Fergal Browne (Fine Gael)

I am still baffled about the court case. Did the State appeal it when the award was made? I cannot understand how in the case of the person who did not prove receipt of contaminated blood and whose complaint the tribunal did not uphold, the court overruled that finding. While I accept the Tánaiste's point, and am happy with the scientific test, I wonder was the court decision appealed and if not why not. I find it incredible that a court could make such a ruling when the tribunal did not accept the case.

In the United States, 4 million people have hepatitis C which can be contracted through sex, contaminated needles, tattoos, etc. The Bill caters for people who contracted hepatitis C purely as a result of contaminated blood products, caused by the negligence of the State. It is incredible that the court would give money to a person who did not prove that he or she received contaminated blood from the State. Why did the State not appeal that decision?