Day 043 - 01 Nov 94 - Page 74
1 Essentially, what it comes to is this, that she and her
2 sympathisers have been lobbying the Independent Television
3 Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority to
4 change the regulation of children's advertising in such a
5 way as, amongst other things, to forbid the advertising of
6 fatty or sugary foods to children. Now, so far, so good.
7 It is a matter of argument, and might even call it
8 argy-bargy, between the Defendants and Mr. Hawkes and
9 between me and Miss Dibb whether or not that is a good
10 idea. It is a matter of opinion.
11
12 But, in the course of reporting her lobbying activities,
13 partly by way of press release, Miss Dibb asserts that she
14 had certain meetings with the ITC and the ASA and gives an
15 account of those meetings which, all I shall say at the
16 moment is, I do not necessarily accept as being reliable or
17 accurate.
18
19 In aid of her submissions to those two bodies, she
20 prays-in-aid a survey which again I say on the face of it
21 appears to have been conducted by the well-known research
22 organisation MORI in which it appears parents were asked
23 certain questions. I will not say any more than that.
24
25 There are certain enquiries which we should wish to make
26 about the factual substratum of all of that before
27 Mr. Hawkes returns, so that he may know what the position
28 is and, in other words, is not faced with a proposition of
29 fact which he is not in a position to dispute, if dispute
30 it can be.
31
32 That is what will happen. We know very well the Defendants
33 are in the habit -- it is natural for them to do it -- of
34 introducing documents and other material into the case as
35 though it were evidence. I know it does not matter so far
36 as your Lordship is concerned -- I am not in the least bit
37 concerned about that; it matters a little more so far as
38 the wider audience is concerned -- I have made my complaint
39 about that clear. If it were only that, I would not say
40 anything about it. It simply is not fair on Mr. Hawkes to
41 be faced with factual assertions with which he is not
42 equipped to deal.
43
44 MS. STEEL: Unless the Plaintiffs are going to tell him what to
45 say, I do not quite see how this break helps, because if he
46 does not know anything about it, he is always in a position
47 to say: "Sorry, I cannot answer that because I do not know
48 whether it is true or not", then it can be put to Mr. Miles
49 who will be more likely to know about it.
50
51 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What might then happen (which you have to
52 consider) is that cross-examination having finished,
53 Mr. Rampton might say: "Before I re-examine I want
54 Mr. Hawkes to be able to look into the matters which he
55 first had notice of via the documents one day ago, two days
56 ago", whatever it is, "I want him to be able to do that
57 before I re-examine".
58
59 As presently advised, that would seem to be a fair
60 request. If I accede to any such request, Mr. Hawkes comes
