Day 107 - 24 Mar 95 - Page 11


     
     1        A.  I cannot express surprise.
     2
     3   Q.   Why can you not express surprise?
     4        A.  Simply, a manual system, i.e. a system run by human
     5        beings and, largely, a manual cooking process like that is
     6        bound to have a failure rate.  Ergo, that is evidence of
     7        the failure rate.  In terms of implications, that clearly
     8        demonstrates that on occasions there have been potential
     9        food safety risks which have not been contained or dealt
    10        with by the system.
    11
    12   Q.   If we could go on to the Preston food poisoning incident --
    13        actually, I have some notes that Mr. North made on the copy
    14        of that.  If I can give that to the witness, he can refer
    15        to his own notes?
    16
    17   MR. RAMPTON:  I am not sure about this, my Lord.  I have
    18        admitted everything that has been pleaded in relation to
    19        this.
    20
    21   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  At the moment you have not got anywhere near
    22        getting the PHLS report in.
    23
    24   MR. RAMPTON:  Not anywhere near it.
    25
    26   MR. MORRIS:  If Mr. North wants to draw some conclusions -----
    27
    28   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  He cannot, because it is not at the moment an
    29        admissible document.
    30
    31   MR. MORRIS:  Yes, but the point is, for a start, some of it has
    32        already been referred to in open court; secondly, even
    33        though it has been admitted by the Plaintiffs, our witness
    34        has a right to draw conclusions or look at matters
    35        surrounding the incidents as regards to the -----
    36
    37   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No.
    38
    39   MR. MORRIS:  Thirdly, it is a scientific document which has
    40        expert  -----
    41
    42   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That does not matter.  You have either got
    43        the evidence from which to draw a conclusion or not.  We
    44        went through all this before.  Since then there has been an
    45        admission of what you alleged in addition to what you
    46        previously had, correct me if I am wrong, but that is how
    47        I understand it.  I cannot say more than I have previously
    48        said.  Have you actually given a Civil Evidence Act Notice
    49        in relation to the maker of the report so that we could see
    50        if there was a counter notice and it would come in that 
    51        way? 
    52 
    53   MS. STEEL:  I think we served a Civil Evidence Act Notice and
    54        the Plaintiffs have not actually objected to this before.
    55        I remember them objecting to the Health & Safety Executive
    56        before.
    57
    58   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I remember there was some matter of it.  The
    59        whole question of counter notice was put over until the
    60        matter of the admissions and whether it was admissible at

Prev Next Index