THE EVER-POPULAR USE of members of the higher judici­ary (either alone, or with assessors) to conduct public inquir­ies into major social scandals or serious human disasters remains fashionable, even if it is labelled euphemistically as a ‘quasi-judicial forum’.

Governments are still inclined to employ judge-led inquiries, despite a professional debate about their utility following legislation in 2005 and the formidable lecture delivered in Jerusalem in 2004 by Lord Justice Beatson.¹ He alluded to the fact that appointments of senior judges should be made sparingly, and that judges should be hermetically sealed off from inquiries that were politically sensitive, or which might be susceptible to hostile criticism regarding the independence of the judiciary.

Ministers should heed the warning against an urge to respond too readily to the popular clamour for a ‘judicial inquiry’. The report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Inquiries Act 2005 in March 2014,^{[34] [35]} however hesitantly, endorsed the popularity of judge-led inquiries. The early effect of legislative action is a distinct move towards treating investigation under the Inquiries Act 2005 as an endorsement of the public inquiry as an emanation of ministerial power by a Commission of Inquiry, rather than as an outcrop of legal proceedings. Is the inquiry rather an act of public administra­tion?

More on the topic THE EVER-POPULAR USE of members of the higher judici­ary (either alone, or with assessors) to conduct public inquir­ies into major social scandals or serious human disasters remains fashionable, even if it is labelled euphemistically as a ‘quasi-judicial forum’.: