Day 280 - 17 Jul 96 - Page 34
1 Defendants then say, "I want to give a response from
2 Professor Hecht", and so it would go on.
3
4 My Lord, there must come a time when each of the
5 parties is confined to the evidence which is properly
6 adduced by them within a reasonable timescale. This
7 statement should have been served on us at a time when we
8 had a proper opportunity to respond to it. Since it
9 corroborates evidence given in May, the 10th and the 17th,
10 on the one hand it contradicts and on the other it
11 corroborates, that would have been the proper time to have
12 served it. Before the end of May, let us say, which would
13 have given me at least some chance of being able to respond
14 to it.
15
16 That leaves aside any comments I might have in due
17 course if it were admitted as to its weight, absent
18 cross-examination and as to the obvious possibility that it
19 contains what might be thought to be second hand
20 information. And although Professor Hecht is plainly an
21 expert, an expert is in no better a position when it comes
22 to hearsay than an ordinary witness of fact, if the hearsay
23 is not part of the learning of the expert but is hearsay
24 account of primary facts, and your Lordship will remember
25 those authorities that I cited much earlier in this case
26 that the evidence of experts is inadmissible unless the
27 primary facts are proved, whatever opinion they may have
28 and however distinguished they may be.
29
30 But I leave that on one side. For the present purpose
31 that would come later on if your Lordship thought it right
32 to admit this statement. My principal objection is that
33 unless I am given the time to answer it, it puts my clients
34 at an irrecoverable disadvantage in the conduct of this
35 litigation because I do not have the opportunity to answer
36 it, given simply its lateness. Whose fault that is matters
37 not a bit. It may well be Professor Hecht's for all I
38 know, but the fact is the chronology makes my conduct of
39 this case, in this particular respect, very difficult.
40
41 MR. MORRIS: It is true that this is a statement responding to
42 the Morganti statements, assertions, and that is
43 effectively what it is. And Mr. Rampton says we are now
44 coming close to the portcullis, and I think we are aware of
45 that, which is why this was served at the earliest possible
46 opportunity, which was on the 10th July. The Plaintiffs
47 raised an entirely new issue with the fifth statement of
48 Morganti.
49
50 MR. RAMPTON: I am sorry, no, Mr. Morris.
51
52 MR. MORRIS: Which I found--
53
54 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, that is simply not right. Mr. Morganti's
55 fourth statement was produced at your Lordship's invitation
56 to know where the collection points in Goias might be.
57
58 MR. MORRIS: If I can allowed to continue, I was talking about
59 his fifth statement and I stated as much. That his fifth
60 statement introduced a confounding variable, if you like,
