The Supreme Court quashed a direction requiring Professor Patrick Meenan to attend the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse’s Vaccine Trials Division and dismissed the Commission’s application to compel him to comply. The Court held that the direction had been issued for an improper purpose: to prompt his solicitors to raise his capacity to give evidence at a public hearing.
The appeals concerned the Commission’s inquiry into a vaccine trial conducted between 1960 and 1961. Meenan, a retired university professor and medical practitioner, was listed as one of six co-authors of a paper reporting the trial. The trial involved 58 infants living in five children’s homes and compared antibody responses to a combined vaccine with responses to vaccines administered separately.
The Commission had asked Meenan for a statement and information about historical records. His solicitors raised concerns about his age, health and ability to undergo prolonged examination, and asked what his participation would involve. The judgment records that the Commission’s correspondence left open the possibility that public examination and cross-examination might not be required if he provided a statement. He submitted a detailed statement in February 2003.
The Commission later required him to attend and give evidence on oath. It told his solicitors that questions about his capacity would be dealt with in a public forum, potentially on oral evidence. Medical reports supplied by his solicitors were not considered by the Commission or the High Court, and the Supreme Court said the proportionality of compelling him to testify had not been adjudicated.
The Court focused on the purpose for issuing the direction. It relied on the Commission’s explanation that the direction was intended to induce Meenan’s solicitors to make an application based on medical evidence. The judgment said the statutory power to direct attendance was for obtaining evidence, and that using it to force the solicitors to raise the capacity issue at a public hearing was an improper purpose.
The Court allowed the appeals, dismissed the Commission’s application under section 14(3) of the 2000 Act and granted certiorari quashing the direction. It did not determine whether Meenan was medically capable of giving evidence or whether the Commission could ultimately require him to attend through a properly exercised statutory power.