Day 019 - 27 Jul 94 - Page 80


     
     1        bundles?
 
     2   MR. RAMPTON:  He tells me the pig brochure was the only thing
              because, as it happened, we only had four copies of the
     3        pig brochure.  I think I have one in the boot of my car
              and I will try to find it.
     4
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  He is as confident as he can be, in a case
     5        like this where there are so many documents and obviously
              error is bound to occur from time to time, that the
     6        defendants have everything I have and everything you have
              in your trial bundles.
     7
         MR. RAMPTON:  I am not saying error cannot occur, of course it
     8        can, but I believe he is confident they have, yes.
 
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  In my view, you ought to be satisfied with
              that at the moment.  If we have occasions in the future
    10        where a document is referred to which turns out to be in
              the plaintiffs' bundle or my bundle, but not in yours, we
    11        may have to explore the matter further and see what we can
              do about that.
    12
         MR. MORRIS:  You said that you wanted to discuss the additives,
    13        Mr. Wheelock and additives.
 
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I will say again what I was saying this
              morning.  Not long after, or some time after you began to
    15        cross-examine Professor Wheelock about additives, it was
              suggested that your cross-examination on that topic might
    16        be better directed at Professor Walker because he was the
              additives specialist.  That attracted me, and as a result
    17        of what Mr. Rampton said I made a note in my notebook
              that, so far as additives are concerned, I can put
    18        Professor Wheelock's evidence aside, and concentrate on
              Professor Walker.
    19
              Since I wrote that note, it occurs to me that that may not
    20        be right, because Professor Wheelock was -- he dealt in
              his statement with additives generally, but he
    21        specifically, in his verbal evidence, spoke about the
              necessity or benefit of additives in certain
    22        circumstances.
 
    23        It seems to me that the plaintiffs are still relying on
              that part of the evidence, his evidence.  Where they do
    24        not rely on his evidence but will be relying upon the
              evidence of Professor Walker in relation to additives, is
    25        as to whether they do us any harm if we ingest them in the
              proportions in which they are found in food, and, more 
    26        particularly, McDonald's food. 
  
    27        So you reserve cross-examination on toxicity for Professor
              Walker, but if there was anything which you meant to
    28        challenge in Professor Wheelock's evidence about whether
              they were necessary or a positively good thing, you should
    29        deal with that.  You can probably do it quite shortly.
 
    30   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
 

Prev Next Index