Day 242 - 29 Apr 96 - Page 45
1 I am not particularly bothered about asking Mr. Crawford.
2 I think Helen might be slightly different on this one point
3 about whether we examine-in-chief Professor Crawford or
4 not. I have every confidence in his evidence and his
5 ability to deal with any cross-examination Mr. Rampton
6 might bring up that is relevant to the issues in the case.
7 That is all I have to say.
8
9 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Thank you.
10
11 MS. STEEL: I have a few points on the heart disease issue.
12
13 As Dave said, McDonald's, or Mr. Rampton on their behalf,
14 said that their admission had removed an issue from the
15 case. Now it appears that Mr. Rampton is trying to say
16 that that was because they have admitted what we had
17 pleaded but, as Mr. Rampton is well aware, if that was as
18 far as the admission went, that would not remove an issue
19 from the case.
20
21 Could I quote from Mr. Rampton from the transcript of 21st
22 November 1994, on page 55 where you were asking him about
23 finding some middle of the road meaning and he said:
24
25 "By reason of what the Court of Appeal decided in Slim v
26 Daily Telegraph, the defendant must necessarily be allowed
27 to try to justify any meaning from the meaning pleaded by
28 the Plaintiffs downwards".
29
30 Therefore, merely admitting our pleading, unless it was the
31 same as the Plaintiffs' pleading, would not remove an
32 issue. Mr. Rampton has frequently said during the course
33 of argument that the issue of heart disease has been
34 removed from the case, the issue of diet and heart disease
35 has been removed from the case.
36
37 On Day 22 of the trial, and I will try and find what day
38 that is. It is 12th September 1994. Mr. Rampton was
39 raising about whether or not Professor Crawford and other
40 of our witnesses should be allowed to give evidence. He
41 said in relation to Professor Crawford:
42
43 "If he has no relevant evidence to give because he deals
44 with the cardiological implications of diet and that alone,
45 then time could be saved by not calling him."
46
47 It is clear there that Professor Crawford does deal with
48 the cardiological implications of diet and obviously that
49 would include the extent of any risk, that as far as
50 Mr. Rampton, on behalf of the Plaintiffs was concerned,
51 there was no issue at all in relation to diet and heart
52 disease, no issue in relation to the type of link, whether
53 or not it was a causal nature, the extent of any risk, and
54 anything like that. None of those were considered by the
55 Plaintiffs to be something that were in issue because they
56 had made their admission.
57
58 "If an issue has been removed because of an admission, then
59 it could not come back in if the meaning which has been
60 found to be attributed to the words in the leaflet is a
