Recently we’ve noticed replies from some MSP’s stating that they cannot proceed with an inquiry whilst criminal proceedings are ongoing. It maybe a good idea to reply with the below.
• the benefit of legal experience in instances when an inquiry is running concurrently with criminal proceedings.
It clearly states the above in the extract below.
Under the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005, appointments are solely at the discretion of the responsible minister.36 They are required to consult whoever they want to appoint, but otherwise there are few rules and even fewer guidelines regarding appointments. The only statutory requirement relates to judicial appointments; should a minister want to invite a judge to sit as a chair or a panellist, they must consult with the responsible senior judge or Lord Chief Justice.37
Judges have been the preferred choice to chair most public inquiries since 1990 (see Figure 4). Out of the 68 public inquiries run between 1990 and 2017, 44 had/have judicial chairs.* There are many reasons why judges are such a popular choice, with several commonly cited strengths including:
• political independence
• experience of running hearings
• the ability to analyse information and uncover facts
• the benefit of legal experience in instances when an inquiry is running concurrently with criminal proceedings
• an understanding of legal and procedural complexity.38
The point on political independence is particularly important. Many inquiries deal with failures of government and its institutions, and protecting the independence of inquiries is a priority.39 Chairs must be independent from the issue to support the confidence of the victims and their families and groups. By virtue of their training and their judicial oath, judges are bound to be independent of both the issue and wider politics. Failure to command the trust of the victims saw the Independent Inquiry into
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Public Inquiries (final).pdf