Annex A > Chapter 1 - The Background to and Conduct of the Public Inquiry > Phase One hearings

Phase One hearings

Oral evidence

94 The Inquiry heard 96 days of evidence in Phase One, from 120 witnesses and from experts. Hearings were, generally, held on Mondays to Thursdays, initially three weeks in every four, although as Phase One neared its conclusion hearings were held on seven consecutive weeks.

95 A real-time transcript was produced. Where reference is made in this Annex to the transcript of the evidence, the day and page referred to identify it and the witness. [30]

96 During the course of the Inquiry a total of 900 documents were displayed in the hearing chamber.

97 When witnesses were called to give oral evidence they were advised in advance, in broad terms, of the areas on which their questioning was likely to concentrate. They were given the opportunity to visit the Inquiry's offices to familiarise themselves with the hearing chamber and to meet the Inquiry Counsel who was to examine them.

98 Each witness called to give evidence could be accompanied by a legal representative. However, as the approach adopted was inquisitorial, Counsel to the Inquiry initially questioned all witnesses. This was sometimes supplemented by questions from the Panel.

99 Participants were entitled to make applications to cross-examine a witness. However, since legal representatives of participants were invited to suggest questions, or lines of questioning, for Counsel to the Inquiry to put to the witness and to identify areas which they wished to be explored, it was anticipated that the occasions on which applications for cross-examination would be made would be limited. In the event, Counsel to the Inquiry were able to meet the requests raised with them by participants and, consequently, no application to cross-examine was in fact made.

100 At the end of questioning by Counsel to the Inquiry, the witness's legal representative had an opportunity to put questions by way of re-examination. The purpose of this was to clarify any area of evidence and to enable the representative to ensure that the witness had given a proper account of him or herself. For that reason it was anticipated that any such re-examination should not generally exceed 15 to 20 minutes and this was the case.

101 Additionally, the legal representative of a witness was given the opportunity to make a short submission to the Panel on the day following the evidence, ordinarily in writing but exceptionally, and at the Chairman's discretion, orally. Where the submission was made in writing and it raised a matter that, in the Panel's view was unclear, clarification was sought. All such written submissions were made public.

102 At the end of Phase One those witnesses who chose to do so, by themselves or through their legal representatives, were also given the opportunity to make a final presentation to the Panel in writing, which was made public, together with a short oral presentation.

103 A feature of the oral hearings was their public and accessible nature. This was achieved, in particular, by the extensive use of information technology. This enabled members of the public in the hearing chamber, in an overflow room on site and in the South West and Wales, to follow the proceedings as they occurred, seeing both the witness or questioner and a copy of any document under discussion. Copies of the transcripts of the evidence and documents displayed during the hearing were available at the hearing and also on the Internet.

104 This openness was important both to satisfy the Panel's duty to hold a public hearing, and to ensure fairness. Any participant, or interested person, could follow what was being said in full detail.

105 Again, as part of the commitment to openness and fairness, all material seen by the Panel has been made public (subject only to redaction in the interests of individual's entitlement to confidentiality).

106 During the oral hearings various innovations were used to help the Panel to hear from a range of witnesses on the same occasion. For example, when clinicians gave evidence one or two experts were usually present. The experts could address questions put by Counsel and they, in turn, could raise questions to clarify or discuss with the clinician, or they could confirm a point of evidence. The dialogue thus created between the witness, expert, and sometimes the Panel, was designed to avoid the adversarial model in which separate experts advise contesting parties. It was intended to be more informed, more transparent and more economical of time. Those legal representatives who expressed a view found it to be entirely beneficial. Another example was the occasion of the last day of the oral hearings, when 11 parents gave evidence in two separate group sessions. Essentially, the physical arrangements of the hearing chamber were changed so that up to six parents could give their evidence at the same session. Counsel put questions to each of the parents in turn and sought to generate a degree of discussion and dialogue on particular matters. The Panel found this particularly helpful.

<< previous | next >> | back to top

Footnotes

[30] Thus `T47 p.65' denotes page 65 of the transcript for day 47. A full copy of the Phase One (Oral Hearings) transcript is available in Annex D