Day 100 - 09 Mar 95 - Page 16
1 A. You said earlier "other than Preston".
2
3 Q. No, no, I mean Preston.
4 A. Yes, I am aware of the investigation they did into
5 Preston, yes. You are asking me my opinion and I said the
6 evidence was not conclusive.
7
8 Q. So when the evidence is not conclusive, in your opinion, in
9 McDonald's terminology that would be, quote, what you said
10 before, "No incident diagnosed as food poisoning"?
11 A. I said also there have been no other incidents of
12 outbreaks other than that one that I am aware of that has
13 possibly been connected with McDonald's.
14
15 Q. Yes, but what I am saying is that the proof would have to
16 be more conclusive than Preston for you to say that was a
17 food poisoning incident for an individual or group,
18 whatever, "it was our fault"?
19 A. For me to say that personally, yes.
20
21 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, I wonder whether Mr. Morris is going to
22 put some cases to Mr. Kenny, positive cases, where -----
23
24 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I do not think he is, not outbreaks anyway.
25
26 MR. RAMPTON: Positive cases of food poisoning attributed to
27 McDonald's so that I can hear what they are.
28
29 MR. JUSTICE BELL: If you are going to suggest -- part of
30 Mr. Kenny's evidence related to particular instances --
31 that McDonald's was responsible for this instance or that
32 instance, if you are positively going to suggest that in
33 due course, you should put it at some stage in your
34 cross-examination to the witness. You do not have to put
35 it now but at some stage in your cross-examination you
36 should.
37
38 First of all, show that you are challenging the evidence he
39 gave yesterday afternoon but, more importantly, so that you
40 can have his response to it. You do not have to do in this
41 instance but at some stage.
42
43 Can I give you an example, the Wing Commander who is said
44 to have died, about which I think I know nothing more than
45 really what is pleaded. What you do not need to do is with
46 this witness go further into Preston, because I will just
47 have to make what I do of Mr. Kenny's answers in the light
48 of whatever else I hear about Preston by way of admissible
49 evidence. By anything you can say to me along the lines
50 of: "Well, that has been admitted for the purposes of this
51 case, that means on balance of probabilities, at least, it
52 was attributable to McDonald's", and that serves your
53 purpose, but that would all be a matter for argument in due
54 course.
55
56 MR. MORRIS (To the witness): So you have read the Preston
57 Public Health Laboratory Service report, have you?
58 A. At the time -- I have seen it, yes, I have not read it
59 for a while so .....
60