Day 270 - 28 Jun 96 - Page 40


     
     1
     2   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  To record what she was told by other people,
     3        yes.
     4
     5   MR. RAMPTON:  And to extent that the defendants wish to rely on
     6        the truth of or the facts communicated by the statements
     7        made by those other people to her, those statements cannot
     8        be admitted under section 2(1), because neither the people
     9        who made the statements, that is, for a large part, the
    10        federal meat inspectors, nor Miss Claufine-Caston, is here
    11        in court to give evidence either of the truth of the
    12        statements or that they were made.  The reason for that is
    13        the plain words of subsection (3) of section 2.
    14
    15        If Miss Claufine-Caston had come to court and had stood in
    16        the witness box under oath and said "this is what the
    17        federal meat inspectors told me", that would be
    18        admissible.  But she has not and so what she says about it
    19        in writing becomes inadmissible under subsection (3).
    20
    21        My Lord, I say that because it is important.  It takes the
    22        guts out of this statement.  There is a small passage to
    23        which I will refer your Lordship to in a moment in the
    24        statement which I perceive is admissible, because it
    25        records, although in writing, it records Miss
    26        Claufine-Caston's own direct observations.
    27
    28   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  What is the situation at the end of the
    29        day though?  Could the defendants give a Civil Evidence Act
    30        notice relying upon the article, of which I have some faint
    31        recollection, that we wish to rely upon a statement made by
    32        such and such an inspector?
    33
    34   MR. RAMPTON:  No, my Lord, because the article would be in no
    35        better position than Miss Claufine-Caston because the
    36        statement which matters is the statement of the inspector.
    37
    38   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    39
    40   MR. RAMPTON:  That such and such happened.  That can only be
    41        given in evidence either by the inspector himself, and I
    42        mean live evidence, or by the person who heard or perceived
    43        it being made.  So either it is the person who wrote the
    44        article or it is Miss Claufine-Caston or it is the
    45        inspectors themselves.  There is no halfway house.  Even if
    46        the inspectors, in fact as it happens under the Ventouris
    47        v. Mountain and Brinks line of authority, even if the
    48        inspectors had made their statements in writing, the same
    49        would apply.
    50 
    51   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It just would not be introduced by way of 
    52        Miss Claufine-Caston.  They would be introduced as Civil 
    53        Evidence Act statements themselves.  You are saying if they
    54        are oral, that cannot be done.
    55
    56   MR. RAMPTON:  No, it cannot be done.  In my submission, the
    57        wording of subsection (3) makes that absolutely crystal
    58        clear when it says no evidence other than direct oral
    59        evidence by the person, and I leave out the next bit, who
    60        heard or otherwise perceived it being made, shall be

Prev Next Index