The Inquiries Act 2005 allows for the Inquiry to be overseen by a panel rather than a single person. These can be experts who sit alongside the Chair. The current Chair, Sir John Mitting, has stated that for now he will sit alone (technically he is the ‘panel’).
The non-state core participants (NSCPs) have, however, persistently requested that the Chair selects a panel for all the evidential work (see under Criticisms of the Inquiry for details). They maintained a number of concerns and consider a panel as the appropriate way to address them. Comparisons are also drawn with the Macpherson Inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence which drew on panel members to make highly important findings of institutional racism within the Metropolitan Police.
However, to date, the Inquiry Chair has refused the NSCPs’ requests, saying it was unnecessary and would also further delay the Inquiry.
The Inquiry website itself notes:
Why is there a single Chairman rather than a panel?
This Inquiry is reading and reviewing tens of thousands of documents and will receive and consider the evidence of at least 250 police witnesses and the civilian witnesses who were affected by their deployments.
The appointment of members to a panel to sift through this in addition to the Chairman would impose a heavy cost in both time and money. It would result in further delays that would be unacceptable to all involved.
However, once the facts have been determined after modules one and two, the Chairman considers that it would be both practicable and desirable for a diverse panel to be recruited to consider the current state of undercover policing and to make recommendations to the Home Secretary for the future.
Initially he had indicated he was likely and he is likely to bring on a panel for the Module 3 hearings, but not before then. However, in August 2024 he announced this would not be happening and he would be continuing to sit alone for the rest of the Inquiry’s lifetime. He argued that the now tight time scales make it no longer practicable, and also
In addition, the inquiry so far conducted into past events leads me to believe that the lessons to be drawn from the history of long-term undercover policing are likely to be largely self- evident. The appointment of panel members would be unlikely to add anything material to the conclusions to be drawn.
The arrangements for overseeing undercover policing deployments are now very different from those which obtained in the past. An examination of current practice, in particular in the Metropolitan Police Service and the National Police Chiefs Council, and consultation about it with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and other oversight bodies, should permit such recommendations for the future as may be required to be made by me alone.