Day 086 - 09 Feb 95 - Page 57


     
     1   Q.   You are not aware of that?
     2        A.  No.
     3
     4   Q.   Do you think that is something you ought to be made aware
     5        of in the position you are in?
     6        A.  No.  The historical cases like this I do not think
     7        I need to be too concerned with.
     8
     9   Q.   So does that mean you do not get to hear about any
    10        incidents where the company is in court in relation to, you
    11        know, your area?
    12        A.  Now I would do but in 1991, no.  The bank of knowledge
    13        and history of all that is with Jill Barnes and the health
    14        and safety department.  I did not get a potted history of
    15        any court cases and things like that had happened before,
    16        although I am very current, know all about the procedures
    17        and food safety at this moment in time.
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I think the gist of what has been put to you
    20        is, do you get any kind of information about prosecutions
    21        or complaints which have been made, any collation of it so
    22        that you can look at it and say, "I wonder if we are bit
    23        below par in that area", and so on?
    24        A.  Since I took this new position David Wignall has been
    25        handling cases.  It is his area of expertise along with
    26        Keith Kenny.  Some of the cases that came up David would
    27        talk to me about.  The rest of the time they would handle
    28        them between themselves.  Jill Barnes possibly was
    29        involved, but it is mainly Keith and David because they
    30        have the time and the experience of preparing for cases and
    31        standing in court.  David would give us an update.  If he
    32        was going to a court hearing he would tell me how it went.
    33        My understanding of the situation was that in all the ones
    34        he had attended, I think it was eight, we had won all of
    35        them.  That was the limit of my knowledge in that area,
    36        that there were not too many cases that were being -- it is
    37        not as if every week we were in court over something or
    38        other.  In David's summary before he left I think he
    39        detailed, he was quite proud of the fact they had been in
    40        court eight times over a long period of time for McDonald's
    41        every case he had been in concerning food safety we had won
    42        the case.
    43
    44   Q.   How long had he been in that position?
    45        A.  David?
    46
    47   Q.   Yes.
    48        A.  I guess he had been handling cases for us for three to
    49        four years.
    50 
    51   Q.   Three to four years? 
    52        A.  I guess so, yes. 
    53
    54   Q.   He told that you every case that you had been involved with
    55        you had been acquitted?
    56        A.  Of the ones he had been involved in that we had won,
    57        that was his parlance, that is how he put it.  It is one of
    58        his -----
    59
    60   Q.   So were there other ones he was not involved in?

Prev Next Index