Questions mount as Sheku Bayoh inquiry left in disarray
Process behind chair’s resignation must come under scrutiny
It is nearly five years since the independent public inquiry into the death of Sheku Bayoh began in earnest, with the chair, Lord Bracadale, promising an investigation that would be “thorough and fearless.”
But just as the beginning of the end came into sight, the crucial search for answers surrounding the sudden and unexpected death of a young man who left behind two young children is in disarray.
The surprise resignation of Lord Bracadale amid ongoing questions about his impartiality will have significant repercussions, the most immediate of which is the prospect of further delays to its final report.
It will take time for justice secretary Angela Constance to appoint a replacement for the former High Court judge. When Lady Poole stepped down from the Scottish Covid-19 inquiry, it took less than a month to find her successor.
Given the multi-faceted issues at play in the Bayoh inquiry, and the small scale of Scotland’s tight-knit legal community, there is no guarantee that such a swift process will be repeated this time around.
Having already concluded the process of gathering evidence, Lord Bracadale had been due to hear closing submissions before preparing his final report. The task facing the new chair is therefore a formidable one. They will have to take time to scrutinise the evidence collated across tapes and transcripts from across 122 days of hearings.
It seems inevitable that they will require additional time in order to familiarise themselves with such a tranche of material, meaning that the total bill for the inquiry - which has cost upwards of £26 million to date, with Police Scotland also spending around £25m - will continue to rise.
While the cost effectiveness of such inquiries is important - a Holyrood committee is currently looking at this very topic - the aftershocks of Lord Bracadale’s resignation extend beyond financial issues.
His decision comes just two months after he refused a request to step down following a formal recusal application from the Scottish Police Federation (SPF), which claimed Lord Bracadale’s private meetings with the family members of Mr Bayoh had “torpedoed” the independence of his role.
After a procedure and conduct hearing in June, Lord Bracadale determined in August that there was no apparent bias, and that his meetings with the Bayoh relatives was not unfair. That he has now decided to step down in the face of that ruling, citing ongoing concerns about his conduct and persistent criticisms, poses the question of whether the process is sufficiently robust, which is pertinent for other inquiry chairs dealing with similar accusations should they arise in the future.
The accusations of bias faced by Lord Bracadale emanated primarily from the SPF, and a judicial review it launched was due to be heard at the Court of Session next month. But it is telling that in his resignation letter, the outdoing chair noted that he had lost the confidence of other core participants in the inquiry. Note the plural.
Both Solicitor General Ruth Charteris KC and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service expressed criticism of Lord Bracadale’s conduct; the former said his meetings with the Bayoh family sparked questions about him being “entirely impartial and independent,” while the Crown Office raised the issue of inquiry’s approach to the questioning of witnesses.
Even after his August ruling, did Lord Bracadale continue to face pressure from other core participants? It is not within the remit of the chair to ascertain this, but it undoubtedly warrants answers.
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.