Subscribe to Search results

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:

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: