Day 046 - 04 Nov 94 - Page 82


     
     1
     2   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, I appreciate that.
     3
     4   MR. RAMPTON:  That is why I do not want to do it until I know
     5        what she is relying on, because it may well be there is a
     6        coincidence.
     7
     8   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am not very attracted by it.  You might be
     9        right that one is entitled to do it, but I have to say I am
    10        not very attracted by it.
    11
    12   MR. RAMPTON:  May I say for once in this trial it is the first
    13        time.  I think I am entitled to do it.  For once I might
    14        risk incurring judicial displeasure by, if I am right,
    15        standing on my strict rights in this particular instance.
    16
    17   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, very well.  I have to confess you are
    18        talking to someone who has very firm views that we are
    19        extremely backward about disclosure generally in relation
    20        to expert reports and references.
    21
    22   MR. RAMPTON:  I know we are.
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But I must follow the law as it is.
    25
    26   MR. RAMPTON:  I have never heard of a case in which counsel for
    27        one side is obliged to give prior notice to counsel for the
    28        other side of those amongst the references upon which the
    29        other side's witness is going to rely, he, the counsel, is
    30        going to refer to in cross-examination.
    31
    32   MR. MORRIS:  It is not strictly ----
    33
    34   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I accept that, but in the normal sort of case
    35        all possible references are bundled up in advance.  Even in
    36        the best conducted cases you then find that some have been
    37        produced in dribs and drabs during the trial, but that is
    38        the general situation.
    39
    40   MR. RAMPTON:  That is the point, if I may say so, because the
    41        counsel who is calling the witness cannot tell by looking
    42        through the haystack that constitutes the bundle which are
    43        the references or even sentences within the references on
    44        which his opponent is going to rely in cross-examination.
    45        Nor, according to our rules which your Lordship may be
    46        right in an ideal world are far too adversarial, but there
    47        it is, nor, according to our rules is any obligation on the
    48        cross-examining counsel to give prior notice of which of
    49        the reports amongst the enemy's bundle he is going to rely
    50        on. 
    51 
    52        I do not see why, just because these two Defendants are 
    53        unrepresented, I should be in any worse position then I
    54        would be they were represented.  I already labour under the
    55        burden of what I call last military.  There are reasons for
    56        that and it is not a criticism, but it is a miserable fact
    57        of life so far as conduct of litigation on this side of the
    58        court is concerned.  It is bad enough having to cope with a
    59        new document as you are trying to listen to the witness at
    60        the same time.  What I do not want to be compelled to do

Prev Next Index