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

Prev Next Index