The High Court trial between PPE Medpro and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) took a crucial turn on its sixth day, as the DHSC’s own expert witness on sterility admitted that his damning assessment of PPE Medpro’s surgical gowns was conducted without factoring in their storage and transport history.
Dr Andrew Richards, a sterilisation specialist and former DHSC employee, appeared for the department as an expert witness on microbiological contamination. He claimed in his reports that PPE Medpro’s gowns were not sterile upon delivery, allegedly due to a flawed sterilisation process during manufacture in China.
But under detailed cross-examination from Charles Samek KC, representing PPE Medpro, Dr Richards conceded that he had made no attempt to investigate how storage conditions or global transportation might have contributed to the contamination found on the gowns.
“I didn’t follow any specific line looking at bilge water,” Dr Richards said when asked whether he’d investigated the environmental origins of the bacteria found during testing.
“None specifically,” he added when pressed about the possibility of contamination from dirty shipping containers.
Earlier in the trial, DHSC witness David Reid admitted the gowns may have been stored in unregulated conditions, including shipping containers kept in open fields. Dr Richards accepted that such storage practices were not suitable for sterile PPE.
“In your experience… is that how one would normally store sterile surgical gowns?” Samek asked.
“No, it would not,” Dr Richards replied.
“We can agree that this sort of storage isn’t a suitable environment?”
“That’s true,” he said.
Despite this, Richards confirmed he had not factored such possibilities into his report. He admitted his analysis was based on “normal” conditions — without ever establishing whether the gowns had, in fact, experienced “normal” handling.
“I should have asked further questions,” he acknowledged.
Bacteria from the Mojave Desert and deep sea?
One of the most striking revelations came as Dr Richards was questioned about the specific microorganisms found on the gowns by testing lab Charles River. Several of the bacteria, he confirmed, are more commonly found in extreme environments such as deep-sea trenches, desert ecosystems and even outer space.
Samek suggested these findings aligned more plausibly with contamination during international transport rather than at the manufacturing site.
“It is very odd how an organism isolated from the Mojave Desert ends up on a product that has probably never been anywhere near the Mojave Desert,” Dr Richards admitted.
Asked whether this would be more understandable if the gowns had been shipped in an unclean container, he responded: “It is a possibility.”
Richards also admitted that his assessment of the gown packaging — a key part of his analysis — was purely visual. He confirmed that he had not conducted any material testing on the plastic packaging and could not determine its permeability just by looking at it.
“You’re not really, are you, telling the court that you can tell if plastic polymer packaging is porous just by looking at it?” Samek asked.
“No,” Richards replied.
He further acknowledged that microbial contamination could occur even when the plastic packaging shows no visible signs of damage — a scenario he did not account for in his conclusions.
“There could be damage to the integrity of a packaging which would not be identifiable purely on a visual basis,” he conceded.
A growing credibility gap
Dr Richards’ testimony is the latest in a series of challenges to the DHSC’s handling of the PPE Medpro contract. Across multiple days of the hearing, the department has failed to provide clear audit trails or robust storage records. Experts for PPE Medpro have argued that the contamination most likely occurred after delivery, during mishandled storage and transport while in DHSC custody.
The trial continues this week, with the sterility of the gowns — and how it may have been compromised — now a central battleground in the government’s effort to recover £122 million in public funds.
