Day 205 - 17 Jan 96 - Page 42
1 simple as Mr. Morris thinks it is or as, indeed, any layman
2 might be forgiven for thinking it is. Verification of the
3 out of court hearsay statement is necessary (as I have
4 understood that, and the interpretation which it gives to
5 Ventouris and Mountain No. 6, I think it is, although it
6 might be No. 2) before the statement can be made.
7
8 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, I will look at that again.
9
10 MR. RAMPTON: Authentication, perhaps, is a better way of
11 putting it. One cannot just put in a newspaper cutting.
12 Beyond that, as I say, is the difficult question or less
13 difficult question of relevance in any event. Further than
14 that -- this is not necessarily going to be an easy
15 argument at all -- unless there is some relevant pleading
16 to which the video tape can be related, then the video tape
17 itself is not disclosable.
18
19 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No, we will have to see about that.
20
21 MR. MORRIS: So far as authentication is concerned, I am acting
22 under the general impression that documents which are
23 served and then not challenged as authentic are deemed to
24 be accepted to be authentic. If the Plaintiffs want to say
25 that we invented an edition of the Wall Street Journal,
26 then let them say so.
27
28 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, can I explain what I mean so the
29 Defendants realise that it is the difficulty they face? By
30 authentication or verification, I do not mean that they
31 have to prove that this is an article from the Wall Street
32 Journal -- we can see that for ourselves and I would not
33 dream of challenging that -- what they have to prove is
34 that Mr. Rensi said the things that are reported in the
35 newspaper article before ever those statements can be
36 admitted.
37
38 MR. MORRIS: I think Mr. Rampton ought to show us the law and
39 the authorities on that.
40
41 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is what he is proposing to do, I think,
42 but on Monday.
43
44 MS. STEEL: Can I just ask the case he referred to, is that one
45 that we have been given a copy of already?
46
47 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It was the one that was referred to in the
48 argument, I think, in relation to admissions. Was it that
49 one?
50
51 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, it may have been that one, my Lord. Its name
52 is Brinks. It is last year, 1995. The judge was
53 Mr. Justice Rimer who heard the case in the Chancery
54 Division. I am afraid I cannot remember the date or the
55 reference offhand.
56
57 MS. STEEL: Can you spell the name of the Judge?
58
59 MR. RAMPTON: B-R-I-N-K-S. R-I-M-E-R. It is in the Chancery
60 Division and by that route it is possible to find it.
