Day 087 - 10 Feb 95 - Page 25
1 is not for me to argue with you. I cannot keep saying it
2 again and again and then you stand up and say, "Why does
3 this happen?", because I find myself arguing with you and I
4 do not want to argue with one side or the other. I have
5 done my best to explain its status. If you want to move on
6 to something else, go away and take advice on this, or see
7 what is on the transcript and think about it again. By all
8 means, do so.
9
10 Whether it is right or not, I am not going to offer an
11 opinion, but the suspicion of McDonald's is that you just
12 want to read out so it is on the transcript, and it will
13 then receive a certain amount of publication, matters which
14 are not admissible. If they take that objection -- I am
15 not concerned as to whether their suspicions are well
16 founded or not -- if they take that objection, I have got
17 to rule on it, which is what has led to this debate
18 altogether.
19
20 I have tried to say you are not, in fact, handicapped by
21 following the procedure. If you had an expert in the
22 witness box you could say, "If it were the view of an
23 experienced environmental health officer that a particular
24 outbreak of E.coli food poisoning had been caused by
25 contamination between uncooked and cooked chicken because
26 of this procedure going on in a restaurant, would you
27 accept that?" Then you might get acceptance or you might
28 get the kind of answer you got from Mr. Atherton yesterday,
29 saying, "No, because of our temperature control and the
30 fact that the uncooked item is so cold", and so on.
31
32 There is absolutely no advantage to you in just reading out
33 the document. You could do it in another way.
34
35 MR. MORRIS: The thing is, this is the view of an environmental
36 health officer.
37
38 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That takes us right back to the position we
39 were in beforehand with Civil Evidence Act. We have now
40 gone full circle. We are back to your Civil Evidence Act
41 notices. By all means put a Civil Evidence Act notice on
42 that. What is the name of the person concerned?
43
44 MR. MORRIS: The Preston one is Dr. Marshall, Roberta Marshall.
45
46 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Dr. Roberta Marshall. You have then got to
47 wait and see whether you get a counter notice within 21
48 days. The document itself has not become admissible.
49
50 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, might I say something? It is troubling
51 me. It is all very well to put a counter notice on Roberta
52 Marshall. I cannot stop that. But, as your Lordship
53 knows, my objection to that document is on grounds of
54 relevance. Unless and until I have your Lordship's ruling
55 on the relevance of that evidence, suppose it were
56 admitted, I cannot usefully decide whether to serve a
57 counter notice.
58
59 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have, rightly or wrongly, seen fit to give
60 the Defendants an opportunity to consider whether they want
