 |
 |
|
to deal with for that reason. May I ask whether or not your Lordship should rule upon this at this
stage until we have had an opportunity to consider the evidence in question and then ask your
Lordship to rule ----
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I can tell you straight away what I would be minded to do about
Oporto it is of any assistance to you. I think I should give a ruling, but I do not mind giving a ruling
holding Mr. E up, but so far as Mr. Morrisey’s evidence is concerned I do not think it would be
right to shut you out from making further representations once you have made investigations about it.
As I said at the very beginning, you will have to work awfully hard to persuade me that those
investigations have to be made by you personally.
MR. TANSEY: I hear that, your Lordship. Obviously the solicitors would do them. I have explained
to your Lordship the way I prefer personally to do this kind of work, but I accept your Lordship’s
observation on that. My Lord, certainly we face this difficulty of dealing with it without having had
the opportunity, although your Lordship seems to be accepting at this stage. Does your Lordship
want me to further address you upon this?
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: You point in broad terms - I would like you to deal with the principle.
You would like to know - I am not quite clear what you say. Do you say that you want to check to
see whether Mr. Morrisey has got it right? You say - let us take an example, for instance -
supposing in fact, to take an obvious example perhaps in a criminal trial, a police officer is called to
say, “I tested the route from A where the robbery took place and B where the defendant was
arrested. It takes 17 minutes. I have done it in the rush hour” - and we all know the type of evidence
- the fact that you may then send your private enquiry agent to do it and he says it does not take 17
minutes, it takes 27 minutes on Sunday evenings 39 minutes every other day of the week. It does
not actually mean that other statement is inadmissible. I am just wondering how much what
investigations you are going to make go to admissibility?
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, the evidence he gives is that there were no places of tourist information,
of tourist interest at the crosses in question. That is the matter that is central to the whole argument.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I quite see that you are saying that some particular tourist is deeply
interested in buying the umbrellas in Oporto, or whatever it may be. I am not trying to be facetious,
but that is the sort of the thing that could be said. I read it as there is no museum or ancient
monument or something on the normal tourist route.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, so far as this is concerned, if our investigations show that his assertion
was not a valid assertion, we would consider asking your Lordship to hear evidence on this to
determine this question because of the immense importance of what is being suggested.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I was rather hoping you might suggest I might fly out there myself.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, that is the importance of it
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Yes, I see.
MR. TANSEY: Because he says this is not of tourist interest. Well, that may or may not be correct.
If, my Lord, we go back and say, “He is absolutely wrong, there are matters of great interest there
to some people”, then your Lordship can see I might need to resolve this. It is in respect of that
matter that we would ask your Lordship to consider the question - that is why we need the time to
see whether or not what he is saying is accurate - because if we were able to show to your Lordship
 |