Government announcement on expenses for legal representation
3rd April 2018
Infected Blood Inquiry provide update
4th May 2018
Following on from the joint member meeting on Saturday 21st April, SIBF representatives along with those from Haemophilia Scotland and independent campaigners met with Sir Brian Langstaff, the UK wide inquiry Chairperson, along with two of his Inquiry team members, in Edinburgh.
We put our joint members’ questions and concerns to Sir Brian and his team and we had a very detailed and prolonged dialogue lasting longer than had been scheduled.
As a result of this SIBF and Haemophilia Scotland staff and Trustees drafted our joint response to the Inquiry terms of reference consultation. This was submitted yesterday before the consultation deadline.
A copy can be downloaded here.
The response included all of the points highlighted by our memberships that attended the meeting on Saturday the 21st, together with the points raised to us by those who could not attend that meeting. We do not claim that the consultation response represents the views of every affected person in Scotland but we have endeavoured to accurately reflect the issues that have been raised with us and highlight some of the lessons we believe should be learnt from our collective experience of the Penrose Inquiry.
We would like to thank all members who participated in the detailed discussions for their time and fortitude. Going over past events can sometimes be harrowing and draining and we commend all who showed the determination to continue on this path with us.
We would also like to thank Sir Brian Langstaff and those members of his Inquiry team who met with us, Brian Stanton (Solicitor to the Inquiry) and Catherine Nalty (Deputy Secretary to the Inquiry).
5 Comments
This is an excellent response; comprehensive, balanced, informed and direct. It would be wonderful if the Inquiry team take on board all the points raised. If anything has been missed, I think I’m right in saying that the Chair can liaise with the Government to make additions or adjustments if it will help to achieve the overall aim of a full and detailed Inquiry with “no stone left unturned” as they said themselves. Let’s hope they meant it. So well done to those involved in pulling the Scottish response together.
I fully agree with the above and tender my thanks for this exhaustive and thorough piece of work, and also for the team’s ongoing efforts..
The above is a sentiment which I hope will be echoed by all victims and sufferers of this avoidable tragedy.
No mention of ‘Maxwellisation’ though? (where people who failed (sometimes deliberately) in their ‘duty of care’ to we victims are allowed to submit reasons why the inquiry should keep their names private, and out of the public records.) This was a significant problem with Penrose, as in my opinion was the inability of that inquiry to make recommendations for criminal prosecutions.
‘Maxwellisation’ is included in the Joint Scottish response, on page 10.
I think the Maxwellisation part is like a last ditch “get out of jail free card” (maybe literally) for potentially culpable people, and is possibly the weakest aspect of the Inquiry process. It would be such a waste, and maybe the final injustice, if the truth is discovered but is buried by legal wranglings. Someone needs to monitor the exchanges about the warning letters and be able to challenge fallaciously proffered excuses for wrong-doing.
I agree wholeheartedy with the above. However, Robison (for some reason) still imagines that ‘rightful compensation for victims’ should be determined by the Scottish Executive and Scottish Exchequer’s determination of ‘what is affordable’.. If I kill or injure someone in a driving accident, the amount of compensation I am ordered to pay either the victim or their survivors is not determined by my skewed notions of what I think I can afford.. She also tried it on previously, when she said that all ex-gratia payments would be taken into account when (finally) compensation was determined..