knowledge 9 April 2026 |

Navigating Public Inquiries (Part 1): What You Need to Know at the Outset

Forms of public inquiry

Public inquiries are fact-finding investigations into matters of public concern.  Legislation provides for the establishment of public inquiries in a number of ways.  Tribunals of Inquiry (“Tribunals”) and Commissions of Investigation (“Commissions”) are the most well-known forms of public inquiry and historically have been the most commonly used frameworks for such inquiries:

• Under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004, the Government may establish a Commission into a matter of “significant public concern” on foot of a proposal by a Minister, with the approval of the Minister for Finance.  A recent example is the establishment of a Commission of Investigation to examine historical sexual abuse in schools run by religious orders.  Commissions generally take evidence in private and are designed to be streamlined and cost-controlled.  
• Tribunals are established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921-2011, typically have public hearings and are associated with relatively higher costs, given their greater procedural complexity.  

Separately, the Companies Act 2014 permits the Corporate Enforcement Authority and certain other specified persons to apply to the High Court for the appointment of Inspectors to investigate the affairs of a company (“Inspections”).  Company Inspections, particularly in respect of public companies, can give rise to significant media scrutiny and public interest.  Inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs of companies have powers to compel documents and take evidence on oath, which they typically hear in private.

Another possible, though more limited, form of public inquiry is a formal parliamentary inquiry conducted by the Oireachtas under the House of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013.  Parliamentary inquiries are comparatively rare and tend to focus on systems, practices, policy and procedures relating to the efficacy and operation of legislation and regulation.  While rare, parliamentary inquiries have been a fruitful source of principled legal developments: the Abbeylara Inquiry (established in 2001 under similar earlier legislation¹), for example, led to a landmark Supreme Court decision in Maguire v. Ardagh [2002] 1 IR 385.  Similarly, the Oireachtas Banking Inquiry following the financial crash in 2008 faced legal hurdles at various stages.  More generally, the work of parliamentary committees frequently involves ascertaining information and investigating matters in a manner which engages constitutional rights: see our briefing here on Kerins v. McGuinness [2019] IESC 11 and O’Brien v. Clerk of Dáil Éireann [2019] IESC 12.

The appropriate form of inquiry will depend on the issues to be investigated, the parties involved, the political context, costs, timing and urgency considerations, and whether there is a desire to hold public hearings.

Triggers

Public inquiries are usually triggered when matters of serious public concern come to light, such as suspected corruption or fraud, unlawful conduct or wrongdoing, or systemic failures.  Such matters demand inquiry and investigation using the appropriate mechanism so that the public is made aware of the facts, any failures or wrongdoing can be dealt with appropriately, and recommendations can be made for changes in law, regulation or practice to reduce the risk of recurrence.  

These matters of public concern tend to come to light in various ways, including media exposé and reporting, major incidents or high-profile institutional failures, whistleblower complaints and protected disclosures, mandatory reporting obligations, and regulatory or oversight body findings.  These are, of course, just some examples of the ways in which a public inquiry might begin its life cycle.

Immediate Priorities for Participants

Often it will be clear whether evidence or documents will be sought by a public inquiry from a particular party.  Where there is a request or a reasonable prospect of being called upon to provide evidence or documents to a public inquiry, there are a number of important preliminary steps which should be considered at the outset to ensure that the relevant party is well-prepared, that its position is protected and that it meets its obligations to the inquiry, including:

(a) Understanding the scope of the “Terms of Reference”

The scope of public inquiries is defined by written terms of reference, which frame the issues under investigation.  The inquiry should stay within the confines of these terms of reference.  Legal practitioners will ensure there is no unlawful unilateral broadening of the inquiry’s scope or the subject-matter, issues or stipulated date ranges under investigation.

(b) Documents and evidence-mapping

An initial information scoping and gathering exercise is an important preliminary step to identify what evidence exists, where it is held, and who may be a relevant witness.  Potentially relevant material in all forms, including hard-copy documents and electronic data, should be ringfenced and preserved at the outset.  Early identification of custodians, date ranges and data sources is crucial to ensure preservation of relevant material. Routine data destruction procedures should be suspended in order to prevent inadvertent deletion.  Data protection obligations must also be considered and assessed.  The documentary aspects of public inquiries are addressed in greater detail in our second briefing of this series.

(c) Early risk assessment

Following an initial evidence-mapping exercise, an early risk assessment might be considered across potential civil, regulatory, criminal, governance, financial and reputational exposure.  This assessment will need to be revisited as new facts emerge and issues crystallise through witness statements, document disclosures, oral evidence, and drafting findings.

(d) Employment and HR considerations

Employment and HR matters frequently arise on foot of public inquiries.  Employees may require independent legal advice depending on the facts and circumstances of the inquiry and potential repercussions for impacted individuals.  Employment law specialists should be engaged as appropriate.

(e) Insurance and indemnity

Public inquiries are usually lengthy and costly.  Clients should check at the outset whether D&O or entity insurance cover is in place.  Early notifications to insurers are essential to avoiding disputes regarding cover.  Relevant policies may cover legal fees, experts’ fees and document review costs.  Legal cost indemnities may also be sought from a company by former employees, officers and directors.

(f) Expert evidence

It is important to assess, at an early stage, whether expert evidence might be required to address complex technical matters.  Where relevant, early engagement and adequate briefing of experts is advisable.  

(g) Media and public relations

Public inquiries often attract significant media attention and scrutiny.  Any media engagement should be carefully considered, while adhering to any confidentiality restrictions or embargoes applicable to the inquiry process.  An internal and external communications strategy can sometimes be helpful at the outset.

What’s Next

Our second and third briefings in this series examine some of the key themes in ensuring fairness in the process of a public inquiry after it has commenced.