Day 206 - 22 Jan 96 - Page 31

     
     1        I ought to specify which one is a state and which one is
     2        federal which is an entirely academic argument.  The point
     3        is the law is the law, and McDonald's have violated it.
     4        But, I mean, if you want or you order that "state" be added
     5         .....
     6
     7   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I will put "state" in because that helps me
     8        see what is there.  Is there a reservation about "state"
     9        going in for any reason?
    10
    11   MR. MORRIS:  I do not think so -- yes, I do not oppose "state"
    12        going in.
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, very well.
    15
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I will grant leave to the Defendants to
    17        further amend their particulars in relation to employment
    18        practices to add the three amendments listed under the
    19        title, "Infringements of child labour regulations in the
    20        USA" in Mr. Morris' longhand draft with the insertion of
         the word "state "between "violated" and "child labour
    22        regulations" in amendment No. 2.  I do not see any need to
    23        put the word "alleged" before "violations" because the
    24        amendment seeks to set out what the Defendants would invite
    25        me to find by inference, if necessary, from the material
    26        which is and will be before me.
    27
    28        It is arguable anyway that the matters averred in the
    29        amendments might be supported from what Mr. Stein has said
    30         -- I need say no more than that -- if, as it is accepted,
    31        his written statement and his answers on the transcript
    32        should go in under the Civil Evidence Act.
    33
    34   MR. MORRIS:  Can I deal with that second matter?
    35
    36   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is there any argument about that last matter,
    37        Mr. Rampton?
    38
    39   MR. RAMPTON:  About which, the -----
    40
    MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Going in under the Civil Evidence Act?
    42
    43   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, not if they are read as, in our
    44        submission, they should be read.  If there is a citation,
    45        there is a citation, but your Lordship will remember in the
    46        House of Lords in this country what their Lordships said
    47        about the effect of mere allegation in a case of Lewis v.
    48        Daily Telegraph.  As an allegation, we would, no doubt,
    49        accept that the citation had been made.  As proof of guilt,
    50        it is impermissible under the authority of Lewis. 
    51 
    52   MS. STEEL:  Do you know which year that was? 
    53
    54   MR. RAMPTON:  1964 A.C.
    55
    56   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am going to leave the matter there,
    57        Mr. Rampton.  It may be at the end of the day you will
    58        persuade me, if indeed persuasion is necessary, that it is
    59        so.  I have tried to underline to Mr. Morris that he may
    60        have a problem there, so he should prepare himself for it.