Subscribe to Search results

John Canavan, in his oral evidence, stated he did not recall that in the first half of 1989 he had been involved in any examination of the Department of Health's or Government's past actions.

Published on:

Dr Hilary Pickles, principal medical officer in the Med SEB branch, was unhappy about settling the claims.

Published on:

Dr Hilary Pickles did not know the factual basis for the assertion of no negligence.

Published on:

A briefing for a meeting between the Prime Minister, Robert Key and the Haemophilia Society repeated the view that patients had received the best available treatment at the time.

Published on:

Paul Gray wrote to Alan Davey reiterating that patients had, as far as the Government were concerned, received the best available treatment at the time.

Published on:

Roger Freeman stressed that the Department of Health believed patients were offered the best treatment available at the time.

Published on:

Professor Geoffrey Rose was critical of the actions of the Department of Health.

Published on:

A confidential note to the Chief Secretary of the Treasury showed that there were more than 500 sufferers whose infections with HIV "in principle" might have been contracted after the stage at which hospitals might reasonably have been expected to use different forms of treatment.

Published on:

DHSC legal advisors estimated that medical negligence was likely to be established in 20-30 cases, and up to 500 more infections was likely to have occurred at the end of 1984 or in 1985.

Published on:

The Sunday Times was sympathetic to the claims for compensation from people with Haemophilia.

Published on:

Charles Dobson reported to the Department of Health the ministers' responses and views in relation to the litigation and suggested that the Department should review its position.

Published on:

Charles Dobson sent a memo to Mr Davey in relation to the HIV litigation and the Sunday Times campaign.

Published on:

Charles Dobson prepared a paper setting out options for making more money available to "the haemophiliacs".

Published on:

Kenneth Clarke believed that the court would find in favour of the Government and it should not admit fault.

Published on:

Kenneth Clarke did not fundamentally disagree with what Mr Justice Ognall had said, which in his view were the same principles that had led the Government to provide money to the Macfarlane Trust.

Published on:

In oral evidence, Lord Clarke said everyone had concluded that an ex gratia payment was the best way of handling the matter: there was "a case for using public funds to make some compensation".

Published on:

Kenneth Clarke discussed the matter of non-discretionary payments again with the Prime Minister and payments were increased from £10,000 to £20,000 within an unchanged overall allocation of £20 million.

Published on:

The Government paid £24 million to the Macfarlane Trust to be distributed.

Published on:

Kate Lee, a solicitor acting for the central defendants, reported that counsel had considered the possibility of sending a letter informing the plaintiffs that if they discontinued against the defendants the Government would forgo its own costs. It was suggested that, viewed with the additional money being made available to the Macfarlane Trust, this "may be seen as a sympathetic gesture."

Published on:

A memo from Richard Gutowski to Kate Lee, regarding HIV litigation, expressed unease about writing to plaintiffs informing them that the Government would forgo its own costs if they discontinued against the defendants. It was felt this could be construed as overly aggressive.

Published on: