Day 115 - 06 Apr 95 - Page 54
1
2 MR. JUSTICE BELL: First of all, let us come to that, but I have
3 started a new volume which is Defendants' Supplementary
4 documents volume VI. The first matters I have put in that
5 I have labelled tab 22. It is the FAWK 1984 Report on the
6 Welfare of Livestock (Red Meat Animals) at the Time of
7 Slaughter. I have made the documents which you handed up a
8 few minutes ago tab 22 in the same volume.
9
10 MS. STEEL: Can I just ask, could they possibly be put the
11 letters separate from these because I wanted to do a Civil
12 Evidence Notice just on those.
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I will make the letter 22 and I will make the
15 other documents 23.
16
17 MS. STEEL: It is basically the rates of the catching teams,
18 the numbers in the catching teams and the speed at which
19 they were expected to work which tallies with what
20 Mr. Bruton says anyway. They are Sun Valley Poultry
21 documents.
22
23 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What are you seeking to do? Make them
24 subject to a Civil Evidence Act Notice of statements of
25 Mr. Boule or what?
26
27 MS. STEEL: I do not really know, to be honest. I mean, there
28 are some documents that have Civil Evidence Act notices on
29 them in the files already. For example, letters about the
30 rainforests and things like that. Really, it was along
31 those kinds of lines.
32
33 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have taken those -- you correct me and
34 I will ask Mr. Rampton what, if anything, he wishes to say
35 in a moment -- as statements, treated as statements, of the
36 people who made the document or wrote the letter. There
37 may well be some which are in a different category or
38 subject to a provision, another provision. Let me ask Mr.
39 Rampton what he says about it.
40
41 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, in the normal way, subject to the service
42 of a counter notice and compliance with that counter
43 notice, a statement of fact made in a document which is, as
44 it were, an historical account of an event which has
45 happened will become direct evidence or admissible evidence
46 of what the document says.
47
48 Your Lordship notices that this document is headed Proposal
49 formed between catcher representatives and management on
50 Monday 21st October 1991. It suggests, I do not know,
51 there is no evidence about it, but on its wording, that it
52 is what it says it is which is a proposal. It would follow
53 that it would not be evidence of any actual factual
54 historical situation.
55
56 MS. STEEL: There are actually three separate documents there.
57
58 MR. RAMPTON: Apart from the proposal that is being made. I am
59 talking about the first document. Then there are other
60 documents as well. What that means is that, strictly
