Subscribe to Search results

Anita James provided an update to the Minister, Tom Sackville, and reported that Dr Rejman had "sent me a list of documents covering the three years [1989-1991]. They run into some 14 volumes."

Published on:

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.

Published on:

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.

Published on:

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.

Published on:

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.

Published on:

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.

Published on:

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

Published on:

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.

Published on:

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."

Published on:

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."

Published on:

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."

Published on:

Anita James accepted that when she was told that GEB/1 volume 4 had been destroyed, "we should have insisted that files were better looked after" and that she, David Burrage and Dr Rejman should have ensured that those involved with the management of those files understood their importance.

Published on:

Anita James confirmed it did not appear that the registered files had been retrieved from the DRO at any time before January 2000 and there was no blanket request across the Department of Health to find any relevant files.

Published on:

When the class action in respect of HIV litigation began, and when the class action in respect of Hepatitis C began, documents relating to a central thrust of the plaintiffs' or claimants' case went missing.

Published on:

Dr Rejman told Anita James in regards to the documents she was seeking in order for her to deal with hepatitis litigation, that "As agreed, I do not intend to go through the full discovery list which we prepared at the time" for the HIV litigation. She did not insist that he did.

Published on:

When Anita James was sent a minute that mentioned possible destruction of important policy files, and was asked if that raised any concerns for her at the time she replied "I don't remember raising any concerns, no."

Published on:

Anita James recognised when she was told that file GEB/1 volume 4 had been destroyed, she took no steps to ensure that the policy team destroyed no other files. She went on to say that "obviously, we should have insisted that files were better looked after".

Published on:

Anita James was asked why Dr Metters had not been approached, regarding the papers which he had kept (until their destruction) as DCMO, "much earlier, when the GEB file was identified as missing?". Her response was "I don't know." "Things hadn't come to a head."

Published on:

Anita James described Dr Rejman as "a bit of a law unto himself in the sense that he wasn't a great respecter of lawyers, but then, you know, that goes with the territory."

Published on:

Anita James stated that she had visited Dr Metters' office during her earlier stint at the Department of Health and had seen that he was careful about keeping documents. She recalled seeing the ACVSB minutes then.

Published on: