Day 280 - 17 Jul 96 - Page 26
1 complete contradiction, which is that you are allowed to
2 put Civil Evidence Act notices on oral statements,
3 documents and otherwise, and yet the part in section 3
4 where--
5
6 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Do you have a page reference?
7
8 MS. STEEL: Yes, sorry, it is page 1096.
9
10 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, that is inclusive of 1096.
11
12 MS. STEEL: It is 1836 in the White Book I think?
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
15
16 MS. STEEL: It is just that section 2.1 say that you can
17 effectively put Civil Evidence Act notices on oral
18 statements as well documents "and otherwise", as it says.
19 And then the Plaintiffs raised the section 3, which I have
20 taken as how they explained it to be just does appear to be
21 in direct contradiction with the paragraph 2.1.
22
23 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Well, I do not think it is, because 2.1 says.
24 "Subject to this section" and 2.3 is part of the section,
25 so anything said in 2.1 is subject to any restriction in
26 2.3.
27
28 MS. STEEL: I understand that, but what was the point in saying
29 you can put a Civil Evidence Act notice on something if you
30 are then going to turn around and say "No, you cannot."
31
32 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I am sorry. Statute after statute says
33 that. It says something in a primary provision which is
34 then restricted in various ways by something which follows
35 very soon afterwards, hence the words "subject to this
36 section."
37
38 MS. STEEL: I understand that but, for example, you know, in
39 section 3, it says "no evidence other than direct oral
40 evidence by the person who made the statement..." and so
41 on.
42
43 MR. JUSTICE BELL: "Or any person..."
44
45 MS. STEEL: Yes, "... shall be admissible for the purposes of
46 proving it." If you are calling the person to give
47 evidence, there is no point in a Civil Evidence Act
48 notice.
49
50 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is because you may want to adduce
51 evidence that he said it on a previous occasion. It may
52 add consistency that he has said the same thing, or it may
53 have some detail that he has not actually adduced in his
54 own evidence and then the statement which he actually made
55 at the time actually comes in evidence itself, provided
56 that it is proved by his direct oral evidence.
57
58 MS. STEEL: But what is the point because he has got to adduce
59 that evidence and therefore it negates the whole purpose of
60 the Civil Evidence Act notice.
