Day 067 - 15 Dec 94 - Page 41
1 directly related to their slaughter rather than back on the
2 farm or the rearing or anything else.
3
4 THE WITNESS: If I may, it extends to all areas. They have
5 been -----
6
7 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It does not on what I have read here, you
8 see.
9 A. It probably does not say that, but people have been
10 found guilty of mistreating the animals when they are in
11 the farm, when they are left unattended without food or
12 water, and people have been found guilty of maltreatment of
13 animals, of their own pets, cats, dogs, birds. So, it does
14 apply to animals and it goes to the farm.
15
16 I must add, however, that at McDonald's, to the best of my
17 knowledge and from what I have heard seen or discussed
18 within McDonald's and outside of McDonald's, McDonald's has
19 never been found guilty of violating any of the
20 fractions(?) or anything related to the Humane Slaughter
21 Act.
22
23 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Mr. Rampton, I do not want to get bogged down
24 on this, but I cannot help noticing that there is a
25 reference in paragraph 3, on page 4, to the Committee on
26 Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry which said: "It is the
27 Committee's intent that handling in connection with
28 slaughter be interpreted by the Secretary to begin at the
29 time the livestock come into the custody of the
30 slaughtering establishment, up to and including the moment
31 of slaughter". So, that is the handling. Then we get the
32 slaughter.
33
34 I am not casting any doubt on Dr. Gomez Gonzalez's good
35 faith. What I will say is that, as presently inclined,
36 I will have to see the Act and the appropriate provisions
37 of the Act or any code of practice related to it before
38 I can come anywhere near being persuaded that it covers
39 anything which happens before the points I have just
40 referred to.
41
42 MR. RAMPTON: I quite agree with that, if I may say so, my Lord.
43 It is probably some different statute. If I need to defend
44 Dr. Gomez Gonzalez (which I do not think I do) what I would
45 say is he is not a lawyer.
46
47 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No.
48
49 MR. RAMPTON: What one does notice about this is that it is in
50 very broad terms. What we must look to see, if we can
51 find, I think, if your Lordship agrees, is a code of
52 practice which may have been promulgated by the Department
53 of Agriculture in the same way as it has been here.
54
55 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. Ms. Steel and Mr. Morris, the position
56 you are in at the moment is that nothing has been produced
57 which goes beyond a statutory provision in very general
58 terms relating to handling as defined there and actual
59 slaughter itself. So, I suggest that you carry on with
60 your cross-examination with that in mind.
