to say, witnesses who said that they were present in the courtyard when the tunnel was discovered or shortly thereafter.
410 The Court's Defamation Practice Note provides that outlines of evidence are not to be the subject of cross-examination or tendered as a prior statement of the witness without the leave of the Court. That, as the Practice Note makes clear, is because the purpose of an outline is to provide notice of the evidence a witness is to give. Person 29 gave evidence that he approved his outline of evidence. In the circumstances, I granted the respondents leave to cross-examine Person 29 on the outline. I did this in similar circumstances in the case of other witnesses as well, both witnesses called by the respondents and witnesses called by the applicant. I accept that, generally speaking, it is necessary to be careful before placing too much weight on differences or omissions between a witness' evidence in the witness box and the outline of the witness' evidence. The latter document is, after all, only an outline and often a document prepared by the lawyers for one of the parties. However, the weight to be accorded to apparent inconsistencies and omissions depends on the circumstances and where a specific statement is made and approved, it may be significant. I consider the inconsistency referred to above to be another reason to regard Person 29's evidence to be unsatisfactory.
411 Person 35 agreed that at the time he approved his outline of evidence, he did not know that Persons 40, 41, 42 and 43 would be giving evidence. He denied changing his evidence to say that the tunnel was discovered before the compound was declared secure. He denied that he was giving a new and deliberately false account of what happened at W108 because he wanted to say that Persons 40, 41 and 42 were not in the tunnel courtyard at the time the tunnel was discovered. Person 35 gave the following evidence:
And you've decided to change your evidence only after you've learnt that Persons 40, 41 and 42 were coming to give evidence?---No, that's incorrect, Mr Owens.
Because you know that each of those men was, in fact, in the tunnel courtyard when the tunnel was discovered?---That's incorrect, Mr Owens.
And you know that they were there during the SSE process, correct?---That's incorrect, Mr Owens.
And another reason you have deliberately changed your evidence to this false account of when the tunnel was discovered is because you knew that Person 43 was coming to give evidence, correct?---That's incorrect, Mr Owens.
And the reason you have changed your evidence to say that the tunnel was discovered during clearance is because you knew that Person 43 only came into the compound after the compound was declared secure?---That's – that's incorrect, Mr Owens.
Because you knew that Person 43 came into the compound for the purpose of attending
