Day 157 - 18 Jul 95 - Page 37
1 that can benefit McDonald's is open to interpretation.
2
3 There are some other points I want to make. Those are the
4 main points.
5
6 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Sit down and collect your thoughts on them.
7
8 MR. MORRIS: There was a point that cropped up that Mr. Rampton
9 said he would continue to provide any extracts of
10 transcripts which he referred to in examination or
11 cross-examination or in closing speeches. Again, that is
12 an admission that the transcripts are a form of evidence or
13 relevant to the evidence and weight is going to be given to
14 them. That is another argument for us to be -- for the
15 court to ensure that we have copies so we do not have the
16 element of surprise in the hands of the Plaintiffs.
17
18 MR. JUSTICE BELL: If you think you have made your submissions
19 in relation to transcripts, save for something you may have
20 omitted which you are just checking through, we will take a
21 break now. What I propose to do is hear Mr. Rampton in
22 reply on the question of transcripts rather than go on to
23 other interlocutory matters, hear anything you want to say
24 in reply to Mr. Rampton and then that might, effectively,
25 be the end of today's proceedings. I will come back at 5 to
26 3.
27
28 (Short Adjournment)
29
30 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
31
32 MR. MORRIS: I have nearly finished, then Helen will say some
33 winding up words to end up. The Plaintiffs have tried to
34 assert that they are not trying to undermine or sabotage
35 our ability to defend ourselves in this case, just to stop
36 us having direct access or showing the press or public
37 extracts from transcripts which cannot be the case because,
38 as has been stated, the press in any case are entitled to
39 get copies of the transcripts, to attend court, to take
40 notes and to talk to us in any event.
41
42 So, we can see the motivation of the Plaintiffs by looking
43 at the original undertaking they sought which, in the light
44 of us making this application, strong application, at the
45 last minute they amend it, but the original application was
46 clear, that they wanted to stop us from giving copies of
47 transcripts to witnesses, even reading them any extracts
48 out over the phone to anybody. It is clear that they were
49 and are motivated to undermine our defence midway through a
50 case which they chose to bring.
51
52 So, I do not think any credence should be given to their
53 protestations on this matter at all.
54
55 The final thing I would like to say is if we are
56 unsuccessful on ensuring access to the transcripts to the
57 Defendants as well as the Plaintiffs, then we would seek an
58 adjournment awaiting the reply from the Lord Chancellor's
59 Department.
60
