Day 280 - 17 Jul 96 - Page 32
1 whether, even if those things were said actual
2 cross-examination of the federal meat inspectors, and so on
3 and so forth, absent contradictory proof from our side,
4 whether this is a particularly important issue, but that is
5 a matter for your Lordship, really. I do not want to be --
6 I will be quite honest -- I do not want to be faced at this
7 time in the case with having to -- I cannot remember how
8 old the events are which Miss Clauphine Carston deals with,
9 but I do not want to be, to have to be faced at this stage
10 in the case with having to find evidence to contradict what
11 so far as been an inadmissible case. That is really what
12 it amounts to.
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
15
16 MR. RAMPTON: If I said it would not be right and fair I should
17 do, that is what I mean by that.
18
19 MR. MORRIS: We have not disputed the Plaintiffs should have the
20 opportunity to call evidence contradicting. We are suggest
21 ing that, as has already been said, that it is a question
22 of proving documents whose admissibility may be in question
23 for whatever reason and that she would only just say, this
24 is what I was told, yes, yes, yes and, yes, and there would
25 not be any cross-examination.
26
27 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I would have thought there would be an awful
28 lot of cross-examination as to exactly who it was and what
29 else was said and who else might have been present at the
30 time it was said.
31
32 MR. MORRIS: Right, but purely in terms of what was told to her
33 that we are relying on. We have relied on the facts in
34 this statement since the pleadings were served. The facts
35 in the newspaper article which is pleaded in our pleadings,
36 and there was every possibility that we might actually call
37 the person that did the article. Or, indeed, any of the
38 people from the supply plants and the Plaintiffs chose not
39 to, you know, to bring any evidence to counter that or
40 whatever. And, in fact, the Plaintiffs had an opportunity
41 to deal with some of the matters through the questioning of
42 Doctor Gonzales. So, I think we have fairly put it to
43 their witness and that therefore, strictly, that the
44 bringing the witness to Court would be purely on proof on
45 its admissibility, whether or not she was said those things
46 by those people. So, I think the questioning can be
47 limited around it. That is all, really.
48
49 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
50
51 (Ruling followed -- see separate transcript)
52
53 Now, do you want to deal with the question of
54 Professor Hecht and her statement?
55
56 MR. RAMPTON: I ought to deal with that since I object to it.
57 The reason is simply this. It is a question of timing.
58 Can I remind your Lordship of some of the chronology? I do
59 not know if your Lordship has had a chance to look at this
60 new statement.
