Day 279 - 12 Jul 96 - Page 12
1 that when we were asking Mr. Gonzales about this article it
2 was said that we could put a Civil Evidence Act notice on
3 the statements within the article, which is what we have
4 done, to rely on those statements, but that Mr. Rampton
5 said that they would not carry much weight unless we got a
6 statement from the author of the article confirming they
7 were true.
8
9 MR. JUSTICE BELL: As the case has got on lots of thing have
10 been said about what you might or might not do, including
11 some by me when I have had difficulty, I must confess,
12 seeing how it can come in in its present form, but then at
13 the end of the day one has got to get down and look at what
14 one has and ask whether it is admissible or not. And I
15 certainly, whenever I said whatever I did, I certainly
16 cannot pretend that I had section 2(3) of the Act in mind.
17 Do you have a copy of that? It is volume 2 of the White
18 Book.
19
20 MR. RAMPTON: I know it is. What I will do under the
21 circumstances he has not taken Phipson with him--
22
23 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Well, it is in Phipson at 3906, page 1096.
24 It does not matter where one looks to find it.
25
26 MR. RAMPTON: I am just trying to find it in Phipson.
27
28 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I will hand down my Phipson, Mr. Riley. If
29 you look at section 2(1) of the Civil Evidence Act, which I
30 think is at the bottom of the left hand facing page, "In
31 any civil proceedings a statement may, whether orally or in
32 a document or otherwise by any person, whether called as a
33 witness in those proceedings or not." Now, that would
34 cover the statements which you say were made by the
35 inspectors and the USDA veterinary officer: "Shall subject
36 to this section and rules of court" -- forget the rules of
37 court for a moment -- "be admissible as evidence of any
38 fact stated therein of which direct oral evidence by him
39 would be admissible."
40
41 So from your point of view, let us say so far so
42 good. You can forget sub-section 2 because that only
43 arises where you actually want to call the person in any
44 event. But it is number 3 which at the moment seems to me
45 to present you with a difficulty: "Where in any civil
46 proceedings a statement which is made otherwise than in a
47 document is admissible by virtue of this section", and that
48 would appear to, so far, apply to the quotes from the meat
49 inspectors and the veterinary officer.
50
51 "No evidence other than direct oral evidence by the
52 person who made the statement", that is, direct oral
53 evidence of the inspectors, "or any person who heard or
54 otherwise perceived it being made", that is, in your case,
55 Miss Clauphine Carston, "shall be admissible for the
56 purpose of proving it."
57
58 So the only way you can prove, at the moment it seems
59 to me, the quotes of the meat inspectors or the veterinary
60 officers is either calling them to give direct oral
