Fidler Review

Fidler Review
Name	Fidler Review
Type	Review
Date	2010s
Jurisdiction	United Kingdom
Commissioner	Sir David Fidler
Summary	Independent review into public inquiries and judge-led mechanisms

Fidler Review

The Fidler Review was an independent examination of judge-led public inquiry mechanisms commissioned in the United Kingdom to assess procedural effectiveness, timeliness, transparency and victim engagement. It evaluated interactions with tribunals, coroners, parliamentary scrutiny and regulatory investigations, proposing reforms to improve investigatory coherence across institutions. The review engaged with a wide range of stakeholders including law firms, civil society organisations, devolved administrations and ministerial departments.

Background and context

The review arose amid public debates following high-profile events that involved Hillsborough disaster, Grenfell Tower fire, Saville Inquiry, Leveson Inquiry and controversies around inquests such as Princess Diana inquest. Political pressures from administrations led by David Cameron, Theresa May and Gordon Brown had previously commissioned inquiries including the Birmingham Six reviews and the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. Parliamentarian scrutiny cited precedents in Public Administration Select Committee reports and invoked practices from the Inquiries Act 2005. Legal commentary referenced judgments from the European Court of Human Rights, decisions in the House of Lords and procedures in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Terms of reference and scope

The terms of reference tasked the reviewer with examining overlaps between judge-led inquiries, statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005, coronial proceedings in Coroner (England and Wales), investigatory powers used by the Independent Police Complaints Commission and tribunals such as the Employment Appeal Tribunal and High Court. The scope included assessing costs associated with inquiries like the Hillsborough Inquiry, timelines comparable to the Saville Inquiry and considerations of witness anonymity referenced in cases before the European Court of Human Rights and decisions by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales). The remit excluded policy changes reserved to the Secretary of State for Justice and matters within devolved competence in the Scottish Government and Welsh Government.

Key findings and recommendations

The review found systemic delays similar to those documented in the aftermath of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry and identified duplication of evidence gathering observed in reviews of the Birmingham Six cases. It recommended clearer statutory gateways between judicial reviews in the Administrative Court and public inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005, enhanced case management modeled on practice in the Family Division, and adoption of digital evidence protocols akin to those used by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police Service. The report urged stronger liaison between coroners operating in Westminster Coroner's Court and national investigative bodies including the Health and Safety Executive and Care Quality Commission, and proposed time-bound mandates similar to those in the International Criminal Court for major complex investigations. For victim participation, it suggested statutory recognition of core participant status comparable to arrangements used in the Leveson Inquiry and formulation of witness protection coordination with agencies such as National Crime Agency.

Implementation and government response

The government, led by ministers in the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice, acknowledged the review and accepted a number of recommendations for pilot reforms in liaison protocols and digital evidence standards. Implementation involved consultations with professional bodies including the Bar Council, the Law Society of England and Wales, the Judicial Office, and upper tribunals such as the Court of Protection. Legislative changes were debated in the House of Commons and considered by select committees including the Justice Select Committee, with some administrative reforms enacted through guidance by the Ministry of Justice and operational changes adopted by the Crown Prosecution Service and regional police forces.

Criticism and controversy

Critics from campaign groups, prominent lawyers and commentators associated with cases like Hillsborough and Grenfell Tower argued that the review underestimated the need for statutory reform of the Inquiries Act 2005 and overemphasised administrative fixes. Trade unions, human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and litigants represented by firms appearing before the European Court of Human Rights contended that proposals did not go far enough to guarantee transparency or to prevent political interference noted in debates featuring MPs from Labour Party and Conservative Party. Academic critiques in law journals compared the recommendations unfavourably with inquiry frameworks in jurisdictions like Canada and Australia, and practitioners raised concerns at meetings of the Bar Council and conferences hosted by the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies.

Impact and legacy

The review influenced subsequent procedural guidance for inquiries, informed select committee inquiries in the House of Commons, and contributed to the development of digital evidence protocols adopted by prosecuting and investigatory bodies including the Crown Prosecution Service and National Crime Agency. It shaped debate in legal reform agendas promoted by the Law Commission and featured in training for judiciary members coordinated by the Judicial College. While some advocates continued to press for broader statutory reform of inquiry law debated in the House of Commons, the review’s emphasis on coordination, timeliness and victim engagement left a legacy in administrative practice across coronial, investigatory and judicial inquiry processes.

Category:Public inquiries in the United Kingdom