After sitting through 10 hours of submissions by a three-man legal team for the Irish Haemophilia Society (IHS), Mr Frank Clarke SC, for the Irish Blood Transfusion Service (IBTS), was finally out of the traps yesterday afternoon. And he lost no time in challenging some of the key accusations against his client.
First among these was the claim that the Blood Transfusion Service Board (BTSB) "concealed" its role in the infection of haemophiliacs, something which, the IHS submitted, heaped additional trauma on those infected.
In a robust response, Mr Clarke said this conspiracy theory was undermined by the facts, and particularly a 1991 BTSB affidavit which, he claimed, "drew attention" to the possibility of Pelican House factor 9 being responsible for some infections. This affidavit was forwarded to the IHS prior to the 1991 "no fault" settlement with haemophiliacs.
Without public access to the affidavit, it is difficult to see what it can prove. But as described by Mr Clarke, it appears to be far from the admission of liability which, arguably, the BTSB should have been in a position to make at the time. Mr Clarke offered no explanation for what the IHS characterised as "coded" references to the BTSB infections in the minutes of board meetings.
Nor, more importantly, did he offer any explanation as to why it took the establishment of this tribunal to investigate and establish the BTSB's role in infecting haemophiliacs through both factor 9 and cryoprecipitate. With a little more effectiveness, Mr Clarke took to addressing a second accusation of the IHS, namely that the evidence of the IBTS's deputy medical director, Dr Emer Lawlor, was "biased". Far from giving "tainted" evidence, he said, Dr Lawlor had made a not insignificant contribution to the tribunal in giving "benign explanations" for the actions of former BTSB officials, who were unable to give evidence in person.
It was clear from Mr Clarke's submission that the IBTS, despite claiming to "welcome" the tribunal, has been badly rattled by the IHS. Twice, Mr Clarke turned on the offensive: first, by noting that the society - like the IBTS - did not waive privilege over its confidential files (it promised to do so if the IBTS waived privilege first); and, later, by accusing the society of denying Dr Lawlor medical records which, he said, would have enabled her to confirm the cryo infection earlier.
What was most significant about his submission, however, perhaps lay in what wasn't said. Declining to address directly the IHS's demand for an apology, Mr Clarke said: "It must always be a matter of great regret when a public body, such as the BTSB, charged with important duties in the healthcare field, fails to deal properly with the undoubtedly serious tasks given to it."
The BTSB, he said, "fully understands and sincerely regrets the extremely serious consequences of any such failures for those who have suffered from them.
"Where the consequences of any such failures are, and as they have been in this case, so tragic any failure is doubly regrettable."
This, it appears, is as close as the victims are going to get to an apology. How that reflects on the current management of the IBTS is perhaps better judged when Judge Lindsay delivers her report.
Mr Clarke will continue with his submission today.