Day 242 - 29 Apr 96 - Page 47
1 witnesses for their opinion on what he said. I do not
2 suppose that we will be wanting to recall Dr. Barnard but
3 we might want to serve a Civil Evidence Act statement or
4 something like that. Certainly we would want to ask
5 Professor Crawford and Jane Brophy about what he said.
6
7 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You are going to call Jane Brophy. Professor
8 Crawford, you may think, is your most important witness
9 because his disciplines, biochemistry and nutrition, are
10 the same as Professor Naismith, his specialities.
11
12 MS. STEEL: Right. In relation to Professor Naismith,
13 I totally agree with what Dave has said. Having looked
14 through his statement, although I have not read it as
15 thoroughly as I obviously need to, it does appear to me
16 that a lot of it is going over old ground, and is not at
17 all dealing with what it purports to be dealing with which
18 is the extent of risk.
19
20 But, in any event, it is still my belief that the
21 Plaintiffs, because of the admission they made, should not
22 be allowed to call any evidence in relation to heart
23 disease to contradict their previous admission. I do not
24 know if there is anything else I want to say about
25 Professor Naismith or not.
26
27 MR. MORRIS: I am not sure if he is a professor.
28
29 MR. RAMPTON: Of course he is a professor. He is now an
30 American professor
31
32 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I think they are probably both professors.
33 They held formal chairs and have been so well thought of
34 that when they have retired they have been allowed to keep
35 the title of professor.
36
37 MS. STEEL: I am just checking if there is anything else
38 I wanted to add. (Pause) I think that is all I have to
39 say.
40
41 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Thank you. Is there anything else you want
42 to say?
43
44 MR. RAMPTON: Three short things and I am probably going to
45 repeat myself. First of all, the Plaintiff's pleaded
46 meaning, whether the original one or the one your Lordship
47 gave leave for, is now totally irrelevant. It has been
48 superseded by your Lordship's meaning. The admission
49 stands, of course, for what it is worth. If your Lordship
50 thought it covered all the ground foreshadowed or raised by
51 your Lordship's meaning, so much the better. If it does
52 not, however, then both parties are in the position that
53 there is a residue of the case, how far is a matter for
54 your Lordship going beyond the admission which remains to
55 be decided by evidence, or, if this be your Lordship's
56 view, in fact, left to be decided by the evidence already
57 called by the Plaintiffs and foreshadowed by the Defendants
58 in their witness statements.
59
60 If, however (and this is the third short point) your
