Response of Jason Evans to the 2nd Written Statement of Dr Andrzej Rejman
Below is the response of Jason Evans to the second written statement of Dr Andrzej Rejman which has been submitted to the Infected Blood Inquiry.
[12] “...announcement of the acceptance in principle by the Government of the Plaintiffs offer was made in December 1990…“ - I can confirm that this was the announcement being referred to which Dr Rejman questions. It will be a matter for the inquiry to consider, in particular following the evidence of Lord William Waldegrave, as to how best characterise what occurred at this time.
[13] “...I was not the architect of the HIV litigation waiver.”
For clarity, and as is probably already obvious to the inquiry, the references to the waiver and Dr Rejman made by me were and are specifically in relation to the Hepatitis clause. At no point has it been claimed that Dr Rejman single-handedly wrote the entire undertaking from start to finish or invented the concept of undertakings in litigation.
The paragraphs which follow this sentence, which appear to be attempts by Dr Rejman to disprove this point, appear to do nothing more than simply reinforce it. This is because in none of the documentation referenced by Dr Rejman is there any earlier point in time where the addition of a Hepatitis clause is suggested.
I accept that my words on this point could have been clearer so that Dr Rejman could correctly understand the point being made. However, the approach taken by Dr Rejman in his WS appears to simply be a distraction. Helpfully though, Dr Rejmans chronology of events pertaining to the undertaking do indeed confirm that the idea of Hepatitis being included originated from himself.
[16] “My minute was intended to highlight to DH officials a concept that was already in existence” - Nothing in what Dr Rejman outlines evidences, in any way, that the concept of a Hepatitis clause, within the undertaking, was already in existence prior to his minute.
[22] “prior to testing becoming available in 1989 it was very difficult to prevent hepatitis when treating haemophiliacs“
This is disputed for a variety of reasons which will be obvious to the inquiry, beginning with heat-treatment and extending to treatment options other than factor concentrates. Given this, Dr Rejman is mistaken in his comments which follow.
[23] “For the avoidance of doubt, I had no role in devising this proposal.”
Not using the term lightly, this is an outright lie based on this document alone to which he refers to and has seen himself, hence the word used.
[27] “Given this context, it bears little significance that I received…” - It is argued that it bears a massive amount of significance given his role within DH.
[27] “This does not, as implied at page 109 of the transcript dated 11 June 2021, indicate that I had some unique awareness that…” - It is not, and never has been, argued that such awareness was “unique” to Dr Rejman, but that the fact of him having such knowledge, when many patients (if not all) did not, was important in the overall context.
[28] “...the risks of hepatitis to infected individuals does not demonstrate that I was in possession of any particularly special knowledge…” - The same points apply as above.
[29] “As it was certainly common knowledge by the late 1980s that the majority of haemophiliacs treated with Factor VIII concentrate were infected with Hepatitis C, there was no reason for me to pass this information on to haemophiliacs infected with Hepatitis C.” - This sentence is contradicted by what Dr Rejman sets out at [27] “...were already common knowledge amongst the scientific community”. Haemophiliacs are, generally, not part of the scientific community. It is accepted that, at this time, Dr Rejman was not a treating clinician but this nonetheless invalidates his own argument. There are many reasons why such information should have been relayed to patients.
[29] “Patients could discuss the topic with their clinicians, or they could ask the Haemophilia Society about this issue.” - Patients cannot discuss what they do not know exists.
[29] “To the best of my knowledge many haemophiliacs were aware of the risk of hepatitis infection well before hepatitis testing became available because, for example, they or people they knew had developed jaundice. I therefore envisage that the risk of hepatitis would have been discussed with clinicians, communicated to Haemophilia Society members via bulletins and included in leaflets enclosed with concentrates given to patients.” - No evidence is provided to back this claim.
[30] “However, effective virucidal procedures from 1984 reduced the risk of infection with the virus” - This doesn’t fit with what he says at (My para) 4 above.
[31] “...Society or the discussions surrounding hepatitis infection and prospective litigation are therefore misplaced.” - Even if Dr Rejman’s version of events on this matter are accepted, this conclusion cannot be drawn. He was still a party to the decision, being in attendance, and there is no evidence to suggest he was against it, or took any action to prevent it.
[32] “suggesting the fact that I was copied to the minute is not central to the analysis of this document” - Dr Rejman is mistaken in believing this was central to the analysis of this document. What is central, is that Dr Rejman is involved to some degree or another at every corner.
[33] Much of this paragraph simply repeats Dr Rejman’s unhelpful, out of context, take.
[35] “...allegedly special knowledge I possessed regarding Hepatitis C infection…” - At no stage have I alleged unique or special knowledge relating to Hepatitis C as already expanded above. Simply, the demonstration of Dr Rejman having such knowledge is material to the wider context.
[35] “...It is notable that no criticisms are made of any other civil servants…” - Criticisms are made of other civil servants, it is unclear as to which sources Dr Rejman is alluding to in relation to this comment. It is agreed that the focus (and the reasons for it) upon him in relation to certain matters is notable, but perhaps not for whatever reasons he is implying.
[35] “...the substance of these documents reveal that I was conveying information regarding hepatitis infection…” - To the contrary, the documents reveal that Dr Rejman was not conveying information, and, that he was a part to the concealment of such information, and, that he suggested the clause to prevent those who did not possess such information, from being able to take legal action.
[41] - The inquiry is aware, I gather from Rejman’s other statement, of Para 4.7 in the Internal Audit report 2000. Dr Rejman appears not to appreciate the significance of this.
[42] “There is no reason to believe that I am therefore responsible for unidentified files that were not returned” - Disagree given above.
A source for the book out and non-return of GEB 1 VOL 1 can be found here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/462267/response/1121950/attach/html/2/FOI%201118059%20Evans%20reply.pdf.html (Side note to the inquiry: It is curious that the 2000 internal audit makes no reference to Volumes 18 - 21 as described here)
[43] “...to allege that I am connected with the destruction of these documents..” - As does DH, see (My para) 19 above.
[43] “Mr Evans provides no evidence to support these allegations” - It is the evidence itself that he is commenting upon. More has been provided in this document.
[43] “...invites the Inquiry to infer that I was connected with the destruction of the ACVSB files because of my involvement in certain occurrences…” - Agreed.
[43] “to connect me to the document destruction is not only entirely speculative” - Supporting documentary evidence has been provided.
[45] “...which Mr Evans had previously mistakenly asserted were destroyed on 9 February 1993 when in fact these were not destroyed until 29 September 1994…“
On Page 118 on the transcript of my evidence (Friday 11 June 2021), I say “9 February '93, and that date is referenced, as well, in the Department of Health internal audit produced in, I think, 2000 in relation to these files. So on this day, the files are closed, retained in section, and marked for a review in five years' time“
On Page 123, I say “it was closed and retained on 9 February '93. It was sent to the DRO on 30 July and destroyed on 29 September '94.”
Dr Rejman is, again, mistaken.
[45] “I again repeat that I had nothing to do with these destruction decisions or actions“ - See (My para) 19 above.
[47] “There is no reason why I should contribute to any journalism pieces…” - Disputed. It would provide answers to those who have suffered and the public at large.
[48] “I reject any suggestion that I worked against those infected and affected. The HIV litigation was about defending individuals and public bodies against claims of negligence.” - These two sentences contradict each other. It is interesting to note Dr Rejman’s view on what “The HIV litigation was about”.
