Day 205 - 17 Jan 96 - Page 42


     
     1        simple as Mr. Morris thinks it is or as, indeed, any layman
     2        might be forgiven for thinking it is.  Verification of the
     3        out of court hearsay statement is necessary (as I have
     4        understood that, and the interpretation which it gives to
     5        Ventouris and Mountain No. 6, I think it is, although it
     6        might be No. 2) before the statement can be made.
     7
     8   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, I will look at that again.
     9
    10   MR. RAMPTON:  Authentication, perhaps, is a better way of
    11        putting it.  One cannot just put in a newspaper cutting.
    12        Beyond that, as I say, is the difficult question or less
    13        difficult question of relevance in any event.  Further than
    14        that -- this is not necessarily going to be an easy
    15        argument at all -- unless there is some relevant pleading
    16        to which the video tape can be related, then the video tape
    17        itself is not disclosable.
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, we will have to see about that.
    20
    21   MR. MORRIS:  So far as authentication is concerned, I am acting
    22        under the general impression that documents which are
    23        served and then not challenged as authentic are deemed to
    24        be accepted to be authentic.  If the Plaintiffs want to say
    25        that we invented an edition of the Wall Street Journal,
    26        then let them say so.
    27
    28   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, can I explain what I mean so the
    29        Defendants realise that it is the difficulty they face?  By
    30        authentication or verification, I do not mean that they
    31        have to prove that this is an article from the Wall Street
    32        Journal -- we can see that for ourselves and I would not
    33        dream of challenging that -- what they have to prove is
    34        that Mr. Rensi said the things that are reported in the
    35        newspaper article before ever those statements can be
    36        admitted.
    37
    38   MR. MORRIS:  I think Mr. Rampton ought to show us the law and
    39        the authorities on that.
    40
    41   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is what he is proposing to do, I think,
    42        but on Monday.
    43
    44   MS. STEEL:   Can I just ask the case he referred to, is that one
    45        that we have been given a copy of already?
    46
    47   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It was the one that was referred to in the
    48        argument, I think, in relation to admissions.  Was it that
    49        one?
    50 
    51   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes, it may have been that one, my Lord.  Its name 
    52        is Brinks.  It is last year, 1995.  The judge was 
    53        Mr. Justice Rimer who heard the case in the Chancery
    54        Division.  I am afraid I cannot remember the date or the
    55        reference offhand.
    56
    57   MS. STEEL:  Can you spell the name of the Judge?
    58
    59   MR. RAMPTON:  B-R-I-N-K-S.  R-I-M-E-R.  It is in the Chancery
    60        Division and by that route it is possible to find it.

Prev Next Index