Day 242 - 29 Apr 96 - Page 38


     
     1
     2        It is quite clear that your Lordship is contemplating
     3        allowing the Defendants almost any latitude to call
     4        evidence to deal with the issues raised by your Lordship's
     5        meaning.  Your Lordship said just now that you would allow
     6        them to ask Professor Crawford additional questions in
     7        chief in the light of the meaning.
     8
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I said that back in November.
    10
    11   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes, I know that, and also, Ms. Brophy will be in
    12        a position to address that meaning in a way which my
    13        nutrition witnesses have not been able to because of course
    14        they were all called in 1994.  Then there is Mr. Brown who
    15        may be called to address the specific issues raised by your
    16        Lordship's meaning.  We submit that in fairness we ought to
    17        have the same opportunity.
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Why 5 months after I have made the ruling and
    20        what may be, hopefully, only 2 months from the end of the
    21        trial?
    22
    23   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, surely the same must apply to the
    24        Defendants, if that be right.
    25
    26   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  They are not, as I understand it,
    27        contemplating calling any evidence they did not give notice
    28        of a long time ago.
    29
    30   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, with respect, I understand that.  But
    31        what your Lordship has just been saying to the Defendants
    32        is:  Call people you have already got you have not called,
    33        but when you do that, contemplate asking them to deal with
    34        the matters raised by your Lordship's meaning.  If they had
    35        been called at the proper time during the nutrition
    36        evidence, they would never have had that opportunity any
    37        more than my witnesses have had. They would have had to
    38        have flown blind just as I had to.
    39
    40        It would not, in my respectful submission, be in the least
    41        bit fair or just that the Defendants, by an accident of
    42        chronology, should have the opportunity to deal in defence
    43        of the leaflet with the issues raised by your Lordship's
    44        meaning when I, by the same accident of chronology, have
    45        been deprived of that opportunity.
    46
    47   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You have not; so far as cancer is concerned,
    48        you can recall Dr. Arnott if you want, if you want to bring
    49        it up to date because there have been interesting
    50        publications apart from, no doubt, putting them to 
    51        Professor Crawford, whether it is in relation to cancer or 
    52        heart disease, you can do that.  Why should we have an 
    53        extra expert witness who goes over a lot of the old ground
    54        in his own terms and introduces two new aspects, it seems
    55        to me only, though you may tell me that is wrong, namely,
    56        updating since the evidence was heard, which Dr. Arnott can
    57        deal with, without, as it were, introducing his own new
    58        opinion in relation to it, which Professor Naismith does in
    59        very forthright terms, and the question of heart disease,
    60        with which, for instance, if need be, Dr. Keen could have

Prev Next Index