Final Report > Chapter 2: The Conduct of the Inquiry > Process

Process

17 We set out in detail in Annex A and Annex B [8] the process according to which the Inquiry was set up and the procedure which was followed. We draw attention here to a number of matters of particular importance.

18 Openness: a Public Inquiry must be open not merely in the sense of allowing the public to attend but in many other ways. It must be accessible in so far as what it does and how it proceeds must be explained and must be comprehensible. As we have said, the evidence which the Inquiry Panel considers must be made public, so that the public can see what the Inquiry sees. Accessibility to the public has other meanings. The physical environment in which the Inquiry is conducted must not be one which inhibits attendance, whether by its location, its convenience and comfort, or its association with activities in which the public do not feel at ease, for instance a court room or municipal council chamber. This is because a feature of openness is inclusiveness: a Public Inquiry should seek to include the public in its deliberations and, therefore, avoid that which appears to exclude.

19 Respect for the needs of the public: it must be recognised that, in the case of a Public Inquiry, there are, in fact, a number of publics, with differing, sometimes opposing, views and aims. The Public Inquiry must seek to serve them all, even-handedly and with a sensitive awareness of differences. Misunderstandings, disagreements and clashes which distract the Inquiry from its task and can occupy time and resources, can be avoided by effective liaison between and organisation by the secretariat and the various groups.

20 Procedure: a Public Inquiry is not a trial - it is an inquiry into events, which is held in public. Not being a trial, there is no need for it to appear to behave like a court, not only because this tends to exclude some who find courts inhibiting and hard to follow, but also because the procedures which may be appropriate for a court are not necessarily helpful in a Public Inquiry. Moreover, it must be made crystal clear that it is perfectly possible to conduct a Public Inquiry with the most careful attention to the legal requirements of fairness, without having to behave like a court. There is no equation which reads `fairness equals court'.

21 Of course, the procedures which are adopted reflect the Inquiry's overall approach. We feel strongly on this matter of approach. Those whose background is the law and courts, whether they be practitioners (solicitors and barristers) or judges, will naturally tend to regard the approach adopted by the courts as being eminently transferable to a Public Inquiry. After all, are they not both engaged in the process of seeking after the truth? Well, the simple answer is that they are very different. First, a Public Inquiry has a range of purposes, as we have suggested, which go beyond those which ordinarily concern a court. Secondly, a court is asked to decide between one party and another: one must win, the other lose; one must attract some degree of blame or criticism, the other is vindicated. A Public Inquiry must cast its net much wider. Thirdly, the English legal tradition is built on the foundation of adversariness: that from the clash of opposing forces, marshalled by legal representatives, the truth will emerge. Whatever the merit of adversariness in courts of law, we were convinced it would be an entirely unhelpful approach for us to adopt. There were no parties before us. There would be no winners nor losers. We had no need for the theatre of confrontation. Indeed, we felt strongly that we, and those who followed the Inquiry, would gain much more understanding of what went on in Bristol if we were able to give those who gave written evidence and those who came to speak to us the opportunity to do so in as calm and unintimidating an environment as we could establish.

22 An inquisitorial approach: the approach we adopted was, therefore, wholly inquisitorial. By this we mean that the Inquiry identified the witnesses it wished to hear from and that the witnesses' evidence was explored and tested by Counsel to the Inquiry on the Inquiry's behalf. This is not to say that by adopting this approach we ignored the ordinary principles of fairness and due process. Rather, we designed our procedures to meet the needs of the Inquiry, respectful of the duty at all times to show fairness to all those affected by the Inquiry. For this reason, for example, everyone who could be said to be criticised in a material way by any other witness' evidence was given an opportunity to comment in advance of that evidence being made public. In this way, evidence was always placed in a wider context. Equally, we greatly needed the assistance of the lawyers who represented the many participants and pay tribute here to the help they gave us. What was different was the role which we asked them to play. Rather than proceed in the oral hearings by way of examination and then cross-examination (sometimes by a number of parties), we formulated a procedure whereby the questioning of witnesses was carried out by Counsel to the Inquiry. All other counsel, representing the range of participants affected by or interested in the Inquiry, liaised with the Inquiry's Counsel to ensure that all lines of examination were pursued and questions put. The opportunity to cross-examine existed, but the procedure worked with such success (not least due to the co-operation of all concerned) that, in the event, no application to cross-examine was made throughout the 96 days of hearings. Not only did this save time (and expense), but also ensured that the Inquiry was conducted calmly and without rancour.

Footnotes

[8] Annex A, Chapter 1 and Annex B, Section One