Day 135 - 15 Jun 95 - Page 23
1 quote -- that we had the advantage that our witnesses go
2 second which, I must admit, seemed to go against the
3 fundamental of English law which is they chose to bring the
4 case, they put their case and that we put our case. They
5 have the advantage of choosing who they sue and whatever.
6 But -----
7
8 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I do not know what you are getting there.
9 All that Barlows did in their letter was repeat what I
10 had said, and I will repeat it. The first thing was this:
11 It may be that strictly no-one should adduce evidence from
12 a witness of which at least some general notice has not
13 been given in their disclosed witness statement. It is
14 true that McDonald's witnesses have gone beyond what is in
15 their statements, but so have witnesses who you have
16 called.
17
18 MR. MORRIS: Yes.
19
20 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have to be even handed. If I stop
21 Mr. Rampton adducing evidence-in-chief which is not
22 indicated or covered in the statement, disclosed statement
23 of the witness, then I must do the same so far as your
24 witnesses are concerned. I have appreciated that you may
25 have more difficulty than someone who has a very competent
26 solicitor able to help with the preparation does, so far as
27 being aware of just what relevant evidence a witness of
28 yours may be going to give.
29
30 So, I am disinclined to you stop you adducing
31 evidence-in-chief if it is relevant from a witness just
32 because there is no indication of that evidence in the
33 statement. I am particularly not following the elements of
34 the practice direction which the Lord Chief Justice gave in
35 March simply because you are representing yourselves.
36
37 If I take that view towards the witnesses which you call
38 because I think it is fair to do so, then it is only fair
39 to take the same view of the witnesses whom McDonald's
40 call. That is the first thing.
41
42 The second point is this: If McDonald's (who are calling
43 their witnesses first, by and large) calls a witness who
44 goes beyond his or her statement, at least you have the
45 opportunity to ask any witness you are calling on the topic
46 to deal with that when the witness comes to the witness
47 box. You may choose to do that, you may not.
48
49 You may choose to make enquiries of the witness about the
50 topic before the witness is called, you may not. You may
51 not be able to get hold of the witness before the witness
52 comes to the witness box. But at least when the witness
53 does appear in the Strand, you can say: "What do you say
54 about this?" which a McDonald's witness said maybe weeks or
55 months ago, "I am going to ask you about it" and you can
56 deal with it?"
57
58 McDonald's cannot do that, obviously, when they have
59 already called their relevant witness. So, if you bring in
60 new evidence -- I mean "new" in the sense that there is no
