R (March) v Secretary of State for Health

Last updated

R (March) v Secretary of State for Health
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
Court High Court of Justice
Full case nameThe Queen (on the application of Andrew Michael March) v The Secretary of State for Health
Decided16 April 2010
Citation(s)[2010] EWHC 765 (Admin)
[2010] Med LR 271
(2010) 116 BMLR 57
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Mr Justice Holman
Keywords
  • Material error of fact
  • Relevance of Hansard

  • Ex gratia payments
  • Contaminated blood products

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. [1] 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. [2] [3] [4]

Contents

Facts

Andrew Michael March, a haemophiliac, [5] along with several thousand other patients was treated with contaminated blood products in the 1970s and 1980s. [1] [6]

The contaminated blood and blood products disaster also occurred in the Republic of Ireland [1] and various compensation schemes and statutory provisions were put in place between 1991 and 2002 on compassionate grounds, without legal liability on the part of the state. [7] However, the level of payments made to similarly infected and affected people in the Republic of Ireland was considerably greater than payments made to victims in the United Kingdom. In the UK, the Department of Health had consistently refused to increase the ex gratia support payments to be on a par with the more generous levels of payments made in the Republic of Ireland, arguing that liability in the UK had never been established, whilst they claimed in Ireland there had been findings of fault. [5] [8] This was found to be incorrect since the basis behind the Irish scheme was compassion, not fault. [9] [10]

According to the Order handed down by the court, the decision at the centre of the judicial review could be found within a document entitled ″Government Response to Lord Archer’s Independent Report on NHS Supplied Contaminated Blood and Blood Products″. [11] [12] The ministerial decision hinged on the refusal to adopt a key recommendation of the independent, non-statutory Archer Inquiry. In particular, Recommendation 6(h). [13] The rejected recommendation read as follows: ″We suggest that payments should be at least the equivalent of those payable under the scheme which applies at any time in Ireland.″ [14]

Judgment

The judgment was handed down in Court 49 of the High Court by Mr Justice Holman on Friday, 16 April 2010, the eve of World Haemophilia Day 2010.

Material error of fact

I am satisfied that the government′s approach to recommendation 6 (h) has been, and remains, infected by an error.

— Mr Justice Holman

The March case demonstrates that the jurisdiction of the court extends to quashing a decision if the published reasons for the decision contain an error which is considered capable of making a material difference to the outcome of the decision – had the error in question not been made. [15] The sequence of events in Ireland were critical to this case. The Irish government had decided to make payments at a substantial level, very much like compensation, but strictly speaking ex gratia in nature, and they decided to do this before there was any finding of fault. [7] It was the Westminster government's stance on this that propagated the error.

There are a number of conditions which need to be met in order for the court to intervene:

  • There must be a demonstrable error to an existing fact; [16]
  • The error needs to be sufficiently established; [17]
  • The claimant and their legal advisors must not have been party to the error; [18]
  • The error of fact needs to be ″material″; in that there could have been an alternative decision ″but for the error″. [19]

Admissibility of evidence

The thrust of the case on behalf of the claimant is that the answers given by the minister on 23 June and 1 July, when considered separately or cumulatively, reveal a material error of fact on the part of the government as to the situation in Ireland; that that error undermines the reasoning process of the government in their decision to reject recommendation 6 (h); and, accordingly, that the government should be required to reconsider their response to recommendation 6 (h).

— Mr Justice Holman [1]

There was considerable scrutiny over the quality and type of evidence deemed admissible. The use of hansard was permitted by the court due to specific circumstances relating to the decision under review; in particular, the government's reasoning behind their decision. Justice Holman made a clear statement that the court could not go beyond the scope of what was reviewable and could not come to any conclusions about the proceedings of Parliament and whether they were in any way inadequate or inaccurate. [20]

Two answers were issued by the Minister of State at the Department of Health which were considered in turn by the court. A distinction was made out between the two due to the degree of preparation the minister was likely to have had. The first was merely an oral answer given "on the hoof" to a question on 23 June 2009 and thus could not be fully relied on. [1] The second ministerial answer was given on 1 July 2009 as part of a topic–specific debate, so the court felt that this could be relied on by the claimant. [17]

As part of the prepared answer, the Minister of State for the Department of Health, stated:

I stand by the points that I made. Furthermore, a judicial inquiry in Ireland found failures of responsibility by the Irish blood transfusion service and concluded that wrongful acts had been committed. As a result, the Government of the Republic of Ireland decided to make significant payments to those infected... [21]

Since the Minister chose to expand on the published reasons for the decision in responding to questions in Parliament, the court was left with an obligation to examine the government's reasoning, provided it did not trespass on issues such as allocation of resources or political matters. It was the Minister's use of the words ″as a result″ that Holman J pointed to as being factually incorrect, since those words suggested, erroneously, that the significant payments made in the Republic of Ireland were because of findings of wrongful acts and failures of responsibility. [22] [23]

Significance

On the morning the judgment was handed down, the late Lord Morris of Manchester described how he felt the decision was historic for the haemophilia community and how he expected it would be welcomed by the community of some 5,000 people who were infected en masse with HIV and Hepatitis C through contaminated blood and blood products. [24] Lord Morris went on to expand as follows:

…1,974 have died in direct consequence of the NHS treatment. Yet until today the legal road to redress was blocked, just as unbreakably as any prospect of securing justice by legislative means. Now with today’s historic breakthrough in the High Court and the huge public backing for my Contaminated Blood Support for Infected and Bereaved Persons Bill, both roads are open. Our determination to ensure that ′right is done′ is totally vindicated and a just outcome is now in sight. [25]

Following certiorari, the defendant had until 4pm on Monday 7 June 2010 to apply to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. [11] By 2 June 2010, the new coalition government had chosen not to appeal the decision of the High Court. [26] There was a period of vacuum following the quashing order, where the government was required by the court to revisit the matter and remake the decision – de novo. [27] [28]

Bibliography

See also

Related Research Articles

Health Management Associates is a defunct Arkansas-based company involved in a blood-management scandal during the 1980s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada</span> Royal commission of inquiry into the tainted blood scandal in Canada

The tainted blood disaster, or the tainted blood scandal, was a Canadian public health crisis in the 1980s in which thousands of people were exposed to HIV and hepatitis C through contaminated blood products. It became apparent that inadequately-screened blood, often coming from high-risk populations, was entering the system through blood transfusions. It is now considered to be the largest single (preventable) public health disaster in the history of Canada.

<i>Factor 8: The Arkansas Prison Blood Scandal</i> 2005 American film

Factor 8: The Arkansas Prison Blood Scandal is a feature-length documentary by Arkansas filmmaker and investigative journalist Kelly Duda. Through interviews and presentation of documents and footage, Duda alleges that in the 1970s and 1980s, the Arkansas prison system profited from selling blood plasma from inmates infected with viral hepatitis and HIV. The documentary contends that thousands of victims who received transfusions of blood products derived from these plasma products, Factor VIII, died as a result.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kelly Duda</span> American film director

Kelly Duda is an American filmmaker and activist from Arkansas best known for the 2005 documentary, Factor 8: The Arkansas Prison Blood Scandal.

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

The Lindsay Tribunal was set up in Ireland in 1999 to investigate the infection of haemophiliacs with HIV and Hepatitis C from contaminated blood products supplied by the Blood Transfusion Service Board.

Judicial review is a part of UK constitutional law that enables people to challenge the exercise of power, usually by a public body. A person who contends that an exercise of power is unlawful may apply to the Administrative Court for a decision. If the court finds the decision unlawful it may have it set aside (quashed) and possibly award damages. A court may impose an injunction upon the public body.

<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 the United Kingdom, these were supplied by the National Health Service (NHS) and many of the products were imported from the US.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Den Brook Wind Farm</span> Wind farm in Devon, England

Den Brook Wind Farm is a windfarm in Devon, England. The windfarm is located 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) south-east of North Tawton and 2.5 kilometres (1.6 mi) south-west of Bow, and comprises nine 2 MW wind turbines, each 120 metres (390 ft) high. Developer Renewable Energy Systems (RES) received planning consent for the project in December 2009, following a long planning process which included two public inquiries and a judicial review.

<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.

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.

Arthur Leslie Bloom FCRP, FRCPath (1930–1992) was a Welsh physician focused on the field of Haemophilia.

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.

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.

<i>CN v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care</i> Judicial review permission appeal challenging non-inclusion of hepatitis B

CN v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 86 was an appeal against the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review to challenge the infected blood support scheme administered by the NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) for non-inclusion of those infected with chronic Hepatitis B virus. 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, 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.

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.

The Irish Haemophilia Society (IHS) is an organization that represents the interests of people with haemophilia, von Willebrand disease and other inherited bleeding disorders.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 R (March) v Secretary of State for Health, 765BMLR116 , 53(EWHC (Admin)2010).
  2. ↑ Fordham, Michael (2008). "<P49>". Judicial Review Handbook (Fifth ed.). Oxford: Hart Publishing Ltd. p. 468. ISBN   9781841138244. Judicial review judges have traditionally been cautious about fact-based challenges.
  3. ↑ Demetriou, Marie; Houseman, Stephen (1997). "Review for Error of Fact—A Brief Guide". Judicial Review. Routledge. 27 (1): 27–32. doi:10.1080/10854681.1997.11426925.
  4. ↑ E v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, 49QB1044 , 51(EWCA (Civ)2004).
  5. 1 2 Meikle, James (16 April 2010). "Court ruling may help contaminated blood victims win higher payouts". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 11 April 2020. A classical music composer who was infected by HIV when he was nine, who later developed hepatitis, won a judicial review that challenged the basis of health ministers' decision last year not to increase the payments.
  6. ↑ "Composer wins compensation review over contaminated blood". The Telegraph. London. 16 April 2010. Retrieved 11 April 2020. An award-winning composer who contracted HIV and Hepatitis C through NHS treatment with contaminated blood products has won a legal challenge over compensation payments.
  7. 1 2 Hynes, Lara (30 July 2009). "RE: Blood & Tissue Policy Division, (DOHC)". Letter to Mark A. Ward. The scheme of compensation for persons with haemophilia was put in place on compassionate grounds, without legal liability on the part of the State.
  8. ↑ Gillian Merron, Minister of State at the Department of Health (23 June 2009). "Topical Questions". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Vol. 494. United Kingdom: House of Commons. col. 656.
  9. ↑ Lord Archer of Sandwell (23 February 2009). "9" (PDF). Independent Public Inquiry Report (Report). Archer Inquiry. p. 89. Retrieved 12 April 2010. The payments by the Irish Government were equally made without an admission of liability.
  10. ↑ R (March) v Secretary of State for Health, 765BMLR116 , [27] [30] [34](EWHC (Admin)2010).
  11. 1 2 Mr Justice Holman (16 April 2010). Order of the Administrative Court (Report). High Court. p. 2. Claim No: CO/9344/09.
  12. ↑ Government response to Lord Archer's Independent report on NHS supplied contaminated blood and blood products (PDF) (Report). Department of Health (DH website). 20 May 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 November 2009. Retrieved 15 April 2020.
  13. ↑ R (March) v Secretary of State for Health, 765BMLR116 , 19(EWHC (Admin)2010)("...that that error undermines the reasoning process of the government in their decision to reject recommendation 6 (h);").
  14. ↑ Lord Archer of Sandwell (23 February 2009). "12" (PDF). Independent Public Inquiry Report (Report). Archer Inquiry. pp. 107–110. Retrieved 11 April 2010. We believe that the following recommendations would help to meet the unmet needs of patients with haemophilia and their families...
  15. ↑ Endicott, Timothy (June 2011). "9.2.3". Administrative Law (Second ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p.  333. ISBN   9780199601752. An error of fact revolution?
  16. ↑ Fordham, Michael (July 2012). "<P49>". Judicial Review Handbook (Sixth ed.). Oxford: Hart Publishing Ltd. p. 511. ISBN   9781849461597. But the claimant must demonstrate that (i) there is an error of fact;
  17. 1 2 Lidbetter, Andrew; Zar, Nusrat; Condliffe, Anna (30 April 2010). "Quashing a decision on the basis of material error of fact". lexology.com. Herbert Smith Freehills LLP. Retrieved 11 April 2020. ...the fact or evidence must have been ″established″, in the sense that it was uncontentious and objectively verifiable;
  18. ↑ E v. Secretary of State for the Home Department , 49QB1044, 66(EWCA (Civ)2004)("Thirdly, the appellant (or his advisers) must not have been responsible for the mistake.").
  19. ↑ R (March) v Secretary of State for Health, 765BMLR116, 53(EWHC (Admin)2010)("In my view, the error is material because a different decision might (I stress, might) have been made if the government had correctly focussed on, and grappled with, the compassionate basis of Irish payments, when considering in particular the passage at internal pages 90 – 94 of Archer which underpins recommendation 6 (h).").
  20. ↑ Fordham, Michael (July 2012). "<P29.4.10>". Judicial Review Handbook (Sixth ed.). Oxford: Hart Publishing Ltd. p. 338. ISBN   9781849461597. The role of the court is limited to examining the decision under review.
  21. ↑ Gillian Merron, Minister of State at the Department of Health (1 July 2009). "Archer Inquiry". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Vol. 495. United Kingdom: House of Commons. col. Column 130WH.
  22. ↑ R (March) v Secretary of State for Health, 765BMLR116 , [43], [46](EWHC (Admin)2010).
  23. ↑ Clements, Richard (2015). Public Law. Oxford University Press. p. 178. ISBN   9780198715733.
  24. ↑ "Campaigner wins tainted blood case". BBC News. 16 April 2010. Retrieved 12 April 2020.
  25. ↑ "Haemophilia Society Welcomes Historic Victory in Court". Archived from the original on 6 May 2016. Retrieved 12 April 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  26. ↑ Earl Howe, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (2 June 2010). "Health: Contaminated Blood Products". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Vol. 719. United Kingdom: House of Lords. col. 247. My Lords, we have decided not to seek leave to appeal the judgment, and we shall be writing shortly to let the court know of our decision. We are considering our response to the judgment and will announce our decision in due course. In the meantime, ex–gratia payments will continue to be paid at current levels to those affected.
  27. ↑ Wiktionary-logo-en-v2.svg The dictionary definition of de novo at Wiktionary
  28. ↑ Farrell, Anne-Maree (2012). The Politics of Blood: Ethics, Innovation and the Regulation of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 142. ISBN   9780521193184.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.