Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 29


     
     1        them unless or until a different approach was shown to be
     2        proper".
     3
     4        So, that would cover experts commenting on a wide range of
     5        documentation that they understand and evaluate.  That also
     6        relates to page 9, at the top of page 9 of submissions,
     7        where he refers to Susanna Hecht referring to matters of
     8        fact.  Obviously, experts can give evidence about matters
     9        of fact relating to their expertise, general fact.
    10
    11        I do not know if this is a legal point or clarification, or
    12        what, but Mr. Rampton said that both Susanna Hecht and Miss
    13        Bramford erred in placing Pontes E Lacerda in Rondonia, but
    14        obviously they are experts and they are quite able to
    15        appreciate the geographic regions; whether it was strictly
    16        within the state borders or not is another matter.  They
    17        consider it part of that geographic region, which is the
    18        important point.  Geographic and bioregion.
    19
    20        It is then Mr. Rampton, on page 10, concludes that the only
    21        direct admissible evidence was from Morganti.  But there
    22        was no indication whatsoever that Morganti was an expert on
    23        anything, and therefore he cannot give any evidence of
    24        opinion and, secondly, he cannot give any hearsay evidence
    25        because we was not called.  It was a Civil Evidence Act
    26        document, and he cannot possibly know how long each ranch,
    27        every ranch, that supplies the abattoirs that supplies his
    28        company, how long they have been established, where they
    29        are.  All that evidence is completely hearsay, we would
    30        say, unless it is used by the Plaintiffs and we can use it
    31        as an admission against interest.
    32
    33        So, I would say the opposite is true, the fact that he has
    34        no direct and admissible evidence to give that is not
    35        clearly within his own knowledge.
    36
    37        Mr. Rampton on page 11, point (iii), says that Professor
    38        Hecht's support for Miss Bramford's largely...  Well, what
    39        he calls Miss Bramford's account of dispossessions in
    40        Northwest Goias is hearsay, but other witnesses have, to
    41        save time, adopted the evidence of a previous witness --
    42        I think, is it Mr. Hawkes?  People have basically said,
    43        'I agree with such and such to save time', and obviously
    44        rather than her write out all the points again she
    45        basically said that she had read and agreed with the
    46        testimony of Miss Bramford, and that is quite a valid
    47        exercise that has been done many times in this case.
    48
    49        Just tying to pick out the most relevant points.  Actually,
    50        the Plaintiffs, on page 20 of that document, undermine
    51        their earlier argument with regard to Fiona Watson's
    52        reliance on the CEDI documents by saying that Mr. Monbiot
    53        could refer to the Portuguese map.  They said there is no
    54        problem of interpretation because he had interpreted the
    55        map.  So, what they are saying is they were not objecting,
    56        but the point is they also make the point there is no
    57        proper interpretation because the witness was able to
    58        interpret the document.
    59
    60        So, there you go.  But if a document from abroad in another

Prev Next Index