Subscribe to Search results

The loss of documentation and document destruction was described as out of the ordinary.

Published on:

The loss of documentation by the Department of Health was described by Justin Fenwick QC as likely being more of a mistake and negligent error over a deliberate one.

Published on:

Justin Fenwick QC stated that he and Andrew Collins QC would have advised on document retention.

Published on:

Justin Fenwick QC stated in his oral evidence that he could not understand how the Department of Health managed to let documents get destroyed.

Published on:

Anita James informed the claimants' solicitors about the loss of the documents where she stated that she believed that there were back up documents in existence. The document destruction that had taken place was described as out of the ordinary.

Published on:

The Department of Health instructed Leigh-Ann Mulcahy to examine the documents returned to the Department of Health by the claimants' solicitors in the HIV litigation and prepare a report.

Published on:

Leigh-Ann Mulcahy submitted a report summarising her findings following a review of the documents returned to the Department of Health by the claimants' solicitors in the HIV litigation.

Published on:

A review of documents by Linda Page noted that 47 lever arch files were located in Wellington House.

Published on:

A review of documents by Linda Page identified a further 8 files in Wellington House, but overall 300 documents were identified as missing from this series of files; 100 from 1973-75 and 200 from 1985.

Published on:

William Connon wrote in an email that he was "by no means certain that the 47 'files' were included in the self-sufficiency report and I am told they were not shown to Lord Jenkin either. The reason being that they are not actually registered files but folders of papers which were simply found in a cupboard in the office".

Published on:

The Wellington House files were described as having always been in the possession of the Department of Health but the 47 files were not properly filed on registered departmental files and the Departmental Records Office files in Nelson were recalled as part of the lookback exercise and a subsequent search for relevant files.

Published on:

William Connon told the Chief Medical Officer that 92 files at the Departmental Records Office in Nelson had been identified as of possible interest; these were scanned for content relating to NANB and ten files identified for further review. He also noted that some documents previously thought destroyed or mislaid had been located. These were documents that were the subject of non-disclosure during the HIV litigation.

Published on:

The progress report of the Page Review for October 2006 - January 2007 recorded that additional documents had been identified in December 2006 and had now been placed in eight registered files.

Published on:

The action plan for January 2007 recorded that ten files of recently located Wellington House documents were to be reviewed, along with 28 files from the Departmental Records Office in Nelson.

Published on:

In July 2008 further files still were found (unorganised) which contained documents from the time of the HIV litigation, and documents from the 1970-1985 that had been removed or copied from the original files in order to be organised for discovery prior to the litigation.

Published on:

The significance of the newly found files was noted because they included litigation documents and documents from 1970-85 that were not in any other files. The plan was to inventory the papers and cross-check whether they had already been released or not.

Published on:

Documents that were found were filed into new registered files with the locations of the files being noted and the documents that were still missing.

Published on:

Expert witness reports written for the Department of Health for the HIV litigation were also found.

Published on:

The decision was taken in October 2008 not to release Professor Bloom's report because it was written in 1990 so it was outside the date range of papers that the Department of Health had committed to release.

Published on:

Discussions were being had in relation to releasing Professor Bloom's report.

Published on: