Day 158 - 19 Jul 95 - Page 08
1 He said: "I am only concerned with the source of funding
2 for the copies which the Defendants are presently getting.
3 Should they find another route for them to get transcripts,
4 whether out of public funds or by some other benefactor,
5 some Fairy Godmother, that is none of my business
6 whatever."
7
8 So there was not really any reason why, when we were making
9 an application to get funding from the Lord Chancellor,
10 that we should notify Mr. Rampton of our application.
11
12 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No. Be that as it may, it seems to me what
13 is sauce for the goose may be sauce for the gander. If any
14 party is going to write to the Lord Chancellor and then
15 say: "If the other party writes, they should give us a
16 copy", it should work both ways round. Whatever may have
17 happened in relation to the 12th July letter, if you write
18 to the Lord Chancellor again, you should at the same time
19 give Barlows a copy of your letter, if you are saying they
20 should give you a copy of theirs.
21
22 MS. STEEL: We can do. But I think, actually, there is a
23 difference between us making an application to a third
24 party and the Plaintiffs interfering in an application,
25 when we did not make any criticism of the Plaintiffs in the
26 letter. So it was not, like, they had to have some right
27 to answer it or something like that. But, obviously, we
28 are quite happy to give copies of any letters we send to
29 the Lord Chancellor to the Plaintiffs, if they will agree
30 to do the same.
31
32 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I think that is a scrap which does not
33 concern me, quite frankly. Yes?
34
35 MR. MORRIS: I have nearly finished. I am just checking.
36
37 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. Check what more there is to say.
38
39 MR. MORRIS: As regards Taylor v. Taylor and the discretion that
40 the court has to order transcripts to be disclosed if it
41 would throw light on an issue in dispute about what was
42 said, we would say that that applies just as much within a
43 case as it does between cases, because it is impossible for
44 us to remember and recall and note everything a witness
45 said. There are going to be disputes.
46
47 We would submit that under that discretionary power we
48 would have the right to apply for the transcripts of any
49 evidence which we did not recall which may be disputed. So
50 it is going to come up again, that if our memory of the
51 evidence is not complete or is challenged, then we would
52 say that the transcripts would be become discoverable then,
53 in any event.
54
55 Really, the whole palaver about transcripts is, it cannot
56 be the intention of the legal system to make -- it is clear
57 that the discretion is there within the legal system for
58 the judge to have the power to order transcripts to be
59 provided for a party, especially when they already exist in
60 the hands of another party. That could only be right and
