Day 236 - 17 04 96 - Page 33

 
 

                                                                  Day 236
 
 
 
 
 
     1        identified?
     2
     3   MR. RAMPTON:  So far as I know they are, but I know that they
     4        are for the 16th October 1989.
     5
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  There are others.
     7
     8   MR. RAMPTON:  There are others after that for later dates.  My
     9        belief is if they exist, they have been found.  What
    10        I cannot say for certain is that all the documents in the
    11        counterclaim files, for example, whose relevance to
    12        Mr. Carroll's evidence, frankly, baffles me at the moment.
    13        I cannot say those have all been found and put in order.
    14
    15        What happened is that they were in originally a
    16        chronological format.  They were then disassembled in order
    17        to make up different bundles and they have not been
    18        reassembled in their chronological order.  They all exist.
    19        It is not that they have been lost or anything.  That is
    20        the problem with finding the originals of the words
    21        complained of for the 16th October 1989, apart from ones
    22        which Mrs. Brinley-Codd has found in court, but they are
    23        all there, so far as I am aware.
    24
    25   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes thank you.
    26
    27                                RULING.
    28
    29   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   The situation is that unexpectedly the
    30        evidence which was projected for this week starting this
    31        morning and, if necessary, carrying on tomorrow and Friday
    32        of this week, is not available.  Mr. Rampton, for the
    33        Plaintiffs, wishes to call Mr. Carroll, who is the second
    34        Plaintiff's security manager, and/or Mr. Nicholson who, at
    35        one time, held that position before going on to higher,
    36        even, ranks with the second Plaintiff.  The Defendants
    37        object to either witness being called.  Generally speaking,
    38        it is for the parties to decide when the witness will be
    39        called and the question I have to ask myself is whether
    40        I should say to Mr. Rampton:  "No, you will not call one or
    41        either of those witnesses."
    42
    43        The question I have to ask myself is that if any of the
    44        witnesses would be called, would the Defendants or either
    45        of them be prejudiced in either way.  If I deal with Mr.
    46        Nicholson first.  His evidence may be very much related to
    47        the amendments which I have given leave to all the parties
    48        to make their pleadings.  I am not deciding whether the
    49        Defendants would be unfairly prejudiced if he is called
    50        this week.  All I will say is that I would much rather that 
    51        he were not.  I can see that cross-examination of him might 
    52        well, and justly go, beyond what he himself observes so far 
    53        as the participation by the Defendants in the publication
    54        of the leaflet complained of is concerned.
    55
    56        Mr. Carroll seems to me to be in a very different
    57        situation.  His two statements served deal with his
    58        observations of demonstrations outside or near the second
    59        Plaintiffs' Headquarters, in East Finchley, on about half a
    60        dozen occasions, starting with 16th October, 1989.  His
 
                                      33