header-logo header-logo

Searching for answers

16 September 2011 / Charles Brasted
Issue: 7481 / Categories: Opinion , Public
printer mail-detail
nlj_7481_p1233_4

Charles Brasted explains how public inquiries have become the universal panacea for controversy

Despite the introduction of the Inquiries Act 2005 (IA 2005), which sought to put public inquiries on a consistent statutory footing, questions remain as to how they should operate and how they interact with other on-going legal proceedings. With the frequency and scope of inquiries growing, these questions are becoming increasingly important.

Recently, amid much public, political, and press noise about the use of phone hacking by newspapers, David Cameron announced a total of three inquiries, although a number of criminal and civil proceedings were already afoot, as well as internal inquiries, Parliamentary Select Committee hearings, parliamentary debates, and even an FBI investigation.

While IA 2005 was intended to consolidate provisions and ensure greater consistency and clarity on the legal function of public inquiries, uncertainties remain. Not all inquiries are governed by IA 2005, of note being the current Chilcot inquiry and the Archer inquiry into the supply of contaminated blood products. Even where IA 2005 is applicable, it does

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll