Day 144 - 28 Jun 95 - Page 32

     
     1   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It would not make any difference.
     2
     3   MR. MORRIS:  We are entitled to refer to evidence that has come
     4        up in court previously to see whether the witness can test
     5        or challenge, or whatever.
     6
     7   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Just put the factual situations.  There are
     8        rules about this which I have not held you to so
     9        far.  There are certain situations in which you can do it
    10        but, by and large, it is sensible to stick to the rule
    11        anyway for the simple reason that it tends to give rise to
    12        an argument between the questioner and the witness as to
    13        whether what was said was actually right or not if you
    14        introduce the identity of the witness and say something has
    15        been said by a witness.
    16
    17        If all you do is forget that side of it and just say:  "If
    18        the situation were X", and then ask your question, we
    19        remove all risk of descending into an argument about
    20        whether X is so or not.  I can decide whether X is so or
         not in due course and we can go from there.  It does not
    22        handicap you.  It helps you because it means the witness
    23        understands much more clearly what they are being asked.
    24
    25   MS. STEEL:   I do recall occasions in the past, although I am
    26        not particularly bothered right now, where Mr. Rampton put
    27        evidence that his witnesses had given to our witnesses as
    28        though it was generally accepted all round and that was the
    29        facts.
    30
    31   MR. MORRIS:  We are quite prepared to accept that the
    32        evidence ---
    33
    34   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Just pause a moment.
    35
    36   MR. MORRIS:  -- is not necessarily fact.
    37
    38   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Follow what I have said in relation to
    39        questioning from now on, whatever has happened in the
    40        past.  When we have expert witnesses it is rather different
         because you may wish to put to one expert what another
    42        expert has said because the answer may be a affected by his
    43        evaluation of the skill, expertise and knowledge of the
    44        other witness.  But that is a different situation; we are
    45        not in that area at the moment.
    46
    47        All you need to do with regard to matters which you are
    48        taking from Sarah Ingliss's statement, which you anticipate
    49        adducing in evidence in due course, is put the facts as you
    50        hope to establish them. 
    51 
    52   MS. STEEL:   I think, I do not know, the general point is we 
    53        recognise that what is in our witness statements is not
    54        accepted by the Plaintiffs, but that does not mean that
    55        there is not any evidence.
    56
    57   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I was inviting you to let what Mr. Stein said
    58        pass because we will see in due course what the evidence
    59        is.  Let us start afresh from this simple proposition, that
    60        when you are questioning a witness about something which is