The Laffoy Commission inquiry into child abuse in institutions has brought High Court proceedings seeking to have a retired UCD professor give evidence to the inquiry about his involvement in the conduct of vaccination trials on children in a number of residential institutions run by religious orders.
Prof Patrick Meenan (86) has made a statement to the commission regarding the vaccination trials. However, he has stated, through lawyers that he is unable, on medical grounds, to give evidence.
The commission says his evidence is "material" to hearings, scheduled for June 17th, in relation to the vaccination trials.
Mr Justice Smyth was told Prof Meenan, who was head of the Department of Microbiology in UCD, was directed on March 31st last to attend before the commission and give evidence in relation to the vaccination trials carried out at six institutions run by religious orders. Prof Irene Hillery, who was also in the Department of Microbiology at the time, has also been directed to give evidence.
Mr Frank Clarke SC, for the commission, said the vaccination trials were conducted, in general terms, by Prof Meenan and then Prof Hillery.
He said among the issues to be examined were the procedures involved in the trials and the propriety of obtaining the consent of the children involved and, in some cases, their parents or guardians. Another issue was whether it was appropriate to use children in homes for such trials.
Mr Clarke said there appeared to be a potential issue between the statements given to the Vaccine Trials Division of the commission by Prof Meenan and Prof Hillery. He appeared to be saying that while he was in charge of the Department of Microbiology, Prof Hillery had conducted the day-to-day dealings. However, she, while accepting she did a lot of work on the ground, had said Prof Meenan made the decisions.
Prof Meenan had indicated through correspondence from his solicitors he would have a difficulty giving evidence. None of the other witnesses sought had intimated any difficulty in attending before the commission, counsel said.
Mr Justice Smyth heard submissions on behalf of Prof Meenan and the commission yesterday and said he would give his decision on Tuesday next.
The judge was told correspondence had been exchanged between Prof Meenan, his solicitors and the commission for about a year. Prof Meenan had made a statement but said he was unable, for medical reasons, to give evidence. The commission had sought medical reports from his solicitors and were told late last year these would be furnished. On March 31st, the commission, without having received any reports, made a direction requiring Prof Meenan to attend its hearing on June 17th.
Prof Meenan's solicitors subsequently furnished reports on April 9th and asked that a determination be made on these without their contents being disclosed. The commission refused to deal with the reports on that basis and returned them.
It was also indicated to the commission by Prof Meenan's solicitors that he would not comply with the direction of March 31st and the commission subsequently took High Court proceedings.
Mr Patrick Hanratty SC, for Prof Meenan, argued the direction of the commission, made in the absence of the medical reports, was made in breach of fair procedures and his client's constitutional rights to privacy and bodily integrity.
He said the court should read the reports and exercise its discretion and overturn the commission's direction. His client had agreed to undergo independent medical examination, he added.
Counsel said Prof Meenan was not seeking to be unhelpful to the tribunal. He respected its work and understood the necessity for it.
It was not disputed that, in normal circumstances, he would be a material witness. But there were circumstances where it was not reasonable to require a person to attend before a tribunal and this was such a situation. Prof Meenan had already given all the information he had.
Mr Clarke argued the commission had not breached fair procedures or constitutional rights. Prof Meenan had been given a reasonable opportunity to make an application to the commission as to why he should not have to give evidence and had declined that opportunity.
The commission had to strike a balance between the public's right to know and the commission's right to withhold confidential information.
The commission was prepared still to hear an application from Prof Meenan as to why he should not be required to give evidence, counsel added.
