Day 190 - 23 Nov 95 - Page 42
1 the point about whether what is said in an interview is
2 admissible. I cannot avoid that. But just about all these
3 cases, that was the only issue to decide because they did
4 not have the Civil Evidence Act in those days. A lot of
5 these cases it might never have reached the court, it seems
6 to me, in the form it did do if the Civil Evidence Act had
7 been in effect because there might have been a question of
8 Civil Evidence Act notice, and there is also some
9 authority, which I think I mentioned to you many months ago
10 now -- I am not encouraging you to think that it will
11 succeed with me -- that if, for instance, you have given a
12 Civil Evidence Act notice in respect of a statement of
13 someone who is still, let us say, employed by the opposing
14 party, even though you do not have one of the normal Civil
15 Evidence Act grounds (beyond the seas, ill etcetera), when
16 the counter notice comes to call it there is some
17 authority, I believe, that the court has some discretion
18 about that, to let the statement in anyway on the basis
19 that it would be unreasonable to put you to call someone
20 who is in the other camp and it ought to be reasonable for
21 you to put the statement in.
22
23 Do not accept what I have said as accurate. Check it out,
24 but that is another possible line of enquiry for you; so
25 that, just again thinking aloud while keeping an entirely
26 open mind about what one's decision might be at the end of
27 the day, if you found that Mark Ryan had stayed with
28 McDonald's and gone up into some position of reasonable
29 authority, that is an argument you might be able to put.
30 But you were going to help me, or try to help me, about
31 Mark Ryan and Lynval anyway.
32
33 MR. MORRIS: Right. My understanding is this, that they were
34 both interviewed for research purposes. The first one,
35 Mark Ryan, was done by Harriet Lamb in the store and notes
36 were made, handwritten notes were made and they were typed
37 up the same evening, which is what we have disclosed. That
38 is March 30th, 1987.
39
40 On the 1st April 1987, coming to the Lynval case, Lynval
41 was her Assistant Manager at McDonald's in Kentish Town
42 when she worked there. This interview was made by Steve
43 Percy, who is the co-researcher with Harriet Lamb and her
44 current partner and, if it makes any difference, he can
45 aver the statement. But it was tape recorded which she
46 transcribed -----
47
48 MR. JUSTICE BELL: So the interview was not conducted by her
49 when she was an employee at McDonald's; it was conducted by
50 the man she was working with.
51
52 MR. MORRIS: Yes, whilst she was working there, but she
53 transcribed the tape recorded interview verbatim and, of
54 course, she recognised the voice and she was aware of who
55 it was, and this she can aver is a true record of the
56 transcript of that tape recording.
57
58 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That might be relevant to a Civil Evidence
59 Act notice and the form of a Civil Evidence Act notice, but
60 it does not help you on the first point, the point
