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
