Blog
Rayner my parade! The importance of specialist advice.
Jemma Brimblecombe
A medical device company discovers that one of their devices is going to be the subject of a public inquiry. The device received regulatory approval but its use has resulted in medical complications for patients. The company’s view is that much of these complications were the result of improper training of practitioners in connection with the device and it being used incorrectly and in inappropriate situations. The company have no experience of inquiries and are concerned that negative findings could have a serious impact on their reputation and business.
How much will a public inquiry cost? How long will a public inquiry take?
Kingsley Napley consider the terms of reference for the public inquiry and advise on the timeline of an inquiry, the process, and what resources the company will need to make available to participate in the inquiry. An inquiry like this with limited scope may be able to report in less than a year. If there are a significant number of victims whose views are being heard it may take longer. The company would need to be fully engaged throughout.
Resources that the company would need to make available could include:
- Legal representation in the inquiry and in respect of other related proceedings;
- In-house resource at the company to deal with requests from the inquiry;
- Communications professionals;
- Electronic evidence consultants to assist with evidence requests.
The outlay may be significant but this has to be measured against the damage that would be done to the company’s standing and its future business if an adverse finding was made.
Should I apply for core participant status in a public inquiry?
Kingsley Napley advise on the pros and cons of core participant status. Ultimately it is decided that it is in the company’s best interests to apply for core participant status. Kingsley Napley prepare and submit the application for core participant status on the basis that the company has a significant interest in the events being considered, and could face potential criticism when the inquiry publishes its final report. The application is granted by the inquiry’s chair.
What information has to be disclosed to a public inquiry?
Kingsley Napley advise on how to deal with information requests from the inquiry taking into account data protection considerations and any other restrictions on disclosure. Electronic evidence consultants are engaged as required. Throughout the evidence gathering process Kingsley Napley consider with the company whether any information should be pro-actively disclosed to the inquiry to assist them in their understanding of the matter.
Who will be asked to give a witness statement to a public inquiry?
Kingsley Napley take instructions from the company and liaise with the inquiry to identify potential witnesses for the inquiry. Kingsley Napley provide dedicated support to the witnesses asked to prepare statements. A senior executive of the company has given witness statements on the company’s behalf before but is unfamiliar with the details of the device under scrutiny. An employee from the research and development division is very familiar with the facts surrounding the device’s development but has never prepared a witness statement before. Support from Kingsley Napley is tailored to individual witnesses.
What information will be disclosed by a public inquiry?
The inquiry discloses to core participants documentation received from the company, other core participants, and other evidence providers. Kingsley Napley review and summarise this documentation for the company, identifying any material that alters the company’s understanding of what has unfolded.
Who will be asked to give evidence to a public inquiry?
When the inquiry identifies the witnesses from which it wishes to receive oral evidence Kingsley Napley offers tailored support to those witnesses. When the timetable for the hearing is published Kingsley Napley advise on issues to raise with key witnesses that are likely to discuss the company’s approach to the medical device.
Will I be criticised by a public inquiry?
Kingsley Napley identify criticisms of the company made by other core participants in the inquiry during the hearing. The inquiry prepare a list of criticisms it is minded to make of the company following the hearing and share this with the company and Kingsley Napley on a confidential basis. Kingsley Napley prepare with the company representations in respect of criticisms and potential criticisms.
Will I get to see the report of a public inquiry in advance of its publication?
Kingsley Napley agree the strategy for report publication in advance of its publication date. The inquiry are only willing to circulate an embargoed report two hours prior to publication. Kingsley Napley liaise as appropriate with communications professionals appointed by the company regarding the publication of the report.
What happens after a public inquiry report is published?
Kingsley Napley liaise with the company to assist them with updates to the inquiry in connection with the recommendations made in the inquiry’s report.
*This is a fictitious case study prepared based on Kingsley Napley’s extensive experience of working with businesses and institutions in respect of public inquiries.
Latest blogs and news
Tech-Driven, Ethically Bound: New FRC and ICAEW Guidance on AI Use in the Accountancy Sector
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and digital tools are rapidly transforming the accountancy sector with promises of enhanced efficiency, insight and audit quality. Embracing this innovation wave however, does not come without risk, and regulators are increasingly alert to the ethical implications. The FRC has very recently issued new guidance on the use of AI in audit, coinciding with the ICAEW’s new technology-centred revisions to its Code of Ethics, which came into force on 1 July 2025. Responsible and ethical use of AI is now therefore no longer optional, but a regulatory expectation.
Statutory interpretation and “wild camping”: Supreme Court upholds the right to wild camp on the Dartmoor Commons
In Darwall and another v Dartmoor National Park Authority [2025] UKSC 20 (21 May 2025), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the public’s right to “wild camp” on the Dartmoor Commons (“the Commons”). Although the judgment only concerns Dartmoor, which is subject to specific legislation, it has rekindled a wider debate about public rights of access to nature across England and Wales.
‘Freedom of Speech in Parliament’
Freedom of speech in Parliament is a key element of parliamentary privilege, protecting MPs and Lords from legal consequences for what they say in debates.
Recognising and Responding to Early Warning Signs in the Public Sector
The Committee on Standards in Public Life, an independent body which advises the Prime Minister on arrangements for upholding ethical standards of conduct, has marked its 30th anniversary by issuing a report relating to the need for better recognition by public sector bodies of early warning signs.
Are we ruled by lawyers or politicians?
The success or failure of a Government seldom turns on a legal principle, but there is a question as to whether this could happen in the case of this Labour Government. Why? Because the Prime Minister and the Attorney General, both eminent lawyers, have drawn a line in the sand with their absolute commitment to compliance with the ‘rule of law’.
Reform of Public Inquiries: an update on the Government's initial response
Following on from Kingsley Napley’s event in January which discussed the recent House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee’s report, the Government has now published its eagerly-awaited response.
AI Battles and Five other Public Law Developments to Look Out for in 2025
Hardly a day goes by without Artificial Intelligence dominating the headlines. Much ink has been spilled about the deployment of AI and algorithmic decision-making tools by the state. As programmes continue to be rolled out, it seems inevitable that some will start to be rolled back as a result of legal challenges. Concerns have already been raised about tools being used in immigration investigations and decision-making, the criminal justice system, and the welfare system.
Case Summary: R (Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch Council) -v- Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2025] EWHC 224 (Admin)
This case concerned the lawfulness of mandatory extra charges levied by private nurseries on parents accessing free childcare through the government’s Free Early Education Entitlement (“FEEE”) scheme.
Making Public Inquiries Work - with Joshua Rozenberg and Baroness Sanderson
Last night, Kingsley Napley welcomed Joshua Rozenberg to its offices to chair an expert panel to discuss a highly topical issue: “Making Public Inquiries Work”. It was a fascinating event which underlined the need for reform, innovation, and fresh thinking to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public inquiries.
Alternative remedies in judicial review: the case of Re McAleenon [2024] UKSC 31
In October, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous judgment providing guidance on the approach to be taken where a regulator who is subject to judicial review proceedings contends that the claim should be dismissed due to an “alternative suitable remedy”.
Is reform of public inquiries now on the horizon?
On 16 September 2024 the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee (“the Committee”) published its report looking into the efficacy of the law and practice relating to statutory public inquiries held under the Inquiries Act 2005. The Committee, with Lord Norton of Louth as its chair, conducted oral sessions and considered written evidence from a selection of individuals and organisations including academics, experts, government officials, former Ministers, former inquiry chairs, secretaries, solicitors, barristers, representatives from campaign organisations and other interest groups.
The politics of public inquiries
Statutory public inquiries have strong legal powers to compel witnesses to participate. How these are exercised depends on the circumstances and reflects the reality that public inquiries are part of the political process rather than the legal process, or a hybrid of the two.
The energy transition - Labour unpick the past and outline their policy vision
Labour have hit the ground running on energy policy issues with several significant announcements in the days after coming into power. Ahead of the Kings Speech tomorrow (17 July), we look at the key developments in the last two weeks and what we might see going forward.
Where next for sentencing policy?
Lord Carter of Haslemere writes about Labour’s proposed review of sentencing and why this may be one possible solution to our prisons overcrowding problem.
Supreme Court clarifies the law on 'downstream' emissions and Environmental Impact Assessments
A year on from hearing a ground-breaking challenge concerning the duty on planning authorities to consider “downstream” emissions when deciding planning applications, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in R(Finch) v Surrey County Council and ors [2024] UKSC 20 on Thursday morning (20 June 2024).
Identity matters
In his leading judgment in Secretary of State for the Home Department and another v R (on the application of IAB & others) [2024] EWCA Civ 66, [2024]All ER (D) 128 (Mar), Lord Justice Bean
branded the government’s routine practice of redacting civil servants’ names from documents for disclosure in judicial review proceedings ‘inimical to open government and unsupported by authority’.
The Rwanda Act: a constitutional crisis?
We are in unprecedented territory, writes Lord (Harry) Carter of Haslemere. So what will our courts do next?
Landmark ECtHR judgment turns the dial on climate change litigation
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has delivered its much-awaited judgments in three high-profile climate change cases.
A Plethora of Public Inquiries
This article was first published by New Law Journal on 4th August.
Legislating badly?
Measures introduced in the Queen’s Speech risk fuelling legislative bad habits.