Day 094 - 01 Mar 95 - Page 44
1 MR. JUSTICE BELL: If we just look at the part which Ms. Steel
2 was referring the witness to, the part about opening up the
3 cheeks is part of a quote which starts with the procedures,
4 as far as I can see, and ends with "across the country".
5
6 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, that is right.
7
8 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is attributed to one long-time Montfort
9 worker. So, it is not like the gentleman who, it is said,
10 was the source of the quotes on the previous page, not the
11 Vice President of Quality Assurance, but the 25 year-old --
12 I do not know what being tall and dark haired adds to the
13 weight of his quote, but that is all part of making the
14 journalism attractive -- and a Civil Evidence Act notice,
15 I suppose, could be drafted in a way which made it clear
16 that the statement was of an otherwise unidentifiable
17 long-time Montfort worker to an unidentified person
18 involved in the preparation of this article, but one is
19 really ------
20
21 MS. STEEL: Leanne Claudine ------
22
23 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Sorry?
24
25 MR. RAMPTON: No, because if one looks at the end of the article
26 one finds, in fact, that she relies heavily on other
27 sources.
28
29 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. You might be right, one just does not
30 know, you see.
31
32 MR. RAMPTON: No. One has not the least idea how many hands of
33 hearsay one is dealing with here. The fact is that even if
34 that unidentified person who talks about the removal of the
35 cheeks, opening up of the cheeks, whatever it is, spoke
36 directly to Leanne, whatever she is called, even that is
37 double hearsay so far as the Civil Evidence Act notice is
38 concerned. She would have to turn up in court and say:
39 "That is what the man said".
40
41 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I might need some help on that.
42
43 MR. RAMPTON: I agree.
44
45 MR. JUSTICE BELL: The statement which would be the subject of
46 the Civil Evidence Act notice would be the statement of the
47 unidentified long-term Monfort worker, not the person who
48 was relating what was said. One only has to pose it in
49 that form to see that one really might be able to attach no
50 weight to it at all, when you do not even know who the
51 person was, there is no way of checking whether he or she
52 would be in a position to know these things.
53 So, by all means consider your technical, legal position,
54 but think about where you can actually sensibly take me on
55 it.
56
57 What I am about to say is not a jibe at the press, but over
58 very many years one has read a lot of the things in the
59 papers which one was directly involved which you know,
60 because you have been there, are just wrong. So, it does
