Day 109 - 28 Mar 95 - Page 31
1 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, that is why it has been done in that
2 way. Each of the witnesses has been given the whole of
3 each of those weeks which means, for example, there might
4 be some date before Mr. Fairgreave or before Mrs. Barnes or
5 after Mrs. Barnes and, anyway, after Mrs. Barnes there is
6 another five plus two -- eight days before Mr. Purslow
7 comes along. He is not, I do not think, going to be four
8 days. And Mr. Mead is certainly not going to be a whole
9 week before Mr. Stein comes.
10
11 MR. MORRIS: Yes, I do not think we are complaining about the
12 length of time allotted which should leave in some of the
13 witness's cases an extra day or two or whatever; the main
14 concern is the embarking upon major witnesses immediately
15 after the Easter break, Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Beavers.
16 Certainly, with Mr. Nicholson, in his case the fact that he
17 is also doing two completely new subjects.
18
19 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have tried to think about all the possible
20 ramifications. My own view is that there is no better
21 place to start a witness whom you see as important than
22 immediately after a break. The question is whether what
23 looks like being two-and-a-half weeks -- I appreciate you
24 have to have a bit of a genuine holiday or break -- or even
25 if we ran into the week beginning Monday, 10th, at least
26 two weeks is enough. I think it is. If you started
27 cross-examining Mr. Nicholson and reached a stage where you
28 said: "I really need another half a day now or a day
29 before we continue", I have listened to that, though you
30 should try to finish him in one go.
31
32 The other matter is this, which has been on my mind to say
33 and I suggest I say it now, and then we will break off
34 until 10.30 in the morning. You have worked in harness in
35 cross-examining witnesses. There has been no objection to
36 you doing it the way you have done it and, of course, quite
37 apart from whether it is a convenient way of doing it, you
38 are actually separate parties in the proceedings and you
39 are absolutely entitled to cross-examine each witness who
40 is called on behalf of McDonald's.
41
42 If I might suggest so, I think you might give a bit more
43 thought to the allocation of cross-examination, because if
44 you did that I really think that you would find that there
45 is no need for both of you to be tuned up 100 per cent in
46 relation to any particular witness. You could apportion
47 the cross-examination and, therefore, the preparation in
48 relation to particular witnesses between the two of you.
49
50 I am not suggesting that if, for instance, it is decided
51 Mr. Morris will take the lead with regard to a witness,
52 Ms. Steel should not be aware of the ramification of that
53 witness' evidence. You have prepared a lot of your
54 questions in advance and, no doubt, you would each want to
55 run through with the other what they propose to deal with
56 and go to some extent into how they propose to deal with
57 it.
58
59 But, quite frankly, I do not think for the fair and full
60 putting of your case you each need to prepare fully for the
