Give us criminal investigation

A NEWCASTLE widow has “cautiously welcomed” the Prime Minister’s announcement of an inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal which killed her husband and at least 2,400 others.

Carol Grayson’s haemophiliac hus band Peter Longstaff died in 2005 after he contracted HIV and hepatitis C from infected NHS blood products in the 1970s and 1980s.

The scandal has been called the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS. But Ms Grayson, and many in her position, have long argued that haemophiliacs and their families were also the victims of a deliberate cover-up and that the risks of their treatment were known but hidden from them.

Two reviews have been carried out into the events, but these issues have not yet been publicly examined.

Yesterday, a spokesperson for Theresa May said the new inquiry would establish the cause of the “appalling injustice” that took place.

The investigation could take the form of a Hillsborough-style inquiry before a panel, or a judge-led one, the spokesperson confirmed.

But Ms Grayson, 57, from Jesmond, said: “We want a criminal investigation, we want a Hillsborough-style inquiry, we want inquests into deaths re-opened and what was recorded on death certificates looked into again.”

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the inquiry should have the potential to trigger prosecutions.

Yesterday’s news represents the next stage of a long fight for justice for Carol, whose brother-in-law was also a victim, and others like her.

In 2000, The Journal launched a campaign to support her as she demanded answers over what had happened to her husband.

The campaign helped bring issues to light which were ignored by national newspapers and by international human rights organisations contacted by the victims.

Many of the victims were haemophiliacs who needed regular treatment with a clotting agent, made with donated blood. Others were infected during operations or other medical procedures. The blood these patients were given was infected with HIV and hepatitis C.

Soon after her husband died, Ms Grayson won a prestigious research award after she traced a trail from that blood to infected donors from prisons in Arkansas in the US.

It seemed the contaminated blood came from US sources who had paid donors including drug users and prison inmates.

Speaking as the news of the inquiry broke, Ms Grayson said: “I’ve got very mixed feelings: it’s bringing up an awful lot of anger. I was ignored and shut up and blocked for years over this.”

Although Ms Grayson is pleased another investigation will take place, she says years of fighting have left her wary. She said: “I do welcome it, but I’m extremely cautious.

“Campaigners who have been fighting for this over the decades should be given an active part in establishing the remit.”

Mrs May’s spokesperson told the BBC the decision to launch a new inquiry was prompted by fresh evidence. However, it was not clear what new evidence was being referred to.

Ms Grayson says documents which appear to show that some officials knew the blood would put patients at risk have been described as “new” by a national newspaper, despite forming part of her research, which is over a decade old.

And she said any inquiry must reflect when and information was revealed, in order remain accurate and to hold individuals and organisations to account properly.

She said: “As a long-term campaigner, it’s really important for me to have a proper timeline of who knew what, and when, and when things were uncovered.”

“There are friends of mine who have died since those documents were revealed in my dissertation in 2006 – they could have seen justice in that time.”