Day 240 - 24 Apr 96 - Page 45


     
     1   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
     2
     3   MR. MORRIS:  If we have time; we should do.
     4
     5   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Can I just look at employment?  You have
     6        Mr. Brett on 15th May.
     7
     8   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
     9
    10   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You may have Mr. Olive; you are still working
    11        on that.
    12
    13   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  He is not directly contactable, but I am
    14        trying to get through to him.
    15
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The other people I have on my list of
    17        outstanding witnesses which I had not yet crossed out are
    18        Mr. Patel.  You told me it was likely that that would be
    19        Civil Evidence Act, but you have not got a statement from
    20        him yet, or you have not served one.
    21
    22   MR. MORRIS:  Mr. Patel has had a statement since July 1993, as
    23        far as I know.
    24
    25   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is it in a bundle?
    26
    27   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
    28
    29   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Very well.  But is he Civil Evidence Act or
    30        not?
    31
    32   MR. MORRIS:  It looks like he will have to be because we just
    33        cannot trace him.  I have left messages with various
    34        relatives, and things like that.
    35
    36   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Can I not add him to Friday's list?  We will
    37        have to see how far we get.
    38
    39   MR. MORRIS:  Yes, but if he goes to the bottom of the list just
    40        in case there is a remote chance he will get in touch with
    41        us, but yes.
    42
    43   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  There is no bar that I know of, save some
    44        exercise of discretion, which prevents you actually calling
    45        a witness whose Civil Evidence Act statement has been put
    46        in.  Sometimes Civil Evidence Act statements are served
    47        when the witness is going to be called and the statement is
    48        actually put in at the end of the evidence-in-chief.  The
    49        reason it is put in at the end of the evidence-in-chief,
    50        rather than at the beginning, is that it is not thought 
    51        desirable to prompt the witness' evidence-in-chief by 
    52        reference to the statement by putting it in first in his 
    53        presence.  Do you understand?
    54
    55   MR. MORRIS:  Not really.
    56
    57   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It was thought better that the witness just
    58        be allowed to get on with his or her evidence without
    59        seeing what ---
    60

Prev Next Index