Public Inquiries and Accountability
Introduction
Public inquiries are a central mechanism for investigating matters of serious public concern in the United Kingdom. They provide a means of establishing the facts, identifying responsibility, and making recommendations to prevent recurrence. Public inquiries are established either under statute (principally the Inquiries Act 2005) or under the royal prerogative (non-statutory inquiries). They are independent of government and are chaired by senior judges or other distinguished figures. Inquiries have played a significant role in uncovering systemic failures and holding public authorities to account. Notable inquiries include the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War, the Leveson Inquiry into press standards, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, and the Hillsborough Inquests and inquiries.
The Inquiries Act 2005
The Inquiries Act 2005 provides the statutory framework for public inquiries in England and Wales. The Act was introduced following concerns about the cost, duration, and effectiveness of previous inquiries, particularly the Bloody Sunday Inquiry (Saville Inquiry) , which sat for 12 years at a cost of over £200 million. The Act gives a minister the power to establish an inquiry where it is considered to be in the public interest. The minister sets the terms of reference, appoints the chairman and panel members, and determines the procedural framework. The Act requires the inquiry to be independent, impartial, and open and transparent (subject to restrictions for compelling reasons). The chairman must have regard to the need to avoid unnecessary cost and delay. The Act gives the chairman powers to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, with sanctions for non-compliance. The inquiry reports to the minister, who must publish the report subject to any restrictions necessary in the public interest. The Act replaced the previous regime under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921.
Appointment of the Chairman and Terms of Reference
The appointment of the chairman is the most significant decision in establishing an inquiry. The chairman must be independent and must command public confidence. Most major inquiries are chaired by senior judges, usually retired appellate judges, who bring legal expertise, independence, and experience in managing complex proceedings. The selection of the chairman is a matter for the minister, who consults with the Lord Chief Justice and others. The terms of reference define the scope of the inquiry and are critical: they must be sufficiently broad to address the matters of concern but sufficiently focused to enable a manageable investigation. The terms of reference determine what the inquiry can investigate, what evidence it can hear, and what recommendations it can make. The Chilcot Inquiry (Iraq) had unusually broad terms of reference covering the UK’s involvement in Iraq from 2001 to 2009. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry had terms focused on the causes of the fire and the adequacy of building regulations.
Core Participants and Procedure
An inquiry has core participants—individuals or organisations with a substantial interest in the proceedings, who are granted enhanced procedural rights including the right to make opening and closing statements, to be represented by counsel, and to receive advance disclosure of evidence. The inquiry procedure is determined by the chairman, subject to the requirements of the Inquiries Act. Most inquiries adopt a two-phase structure: Phase 1 focuses on establishing the facts of what happened, and Phase 2 focuses on lessons to be learned and systemic issues. Inquiries typically involve extensive documentary disclosure, witness statements, oral evidence hearings, and expert evidence. The chairman may impose restriction orders to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information, including national security or personal data. Legal representation for core participants is funded by the inquiry or by the government. The Saville Inquiry into Bloody Sunday was notable for its extensive oral hearing programme (over 700 witnesses), while the Leveson Inquiry developed innovative procedures for hearing from victims of press abuse.
The Chilcot Inquiry (Iraq Inquiry)
The Iraq Inquiry (commonly known as the Chilcot Inquiry after its chairman, Sir John Chilcot) was established in 2009 under the Inquiries Act 2005 to consider the UK’s involvement in the Iraq War (2003–2009). The inquiry examined the decision to go to war, the legal basis for military action, the conduct of the war, and the post-conflict reconstruction. Lord Chilcot’s inquiry sat for over seven years, hearing from 130 witnesses and examining over 150,000 documents. The inquiry’s report, published in July 2016, ran to over 2.6 million words across twelve volumes. The report was critical of the decision-making process, finding that the government had overstated the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, that the legal advice on the use of force had been equivocal, that the military planning had been inadequate, and that the post-conflict planning had been seriously deficient. The inquiry made no findings of legal liability but contributed significantly to public understanding of the decision-making process leading to the Iraq War.
The Leveson Inquiry
The Leveson Inquiry (2011–2012) was established under the Inquiries Act 2005 following revelations of widespread phone hacking by journalists, particularly the News of the World. Part 1 of the inquiry examined the culture, practice, and ethics of the press, hearing from victims of press intrusion, journalists, editors, and politicians. The inquiry’s report, published in November 2012, was highly critical of the relationship between the press, politicians, and the police, and recommended a new system of independent press regulation underpinned by legislation. The report led to the establishment of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and, subsequently, the Independent Monitor for the Press (IMPRESS) . The government did not implement the Leveson recommendation for legislation, leading to ongoing controversy about the effectiveness of self-regulation. The Leveson Inquiry’s procedural approach—including the provision of legal representation for victims and the creation of a recognition body for press regulators—has influenced subsequent inquiries.
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry was established on 15 June 2017, the day after the fire at Grenfell Tower in London that killed 72 people. The inquiry, chaired by Sir Martin Moore-Bick (a retired Court of Appeal judge), has examined the causes of the fire, the design and construction of the building, the cladding materials used, the conduct of the authorities, and the adequacy of fire safety regulations. The inquiry has heard extensive evidence from survivors, bereaved families, local residents, and expert witnesses. Phase 1 reported in October 2019, finding that the fire started in a faulty refrigerator and spread rapidly due to highly combustible cladding and a lack of fire safety measures. Phase 2, examining the systemic issues, published its final report in September 2024, making detailed recommendations on building regulations, fire safety, and the accountability of construction companies and product manufacturers. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry has had significant influence on building safety regulation, leading to the Building Safety Act 2022.
The Hillsborough Disaster
The Hillsborough disaster (1989), in which 96 Liverpool fans died in a crush at the FA Cup semi-final, was the subject of multiple inquiries and inquests. The initial inquests returned verdicts of accidental death, but the Hillsborough Independent Panel (established under the Inquiries Act 2005) reported in 2012 that the original inquests had been based on inaccurate evidence and that the police had orchestrated a cover-up. The original verdicts were quashed, and new inquests (the Hillsborough Inquests) were conducted by the coroner, sitting without a jury. The inquests found that the 96 victims were unlawfully killed and that gross negligence on the part of the police had contributed to the deaths. The case led to significant changes in the law on coroners’ inquests and to the prosecution of police officers for misconduct. The Hillsborough cases demonstrate the interrelationship between inquiries, inquests, and criminal proceedings in providing accountability for major disasters.
Conclusion
Public inquiries are an essential mechanism for holding public authorities to account following major disasters, systemic failures, and matters of serious public concern. The Inquiries Act 2005 provides a flexible statutory framework, enabling inquiries to be tailored to the circumstances of each case. The independence of the chairman, the public hearing of evidence, and the publication of reports ensure that inquiries contribute to transparency, accountability, and learning. Inquiries have significant limitations: they are expensive and time-consuming, they cannot impose legal liability or criminal sanctions, and their recommendations are not binding on government. Despite these limitations, inquiries perform a vital constitutional function in establishing the facts, allocating responsibility, and making recommendations that improve public administration and prevent future failures.