Day 100 - 09 Mar 95 - Page 04
1 we have the results but not the sheets is, of course, that
2 it is random in the sense it was the date chosen by
3 Mr. Jackson, and those are the figures for the day when he
4 visited. Whether we could do a similar exercise for a
5 subsequent day where documents do still exist, I do not
6 know. I would ask about that, if your Lordship thought it
7 right for us to do so.
8
9 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. What do you want to say?
10
11 MR. MORRIS: Maybe a random day in the first week of this year
12 would be appropriate.
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Would you rather that, than if there were a
15 date before January 1994, taking that, would you? The only
16 reason I say that is that throughout this case, although
17 I see the relevance of whatever practices are at the
18 moment, I have to keep reminding myself that the alleged
19 publication which is complained of is said to be in the
20 autumn of 1989 through to the spring of 1990.
21
22 I am not trying to deter you. If you would rather have it
23 after than before, there we are. I am not encouraging you
24 to have both before and after because, quite apart from any
25 question of relevance which we may touch on in a moment,
26 what I want you to have is the reasonable minimum of
27 documents which could fairly be considered sufficient for
28 your purpose.
29
30 MR. MORRIS: Yes. If it was before 1993 -- I think the random
31 principle is a good one helpfully suggested by Mr. Rampton,
32 that if a random date could be picked in 1992 and there
33 were documents from that date, then that would be helpful.
34
35 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What I want to do really is put down a first
36 choice and then we can have subsequent choices. We take a
37 random date in 1992 -- might I suggest that it be not
38 purely random in this sense, that I am disinclined, if
39 I can avoid it, to get involved in arguments such as
40 documentation which might disclose the identity of an
41 abattoir, just as not so very long ago I was disinclined to
42 get involved in arguments about whether there should be
43 disclosure of the addresses of some of your witnesses.
44
45 If that is a sensible approach and if, for instance, taking
46 12th January information which we have at the moment, there
47 will be days when Midland and/or Jarret meat has been the
48 subject of only, say, two out of 30 tests, it might be
49 better to pick a day when Midland and/or Jarret, being two
50 suppliers you know of, or a third company which Ms. Steel
51 mentioned yesterday evening ---
52
53 MR. MORRIS: ABP.
54
55 MR. JUSTICE BELL: -- are the subject of more tests. So, for
56 instance, there were, let us say, four of the Milton Keynes
57 raw material tests were on Midland, Jarret and/or that
58 third company, something like four of the Scunthorpe beef
59 were on one or others of those three companies, and one of
60 the pork checks anyway, was G.D. Bowes.
