Inquiries Act 2005
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Inquiries Act 2005 came into effect in the United Kingdom on June 7, 2005. According to the British government, the Act "is designed to provide a framework under which future inquiries, set up by Ministers into events that have caused or have potential to cause public concern, can operate effectively to deliver valuable and practicable recommendations in reasonable time and at a reasonable cost." [1]. The British parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights has voiced concerns about certain aspects of the Act [2], as have the Law Society of England and Wales.
Amnesty International has asked members of the British judiciary not to serve on any inquiry held under the Act, as they contend that "any inquiry would be controlled by the executive which is empowered to block public scrutiny of state actions." [3]
The family of Pat Finucane, a solicitor killed by loyalist paramilitaries in Belfast in suspicious circumstances, have announced they will not be co-operating with a forthcoming inquiry into the events surrounding his death if it is held under the terms of the Act.
The Canadian Judge Peter Cory, who was commissioned by the British and Irish governments to investigate the possibility of state collusion in six high-profile murders, is also a critic. He recommended public inquries into four of the killings, but has strongly condemned the legislation that quickly followed. In a letter read at a hearing of the United States Congress sub-committee on Global Human Rights while the legislation was pending, Cory stated "it seems to me that the proposed new Act would make a meaningful inquiry impossible. The Commissions would be working in an impossible situation. For example, the Minister, the actions of whose ministry was to be reviewed by the public inquiry would have the authority to thwart the efforts of the inquiry at every step. It really creates an intolerable Alice in Wonderland situation. There have been references in the press to an international judicial membership in the inquiry. If the new Act were to become law, I would advise all Canadian judges to decline an appointment in light of the impossible situation they would be facing. In fact, I cannot contemplate any self-respecting Canadian judge accepting an appointment to an inquiry constituted under the new proposed Act". The chairman of the hearing, Congressman Chris Smith declared that "the bill pending before the British parliament should be named the 'Public Inquiries Cover-up Bill.'"

