Day 030 - 03 Oct 94 - Page 05
1 statements were. Cross-examination on the two original
2 statements, had the evidence-in-chief followed their
3 format, would have been a simple matter for the reason
4 that, for the most part, it seemed to us that the evidence
5 of these two gentlemen accorded with the opinions of our
6 own experts.
7
8 It now appears that there is considerable water between
9 these two gentlemen and Dr. Arnott and Professor
10 Wheelock. For that reason, we submit it is right, in the
11 interests of justice, that I should have the opportunity
12 of submitting these materials to our experts, discussing
13 them with our experts and basing my cross-examination on
14 the outcome of those discussions.
15
16 That it should come to this pass is highly regrettable.
17 I cannot believe that we have any blame in the matter. If
18 there is an inconvenience to the Defendants' witnesses
19 because they have to come back to court to be
20 cross-examined, the Defendants have only themselves to
21 blame for that.
22
23 MR. JUSTICE BELL: If I saw merit in what you said about you
24 having time to take instructions and consider the matter
25 before you cross-examine, would it be better to go ahead
26 and hear the evidence-in-chief before you do that to avoid
27 as much as possible the need to have more time to take
28 further instructions of the evidence-in-chief? I say that
29 because if the Defendants were represented by solicitors
30 and counsel, the proofs of their witnesses would have been
31 prepared to some extent, great or small, depending on a
32 number of factors at the instance of, for instance, the
33 solicitors who would say: "We would like you to deal with
34 this; you need not bother to deal with that", and so on.
35
36 I anticipate, though I may be completely wrong, that to
37 some considerable extent the Defendants' witnesses have
38 been left to get on with producing their own statements.
39 I may be wrong about that, but it seems a fair surmise at
40 this moment. When that happens, one knows from
41 experience, when the witness gets into the witness box
42 matters are canvassed in evidence-in-chief which are not
43 canvassed in the disclosed statement because at that stage
44 the litigant in person does that which the solicitor would
45 have done in the first instance, saying: "We would like
46 you to deal with this".
47
48 If all that sounds fairly sensible, there might be some
49 merit in hearing the witnesses in-chief and then -----
50
51 MR. RAMPTON: I was not proposing to ask your Lordship to defer
52 the witnesses in their entirety unless it be for their own
53 convenience. It is much better -- I agree with your
54 Lordship -- that they should give their evidence-in-chief,
55 that I am allowed by your Lordship to defer my
56 cross-examination until a time when the witnesses can come
57 back to court for that purpose, as Dr. Arnott did, and
58 leave it like that. At least we shall not waste the whole
59 of the next three days if they give their
60 evidence-in-chief.
