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
