Day 135 - 15 Jun 95 - Page 22
1
2 My Lord, in those circumstances, we should have notice of
3 what those allegations are going to be because, of course,
4 there is no mention of any such people or any such
5 allegations in Mr. Sutcliffe's written statement.
6
7 There is no tearing hurry about it because the probability
8 is that Mr. Sutcliffe will not be giving evidence until
9 sometime in the autumn. The other thing I would like to
10 mention is this. I apologise for laughing earlier, but
11 Mrs. Brinley-Codd tells me that her mice ate the bag in
12 which the mouse traps were kept which is why I was
13 laughing.
14
15 MR. JUSTICE BELL: There we are.
16
17 MR. MORRIS: If Mr. Rampton thinks it is funny that mice should
18 be in a food store for two weeks without action being taken
19 ......
20
21 MR. JUSTICE BELL: We will wait to see how serious it is when we
22 have heard all the evidence.
23
24 In relation to what Mr. Rampton has said, it is inevitable
25 in any litigation that there will be a bit of slippage to
26 this extent, but when someone is called they will mention
27 something which no-one has had notice of at all. If and
28 when you do actually see a potential witness before that
29 witness is called (and today is a good example, since
30 Mr. Sutcliffe is here), if it becomes apparent to you that
31 the witness, for instance, Mr. Sutcliffe, can give
32 additional evidence to what appears in his statement which
33 you consider to be relevant and, therefore, you would wish
34 to ask him about, make a note of it.
35
36 If Mr. Sutcliffe or any other witness gives you some
37 further detail, whether it is by identifying someone by
38 name, or closer description, or giving some extra colour to
39 an incident which is already spoken to in a statement which
40 would enable someone, perhaps, to remember that which they
41 might not remember just from the limited detail in a
42 statement, make a note of that and give Barlows notice of
43 it.
44
45 I would guess that all Barlows need is Mr. Peter Sutcliffe
46 and then a summary of what you have been told. There are
47 two reasons for that. First of all, you should do it
48 anyway in accordance with the directions which were given
49 so long ago about disclosure of evidence; but the second
50 reason is this, if you do not do it and then the evidence
51 comes out anyway, McDonald's may be put to asking to call
52 someone to deal with it and that will slow the proceedings
53 down even further and take up more time.
54
55 MR. MORRIS: Can I just say, one point is, of course, all
56 McDonald's witnesses, including the last one today, have
57 brought in new information not in their statement,
58 including this one today about conditions at Romford.
59 Secondly, McDonald's or Barlow Lyde and Gilbert wrote to us
60 a letter in which they claimed -- I wish I had the direct
