Day 240 - 24 Apr 96 - Page 03

     
     1        are decided, and what happens then is that the expression
     2        of opinion by the expert, in many cases, is no more than
     3        advocacy for the view which he or she holds.  In other
     4        words, it becomes argument.  It is not admissible as
     5        evidence, expert or otherwise, and whether in the form of a
     6        written statement or oral evidence.
     7
     8        This is particularly so, and I am taking a bit of time to
     9        spell this out because it may help you generally, not just
    10        with regard to Mr. Secrett, where a witness or a witness
    11        statement goes so far as to say that he or she believes, or
    12        is of the opinion, that something has been proved or not
    13        proved by the evidence in the case because that is for me,
    14        and me alone.
    15
    16        If we just look at Mr. Secrett's first statement against
    17        that background.  In fairness to Mr. Secrett, and nothing
    18        I say is to be taken as any criticism of him in writing
    19        what he has written, he speaks in both his statements, but
    20        I am only concerned with the first at the moment, of his
         submission to the High Court.  In fact, of course, he is
    22        giving evidence.  There are some jurisdictions where
    23        submissions are made, public inquiries, for instance, and
    24        what I have said may very well not apply, but on page 3 in
    25        the first complete paragraph Mr. Secrett says:
    26
    27        "From the information available to me, it was, and still
    28        is, my view that these assertions are false, and cannot be
    29        proven to be true for the period in question."
    30
    31        Mr. Secrett is perfectly entitled to give his opinion but
    32        it is my function in this court to decide whether the
    33        assertions are false and whether they can be proved to be
    34        true in a period in question or not, not any expert called
    35        on either side.
    36
    37        The next paragraph reads:
    38
    39        "Thus, from the information available to me, I did not
    40        believe then, and I do not believe now, that, for the
         period up until the end of 1986 at least, such claims can
    42        be substantiated and proven absolutely - whatever the
    43        intentions of McDonald's Corporation with regard to the
    44        origin of the beef supplies used in their US restaurants.
    45
    46        I held, and continue to hold, that belief."
    47
    48        Again, my view at the moment is that that again trespasses
    49        on my function in the court.  Mr. Secrett is certainly
    50        entitled to go on and say the manner in which the beef is 
    51        imported et cetera means that, in his view, it cannot be 
    52        proved.  I would just have to assess that as opinion.  That 
    53        is the first point.
    54
    55        Then if you would be kind enough to turn over to page 4.
    56        In my view at the moment, the same applies to the rest of
    57        the statement from the paragraph:
    58
    59        "During the 1970s and at least up until the end of 1986, it
    60        was therefore, impossible, in my considered view, for any