Skip to main content
Show — Main navigation Hide — Main navigation
  • Home
  • About
    • The Chair
    • Inquiry Team
    • Expert Groups
    • Inquiry Intermediaries
    • Core Participants
    • Legal Representatives
    • Financial Reports
  • Approach
    • Terms of reference
    • List of Issues
    • Statements of approach
    • Inquiry Principles
  • News
    • News
    • Newsletter Archive
  • Reports
    • Compensation Framework Study
    • First Interim Report
    • Second Interim Report
    • The Inquiry Report
  • Publication Day
  • Evidence
    • Evidence
    • Hearings Archive
  • Compensation
  • Support
    • Confidential Psychological Support
    • Interim Payments
    • Support Groups
    • Get in touch
    • Infected Blood Support Schemes
    • Treatment and aftercare
    • Medical Evidence
    • Expenses Guidance
Accessibility Tool
  • Zoom in
  • Zoom out
  • Reset
  • Contrast
  • Accessibility tool
Get in touch

Quick Exit

Anita James stated that she understood that if papers were considered to be important, she would "put something like 25 years on for -- 20 years, 25 years for review, and then, again, destruction would be decided upon after that."

  • Read more about Anita James stated that she understood that if papers were considered to be important, she would "put something like 25 years on for -- 20 years, 25 years for review, and then, again, destruction would be decided upon after that."

Anita James stated that she was "having to endure a working environment which by today's standards would be viewed as entirely unacceptable." She recalled "finding it difficult even simply to go to work."

  • Read more about Anita James stated that she was "having to endure a working environment which by today's standards would be viewed as entirely unacceptable." She recalled "finding it difficult even simply to go to work."

Anita James acknowledged that it should have been ensured that files were retained. She regretted that she "did not act so as [to] make sure that other files which had been marked for destruction were not in fact destroyed."

  • Read more about Anita James acknowledged that it should have been ensured that files were retained. She regretted that she "did not act so as [to] make sure that other files which had been marked for destruction were not in fact destroyed."

In relation to documents that Anita James was seeking in order to deal with hepatitis litigation, Dr Rejman stated that as agreed, he did not intend to go through the full discovery list prepared at the time.

  • Read more about In relation to documents that Anita James was seeking in order to deal with hepatitis litigation, Dr Rejman stated that as agreed, he did not intend to go through the full discovery list prepared at the time.

Dr Rejman held files relating to HCV and haemophilia litigation which he had sent to Anita James.

  • Read more about Dr Rejman held files relating to HCV and haemophilia litigation which he had sent to Anita James.

Anita Jones stated that when it emerged in early 2000 that files were missing, she had "entirely forgotten" that there had been a minute nearly 5 years earlier from Dr Rejman where he mentioned the destruction of folders.

  • Read more about Anita Jones stated that when it emerged in early 2000 that files were missing, she had "entirely forgotten" that there had been a minute nearly 5 years earlier from Dr Rejman where he mentioned the destruction of folders.

Anita Jones described haphazard file keeping in SOLB4 within the Solicitor's Division in her written statement, with files being kept in rooms and papers not being put in registered files.

  • Read more about Anita Jones described haphazard file keeping in SOLB4 within the Solicitor's Division in her written statement, with files being kept in rooms and papers not being put in registered files.

Anita James was referring to both HIV litigation files and ACVSB minutes in GEB/1, when referring to litigation files she had searched for in relation to another case but subsequently found they were destroyed.

  • Read more about Anita James was referring to both HIV litigation files and ACVSB minutes in GEB/1, when referring to litigation files she had searched for in relation to another case but subsequently found they were destroyed.

Anita James moved departments and handed over to Ruth McEwan. Her reasons for leaving were significant issues at work in terms of workload and bullying by her manager.

  • Read more about Anita James moved departments and handed over to Ruth McEwan. Her reasons for leaving were significant issues at work in terms of workload and bullying by her manager.

In her statement to the Inquiry, Anita James was unable to recall if 14 volumes of documents covering the years 1989 to 1991 were ever provided to her by Dr Rejman.

  • Read more about In her statement to the Inquiry, Anita James was unable to recall if 14 volumes of documents covering the years 1989 to 1991 were ever provided to her by Dr Rejman.

Pagination

  • First page « First
  • Previous page ‹ Previous
  • …
  • Page 167
  • Page 168
  • Page 169
  • Page 170
  • Current page 171
  • Page 172
  • Page 173
  • Page 174
  • Page 175
  • …
  • Next page Next ›
  • Last page Last »
Subscribe to

Inquiry

  • Home
  • About
  • Approach
  • Participate
  • News
  • Evidence
  • Support
  • Get in touch

Legal

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Cookies notice
  • Privacy Notice
  • Accessibility tool

Address

Infected Blood Inquiry
5th Floor
Aldwych House
71-91 Aldwych
London
WC2B 4HN
 
Images of individuals on the website are used with the agreement of those featured or are stock images.

Follow us

© Crown copyright. Licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated.