Day 270 - 28 Jun 96 - Page 43
1
2 She repeats what she said in the earlier part of her
3 statement and then there is a piece about the interview
4 which, although irrelevant and probably also speculation,
5 where your Lordship sees, "... the rest of the interview
6 did not go so smoothly", that short paragraph does not have
7 any significance for this case and appears to be based
8 rather on hearsay or speculation rather than direct
9 observation. But I have no particular problem with that.
10
11 MR. JUSTICE BELL: So, you are not objecting in fact to it?
12
13 MR. RAMPTON: No, but it does not actually make any sense at all
14 in context. Can I put it like this: If the guts of this
15 -- that is to say, what the inspectors told her -- are
16 objectionable and my objection is well-founded, then there
17 really is not anything left of this statement which is
18 worth reading, because she has made direct observations to
19 make about the conditions allegedly described to her by the
20 inspectors. Those are the only relevant considerations in
21 the context of this case, and what remains is a residue of
22 irrelevant and pointless material.
23
24 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Apart from paragraph (1), even if she came
25 here and went into the witness box, the paragraphs which
26 you have objected to would not actually be admissible in
27 evidence themselves, would they?
28
29 MR. RAMPTON: No.
30
31 MR. JUSTICE BELL: They would just be the basis for Civil
32 Evidence Act admission of the statements made to her.
33
34 MR. RAMPTON: We would get a witness statement under the Civil
35 Evidence Act which gives us notice not of the admissibility
36 of the witness statement, but that the witness is going to
37 come to court and say, as she is entitled to do, "This is
38 what I was told by the inspectors", and that she is
39 entitled to do. But it has no status of its own at that
40 stage.
41
42 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No, and you say if she came to court and said
43 it, then the statements made to her could go in as Civil
44 Evidence Act statements.
45
46 MR. RAMPTON: That is right, yes.
47
48 MR. JUSTICE BELL: She is not here. So subsection (3) means
49 they cannot be introduced at all.
50
51 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, that must be right because what is
52 admissible -- obviously, the first test is relevance -- but
53 what is admissible is evidence of a fact relevant to the
54 issues in the case which would be admissible in the mouth
55 of the person who has the knowledge. That is the whole
56 basis of section 2(1): "The machinery by which Parliament
57 has permitted such a statement to be given at second hand
58 is, and is only, if the person who heard or perceived the
59 maker of the statement making the statement". For that
60 purpose, the statement is not this written material; the
