Day 279 - 12 Jul 96 - Page 16
1 on it as evidence of the fact of what it says it contains
2 in it or just evidence of the fact that we can quite
3 reasonably believe what it says.
4
5 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I do not think there is any problem about the
6 latter part. But that is the article, not Miss Clauphine
7 Carston's letter, because her letter only came later.
8 Certainly, at the moment, it appears to me, the article
9 which she wrote in Mother -- whatever it is.
10
11 MR. MORRIS: Mother Jones.
12
13 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Mother Jones, I can see you have the point
14 that falls into exactly the same category as "Hoof Prints
15 in The Forest", or whatever else, but what we are dealing
16 with now is whether you should be able to read in as Civil
17 Evidence Act evidence the whole or parts of her letter.
18
19 MR. MORRIS: Okay. We will get some advice on that by next
20 week.
21
22 MR. JUSTICE BELL: We must deal with it when we come back later
23 next week. We cannot put it off any further than that.
24
25 Now, what about Dr. Barnard? I had better hear what
26 Mr. Rampton has to say about that.
27
28 MR. MORRIS: Yes. We would hike to read that out.
29
30 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I would like my Phipson back, please, before
31 I forget.
32
33 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, the problem with this is simply its
34 timing. It comes at a point in the case that I expected
35 your Lordship would -- you have effectively drawn down,
36 brought up, the drawbridge on any further witnesses of fact
37 beyond those that, if necessary, verify particular
38 documents or sources of information for the purposes of
39 proving the contents of the document, which is a completely
40 different category and I now find myself faced with a
41 further detailed statement from Dr. Barnard. It is
42 proposed to read it under the Civil Evidence Act, which
43 means that I cannot cross-examine him. It comes after
44 Professor Crawford has gone, so I cannot cross-examine
45 Professor Crawford about it either. It contains some
46 references that I have seen before, but a considerable
47 number that I have not. No references are served with it.
48
49 I ask a rhetorical question, if I say to your
50 Lordship, "Well, look, in the light of this I want to
51 recall Dr. Arnott and Professor Naismith" what answer am I
52 going to get? Even if I were disposed, which I am not, to
53 spend my client's money and the time of the court scurrying
54 round finding yet another batch of medical evidence through
55 Dr. Arnott and Professor Naismith to deal with this at this
56 stage in the case there come a point in a case, I would
57 submit, where it simply is not fair on the opposite party
58 to produce evidence of this character, which is quite
59 detailed, without that other party having an opportunity
60 properly to answer the points which are made. It is a
