LW22014 PUBLIC LAW Assignment Sample
Module Code And Title : LW22014 PUBLIC LAW Assignment Sample
Factors under the Inquiries Act 2005
The inquiries act can be defined as a statutory framework of inquiries structured by ministers to examine public concern matters. The grim circumstances can be caused to call an inquiry by the minister for a fair explanation of affairs under the Inquiries Act, 2005. The public concerns can be directed to the events or the events can draw the public concerns to interfere into matters[1].
Under the act, the minister means Northern Ireland Minister, Welsh Ministers, Scottish Ministers, and United Kingdom Ministers. The purpose of inquiry relies on establishing the facts and finding out the causes.
Under Inquiries Act, 2005, the minister must consider the factors of power to set up an enquiry, enquiry panel, no resolution of liability, arrangement of enquiry panel, setting up terms of references and date, duty to inform assembly or parliament. Investigating facts for restoring the public confidence in the system can bring the concern for not happen the same circumstances further[2].
An objective to gain the trust of citizens in the system of government can be established with the help of an inquiry panel where the public can be provided with the whole case study.
Relevant inquiry panels would help the government to work as per the regulations for a certain event to be decoded with retrieved information and recommendations. Every member of the enquiry panel under Inquiries Act 2005 must be appointed by minister through an instrument in writing[3].
The ministers can appoint the chairperson of the panel to get to know the factual matters behind any critical situations or events. In the panel, other members can be added for further investigation for interpretation of the events as it could drive the citizens to lean on their trust in their governing body or system with its activities.
Setting up a date for the inquiry is considered by the minister to come up with the explanation for certain events as fast as possible. In order to be cleared with the notion of the events can help the case to the proper path of solutions[4]. The minister must have informed the details of the case study to the parliament as a fact to develop the administration body of the UK. In the inquiry, the minister must have reasonable inquiry results from the inquiry panel in terms of generating the proper proof of the events.
Grenfell Inquiry in 2017
The Prime minister has declared a public inquiry in 2017 regarding the fire incident at Grenfell Tower. The purpose of the Grenfell Tower inquiry relies on examining the circumstances. The prime minister was appointed by Sir Martin Moore-Bick as a chairman of that inquiry.
In regards to the purpose of the Inquiries Act 2005, section 5, the inquiry was established on 15th August 2017 and Prime Minister fixed Terms of Reference on the basis of public consultation driven by the chairman. The inquiry investigates the list of issues which has been differentiated into two phases[5]. Phase 1 has focused on factual narrative of events and phase 2 has followed on the reasons for these events.
The inquiry of Grenfell Tower can be defined as British public inquiry under Grenfell Tower fire incident, which killed almost 72 people and ruined Grenfell Tower. The inquiry was established under the act of Inquiries 2005, with full powers along with the power to drive production of required documents and to request the presence of witnesses in terms of providing evidence on oath. Prime minister May wanted the chairperson to follow section 5 of Inquiry Act, 2005 to provide fruitful details of the investigation where the fire at Grenfell Tower was not a general phenomenon[6].
In this investigation, the chairperson of the investigation panel has conducted inquiries with the residents of Grenfell and others for a correct assessment of the circumstance.
In this investigation, consulting with the family members and other interested ones about the matter provided information as a recommendation to the minister by the chairperson. 550 written responses were collected by the chairperson and the common thoughts of all responses were enclosed with acknowledging and considering attentively.
The event of Grenfell Tower needed the information to know of its root to avoid further similar circumstances as the reason could be the fire safety regulations in the housing complex or its privacy system[7].Section 5 was partially followed as the setting update was still pending after the brief investigation by the chairperson.
The case led too many directions where the chairperson needed another member in the panel as an assessor of the details of the event. In this case, an inquiry should have begun its work of deducting the events’ reasons to come to a conclusion of what happened[8]. Forensic fire investigation reports were needed to set up the date for starting an investigation and faster completion of Grenfell Tower inquiry.
Article 2 and Human Rights
Article 2 on human rights relies on the right to life from the European Convention. Grenfell Tower inquiry aims to evaluate and examine every factor of the fire incident on 14th June 2017. Prime Minister May has misdirected herself through examining that public confidence maintenance was not a prime factor or key for developing or promoting the purpose of 2005 act. The prime basis for the event was that it was related to the human life losses where the governmental body must have recruited a diverse team into an inquiry panel to find out the reason.
The minister also had failed to meet the expectations of claimants where he provided the evidence. Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) states the fact of right to life where the minister breached the rule in this case of fire at Grenfell Tower. Political senses and other facts got the event to be due with one member inquiry panel to find out faster explanation and analysis of the case[9]. Rights to life and its power had been breached with the investigation that the minister had conducted with the inquiry panel.
Prime Minister May misdirected herself through examining the concept that procedural duty or the activities under ECHR article 2 was irrelevant towards her judgments as to whether the prime minister needed to appoint panel members. There is a necessity to appoint the panel members in the inquiry for ensuring and developing public confidence in this process[10]. In this case, article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights was maintained during the whole case but the argumentative side of the claimant was not met.
Human rights offer people to live their life without any obstacles where the right to life compels the government to abide by the regulations of it to confer about misconducts by an investigation. The minister should have appointed more persons on the matter where the investigation could have probably been solved within a certain time. The trust of the citizens in the governmental system is important for the proliferation of administration activities[11]. As a result, the ministers should have maintained the article 2 provisions where the investigation should satisfy the minimum standards of expectations of an individual to effectiveness.
Requirements under Inquiries Act 2005
The inquiry of the Grenfell Tower fire incident has focused on two phases on the basis of a List of Issues. Phases 1 hearing began on 21st May in 2018 and ended on 12th December in 2018. There are persuasive arguments in favour of the appointment of a panel that consists of members and a chairman[12].
The minister had conducted a panel of inquiry where the issues could not be justified because of the shortage of panel members with expertise. This was a shocking event that affected humans’ lives where a certain amount of panel members are required to justify the circumstance. In this case, the immediate cause for fire spreading was not recovered while it engulfed the whole building.
There is a requirement for efficient investigation for the Grenfell Tower fire incident. In this case, the investigation of phase 2 focuses on the reasons for this event and the condition of Grenfell Tower. The chairman is liable for discharging the terms of reference of inquiries and he decides and analyzes its procedures[13].
The construction and structural formation of the building provided an issue to be followed with the building regulations or not. As the building caught fire so quickly, the case could even ask the fire safety measures to be proper or not.
The decisions relating to the renovation and modifications of the building might be improper which led the situation to end like this. The scope and adequacy of the building norms, fire extinguishing regulations, guidance to the design, equipping and managing for tall buildings could be considered as an issue where the fire could not be stopped[14].
The fire safety measures of Grenfell and the responsibility of the London Fire Brigade could be missed that drove the happenings to be such bad. There is a requirement of effective members in the panel of Grenfell tower investigation to bring the trust of people on the activities of government and investigate the case in a certain period.
References
casemine.com, ‘Casemine’ (2022), Available at:<https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b46f1fb2c94e0775e7ef5c6>Accessed on 20th February 2022
Cornish, F., ‘‘Grenfell changes everything?’Activism beyond hope and despair’ (2021). Critical Public Health, 31(3), pp.293-305. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09581596.2020.1869184
gov.uk, ‘Grenfell Inquiry Chair: statement by the Prime Minister’ (2017).Available at:<https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/grenfell-inquiry-chair-statement-by-the-prime-minister> Accessed on 20th February 2022
Joseph, S. ‘International Human Rights Law and the Response to the covid-19 Pandemic’ (2020). Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 11(2), pp.249-269. Available at: https://brill.com/view/journals/ihls/aop/article-10.1163-18781527-bja10004/article-10.1163-18781527-bja10004.xml
Mackay, A. and McCahon, J. ‘Comparing commissions, inquests and inquiries: Lessons from processes concerning family violence and child protection in Victoria’ (2019). Monash University Law Review, 45(3), pp.531-588. Available at: https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/ielapa.239135571754191
Martin, J.S., ‘Private Law Remedies, Human Rights, and Supply Contracts’ (2018). Am. UL Rev., 68, p.1781. Available at: https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/aulr68§ion=45
Melenko, S. and Paranyuk, D., ‘The Issue of Correlation between Absolute and Relative Human Rights: Logical-Gnosiological Analysis’ (2018). Eur. JL & Pub.Admin., 5, p.37. Available at: https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/ejlpa5§ion=6
Ohana, N., ‘The politics of the production of knowledge on trauma: the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’ (2021). Journal of Law and Society, 48(4), pp.497-523. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jols.12326
Pianezzi, D., Nørreklit, H. and Cinquini, L., ‘Academia after virtue? An inquiry into the moral character (s) of academics’ (2020). Journal of Business Ethics, 167(3), pp.571-588. Available at:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-019-04185-w
Tombs, S., ‘Grenfell: the unfolding dimensions of social harm’ (2019). Justice, Power and Resistance, 3(1), pp.61-88. Available at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/57472/
Wade, D.T. and Kitzinger, C. ‘Making healthcare decisions in a person’s best interests when they lack capacity: clinical guidance based on a review of evidence’ (2019). Clinical rehabilitation, 33(10), pp.1571-1585. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0269215519852987
Wolff, A., Wermelinger, M. and Petre, M., ‘Exploring design principles for data literacy activities to support children’s inquiries from complex data’ (2019). International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 129, pp.41-54. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1071581919300217
Yeung, K. and Bygrave, L.A., ‘Demystifying the modernized European data protection regime: Cross‐disciplinary insights from legal and regulatory governance scholarship’ (2022). Regulation & Governance, 16(1), pp.137-155. Available at:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/rego.12401
[1]Mackay, A. and McCahon, J. ‘Comparing commissions, inquests and inquiries: Lessons from processes concerning family violence and child protection in Victoria’ (2019). Monash University Law Review, 45(3), pp.531-588. Available at: https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/ielapa.239135571754191
[2]Wade, D.T. and Kitzinger, C. ‘Making healthcare decisions in a person’s best interests when they lack capacity: clinical guidance based on a review of evidence (2019). Clinical rehabilitation, 33(10), pp.1571-1585. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0269215519852987
[3]Wolff, A., Wermelinger, M. and Petre, M., ‘Exploring design principles for data literacy activities to support children’s inquiries from complex data’ (2019). International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 129, pp.41-54. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1071581919300217
[4]Tombs, S., ‘Grenfell: the unfolding dimensions of social harm’ (2019). Justice, Power and Resistance, 3(1), pp.61-88. Available at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/57472/
[5]Cornish, F., ‘‘Grenfell changes everything?’Activism beyond hope and despair’ (2021). Critical Public Health, 31(3), pp.293-305. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09581596.2020.1869184
[6]Ohana, N., ‘The politics of the production of knowledge on trauma: the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’ (2021). Journal of Law and Society, 48(4), pp.497-523. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jols.12326
[7]Martin, J.S., ‘Private Law Remedies, Human Rights, and Supply Contracts’ (2018). Am. UL Rev., 68, p.1781. Available at: https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/aulr68§ion=45
[8]gov.uk, ‘Grenfell Inquiry Chair: statement by the Prime Minister’ (2017).Available at:<https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/grenfell-inquiry-chair-statement-by-the-prime-minister> Accessed on 20th February 2022
[9]Melenko, S. and Paranyuk, D., ‘The Issue of Correlation between Absolute and Relative Human Rights: Logical-Gnosiological Analysis’ (2018). Eur. JL & Pub. Admin., 5, p.37. Available at: https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/ejlpa5§ion=6
[10]Joseph, S. ‘International Human Rights Law and the Response to the covid-19 Pandemic’ (2020). Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 11(2), pp.249-269. Available at: https://brill.com/view/journals/ihls/aop/article-10.1163-18781527-bja10004/article-10.1163-18781527-bja10004.xml
[11]Pianezzi, D., Nørreklit, H. and Cinquini, L., ‘Academia after virtue? An inquiry into the moral character (s) of academics’ (2020). Journal of Business Ethics, 167(3), pp.571-588. Available at:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-019-04185-w
[12]Yeung, K. and Bygrave, L.A., ‘Demystifying the modernized European data protection regime: Cross‐disciplinary insights from legal and regulatory governance scholarship’ (2022). Regulation & Governance, 16(1), pp.137-155. Available at:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/rego.12401
[13]casemine.com, ‘Casemine’ (2022), Available at:<https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b46f1fb2c94e0775e7ef5c6>Accessed on 20th February 2022
[14]Tombs, S., ‘Grenfell: the unfolding dimensions of social harm’ (2019). Justice, Power and Resistance, 3(1), pp.61-88. Available at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/57472/
Know more about UniqueSubmission’s other writing services:
