Day 249 - 14 May 96 - Page 11

     
     1        Milton Keynes.  The one in Milton Keynes no-one actually
     2        claimed responsibility for, but a subsequent forensic
     3        examination of the device showed it to be identical to that
     4        which had been used in Birmingham.
     5
     6   Q.   Was that information you also received?
     7        A.  That information came from police.  There was an
     8        incendiary device in Marble Arch, again claimed by Animal
     9        Liberation Front to police.  That device was found in the
    10        public part of the restaurant before it ignited and was
    11        taken away for forensic examination by police.
    12
    13   Q.   Do you remember roughly the date of the Marble Arch
    14        incident?
    15        A.  I believe it was June.
    16
    17   MS. STEEL:   I am not being strange, but is not this all
    18        hearsay, exactly what was ruled out?
    19
    20   MR. JUSTICE BELL: No, it is not.  What was ruled out was the
         bald statement in 2 that animal activists had committed,
    22        etcetera, and since there was nothing there as to what his
    23        information was I said that Mr. Rampton could ask the
    24        witness what his information was because in my view it has
    25        potential relevance to what paragraph 7 is concerned with.
    26
    27   MS. STEEL:   But should it not have been what his information
    28        was if it was not hearsay, because if it is hearsay, which
    29        it is, it is irrelevant.
    30
    31   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, it is not.  I am sorry, you are aware,
    32        I know, because you have adopted it yourself in argument,
    33        that evidence of what someone else has said to you is
    34        admissible as to the fact that it has been said if the fact
    35        of it being said has some potential relevance.  It is not,
    36        save in some exceptional circumstances, evidence of the
    37        truth of it.  So this, at the moment, as I see it, is not
    38        evidence of the truth of what was said by police officers
    39        to Mr. Nicholson, but it is evidence of the fact that it
    40        was said and it is relevant, or has potential relevance,
         because Mr. Nicholson said, having been said to him the
    42        information which he had received was relevant to his
    43        motivation in doing certain things and the way he looked at
    44        certain things.
    45
    46        Now, I know you are aware of the distinction because we
    47        must have had it a dozen times at least when similar
    48        evidential objections and arguments have been taken.
    49
    50   MR. RAMPTON:  Then, Mr. Nicholson, the only other thing I would 
    51        like your help with, please, is starting at paragraph 12; 
    52        do you see on page 6? 
    53        A.  Yes.
    54
    55   Q.   You go right through to the end of, it is ordinary 4 in
    56        brackets on page 11.  If you would like to cast your eye
    57        over those paragraphs, I expect you are quite familiar with
    58        them.
    59        A.  Yes.
    60