CN v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

Last updated

CN, R. (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (HM Government).svg
Court Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Full case nameThe Queen on the application of CN and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the NHS Business Authority
Decided25 January 2022
Citation(s)
  • [2022] EWCA Civ 86

  • [2022] WLR(D) 68, [2022] EWCA Civ 86 [1]
Case history
Prior action(s)Permission was initially refused by Spencer J.; permission was refused once more at a hearing by Stacey J.; then Holroyde LJ granted permission to appeal the refusal of Stacey J.
Appealed from High Court of Justice
Court membership
Judges sitting
Case opinions
Decision bySir Geoffrey Vos
ConcurrenceLady Justice King,
Lord Justice Dingemans
Keywords

CN v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 86 [1] was an appeal against the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review to challenge the infected blood support [lower-alpha 1] scheme administered by the NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) for non-inclusion of those infected with chronic Hepatitis B virus. [7] The appeal was based on the grounds that the exclusion of those infected with HBV from the England Infected Blood Support Scheme (EIBSS) was unreasonable and discriminatory, [8] contrary to article 14 when read in conjunction with article 8 and article 1 protocol 1 (A1P1) of the ECHR. The appellant also claimed that there was different treatment and that the failure to include those infected with HBV was unreasonable, and that the original application for review should not have been deemed out of time. [2]

Contents

The permission appeal was unanimously dismissed because the application was deemed to be out of time and the claims under article 14 and the one based on unreasonableness and irrationality both failed. [9] The court felt that the support scheme (EIBSS) was a response to a "pressing moral claim" and "an exception to the regime of fault based liability". [10]

History of 'CN'

The appellant, known only as "CN", was infected with the hepatitis B virus which they believe to have contracted around the time of April 1989 at Hammersmith Hospital, where a blood transfusion was required during the course of a bone marrow transplant. Since being infected with HBV, CN experienced a number of serious health issues, including: chronic liver disease, renal failure, a compromised immune system, joint degeneration, Hypertension, short-term memory loss, and breathlessness. [1] CN had been running a successful catering business which had to be relinquished in order to seek medical treatment, and for the last 13 years, CN has had to be sustained by state benefits. In March 1995, CN had initiated litigation in the civil courts with the NHS and the National Blood Authority (NBA) as joint defendants, however the case was eventually discharged following the removal of public funding. [1]

CN claimed to be in a "relevantly similar" position to beneficiaries infected with HIV and HCV who already came within the scope of support offered by the EIBSS, [2] yet the scheme did not include infection with hepatitis B because blood donors were screened for hepatitis B from 1972, [11] [12] which meant that the likelihood of blood being contaminated with hepatitis B in the 1980s was far more remote than for infection with HIV and hepatitis C. [1]

Detailed grounds

The appellant argued the appeal on four grounds: [1]

  1. that they were in a relevantly similar position to those infected with HIV and HCV
  2. that the different treatment could not be justified by the Secretary of State
  3. that it was unreasonable to fail to include those with HBV in the EIBSS scheme
  4. that the judge should have extended time for the application to be made

Judgment

In dismissing the appeal, the court stated that it could not be said that CN was in a "relevantly similar position" since the proper comparison would need to be drawn with those who received blood or blood products which had not been screened and as a result were infected with Hepatitis C. Similarly, the other comparator group would be those who acquired HIV who would be unable to claim if the blood or blood products administered to them had been treated. [13]

The Master of the Rolls argued that it was possible for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to reasonably justify a differential approach to treatment, especially where "economic policy" and decisions concerning disability were involved. The court maintained that the Secretary of State had to be afforded a broad "ambit of discretion" in setting up an ex gratia scheme such as EIBSS. [14] [15]

Even if there were different treatment of persons in a relevantly similar position, it is not arguable that the Secretary of State is unable to justify that different treatment. A sliding scale of intensity of review is appropriate in this case, which is concerned with judgments of social and economic policy and with disability, but the Secretary of State must nonetheless be given a wide margin of appreciation in creating an ex gratia scheme of this kind.

Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls,Court of Appeal, 25 January 2022 [1]

Delay

The refusal of permission to apply for judicial review was made on 15 February 2021 by Martin Spencer J on the basis that the application was "manifestly out of time". [14] The non-inclusion of those infected with Hepatitis B was not considered a renewing act but an historic one, which can be pinpointed to the formation and alterations of the support schemes in 2004 and 2017. The court accepted that the limitation clock had started running with the inception of EIBSS on 1 November 2017. [16]

See also

Notes

  1. Some sources state "compensation" scheme. [2] However, EIBSS stands for England Infected Blood Support Scheme [3] [4] and administers payments which have been described as "ex gratia" in nature as opposed to "compensatory". [5] [6]

Related Research Articles

Needle sharing is the practice of intravenous drug-users by which a needle or syringe is shared by multiple individuals to administer intravenous drugs such as heroin, steroids, and hormones. This is a primary vector for blood-borne diseases which can be transmitted through blood. People who inject drugs (PWID) are at an increased risk for Hepatitis C (HCV) and HIV due to needle sharing practices. From 1933 to 1943, malaria was spread between users in the New York City area by this method. Afterwards, the use of quinine as a cutting agent in drug mixes became more common. Harm reduction efforts including safe disposal of needles, supervised injection sites, and public education may help bring awareness on safer needle sharing practices.

Contaminated hemophilia blood products were a serious public health problem in the late 1970s up to 1985.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hepatitis B</span> Human viral infection

Hepatitis B is an infectious disease caused by the Hepatitis B virus (HBV) that affects the liver; it is a type of viral hepatitis. It can cause both acute and chronic infection.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom administrative law</span>

United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Maidstone Hospital</span> Hospital in England

Maidstone Hospital is a hospital in Barming, Maidstone, England. It is managed by the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust.

Ann Abraham is a public servant who was the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England between 2002 and 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Contaminated blood scandal in the United Kingdom</span> The historical contamination of blood products in the UK with HIV and hepatitis C virus

In the 1970s and 1980s, a large number of people – most of whom had haemophilia – were infected with hepatitis C and HIV, the virus that leads to acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), as a result of receiving contaminated clotting factor products. In England, these were supplied by NHS England. Many of the products were imported from the US.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Administrative law in Singapore</span> Law of Singapores government agencies

Administrative law in Singapore is a branch of public law that is concerned with the control of governmental powers as exercised through its various administrative agencies. Administrative law requires administrators – ministers, civil servants and public authorities – to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the law. Singapore administrative law is largely based on English administrative law, which the nation inherited at independence in 1965.

Infectious diseases within American correctional settings are a concern within the public health sector. The corrections population is susceptible to infectious diseases through exposure to blood and other bodily fluids, drug injection, poor health care, prison overcrowding, demographics, security issues, lack of community support for rehabilitation programs, and high-risk behaviors. The spread of infectious diseases, such as HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, hepatitis C (HCV), hepatitis B (HBV), and tuberculosis, result largely from needle-sharing, drug use, and consensual and non-consensual sex among prisoners. HIV and hepatitis C need specific attention because of the specific public health concerns and issues they raise.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patrick McGuire (solicitor)</span> Scottish solicitor and solicitor advocate

Patrick McGuire is a Scottish solicitor and solicitor advocate. He is a partner with personal injury law firm Thompsons Solicitors Scotland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Geoffrey Vos</span> British judge (born 1955)

Sir Geoffrey Charles Vos is a judge in England and Wales. Since January 2021, he has held the positions of Master of the Rolls and the Head of Civil Justice in England and Wales.

The Penrose Inquiry was the public inquiry into hepatitis C and HIV infections from NHS Scotland treatment with blood and blood products such as factor VIII, often used by people with haemophilia. The event is often called the Tainted Blood Scandal or Contaminated Blood Scandal.

In public law, abrogation is the proposing away of a right, power or value, by a public body in delegating power or failing to carry out a responsibility or duty. The abrogation of such a responsibility or duty, unless required by primary legislation would amount to an unconstitutional delegation of power to a foreign government or other sovereign power.

<i>R (March) v Secretary of State for Health</i> UK judicial review quashing a decision on the grounds of material error of fact

R (March) v Secretary of State for Health was a 2010 judicial review which challenged the UK Department of Health's decision not to implement Recommendation 6(h) of the Archer Independent Inquiry. The case was important in developing the doctrine of error of fact in public law which previously had not readily been the subject of judicial intervention.

M.C. and Others v Italy is a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on 3 September 2013 in which Article 1 of Protocol 1 (A1P1) was engaged due to the applicants not being afforded annual uprating which the court deemed damage to their property of a disproportionate character in the form of an exorbitant charge. The Strasbourg ruling sets an important precedent for higher monthly compensation payments to be paid to the 60,000 or so victims of contaminated blood transfusions in Italy. The effect of this ruling increased payments to the applicants by 40%.

<i>A and Others v National Blood Authority and Another</i> Consumer law case involving claimants infected with hepatitis C

A and Others v National Blood Authority and Another, also known as the Hepatitis C Litigation, was a landmark product liability case of 2001 primarily concerning blood transfusions but also blood products or transplanted organs, all of which were infected with hepatitis C, where liability was established under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Product Liability Directive (85/374/EEC) even in the absence of the ability to test to ascertain which blood transfusions were defective. The claimants were 114 individuals, six of whom were considered lead plaintiffs and given close consideration by the judge, Mr Justice Burton. Several of the claimants were minors who had become infected with Hepatitis C in the course of their treatment for leukaemia. The defendants were the National Blood Authority (NBA) and in respect of Wales, the Velindre NHS Trust, Cardiff. The court found that the UK government should have implemented measures to screen donated blood for HCV by March 1990, rather than September 1991, and that surrogate testing should have been introduced within the United Kingdom no later than 1 March 1988.

The Advisory Committee on the Virological Safety of Blood, often abbreviated to ACVSB, was a committee formed in March 1989 in the United Kingdom to devise policy and advise ministers and the Department of Health on the safety of blood with respect to viral infections. The scope of the ACVSB concerned areas of significant policy for the whole of the United Kingdom and operated under the terms of reference: "To advise the Health Departments of the UK on measures to ensure the virological safety of blood, whilst maintaining adequate supplies of appropriate quality for both immediate use and for plasma processing." Of particular emphasis to the remit was the testing of blood donors using surrogate markers for Non-A Non-B hepatitis (NANBH) and later on, HCV-screening of blood donors.

<i>HIV Haemophilia Litigation</i> Legal action by haemophiliacs infected with HIV through blood products

The HIV Haemophilia Litigation [1990] 41 BMLR 171, [1990] 140 NLJR 1349 (CA), [1989] E N. 2111, also known as AMcG002, and HHL, was a legal claim by 962 plaintiffs, mainly haemophiliacs, who were infected with HIV as a result of having been treated with blood products in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The first central defendants were the then Department of Health, with other defendants being the Licensing Authority of the time, (MCA), the CSM, the CBLA, and the regional health authorities of England and Wales. In total, there were 220 defendants in the action.

In 1994, the Irish Blood Transfusion Service Board (BTSB) informed the Minister for Health that a blood product they had distributed in 1977 for the treatment of pregnant mothers had been contaminated with the hepatitis C virus. Following a report by an expert group, it was discovered that the BTSB had produced and distributed a second infected batch in 1991. The Government established a Tribunal of Inquiry to establish the facts of the case and also agreed to establish a tribunal for the compensation of victims but seemed to frustrate and delay the applications of these, in some cases terminally, ill women.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "CN, R. (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 86 (4 February 2022)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
  2. 1 2 3 McCann, Lucy (21 February 2022). "Court of Appeal refuses permission to judicially review infected blood compensation scheme". UK Human Rights Blog - 1 Crown Office Row. Retrieved 28 February 2022.
  3. "CN (claimant/appellant) -v- The Secretary of State for Health & Social Care & anr". European Union News. Right Vision Media. 28 January 2022. Retrieved 26 February 2022. The Appellant sought to challenge his non-inclusion in the English Infected Blood Support Scheme (EIBSS)...
  4. "EIBSS News". www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk. England Infected Blood Support Scheme. 29 November 2021. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
  5. Dorries, Ms Nadine (16 June 2020). "Blood: Contamination". parliament.uk. UIN 59714. Retrieved 28 February 2022. The Government established the England Infected Blood Support Scheme (EIBSS) in 2017 to provide dedicated ex-gratia financial and non-financial support to people infected by HIV and/or hepatitis C through treatment with National Health Service-supplied blood or blood products, and their affected families. This scheme is currently administered by the NHS Business Services Authority.
  6. Rawlinson, Kevin (7 March 2017). "NHS tainted blood scandal: victim payment scheme to be scaled back". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 28 February 2022. This article was amended on 14 March 2017. References to ″compensation″ have been changed to ″payments″. The sums received by victims of the contaminated blood scandal have only ever received ex gratia payments and not compensation.
  7. "CN (claimant/appellant) -v- The Secretary of State for Health & Social Care & anr". www.judiciary.uk. 28 January 2022. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
  8. "Christian J Howells". www.30parkplace.co.uk. 30 Park Place Chambers. Retrieved 28 February 2022. Instructed by a claimant infected with Hepatitis B in the 1980s who seeks to challenge the discriminatory (art 14 ECHR) failure to include persons infected with Hepatitis B in the infected blood support schemes...
  9. CN, R. (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, 86 , 46(EWCA2022)("The parties did not deal separately with the question of unreasonableness or irrationality, save that Mr Howells suggested that the government could not, on that basis, take advantage of an ex post facto justification. As the judge held, however, I take the view in this case that, if the article 14 claim cannot succeed, neither can the claim based on irrationality.").
  10. Sir Robert Francis QC (7 June 2022). "4.54". Compensation and Redress for the Victims of Infected Blood - Recommendations for a Framework (PDF) (Report). Cabinet Office. p. 56. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
  11. A & Ors v National Blood Authority & Ors [2001] EWHC 446(QB) at para. 8, [2001] EWHC QB 446, (2001) 65 BMLR 1, 65 BMLR 1, [2001] Lloyd's Rep Med 187, [2001] 3 All ER 289(2001), High Court (England and Wales)
  12. "Final Report: Chapter 25 - Screening of Donated Blood for Hepatitis B". www.penroseinquiry.org.uk. 2015. Retrieved 28 February 2022. Testing to screen for the Australia antigen was introduced for all blood donations in the rest of the UK from December 1972.
  13. CN, R. (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, 86 , 8(EWCA2022)("...I have concluded that it is not arguable that CN is in a relevantly similar position, because the true comparison is either (a) with HCV sufferers who contracted their condition from unscreened blood or blood products, or (b) with HIV sufferers who would be very unlikely to be able to claim if they received treated blood or blood products.").
  14. 1 2 CN, R. (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, 86 , 14(EWCA2022)("The government had to have an ambit of discretion in setting up an ex gratia scheme, and it was not arguably irrational or unlawful to exclude those infected with HBV.").
  15. "Court of Appeal refuses permission to judicially review infected blood compensation scheme – UK Human Rights Blog". innertemplelibrary.com. 22 February 2022. Retrieved 6 August 2022. In any event, the Secretary of State's justification for who was to be compensated under the ex gratia Scheme was to be given a wide margin of appreciation by the courts.
  16. Court 71, Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (25 January 2022). CN (claimant/appellant) -v- The Secretary of State for Health & Social Care & anr (video) (Hearing). London. Event occurs at 02:30-02:49. Part 1. Retrieved 1 March 2022 via YouTube. The judge found the time ran from the establishment of the English Infective Blood Support Scheme in 2017 at paragraph 27 of your judgment and the respondent relies in particular on the Court of Appeal judgment in Delve which could be found at Tab 13...