Day 147 - 04 Jul 95 - Page 11

     
     1        far as any of the applications for discovery, amendment,
     2        recall of witnesses, calling of evidence in rebuttal, and
     3        so on, are concerned, they do seem to me, when I give
     4        orders on those matters, those will be interlocutory
     5        orders.  It seems to me, therefore, that applications for
     6        those orders are interlocutory applications.
     7
     8        Interlocutory applications are normally held in chambers,
     9        but one is not compelled to hear them in chambers.  I see
    10        no good reason why those applications should be held in
    11        chambers, at least so long as all parties show the
    12        restraint which advocates would normally show in arguing
    13        their case in relation to them.
    14
    15        So I propose to go into open court.  If any parties want to
    16        say more to me about the matter of CaseView and the
    17        transcript (which is not even an application, let alone an
    18        interlocutory application), then I will hear that.
    19
    20   MS. STEEL:   We would certainly want to argue that the
         discussions and arguments about CaseView should be heard in
    22        open court.  They are plainly not an interlocutory matter,
    23        and there is absolutely no reason why they should not be
    24        heard in open court.  Mr. Rampton said it is supposedly for
    25        our benefit.  As far as we are concerned, we are happy for
    26        it to be heard in open court.  So, if that is his only
    27        reason for wanting it to be heard in a closed court, then
    28        there is no reason.  Let us just get on with it in open
    29        court.
    30
    31   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Do you want to say anything in relation to
    32        that?
    33
    34   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes, I do.  I can see what the Defendants are at,
    35        as ever.  I would firmly resist that part of what has
    36        already happened being left to be dealt with by them in
    37        open court.  True it is that I am free, as it were, to
    38        release what I have said, or we are free, but the fact is,
    39        if a bevy of reporters suddenly turns up at two o'clock to
    40        hear what Ms. Steel and Mr. Morris have to say, it will be
         turned on its head and I shall never get the opportunity to
    42        have reported what I actually said.  It would be, as a
    43        matter of common justice, thoroughly unfair to let them
    44        have the gallery to which they are so apt to play when
    45        I have not had it myself.
    46
    47   MS. STEEL:   If that is Mr. Rampton's concern, we have no
    48        objection to his outlining the points that he made
    49        yesterday in open court, if a bevy of press reporters turns
    50        up (which I think is unlikely).  We have no objection to 
    51        him distributing the transcripts concerning the argument 
    52        yesterday, if that is what he is very concerned about, 
    53        either.
    54
    55        Again, this is not a matter which would defeat justice if
    56        it was heard in open court, and there is no reason why it
    57        should be held in camera.
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I do not see why any matter in relation to
    60        CaseView or the transcript should be heard or discussed in