Day 114 - 04 Apr 95 - Page 07

     
     1
     2   MS. STEEL:  I think this might be relevant to bring this up:  On
     3        day 18 Mr. Rampton asked Dr. Gregory:  "Tell us about any
     4        government or quasi governmental report you know which
     5        criticised stunning methods within the last 10 years or
     6        so".  Dr. Gregory said:  "The 1994" -- he later corrected
     7        that to 1984 -- "Farm Animal Welfare Council report on Red
     8        Meat Slaughter criticised stunning and slaughter".   He
     9        says:  "I do not think I submitted a copy".  But, I mean,
    10        it was brought up in the evidence-in-chief, so it was
    11        equally possible for the Plaintiffs to have got hold of a
    12        copy.
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Look, let me just speak to Mr. Rampton.
    15        Mr. Rampton, the view I take is that this report has to
    16        come in at some stage because it does appear to be the
    17        report which is referred to in the leaflet.  You may argue
    18        that that sentence in the leaflet is not a matter of any
    19        consequence so far as the defamation action is concerned,
    20        but the Defendants may wish to argue to the contrary.  They
         may wish to say that is one of a number of averments which,
    22        in fact, is true and I have to have a look at the actual
    23        report.
    24
    25        So, it is not a question, as I see it at the moment, of the
    26        option of the document not going in at all.
    27
    28   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, there is an argument of law.  It depends
    29        upon what topic the document might be material; as a matter
    30        of justification, it almost certainly is not.  It might be
    31        in relation to other topics in the case -- I will not
    32        develop it now -- I do not mind your Lordship, I have not
    33        said your Lordship should not have a copy.  I complain at
    34        yet another example of what I call Mr. Morris's "bag of
    35        tricks", producing a document at the last moment while the
    36        witness is in the witness box when I have not had a chance
    37        to see it.
    38
    39        I shall have to cross-examine Dr. Long on that.  I have not
    40        had a chance to see this document.  I, therefore, repeat my
         submission that for the present this document should be
    42        excluded, then Dr. Long can go away and then we can
    43        consider, your Lordship can consider, what relevance, if
    44        any, this document actually has to any of the issues in the
    45        case.
    46
    47        Certain it is that Dr. Long cannot as it were, give
    48        evidence through this document.  It is not his document.
    49        These are not his own findings from his own experience and,
    50        for that reason, amongst others, it has no relevance to his 
    51        giving evidence in the witness box today. 
    52 
    53   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  I am not prepared to make the decision
    54        on the basis that Mr. Morris has contrived to achieve the
    55        situation we are in this morning.  I do not have any basis
    56        for reaching any such conclusion.  I think it is right that
    57        the Defendants should be able to refer to the document at
    58        some stage.
    59
    60        I propose to let Mr. Morris use it in examination-in-chief