Inquests vs inquiries: understanding the differences and commonalities

When a tragedy occurs, such as an unexplained death or a catastrophic event that shakes public confidence, society often demands answers. Inquests and public inquiries are two key legal processes used to investigate such occurrences. 

However, while both play a crucial role in ensuring justice and transparency, they are distinct in their purpose, scope, and legal powers. Nevertheless, they do also share common goals in establishing facts and preventing future tragic events. In this article we explore the key differences and commonalities between inquests and public inquiries.

Inquests

An inquest is a public investigation conducted by a coroner into deaths that are violent, unnatural, or unexplained. It’s governed by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013, supported by the Chief Coroner’s Guidance. The main purpose of an inquest is to establish the identity of the deceased, and when, where, and how they died.

To achieve this, the inquest reviews documentary evidence, which could include the deceased’s medical records, police reports, internal policies and procedures of organisations involved, and, in workplace deaths, relevant workplace records. Witness testimony is also heard, for example, from family members, eyewitnesses, colleagues, police officers, and local authority or medical professionals involved in the deceased’s care.

In more complex cases, expert evidence may be required, especially when the cause of death involves medical complications. For example, a medical expert might provide insight into the deceased’s condition, explaining how it could have affected their life expectancy or contributed to their death, to assist in reaching an informed conclusion about how the death occurred. 
While an inquest can establish the manner of death, such as accidental or unlawful killing, it doesn’t seek to assign any responsibility or blame. Issues of liability are addressed separately in criminal or civil courts through additional legal proceedings.

An inquest that has received widespread media coverage in recent times is the Ruth Perry inquest. This investigated the death of a headteacher who tragically took her own life whist awaiting the publication of an Ofsted inspection report. You can read further about this inquest here.

Public inquiries

In contrast, a public inquiry is led by a chair appointed by the UK government, sometimes accompanied by a panel of individuals with relevant expertise. The purpose and scope of the inquiry are set by the government, chair, and panel in a terms of reference, often incorporating the concerns and questions of involved parties following a consultation period, including views from the public and organisations. 

Public inquiries can be either statutory or non-statutory. Statutory inquiries are governed by the Inquiries Act 2005 and the Inquiries Rules 2006, while non-statutory inquiries are not governed by specific legislation, giving them more freedom to define how they operate.

Inquiries are launched when an incident sparks widespread public concern, for example, a breakdown in law, miscarriages of justice, serious crimes, or events leading to a largescale loss of life. A recent example is the Grenfell Tower inquiry – an investigation into the tragic events 14 June of  2017 which led to the loss of 72 lives. You can read more about this inquiry here.

Public inquiries tend to have a much broader scope than inquests, examining a wider range of evidence. As well as examining relevant documentary evidence and witness testimony from those involved, an inquiry is more likely to consider:

• Input from subject-matter experts who provide technical, legal, or scientific analysis on specific aspects of the inquiry’s focus.
• Submissions from the public including accounts.
• Opinions or evidence from those affected by the issues under investigation and statistical or data-based evidence, such as reports, charts, and figures that help in understanding trends, risks, or operational aspects of the matter being investigated. 

This can lead to proceedings lasting several years. In addition, unlike inquests, public inquiries do have the authority to assign blame where applicable. However, whilst accountability can be suggested, an inquiry still cannot establish criminal or civil liability. 

Criminal proceedings

Where there is an inquest or inquiry into an event, there may be an associated criminal investigation and/or proceedings by the police or a regulatory body, such as the health and safety executive or the Care Quality Commission (CQC), running alongside. 

While inquests will sometimes be suspended pending the conclusion of regulatory investigations and criminal enforcement action, public inquiries, on the other hand, can run alongside criminal investigations but must take care not to interfere with them.

What are the commonalities between inquests and inquiries?

Despite their differences, inquests and public inquiries share important similarities. For example:

Both are designed to uncover the facts about tragic events and offer a transparent process for investigating what may have gone wrong.

• Both have procedures in place to grant certain parties special status within the respective processes, allowing them to have more active involvement in proceedings. These are known as ‘core participants’ in a public inquiry and  ‘interested persons’ in an inquest. Both categories recognise individuals or groups with a significant connection to the matter being investigated, such as the families of those affected or key organisations. This status allows them access to important evidence, the ability to question witnesses, and the opportunity to make representations. In both an inquest and a public inquiry, this ensures that those most affected by the event have a voice in the investigation, contributing to transparency and fairness. 
• While inquests are limited in scope, their findings can still lead to recommendations aimed at preventing future deaths. Similarly, public inquiries often result in extensive recommendations for policy or legal reforms. In both cases, the recommendations made are not legally binding, but they often place significant pressure on government bodies or institutions to implement changes.
• Both processes are public in nature, with hearings typically open to public scrutiny. This ensures a level of transparency and accountability that is essential in maintaining public trust in the justice system.
• Both are inquisitorial in nature not adversarial but this doesn’t mean that searching questions cannot be put to witnesses and the risk of self-incrimination for witnesses requires careful management.

Conclusion

Inquests and public inquiries serve as vital mechanisms for investigating incidents that raise public concern, each with its own distinct role in the justice system. While inquests focus on determining the facts surrounding an individual death without assigning blame, public inquiries delve deeper into the causes of broader failures, with the authority to hold individuals and organisations accountable. 

However, both processes share a commitment to transparency and fact-finding, and their ultimate aim is to prevent future tragedies through improved understanding and systemic change.

If you’re involved in an inquest or public inquiry and are seeking legal support, please get in touch with our regulatory team at Ashfords.