The State is to stand by key findings of the hepatitis C inquiry, despite a High Court challenge by a consultant criticised in the inquiry report.
Dr James Kirrane, a consultant pathologist, was named in the report as one of the doctors with some responsibility for the contamination of anti-D immunoglobulin with the hepatitis C virus. The defendants in the case are the chairman of the tribunal, Mr Justice Finlay, Ireland and the Attorney General.
The State is not expected to agree to the retraction of any section of the report, and does not have any plans to publicly apologise or pay damages to Dr Kirrane.
It is understood that Positive Action, the group which representing women infected with hepatitis C through anti-D, was closely following the progress of the case. The group, while accepting the right of an individual to go to court, was apparently concerned at the prospect of a settlement process being arrived at which might have affected the findings of the Finlay inquiry.
Mr Justice Finlay's inquiry report said Dr Kirrane, a parttime consultant with the BTSB, "must bear some responsibility for not insisting on a greater investigation of the reaction of patients to anti-D." Dr Kirrane last year initiated proceedings to quash the parts of the report referring to him. Last June he sought and secured leave to seek order, by way of judicial review, quashing parts of the Finlay report.
The case is due for mention in the High Court on Monday. During earlier hearings, Dr Kirrane's legal team said he had been a witness at the tribunal of inquiry. At no stage had he been told there would be allegations against him. Dr Kirrane claimed that he had been only a witness at the tribunal and had been granted only limited legal representation. In an affidavit, Dr Kirrane said his sole role regarding the BTSB was in relation to his expertise in protein fractionation in the production of the various products (including anti-D) which the BTSB had failed to manufacture.
He said it was not the protein fractionation process that gave rise to the contamination of antiD products. He said that Mr Justice Finlay had not specified what further investigations should have made. He said investigations of a clinical nature were not a matter for him, but were solely the responsibility of the clinical team.
His counsel submitted that the consultant was not afforded adequate notice that allegations or criticism had been or were about to be levelled against him.
The State only filed a notice of opposition in the proceedings on February 6th. It is believed that Mr Justice Finlay has sought separate legal advice concerning Dr Kirrane's challenge.