Day 280 - 17 Jul 96 - Page 34


     
     1        Defendants then say, "I want to give a response from
     2        Professor Hecht", and so it would go on.
     3
     4             My Lord, there must come a time when each of the
     5        parties is confined to the evidence which is properly
     6        adduced by them within a reasonable timescale.  This
     7        statement should have been served on us at a time when we
     8        had a proper opportunity to respond to it.  Since it
     9        corroborates evidence given in May, the 10th and the 17th,
    10        on the one hand it contradicts and on the other it
    11        corroborates, that would have been the proper time to have
    12        served it.  Before the end of May, let us say, which would
    13        have given me at least some chance of being able to respond
    14        to it.
    15
    16             That leaves aside any comments I might have in due
    17        course if it were admitted as to its weight, absent
    18        cross-examination and as to the obvious possibility that it
    19        contains what might be thought to be second hand
    20        information.  And although Professor Hecht is plainly an
    21        expert, an expert is in no better a position when it comes
    22        to hearsay than an ordinary witness of fact, if the hearsay
    23        is not part of the learning of the expert but is hearsay
    24        account of primary facts, and your Lordship will remember
    25        those authorities that I cited much earlier in this case
    26        that the evidence of experts is inadmissible unless the
    27        primary facts are proved, whatever opinion they may have
    28        and however distinguished they may be.
    29
    30             But I leave that on one side.  For the present purpose
    31        that would come later on if your Lordship thought it right
    32        to admit this statement.  My principal objection is that
    33        unless I am given the time to answer it, it puts my clients
    34        at an irrecoverable disadvantage in the conduct of this
    35        litigation because I do not have the opportunity to answer
    36        it, given simply its lateness.  Whose fault that is matters
    37        not a bit.  It may well be Professor Hecht's for all I
    38        know, but the fact is the chronology makes my conduct of
    39        this case, in this particular respect, very difficult.
    40
    41   MR. MORRIS:  It is true that this is a statement responding to
    42        the Morganti statements, assertions, and that is
    43        effectively what it is.  And Mr. Rampton says we are now
    44        coming close to the portcullis, and I think we are aware of
    45        that, which is why this was served at the earliest possible
    46        opportunity, which was on the 10th July.  The Plaintiffs
    47        raised an entirely new issue with the fifth statement of
    48        Morganti.
    49
    50   MR. RAMPTON:  I am sorry, no, Mr. Morris.
    51
    52   MR. MORRIS:  Which I found--
    53
    54   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, that is simply not right.  Mr. Morganti's
    55        fourth statement was produced at your Lordship's invitation
    56        to know where the collection points in Goias might be.
    57
    58   MR. MORRIS:  If I can allowed to continue, I was talking about
    59        his fifth statement and I stated as much.  That his fifth
    60        statement introduced a confounding variable, if you like,

Prev Next Index