10 May 2022: Rejman - D

Straight into some new really juicy stuff, that of Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificates. Dr Rejman had to learn quickly how the system worked. It appears that certain papers relevant to the HIV litigation were considered as coming into the sphere of PII. A categorisation process was developed, but there was a sense that it was quite arbitrarily designed and applied. This harks back to the control previously attempted by shutting down whatever the Sunday Times might have published. It leads to a broader question, what else has been withheld under PII, D-Notice or subsequent instruments which might contain smoking guns or compromising disclosures. The rule of thumb seems to have been, “if in doubt, claim PII.” So much for “open government”, duties of candour, and transparency in public office.

Then it’s right on to another biggie, that of document destruction. The evidence seems to veer towards there having been an unwritten policy of “destroy unless you absolutely have to keep”. In the middle of this section of evidence, Dr Rejman resorts to questioning the reliability of the written note. Isn’t this a form of gaslighting, doc? The reason given for destruction of hepatitis records was given as, “Hepatitis was not a live issue for the Department”. They had dealt with the baddie of Hep B, and since that was fixed, all Hep paperwork could be destroyed under the five-year rule.

Bombshell time happened when the view was expressed by Dr Rejman that things changed massively when Margaret Thatcher resigned. Ken Clarke was replaced by William Waldegrave after John Major took up residence in Number 10. The ultimate decision to pay out on the HIV litigation came out of Downing Street. It was now considered there was a moral responsibility under the circumstances to make payments, assisted by pressure arising from growing public opinion. The decision was based on minimising the political costs of sticking with the line of not paying despite pressure to do that, against the potential risk of setting an expensive financial precedent.

Dr Rejman then speculated about views on how right or not it was for Justice Ognal to intervene in the way he did. He even hinted at how difficult it would appear for Ognal to be seen to go against the haemophiliacs. Is he questioning the independent integrity of a senior judge? Whether or not the Chair of this Inquiry knew Justice Ognal, what does Sir Brian Langstaff think of that serious assertion against a fellow top judge?

Warning: this paragraph could cause a very negative reaction. Dr Rejman really digs himself into a hole of horrendous wickedness. When the Government accepted that payments should be made, he personally sought to significantly limit the categories of payment eligibility to that of sexual partners only. He suggested people would deliberately allow themselves to be infected just to get money. He foresaw people seeking extravagant and expense treatments beyond the already expensive treatments they were getting. He happily went into expressing opinions about non-medical matters. He was given an opportunity by Counsel to recall his previous comments, but apart from one word he stuck with it. He represents everything and more that is wrong with expert civil servants with too much power and not enough soul. He, Dr Rejman, is an evil man.

I shouted out “Shame” at one point, but the air conditioning and the obligatory mask dulled the volume somewhat. Afterwards, I spoke with Brian Langstaff to apologise in advance if this witnesses’ vile views are similarly expressed tomorrow causing me to call this man out with greater gusto. The Chair recognised how such a reaction would be justified and understandable. Then he gently mentioned the hope that all witnesses have the opportunity to say what they have to say with the same decorum as those who have already appeared. As the dust settles, maybe waiting for a better time when payback can be served cold is preferable.

‘Til tomorrow.