Day 042 - 31 Oct 94 - Page 44


     
     1        Mr. Hawkes:  "Did you not intend to do this?"  Put to him
     2        any further examples which you want to put.  You have
     3        already dealt with the chemicals matter, where you suggest
     4        that regulatory authorities have criticised McDonald's in
     5        any particular respect; and, in due course next week, call
     6        your two witnesses as to what they make of the advertising,
     7        so that I can consider their evidence, whether it is
     8        critical or not.
     9
    10   MS. STEEL:  There are other areas which we feel we have to
    11        cover, because they were brought up by the Plaintiffs in
    12        examination-in-chief and, if we do not challenge them, then
    13        they stand as they are; and I do not know why they brought
    14        them up.  But, I mean, last Friday, Mr. Rampton did
    15        say:  "The third thing I wanted to ask you about was this:
    16        in comparing the adult advertisements with the children's
    17        advertisement, am I right that one notices in the
    18        children's advertisements a relative absence of actual menu
    19        items from the advertisements; is that right"; and the
    20        witness said, "Yes."
    21
    22   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I understand that.  Might I make this
    23        suggestion, that when you are moving on to a line of
    24        cross-examination which is not what I will call mainstream
    25        challenge, that is, undue pressure, deceptiveness of the
    26        ad, normality trap, pester power, something of that kind,
    27        you just start by declaring what you are suggesting the
    28        position is, because in some cases you might find that you
    29        get agreement, and if you do not you can proceed to
    30        demonstrate that the witness is wrong.
    31
    32             With the wisdom of hindsight, if you look at the
    33        statement you have just mentioned, if you had said, or
    34        Mr. Morris had, right at the beginning of that line of
    35        cross-examination, to Mr. Hawkes, "I suggest, in fact, that
    36        a very high proportion of the advertisements directed at
    37        children do show particular McDonald's products", then, I
    38        do not know, Mr. Hawkes might have agreed with you right at
    39        the start.  If he had not, then you could have demonstrated
    40        your point in the way you did.
    41
    42        You do not have to go through all the ads to show it.
    43        I mean, if we find that four out of the first five, or
    44        three out of the first four, do show particular products,
    45        it may be thought that you have made your point.  Do you
    46        see?
    47
    48   MS. STEEL:   Yes.  There are other points in the advertisements
    49        that I wanted to bring up, as well.  That was not the only
    50        one. 
    51 
    52   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What I suggest is that you say, "This is the 
    53        point I am now seeking to demonstrate", and we can find out
    54        straightaway whether Mr. Hawkes agrees with it or not.  It
    55        comes back to what I have said on a number of occasions in
    56        the past, that if you have a witness who you think is lying
    57        on purpose, and knows he is, then you may, although it need
    58        not take long, want to manoeuvre him or her into a position
    59        where they cannot backtrack.  But we may find that, with
    60        many of the witnesses, they will immediately concede the

Prev Next Index