Day 206 - 22 Jan 96 - Page 23
1 statement. I regret to say again I do not know the
2 information, but I observe that this is dated -- I cannot
3 read the fax stated at the top -- it looks as if it might
4 be 9th January, before any of my Colchester
5 witnesses -----
6
7 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Where was that put? Has that been -----
8
9 MR. RAMPTON: Probably with Mr. Alimi's existing statements. It
10 is volume 2, tab 11. It will be at the back of that tab,
11 I expect, my Lord.
12
13 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. I do not know where mine has gone. I
14 remember reading it so I have certainly had it but .....
15
16 MR. RAMPTON: This is the only one I have.
17
18 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I cannot find it, I am afraid.
19
20 MR. RAMPTON: Oh, dear. My Lord -----
21
22 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is the trouble with having loose
23 statements that ..... (Handed).
24
25 MR. RAMPTON: There are two problems; I do not know if your
26 Lordship has read it before?
27
28 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
29
30 MR. RAMPTON: There are two problems about this statement. It
31 is offered, I think, as a Civil Evidence Act statement.
32 The first is its date, which is 8th January 1996, and very
33 faintly at the top, I believe one can read first the 0109,
34 which is American for 9th January, at about half past two
35 in the afternoon, 14.25, I think it is, which is,
36 presumably, the date it was faxed to Mr. Morris who has a
37 fax machine, as we know. That is before my Colchester
38 witnesses gave evidence. That means that if it was
39 intended to be relied on, it should have been in our hands
40 at a time when, if it seemed appropriate to us, we could
41 have asked our Colchester witnesses to deal with it.
42
43 They were prevented from doing that because the Defendants
44 -- I do not know what word to use -- suppressed it, which
45 is perhaps the right word, until now. I objected on that
46 ground because it puts me at a disadvantage in the
47 litigation. That is one of the valid reasons for refusing
48 either to allow this to be recalled or for service of a
49 Civil Evidence Act or admission, I should say, of Civil
50 Evidence Act evidence out of time.
51
52 The two grounds, as your Lordship will remember, are,
53 first, that there has been an attempt to over reach, to get
54 a tactable advantage in these proceedings -- this may be an
55 example of that, I do not know -- but, second, and more
56 important, what I do know is the second ground is that it
57 puts the other side at an irrecoverable disadvantage, and
58 that this does because it is now too late, unless your
59 Lordship says otherwise, for me to get my Colchester
60 witnesses to deal with it.
