference?
     7
     8   MS. STEEL:  Yes, sorry, it is page 1096.
     9
    10   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, that is inclusive of 1096.
    11
    12   MS. STEEL:  It is 1836 in the White Book I think?
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.
    15
    16   MS. STEEL:  It is just that section 2.1 say that you can
    17        effectively put Civil Evidence Act notices on oral
    18        statements as well documents "and otherwise", as it says.
    19        And then the Plaintiffs raised the section 3, which I have
    20        taken as how they explained it to be just does appear to be
    21        in direct contradiction with the paragraph 2.1.
    22
    23   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Well, I do not think it is, because 2.1 says.
    24        "Subject to this section" and 2.3 is part of the section,
    25        so anything said in 2.1 is subject to any restriction in
    26        2.3.
    27
    28   MS. STEEL:  I understand that, but what was the point in saying
    29        you can put a Civil Evidence Act notice on something if you
    30        are then going to turn around and say "No, you cannot."
    31
    32   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   I am sorry.  Statute after statute says
    33        that.  It says something in a primary provision which is
    34        then restricted in various ways by something which follows
    35        very soon afterwards, hence the words "subject to this
    36        section."
    37
    38   MS. STEEL:  I understand that but, for example, you know, in
    39        section 3, it says "no evidence other than direct oral
    40        evidence by the person who made the statement..."  and so
    41        on.
    42
    43   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  "Or any person..."
    44
    45   MS. STEEL:  Yes, "... shall be admissible for the purposes of
    46        proving it."  If you are calling the person to give
    47        evidence, there is no point in a Civil Evidence Act
    48        notice.
    49
    50   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is because you may want to adduce
    51        evidence that he said it on a previous occasion.  It may
    52        add consistency that he has said the same thing, or it may
    53        have some detail that he has not actually adduced in his
    54        own evidence and then the statement which he actually made
    55        at the time actually comes in evidence itself, provided
    56        that it is proved by his direct oral evidence.
    57
    58   MS. STEEL:  But what is the point because he has got to adduce
    59        that evidence and therefore it negates the whole purpose of
    60        the Civil Evidence Act notice.

Prev Next Index