Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 29
1 them unless or until a different approach was shown to be
2 proper".
3
4 So, that would cover experts commenting on a wide range of
5 documentation that they understand and evaluate. That also
6 relates to page 9, at the top of page 9 of submissions,
7 where he refers to Susanna Hecht referring to matters of
8 fact. Obviously, experts can give evidence about matters
9 of fact relating to their expertise, general fact.
10
11 I do not know if this is a legal point or clarification, or
12 what, but Mr. Rampton said that both Susanna Hecht and Miss
13 Bramford erred in placing Pontes E Lacerda in Rondonia, but
14 obviously they are experts and they are quite able to
15 appreciate the geographic regions; whether it was strictly
16 within the state borders or not is another matter. They
17 consider it part of that geographic region, which is the
18 important point. Geographic and bioregion.
19
20 It is then Mr. Rampton, on page 10, concludes that the only
21 direct admissible evidence was from Morganti. But there
22 was no indication whatsoever that Morganti was an expert on
23 anything, and therefore he cannot give any evidence of
24 opinion and, secondly, he cannot give any hearsay evidence
25 because we was not called. It was a Civil Evidence Act
26 document, and he cannot possibly know how long each ranch,
27 every ranch, that supplies the abattoirs that supplies his
28 company, how long they have been established, where they
29 are. All that evidence is completely hearsay, we would
30 say, unless it is used by the Plaintiffs and we can use it
31 as an admission against interest.
32
33 So, I would say the opposite is true, the fact that he has
34 no direct and admissible evidence to give that is not
35 clearly within his own knowledge.
36
37 Mr. Rampton on page 11, point (iii), says that Professor
38 Hecht's support for Miss Bramford's largely... Well, what
39 he calls Miss Bramford's account of dispossessions in
40 Northwest Goias is hearsay, but other witnesses have, to
41 save time, adopted the evidence of a previous witness --
42 I think, is it Mr. Hawkes? People have basically said,
43 'I agree with such and such to save time', and obviously
44 rather than her write out all the points again she
45 basically said that she had read and agreed with the
46 testimony of Miss Bramford, and that is quite a valid
47 exercise that has been done many times in this case.
48
49 Just tying to pick out the most relevant points. Actually,
50 the Plaintiffs, on page 20 of that document, undermine
51 their earlier argument with regard to Fiona Watson's
52 reliance on the CEDI documents by saying that Mr. Monbiot
53 could refer to the Portuguese map. They said there is no
54 problem of interpretation because he had interpreted the
55 map. So, what they are saying is they were not objecting,
56 but the point is they also make the point there is no
57 proper interpretation because the witness was able to
58 interpret the document.
59
60 So, there you go. But if a document from abroad in another
