MMR court cases lose legal aid

Campaigners in England seeking justice for children believed to have been damaged by the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine today condemned a decision to withdraw legal aid for a court battle with the drug companies.

The cases of more than 1,000 children who developed medical problems after receiving the controversial combined MMR jab were due to be heard at the British High Court next April.

But lawyers acting for the families lost an appeal against the decision by the Legal Services Commission (LSC) to withdraw legal aid, meaning the cases cannot go forward.

Funding has been provided to some of the children involved in the action for nearly 10 years in their battle for compensation.

But the LSC said medical research had not provided a conclusive link between the MMR vaccine and autism and there was no acceptance among the worldwide medical authorities that the jab caused the symptoms experienced by the children.

This, the body said, meant the litigation was likely to fail and it would be wrong to spend a further £10m (€14m) of public money funding a trial on top of the £15m (€21m) already invested.

The children involved in the court cases suffered disabilities such as autism, bowel problems, epilepsy and other learning difficulties.

JABS, which supports parents of vaccine-damaged children, said with the court cases only six months away, the decision to take away aid appeared “illogical, perverse and serves no public interest”.

National co-ordinator Jackie Fletcher said: “The decision to halt the cases now, following the provision of new evidence in support of the children’s cases, will only confirm the view that the combined powers of government and drug companies are working against vaccine victims receiving justice.”

Ms Fletcher, whose 11-year-old son developed epilepsy and other problems after having the MMR jab, added: “These families believe their children are vaccine-damaged and need to know why their children’s lives changed so dramatically within such a short time of the MMR vaccine being given if it wasn’t the vaccine.

“The MMR court cases were vital not only to the families involved in the pursuit of justice for their children, but for all parents who are concerned about whether the vaccines they are giving their healthy children are safe.”

Ms Fletcher said that in the US, the government and drugs manufacturers recognised that vaccine damage does occur and the American National Vaccine Compensation programme provided a no fault compensation system.

“Unfortunately, the UK’s vaccine damage compensation scheme is wholly inadequate and does not provide a similar safety net for vaccine damaged children,” she added.

Ms Fletcher said parents had been denied an opportunity to have all the information about MMR heard out in the open.

“The question mark over the issue is still here. The controversy will not go away, it will grow,” she said.

The LSC said the Funding Review Committee had upheld their decision to remove funding at a hearing yesterday.

The organisation said it was clear that the children involved in the multi-party action were suffering from a number of serious medical conditions and the matter was of sufficient public interest to justify their £15m (€21m) investment in the case.

But the failure of any medical body to prove a concrete link between the MMR jab and these health problems meant the case had little chance of success, the LSC said.

Chief executive Clare Dodgson said: “I appreciate that this decision will come as a great disappointment to the parents involved.

“I sympathise with their situation. Their children are clearly ill and they genuinely believe the MMR vaccine caused their illnesses.

“However, this litigation is very unlikely to prove their suspicions.

“It would be wrong to raise their hopes unreasonably by proceeding with this litigation.”

The LSC said all the research it had paid for would be sent to the Medical Research Council who are looking at the causes of autism.

The MMR case was brought under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and is the first case in which research has been funded by legal aid.

The LSC said that, in retrospect, it had not been appropriate for them to fund research as the courts were not the place to prove new medical truths.