Day 165 - 27 Sep 95 - Page 15

     
     1        to make out of it.
     2
     3   MS. STEEL:  OK.  I read all the cases.  It seemed that they are
     4        all referring back to the Ballantine case and Kennedy v.
     5        Dodson.  It seemed that in there the main grounds for
     6        refusing the interrogatories was that they were oppressive.
     7          I think it was accepted in there that they would be able
     8        or they might be able to ask questions about similar things
     9        in cross-examination, but the reason they put the
    10        limitation on being allowed to ask them in interrogatories
    11        and discovery was because it could end up being massively
    12        expensive and take ages to go through books just to look
    13        for matters which could lead to some train of enquiry about
    14        credit.
    15
    16        I would say that that is also vastly different to an
    17        instance in this case where the documents have been ordered
    18        to be disclosed because they are relevant, and the
    19        Plaintiffs have blanked out certain parts because it cannot
    20        be said that it would be oppressive or time consuming for
         them to have just disclosed the whole document.
    22
    23        I am not quite sure about this, but Mr. Rampton said about
    24        the similar facts part being irrelevant.  I was not really
    25        sure about whether it was or not, because if it is a
    26        similar fact in terms of having one thing wrong and maybe
    27        getting another thing -- thereby it being more likely that
    28        you have got something else wrong, whether that might
    29        apply, but I do not know whether I should deal the similar
    30        facts part or not.
    31
    32   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I do not think this is a similar fact
    33        situation, is it?
    34
    35   MS. STEEL:   I do not know.  Not unless it is similar facts
    36        within a particular event, but, no, I suppose not.  I was
    37        going to refer to something on page 670, but I do not know
    38        whether that is about similar fact or credibility, the
    39        paragraph at D.
    40
    MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Read it out if you want.  Again, I do not
    42        have a photocopy of that page but you read it out.
    43
    44   MS. STEEL:  "Applying these principles, my conclusion so far as
    45        regards adjudications of guilt in police disciplinary
    46        proceedings (as opposed to certificates of convictions in
    47        criminal courts) within heading (1) is that they do not
    48        lead to any train of enquiry, since the plaintiff will be
    49        getting the available statements of evidence under the
    50        undisputed part of the judge's order."  So that was one 
    51        reason for disallowing them. 
    52 
    53        Then it says:  "... and, being outside section 11 of the
    54        Civil Evidence Act 1968 the adjudications of guilt are not
    55        probative of anything.  It would indeed be quite wrong that
    56        they should be admitted in evidence in a jury trial because
    57        of the danger that the jury might regard them as probative
    58        of the matters which the jury themselves have to decide.
    59        These adjudications of guilt (if any) should not therefore
    60        be disclosed."