Day 200 - 12 Dec 95 - Page 26


     
     1        have moved.
     2
     3   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I did not see an admission in this case which
     4        removed an issue which was really at the heart of what I
     5        had to decide.
     6
     7   MS. STEEL:  The Plaintiffs did not want us to call any evidence
     8        on heart disease whatsoever.  They said that we should not
     9        call Mr. Brown, for example and they did not want
    10        Mr. Crawford to give evidence on heart disease; they said
    11        it was not necessary because they had admitted that issue.
    12
    13   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You have to get to grips with the situation.
    14        That is all water under the bridge.  This is your
    15        opportunity to decide which evidence you want to call.
    16        What I am trying to do is get you to focus on the fact you
    17        have to make that decision, and it is no use having
    18        recriminations about what has happened in the past.
    19
    20   MR. MORRIS:  No.
    21
    22   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Quite frankly, if you have recriminations
    23        about what has happened in the past, you are going to take
    24        your eye off the ball of what you must do in the future.
    25
    26   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  The reason I said what I said about the
    27        meaning is because Mr. Rampton, we believe successfully, is
    28        always trying to move the goal posts on what this meaning
    29        means because, as you have said, you are not willing to
    30        make any clarification.  That is fine, but Mr. Rampton has
    31        already put his oar in about what he thinks your meaning
    32        says.  No doubt at the end of the case we will hear that
    33        again.
    34
    35        I would accept that under your meaning the frequency of
    36        consuming McDonald's food is still an issue, that the link
    37        between diet and ill-health which Mr. Rampton has already
    38        now admitted is not a defamatory issue, just to link diet
    39        and ill-health is not defamatory (which is an interesting
    40        point, which is what our point has been, of course), and so
    41        the exact nature of that link, we need to firm up our
    42        evidence that it is a causal link which we do not believe
    43        is a problem in proving that.
    44
    45        Then the issue of the deceptiveness of their nutritional
    46        guides is still an issue.  Therefore, obviously, we would
    47        recall Jane Brophey -- we have not called her yet.  She is
    48        planned to be called.  She is a nutritionist in any event.
    49
    50        So we would agree that there is a need for further 
    51        witnesses on this issue. 
    52 
    53   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What I would like you to do, because you have
    54        a bit of time until Friday, is to give some serious thought
    55        as to just who you want to recall or call for the first
    56        time like Miss Brophey, and sit down and think how long it
    57        is going to take, you think.  Then I will ask Mr. Rampton
    58        how long he thinks his cross-examination of Professor
    59        Crawford is going to be.  We will come back to the
    60        Fairgrieve documents on Friday because we have the time on

Prev Next Index