Justin Fenwick QC

WS Q’s - JE

1. 32.1 - Can he elaborate on what he means by “to an unusual extent”?

   1. Why was this?

2. 43.4 - Given the full text of §5 in the document and what he says at §43.5, does he think it likely this comment actually refers to "lack of progress towards self-sufficiency" / "failures to make progress"?

3. 48.1 - Does he accept the absence may be because the plaintiffs were simply unaware of the scale and seriousness of NANBH infection? As opposed to any calculation of importance.

4. 50.1 - Final sentence. Can we draw his attention to, for example, some of the Rejman documents from this time detailing chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis, cancer etc and ask if he then stands by this statement?

Non-WS & Additional

1. During Rejman’s evidence on 11th May (p213) he said: “if an expert witness comes up and they basically are critical of the Department from beginning to end, then I suspect we would not use them as an expert witness when a court case came, and that, I think, presumably would have been the judgement of the QC, Justin Fenwick.”

   1. Would it have been his judgement?

   2. Does he have any observations about this approach?

2. There are some references in the documents to pharmaceutical companies having some involvement in the HIV litigation (eg REDACTED). Can he recall the nature of their involvement and to what extent there were interactions between himself/DH and pharma companies about the litigation?

3. REDACTED)

4. (Handwriting at the top) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BYX777DXYSBi98YNzhr6Vua4SazgPuiL/view?usp=sharing

   1. Why did HMT consider DH’s handling of the settlement to be “Vexing”?

   2. Why had it turned out “as well as (or better than) expected”?

   3. Why was it felt needed to make clear to DH that “this was no way to do business”?

5. HCDO0000537 - "Haemophilia Society should not be given hepatitis data" (p4)

   1. Does he recall any discussions in relation to this matter?

   2. Had his advice been sought by, for example Rejman, who was in attendance, would he have agreed that the haemophilia society should be given hepatitis data?

6. HCDO0000537 - "the problem went beyond HIV and that discussion of liver disease..." (p4)

   1. To what extent was his feeling that "the problem went beyond HIV”?

7. Was it, in his experience, unusual for a defendant to announce a settlement before the plaintiffs had agreed to one?

8. HMTR0000002_009

   1. Is it likely that there may have been some overlap between what is said at §5(i) of this document and the content of REDACTED)

9. REDACTED

10. HMTR0000002_020

    1. Would he have agreed with both of the points made here?

    2. Can he explain the importance / rationale behind each of the two points?