Page 63 - When Things Go Wrong

4.3 Public inquiries give rise to a raft of different concerns. Core participant status,
if granted, does allow for publicly funded legal representation. As a
consequence, bereaved people are not typically subjected to unrestrained
cross-examination. However, families are faced with what is effectively a
State-led investigation into the death of their loved one. The appointment of an
inquiry chair, with or without an inquiry panel, nominally brings independence
from Government; but the selection of the chair and panel members, and terms
of reference remain within the purview of a Minister. 169 In this context, the rule
that only counsel to the inquiry (“CTI”) and the inquiry panel may ask
questions of witnesses 170 can, if exercised inflexibly, serve to thwart
participation and erode confidence in the inquiry.

4.4 In both inquests and inquiries, lack of candour and institutional defensiveness
on the part of State and corporate interested persons and core participants are
invariably cited as a cause of further suffering and a barrier to accountability.
The Public Authority (Accountability) Bill 2016-17 would have introduced a
statutory duty of candour, but despite cross-party sponsorship, the Bill is yet
to be debated.

4.5 The JUSTICE Working Party report Understanding Courts stressed that
“putting the user at the heart of the court system is long overdue. Like the
tribunals, the courts should ‘do all they can to render themselves
understandable, unthreatening, and useful to user’”. 171 In this Chapter and
Chapter V, we consider how inquests and inquiries may similarly be
reformed, addressing the issues outlined above in an attempt to place bereaved
people and survivors at the heart of proceedings.

169 Inquiries Act 2005, ss. 4-5.
170 The Inquiry Rules 2006, r .10.

171 JUSTICE (2020), supra note 19, para 2.14, citing Sir Andrew Leggatt, Tribunals for Users: One
System, One Service, Report of the Review of Tribunals (2001), Overview, at [6].
56