Day 251 - 17 May 96 - Page 33
1
2 MR. JUSTICE BELL: When was that?
3 A. I did not do it for academic research, I did a report
4 on it.
5
6 Q. No, all I am asking is when the visit to the Indians was?
7 A. When I visited the Guaranian Indians, it was when I was
8 working for the Financial Times, it must have been in the
9 late 1970's.
10
11 MR. RAMPTON: Those are all the questions. Thank you Miss
12 Branford.
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Do you have any re-examination?
15
16 MR. MORRIS: No, no re-examination.
17
18 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Thank you, Miss Branford. Would you like to
19 go back and sit where you were a moment ago?
20
21 There are two matters I want to raise arising partly out of
22 Miss Branford's evidence. The first is where Mr. Rampton
23 has put Pontes e Lacerda and Sinop and Nova Xavantina on
24 his map, if one ignores the lines actually drawn on the
25 plotter map and sees where the latitude and longitude marks
26 are across the lines, the latitude line is not exactly
27 right. The longitude feint lines are not right, they may
28 not have meant to be.
29
30 MR. RAMPTON: No, they are not. No, I am sorry, they are not.
31
32 MR. JUSTICE BELL: But if one drew lines on the plotter map
33 which accorded where the latitude and longitude is shown,
34 Pontes e Lacerda Sinop and Nova Xavantina would appear, to
35 me, to be in the right place using the vegetation map as
36 the source. They may be a very fraction out, but they
37 would appear to be.
38
39 MR. RAMPTON: That is how I did it, in fact, my Lord.
40
41 MR. JUSTICE BELL: So if there is to be a challenge to their
42 position at some stage, I would like to know. That is the
43 first point.
44
45 The second point is this: I have not actually looked up
46 the ruling I made in July of last year, slightly amended by
47 agreement in October of last year, as to Miss Steel's and
48 Mr. Morris' case about rain forest and Brazil. But what it
49 boiled down to was I allowed an amendment, insofar as it
50 alleged indirect effects on the rain forest, but not so far
51 as it allowed direct effect, I think.
52
53 We have obviously had statements since then. We have had
54 the evidence of Miss Branford this morning and, without
55 actually checking the ruling, it appears to me that there
56 is an argument, at least, that what I ruled then no longer
57 applies. I am not the least bit concerned about that,
58 unless some point is going to be taken in due course that,
59 on that date, I ruled that the Defendants could not have
60 the amendment in the full form they sought and therefore,
