Alternatives to Litigation: Public Inquiries

What Happens at Public Inquiries?

Public Inquiries hold hearings which, usually, anyone can attend (rarely, an Inquiry may hold some of its hearings in private, but this power should only be used to protect witnesses, rather than to keep anything secret).

In some ways, an Inquiry's public hearings resemble a trial: witnesses are called, and give evidence in answer to questions put to them by barristers.  The Chair's position is similar to that of a Judge.

In other ways, however, an Inquiry's public hearings are quite different from a Court case.  The key difference is that there are not two "sides": it is not a case of prosecution versus defence (and, in healthcare Inquiries, it certainly should not be doctors versus patients).  No one is "on trial" and, though Inquiries can and do criticise individuals in their final reports, it is not their job to find people guilty of specified offences.  The responsibility of an Inquiry is to get to the bottom of what happened in a certain event or series of events (in legal terms, we say that an Inquiry's hearings are "inquisitorial" rather than "adversarial").

Commonly, the questioning of witnesses is carried out by barristers ("Counsel") who are employed to represent the Inquiry itself.  This contrasts with a trial, where one side's lawyers are allowed to question the other side's witnesses.  At an Inquiry, interested parties are often allowed legal representation, but they are not expected to intervene in the gathering of evidence.  This means that, in a healthcare Inquiry, doctors and patients may well have lawyers present, but those lawyers will probably not be allowed to ask their own questions: they are only there to protect their clients' interests, and to help the Inquiry's own lawyers to ask the most fruitful questions.  Some people complain that this makes Inquiries a "blunt instrument", and suggest that the more aggressive setting of a Courtroom is better suited to exposing the truth.

These days, Public Inquiries take great advantage of the Internet, in fulfilling their duty to keep their investigations accessible and open.  Inquiries have websites that contain transcripts of hearings, written witness statements, copies of documents that have been considered, expert reports that have been commissioned, and information about the Inquiry's procedures.  Once an Inquiry has concluded, the website is usually left in place, with the panel's final report available, along with any extra documentation they have produced.  This ensures that the Inquiry's investigation remains in the public domain, even long after it has come to an end.

The parties who are the subject of an Inquiry (in a healthcare setting, this will include patients, doctors, hospital management, etc.) are often provided with funding to organise their contributions to the process, and to meet their lawyers' fees.  This money comes from the Inquiry's central budget.  Where patients are concerned, funding will almost always be provided through a group (this may well be the group that campaigned for the Inquiry in the first place).  It is up to the elected officials of the group to manage the budget, to appoint lawyers and, so far as possible, to make sure that its members' interests are considered throughout the process.

When Public Inquiries have heard all the evidence that they consider relevant, the Panel go away to draft a final report.  It can take many months for them to analyse all the evidence they have heard, reach conclusions, and provide recommendations.  The final report will be delivered to the authority that ordered the Inquiry (Parliament or the Health Secretary), and then it will be made public.  Usually, the evidence on which the Inquiry bases its findings will be made public at the same time.

When it has had the chance to consider the Inquiry's findings, the Department of Health issues a formal response to the report, detailing which recommendations it will be taking action on, and which recommendations it chooses not to accept.