Day 242 - 29 Apr 96 - Page 45


     
     1        I am not particularly bothered about asking Mr. Crawford.
     2        I think Helen might be slightly different on this one point
     3        about whether we examine-in-chief Professor Crawford or
     4        not.  I have every confidence in his evidence and his
     5        ability to deal with any cross-examination Mr. Rampton
     6        might bring up that is relevant to the issues in the case.
     7        That is all I have to say.
     8
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Thank you.
    10
    11   MS. STEEL:  I have a few points on the heart disease issue.
    12
    13        As Dave said, McDonald's, or Mr. Rampton on their behalf,
    14        said that their admission had removed an issue from the
    15        case.  Now it appears that Mr. Rampton is trying to say
    16        that that was because they have admitted what we had
    17        pleaded but, as Mr. Rampton is well aware, if that was as
    18        far as the admission went, that would not remove an issue
    19        from the case.
    20
    21        Could I quote from Mr. Rampton from the transcript of 21st
    22        November 1994, on page 55 where you were asking him about
    23        finding some middle of the road meaning and he said:
    24
    25        "By reason of what the Court of Appeal decided in Slim v
    26        Daily Telegraph, the defendant must necessarily be allowed
    27        to try to justify any meaning from the meaning pleaded by
    28        the Plaintiffs downwards".
    29
    30        Therefore, merely admitting our pleading, unless it was the
    31        same as the Plaintiffs' pleading, would not remove an
    32        issue.  Mr. Rampton has frequently said during the course
    33        of argument that the issue of heart disease has been
    34        removed from the case, the issue of diet and heart disease
    35        has been removed from the case.
    36
    37        On Day 22 of the trial, and I will try and find what day
    38        that is.  It is 12th September 1994.  Mr. Rampton was
    39        raising about whether or not Professor Crawford and other
    40        of our witnesses should be allowed to give evidence.  He
    41        said in relation to Professor Crawford:
    42
    43        "If he has no relevant evidence to give because he deals
    44        with the cardiological implications of diet and that alone,
    45        then time could be saved by not calling him."
    46
    47        It is clear there that Professor Crawford does deal with
    48        the cardiological implications of diet and obviously that
    49        would include the extent of any risk, that as far as
    50        Mr. Rampton, on behalf of the Plaintiffs was concerned, 
    51        there was no issue at all in relation to diet and heart 
    52        disease, no issue in relation to the type of link, whether 
    53        or not it was a causal nature, the extent of any risk, and
    54        anything like that.  None of those were considered by the
    55        Plaintiffs to be something that were in issue because they
    56        had made their admission.
    57
    58        "If an issue has been removed because of an admission, then
    59        it could not come back in if the meaning which has been
    60        found to be attributed to the words in the leaflet is a

Prev Next Index