A public inquiry must be commissioned. This is done by a government minister. One of the first steps in commissioning the public inquiry is to appoint the president, who is often a judge or senior counsel. This is a very important appointment and the Chair must have sufficient expertise and independence to be credible in a role that is often subject to public scrutiny; and the time and experience required to complete an often lengthy process with a large amount of oral and written evidence. Once the investigation has been commissioned and the terms of reference established, the Chair must decide on appropriate procedures and protocols. The final step in the process is the preparation of the report with the results and recommendations. The report should be clear and as concise as possible and is usually prepared with the assistance of the investigating lawyer. The report includes an introduction, summary, terms of reference and methodology, such as the approach and structure of the survey. It will also include background information and a chronology of events, as well as findings, conclusions and recommendations. High-profile investigations often use a press conference to highlight their key findings, and a copy of the report is available on the inquiry`s website to allow access to the public and other interested parties. The LOC`s Legal Research Department provides information and technical assistance to elected and appointed representatives of member cities who have questions about their functions, municipal operations, municipal administration, and various state laws. This service is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice and the LOC does not provide legal representation to its members.

However, our attorneys help members answer questions about best and current practices, legal requirements (e.g., the Open Meeting Act, the Local Government Budget Act, the Elections Act, etc.) and find other LOC, state, or federal resources to help them overcome challenges and achieve their community`s goals. Sometimes referred to as “wing members,” committee members are also appointed by the Minister, who commissions the inquiry after consultation with the Chair. Committee members are appointed to ensure that the investigative body as a whole has the appropriate level of expertise to conduct the investigation. A lawyer for the investigation is appointed by the president and initially participates in drafting the terms of reference, procedures and protocols, as well as in the collection and review of evidence. They also lead the process of preparing statements, work with participants and their legal representatives, handle all legal and research matters, process cost and expense requests, and assist the Chair in preparing the final report. A request may be made on a legal or non-statutory basis. As a first step, the Minister should determine whether the inquiry should be a statutory inquiry under the Inquiry Act, 2005. If this option is chosen, the inquiry will have more powers to compel witnesses to testify or produce documents. Investigations commissioned under the Act are called statutory investigations. The Act establishes a basic procedural framework and is supplemented by the 2006 Inquiry Regulations.

The Act contains provisions relating to various matters, such as the formation of the investigation, such as the establishment of the commission of inquiry and the requirement of impartiality, and investigative procedures, such as public access to the investigation and the handling of privileged documents. Its provisions also concern the publication of the final report. Witnesses may be asked to relive difficult and distressing memories, and in these circumstances it is important that they are carefully approached and treated sensitively, using techniques such as cognitive interviewing. This is to ensure that evidence can be obtained in support of the investigation, while ensuring that the impact on the witness is kept to an absolute minimum. When witnesses make written or oral statements, the question of defamation may arise. In a judicial investigation, the law states that absolute privileges apply, which means that a defamation suit cannot be brought against them. In an investigation that is not required by law, solicitor-client privilege protects the person making the statement if the testimony is made in good faith, but does not apply if there is bad faith. The application of these rules should ensure that a witness feels able to make his or her statements honestly and honestly without fear of being sued for defamation at a later date. As for protocols, these are created to structure the survey and ensure that participants have a clear understanding of how the survey is conducted, and because of the uniqueness of each survey, they tend to be created specifically for each survey. A Chair may designate a person or organization as a “primary participant” at any time during the investigation, either on his or her own initiative or at the request of a person or organization. A person may be designated as a principal participant if, for example, the person has played or may have played a direct and significant role in the matters under investigation; they have a significant interest in the subject matter of any aspect of the investigation; or whether the person may be the subject of explicit or significant criticism during the investigation procedure or in the report or in an interim report. One of the problems that can arise is the self-incrimination of a witness and the fear that everything he says about an investigation will later be used against him in civil or criminal proceedings.

This reluctance to testify openly may limit the effectiveness of the investigation. One solution is for the presiding judge to seek assurances from the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecution Services in England and Wales to ensure that the evidence he presents is not used in subsequent proceedings against him. This does not mean that civil or criminal proceedings cannot be brought against them retroactively, but only that their own evidence cannot be used. The chair is appointed by the minister who commands the inquiry. The Chair directs the investigation, decides on rules of procedure and protocols, and has ultimate responsibility for conducting the investigation, issuing the final report and recommendations. The Chair may act alone, call upon members of the group or appoint experts. There are no comparable powers for a non-statutory investigation, which relies on the cooperation of the parties involved and can significantly limit the ability of the inquiry to prepare its report if witnesses are unwilling to cooperate. For this reason, many investigations are commissioned under the law to give the president these additional powers. A person may either ask the Chair to be named a Lead Participant or agree to be named a Lead Participant by the Chair. When a person or entity is designated as the main participant, certain rights are granted. For example, a principal party may appoint a legal representative, obtain advance notice of the evidence, may request that questions be put to a witness who testifies orally, has the right to make a motion to open and close, and has the right to review the investigation report prior to publication.

Factors considered in determining whether testimony should be given by testimony or orally include the purpose and importance of the evidence to the investigation.