Day 043 - 01 Nov 94 - Page 74


     
     1        Essentially, what it comes to is this, that she and her
     2        sympathisers have been lobbying the Independent Television
     3        Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority to
     4        change the regulation of children's advertising in such a
     5        way as, amongst other things, to forbid the advertising of
     6        fatty or sugary foods to children.  Now, so far, so good.
     7        It is a matter of argument, and might even call it
     8        argy-bargy, between the Defendants and Mr. Hawkes and
     9        between me and Miss Dibb whether or not that is a good
    10        idea.  It is a matter of opinion.
    11
    12        But, in the course of reporting her lobbying activities,
    13        partly by way of press release, Miss Dibb asserts that she
    14        had certain meetings with the ITC and the ASA and gives an
    15        account of those meetings which, all I shall say at the
    16        moment is, I do not necessarily accept as being reliable or
    17        accurate.
    18
    19        In aid of her submissions to those two bodies, she
    20        prays-in-aid a survey which again I say on the face of it
    21        appears to have been conducted by the well-known research
    22        organisation MORI in which it appears parents were asked
    23        certain questions.  I will not say any more than that.
    24
    25        There are certain enquiries which we should wish to make
    26        about the factual substratum of all of that before
    27        Mr. Hawkes returns, so that he may know what the position
    28        is and, in other words, is not faced with a proposition of
    29        fact which he is not in a position to dispute, if dispute
    30        it can be.
    31
    32        That is what will happen.  We know very well the Defendants
    33        are in the habit -- it is natural for them to do it -- of
    34        introducing documents and other material into the case as
    35        though it were evidence.  I know it does not matter so far
    36        as your Lordship is concerned -- I am not in the least bit
    37        concerned about that; it matters a little more so far as
    38        the wider audience is concerned -- I have made my complaint
    39        about that clear.  If it were only that, I would not say
    40        anything about it.  It simply is not fair on Mr. Hawkes to
    41        be faced with factual assertions with which he is not
    42        equipped to deal.
    43
    44   MS. STEEL:  Unless the Plaintiffs are going to tell him what to
    45        say, I do not quite see how this break helps, because if he
    46        does not know anything about it, he is always in a position
    47        to say:  "Sorry, I cannot answer that because I do not know
    48        whether it is true or not", then it can be put to Mr. Miles
    49        who will be more likely to know about it.
    50 
    51   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What might then happen (which you have to 
    52        consider) is that cross-examination having finished, 
    53        Mr. Rampton might say: "Before I re-examine I want
    54        Mr. Hawkes to be able to look into the matters which he
    55        first had notice of via the documents one day ago, two days
    56        ago", whatever it is, "I want him to be able to do that
    57        before I re-examine".
    58
    59        As presently advised, that would seem to be a fair
    60        request.  If I accede to any such request, Mr. Hawkes comes

Prev Next Index