Day 263 - 14 Jun 96 - Page 13
1
2 MS. STEEL: Well, as I saw it, Mr. Rampton might try and
3 say: "Well, I infer that if there were X number of meetings
4 which my agents attended and McDonald's was discussed
5 X number of times, it could be taken that there is going to
6 be a similar pattern over other meetings", and so on.
7
8 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No. The way I am approaching it at the
9 moment is that it looks likely to me that one agent or
10 another, at least one agent or another, attended each
11 Caledonian Road and each Endsleigh Street meeting over the
12 period of time which the inquiry agents' evidence covers;
13 and, therefore, I assumed, bearing in mind the stand on
14 relevance which Mr. Rampton has taken, that the -- I say
15 only, though in fact you attended quite a few, and
16 Mr. Morris much less -- that the only meetings which either
17 of you attended are the ones which are spoken to the
18 evidence which has been disclosed, and the only times at
19 which McDonald's was mentioned at the meetings were the
20 times which I have got. Certainly, that is the only
21 evidence which is put forward. So, you have your argument
22 that on other occasions they were not actually dealt with.
23
24 MS. STEEL: Right. If that is conceded, then -- yes, OK.
25 Obviously, if that is conceded, then they would not be
26 necessary in terms of seeing how many times it was
27 discussed, or so on, or how many times McDonald's was
28 discussed. But in terms of the general picture of the
29 nature of the group and how it worked and who was involved,
30 they are still relevant to the overall picture which, as it
31 presently stands, has been selectively chosen, on their own
32 admission, by the Plaintiffs.
33
34 You asked a question of Mr. Hall yesterday about the
35 difference between witness statements gathered after the
36 event and notes. I do not know whether you are just not
37 worried about that, bearing in mind that we are not asking
38 for statements or -----
39
40 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I do not think you do. I do not mind
41 confessing that it seems to me there is a very considerable
42 problem in this area -- which, in actual fact, Hobhouse J.
43 did not have to resolve in his case, because of the way the
44 case turned out anyway, but I might have to in this case --
45 that if I were to hold, for instance, that you were
46 entitled to any inquiry agents' notes or agencies' reports
47 in the possession, custody or power of the Plaintiffs which
48 have not yet been disclosed, but which were later at
49 meetings or events in respect of which notes, reports or
50 witness statements have been put forward, then I have to
51 ask myself, logically, why should not only the notes and
52 the reports but also draft witness statements, final
53 witness statements, witnesses who are not going to be
54 called but which relate to those meetings, should not be
55 disclosed as well; although, in my own experience over the
56 years, it never actually is done. They do not call for
57 them, because they just assume they are still covered by
58 privilege.
59
60 MS. STEEL: Yes.
