Subscribe to Search results

Laurence George was appointed by the internal audit department to undertake an investigation into the loss of documents relating to the Hepatitis C litigation.

Published on:

The purpose of the audit into the loss of documents relating to the Hepatitis C litigation was to "focus on lessons for the future".

Published on:

The purpose of the investigation into the loss of documents relating to the Hepatitis C litigation, was to identify any weakness in control and to recommend how they could be corrected.

Published on:

Bill Burleigh asked Dr Troop for input on the terms of reference for the Hepatitis C litigation investigation.

Published on:

It was stated in the terms of reference of the investigation into the loss of documents relating to the Hepatitis C litigation that all staff should cooperate with the investigation and that it would "not seek to apportion blame, rather help prevent such things happening again."

Published on:

Laurence George gave Anita James the terms of reference for the investigation into the loss of documents relating to the Hepatitis C litigation.

Published on:

Dr Troop announced the investigation into the loss of documents relating to the Hepatitis C litigation to his colleagues.

Published on:

Dr Troop suggested that some of the medical professionals involved were "not traditional civil servants and this may have an impact on file keeping standards."

Published on:

Yvonne de Sampayo said that she had been asked for the minutes of the ACVSB meeting as a longshot and had found some records and forwarded them on.

Published on:

A Hepatitis C litigation interview which noted that Anita James found it bizarre that Yvonne de Sampayo destroyed Dr Metters' personal papers.

Published on:

William Burleigh noted that because Dr Metters' papers were his own extra copies he was excluded from investigation into the failing of registered file procedure.

Published on:

It was stated regarding a Freedom of Information request that the Departmental Records Office had certificates of destruction but that they doubted they would be useful because they only gave the weight of the papers collected and destroyed.

Published on:

A Freedom of Information request posed a question why an inexperienced staff member had been permitted to make decisions to destroy sensitive and important files.

Published on:

Letter from Patricia Hewitt to Charles Clarke stated that papers relating to the treatment of haemophilia patients and blood safety should not have been destroyed, but could not provide an explanation as to why they had been.

Published on:

In an internal memo it was stated that only half of the HIV discovery documents had been sourced.

Published on:

Ruth McEwen confirmed to Dr Rejman that the SOL had a complete set of HIV discovery files.

Published on:

Dr Rejman provided a list of the documents to Ruth McEwen that had been disclosed in the HIV litigation.

Published on:

The joint written statement of William Vineall and Lorraine Jackson noted that there was a file gap of 44 documents in relation to HIV discovery.

Published on:

Ruth McEwen stated in a letter to Dr Rejman and Mr Pudlo that she "would like to put Mr Pudlo and CA OPU colleagues on notice that if the claims [Hepatitis C] are to proceed discovery will have to be done."

Published on:

Ruth McEwen wrote to Dr Rejman asking for clarification regarding who would be conducting the discovery of the CA OPU2 files.

Published on: