Day 270 - 28 Jun 96 - Page 45


     
     1        admissible or not and such statements or parts of
     2        statements, as I rule, are admissible you read out and such
     3        statements or parts of statements as I rule inadmissible
     4        are not read out.
     5
     6        As I have said before, we would not have this argument at
     7        this stage if you said you just wanted to take them as
     8        read, because then it could probably be put over to
     9        submissions in due course.  So, what you have to do, you
    10        have either got to deal with this now, or you have got to
    11        ask me, which I would probably accede to (as I have done in
    12        the past), and say, "Give us time to think about this",
    13        because if there is anything, if this witness' written
    14        statement is to be read, or parts of it are to be read,
    15        they can be read quite shortly at some date within the next
    16        fortnight when it is decided, or you can argue the matter
    17        now and I will decide it now and the whole or parts of the
    18        statement will be read according to my ruling.
    19
    20   MS. STEEL:  If I just say one thing.  I think it might be better
    21        if it is left over to another date so we can have a bit of
    22        time to think about it.  But the reason we got the
    23        statement from Leanne Claufine-Caston is because we had
    24        actually pleaded about this, that we would be relying on
    25        this article and relying on statements made within the
    26        article by the beef inspectors who were working at the
    27        plant supplying the beef for McDonald's, that we wanted to
    28        rely on what they had said in terms about the hygiene and
    29        the conditions that the animals were slaughtered in.  On
    30        that occasion Mr. Rampton said that if we wanted to put a
    31        Civil Evidence Act notice on the statements within the
    32        article of the individuals, which we have been able to do
    33        for other articles, we would need a statement to back up --
    34        just, basically, say that the statements in the article
    35        were accurate.
    36
    37        So, that was the purpose of getting the statement really
    38        and, obviously, what she saw with her own eyes was included
    39        in the statement because that helped to explain the overall
    40        picture.  But the basic purpose of the statement was to
    41        confirm that the parts of the article that we wanted to
    42        rely on, i.e. what was said by the meat inspectors, were
    43        accurate quotes.
    44
    45   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am not questioning your motives at the
    46        moment.  I have to rule on it according to whether it is
    47        legally admissible or not.  Can you give me the reference
    48        to the article?
    49
    50   MR. MORRIS:  Yes, it is in the section of food poisoning, 
    51        section 5. 
    52 
    53   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Which bundle was it?
    54
    55   MR. MORRIS:  It is the abstracts.
    56
    57   MS. STEEL:  Do you mean where the article is?
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, I want to look at the actual article
    60        again, because you cross-examined was it Dr. Gomez Gonzales

Prev Next Index