Should there be concern over the fairness of the Hillsborough panel’s procedures, asks Michael Uberoi
The Hillsborough Independent Panel published its report into the circumstances of the tragedy in September of this year. Its conclusions have apparently found widespread acceptance among the media and the general public.
Such acceptance is noteworthy given the unusual circumstances which led to the panel’s creation, and because the nature of its work differed so markedly from the model relied upon for traditional public inquiries. The panel was never intended to be a public inquiry, and its genesis and work demonstrate this repeatedly. Notwithstanding this, its conclusions have received a level of acceptance which recent “judge-led” inquiries could only envy.
The Hillsborough Independent Panel
Traditionally, judges have been appointed to lead many inquiries into matters (or disasters) of national importance, because of their presumed expertise in examining evidence and establishing fair procedures. In recent months, Leveson J was asked to lead the public inquiry which now bears his name, and Dame Janet Smith was asked by the BBC to undertake its inquiry. In contrast, the Chairman of the
