Day 242 - 29 Apr 96 - Page 41
1 MR. RAMPTON: Of course I understand that and, by and large,
2 I am heartily in agreement with your Lordship, but there
3 comes a point where I have to, as it were, stand up for
4 what I perceive to be my client's rights in the matter, and
5 it is not right that one side should be allowed an
6 opportunity of dealing with part of the case which is
7 denied to the other side.
8
9 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Have you thought about Dr. Keen as -----
10
11 MR. RAMPTON: No, I have not, but I mean I will. I do not know
12 where he is or whether he knows anything about heart
13 disease and its risks. It may be that Professor Crawford
14 in further cross-examination will give me everything
15 I want, I do not know.
16
17 One notable event which has occurred has been the
18 publication since my witnesses gave evidence of the COMA
19 report on cardiovascular disease. It may be that Professor
20 Crawford will agree with the propositions which I will base
21 on that, provided that I am allowed to do so and that
22 depends on the further question, are the parties now going
23 to address the questions in relation to heart disease which
24 your Lordship's meaning raises but no other aspects of the
25 matter raised by that meaning? If they are, I, obviously,
26 cannot guarantee that Professor Crawford is going to give
27 me the answers I want. I must prepare myself to call
28 evidence on that aspect of the case. I have done it as
29 quickly as I possibly could. I kept Professor Naismith at
30 bay until after the Defendants appealed to the Court of
31 Appeal, which, as it turned out, was a complete damp squid
32 because they abandoned 90 per cent of it at the door of the
33 court. I now produce him. I do ask for leave. I do not
34 mind if your Lordship says -----
35
36 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have to say not -- I do not say this in any
37 self-justification, but since November of last year it has
38 been apparent that the meaning which I ruled it to be might
39 very well be the meaning of the words in the case.
40 I cannot see any reason why, if there was a possibility of
41 calling another witness, one had to wait for an appeal
42 which might come very late before actually serving new
43 evidence.
44
45 MR. RAMPTON: This is about to become argumentative (which
46 I hate being) but my recollection is -----
47
48 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is argumentative because it may help me
49 sort it out in my mind.
50
51 MR. RAMPTON: My recollection is that your Lordship actually
52 said (and I think your Lordship made a reference to it
53 yesterday) defer the additional or the question of the
54 additional nutrition witnesses until after the Court of
55 Appeal has decided the question. Because, until that was
56 clear it would have been, frankly, a waste of our time and
57 our client's money to go around getting new expert evidence
58 if the Court of Appeal was going to say: Your Lordship is
59 completely wrong anyway; it bears no meaning anything like
60 that, or if the Court of Appeal had said, the judge's
