The High Court yesterday adjourned a challenge by a Dublin consultant to a section of the Finlay tribunal's report on the hepatitis C blood controversy which criticised him.
Dr James Kirrane, a consultant pathologist, last year initiated proceedings to quash part of the report which concluded that he "bore some responsibility for the contamination of blood products by failing to insist on a greater investigation of the reaction of patients to the anti-D blood products".
In his findings, the retired Chief Justice, Mr Justice Finlay, found that, as an independent consultant attached to the Blood Transfusion Service Board, Dr Kirrane had "a duty to press for further investigation of a possibly serious adverse reaction to the anti-D blood products of which he had been informed in the Mater Hospital and of which he was informing the BTSB".
Last June Dr Kirrane sought and secured leave to seek orders, by way of judicial review, quashing parts of the Finlay report which criticised him.
During the earlier hearing, Mr Michael Collins SC, for Dr Kirrane, said his client had been a witness at the Finlay tribunal. At no stage had he been told there would be allegations against him. Counsel submitted that the consultant was not afforded adequate notice that allegations or criticism had been or were about to be levelled against him.
In an affidavit, Dr Kirrane said his sole role regarding the BTSB was in relation to his expertise in protein fractionation in the production of various products (including anti-D) which the BTSB had decided to manufacture. He said it was not the protein fractionation process that gave rise to the contamination of anti-D products.
He said that Mr Justice Finlay had not specified what further investigations he had concluded Dr Kirrane should have pressed for. He said investigations of a clinical nature were not a matter for Dr Kirrane but were solely the responsibility of the clinical team at the BTSB.
In court yesterday, Mr Gerard Hogan SC, for Dr Kirrane, said he had received a notice of opposition in the proceedings last Friday afternoon. In the light of that, it was "likely that certain matters would ensue" and he was seeking an adjournment, counsel said.
Mr Frank Clarke SC, for the State, said he had no objection to that.
Mr Justice Lavan granted a two week adjournment.