Day 253 - 21 May 96 - Page 05

     
     1        of the re-examiner, all he is entitled to do, but is
     2        entitled to do, is to seek clarification or explanation of
     3        an answer which the court might otherwise be led to
     4        misunderstand or misinterpret because of the way in which
     5        it has been put in cross-examination and the honest answer
     6        which has been given.  That is my fear, that at the end of
     7        this case, one looks, for example, at the bottom of page
     8        53, the Defendants will say: "Ha-ha, Professor Naismith has
     9        agreed, in effect, that McDonald's food should not be
    10        introduced into the developing countries."
    11
    12        I do not believe that he necessarily means that.  I do not
    13        know, because I have not asked him, but I should like the
    14        opportunity of asking him whether that is what he meant by
    15        his answer, which is the function of re-examination.
    16
    17   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
    18
    19   MR. RAMPTON:  It is only in that single respect that I want to
    20        make any reference at all in re-examination to McDonald's
         food specifically.  There are some other matters of a
    22        general nature but they will not take very long.
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Thank you.  What do you want to say about it?
    25
    26   MS. STEEL: The point about whether Mr. Rampton's witnesses have
    27        had a chance to deal ----
    28
    29   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You need not address me on that because I am
    30        for you on that.
    31
    32   MS. STEEL:   OK.  Any discussion of how these matters fit in is
    33        obviously the matters which we were cross-examining on
    34        yesterday, will obviously be related to what previous
    35        witnesses have said about the nature of McDonald's food,
    36        whether or not it is high in fat or whether or not it is
    37        low in fibre, and that includes witnesses on both sides,
    38        and Professor Weelock dealt with it in great length for
    39        McDonald's.
    40
    MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am for you, subject to any further
    42        argument, on any suggestion, which I thought was the
    43        suggestion Mr. Rampton was making last night, but either I
    44        was mistaken about that or he has thought further about the
    45        matter because he has made it perfectly clear this morning
    46        that his only concern at the moment is about the inference
    47        which might be drawn from what Mr. Morris put to Professor
    48        Naismith in the two specific instances which Mr. Rampton
    49        has referred to, that McDonald's going into developing
    50        countries is a bad thing.  As I understand it, that is all 
    51        he wants to ask about. 
    52 
    53        If he was saying: "Well, questioning about cardio-vascular,
    54        diet generally and cardio-vascular disease, lets in
    55        re-examination on McDonald's food and cardio-vascular
    56        disease", subject to any further argument, I would be
    57        against that because it would seem to me to let in through
    58        the back door what I kept out at the front on 29th April.
    59        But Mr. Rampton, as I understand it, is not arguing for
    60        that.  Whether he could argue it for it or not, he is not