The future public inquiry into COVID-19
Legal 500 UK 2021
Our team is consistently recognised for its public inquiry expertise, with over twenty five years of experience representing individuals, public figures and organisations in all major inquiries.
A public inquiry is set up to address significant public concern about major events in order to learn the facts of what happened, as well as lessons for the future. They are high profile, emotionally charged and the focus of intense media scrutiny. Appearing before one can be a daunting experience, whether you are an individual, senior professional, public official, major corporation or public sector body.
You may be asked by the inquiry to provide evidence as a witness. You may also apply to be designated a core participant if you played a direct and significant role in the events under investigation, you have a significant interest in the events, or if you face potential criticism when the inquiry publishes its final report. Being a core participant may mean that you face greater scrutiny, but you will have the advantage of being able to access the inquiry’s evidence and engaging fully in the hearings.
We understand that you will have wider interests at stake, be they reputational, professional, commercial or financial, and we can carefully help you chart a course which focuses on those concerns, alongside the immediate demands of the inquiry.
We will work very closely with you to gain complete insight into your situation from the outset. The breadth of our expertise means that you can be confident that your interests are taken care of; from initial contact with the inquiry and assisting you prepare your evidence to ensuring you are ready to appear at a hearing, as well as taking care of your reputation management needs throughout.
Led by Adam Chapman, Stephen Parkinson, Emily Carter and Sophie Kemp, our expertise in public inquiries extends across the firm and includes members of our dispute resolution, clinical negligence, and criminal litigation teams, allowing us to resource a substantial and truly experienced public inquiry team.
Our public inquiry solicitors have acted, in particular representing core participants and key witnesses, in many of the major inquiries of our recent years. Currently, we are acting for clients in the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, the Undercover Policing Inquiry and The Renewable Heat Incentive Inquiry (Northern Ireland).
A Government minister may establish a statutory public inquiry following events of public concern. A non-statutory inquiry may be established by any individual or organisation, but will not have the powers available to a statutory inquiry.
The actual circumstances leading to a public inquiry being established are varied, but often these will involve significant failures in systems and services which cannot or have not been reviewed or resolved through existing processes. Terms of reference will be drafted setting out the ambit of the Inquiry’s investigation. A Chair, and sometimes a panel, will be appointed, along with administrative and legal support.
A statutory public inquiry has a range of powers available to it, including compelling individuals or organisations to provide documents and other evidence (including in the form of a witness statement) to the inquiry, as well as attending the hearing to provide oral evidence. It is a criminal offence not to comply with a statutory notice from the Inquiry or to otherwise distort, supress, conceal, alter, destroy evidence, or otherwise prevent relevant evidence from being given.
A report will be published at the conclusion of a public inquiry setting out the summary of the Inquiry’s factual findings based on the evidence gathered during the course of the investigation. The published report will also include a set of recommendations. These have no binding force and the extent to which they will be subsequently implemented will depend on a number of factors. Interim report(s) may also be published at appropriate intervals.
If any individual or organisation is to be criticised in the inquiry proceedings or any report, they are usually informed prior to the criticism being made public. When drafting the report, individuals and organisations are given an opportunity to make representations concerning any proposed criticisms of them. An inquiry does not have powers to determine the civil or criminal liability of any individual or organisation.
The Chair of a statutory public inquiry must ensure that members of the public and the press can attend (or otherwise view) the hearings, and access documents and a record of oral evidence provided to the Inquiry. In practice, most public inquiries will have a comprehensive website upon which relevant documentary evidence will be published, along with links to live video footage of the oral evidence given during hearings. The final and interim reports will also be published.
In a statutory public inquiry, restrictions may be imposed upon attendance by the public to inquiry hearings or publication of documents or evidence in very narrow circumstances where publication may cause harm or damage.
Extensive experience of high-profile public inquiries."
Legal 500 UK, 2019
Experience, willingness to challenge and be challenged, understanding of legislation, regulations and drafting skills."
Chambers UK, A Client's Guide to the UK Legal Profession, 2018
Sources praise the group's abilities in 'sensitive, high-profile, politically inflected work' and attest that 'what is really refreshing is their commitment to their clients and the care they take'..."
Chambers UK, A Clients Guide to the UK Legal Profession
Clients are ‘very impressed with the degree of care’ Kingsley Napley LLP has in handling judicial reviews, public inquiries, inquests and regulatory matters."
Legal 500 UK 2017
A real diversity of work. They benefit from experience acting for individuals, companies and public bodies, which gives them a depth and gravitas that sets them apart. Also, they are very friendly and down to earth individuals."
Chambers UK, A Clients Guide to the UK Legal Profession, 2017
Partner and Head of Department
Knowledgeable, responsive, thoughtful, professional, well networked and well connected, with a touch of elegance which goes beyond what one normally encounters in a legal firm.”
Legal 500 UK 2021
They are outstanding; they combine high-level legal skills with real human understanding."
Chambers UK 2021
The team is small but packs a punch well above its size: they are quick, flexible, continuously on the ball and efficient.”
Legal 500 UK 2021
In light of the announcement that an independent inquiry into the Government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic will begin in spring 2022, Kingsley Napley hosted a webinar last week on the theme of Preparing for Public Inquiries in conjunction with Blackstone Chambers and FTI Consulting. For anyone who missed this event, a recording is available here (LINK) and we have also prepared the summary below.
The General Data Protection Regulation (known to everyone as the GDPR) is probably the most famous piece of legislation to come from the EU. It was and is incredibly ambitious in its scope, and shapes the way we engage with organisations both online and in the real world. When the UK formally withdrew from the EU, GDPR became retained EU law and continued to apply as before. The government have recently announced that they want to reform data protection legislation, but substantial deregulation might be an unrealistic ambition.
The Administrative Court of England & Wales has recently considered a challenge to its jurisdiction to hear a judicial review claim on the basis (asserted by the defendant) that the claim should be heard at the Court of Session in Scotland. As explained below, the challenge was unsuccessful, but the case is interesting not just because of the Court’s conclusion on the substantive issue but also because of His Honour Judge Simon’s approach to the “technical” (procedural) issues the case gave rise to.
Earlier this year, changes to Practice Direction 54A (covering judicial review) and 54B (covering urgent applications) came into effect. This blog will consider the impact that the changes have had on the procedure for judicial review, before turning to a recent example of the perils of failing to follow the rules.
The Judicial Review and Courts Bill contains a new ‘ouster clause’ designed to prevent judicial review of the Upper Tribunal’s decisions on certain applications for permission to appeal against decisions of the First-Tier Tribunal. This blog explores why drafting legislation to restrict judicial review is so difficult.
R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 37 and R (BF (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 38
Two linked Supreme Court judgments provide a reminder to claimants that challenges to policies should focus on whether the policies authorise or approve violations of the law. The court acknowledges that policies are issued to promote practical objectives and the standards set for reviewing them must not be unduly demanding.
The Supreme Court has, unusually, recently heard, and now delivered judgment on, an appeal concerning costs in statutory appeal and judicial review cases. It is unusual for costs issues to be considered significant enough to merit consideration by the Supreme Court and, not least given the outcome of the appeal – and of course it is easy to be wise after the event – it is something of a surprise that permission to appeal was granted in the first place.
To meet widespread concern about vulnerable workers and working conditions in industries including agriculture, fashion, food and waste disposal, last month (June 2021) the government set up a new watchdog to take over responsibility for tackling modern slavery, enforcing the minimum wage and protecting agency workers.
A Data Subject Access Request, or DSAR, is any request made by an individual for their own personal data. While they are quick and easy for an individual to make, many long hours and significant resources from your organisation will be needed in order to properly respond.
Long awaited reforms to judicial review were revealed yesterday by Robert Buckland in his Judicial Review and Courts Bill. Thankfully the proposals to suspend quashing orders and limit their retrospective effect retain all-important judicial discretion and, at face value, are milder than feared. However, the decision to exclude the review of Upper Tribunal permission-to-appeal decisions (so called “Cart JRs”) is more troubling, marking the return of ouster clauses and possibly setting the groundwork for the removal of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court in future legislation.
Over the past few weeks there has been a steady stream of disturbing stories alleging sexual harassment and sexual abuse of children attending a variety of schools across the country, not just incidents involving children and adults but in many cases peer-on-peer abuse.
The SRA introduced a new assessment and early resolution process focusing on upfront engagement and delivering, where possible, earlier outcomes on concerns reported to it. Additionally, in February 2019, the SRA introduced a revised Enforcement Strategy, setting out its approach to enforcement and the factors it will take into account when considering whether regulatory action is needed.
On 18 March 2021 the government published the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) and began a public consultation on reforms to judicial review. This blog provides some initial thoughts on these important developments. For background on the IRAL see our introductory blog here.
The COVID-19 crisis has forced sports clubs, schools, universities and charities to rapidly change their approaches to coaching, teaching and support work. The regulations on social distancing have forced organisations to innovate; services which had previously been offered mostly or wholly in person were rapidly shifted online during “lockdown 1” and will return online at least for the duration of “lockdown 3”. If the vaccine rollout has the desired effect there will no doubt be some return to “traditional” methods, but it seems very unlikely that the changes brought about by the pandemic will be completely reversed. In this blog, Claire Parry from Kingsley Napley’s Regulatory team and Fred Allen from the Public Law team look at the challenges organisations face engaging with children online.
This morning (12 February 2021) the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in Okpabi & others v Royal Dutch Shell (“Okpabi”), a case concerning mass oil pollution in the Niger Delta. Judgment is in favour of the claimants, communities representing over 40,000 affected citizens of Nigeria, whose claim against oil conglomerate Shell and its Nigerian subsidiary can now be heard in the English courts.
Globally, a trend is taking shape towards legislation that asks more from businesses than the reporting obligations of the UK’s Modern Slavery Act, in the area of business and human rights.
The government has now approved the supply of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The reason they have been able to do this so quickly is because they have taken advantage of the temporary authorisation regime laid out by the Human Medicine Regulations of 2012 and 2020. The 2012 Regulations were updated in 2020 specifically to facilitate the smooth rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine. In the public consultation preceding the introduction of these updated regulations, several respondents raised concerns regarding unlicensed vaccines and immunity from civil liability. In practice, very little is known about these regulations and their application. This article seeks to shed some light on the temporary authorisation regime and suggest a means of alleviating concerns in the context of “vaccine hesitancy”.
The Internal Market Bill (the “Bill”) has caused a dramatic fallout at home and abroad. It has faced massive defeats in the House of Lords over the month on November. It was the reported reason behind the UK’s most senior legal civil servant announcing his departure from the Government Legal Service.
As the end of the Brexit transition period draws near, complexities associated with navigating cross-border regulatory regimes have been increasingly brought to the fore. The Law Society of Ireland’s announcement last week, confirming a ‘physical presence’ requirement for solicitors intending to practise in Ireland, has highlighted wider post-Brexit issues surrounding residency requirements and recognition of qualifications for regulated professionals on the British/Irish border.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility