E, Relationship with Other Legal Proceedings
(2) But an inquity panel is not to be inhibited in the discharge of its functions by
any likelihood of liability being inferred from facts that it determines or recom-
mendations that it makes.
‘The Explanatory Notes to section 2 of the 2005 Act explain the purpose of these
provisions as follows:'4
8. The purpose of this section is to make clear that inquiries under this Act have no
power to determine civil or criminal liability and must not purport to do so.
‘There is often a strong feeling, particularly following high profile, controversial
events, that an inquiry should determine who is to blame for what has occurred.
However, inquiries are not courts and their findings cannot and do not have legal
effect. The aim of inquiries is to help to restore public confidence in systems or
services by investigating the facts and making recommendations to prevent recur-
rence, not to establish liability or to punish anyone.
9. However, as subsection (2) is designed to make clear, it is not intended that the
inquiry should be hampered in its investigations by a fear that responsibility may
be inferred from a determination of a fact.
Section 2(1) of the 2005 Act has only been considered once to date by the courts,
in the context of a challenge to the terms of reference of the Billy Wright
Inquiry.”>
(3) Sequencing
It is not uncommon for issues to arise as to whether a public inquiry should com-
mence before or after other related proceedings (or, indeed, whether it should run
concurrently with such proceedings).
‘To the observer it may seem a waste of public funds for more than one set of pro-
ceedings to consider the same set of circumstances. Yet it is clear that each set of
proceedings (criminal, civil regulatory/disciplinary, and inquiry) performs differ-
ent functions and has a different purpose. ‘The issue then becomes one of timing or
sequencing—which set of proceedings should run first, or can proceedings run
concurrently with each other?
In general terms, it is normally appropriate for any technical, professional, internal
disciplinary, other internal or criminal investigation to take place before an inquiry.
‘This is because, first, the outcome of that investigation can assist in determining,
whether a public inquiry is needed and, if so, what its focus and parameters should
be. Secondly, information gathered in the course of such an investigation ot
proceedings can be used to assist in informing any subsequent inquiry.
174 Explanatory Notes to Inquiries Act 2005, paras 8 and 9.
18 See Rean application: by Steven Davis fo leas apply for judicial, judgment of Weatherup
J of 6 August 2007, discussed at paras 2.114-2.116 above.
89
2.144
2.145
2.146
2.147
2.148
RLIT0000547
RLIT0000547