Day 270 - 28 Jun 96 - Page 40
1
2 MR. JUSTICE BELL: To record what she was told by other people,
3 yes.
4
5 MR. RAMPTON: And to extent that the defendants wish to rely on
6 the truth of or the facts communicated by the statements
7 made by those other people to her, those statements cannot
8 be admitted under section 2(1), because neither the people
9 who made the statements, that is, for a large part, the
10 federal meat inspectors, nor Miss Claufine-Caston, is here
11 in court to give evidence either of the truth of the
12 statements or that they were made. The reason for that is
13 the plain words of subsection (3) of section 2.
14
15 If Miss Claufine-Caston had come to court and had stood in
16 the witness box under oath and said "this is what the
17 federal meat inspectors told me", that would be
18 admissible. But she has not and so what she says about it
19 in writing becomes inadmissible under subsection (3).
20
21 My Lord, I say that because it is important. It takes the
22 guts out of this statement. There is a small passage to
23 which I will refer your Lordship to in a moment in the
24 statement which I perceive is admissible, because it
25 records, although in writing, it records Miss
26 Claufine-Caston's own direct observations.
27
28 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. What is the situation at the end of the
29 day though? Could the defendants give a Civil Evidence Act
30 notice relying upon the article, of which I have some faint
31 recollection, that we wish to rely upon a statement made by
32 such and such an inspector?
33
34 MR. RAMPTON: No, my Lord, because the article would be in no
35 better position than Miss Claufine-Caston because the
36 statement which matters is the statement of the inspector.
37
38 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
39
40 MR. RAMPTON: That such and such happened. That can only be
41 given in evidence either by the inspector himself, and I
42 mean live evidence, or by the person who heard or perceived
43 it being made. So either it is the person who wrote the
44 article or it is Miss Claufine-Caston or it is the
45 inspectors themselves. There is no halfway house. Even if
46 the inspectors, in fact as it happens under the Ventouris
47 v. Mountain and Brinks line of authority, even if the
48 inspectors had made their statements in writing, the same
49 would apply.
50
51 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It just would not be introduced by way of
52 Miss Claufine-Caston. They would be introduced as Civil
53 Evidence Act statements themselves. You are saying if they
54 are oral, that cannot be done.
55
56 MR. RAMPTON: No, it cannot be done. In my submission, the
57 wording of subsection (3) makes that absolutely crystal
58 clear when it says no evidence other than direct oral
59 evidence by the person, and I leave out the next bit, who
60 heard or otherwise perceived it being made, shall be
