Day 094 - 01 Mar 95 - Page 46


     
     1   MR. RAMPTON:  I understand that, but the reason I intervened was
     2        that I was not anxious that there should be any blanket
     3        Civil Evidence Act notices impressed on this document as a
     4        whole at this stage.
     5
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No.  We have aired the ------
     7
     8   MR. MORRIS:  I did not finish what I was saying.  It has been
     9        stated at the beginning of this case that we were not aware
    10        we could put Civil Evidence Act notices on documents,
    11        although we did become aware fairly recently we could do
    12        that on statements.  We did say that because of the vast
    13        number of documents and the complexity of the issues and
    14        the lack of time and resources that we have got that,
    15        inevitably, as we go through the evidence, we are going to
    16        come across documents which would be appropriate for a
    17        Civil Evidence Act notice.  However much weight would be
    18        given to it or not is up to yourself.  I understand that in
    19        the case of where it is a newspaper report we should
    20        identify -----
    21
    22   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If I could just interrupt you for a moment?
    23        When you talked about "documents", I was not including
    24        reports which appear in the media quoting what it is said
    25        someone has said, because what I am concerned with is the
    26        statement made by someone or other.  I have to say, I had
    27        not looked upon that as a document.  That is a
    28        straightforward statement by someone, just as you have
    29        taken statements from people or they have provided them to
    30        you, they have signed them, they have dated them and they
    31        have gone on your list of Civil Evidence Act statements.
    32
    33   MS. STEEL:  I think we understand that now but we did not
    34        realise that previously.
    35
    36   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Right, carry on with your cross-examination.
    37        Go away and think about it and whether you want to make any
    38        particular averment in a newspaper or magazine report the
    39        subject of a Civil Evidence Act notice and follow the form
    40        then as best you can.  Apart from anything else, then
    41        I will be able to see it almost as if it was in the form of
    42        a series of statements, maybe only ten lines on each page
    43        with unidentified long-time Montfort worker and then the
    44        bit in quotes, statement made at some date before July or
    45        August 1992, and so on, and we will see where we get to
    46        from there.
    47
    48   MS. STEEL:  OK.  (To the witness):  If workers removed the
    49        glands, that would mean that the inspectors could not check
    50        to see whether they held evidence of disease, could they? 
    51        A.  No, that is incorrect.  The inspectors have the 
    52        authority to look and ask for it at any given point in 
    53        time.
    54
    55   Q.   Ask to look at the glands?
    56        A.  They will look at everything on the carcass -- not only
    57        the glands.
    58
    59   Q.   But what would happen if the glands had been removed?
    60        A.  The inspector will go and see the glands.

Prev Next Index