Day 306 - 26 Nov 96 - Page 04
1 There is another feature which runs throughout these, I was
2 going to say this. At the bottom of page 56, line 54, he
3 said how he attached the leaflet being connected to his
4 written report and all the agents said the same thing and
5 gave them to their managers for, obviously, Barlow Lyde &
6 Gilbert's purposes. So, this is not a case where
7 documents, original documents have only been sighted by
8 witnesses from a distance. This is a case where all the
9 originals collected by the Plaintiffs' witnesses have been
10 handed over to the solicitors and, therefore, they cannot
11 argue -- well, they have not argued anything; they cannot
12 justify not having brought them to court and, as far as
13 I can see, it only makes it more compelling that they
14 should be here in court and without them there is no
15 evidence, especially not the unsafe and unsatisfactory
16 evidence of vague memories six years later.
17
18 Then Mr. Rampton said it is not an original that he was
19 showing him. That is page 57, line 14. Then, if you
20 remember, Mr. Russell had a problem about -- well, first of
21 all, he said that he had never worked for Kings before;
22 that is on page 58. You said to him: "You started by
23 saying you have not worked for Kings for five years and
24 then, as I understood it, you did a couple of years ago and
25 a couple of months ago. Is there some problem about the
26 matter?" So, he clearly had a problem about saying one
27 thing and knowing that it was not true and having to admit
28 it was not true after further questioning.
29
30 He said that there was no mention of McDonald's in his
31 instructions (page 59, line 24). However, the only
32 leaflets he claimed to have collected at that meeting
33 related to McDonald's, and it seems a bit unlikely he said
34 he picked up what was on the table and all the other
35 evidence in the case, we would say, it is impossible that
36 there were only leaflets which mentioned McDonald's on the
37 table, especially of a public meeting. Therefore, I do not
38 believe him when he says that. But, I mean, obviously it
39 was six years later he is giving evidence. It was
40 Mr. Bishop that had seen him at another meeting. That was
41 referred to on page 60.
42
43 Then he said that his notes were not contemporaneous. That
44 is the bottom of page 61. In fact, the solicitors had
45 written they were contemporaneous when they wrote his
46 statement for him but he crossed that bit out because he
47 says, at the top of page 62: "... I did not make
48 contemporaneous notes of the events." (Pause).
49
50 I mean, it is our belief that, in fact, he did make notes
51 during the meeting, that was the evidence of Ms. Laporte,
52 and that the contemporaneous notes which had been referred
53 to by the solicitors when they drafted his statement have
54 been conveniently lost because they would not have tallied
55 or they would not have given the kind of evidence that the
56 Plaintiffs wanted.
57
58 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, may I know whether that is an allegation
59 against Mrs. Brinley-Codd and her firm?
60
