Addendum – So now we have it; Thirlwall Inquiry not to be livestreamed

As the retrial of Lucy Letby on one of the ‘no verdicts’, Baby K, gets underway in Manchester, NHS Insider writes about their concerns about Lady Thirwall’s decision not to livestream the public inquiry due to get underway in September

Lady Thirlwall has now given her ruling that the Inquiry when it commences in September will not be livestreamed, despite representation from Counsels for the parents that it should be. Her reasons are set out in this ruling.

Not surprisingly, it follows the reasoning of the Inquiry’s lead Counsel, Ms Rachel Langdale KC, and echoes what one could sense at the Preliminary Hearing in May. It means that the letter of the Inquiries Act 2005 will be followed if not the spirit.  Section 18(1)(a) of the Act provides that, subject to any restriction under s19, “(the Chair) must take steps as she considers reasonable to ensure that members of the public (including reporters) are able – (a) to attend the inquiry or to see and hear a simultaneous transmission of the proceedings at the inquiry.” Relying on this provision of the Act, Lady Thirlwall has chosen to allow physical attendance at the Inquiry by members of the public but no ability to see the Inquiry livestreamed (even with a time delay to avoid any breaches of the Court orders still in play). A daily transcript of proceedings will also be available to members of the public. And thus the letter of the law is satisfied. But as pointed out by each Counsel for the parents, such an approach is hardly in keeping with that adopted by most of the very recent inquiries which have been livestreamed and often in the same challenging circumstances.

So for the likes of myself who has a public concern and wish for openness and transparency in public services, the only way I can witness the Inquiry in action is to attend in person at great expense to myself given the venue (which in reality means that I am now effectively excluded from attending) or rely on the daily transcript of proceedings which likely will be well in excess of one hundred pages. It cannot be the intention of the Inquiries Act to have the effect of excluding members of the public from attending a statutory public inquiry.

Rather quaintly, Lady Thirlwall repeats in her ruling the assertion that “the media are the eyes and ears of the public. Through careful observation and fair and accurate reporting those who are unable to attend hearings are informed as to the process, the submissions and the evidence, leading to greater public understanding.” This really is a worrying and insulting assertion given all we know about how some of the media operate. I, for one, am not encouraged by what I am seeing so far.