20 January 2023: Closing Statements, Karon Monaghan KC (four infected clients) - A

Karon Monaghan KC represents four individuals who were either infected or affected. She began by expressing her thanks to the Inquiry for the manner in which it has conducted its work.

 

The statement began with a full-blown attack on the DHSC for the disrespect shown in the way it curtailed its closing statement at the very last minute. Though not a criticism of Ms Grey, she spend several minutes reviewing how wrong it was for the DHSC to draw back from its original position, and how that was concerning in anticipation of the Government response to the Inquiry final report.

 

A similar but less robust criticism was directed at the pharmaceutical companies. They have followed the Inquiry by have chosen not to engage with it.

 

Ms Monaghan framed her statement in terms of human rights, including the rights related to people from the LGBT+ community. The State engaged in denying people the right to dignity by, for example, the progression of its media campaign which caused significant stigma to the bleeding disorder community. One of her clients is a lawyer by profession, and a section of his witness statement was read out as a summary of the issues Ms Monaghan would address in her presentation.

 

The three main documents underpinning the approach included the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. While these are not binding in law, the UK is a signatory to these documents, and they represent the accepted standards in relation to Human Rights.

 

The principle of “dignity” as a right was noted as being pervasive throughout these instruments. There was reference to matters of health and health treatments, protection from harms, bodily autonomy, involvement in decision-making relative to their rights and wellbeing, consent to medical interventions, and even related to persons not being subject to forms of torture. A brief review of the documents highlighted the relevance of these to the situations faced by people who have been infected or affected by the State to their significant detriment and in contravention of their rights under these international instruments. The key test for compliance is the need to ensure a person’s dignity is respected and preserved. That compliance would include the opportunity to give informed consent, to be involved in risk-related decision-making, and to be fully supported in situations when harm has resulted.

 

Specific attention was given to the rights of disabled people. Again, the concept of respecting dignity was highlighted in relation to people with disabilities. Discrimination was briefly deconstructed to show how it would relate to Ms Monaghan’s clients. The obligations on States were reviewed which also demonstrated shortcomings in the way the UK had broken its commitments under these instruments as they relate to the infected and affected. Specifically, these covered matters of research, access to information, participation in decision-making, fostering respect for people with disabilities, combating stereotyping and prejudice, and the provision of necessary services. The torture topic was frame in terms of “inhuman or degrading treatment”. On health matters for people with disabilities, the convention detailed many aspects of State action required for compliance which clearly would call into question the UK Government track record in relation to the Contaminated Blood Scandal.

 

The European Convention on Human Rights was returned to as a reference point for Ms Monaghan. The protections related to a person’s private life were briefly explored since it is not simply a matter of physical privacy from intrusion. The Convention includes a non-discrimination guarantee.

 

Ms Monaghan moved on to speak about some aspects of the evidence presented to the Inquiry. She highlighted the significance of “timing” as it relates to the order of events and the points at which certain facts or concerns were known. She supported the assertions made by Mr Snowden in relation to risk awareness and so did not need to repeat them. There was a review of the chronology related to the emergence of knowledge of HCV. The 1940s were referred to as a key point for the emergence of knowledge about blood borne viruses, and after developments through the 1960s, the next major milestones came in the 1970s. After an intervention by the Chair on the meaning of “unknown viruses”, it was clarified that the inability to identify a virus did not negate the knowledge of its harms or of there being risks of harms. It was asserted that the evidence clearly pointed to knowledge which should have flagged up risks and an automatic slowing up of concentrate use until these were understood and overcome.

 

Reference was made to the “confidential” observations made by Prof Jones specifying the risks, while what was done in relation to patient treatment was significantly different. This became part of Ms Monaghan’s earlier reference to the importance of chronology. Basically, the main players from the haematologist cohort, in particular the UKHCDO, knew more than they were admitting to. What they were saying publicly was starkly different to what they were saying among themselves. The messaging to the haemophilia community was knowingly wrong. There were examples of people, such as Dr Gunson, “rowing-back” on earlier assertions as information was spreading. The knowledge of the risks should have prompted the Precautionary Principle to take precedence.