Day 046 - 04 Nov 94 - Page 75
1 document, Mr. Rampton can go and get them himself anyway if
2 she is not going to refer to them, as we have been told by
3 the Plaintiffs, quite unreasonably, when they are already
4 in the Plaintiffs' possession. If we had them in our
5 possession, we would certainly disclose them.
6
7 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What concerns me is whether she is going to
8 refer to them. It seems to me this has arisen because you
9 produced her publication. Suppose, for instance, she says,
10 as she does in some part, "There is much evidence to show
11 that children are highly influenced by advertising", it
12 seems to me she is then going to be asked: "Well, what is
13 that evidence?" Then the next step is she is going to
14 refer to a particular survey, and then we ought to have a
15 copy of the survey.
16
17 What I think you should beware of doing is, I have not seen
18 the publication, because she may have written the
19 publication itself which in turn relies upon particular
20 sources, it is sufficient for her to rely upon her
21 publication without going back to the sources. It is
22 really analogous to Dr. Barnard and Mr. Cannon who gave
23 their references and certain of which were produced.
24
25 MR. MORRIS: Yes, I think Mr. Cannon was not expected to bring
26 along the 100 references that he had analysed in making his
27 book, which he then drew the court's attention to. What I
28 do not want to happen is that the extension of the
29 references gets larger and larger all the time, because
30 people can refer to a document, then they have to refer to
31 the underlying documents for that document.
32
33 Of course, if a document that is an underlying document, if
34 Mr. Rampton is not happy on it because it is a survey, he
35 wants to get the person that did the survey to come to
36 court and testify or to make a Civil Evidence Act
37 statement. So I think there has to be a proportion about
38 how far back and, you know, do you need the documents that
39 back up another document?
40
41 MR. JUSTICE BELL: But if she is going to say, either expressly
42 or by inference, "My support for that statement, that is
43 not just an ex cathedrus statement, it is based on this",
44 whether she says in the first instance or whether she says
45 it under being pressed, she ought to be prepared to produce
46 it. We can have an argument about who has to go and get
47 it, but I would have thought if she has written the
48 publication you may very well find she has it available to
49 her, I do not know.
50
51 What I think you ought to set about doing is finding out
52 just what she is going to refer to beyond what is in her
53 statement at the moment. For instance, I have a note here
54 that she says there was a 1990 survey (this is not looking
55 at the statement; this is looking at my note, so it is
56 obviously less than complete) that McDonald's were the
57 fifth highest advertised food product out of 42, and the
58 survey for 1992 said they were second. That may not be a
59 matter which is in issue or is challenged, but if she is
60 depending on a survey, she ought to have a copy here.
