Subscribe to Search results

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:

Dr Rejman wrote to Ruth McEwen stating that it was "wholly inappropriate and wasteful of resources for any further discovery to be undertaken until we were certain that something would come of the HCV haemophilia case."

Published on:

In a letter from Ruth McEwen to Dr Rejman and Mr Guiness it was stated that "Dr Rejman agreed that he would prune the HIV discovery documents removing obviously irrelevant documents" and that Ruth McEwen planned to create a second discovery list of "missing documents which cannot be located at CAOU or SOLB4".

Published on:

Tables show that a number of files related to the Hepatitis C discovery could not be found.

Published on:

Charles Lister was the head of the blood policy unit at the Department of Health from 1998 - 2003.

Published on:

In his oral evidence to the Inquiry regarding the decision making in the Department of Health, Charles Lister explained that he was not sure whether he could have done anything differently and that GEB documents should not have "been marked for destruction at all".

Published on:

In his written statement to the Inquiry Lord Crisp stated that that he could not recall having a meeting with Lord Jenkin on 13 April 2005 and that there was no suggestion that the destruction of records "was the result of a deliberate decision in the sense of anyone knowingly acting outside Departmental policy."

Published on:

In oral evidence Justin Fenwick QC stated that the idea that staff "should have allowed documents to go missing was intensely frustrating".

Published on:

Lord Peter Fraser of Carmyllie gave his support to the creation of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissue for Transplantation.

Published on:

The Earl of Arran gave his support to replace the Advisory Committee on the Virological Safety of Blood with the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissue for Transplantation.

Published on:

In a memo from Dr Rejman on the HIV haemophilia litigation it was stated that "Among the papers will be a significant amount of discussion regarding NANB (hepatitis C) which we might not wish to have in the public domain at the present time or in the near future."

Published on:

In oral evidence to the Inquiry Dr Rejman stated that he went through the official GEB files and that after photocopying them David Burrage "presumably would have sent the files back to DRO".

Published on:

In an internal memo in connection to the Macfarlane Trust it was made clear that £2000 for persons not infected with HIV but at risk was only available to those who were pursuing litigation.

Published on:

Ann Towner asked for clarification in a memo to Leonard Levy on whether earlier files in a series had been destroyed as it was her belief that files would have been transferred to the DRO for destruction after 25 years.

Published on:

Dr Rejman explained in a memo that duplicate sets of papers on the Hepatitis C discovery could be made instead of passing on the originals as previous papers had been "mislaid".

Published on:

A memo from Mike McGovern was sent to Charles Lister stating that Mallin Souter currently had the committee papers.

Published on:

In his written statement to the Inquiry Charles Lister said in relation to the Lord Owen papers that "frustratingly, no one had thought to take a copy for the file when the submissions were bundled up and sent to the Solicitor's Division [...] We ended up concluding that the submissions had gone missing having previously been sent to the Solicitor's Division".

Published on: