Day 043 - 01 Nov 94 - Page 76


     
     1        admissible in evidence at all, obviously I cannot judge
     2        that at the moment, will be an issue; may be it will and
     3        may be it will not.  A MORI poll does not have any
     4        evidential status in itself.  Presumably, you would enquire
     5        of someone who took some part in the conduct of it.
     6
     7   MS. STEEL:  It was sponsored by the National Food Alliance, or
     8        they asked them to do it.
     9
    10   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Presumably, if Mr. Rampton wants to say:
    11        "I do not accept this" you would call someone who took
    12        some part in the conduct of the survey.
    13
    14   MR. MORRIS:  I do not understand this, because my understanding
    15        is that if an expert draws upon background research
    16        material of a scientific authoritative nature, then that
    17        goes into the evidence.  Of course, the Plaintiffs can
    18        question, you know, particular aspects of it if they wish
    19        to, that MORI is not an organisation that conducts polls
    20        properly or whatever.  But I cannot see the fuss they are
    21        making.
    22
    23   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am not hearing the argument now, but
    24        I think you may be wrong about that, you see.
    25
    26   MR. MORRIS:  What about the scientific papers?
    27
    28   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The scientific papers may have two
    29        functions.  I have not heard any detailed argument on
    30        this.  In so far as someone who may be a scientific expert
    31        in that field himself says, "That is a view which is
    32        expressed with which I agree", then they come in.  In so
    33        far as they are taking an indication of what the view of a
    34        significant number of people were at a particular time, for
    35        instance, if you were to argue that it was medical fact or
    36        something of that kind, then I can see they have a
    37        relevance.  But that at the moment, subject to any
    38        argument, is what I see their position to be in the case.
    39
    40        When you come to a MORI poll, the fact that it is a poll
    41        conducted by a reputable polling organisation, the fact
    42        that it was commissioned by a reputable body, the fact, for
    43        instance, that a poll might have been commissioned by a
    44        reputable charity or a government department, subject to
    45        argument, does not make its actual findings evidence in the
    46        case.
    47
    48        It may be that I will feel able to take a relaxed attitude
    49        towards such information in this case.  It may be that
    50        Mr. Rampton or you with regard to any survey which has come 
    51        into the case to which you object, will say, no, and you 
    52        will argue that strict rules of evidence may apply. 
    53
    54        We have not got to that stage.  We would get to that stage
    55        when an attempt was made to adduce it in evidence and some
    56        objection was taken, if any objection was taken.  What we
    57        are discussing at the moment is whether it is more
    58        productive to go ahead with Mr. Hawkes tomorrow and perhaps
    59        at the end of his evidence-in-chief put over
    60        re-examination, or whether it is more productive, if there

Prev Next Index