header-logo header-logo

12 March 2014
Issue: 7598 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Lords criticise public inquiries

Committee urge government to set up a Central Inquiries Unit

Peers have delivered a devastating verdict on the public inquiries system.

The Lords Select Committee on the Inquiries Act 2005, which reported this week, said the current system wastes expert knowledge and makes inquiries longer and more costly than necessary. It called for a Central Inquiries Unit to be set up to assist public inquiries and pass on best practice. 

Lord Shutt of Greetland, chair of the Committee, said that when new inquiries are carried out “it’s as though previous ones had never happened” and that a Central Inquiries Unit would enable new inquiries to “hit the ground running”.

He added: “We really need to make the most of any lessons learned from past inquiries, and make the most of our collective knowledge and proficiency in this field.”

The report found that inquiries are set up with “inadequate powers”, and are often non-statutory rather than set up under the framework of the 2005 Act. Recommendations should be formally accepted or rejected within three months, it said.  

Ashley Underwood QC of Cornerstone Barristers, who was counsel to the Mark Duggan inquest, says: “There is no systematic approach to the decision when to establish a public inquiry and, if so, whether it should be statutory. 

“Accordingly, new inquiries should be statutory, unless there is good reason. Ministers should give reasons to Parliament for a decision not to hold an inquiry when invited to do so by a regulatory body or where an investigation by a regulatory body has been widely criticised.

“There is no use made of the expertise gathered by individual solicitors and secretaries to inquiries. A new unit should be established to take responsibility for setting up inquiries, for ensuring that lessons are learned, that guidance is updated, that protocols are shared and that experience is pooled.”

Issue: 7598 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll