Giving Evidence to Public Inquiries

Wed 23 Oct 2024

By Charles Lister

Giving Evidence to Public Inquiries

Public inquiries are increasingly a feature in public life. To quote the Institute for Government “Inquiries have become the main vehicle for investigating some of the most tragic, complex and controversial issues in society: from one-off events such as the Grenfell Tower fire, to broader issues of serious public concern, as in the case of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse which reported in October 2022”.   

Among major areas of public interest, the Infected Blood Inquiry reported in May 2024 and the Inquiries into the UK’s handling of the Covid 19 pandemic and the Post Office IT Horizon scandal are still underway. 

So how should you prepare if you are called to be a witness in a public inquiry? And, if you’re working in government what does the possibility of the public inquiry of the future mean for the way in which you record decision making? Here are some top tips based on my recent experience of giving evidence. 

Advice on Written Evidence 

  • Take full advantage of legal advice if offered, including help with producing written evidence. Careful preparation is essential
  • Be factual but distinguish between personal memory and what you can infer from reviewing documents 
  • Be reflective but be clear when you are speaking with the benefit of hindsight
  • Don’t be afraid to be self-critical when justified
  • Consider how much detail to include. There are pros and cons to shorter versus longer written evidence. For example, detailed written evidence can help you answer questions at oral hearings by drawing Counsel’s attention to relevant paragraphs. The downside can be that the Counsel or Chair may pick on a particular detail and make too much of it. 

Advice on Oral Evidence 

  • Adopt a tone of sombre reflection. Listen to the questions. Answer them honestly and directly. Stop and wait for the next question. Focus carefully on the use of language. Don’t be too discursive. Don’t use too much jargon. Avoid rabbiting on
  • Provide context where appropriate – ensure the Inquiry understands what was going on at the time
  • Distinguish between what you recall from the time and ‘memory’ with the benefit of hindsight
  • Ask to see the relevant documents or ask to be taken to a para in your statement (but don’t overdo the latter).  You can say things like “Can I have the section of my statement on screen where I said that…….”
  • Choose when to make eye contact with the Chair on key points
  • Don’t answer a question if you haven’t understood it/didn’t hear it.  If so, say so
  • Don’t answer above your pay grade.   You may sometimes need to explain the hierarchy within your organisation or how decisions were made. 
  • Don’t guess, make it up, or speculate.  Don’t be tempted to fill in the gaps.   You can say things like:  “Based on the documents, I think it is likely that…….”.  “I don’t specifically recall and the documents don’t make it clear, but a fair inference is……”.  "I’m really sorry, I don’t remember, I’d be speculating”.  You can also answer based on your usual ways of working. Be firm about things that never/can’t have happened
  • Don’t let Counsel or the Chair put words in your mouth.  The questions are not evidence. If you don’t entirely agree, reframe the question in your own words or give caveats. “I wouldn’t quite put it that way”. Only agree if you agree. Be aware that as the day goes on, you’ll become tired, so may be more tempted to agree with statements put to you.

Advice on Record Keeping 

Public Inquiries rely heavily on written evidence and the testimony of those involved. This can sometimes be evidence going back decades.  Everyone who has given evidence to a public inquiry must have been confronted with gaps in the evidence and the pressure to rely on memory. 

To take one recent example, Meg Hillier, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, has described record keeping on the purchase of PPE as “a dog’s breakfast”, making it difficult to know what happened.    

That is why good audit trails in policymaking are essential – giving clarity on why decisions were taken, by who, on what evidence, key considerations etc.  This transparency is key to understanding often complex events and is essential if public inquiries are to achieve their goal of responding to public concerns about events and learning lessons for the future. 

Charles Lister gave evidence to the Infected Bloods Inquiry both as Head of Blood Policy at the Department of Health from 1998 to 2003 and as Deputy Chair of the charity set up by the Government in 2011 to give discretionary financial support to people infected with hepatitis C through contaminated blood.  He also gave evidence to the BSE Inquiry in 1999.

If you are looking for training on how to present in front of a public inquiry, Dods Training offers a workshop. For more information get in touch.

View all news