Day 087 - 10 Feb 95 - Page 24


     
     1        who I am sure they would have categorised most of them as
     2        experts, not independent experts or impartial; but, for
     3        example, to Mr. Walker, and under Mr. Rampton's definition
     4        just now we should have been able to put the Preston
     5        report, which he had not seen, and say, "This is the view
     6        of whoever; these are experts charged with this
     7        responsibility, carrying out their duty".  Now having read
     8        that, is it something you should have seen -----
     9
    10   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You would put it in the way I suggested.  You
    11        would say, "If it were the view of an experienced
    12        environmental health officer that", and then you ask your
    13        question.  The point is otherwise you are merely trying to
    14        read out as if it were evidence, you got back to the bit in
    15        Phipson we had before of an inadmissible document.  The
    16        fact is it is not difficult.  When you actually came to do
    17        it yesterday afternoon, with, I hope, a bit of assistance
    18        from myself, you managed to put all that there was of
    19        relevance to be put to the witness in question.
    20
    21   MR. MORRIS:  But, the thing is, say the Preston report; this is
    22        an official report.  It is the view of the person that made
    23        the report.
    24
    25   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You have already brought in "official report"
    26        again as if that gives it any different status.
    27
    28   MR. MORRIS:  It is a report by ----
    29
    30   MS. STEEL:  It does make a difference though, does it not,
    31        because it is the same as a document published in the
    32        Scientific Journal in effect?
    33
    34   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But the document published in the Scientific
    35        Journal, if exception were taken to it, might well fall
    36        foul of the same problems.  It is just that Mr. Rampton has
    37        not taken objection to that.
    38
    39   MS. STEEL:   Yes, but Mr. Rampton has been using that technique
    40        himself.  When he was cross-examining Ms. Dibb he did put
    41        big chunks to her and he did say things like, "Mr. Brian
    42        Young has changed his mind, has he not; look at this
    43        report?"  He said all kinds of things like that.  What I do
    44        not understand is if you are allowed to do that with
    45        experts, why can you not do it with witnesses of fact?
    46
    47   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  He did that because, as I understand it, you
    48        all agreed that, certainly so far as nutrition is concerned
    49        and as far as advertising is concerned, you should be able
    50        to put expert reports to expert witnesses. 
    51 
    52   MS. STEEL:   I do not know about agreed.  We do not know what 
    53        the rules are.
    54
    55   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That was the practice which was adopted.
    56
    57   MS. STEEL:  That was just because -- I do not want to make
    58        things complicated.
    59
    60   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I do not want to start arguing with you.  It

Prev Next Index