Day 286 - 24 Oct 96 - Page 13


     
     1        were arguing for discovery based upon it, was said to be
     2        comprehensive.  He gave that impression.  Yet we
     3        subsequently learned more about the supply sources in Mato
     4        Grosso and in Gioias State and it seems to be a strange
     5        coincidence that the areas which had not been identified in
     6        his original, supposedly comprehensive, statement were
     7        exactly the areas which are sourced from cleared rainforest
     8        land.
     9
    10        If it had been a slip of the eye, or pen, then we might
    11        have expected other areas to be inadequately identified,
    12        but it just happens to be the most controversial areas, and
    13        obviously we would say that the conclusion is that that
    14        proves a reluctance from Mr. Morganti in informing the
    15        court about the full story as regards anything that is
    16        controversial, or potentially controversial, which also
    17        casts doubt on Mr. Cesca's knowledge of the situation,
    18        because he will be relying on Mr. Morganti who will, no
    19        doubt, be telling him that everything in the garden is
    20        lovely whenever he visits Brazil.
    21
    22        If I can further say that there is a direct conflict on one
    23        particular point with Mr. Morganti, between Mr. Morganti as
    24        a Civil Evidence Act notice and Jan Rocha, our
    25        Civil Evidence Act notice of what he said to her, where she
    26        says that he indicated, or he told her, there was another
    27        supply plant inside the official Amazonian region that was
    28        currently supplying Brazil although for McDonald's use.
    29
    30        Obviously, the weight to be attached to that disagreement
    31        is a matter for you, but it certainly must cast doubt.
    32        However much weight is given to whichever side in that
    33        dispute out of court about providing evidence for the court
    34        must cast further doubt.
    35
    36   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Was it actually in the official Amazon
    37        region or just somewhere else which he was disputing?
    38
    39   MR. MORRIS:   I think, if my memory is right, it was
    40        Rondonopolis, which is just southeast of Cuiaba inside Mato
    41        Grosso.
    42
    43   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, that is what I thought.
    44
    45   MR. MORRIS:   Yes.  I mean, while I am on that subject of
    46        Mr. Morganti, his characterisation of the wider issues has
    47        been attacked by our expert witnesses.  For example, his
    48        view that -- I think it was Mato Grosso -- I have not got
    49        his statement in front of me -- was virgin land for cattle
    50        ranchers was attacked as something which is a standard line 
    51        of those who are prepared to turn a blind eye to the 
    52        eviction of people for the cattle ranching industry, and 
    53        indigenous people in particular in that case.
    54
    55        But, I mean, obviously, he is relying on hearsay and he did
    56        not come to court to give evidence, so he is relying on
    57        what his suppliers tell him, and his suppliers are relying
    58        upon what their raw material suppliers are telling them.
    59        The abattoirs do not know the exact sources of all the beef
    60        which arrives from collection points.  They may know where

Prev Next Index