Day 149 - 06 Jul 95 - Page 21


     
     1        and their applications themselves, to which I now respond.
     2
     3        My Lord, the first application was, I think, the
     4        Defendants' application; therefore, I will now respond to
     5        it.  It was, in effect, this, that because on two occasions
     6        the Defendants had found that there was more in the witness
     7        statements that had been served on them than there was in
     8        the ones in the trial bundles, the Plaintiffs should pay
     9        for an independent person to compare all the trial
    10        witnesses statements, those are ones in the bundle, with
    11        what the Defendants have got.
    12
    13        My Lord, the Plaintiffs have so far called 39 witnesses.
    14        There have been two cases of error in this regard, both in
    15        favour of the Defendants, in the sense that they got more
    16        information than they would otherwise have done.
    17        I calculate that there are about 18 new Plaintiffs'
    18        witnesses left, only five of these due to be called before
    19        the long vacation.
    20
    21        My Lord, therefore, as your Lordship suggested to the
    22        Defendants in argument, the right approach for them, if
    23        they are concerned about it, is to have a quick look at
    24        what they have, if they want to, to compare it with what is
    25        in the witness statement of the witness who is coming up.
    26        That is all I say about that.
    27
    28        My Lord, the next one is the amendment about residues and
    29        the recall of Mr. North.  Again, this is a response by me
    30        to their application.  I am not sure it is yet an
    31        application.  All I would say about that is that I will not
    32        do anything until I see his additional paper, which
    33        your Lordship may remember, which, in fact, he suggested to
    34        me outside court he should provide; and I reported that to
    35        the Defendants and to your Lordship.  That is both in
    36        relation to residues and in relation to any comments he
    37        might have about McDonald's procedures arising out of a
    38        study of the PHLS report into Preston.
    39
    40        My Lord, then we come to -----
    41
    42   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What about the two articles which
    43        Dr. Gomez Gonzales relied on, I think, and said he
    44        produced, because is not the situation rather different
    45        there?  He has relied upon some article to which he has
    46        then made reference.
    47
    48   MR. RAMPTON:  He relied upon them because he was cross-examined
    49        about them on an issue which does not yet exist in the
    50        case.  It is in the pamphlet, but it is not in the Defence. 
    51        It will be in the Defence if and when Mr. North produces 
    52        something which can be relied upon.  It is not for 
    53        Mr. Gomez Gonzalez, out of the kindness of his heart, to
    54        try and please the Defendants by offering materials which
    55        are irrelevant to any issue in the case.  If the time
    56        should come when they are relevant, why then, no doubt they
    57        can be searched for.  It is not the first time it has
    58        arisen, as your Lordship knows very well.
    59
    60        My Lord, the next matter is a matter of law.  It is, in

Prev Next Index