Professor ordered to appear at Laffoy

Laffoy Commission: The High Court has ordered a retired UCD professor to comply with a direction of the Laffoy Commission inquiry into child abuse to attend its public hearings next month.

He is being called to give evidence about his involvement in the conduct of vaccination trials in the early 1960s on children in six institutions run by religious orders.

Solicitors for Prof Patrick Meenan (86) had indicated he had intended not to comply, on age and health grounds, with the direction, issued on March 31st last by the vaccine trials division of the commission. The commission applied to the High Court last month seeking to have its order enforced. Prof Meenan's lawyers also sought to challenge the direction.

In a reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Smyth granted the commission's application for an order requiring the professor to attend before it on July 1st next and also rejected his challenge to the direction. Mr Pat Hanratty SC, for Prof Meenan, said he would be consulting with his client about an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The commission says the vaccination trials were, in general terms, conducted by Prof Meenan and then Dr Irene Hillery, both attached to UCD, in 1960 and 1961 in five mother and baby homes and one children's institution, all run by religious orders.

Mr Justice Smyth said he was satisfied Prof Meenan, who was then head of the Department of Microbiology and Applied Medicine at UCD, and had had a remarkable and illustrious career, was "a significant and important person" at the time and it was neither unfair nor unreasonable of the commission to have described him as a central witness.

The judge said he was satisfied Prof Meenan understood the need to allay public concerns about the trials and he had co-operated with the commission and given a lengthy statement to it. The commission was also seeking to have him give evidence at its public hearings.

The judge referred to some 30 items of correspondence extending over a year between the commission and Prof Meenan's solicitors who had stated he was unable for health and welfare reasons to give evidence. While the commission had looked for updated medical reports regarding Prof Meenan, it had not received these for some four months after they were sought. When the reports were submitted, the commission was then asked to treat them on a confidential basis and not to disclose their contents to third parties.

The judge said the commission "understandably" had said it could not accept those terms and had returned them, saying they could be resubmitted with any application on behalf of Prof Meenan not to give evidence.

The commission had also invited Prof Meenan's solicitors to apply to the commission to exclude him on health and other grounds from giving evidence but no such application was made.

Many of the difficulties could have been obviated had Prof Meenan's solicitors made an application to the commission regarding his ability to give evidence rather than engage in "protracted and convoluted correspondence", the judge remarked.

At the time the commission issued its direction to Prof Meenan on March 31st 2003, it had no medical reports from him. The commission was not obliged to engage in interminable correspondence. This was not a case of not being allowed confront accusers or being denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Prof Meenan could still apply to be excused from giving evidence on medical grounds.

In all the circumstances, the judge found the commission's direction was made within jurisdiction, was valid and did not breach the professor's right to privacy or bodily integrity. Neither was it unfair, unreasonable nor disproportionate. He said Prof Meenan had not been restricted or prevented from vindicating his rights and the commission had said it was cognisant of the stresses of giving evidence on a man of such age and would work to alleviate those.

The commission had never refused to hear a proper application on behalf of Prof Meenan in relation to his not giving evidence but had refused to have its procedures laid down or determined by others, the judge said.

If the commission had failed to make an informed direction in the sense that it did not have medical reports on March 31st last, that sprung from the failure to give the reports on time or to make an application on behalf of Prof Meenan.

Mr Justice Smyth said he was satisfied the commission had acted in good faith and had given Prof Meenan's side an opportunity to air his concerns before the direction was made.