This post is not about the alleged wrongs of the late Jason Arday, as the facts are not fully available; and this post is not about the circumstances of his death, again because the facts are not fully available. No opinion is expressed on either point, as I do not know enough to express an opinion.
This post is instead about a specific issue: what would be the appropriate means of addressing the concerns that many have about the circumstances of his death.
*
Some are promoting the idea of a public inquiry.
And there is something about the phrase “a judge-led public inquiry” that has a certain nod-along attraction. Such an inquiry sounds like a good thing in response to the demand that something must be done.
The problem is that public inquiries are often not good things.
Public inquiries are often the means by which “something must be done” ends up with nothing actually being done.
As this blog has previously averred, public inquiries are easily rigged, and often delayed, and their recommendations ignored.
Public inquiries are not magical devices.
Public inquiries are not necessarily your friends.
Indeed, public inquiries are far easier for the powerful to manipulate than, say, civil litigation.
*
The law provides a different and sometimes better mechanism for inquiring into the circumstances of a tragic death, and with formal procedures and legal powers.
Coroners’ inquests are by no means perfect - too often their effectiveness depends on the coroner, and coroners are of mixed qualities and abilities.
But coroners’ inquests are geared towards investigating the circumstances of a death. They are designed to do things which would be difficult for a public inquiry, however structured.
If a coroner’s inquest into the death of Jason Arday is somehow unsatisfactory then, yes, perhaps there may be reason for a specialist inquiry. But in the first instance, a coroner’s inquest should be allowed to do its job.
For that is what coronial inquests are for.
Thanks for this. I've been uncomfortable about the whole hooha around this tragedy, and the way that the nuance has been removed from the debate by culture war warriors and others.
A properly conducted inquest would be both quicker & harder to ignore than a public inquiry, although of course some inquests are used to push important issues back into the long grass.
What happened to Prof Ardray also seems linked to a story concerning Cambridge University & an unpleasant political/cultural movement that's taken root there, funded by wealthy US interests, that ought to be more widely known and discussed.
It would be a shame if such an ancient establishment became seen as nothing more than yet another right-wing think tank.
Thank you for this incisive and instructive view of the current public agitation concerning a personal tragedy. We value your opinion that we should allow the correct processes to be followed before we join those promoting a public inquiry.