‘Inquiry terms of reference presented as fait accompli to family’

The terms of reference of the inquiry into Savita Halappanavar’s death were effectively presented as a fait accompli to the family, according to their solicitor Gerard O’Donnell.

This was despite repeated reassurances that the family would be consulted in advance.

Last week, Health Minister James Reilly said the views of the family of the pregnant Indian woman — who died after she was refused an abortion — would be taken on board before the terms of a reference of an investigation into her death were finalised. Dr Reilly said this approach “would be normal in a case as serious as this”.

However, Mr O’Donnell said there was “no consultative process with me in terms of my opinion about the terms of reference” or in relation to the panel appointed to carry out the inquiry. In fact on Monday morning [last], before I even knew it, they had a whole panel appointed”, he said.

The Galway-based solicitor said Praveen Halappanavar, the dead woman’s husband, had “absolutely no confidence in HSE or anybody who may be engaged by the HSE to investigate the circumstances surrounding his wife’s death.”

This was in response to an appeal from Taoiseach Enda Kenny that Mr Halappanavar consider meeting with Professor Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, independent chair of the inquiry. Mr O’Donnell said he did not question Prof Arulkumaran’s integrity, but he had concerns about his impartiality and independence. He said the HSE was following its own agenda.

Speaking on RTÉ yesterday, Mr O’Donnell said he would have to ask himself as a solicitor what the purpose of that meeting would be. “There can only be one purpose and that purpose is to endeavour to prevail upon us to engage in a private inquiry which we are not prepared to do,” Mr O’Donnell said.

The Halappanavars have called for a public inquiry. Mr O’Donnell told the Irish Examiner it did not necessarily have to be a tribunal of inquiry, but that his client had outlined what he wanted from the process.

“My understanding from him is any inquiry that is first of all independent, secondly is open, thirdly transparent, fourthly allows the calling of witnesses, fifthly such witnesses to be sworn, sixthly such evidence given by witnesses to be cross-examined. After that, if those things are in place then he would be happy,” he said.

Mr O’Donnell has dismissed suggestions that a public inquiry would drag on endlessly, that the timeframe to be investigated was “seven days from when she [Savita] first went into hospital until her tragic and untimely death”.

Mr O’Donnell said it was within the remit of the Dáil to nominate a High Court judge to establish the inquiry and set the terms of reference and that it could be down quickly. “I can’t speak for him until I speak to him about it, but I think he would probably be happy enough with that so long as evidence can be tested properly within the normal legal realms,” Mr O’Donnell said.

However, former Master of the National Maternity Hospital, Dr Peter Boylan, said he believed a public inquiry would “descend into a bit of a circus”; that various interest groups would misinterpret information which would then be bandied about in the media, and that it wasn’t a “constructive way” to address an issue.

Dr Boylan said he believed the HSE should go ahead with an inquiry and publish the findings afterwards.

* Read more:

Reilly urged to scrap inquiry

She will rest in peace if justice is done

Words you want to be a link

‘Inquiry terms of reference presented as fait accompli to family’

‘England’s proximity meant Ireland did not have to legislate for abortion’

Savita’s family request medical records

Savita inquiry - Husband’s wish should be granted