Day 270 - 28 Jun 96 - Page 43


     
     1
     2        She repeats what she said in the earlier part of her
     3        statement and then there is a piece about the interview
     4        which, although irrelevant and probably also speculation,
     5        where your Lordship sees, "... the rest of the interview
     6        did not go so smoothly", that short paragraph does not have
     7        any significance for this case and appears to be based
     8        rather on hearsay or speculation rather than direct
     9        observation.  But I have no particular problem with that.
    10
    11   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  So, you are not objecting in fact to it?
    12
    13   MR. RAMPTON:  No, but it does not actually make any sense at all
    14        in context.  Can I put it like this:  If the guts of this
    15        -- that is to say, what the inspectors told her -- are
    16        objectionable and my objection is well-founded, then there
    17        really is not anything left of this statement which is
    18        worth reading, because she has made direct observations to
    19        make about the conditions allegedly described to her by the
    20        inspectors.  Those are the only relevant considerations in
    21        the context of this case, and what remains is a residue of
    22        irrelevant and pointless material.
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Apart from paragraph (1), even if she came
    25        here and went into the witness box, the paragraphs which
    26        you have objected to would not actually be admissible in
    27        evidence themselves, would they?
    28
    29   MR. RAMPTON:  No.
    30
    31   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  They would just be the basis for Civil
    32        Evidence Act admission of the statements made to her.
    33
    34   MR. RAMPTON:  We would get a witness statement under the Civil
    35        Evidence Act which gives us notice not of the admissibility
    36        of the witness statement, but that the witness is going to
    37        come to court and say, as she is entitled to do, "This is
    38        what I was told by the inspectors", and that she is
    39        entitled to do.  But it has no status of its own at that
    40        stage.
    41
    42   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, and you say if she came to court and said
    43        it, then the statements made to her could go in as Civil
    44        Evidence Act statements.
    45
    46   MR. RAMPTON:  That is right, yes.
    47
    48   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  She is not here.  So subsection (3) means
    49        they cannot be introduced at all.
    50 
    51   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, that must be right because what is 
    52        admissible -- obviously, the first test is relevance -- but 
    53        what is admissible is evidence of a fact relevant to the
    54        issues in the case which would be admissible in the mouth
    55        of the person who has the knowledge.  That is the whole
    56        basis of section 2(1):  "The machinery by which Parliament
    57        has permitted such a statement to be given at second hand
    58        is, and is only, if the person who heard or perceived the
    59        maker of the statement making the statement".  For that
    60        purpose, the statement is not this written material; the

Prev Next Index