Leading composer given tainted blood launches payout challenge

Haemophiliac Andrew March, 36, wants a judicial review of the Health Secretary's May 2009 decision not fully to implement the recommendations of the Archer Report on supplies which were not adequately cleansed before use.

The Government has refused to assess compensation on the same basis as in the Republic of Ireland as it considers that the Irish blood transfusion service was found to be at fault which was not the case in the UK.

Mr March, of Edith Road, West Kensington, and his supporters packed the High Court in London as his counsel, Michael Fordham QC, told Mr Justice Holman that a judicial review was warranted as the decision was made for manifestly bad reasons.

He said: "We want the court to quash the decision of the Secretary of State not to accept the relevant recommendation of the Archer Report.

"I am not going to be submitting that the court is in a position to say that the only lawful course for the Government is to adopt that, or I would be asking for a mandatory order.

"Still less am I asking the court to step into the shoes of the Secretary of State and say what the levels of compensation should be.

"What we say is that the Secretary of State should reconsider this important aspect on a correct basis."

At the start of the hearing, which is expected to last two days, the judge said that thousands of people were affected by the long-running campaign and the amounts at issue were very large – running up to 3.5bn on the Irish scale as opposed to millions.

Mr Fordham said the court was not being invited to adjudicate on the substantive merits of the decision or the proper distribution of public resources.

The central question was whether the Government's reasons for rejecting an important recommendation affecting the welfare of a large number of people – articulated in public to Parliament in answer to a question on the subject – could withstand scrutiny.

It was Mr March's case that the reasons for the decision did not provide an adequate basis for it, but embodied a "fundamental mischaracterisation" of the Irish scheme. He contended that the minister's portrayal of the scheme as a fault-based compensation scheme was simply wrong.

In its written submissions contesting the application, the Government said it had funded various schemes which had, at May last year, paid out a total of 142m to those infected by NHS products.

Philippa Whipple QC said there was no misunderstanding let alone error of fact by the UK Government.

The hearing continues.