Day 177 - 26 Oct 95 - Page 03
1 As your Lordship knows, of course, my Colchester witnesses
2 have already been and gone. I do not know, reading
3 Mr. Morris' letter, even whether these 10 new allegations
4 are confined to Colchester or whether they are supposed to
5 extend to Milton Keynes, Clacton, Ipswich, Leicester,
6 Stevenage and Lowestoft as well. In the latter event, if
7 there are intended to extend also to those restaurants,
8 then plainly it is, we would submit, impossible for
9 Mr. Gibney to give that evidence on Monday, impossible to
10 give the evidence relating to those regions on Monday,
11 because I am certainly in no position to deal with them,
12 particularly since I do not have any chapter and verse at
13 all in relation for most of these allegations.
14
15 So far as Colchester is concerned there are, we estimate,
16 four new allegations which are not, I think, dealt by
17 Mr. Davis or Mr. Stanton (not unnaturally), one of which at
18 least, that is, the second allegation, is not only very
19 serious, but must depend for its proper resolution on
20 names, dates and numbers.
21
22 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Which one is that?
23
24 MR. RAMPTON: That is number 2: "After holiday periods people
25 were dismissed for unjust reasons." I take that to mean
26 that when a busy period finished, management cooked up
27 reasons for getting rid of people because they did not want
28 so many staff. I take it that is what it means. But
29 I have no basis on which to investigate that. No doubt
30 I can ask Mr. Davis and Mr. Stanton whether it is true and
31 they will say no. My fear is that, once again, when
32 Mr. Gibney comes to give evidence he will produce a list of
33 names and dates for Colchester, Milton Keynes, Clacton,
34 Ipswich, Leicester, Stevenage and Lowestoft, to fortify
35 that allegation.
36
37 I frankly say that this landing on our desk yesterday
38 morning puts us, in the technical sense, in a very great
39 deal of embarrassment, given the shortage of time. If
40 Mr. Gibney is to persist with these allegations with
41 your Lordship's leave -- because leave is now required --
42 then he cannot sensibly give evidence on Monday.
43
44 The alternative is for your Lordship to say: "No, it is too
45 late. He must confine himself to his original statement."
46 I am not inviting your Lordship to do that. If
47 your Lordship thought he should be allowed to make these
48 additional allegations, then time must be given for
49 Mr. Gibney to provide proper particulars and for us to
50 investigate the matter properly and, if these allegations
51 extend beyond Colchester, for us to seek your Lordship's
52 leave to call additional evidence to deal with those other
53 restaurants, of which there are, not counting Milton
54 Keynes, five.
55
56 MR. JUSTICE BELL: An alternative is, in so far as I give leave
57 for Mr. Gibney to be led to matters, either new matters or
58 new restaurants, to say that he should be called on Monday,
59 he should give his evidence on the matters, that you should
60 then cross-examine in relation to matters which are not
