Subscribe to Search results

Anita James stated: "people didn't understand the significance of...the documents they were handling, and didn't give any thought...to the possibility of litigation ... compounded by the fact that the Department had undergone extraordinary upheaval."

Published on:

Dr Rejman sent Anita James documents for disclosure. S he was aware he was taking a whole raft of files out that he thought were irrelevant. Anita James did not recall asking for the files to be sent over from his workplace to hers.

Published on:

Anita James could not remember why she was satisfied that she was providing all the relevant documentation to counsel when their advice was being sought - despite the deficiencies in that documentation which later became very clear.

Published on:

In terms of not obtaining HIV litigation files sitting in the Solicitor's Division earlier, Anita James stated it was because "Oh, I had to find time to do everything, so whether I had considered it, I knew they were there ... So I knew they were all there but I just never thought to look at them."

Published on:

Anita James did not know how the reports from Dr Perry and Dr Williams came to be mislaid, and did not recall receiving them in the first place.

Published on:

Anita James couldn't remember what happened to the publications attached to the statement of claim.

Published on:

Anita James was copied into a message suggesting that the Solicitor's Division held a copy of the committee papers of the ACVSB. She said she did not, at that stage, authorise a thorough search of the documents which might have been held by the Solicitor's Division.

Published on:

When Anita James was asked whether a more systematic assessment at an earlier stage might have helped more documents to be found, she said no and further stated "people who had been involved, their memories had faded."

Published on:

It was recognised that whilst the Solicitor's Division had dealt with three other major pieces of litigation in recent times, there had been no similar loss or destruction of documentation.

Published on:

It was highlighted that in the UK there were delays introducing screening from mid 1990 well into 1991.

Published on:

Ruth McEwen told Anita James that she had spoken to David Burrage "who asserts that...all relevant files were located together in one filing cabinet. So if any is now missing he cannot account for either why that should be or the possible location."

Published on:

Dr Rejman continued to object to further work being undertaken on discovery of documents because it was "wholly inappropriate and wasteful of resources ... until we [are] certain that something would come of the HCV haemophilia case."

Published on:

The other GEB/1 files were not destroyed until between October 1997 and November 1998

Published on:

Yvonne de Sampayo stated in that she was: "particularly shocked to see reference to the suggestion that I destroyed documents because I was fearful of a difficult disclosure process due to a supposed bad experience with the BSE inquiry's disclosure process."

Published on:

Yvonne de Sampayo denied destroying any of Dr Metters' papers and said that they would have remained in the filing cabinets as it was not in her remit to make decisions about the retention of files.

Published on:

Dr Metters was described as meticulous, and had kept substantial records.

Published on:

Charles Lister stated that the documents "shouldn't have been marked for destruction at all, so the dates are almost irrelevant. But yes, it makes no sense that they were marked for destruction at any stage."

Published on:

When asked whether the decisions made by the Department regarding the HCV payment scheme and the public inquiry were affected by groupthink or the collective, Charles Lister stated "looking back on this, I asked myself whether I could have, you know, done anything differently, and I said wasn't honestly sure that I could have done. And I think that's where I am still at."

Published on:

Charles Lister received an email from Anita James seeking a progress update. He replied stating more files had been destroyed.

Published on:

The Department of Health were notified of a draft application for third party disclosure of documents by the claimants in the Hepatitis C litigation.

Published on: