Public Inquiry Data Management

Cite this


Governments and citizens view public inquiries as a systematic method of exploiting evidence concerning incidences affecting a nation. The availability of methodical investigation processes makes the approach significantly reliable by the public. The involvement of specialists and a team of experts in inquiries, together with the utilization of lengthy durations to investigate matters, promote the method’s dependability. Moreover, selecting public figures with integrity to lead inquiries makes the technique superb in finding the truth. Other features such as the availability of government resources and laws compelling witnesses to provide personal statements concerning occurrences also play a significant role in promoting inquiries’ trust among the public.

Governments and states hold data from investigations for a significant time, based on its quality. The information helps to impact policies and induce procedural changes to prevent similar occurrences. The matter thus supports the need for organization and completeness for the acquired data to cause the intended effects. The U.K. government currently has about eight public inquiries underway, with the number of such missions exceeding eighty since the 1980s, as shown by Appendix 1. The cost of inquiry activities is significantly high, while the findings often fail to make the intended impact. The following work compares, contrasts, appraises, and assesses the processes for public inquiry data management to test their effectiveness in promoting data comprehensiveness and organization.

Aim & Objectives

Laws regarding public inquiry necessitate that records from such operations exhibit comprehensiveness and organization to cause the targeted effect. The U.K. applies several procedures to ensure compliance with the laws. Such measures stipulate the inquiry board’s roles and tasks, evidence management plan, filing organization, and ownership of the composed information. Many public investigations in the U.K. fail to deliver the targeted results after spending much time and community resources. Examinations on the issue often fail to offer meaningful explanations. The present work thus compares, contrasts, appraises and assesses the U.K.’s inquest processes to test their effectiveness in attaining the inquiries’ goals. The paper provides several recommendations whose application can improve the public inquiry approach.

Roles and Responsibilities

A public inquiry requires authoritativeness to proceed smoothly and deliver reliable results. As Dunne, Brennan, and Kirwan (2021) report, this first process gives the investigations such authority. Inquiry commissioning involves the identification of a chairperson, mostly a senior barrister or judge, by a government minister in charge of the docket under inspection. The chair leads the other parties and all the events involved in information collection. Expertise and impartiality are principal requirements in choosing the probe’s leadership. Being an inquiry leader involves a pronounced deal of public inspection and a lengthy process that only a skilled person can manage (Dunne, Brennan, and Kirwan, 2021). The minister and the chair further identify a legal team for the probe, who develop the “terms of reference”, describing the investigation’s scope and drive.

Moreover, this practice determines whether the inquiry takes statutory or non-statutory traction, influencing evidence collection procedures. Seeking public participation when establishing the terms of reference promotes public support in the investigations, according to Chakravorty et al. (2021). Looking at this initial procedure of public inquiry reveals several things. For example, the commissioning process gives the whole probe authority and meaning and forms the activities’ foundation. As the first step in setting inquiries, the commissioning phase opens the way for the other processes by providing the leadership and the terms on which to act (Dunne, Brennan, and Kirwan, 2021). Consequently, the commissioning stage’s essence is to provide trustworthy leaders that link the experts and the public.

Furthermore, truthful inquiry leaders attract public members to participate, while their expertise and decision to make the matter statutory compels witnesses to provide comprehensive accounts without fear, thus boosting inclusivity. Choosing skilled leadership also aids in generating organized records. However, realizing these positive features depends significantly on the appointed leaders and their expertise. The matter thus implies challenges in case the minister fails to appoint the correct leadership characters, which leads to botched public relations, poor information, and disorganized records.

Information Management Policy

Standard procedures in public investigations include steps followed in acquiring and safeguarding evidence, protocols’ drafting, getting witness statements, hearings, writing a report, and developing recommendations. Other crucial procedures for the team include drafting opening and closing statements by the chairperson and collecting oral evidence. Protocols mainly work by organizing the examinations and informing participants about the flow of events. As such, the subjectivity of this second process introduces significant room for challenges during inquiries. The absence of standard procedures for public investigations’ utilization creates substantial weakness to the matter. Stark (2020) insists that the U.K. should have an existing formula for general inquiries based on the large numbers of such activities undertaken in the nation hitherto. The mistake leaves almost all the probes in the hands of corruptible or uninformed frontrunners, making it hard for some investigations to deliver reliable, timely, and comprehensive results. The absence of standard operating procedures in this step thus challenges the realization of quality and organized records. Nonetheless, inquiries falling in the hands of proficient leaders deliver comprehensive and organized accounts, mainly depending on the involved technicalities specific to each inquest.

Participants’ and Core Participants’ Identification

Public inquiries involve many participants, including the leader, panel members, counsels, solicitors, and the investigation secretary. Core participants are individuals or organizations included in the probe either by the chairperson or through an application based on their interests regarding the matter under investigation (Bamji, 2020). Each of these parties plays a unique role in influencing the quality, reliability, comprehensiveness, and organization of records. For example, the chairperson’s leadership in setting protocols and procedures determines the order of events and the flow of information to the panel. Choosing a method that allows in-depth investigations covering a more comprehensive range of respondents promotes inclusivity.

The leader’s choice of whether to follow the statutory or non-statutory approach also determines the kind of evidence acquirable from the witnesses and the parties participating in the investigations. Panel members further influence the expertise level of the inquiry team. Both the minister and the appointed chairperson take part in identifying the panel team. Therefore, a wrong choice of chairperson implies botched or compromised inquiry records due to the high likelihood of choosing compromisable panel members. The same case applies to the counsel, solicitor, and secretary, as they are all appointed by the chairperson. Making this step in public probe dependent on a single character introduces a significant weakness as many chairpersons select team members they can handle or influence.

The Act’s Application

The inquiries Act 2005 provides the basis under which public probes occur. The decree offers several demands, such as forcing individuals to give evidence or face legal proceedings. The law also compels parties to release necessary documents required by the investigation team, even when they contain private information. Applying or failing to adopt the Act determines whether an inquiry is statutory or not. The regulation acquires further support from the “Inquiry Rules 2006”, which provides additional directives concerning panel appointments and impartiality requirements. Moreover, the 2005 Act guides the provision of free public access to the public regarding any findings made by the team. The rules also give guidelines on the management of privileged material and the structure of the final report.

A panel adopting the 2005 Act proceeds differently from the one utilizing the non-statutory way. McKee, Gill, and Wollaston (2020) argue that the former approach often delivers more comprehensive and organized records relative to the latter. Applying the law enables the panel to retrieve pieces of evidence that many people would not normally produce, primarily due to the fear of public judgment or branding. Furthermore, statutory inquiries offer basic procedures on what information to include in the report, making their records highly organized and comprehensive. On the other hand, the choice to undertake a freestyle probe regularly leaves many facts unknown to the panel and the public as people respond out of choice. Therefore, using the non-statutory strategy significantly compromises the inclusivity and organization of inquiry records, compared to when the panel opts for the constitution-based investigation technique.

Evidence Taking

Evidence collection involves all the inquiry panel’s tactics to gather information about the investigation matter. The process involves at least two approaches, depending on whether or not the probe is statutory. In the case of law-bound public research, the chairperson exercises power to demand information from parties connected to the incident. The law allows the chair to invite the targeted persons to make oral or written statements. The Act 2005 also compels individuals to provide confidential documents necessary for the investigations and dictates how the experts should handle the personal details. The failure to provide evidence under a statutory probe leads to criminal charges, making many people afraid.

A non-statutory investigation exhibits no witness obligations to offer statements or oral accounts. Accordingly, parties believed to have vital information choose whether or not to give it to the solicitors. The aspect substantially affects the quality of data gathered by the probing team. Nonetheless, Chakravorty et al. (2021) report that a significant number of public investigations still apply the non-statutory approach, mainly due to the leadership’s influence. The issue leads to extended inquiry duration, some proceeding up to five years, while others take forever. Consequently, the law-backed method promotes comprehensive and organized data due to the available legal guidelines, unlike in the non-statutory investigations where people give information at will.

Sensitivities and Review

Public inquiries depend on the evidence provided by witnesses to deliver a comprehensive and reliable report and recommendations. That is why witness management and protection are primary in the investigations’ endeavors. Witness administration connotes the cognisant handling of persons with essential details about the facts concerning the occurrence under examination (Ireton, 2018). Providing the probe questions to the witnesses before the investigation’s day and the interview protocols allows them to prepare well for the activity. The tactic aids the witnesses in planning and organizing their accounts to deliver organized and in-depth statements regarding the subject matter (Chakravorty et al., 2021). The investigator also avails the inquest’s protocol to the witnesses to help them plan and prepare effectively as an initiative for managing witnesses. The ability to protect and manage witnesses depends significantly on the quality of the investigation’s leadership, meaning that a poor commissioning process leads to incomplete and shallow records.

Creating an Official Inquiry Website

Evidence publicity precedes findings and recommendations’ communication in many public inquests. The law requires that the specialists develop records accessible to the public for various purposes. Therefore, the tribunal chair exhibits the mandate to establish a website where members of the public can access the records of the proceedings and the findings. The website further gives citizens the ability to observe oral and written statements by the witnesses regardless of whether the investigations are statutory or not. This process promotes records’ inclusivity and organization by ensuring that all the necessary witnesses give their accounts while the team presents it in a manner that the public can comprehend easily.

Appraise Records

The public inquiry endeavours further involve records’ appraisal by the tribunal. Appraisal mainly concerns deciding which records to dispose of and the ones to act as the inquiry’s permanent records. The report mainly seeks to realize at least two objectives: providing the facts concerning the occurrence under investigation and offering adequate information to prevent a repeat of the same. The last process promotes the creation of comprehensive and organized records. That is because the panel seeks to make the best impact possible by presenting splendid work, even when the earlier processes involve challenges. A standard requirement is that the team avails the recommendations and findings via its website and outlines its procedures and protocols for future application. However, many inquiries exclude the latter, giving a report without the employed strategies (Stark, 2020). The matter explains the significant struggles inquest teams face in developing procedures and protocols despite the approach’s continued application in the U.K.

Filing Structures

The filing structure provision emphasizes the need to establish a reliable data organization, management, and storage configuration. This process purposes to establish reliable inquiry records with easy retrieval. The public inquiry guidance (n.d). says that public probes involve the collection of enormous data that can easily lack sense to the public and intended consumers. For example, storing data as it is collected makes meaning deduction hard. The primary purpose of public investigations is to offer a meaning and lesson. Establishing a reliable filing structure involves putting data into categories and related groups, thus making it organized and complete. According to the public inquiry guidance (n.d), public investigations involve both electronic and paper documents bearing sensitive information. Therefore, setting an appropriate filing structure makes adding and using information relaxed. Classifying data based on the inquiry’s activities is a typical filing organization adopted in many inquiries to promote completeness and organization.

Copyright and Ownership

Records developed through public inquiries are generally for the public’s good. The data mainly intends to provide facts about an occurrence with significant public impact, and offer crucial lessons to avoid such. The public inquiry guidance (n.d) notes that probes utilize the public’s funds and their findings should be public. However, ensuring such publicity involves granting the records public ownership through Crown copyrights (Public inquiry guidance, n.d). Accordingly, all the U.K. documents exhibiting the Crown copyright fall under the well-established framework protected by the law, making their access and reproduction for the public’s benefit legally reinforced. The inquiry team then prepares chronicles for transfer to the archives after the copyright process.


Governments spend a lot of public funds to finance inquiries, explaining the need for complete and organized reports for practical application. Several basic inquiry processes exist to promote records’ inclusiveness and organization in public investigations. Such courses include roles and responsibilities’ setting, defining information management strategy, filing structure’s establishment, participants’ and core participants’ identification, the Act’s application, copyright and ownership formation, reviewing sensitivities, and evidence publicity. The progressions assume a specific order that makes the investigations systematic and rigorous. However, the above discussion outlines several weaknesses resulting from the inquiry’s current status. Possible corrections to the issues are provided in the recommendation section below.


The present investigation regarding the public investigation reveals several issues worth noting if the U.K. government intends to uphold inquiry records’ comprehensiveness and organization. The following list of recommendations provides some of the present review’s fundamental takeaways.

  • There is a need to set basic qualifications for the appointed chairperson and panel members in charge of a public inquiry, with a provision to award tribunal leadership to past proven inquiry leaders. Appendix 2 provides a list of past inquiry leaders to consider.
  • The U.K. government needs to ascertain the law’s implementation requiring inquiry teams to publish their procedures and protocols to inform future inquest activities.
  • The U.K. government should increase the integrity requirements for public inquiry chairpersons to promote the method’s authenticity.
  • The U.K. government should make statutory inquiry the default method of the public inquest, not unless compelling reasons state otherwise.
  • The government should maintain the current requirements concerning witness management and maintenance, immunities, evidence publicity, and communication of findings and recommendations.

Reference List

Bamji, A.N. (2020) ‘Not yet time for a public inquiry into UK’s response to covid-19,’ British Medical Journal, 370.

Chakravorty, I. et al. (2021) ‘Why we must learn the lessons now: A call for a truly independent public inquiry by the UK Government,’ Sushruta Journal of Health Policy & Opinion, 14(2), pp.1-10.

Dunne, N.J., Brennan, N.M. and Kirwan, C.E. (2021) ‘Impression management and big four auditors: Scrutiny at a public inquiry,’ Accounting, Organizations and Society, 88, p.101170.

Institute for Government1. (2022). How public inquiries can lead to change.

Institute for Government2. (2022). Public inquiries. 

Ireton, E. (2018) ‘How public is a public inquiry?’ Public Law, (April), pp.277-298.

McKee, M., Gill, M. and Wollaston, S. (2020) ‘Public inquiry into UK’s response to covid-19,’ British Medical Journal, 369.

Public inquiry guidance. (n.d).

Stark, A. (2020) ‘Left on the shelf: Explaining the failure of public inquiry recommendations,’ Public Administration, 98(3), pp.609-624.

The Inquiry Rules 2006. (2006).


Appendix 1

Public inquiries in numbers
(Institute for Government1, 2022).

Appendix 2

Number of inquiries chared by individuals
(Institute for Government2, 2022).

Cite this paper

Select style


DemoEssays. (2023, February 18). Public Inquiry Data Management. Retrieved from


DemoEssays. (2023, February 18). Public Inquiry Data Management.

Work Cited

"Public Inquiry Data Management." DemoEssays, 18 Feb. 2023,


DemoEssays. (2023) 'Public Inquiry Data Management'. 18 February.


DemoEssays. 2023. "Public Inquiry Data Management." February 18, 2023.

1. DemoEssays. "Public Inquiry Data Management." February 18, 2023.


DemoEssays. "Public Inquiry Data Management." February 18, 2023.