Day 157 - 18 Jul 95 - Page 13


     
     1        The Plaintiffs must know that we are unable to take such
     2        necessary notes, and the effect will be if we do not have
     3        the transcripts (and there is absolutely no reason why
     4        McDonald's should impose conditions without any basis in
     5        their so-called undertaking they have sought) to slow the
     6        case down and to increase the costs in the case and to
     7        undermine our effective defence of the action.
     8
     9        I am trying to put our whole case here and then refer to
    10        the specific authorities in detail.  I am going to show
    11        also a copy of the notes that I made last Friday as an
    12        example of the kind of notes that we may or may not be able
    13        to make if we do not have transcripts.
    14
    15        Mr. Rampton also said, when arguing about the transcript
    16        issue, that on day 147, page 30, line 40:  "In some senses
    17        it is not a difficult case."   But the Plaintiffs were
    18        arguing that the case was so complex that a jury would not
    19        be able to adjudicate or follow all the evidence.  In the
    20        light of that decision which has been made and we are
    21        having to accept, then he cannot argue the converse in
    22        order to say that taking notes will be a simple matter and
    23        checking up on things would be a simple matter.
    24
    25   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Can I put something to you in relation to
    26        that?
    27
    28   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It was not quite as simple as being so
    31        complex that a jury could not understand.  If you go back
    32        to the reasons which I gave for saying that it should be
    33        tried by judge alone rather than jury, it was specifically
    34        directed at medical issues, in particular, and you will
    35        remember I specifically said that I was not adopting the
    36        concept that I was more intelligent than a jury, but I did
    37        have the advantage of being able to take the bundles of
    38        documents away with me and read all the medical literature
    39        and I could go back to it time and time again, which a jury
    40        sitting in the jury box, seeing only the bundles when they
    41        were invited to refer to a document in the course of the
    42        case, could not do.
    43
    44        So it was not quite as simple as just being so complex that
    45        a jury could not understand it.  You have the advantage of
    46        your copy bundles; you can read the documents as much as
    47        you want.  That is the first point.
    48
    49        The second point is that, although (and I mention these
    50        only so that you can deal with them) we may come back to 
    51        medical evidence in the future, query, to what extent they 
    52        will be recalled, it occurs to me and, therefore, I would 
    53        like you to turn your minds to it, that we have really had
    54        nearly all the evidence on the complex scientific or
    55        medical aspects.  It is a point I partly made in my ruling
    56        on 4th July.  If you look at the witnesses who are to come,
    57        they are largely witnesses, or almost entirely witnesses,
    58        of fact that you would find in any ordinary witness action
    59        in any of the courtrooms around the building.
    60

Prev Next Index