Day 172 - 12 Oct 95 - Page 34
1 for some other reason, and if the objection is then taken,
2 the judge hears argument and rules on it. If he rules that
3 the witness can answer the question and he goes on to
4 answer it, if he rules that the answer in the form it looks
5 like being given in is inadmissible, then the witness
6 cannot answer that question or cannot answer it in the form
7 it is being asked in.
8
9 I see no reason why it should be any different with a
10 statement which is being read. You cannot get in
11 inadmissible evidence. In a lot of trials, there is a bit
12 of give and take and people do not object all the time,
13 because even though something may be inadmissible they feel
14 that there is no harm is going to be done. But that is
15 entirely a matter for them whether they take the objection
16 or not. If they take the objection and the judge has to
17 rule on it, he has to rule on it according to law.
18
19 MR. MORRIS: Yes. I mean, presumably, the law is that -----
20
21 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I find it very difficult to see what you lose
22 by not reading out anything which is inadmissible anyway.
23 If it is inadmissible, what is the point of reading
24 something out which is inadmissible?
25
26 MR. MORRIS: We do not want to -- in this exercise, you know, as
27 I say, I think you have already said that if it is not
28 absolutely clear that it is inadmissible then it should be
29 left in. But the law, as far as I understand it, is framed
30 because nobody wishes to sway a jury unfairly by bringing
31 up things which they might think are significant but in
32 fact are inadmissible and in this case it does not apply.
33
34 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is not right, in fact. It may be that
35 people are more relaxed about the rule if it is a
36 professional judge, because it is thought that he or she
37 might be able to put the matter out of mind; and there is
38 no difficulty about that in this case, because there is so
39 much information that most of it will go out of mind
40 anyway, unless it is brought back in in submissions or one
41 has made a particular note at the time. That does not
42 change the matter. Time and time again, if you sit in on
43 courts, go into an ordinary personal injury action, you
44 will see that there is a witness in the witness box and
45 they start to say what someone has told them and either
46 counsel or the judge says, "No, we cannot have that", and
47 so they move on through their evidence, omitting that part.
48
49 All we are doing at the moment is ensuring that we have the
50 same process with the statement of a witness which is being
51 read.
52
53 I find it difficult to see why you should object to the
54 process. I can see that you may want to say in relation to
55 some of the things, "No, that is not hearsay or it might
56 not be hearsay, so let us have it in", but if it is on the
57 face of it clearly hearsay, I do not see that there can be
58 any argument for having it in at all, unless it is subject
59 to one of the exceptions to the rule against hearsay.
60
