A WOMAN who claims she got's the hepatitis C virus through infected blood cannot sue under an assumed name, the High Court decided yesterday.
Miss Justice Laffoy said the court had no jurisdiction to allow the woman to prosecute using a fictitious name and that to do so would contravene Article 34 (1) of the Constitution.
This states that justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by the Constitution and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by, law, shall be admistered in public.
The woman, using the adopted name "Bridget M. Roe", is suing the Blood Transfusion Service Board, the Minister for Health, the National Drugs Advisory Board, Ireland and the Attorney General
She claims they were responsible for her being treated with infected anti D immunoglobulin, through which she contracted the hepatitis C virus.
In a reserved judgment, Miss Justice Laffoy said the woman pleaded that for the proceedings she had adopted the name Bridget M. Roe and an address in care of the solicitors.
The Blood Transfusion Service Board pleaded it did not admit that the proceedings were properly constituted. The Minister, Ireland and Attorney General pleaded that the woman was not entitled for the purpose of the proceedings to adopt the name "Bridget M. Roe" or any assumed name and that in consequence the proceedings were not properly constituted.
The National Drugs Advisory Board did not object to the woman prosecuting under an assumed name.
The woman's solicitor, Ms, Susan Stapleton, said the woman wished to use an alias because she desired to protect her privacy. That protection was not merely a matter of preventing embarrassment to her, but was a matter of preventing real injustice to her.
Ms Stapleton said she was aware persons who were known in the community to carry the hepatitis C virus were subject to invidious discrimination. Many women had found that, when neighbours and friends became aware of their infection, both they and their children could become socially ostracised.
Miss Justice Laffoy said the true identity of the woman and her address had been disclosed to the defendants, as had personal information relating to her and her family.
Counsel for the woman acknowledged that the trial would have to be in public and that she would have to give testimony in open court. All she sought was to be allowed prosecute the litigation anonymously, using an alias.
Miss Justice Laffoy said it was submitted that Article 34 (1) was not an impediment to granting the relief sought. The woman was not seeking a hearing other than in public. It was urged the court should follow public by US courts, which allowed plaintiffs under certain special circumstances to use fictitious names.
In her view, added the judge, in, the context of the underlying rationale of Article 34 (1), public disclosure of the true identities of parties to civil litigation was essential if justice was to be administered in public.
In a situation in which the identity of a plaintiff in a civil action was known to the parties and the court, but was concealed from the public, members of the general public could not see for themselves that justice was done.