With the Covid-19 Inquiry set to sit in Northern Ireland from April 30, the media’s spotlight will squarely sit on a Belfast hotel as journalists, core participants, and the general public wait to hear more about the pivotal political and administrative choices that shaped the pandemic response here.
Highly centralised decision making, the perception of failure in Whitehall institutions, and inadequate checks and balances on the Prime Minister has been the theme of Covid-19 Inquiry hearings so far.
As hearings continue, there are already lessons to be learned and actioned for the future, especially with the publication of the Omagh Bombing Inquiry Terms of Reference.
We know that the Omagh Bombing Inquiry will cover serious and sensitive issues including the handling of shared intelligence, whether there was advance knowledge of the bomb, and whether disruption operations could or should have been mounted to prevent the attack.
With this in mind, it is important to remember that any public inquiry, though a legal process, is also inherently emotive. An inquiry addresses the most serious matters of public concern and for many individuals, it is the only avenue for their pain and suffering to be acknowledged, or the sole opportunity for their voice to be heard.
It evokes a great deal of emotion: memories of losing loved ones, destroyed livelihoods, gross misconduct, corruption, and injustice. Under the brightest of media spotlights, individuals relive something they would rather forget, or wished never happened in the first place.
This begs the question: How can an inquiry best display empathy towards those affected by the events under scrutiny, while also ensuring an objective and impartial investigation is conducted? How much emphasis should be placed on ensuring the inquiry venue looks the part and is transparent and accessible versus protecting the public purse?
Or does the public consider finding out what happened more important than making recommendations on what needs to change? From observing the outworkings of recent inquiries, intuition suggests that the former holds true. After all, understanding what happened is a vital step towards healing and indeed, preventing it from happening again.
Also, with hearings streamed and often televised live, scrutiny is rigorous and relentless. Journalists and the ordinary lay person provide a running commentary of proceedings as they unfold online which means no stone is left unturned; many will express diverse opinions on the terms of reference, who is or isn’t a core participant, or the panel line-up.
What can we learn from this? It is easier for people to overlook delays, than forgive mistakes. In other words, a public inquiry is a marathon, not a sprint.
Overall, looking ahead to another major public inquiry getting underway, any successful public inquiry must earn the trust of the public from the outset. It needs to demonstrate a commitment to thorough investigation, fair representation of all stakeholders, and clear communication of its findings and recommendations.
- Matthew Howse is dispute resolution and litigation partner at Eversheds Sutherland
