Skip to main content
Show — Main navigation Hide — Main navigation
  • Home
  • About
    • The Chair
    • Inquiry Team
    • Expert Groups
    • Inquiry Intermediaries
    • Core Participants
    • Legal Representatives
    • Financial Reports
  • Approach
    • Terms of reference
    • List of Issues
    • Statements of approach
    • Inquiry Principles
  • News
    • News
    • Newsletter Archive
  • Reports
    • The Inquiry Report
    • Additional Compensation report
    • First Interim Report
    • Second Interim Report
    • Compensation Framework Study
  • Evidence
    • Evidence
    • Hearings Archive
  • Compensation
  • Support
    • NHS Psychological Support
    • Confidential Psychological Support
    • Support Groups
    • Infected Blood Support Schemes
    • Treatment and aftercare
    • Medical Evidence
    • Expenses Guidance
  • Contact us
Accessibility Tool
  • Zoom in
  • Zoom out
  • Reset
  • Contrast
  • Accessibility tool
Get in touch

Quick Exit

Subscribe to Search results

Documents marked for second review were to be kept for 25 years.

Published on: 20 September, 2024

In a memo from Graham Hart to all Department of Health staff, it was noted that each staff member was being issued with the "For the Record Leaflet" and needed to be aware of their responsibility.

Published on: 20 September, 2024

In 1987, the DRO file store moved from London to Nelson, Lancashire. At the time, records management was undertaken by Department of Health officials until 1996, when Hays, a private company, was contracted to undertake all record management.

Published on: 20 September, 2024

Dr Rejman noted that one of the central complaints presented by the plaintiffs in the HIV litigation was the use of Factor VIII concentrate derived from bought blood as opposed to donated blood.

Published on: 20 September, 2024

Anita James understood the document retention policy to involve retaining and marking documents for review in 20-25 years if they were important, contained policy review or had historical importance.

Published on: 20 September, 2024

When the GEB/1 files were identified as missing in 1995, Anita James could not recall doing anything at the time to reconstruct the contents of the files.

Published on: 20 September, 2024

Anita James accepted that when she was told the GEB/1 volume 4 files had been destroyed, she, along with David Burrage and Dr Rejman should have made sure that all staff involved understood that the remaining files were important, and that they should have been kept with a long review date.

Published on: 20 September, 2024

Anita James moved departments and handed over to Ruth McEwan due to workload and bullying issues she was dealing with at work.

Published on: 20 September, 2024

The registered files had not been retrieved from the DRO at any time before January 2000, and there was also no blanket request across the Department of Health to find any relevant files.

Published on: 20 September, 2024

During a phone call, Mark Wilson asked Anita James about the missing HIV litigation files. Outside of recording the number of missing files in her notebook, Anita James could not recall doing anything further about his request.

Published on: 20 September, 2024

When preparatory work was undertaken in anticipation of Hepatitis C litigation, Anita James did not think to look for or find the HIV litigation files. She believed that they were held by Ronald Powell in the Solicitor's Division.

Published on: 20 September, 2024

The Department of Health was vulnerable between 1989 and 1991 as highlighted by Anita James.

Published on: 20 September, 2024

During her oral evidence to the Inquiry, Anita James accepted that with hindsight, the discovery list for the HIV litigation should have been gone through in full.

Published on: 20 September, 2024

Anita James did not recall raising any concerns when she received a minute mentioning the possible destruction of important policy files.

Published on: 20 September, 2024

During her oral evidence to the Inquiry, Anita James acknowledged that steps should have been taken to ensure no further files were destroyed after GEB/1 volume 4 had been destroyed.

Published on: 20 September, 2024

Anita James did not take any steps to address the information she had received regarding the shredding of Dr Metters' papers as she did not want "to make a fuss".

Published on: 20 September, 2024

By January 2000, Anita James had not yet told the solicitors acting for the claimants that files were missing.

Published on: 20 September, 2024

Anita James visited Dr Metter's office in the early 1990s and observed that the ACVSB minutes were in his office.

Published on: 20 September, 2024

During her oral evidence to the Inquiry, Anita James suggested that staff members did not understand the "significance" of the files they were handling during the 1990s and did not give any thought to the possibility of litigation when undertaking document retention and destruction.

Published on: 20 September, 2024

Anita James did not recall very much about 1995 or 1996, including why she did not ask Dr Rejman to send over all the files in his possession.

Published on: 20 September, 2024

Pagination

  • First page First
  • Previous page Previous
  • …
  • Page 2381
  • Page 2382
  • Page 2383
  • Page 2384
  • Current page 2385
  • Page 2386
  • Page 2387
  • Page 2388
  • Page 2389
  • …
  • Next page Next
  • Last page Last

Inquiry

  • Home
  • About
  • Approach
  • Participate
  • News
  • Evidence
  • Support
  • Get in touch

Legal

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Cookies notice
  • Privacy Notice
  • Accessibility tool

Address

Infected Blood Inquiry
5th Floor
Aldwych House
71-91 Aldwych
London
WC2B 4HN
 
Images of individuals on the website are used with the agreement of those featured or are stock images.

Follow us

© Crown copyright. Licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated.