Day 253 - 21 May 96 - Page 02
1 Tuesday, 21st May, 1996
2
3 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, can I say some words about the matter
4 which your Lordship raised at the end of yesterday's
5 hearing?
6
7 My Lord, I start with the observation that the whole of the
8 cross-examination yesterday was devoted to referring
9 Professor Naismith to parts in the grey book by Homer and
10 The World Health Authority publication, and asking him
11 whether or not he agreed with it. As a way of introducing
12 passages that was a pointless exercise, because all the
13 Defendants need to do for that purpose is simply to refer
14 your Lordship to various passages upon which they rely in
15 the case. However, since it was cross-examination of a
16 witness, an expert witness, one must assume that it had
17 some relevance to the issues in this case.
18
19 My Lord, it is trite to observe this is not a Public Health
20 Inquiry. This is adversarial proceedings in which the
21 issue of this, which your Lordship is presently deciding,
22 is an instruction of quality of McDonald's food.
23
24 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Is not part of that diet and cardio-vascular
25 disease generally?
26
27 MR. RAMPTON: Only insofar as it can be referred or applied to
28 McDonald's food.
29
30 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I appreciate that, but the only parts
31 I allowed in of Professor Naismith were the parts which
32 related to diet generally and cardio-vascular disease. It
33 is true that in the very last paragraph there is a mention
34 of McDonald's food and cardio-vascular disease, but that
35 went in part, I suppose, because of reluctance to edit out
36 individual passages.
37
38 MR. RAMPTON: Any relevance of cardio-vascular in this case is
39 in so far as it relates to McDonald's food.
40
41 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I appreciate that, but what I did not allow
42 in was anything which was to do with McDonald's food
43 specifically.
44
45 MR. RAMPTON: I understand that, but the cross-examination can
46 only have been intended to have this effect, that at the
47 end of the case the Defendants want to be in a position to
48 say that they rely upon Professor Naismith's answers in
49 cross-examination in relation to McDonald's food; that can
50 only be the only legitimate purpose of it.
51
52 If that is right, then I, as the counsel on the other side,
53 am entitled by way of re-examination to seek clarification
54 or explanation of the answers given so far as that is
55 relevant to the issues in this case. Since, if I am right,
56 the only relevant question is how far those answers have
57 any bearing upon the effect of even McDonald's food, then,
58 in my submission, I am entitled to ask Professor Naismith,
59 and, my Lord, I am not saying it
60
