Last reviewed: Next review due:
What a public inquiry is
A public inquiry is a formal, independent investigation into an event or issue of serious public concern — a disaster, a scandal, a systemic failure. Most significant UK inquiries are set up under the Inquiries Act 2005, which lets a government minister establish an inquiry, set its terms of reference, and appoint an independent chair (often a serving or retired judge).
An inquiry is not a court: it does not decide civil or criminal liability. Its job is to establish the facts, identify what went wrong, and make recommendations. But it can produce findings that are hugely consequential — and, in statutory inquiries, it can compel evidence.
“A Minister may cause an inquiry to be held under this Act in relation to a case where it appears to him that—”
“Restrictions may, in accordance with this section, be imposed on—”
Why this beat matters
- 1Inquiries force disclosure of documents that no FOI request would ever prise loose — internal emails, WhatsApp messages, board minutes and briefing papers, all published as exhibits.
- 2They put decision-makers on the record under oath, with skilled counsel asking the questions you cannot.
- 3The public record they build — transcripts, statements, exhibits — is a durable resource for stories long after the hearings end.
- 4Their recommendations shape law and policy, so following whether recommendations are actually implemented is itself a long-running accountability story.
How an inquiry is structured
- Terms of reference: Set by the minister, these define what the inquiry can and cannot examine. Reading them tells you the boundaries of every story the inquiry can produce.
- The chair and panel: An independent chair (frequently a judge) runs the inquiry, sometimes with expert panel members or assessors.
- Counsel to the inquiry: The inquiry’s own barristers lead the questioning and decide the order of evidence and modules.
- Core participants: Formally designated people and organisations with a central role or interest, who get advance disclosure and can be represented.
- Modules / phases: Large inquiries divide the work into themed modules or phases, each with its own hearings and, sometimes, its own interim report.
- The report: Findings and recommendations are set out in a report laid before Parliament (or the devolved legislature). Statutory inquiries can compel evidence under section 21; non-statutory ones cannot.
Core legal and ethical risks
- Restriction orders (section 19): check the inquiry’s published restriction notices and orders before naming witnesses or publishing restricted evidence — breach can be a contempt.
- Anonymity rulings: inquiries frequently grant anonymity or cyphers to vulnerable witnesses; treat those rulings as binding and watch for jigsaw identification.
- Live proceedings and contempt: where an inquiry’s subject matter overlaps with active or contemplated criminal proceedings, ordinary contempt rules still apply — see our contempt guide.
- Warning letters are confidential: do not publish the contents of Maxwellisation letters or speculate about who has received one.
- Fair reporting: a contemporaneous, fair and accurate report of a public inquiry’s public hearings generally attracts qualified privilege in defamation — but the privilege depends on fairness and accuracy, so quote the transcript, not the rumour.
Major UK inquiries to know
Each publishes transcripts, evidence and reports on its own website — the primary source for any story.
How to work an inquiry
- Read the terms of reference and the list of core participants first — they map the whole story.
- Follow the daily transcript, not just the live stream: transcripts are searchable and let you quote precisely.
- Mine the exhibits: disclosed documents often contain the story the oral evidence only hints at.
- Build relationships with core participants’ legal teams and campaign/bereaved-family groups, who track disclosure closely.
- Track recommendations after the report lands — an inquiry’s recommendations are only as good as their implementation, and that is a recurring story.
Jargon glossary
- Terms of reference
- The formal statement, set by the minister, of what the inquiry will investigate.
- Core participant
- A person or body formally designated as having a central role or interest in the inquiry.
- Rule 9 request
- A written request from the inquiry (under the Inquiry Rules 2006) asking a person or body to provide a witness statement or documents.
- Restriction order / notice
- A direction under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 restricting attendance, disclosure or publication.
- Maxwellisation
- The process of sending a confidential warning letter to anyone the report proposes to criticise, so they can respond first.
- Module
- A themed section of a large inquiry’s work, with its own hearings and evidence.
Related guides
Court & Justice Reporting
Reporting restrictions, contempt and open justice in the courts.
Health & NHS Reporting
Many inquiries turn on health and care failings.
Contempt of Court
When inquiry subject matter overlaps with active criminal proceedings.
How to File an FOI Request
For the documents an inquiry has not (yet) disclosed.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between a statutory and a non-statutory public inquiry?
A statutory inquiry is set up by a minister under the Inquiries Act 2005. Its chair has legal powers to compel witnesses to give evidence and to produce documents, and witnesses give evidence under oath. A non-statutory inquiry (sometimes called an independent review or panel inquiry) has no such powers — it relies on voluntary cooperation. Ministers sometimes convert a non-statutory inquiry into a statutory one when cooperation proves inadequate. For reporters, the practical difference is that statutory inquiries generate a much larger, better-evidenced public record, with disclosed documents and full transcripts.
What is a "core participant" and why does it matter for reporting?
A core participant is a person or organisation formally designated by the inquiry chair as having a significant role — for example, those who may be subject to criticism, those with a significant interest in the matters investigated, or those who played a direct part. Core participants can be legally represented at public expense in some cases, receive disclosed documents in advance, make opening and closing statements, and suggest questions. Knowing who the core participants are tells you who the inquiry considers central, and their legal teams are a key source of documents and context.
Can an inquiry stop me reporting something?
Yes. Under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005, the minister or the chair can impose restrictions on attendance at the inquiry or on the disclosure or publication of evidence and documents, where required by law or where the public interest in the restriction outweighs the public interest in openness. These "restriction notices" and "restriction orders" are published. Breaching one can be a contempt. Always check the inquiry's restriction orders and any anonymity rulings before publishing witness identities or restricted material.
What is a warning letter (Maxwellisation)?
Before an inquiry criticises a person in its report, that person is usually sent a confidential "warning letter" (often called Maxwellisation, after the Maxwell litigation) setting out the proposed criticism and giving them a chance to respond. These letters are confidential and their contents are not for publication. The process is one reason inquiry reports can take many months to finalise after hearings end.
Where do I get inquiry documents and transcripts?
Modern UK inquiries publish extensively on their own websites: daily hearing transcripts (often the same day), disclosed evidence and exhibits, witness statements, opening and closing submissions, and lists of core participants. Many also live-stream hearings (typically with a short delay) on YouTube. The inquiry website is your primary source — read the transcript against the exhibits rather than relying on live coverage alone.