Day 182 - 02 Nov 95 - Page 67


     
     1
     2   MR. MORRIS:  I am not sure I am so grateful, but Ms. Steel wants
     3        to say something.
     4
     5   MS. STEEL:  I just wanted to say something.  I am not quite sure
     6        that I understand, Mr. Rampton wants or the possibility is
     7        there of wanting to bring a statement of somebody to
     8        discredit either of our two French witnesses, but it has to
     9        be not just to credit.  In other words, it has to be
    10        something to do with the issues in dispute surrounding
    11        this, but I thought that Mr. Rampton had already said that
    12        he cannot get any witnesses on this subject because -----
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is not right for me to enquire of
    15        Mr. Rampton because he has gone further now than, perhaps,
    16        he was obliged to do, but let us contemplate this
    17        situation:  If you read the statement, if, for instance,
    18        Mr. Rampton had in his possession a statement either from
    19        Mr. Lamti or Miss Villeneuve of, let us suppose, a written
    20        statement which is inconsistent with what is in their Civil
    21        Evidence Act statements, or if he was able to call someone
    22        who is not subject to a French embargo, who were able to
    23        say: "Well, Mr. Lamti told me something which is completely
    24        inconsistent with that", he would be able to put the
    25        inconsistent written statement by way of example to the
    26        witness if the witness was called into the witness box.
    27
    28        On my interpretation of section 7, if the witness's Civil
    29        Evidence Act statement is put in under section 2 of the
    30        Act, section 7 allows Mr. Rampton to adduce evidence of the
    31        inconsistent previous statement of Mr. Lamti or
    32        Miss Villeneuve-Gallaiz.
    33
    34   MS. STEEL:  I understand that.
    35
    36   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Then I have to decide where, if anywhere,
    37        that takes me.  But all -----
    38
    39   MS. STEEL:  I think I understand what has been said about the
    40        legal procedure.  What I do not understand, I mean, well,
    41        I suppose I can understand that if it is a previous
    42        statement as Mr. Lamti or Miss Villeneuve-Gallaiz, but in
    43        terms of anybody else, I thought that Mr. Rampton had
    44        already said previously that there was no-one else
    45        available to give evidence.
    46
    47   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am not going to enquire any further of
    48        Mr. Rampton.  All you need is one example of a situation
    49        where something may be produced against you.  The most
    50        obvious situation is an inconsistent other statement, 
    51        inconsistent with their Civil Evidence Act statement.  You 
    52        need not look for a second example, a third example; they 
    53        may be there but I am not going to speculate about them
    54        because you have one example if there were an inconsistent
    55        other statement.
    56
    57   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
    58
    59   MS. STEEL:  The main reason I raised it was just because I was a
    60        bit concerned that we have had previous witnesses, things

Prev Next Index