Turning point for infected blood victims

Joshua Hughes of Bolt Burdon Kemp describes the proposed compensation scheme for infected blood victims as a turning point, emphasising the importance of individualised treatment and swift government action.

Joshua Hughes, Partner and head of the Complex Injury Team at Bolt Burdon Kemp, has described the latest developments in the infected blood scandal compensation scheme as a "turning point for the victims of the infected blood scandal and their families, who have been left in the dark and without compensation for far too long."

Joshua Hughes highlighted the immense scale of the scandal, with "tens of thousands of people affected," while emphasising that "each case is unique and should be treated on an individual basis." He stressed that the courts would consider various factors, including "the cost of care, loss of earnings, and any other physical or psychological harm suffered as a result."

The role of pharmaceutical companies in this scandal has also come under scrutiny. Joshua Hughes mentioned the possibility of these companies being asked to contribute to the compensation costs. However, he pointed out the challenges victims face in seeking justice through traditional legal routes. "Settling a successful medical product liability claim against Big Pharma companies can be incredibly difficult in the UK," Hughes said, noting that some claims might not be UK-based, complicating litigation and making it less feasible for victims.

He also noted the disparity in legal power between victims and large international companies, stating, "Access to justice in those circumstances can therefore favour those international large companies and be inaccessible to the victims."

While acknowledging the frustration and delays that further legal action against pharmaceutical companies could cause, Joshua Hughes expressed his preference for victims to be compensated as soon as possible. "If the government wants Big Pharma companies to shoulder some of the cost, it would involve legal action and cause more delays which is not currently in the victims' best interest."

Joshua Hughes concluded by suggesting that a more practical approach would be for the government to compensate the victims first, with the possibility of pursuing separate legal action against the pharmaceutical companies later. "It would be preferable for the victims to be compensated first and the government to take separate action against the Big Pharma companies for indemnity or recouperation of some of that cost thereafter by way of separate litigation," he advised.

These comments from Joshua Hughes come as Sir Robert Francis KC issued a statement on his recommendations for improving the proposed infected blood compensation scheme. Sir Robert's recommendations, based on community feedback, include continuing support payments, offering options for lump-sum or periodic payments, and ensuring greater transparency in eligibility and severity criteria.

Sir Robert also emphasised the need for trust and transparency in the process, urging the government to finalise the scheme's details and lay the necessary regulations in Parliament by August 24, 2024. His recommendations are intended to address the long-standing suffering of those infected by contaminated blood products, ensuring they receive the justice and compensation they deserve.

Copyright & permissions