Subscribe to Search results

Anita James was copied into a message suggesting that the Solicitor's Division held a copy of some ACVSB files. However, she did not remember what she did about it, and said that she did not authorise a thorough search of the documents at that stage.

Published on:

During her oral evidence, Anita James was of the view that an earlier systematic assessment would not have helped locate more of the missing documents due to the passage of time and people's memories fading.

Published on:

Dr Rejman informed Anita James that GEB/1 Volume 4 was missing.

Published on:

During her oral evidence to the Inquiry, Anita James stated that she was working with Charles Lister to assess where the missing documents were.

Published on:

During her oral evidence to the Inquiry, Anita James conceded that there had been no other similar loss of documentation on other litigation cases at the time.

Published on:

Anita James stated that she understood that if papers were considered to be important, she would "put something like 25 years on for -- 20 years, 25 years for review, and then, again, destruction would be decided upon after that."

Published on:

Anita James accepted that when she was told that GEB/1 volume 4 had been destroyed, "we should have insisted that files were better looked after" and that she, David Burrage and Dr Rejman should have ensured that those involved with the management of those files understood their importance.

Published on:

Anita James confirmed it did not appear that the registered files had been retrieved from the DRO at any time before January 2000 and there was no blanket request across the Department of Health to find any relevant files.

Published on:

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: