Analysis: Public inquiries are often the only remedy and recourse for victims of large-scale injustices like the 1998 Omagh bombing
By Sarah-Jane Coyle, Queen's University Belfast
With the public inquiry into the 1998 Omagh bombing underway again and already making news headlines, it raises the question: what exactly are public inquiries and what effect do they have? Public inquiries like this are set up to look into a matter of deep concern or institutional failure.
There are broadly two types of public inquiry in the UK and Ireland. Statutory inquiries are established with the authority of the Inquiries Act 2005 (UK) and the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013. The less common "non-statutory inquiries" include independent departmental reviews and independent panels. Inquests can be converted into statutory inquiries using the legislation.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland, RTÉ's Northern Correspondent, Conor Macauley reports on the resumption of the oublic inquiry into the Omagh bombing
They are based on the basic principle of accountability – asking corporate or institutional powers questions (which are identified in the terms of reference of the inquiry) to establish facts – and aim to arrive at an objective truth. They are independent from both parliament and the judiciary although the inquiry's chair is selected by the minister who initiated the inquiry, and is often a judge or former judge.
Public inquiries may look at failures in policing (for example, the 1998 inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence) government (the UK government's handling of the Covid-19 crisis) or health (the infected blood inquiry). In 2009, there was even an inquiry into public inquiries which eventually called for a major overhaul of the way public inquiries are set up and conducted.
Public tribunals of inquiry are a staple of UK and Irish life, but are non-existent elsewhere in Europe. This difference between common law legal systems (which rely heavily on judge-made case law) and civil law legal systems (based on codified law) was highlighted by the glaring absence of any public tribunal of inquiry into the 2015 terrorist attacks in France (in contrast to the investigation into the 7/7 bombings in London in 2005).
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's News At One, survivor tells inquiry that the of Omagh bomb 'forever etched in us'
This may suggest a culture of openness. After all, the term "public inquiry" suggests not only that the inquiry should be for the benefit of the public, but that it should take place in front of the public, fostering a sense of open justice. For this reason, it is now commonplace to find public inquiries livestreamed. This is the case with the Omagh bombing inquiry, which was established by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in February 2024, to investigate whether the real IRA bombing in Omagh on August 15th 1998, in which 29 people and two unborn children were killed, could reasonably have been prevented by UK state authorities.
Indeed, for many witnesses, the true value in participating in public inquiries comes from the chance to be able to share their stories and where relevant, remember victims. The Saville Inquiry, which was established in 1998 to re-examine the events in which 13 people were killed on Bloody Sunday in 1972 demonstrated that listening to all sides of the story is essential to reinstating public trust in the state. In this case, trust had been broken by an earlier 1972 inquiry (the Widgery Tribunal) that had whitewashed events.
Whilst crimes and atrocities may also result in subsequent criminal and/or civil trials, such an adversarial process (which pits one or more parties against each other and results in a winner and loser) is markedly different from the inquisitorial nature of the inquiry which aims only to find out what happened and is therefore more inclusive.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland, calls for public inquiry into CHI amid spinal springs report
Yet this does not mean that public inquiries are above criticism. Ultimately, all a public inquiry can do is provide findings and recommendations to try to prevent what has gone wrong from happening again. Whilst there are instances of this leading to meaningful change – the press regulations introduced into UK law following the Levenson Inquiry into illegal phone-hacking and the prosecution of Solider F which arguably came as a result of the Bloody Sunday Saville Inquiry, for example – recommendations have no legal effect and are non-binding, and therefore cannot automatically become law.
It is no wonder then that many critics view their exorbitant expense, bureaucracy and time frame to be a waste of resources. The maxim 'justice delayed is justice denied' springs to mind and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that decade-long inquiries are prone to raising expectations that can never be fulfilled. There is also a view that public inquiries are in fact complicit in obfuscating free speech for long periods, insofar that anything that is the subject of an ongoing inquiry is off limits for journalists interviewing politicians.
For many, sharing their views and feelings about what are often deeply traumatic events in a public forum enacts a sort of personal justice
Despite this, it is important to remember that public inquiries are often the only remedy and recourse for victims of large-scale injustices, and frequently deal with issues affecting the most marginalised and vulnerable people in society. Criticisms must be judged in the context of an accurate understanding of their role and function.
Whether or not public inquiries achieve "justice" depends on our often permeable concept of what justice is. For many, having the opportunity to share their views and feelings about what are often deeply traumatic events in a public forum enacts a sort of personal justice that will hopefully flow into political change. Certainly, at the most basic level, public inquiries assuage the pervasive sense that 'something must be done' in the wake of unimaginable tragedy.
Follow RTÉ Brainstorm on WhatsApp and Instagram for more stories and updates
Sarah-Jane Coyle is a PhD candidate at the School of Arts, English and Languages at Queen's University Belfast and a tutor in Criminal Law at QUB School of Law. Her current research receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council via the Northern Bridge Consortium.
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ
