What is a public inquiry and how is it different from a court case?
A public inquiry investigates a matter of serious public concern to establish what happened and why, and to make recommendations preventing recurrence. It is fundamentally different from litigation, and confusing the two leads to misplaced expectations.
The core distinction: an inquiry is inquisitorial, a court is adversarial.
A court hears two opposing parties presenting competing cases, with a judge or jury deciding between them. An inquiry conducts its own investigation, directed by the chair, gathering evidence and pursuing lines of enquiry rather than adjudicating a contest.
What follows from that:
An inquiry cannot determine civil or criminal liability. Statutory inquiries in the UK are expressly prohibited from ruling on liability, though findings of fact may lead to prosecutions or claims afterwards. This surprises and frequently disappoints participants, who may expect accountability the process cannot deliver.
Findings and recommendations are not binding. Government must respond, but need not accept or implement.
Different evidence rules. Inquiries can consider material a court would exclude.
Statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 have real powers: compelling witnesses and documents, and taking evidence on oath. Refusing is an offence. Non-statutory inquiries lack these powers and rely on cooperation, which is why victims' groups often campaign for statutory status.
Core participants are granted formal status, with rights to see evidence, suggest lines of questioning and make submissions — though questioning is generally conducted by counsel to the inquiry rather than by parties.
The recurring criticisms:
Length and cost. Major inquiries can run for years and cost many millions, with the delay itself a source of distress for bereaved families.
Recommendations not implemented, sometimes repeatedly across successive inquiries into similar failures.
No accountability, given the liability restriction.
Their genuine value: establishing a documented public record, giving affected people a formal hearing, and producing systemic recommendations no individual case would generate.
Inquests are different again — narrower, into how someone died.