Day 148 - 05 Jul 95 - Page 35

     
     1        relying upon.
     2
     3        That is what happens in any ordinary trial because normally
     4        the Plaintiff goes first and does that in respect of their
     5        witnesses, then the defendant goes next and does that in
     6        respect of his or her witnesses.
     7
     8   MR. MORRIS:  In that case, we formally put in all our Civil
     9        Evidence Act -----
    10
    11   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  We have not got to your witnesses yet, your
    12        part of the case on this.  But what I cannot understand is
    13        what advantage you think you get from doing that at this
    14        stage.
    15
    16   MR. MORRIS:  For example, when Mr. Rampton objects to us putting
    17        a piece of evidence from our Civil Evidence Act notice to a
    18        witness, then he has no authority on the ground -----
    19
    20   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You should follow the same form that anyone
         else does.  Civil Evidence Act notices are not peculiar to
    22        this case.  One has them in all sorts of litigation, and
    23        the Defendant when cross-examining the Plaintiff's
    24        witnesses, who are called before his witnesses are, puts a
    25        question to the Plaintiff's witness which is, admittedly,
    26        based on something which they expect their witness to say
    27        either live from the witness box or in a Civil Evidence Act
    28        notice, and asks whether that is right or not or what
    29        comment they have to make -- phrase the question however
    30        they will.
    31
    32        If the witness says:  "No, that is not right" -- let me try
    33        to give you an example:  You have a Civil Evidence Act
    34        notice which says that Harold Brown slipped on a wet floor
    35        and broke his -- someone you cannot now identify slipped on
    36        a wet floor and broke his ankle in such and such a
    37        restaurant.  You have the Manager of that restaurant in the
    38        witness box.  You have a Civil Evidence Act notice in
    39        respect of a statement made by someone identified in the
    40        restaurant who saw the unidentified crew member fall and
         break his ankle.
    42
    43        You say:  "While you were the Manager of the restaurant in
    44        or about November 1988, is it true that a crew member
    45        slipped on a pool of water, fell and broke his ankle?"
    46        Answer:  "I cannot remember any such thing happening."  "Do
    47        you remember there was a crew member called Harold Brown
    48        working in the restaurant?"  "Yes, I do remember Harold
    49        Brown".  Then, although there may be arguments about this,
    50        I would not object to you saying:  "Well, suppose that 
    51        Harold Brown said that it did happen, what comment would 
    52        you have to make on that?"  Answer, whatever answer is 
    53        given.
    54
    55        That is not actually the proper way of doing.  If
    56        Mr. Rampton objects to that, I will hear his objection, but
    57        that is the way it would be done.  You do not just say:
    58          "Evidence has been given by Harold Brown, because we have
    59        already put his Civil Evidence Act statement in, that
    60        someone slipped on a puddle of water and fell over".  That