Constitutional

Public inquiry - Secretary of State ordering public inquiry to be held in private - legal presumption that inquiry to be held in public R v Secretary of State for Health, Ex parte Wagstaff and R v Secretary of State for Health, Ex parte Associated Newspapers Ltd: DC (Kennedy LJ and Jackson J): 21 July 2000

In the first case the applicants were the families and friends of victims murdered by their doctor.

In the second case the applicants were representatives from media organisations.

The Secretary of State decided that an inquiry into issues which had arisen following the conviction of the doctor should be held in private.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision.

Augustus Ullstein QC and Nicholas Bowen (instructed by Alexander Harris, Altrincham) for the applicants.

Desmond Browne QC and Matthew Nicklin (instructed by Swepstone Walsh) for Associated Newspapers Ltd.

David Elvin QC and James Maurici (instructed by the Office of the Solicitor, Department of Health) for the Secretary of State for Health.

Richard Gordon QC and Louis Browne (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the chairman of the inquiry.

Held, granting the application, that the persuasive reasons for holding a public inquiry were the fact that when a major disaster occurred, involving the loss of many lives, it had often been considered appropriate to hold a full public inquiry; that there were positive known advantages to be gained from taking evidence in public - witnesses were less likely to exaggerate or attempt to pass on responsibility, information became available as a result of others reading or hearing what the witnesses had said, there was a perception of open dealing which helped to restore confidence, there was no significant risk of leaks leading to distorted reporting and there was no obvious body of opinion in favour of evidence being given behind closed doors; that given an inquisitorial procedure and firm chairmanship, there was no reason why the inquiry should take longer if evidence were taken in public, nor was their any tangible reason to conclude that any significant evidence would be lost; that where an inquiry purported to be a public inquiry, as opposed to an internal domestic inquiry, there was now in law what really amounted to a presumption that it would proceed in public unless there were persuasive reasons for taking some other course; that although article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights was not yet incorporated into English law it did no more than give expression to existing law as to the right to receive and impart information; that if the inquiry were conducted in public, then the report which it produced and the recommendations which it made would command greater public confidence; and that, accordingly, the decision to hold the inquiry in private was irrational.