Day 030 - 03 Oct 94 - Page 07
1 answer to things that the Plaintiffs' witnesses have said
2 in the witness box. While I realise that experts are
3 supposed to give advance notice of what they are going to
4 say, where you are cross-examining witnesses -- where
5 something arises where you are putting what the other
6 side's witness has said, that would not necessarily be
7 covered by an expert statement.
8
9 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I will tell you what I am ----
10
11 MR. MORRIS: We were asked to do these statements by, I think,
12 yourself at the end of the last session, eight days ago,
13 whatever, and so these statements are there to help the
14 court because we were asked to do that. It is not that we
15 have deliberately left it to the late stage as a trick.
16 It is because we were specifically asked to get these
17 statements at great effort to -- I am just saying that it
18 is -----
19
20 MR. JUSTICE BELL: There are two questions here. The first is
21 whether Mr. Rampton should be put to cross-examining
22 either Mr. Cannon or Professor Crawford as they come to
23 the end of their evidence-in-chief. I have not read
24 Professor Crawford. So far as Mr. Cannon is concerned,
25 I consider that Mr. Rampton should certainly have ample
26 time to consider the new statement, assuming that that
27 goes into evidence, Mr. Cannon supports it in the witness
28 box, and anything else which Mr. Cannon says which is
29 additional material before he cross-examines.
30
31 I have not read Professor Crawford's new statement but,
32 comparing it just for length with what he had in his
33 original, I would not be surprised if I do not come to the
34 same view so far as he is concerned. That is the first
35 part.
36
37 The second part is this, what we are to learn from this.
38 The point of exchange of witness statements is to have in
39 it everything which you, as litigants on one side, can
40 reasonably foresee that you will want to ask that witness
41 about. I do not have to remind you that we have had long
42 interlocutory hearings on whether parts of your defence
43 should be struck out.
44
45 Looking at all the statements I reached a view about that;
46 the Court of Appeal largely reached a different one. But
47 we have had all those interlocutory matters which were on
48 the basis of statements which everyone at that stage took
49 to be a reasonably full expression of the evidence which
50 you expected to call.
51
52 You do not have to tell me that you have difficulties as
53 litigants in person, but the statements must include as
54 full an expression of the evidence which your witnesses
55 are going to give as you can. There will be things you do
56 not foresee; there will be things which crop up as the
57 case develops as you hear, for instance, McDonald's
58 witnesses and you will say: "Oh, I would like to ask
59 Mr. Cannon about that. I had not thought about that. I
60 would like to Professor Crawford about that. I had not
