Page 67 - When Things Go Wrong

impartiality in the inquiry process”. 183 At the Grenfell Family Consultation Day
convened by INQUEST, “families were clear that…their preference for an
independent diverse decision-making panel, rather than an individual chair,
was the best way to encourage participation, trust and ensure the process
reflected the diversity of the affected community”. 184 Families expressed
disappointment that consultation had not taken place on the composition of the
tribunal.

4.14 However, the prospect of appointing panellists can be polarising. Some former
inquiry chairs to whom we spoke expressed uneasiness at being advised behind
the scenes by “expert” wing members where hearing evidence of expert
witnesses in public might promote open justice. The Lords Select Committee
found that “facility of organisation, clarity of drafting and avoiding
lengthening the reporting process are all persuasive arguments for having a
single member panel. We recommend that an inquiry panel should consist of a
single member unless there are strong arguments to the contrary”. 185

183 PASC, supra note 44, para 73. Another way of supplementing the expertise of a single chair is
through the use of seminars. Norris and Shepheard, supra note 21, recommended at p. 33 that “to ensure
that recommendations are constructed as effectively as possible and with the greatest chance of
implementation, inquiries should adopt a seminar process to involve expert witnesses when constructing
recommendations”. This particular recommendation was not considered in detail by the Working Party,
although it appears to be wholly desirable. It has also proved workable: it was employed in the Ladbroke
Grove Rail, Bristol Royal Infirmary, and Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Inquiries.
184 INQUEST (2019), supra note 11, para 2.1.2 The lack of panellists was seen as intertwined with the
issue of conflict of interest: “we can’t have confidence in a one-person chair [from the establishment]
making a single judgement on Grenfell and our experiences. When the state has a hand in the death, then
the state has a duty to address the lack of trust and confidence in the process”.
185 Select Committee on the Inquiries Act 2005, supra note 30, para 136. The necessity of appointing
panellists was considered in R (Daniels) v The Rt Hon Theresa May, The Prime Minister [2018] EWHC
1090 (Admin). The Claimant argued that in refusing to appoint panellists to sit alongside Sir Martin
Moore-Bick in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, the Prime Minister had misdirected herself: she had failed
to accept that the maintenance of public confidence is a “key or prime factor” in promoting the statutory
purpose of the 2005 Act. The Court ultimately rejected this argument. However, Bean J suggested,
obiter, that “there are persuasive arguments in favour of the appointment of a panel consisting of a
chairman and other members” [46].
60