Evidential Hearings

An evidential hearing is one where witnesses provide live testimony and evidence before the Inquiry Chair and those permitted to view it. Most of the questioning is done by the Counsel to the Inquiry. Hearings in this kind of public inquiry are ‘inquisitorial’ rather than ‘adversarial’. This means they do not proceed as might be expected in other judicial proceedings, where both sides put across their positions and the judge or jury is left to decide who is right – the adversarial approach. 

The emphasis in public inquiries is that all sides are there to assist the Inquiry Chair in making findings in order to compile the final report. This is why Counsel to the Inquiry takes the lead on questions, and the power of other barristers to cross-examine is much more limited. The truthfulness of the evidence of witnesses is thus treated differently by the Chair, and there are fewer powers to impose consequences where the Inquiry makes findings of fact. 

In reality, the positions taken by the various parties are often in opposition to each other. But in the Undercover Policing Inquiry, because the Chair, Sir John Mitting, has decided to considerably restrict the ability to cross-examine, there is little exploration of this, except in exceptional cases such as when a sexual relationship took place. For more, see under Cross-Examination.

The Conduct of Evidence Hearings preliminary issue considered how the evidential phase of the Inquiry would work, and saw a number of rulings and issues determined by the Inquiry Chair. 

The evidential hearings have been divided up roughly according to the Tranche system.