THREE organisations were given leave in the High Court yesterday to seek an order quashing the decision of the Hepatitis C Tribunal of Inquiry not to allow them to be legally represented.
Mr Justice Shanley granted leave for the judicial review of the tribunal's decision to the Irish Haemophilia Association the Irish Kidney Association and Transfusion Positive.
The tribunal is due to sit next Monday, and the judge fixed this Friday for the hearing of the applications.
The tribunal was established by the Minister for Health last month to inquire into the provision of blood products. On November 21st, the chairman of the tribunal, Mr Justice Finlay, said that the three organisations could not be legally represented after he had heard submissions from each of them.
Giving his judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Shanley said that the chairman of the tribunal had narrowly construed its terms of reference.
The judge said it was being contended on behalf of the three applicants that they were not in a position to assist in the deliberations of the tribunal simply by give to date had caused the deaths of 62 members out of a total of approximately 500, of whom a substantial number had been coinfected with hepatitis C and HIV. These people were suffering severely from the consequences of hepatitis C and its impact on their enjoyment of life and ability to work.
Positive Action, which was to be legally represented at the inquiry, was only concerned about one of the numerous products manufactured by the Blood Transfusion Service Board, Mr O'Mahony said.
No justification had been furnished for the exclusion of the other interest groups. From the haemophiliac point of view, the impact of the infection had been severe on the society's members. Experience had shown that the vast majority of members at this stage had exhibited signs of deterioration consequent on hepatitis C infection.
Mr Richard Nesbitt SC, for the Irish Haemophilia Society, said that the tribunal had mistakenly formed the view that haemophiliing evidence or producing documents if they could not cross examine witnesses. That was the only way that the rights of their members could be vindicated.
Mr Justice Shanley said the tribunal had discretion as to whom legal representation was granted to, or refused, and it had been put to him by the applicants that this discretion had been wrongly exercised. He believed the terms of reference had been narrowly construed.
Mr Brian O'Mahony, president of the World Federation of Haemophilia and chairman of the Irish Haemophilia Society, said in an affidavit that his members would have no alternative but to use blood products in the future. In order to properly protect members interests and allay their fears for the future, they needed to be legally represented to properly investigate and cross examine witnesses.
Mr O'Mahony said the system acs' interests were as victims only, and it had deprived them of the necessary representation they required so as to have an opportunity of influencing the tribunal in its findings and recommendations.
Mr Nesbitt claimed that the tribunal had failed to address and vindicate the fundamental rights of a person suffering from haemophilia by excluding the society from being legally represented at the inquiry.
Mr Anthony Sammon SC, for the Irish Kidney Association, said that 1,800 of its members had kidney transplants and 480 were on dialysis. In the event of kidney failure, patients needed multiple transfusions.
Mr Sammon said that the IKA believed the chairman had erroneously misinterpreted the terms under which the tribunal was established in refusing the association legal representation.
Mr Bernard Barton, counsel for Transfusion Positive, said that it represented people who had received blood contaminated with the hepatitis. C virus. They believed the decision not to allow them to be legally represented at the tribunal was both unreasonable and irrational.